Slashdot Mirror

What wikileaks is proposing isn't new as these kinds online databases already exist.

Here's one example of such a site. Note that the record selected is of an infamous and disreputable character who is NOT Trump.

Whatever happens to those billion or so account records that have been harvested through all the break ins on countless systems over the years? Whatever do the bad guys do with that info?

What if?

He tried to make SuperMeth using childhood inspiration and Walter White mixed to create a new powerful " Radium infused crystal Methamphetamine ".

But idiot tried his own batch?
http://www.nndb.com/people/821...

lol

'Trial lawyers' is a right wing made up perjorative so we know where you stand.

Except that's what they called themselves. They've since realized that was a little to obvious and created a new more euphemistic name. That hasn't changed which politicians they buy, however.

Their ex-president could stand in for Leia.

I did some Googling too. Here's what I found about their lobbyist, C. McClain Haddow. And somebody else found this link. http://www.nndb.com/org/319/000168812/ We're doing IT World's job for them.

The Artful Codger
Trashing the AARP with Grandma Green.
By Michael Scherer
July/August 2005 Issue
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/07/artful-codger

The real pedigree of the group Green represents is hidden under layers of PR and politics. The Seniors Coalition was cofounded in 1989 by conservative activist Dan C. Alexander Jr., three years after he was sent to prison for arranging construction kickbacks as an Alabama school-committee member. Today, its top outside lobbyist is C. McClain Haddow, a former Health and Human Services official who spent time in prison with Alexander for failing to file a timely ethics waiver when he gave his wife a government contract. Haddow has also lobbied for generic-drugs manufacturer Mylan Pharmaceuticals.

The organization’s Washington activities regularly blur the needs of seniors with the agendas of corporate donors. After it took money from Microsoft in 1999, the coalition lobbied on antitrust litigation, and after it took money from Lottery.com in 2000, it lobbied on a bill that would restrict Internet gambling. Money also poured in from the American Petroleum Institute and the American Public Power Association—just as the coalition spoke out against the Kyoto Protocol and lower gas-mileage standards.

The Seniors Coalition is especially tied to the drug industry. PHRMA, the pharmaceutical industry’s trade group, gave the organization $2.2 million between 1999 and 2000 (the only two years for which full financial disclosure is available). Other drug industry sources funneled the group an additional $300,000 during that time. But Tom Moore, the coalition’s chief operating officer, writes in an email that only 22 percent of his organization’s funding comes from industry, and that the group “retains its complete independence in developing [its] legislative agenda.”

But... reading the paper I smelled a preconceived agenda. The paper was sponsored by Americans for Generational Equity an ostensibly bipartisan group concerned with the fact that the "Pig in the Python" is getting closer to the snake's cloaca. And the group worries that said meal is (or soon will) be providing less nourishment than it takes to digest it. Read: The Boomers are greying and will suck the life out of the country before they become python excrement. Think of the children.

A look at the group's composition reveals a majority of Republican notables with a sprinkle of moderate Democrats. The FCC is a bipartisan body and fairly judicious by nature IMHO. I have to wonder what is really going on here. There are hundreds of more fruitful places to look fo WF&A. As for real waste? Check out the US military.

Their resources page reads like a Who's Who of, well, sites anyone can link to?

We’re proud to provide you with the following resources:

Professional Organizations and Governmental Agencies

American Bar Association
Library of Congress
American Association of Justice
Association of Trial Lawyers of America

News and Information

The Wall Street Journal
CNN Legal News
The National Law Journal
Law.com

Legal Resources

United States Federal Law
U.S. Code Search

And the footer text of their pages:

Content copyright 2012. Yes It Is No Piracy - DMCA Remover. All rights reserved.

Clearly they were in the DCMA removal business.

I continue to be baffled at the "logic" of so many gun nuts.

Sorry you have trouble with logic.

As I understand it you'll get a government licence to drive a car,

But not to own it.

register the car with your state,

But only if you intend to bring it with you in public.

register your HOUSE when you buy it,

This is to protect the owner, from, say, illegal evictions. If you're saying that gun registration is to protect gun owners, then I think I get where your problems with logic come from.

buy a government licence for your friggin DOG,

Dogs have agency. Also, this depends entirely on what county you live in.

and another to go hunt ducks,

...in public, again...

and another to get married

Again, this is to protect and provide benefits to the married people.

but any suggestion that guns should be regulated in the same way as cars makes people go ballistic.

