Ahhh... Sounds like you missed an opt-out checkbox when you installed Wife 1.0.

You know....If it lasts for more than four hours you're supposed to go to the hospital.

Easy fix my friend, you just have to chroot Girlfriend 1.0.
Just beware that you do this properly as this is very dangerous and can cause insufficient resource errors.
Also if Wife 1.0 encounters any girlfriend 1.0 files, your GnuCash files will be deleted and then Wife 1.0 will uninstall, but not cleanly.

Regarding the iBaby popup... Check carefully next time... there should be a "don't remind me again" checkbox.

Remember to always keep your anti-virus and anti-spyware up to date.

Employers will quickly catch on to this type of dishonesty.
IMHO it makes you look bad to be presented to an employer by a recruiter who is doing this.
I would just find another (and more reputable) agency/recruiter.

They'll need me to fight Dr. Evil, you clod!

First, smoking provides ZERO nutritional value. Mickey D's does provide some nutritional value, and you do need to eat.
You don't need to smoke to live. You may want to smoke or even be addicted, but you're not going to die if you stop.
Second, while those people aren't eating a very healthy diet anyhow, they don't eat at Mickey D's 10 times a day (or however many times a day you smoke, which is very like more than twice.)

Sounds like the education system did wonders with the parents. Wouldn't want to try something different now would we?
If the parents have been "educated" and know nothing, how much worse could homeschooling possibly be?

TRANSLATION:You always smell like your bong and constantly swear whenever you are around my kids.

LOL! You have a very strange definition of modern.
Redi published the results of his experiments in 1668.

Probably a better description of your argument is that fully formed life does not spontaneously generate.

It's still rather funny that you cannot cite any evidence to prove that life comes from non-life. You can at best try to insert a word into a description of a scientific law to try and alter the meaning.

I guess if wikipedia is acceptable then I'll quote from crazy Larry down the street. He's just as reliable.

That is why I asked that person to deal with facts, instead some website that anybody can edit.

You disagree, but fail to provide any objective proof to my argument. That speaks volumes.

That is quite an assumption. Do you have some scientific or mathematical evidence that this is only a microscopic change?

My answer is the evidence shows God did it.

There are only two options, and based on science and math we can eliminate one.
You have the law of biogenesis showing that life does not come from non-life, and math showing us that abiogenesis is statistically impossible.

The question for most is how much evidence do you need to give up the dogma of darwinistic evolution?
If you start out by saying there is no four. You will never be able to determine what 2+2 equals.

No. I'm saying Redi and Pasteur have already proven that life does not spontaneously generate.