This. Exactly. Thank you.

To answer your technical question minus the classic /. judgement I second @klek in suggesting Flic.io.
It sounds like it will do exactly what you're looking for.
Unfortunately they're still in development but it sounds like exactly what you're looking for.

14 years ago was 1999, I will mark that up to old age I feel the same way. However in 97-98 I had a nokia but here is a listing of the ones available:

http://www.mobilephonehistory.co.uk/nokia/nokia.php

wow was only 40 minute from my post to the first anti-theology post. If we avoid preachy books then we get rid of a lot of books. What bothers the GP is the fact that it is a Christian theme.

This made me think of "The Myth Adventures" and "The Last Unicorn"

oh yea, forgot about those, I read Xanth when I was in HS, they were light compared to my normal reading but enjoyable!

Perhaps Robotech as well.

Narnia or Dark is Rising, both are fast paced and worthy of a few chapters at a time. I was read them when I was a kid, by the time we finished Narnia I was reading the books to my parents and was way ahead of my classmates on a reading level.

Here is a good interp: http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Franklin4YAHWEH/camelthroughneedle.html

Nonetheless, the meaning of the passage is clear, it is impossible for man to enter into the kingdom without God.

The sad thing about the average US citizen is they have no clue what it costs to protect their bodies. Take away the law enforcement and the military, then any regulation of cash, legal system, postal system, roads, and you are pretty much SOL. Companie's shoulder the tax burden here. At $35K a year you are a beneficiary of many many people's hard work tax dollars (myself included). As We are the ones paying for Your security.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_per_capita_spending.html would suggest otherwise.

"Money crisis"; Lets spend $50Billion dollars to create $5billion dollrs worth of new technology that is applicable to earth. I would rather spend $10Billion and get twice as much usable technology.

And while you are wishing in your weird idyllic world why not wish that we could spend $1 and get 10 Biillion in return? Good lord, no one could have predicted the trillions in advancement we got from the Apollo missions but everyone agrees we would not even be close to where we are today without it. For all we know spending the $50 Billion to create a moon base may result in a Utopian society. That is the great thing about research, you don't know what you are going to get out of it. We don't have famine, incurable disease, and wars because we don't throw enough money into research...it isn't as simple as saying "Hey if we only had 3 trillion dollars we could have a cure for cancer."

This is a basic understanding of research projects. The advantages to a moon base far outweigh almost any other project there is. because as of this moment, our species CANNOT survive a zombie apocalypse. A moon base would give us a fighting chance in the ability to survive elsewhere while we wait for the planet to rebuild. This one reason alone would make a moon base worth a trifling 50 billion dollars.

You forget about the american shiny thing syndrome. Things abhorrent today are commonplace tomorrow due to the shades of grey. Corporations have a longer memory than american citizens. We have a hard enough time remembering what happened last year or thinking of what we are going to do in 5. The only entity that has a longer memory than corporations are Religious institutions, particularly Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. So unless we catch their radar, we will be fighting a losing battle. We may be able to enact some legislation that protects Freedom of information but how long is that going to last?

Yes this is one of the more discouraging parts of our Gov't. If something doesn't pass the first time just try it again in a few years when no one is looking.

You are speaking in two different sums. You talk about how much the trees sequester but not about how much they take in, if the tree takes in 140lbs of CO2 per year the OP's point stands.

Im not disagreeing with your post, just that it is a poor argument against the OP.