Most gun folks are fine with needing licences to operate their guns in public. In fact, in places like California, we'd be OVERJOYED if we could get our CCW shall-issue-style at the DMV, instead of basically not being able to get one at all unless you're rich, famous, or connected

What makes people who go ballistic is things like people saying "regulated in the same way as cars" without knowing how or why cars are regulated. For example.

Seems like guns are one of those things that any rational person would want to be licensed and regulated.

Problem with logic identified! You think logic means "people who agree with me" instead of what it actually means. Glad we've cleared this up.

(Oh yeah - been around gun collectors, hunters, and guns more than enough to like and appreciate them. Just think a lot of people are awful paranoid.)

"Some of my best friends are gun owners." Where have we heard this type of sentiment before...?

His name is known to millions of struggling female math students around the world. That he's apparently married might be the only thing holding him back in that field.

I'd love to see this as well, purely out of curiosity. But, with as much as it pains me to say this - the Phelps family are no dummies. Consisting almost entirely of lawyers (scroll to the bottom), you can be guaranteed they've done their research three times over. That's why they've been able to get away with this for so long, any other group would have slipped up along the way and been sent packing.

Say what you want about evolution, but intelligent design has helped shape young minds to be fit for the workplace far better than the exceptional, honest primitive. The fact is that deep in the ID subtext is a dangerous idea -- that if you remove any assumptions about evolved order, and begin applying intelligent design to your own life, your own personality and your own standards, that you can blindside the least desirable bits of the established order with your own ideas.

That leaves us with how to keep the wheels greased. The key notion is that intelligently designed culture is not worth rescuing. Why would a child eat or want to be a STEM or any other kind of vegetable when he or she can feast on sugar? Foreign students are doing the work of getting the proper education just fine on their own -- the only metric is that there are enough of these professionals to wind up as the necessary cogs of industry. Indoctrinated, of course, with necessary subtext -- limit your interests to your own field, and never consider the implications in a broader context. Also, contracts are binding and non-negotiable; of course your mindshare is of the company's benefit solely.

To think of the average American child, therefore, we need only appeal to economics. I will take for given the idea that public schools are inefficient. That granted, the Establishment has considerable infrastructure already in place to continue a large breadth of education. Coursework would be greatly simplified into the substance necessary: respect for authority. The price of a penis entering an anus in a normative corrective context could not possibly be lower, and this would be a critical part of education. Instead of a standardized test, we would get back to the individual teacher having discretion on which students pass; the metric would be solely if the child exhibits the necessary rate of submission.

In conclusion, we must affirm our societal values by applying them economically; these are evolved values at their best. Time-honored and conservative; easy to relate to and understand. The default in every way.

Say what you want about religion, but Catholicism has helped shape young minds to be fit for the workplace far better than the exceptional, honest scientist. The fact is that deep in the scientific subtext is a dangerous idea -- that if you remove any assumptions about social order, and begin applying science to your own life, your own personality and your own standards, that you can blindside the least desirable bits of the established order with your own ideas.

That leaves us with how to keep the wheels greased. The key notion is that American culture is not worth rescuing. Why would a child eat or want to be a STEM or any other kind of vegetable when he or she can feast on sugar? Foreign students are doing the work of getting the proper education just fine on their own -- the only metric is that there are enough of these professionals to wind up as the necessary cogs of industry. Indoctrinated, of course, with necessary subtext -- limit your interests to your own field, and never consider the implications in a broader context. Also, contracts are binding and non-negotiable; of course your mindshare is of the company's benefit solely.

To think of the average American child, therefore, we need only appeal to economics. I will take for given the idea that public schools are inefficient. That granted, the Catholic Church has considerable infrastructure already in place to take over a large breadth of education. Coursework would be greatly simplified into the substance necessary: respect for authority. The price of a penis entering an anus a normative corrective context could not possibly be lower, and this would be a critical part of education. Instead of a standardized test, we would get back to the individual teacher having discretion on which students pass; the metric would be solely if the child exhibits the necessary rate of submission.

In conclusion, we must affirm our societal values by applying them economically; these are corporate values at their best. Time-honored and conservative; easy to relate to and understand. Christian in every way.

Say what you want about religion, but Catholicism has helped shape young minds to be fit for the workplace far better than the exceptional, honest scientist. The fact is that deep in the scientific subtext is a dangerous idea -- that if you remove any assumptions about social order, and begin applying science to your own life, your own personality and your own standards, that you can blindside the least desirable bits of the established order with your own ideas.

That leaves us with how to keep the wheels greased. The key notion is that American culture is not worth rescuing. Why would a child eat or want to be a STEM or any other kind of vegetable when he or she can feast on sugar? Foreign students are doing the work of getting the proper education just fine on their own -- the only metric is that there are enough of these professionals to wind up as the necessary cogs of industry. Indoctrinated, of course, with necessary subtext -- limit your interests to your own field, and never consider the implications in a broader context. Also, contracts are binding and non-negotiable; of course your mindshare is of the company's benefit solely.

To think of the average American child, therefore, we need only appeal to economics. I will take for given the idea that public schools are inefficient. That granted, the Catholic Church has considerable infrastructure already in place to take over a large breadth of education. Coursework would be greatly simplified into the substance necessary: respect for authority. The price of a penis entering an anus in a normative corrective context could not possibly be lower, and this would be a critical part of education. Instead of a standardized test, we would get back to the individual teacher having discretion on which students pass; the metric would be solely if the child exhibits the necessary rate of submission.

In conclusion, we must affirm our societal values by applying them economically; these are corporate values at their best. Time-honored and conservative; easy to relate to and understand. Christian in every way.

Ford was never elected was he? The original vice president was replaced and he was appointed the new vice president and when Nixon stepped down after watergate he took over as president without ever having been elected. http://www.nndb.com/people/400/000022334/

I was wondering why my cheese pizza was never delivered. That failure totally ruined my dinner date with Theo de Raadt.

I can own as many firearms as I want, so long as I don't assault anybody without justifiable cause.

Not in all cases. My point is just that mere possession can in fact be a crime under certain circumstances. Alcohol is a great example, it's never legal for a person under 21 to be in possession of an open container of alcohol. I believe that the laws concerning child porn are equally black and white, it's never OK to possess it. Personally, I don't find an ethical nor legal objection to that particular law.

http://www.nndb.com/people/324/000022258/

L Ron Hubbard was the most successful shitty author ever. If you have ever voluntarily decided to torture yourself and you get tired of ripping fishhooks through your testicles, you can read his series.

I quite enjoyed James Rigney's writing style, and I thought his approach to Conan was well done. I have a lot of respect for him. He is a genuine hero and deserves props for his service, with a distinguished service cross and a bronze star acquired during two tours in Vietnam.

He also deserves props for having graduated with a bachelors in Physics, a degree plan which is definitely not for the faint of heart.

As to his Wheel of Time series, I found it to be highly entertaining and involving. His characters have a depth to them, and he allows those characters to act according to their strengths and weaknesses, even if it having them act in a different manner would make it easier to advance the plot. If a character is scared to death of heights, he isn't going to cross over a tightrope, even if that were the smart thing for the character to do. The character freezes, and gets caught.

The world he created was immense, and one could write hundreds of books inside that world. The mechanics of the world are reasonably consistent, providing an even backdrop to the heroes and the villians.

His book was also only one of two books that have ever made me physically react while reading. Stephen King's IT actually made me jump in a chair while reading it, and Robert Jordan made me so mad at one of the characters I jumped up, screamed curses, and threw the book across the room.

While his writing style is not for everyone, those of us who find it enjoyable are overjoyed that Brandon Sanderson will, with the help of Jordan's widow and his notes, finish the series. James Rigney worked as hard as he could the last month or two of his life to get as much information down for the next author to continue his work and finish the series. I for one, can't wait for it.

Yale Leaves No Illiterate Behind.
http://www.nndb.com/people/360/000022294/

His only risk factor appears to have being once been a smoker.

There is also no far right wing. Listen to the European far right wingers speak and you will be glad that those far right wing people are nowhere near the capitol hill.

Nowhere near capitol hill? Given at least one of your past senators I beg to differ.

you apparently didn't get the point. Uwe Boil is an American citizen, and all his movies are produced in America.

Oh, please, get your facts straight:

http://www.nndb.com/people/066/000087802/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Boll

http://www.boll-kg.de/

Film locations seem to be Romania, Croatia, Canada, and South Africa, not USA. There seem to be a significant number of German actors. Maybe you can dig up where the film crews and post-production are based.

but in essence, this is a way to turn 75 million German dollars into a 5 million dollar film, all above board and within the law.

Well, so in their effort to support German movies through tax breaks, they screwed up in how they defined the kinds of projects that get support. I have news for you: lawmakers, like programmers, make mistakes. Unlike programmers, they don't have the luxury to test before release, their adversaries aren't pimply script kiddies but highly paid lawers, and they can't just push out a new release overnight. That's real life, deal with it.

His own bio on his site contains the links to the Saudis, the Bushes. Also, Bush 41 has been shown to be associated with the Carlyle Group by plenty of non-"lefty" sources.

For crying out loud, if you start connecting the dots, you are approaching a fully connected graph.

http://www.snpartners.com/norris.html

To top it off, look at where he went to law school, hmm the name rings a bell but I can't quite place it, ryhmes with mail (and gull and scones?).
http://www.nndb.com/people/655/000168151/

Also, lame attempt at using the "but, but, but Clinton" diversionary tactic.

http://www.nndb.com/people/391/000032295/

Charles Drew was a medical doctor and surgeon remembered as the inventor of the blood bank. He also established, and was the first director of, the blood bank of the American Red Cross. Although of African-American heritage in an age of rampant racial discrimination, Drew managed to achieve an extremely high level of education (BA from Amherst in 1926, MD and Master of Surgery from McGill University in Montreal 1933, and a Doctor of Science in Medicine from Columbia University in 1940) and to become a well-respected surgeon and professor.

...

Ironically, when Drew himself was critically injured in a car accident in 1950 he was refused admittance to the closest hospital because of his race. By the time he arrived at the more distant hospital for blacks he had lost so much blood that a transfusion was of no avail.

I thought Harvey Keitel captured an enigma machine from U-571 2000 .. :)

Is the company in Iowa? Gopher

You might start with the notable names database, http://www.nndb.com/

And not "tech friendly" or definitely not "consumer friendly". Lawmakers are scored *lower* for the following pro-consumer acts:
-voting *against* the "Communications Decency Act" (law regulating pornographic material on the Internet)
-voting *against* "Internet filters in schools and libraries"
-Prohibiting Internet gambling
-voting *against* "Net-surveillance without court orders"
-voting *against* "Restricting social networking sites like MySpace.com"

The list goes on and on. The methodology is very suspect. They are not ranked using the same issues and laws, but looked to be cherry picked for each candidate, and yet refuses to take a stand on Net Neutrality because it has only been "[voted] in the House of Representatives so far, because that legislation has generated sufficient division among high-tech companies". And we all know how certain tech companies (Ma Bell) are voting on that issue.

The motivations are of the article's writer are also suspicious. A google of Declan McCullagh leads to http://www.nndb.com/people/326/000022260/ where we find this choice quote "Politically liberal to the bone when he first came to Washington DC in 1991, McCullagh was slowly convinced by his own coverage of internet issues that liberal principles would strangle the internet."

-LM

this theme goes back to the very first SF story, Frankenstein (1818)

...every time I meet a woman from the Internet in person, she looks less like Sandra Bullock and more like Jim J. Bullock.

That leaves an estimated six billion dollars to his heirs,

No thats not true;

From: http://www.nndb.com/people/445/000022379/
He's said his children won't inherit any great wealth when he dies. "There's no reason why future generations of little Buffetts should command society just because they came from the right womb. Where's the justice in that?"

And Bill Gates has said similar things also.

I'm calling BS on this one. Though I disagree with the grandparent, I also take issue with most of your post:

1. Reference to an external God is not a prerequisite for 'drive'. No matter what you may think of his politics, there is no denying that Mao Zedong had 'drive'. If you want examples from science, then you need look no further than Betrand Russell or Richard Feynman.
2. Most Eastern religions do make reference to an external God or Gods. Islam has (essentially) the same God as Judaism and Christianity, Hinduism exhibits a vast pantheon of gods. The Japanese are largely Buddhist/Shinto. Shintoism is an animist practice which (to be brutally simple in my description) treats every natural thing as being sacred.
3. None of the Christians I know believe that God is 'above us' and that we can meet him by 'building towers and spaceships'. This is either some pre-Copernican fantasy or a twisting of the facts to suit your argument.

To stay on topic, I'm strongly in favour of Professor Hawking's suggestion. At least in the very long term, human life on this planet is not sustainable, unless we evolve into some kind of creature which can live in the corona of a red giant.

I'm calling BS on this one. Though I disagree with the grandparent, I also take issue with most of your post:

1. Reference to an external God is not a prerequisite for 'drive'. No matter what you may think of his politics, there is no denying that Mao Zedong had 'drive'. If you want examples from science, then you need look no further than Betrand Russell or Richard Feynman.
2. Most Eastern religions do make reference to an external God or Gods. Islam has (essentially) the same God as Judaism and Christianity, Hinduism exhibits a vast pantheon of gods. The Japanese are largely Buddhist/Shinto. Shintoism is an animist practice which (to be brutally simple in my description) treats every natural thing as being sacred.
3. None of the Christians I know believe that God is 'above us' and that we can meet him by 'building towers and spaceships'. This is either some pre-Copernican fantasy or a twisting of the facts to suit your argument.

To stay on topic, I'm strongly in favour of Professor Hawking's suggestion. At least in the very long term, human life on this planet is not sustainable, unless we evolve into some kind of creature which can live in the corona of a red giant.

I'm calling BS on this one. Though I disagree with the grandparent, I also take issue with most of your post:

1. Reference to an external God is not a prerequisite for 'drive'. No matter what you may think of his politics, there is no denying that Mao Zedong had 'drive'. If you want examples from science, then you need look no further than Betrand Russell or Richard Feynman.
2. Most Eastern religions do make reference to an external God or Gods. Islam has (essentially) the same God as Judaism and Christianity, Hinduism exhibits a vast pantheon of gods. The Japanese are largely Buddhist/Shinto. Shintoism is an animist practice which (to be brutally simple in my description) treats every natural thing as being sacred.
3. None of the Christians I know believe that God is 'above us' and that we can meet him by 'building towers and spaceships'. This is either some pre-Copernican fantasy or a twisting of the facts to suit your argument.

To stay on topic, I'm strongly in favour of Professor Hawking's suggestion. At least in the very long term, human life on this planet is not sustainable, unless we evolve into some kind of creature which can live in the corona of a red giant.

"You know how to whistle don't you?
You just put your lips together... and blow"

Since the invention of Windows and subsequent use in upper levels, people have died as a result.

Sorry, I'm too lame to provide a link for every word in my post, as some users have been known to do.

It is interesting to see that some people in this thread still remember Roger, rather than Francis, Bacon.

Francis was, of course, wrote his 'New Guide' in 1620, around 400 years ago. Much of his work was a straight copy of ancient authorities - you can see a lot of Cicero in his treatment of philosophy. A lot of his science seems to be a direct repetition of Roger's work. However, he was trying to rediscover the lost Golden Age, the wisdom of the ancients, rather than develop a new field of study, like his predecessor.

Roger, by comparison, was writing in the 1260s, around 400 years before Francis! Though both men proposed a structured, experimental approach to the investigation of Nature, it was Roger, with his iconoclastic approach to 'unworthy' authority who most closely resembled the modern questioning approach to science, and he is usually considered as the inventor of the scientific method. That was what got him locked up in the March of Ancona for 14 years!

It is a shame that Roger's language is so inpenetrable to modern ears. There are no readily-available translations, and even less commentary by technically-aware persons who understand classical scientific concepts. As Blish points out, a first glance at 'De multiplicatione specierum' would make you think that Roger was talking about biology rather than physics.

This reference - http://www.nndb.com/people/582/000114240/ - suggests that there are still lots of unpublished Bacon manuscripts in British and French libraries. I think that a complete collection of Roger's works in an accessible format would add more to scientific progress than many studies which receive funding today.

Check out the Matrix version (http://www.jedimaster.net/matrix_agents.htm). The Star Wars Kid (http://www.nndb.com/people/441/000031348/) ought to give some of the settlement to whomever made that video, as the SWK almost looks cool in it.

How can we debate a song (or any work of art) if not from the approach of taste, as you say? That's the only way we can, in fact, since there's no objective idea of "good" art. Thus, any opinion will be based on taste. Linguam Latinam quoque dicere possum, sed ratio mea potentior fit? non sic. Et eloquentia et substantia praesint.

Sorry, I only know the little bit of Latin I picked up watching gladiator flicks with Cliff and Norm. I'm going to presume you said something wittily devastating, stutter and stammer a bit, exclaim "Oh, for crying out loud!", head to the bar and switch to something stronger.

To answer your question, though, art can't be debated. You can discuss how much you like or dislike something, and you can try to express in words why you feel that way, but you can't ever decide whether something is good or evil. You can't 'objectively' determine that Britney Spears isn't the Almighty Apotheosis of Art (insert trumpety fanfare, change mind, insert catchy pop tune you can bop to).

This all changes, of course, once you arbitraily declare some premises. If you decide that "good art is art which makes me feel happy", then we could measure your endorphins or dopamine or something like that and announce that certain works are "good art" and "bad art". If you decide that "good art is art which increases the likelihood of reproduction and thus improves the odds of the survival of the species", then you can make the case for Britney Spears being the Greatest Artist Ever(TM) and not genetically engineered by the Disney Corporation to bring western culture to its knees.

"whenever these black box voting machines "just don't work", they error in favor of republicans. " Palm Beach County: Kerry 61% Bush 39% Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore (D) I think the conspircy theorists are onto something.. if someone was tampering with the votes in Palm Beach County, they definately did Bush a favor.. [/sarcasm]

Yes, and so far the investigation appears to be indicating that:

1) It was an openly-known thing to the entire Washington press core before Bush took office.
2) She wasn't undercover.


Pretty amusing how the two points in your rebuttal contradict each other. If she wasn't undercover, how could it have been an openly-known thing to the entire Washington press corps that she was?

(By the way, she was undercover...please read here for details.)

If it was so openly-known, why does the evidence point strongly enough to Lewis Libby to indict him on five felony counts?

Next time you construct an argument, try to make it a little less self-contradictory and a little more factual.

Is Belinda the woman who came before Melinda, or is Belinda your wife's name?

As an aside, I like the "occupation: relative" part in her bio. :)

You are assuming what you set out to prove. This is a logical fallacy: You define Christians the way you want to define them, and your definition includes the awful qualities that you are trying to prove all Christians possess.

No, I am assuming christians are evil, and giving my definitions of evil through example.

You are under the impression that Christianity has been around for only 20 years. Are you trying to say that the rise in rape (which actually is in decline in the US) over the past "few years" just was a latent characteristic of Christianity until a few years ago? That's horseshit, as anyone with a brain can see. I might as well say that rape is caused by the rise in atheism, since that is the religion that has risen dramatically in popularity over the last few years!

I'm more inclined to believe that christianity is in a decline, despite the growing number of fundies in visable lives ('pubs, tv evangelists, etc) and that's why those crimes are in decline. I'd say that this is a last, desperate attempt to try and subvert people to the cult by making it appear there are more than there are. I haven't met very many people who were all that active in their churches unless it was at a wedding and there was a priest there...

Sources, please. Charles Manson? Scientologist. Gacy? Not Christian.

Check again. I couldn't find anything offhand about Manson, but I did say "most". Oh, my definition of "christian" is anyone who follows any religion that is believes christ was some kind of messiah. In other words: anyone who ain't a jew, hindu, atheist, etc.

Using your same logic, I could state that being male makes you a rapist. We should get rid of all males. Or being white makes you a rapist. After all, as you said, pretty much every serial killer has been a [...] white male.

Perhaps, but being a male or white doesn't always provide you with the kind of repressed, hypocritical upbringing like you would get in a christian household. The kind that tells you sex is evil and gays should be burned at the stake.

I'm sorry, but Christianity doesn't actively encourage that. One sect, entirely unrelated to mine, might. But mine does not. All Christians are not the same, just like all Caucasians are not the same.

You all follow some manner of religion that was derived from the same falsified documents. The fact that there are so many variations of your religion based on trivial interpretations is proof that it's a sham(e). Regardless, as I said, they're not actively working against it, that's the same as actively encouraging it. It's like telling a wife beater "you should try not to hit her so much".

Yes, because Heaven forbid people are allowed to exercise their free speech from the sanctity of their own homes!

Nice. But, that's not freedom of speech. First off, freedom isn't an absolute, never was, never should be. There are limits. Your freedom ends where mine begins. But, if you're right, then the christians shouldn't be allowed to force changes to zoning laws simply to keep strip clubs and porn shops and bars and such out of their cities, etc. But, they do. If we're going to get rid of everything that's offensive to everyone, we have to remove the churches, too. Freedom OF religion has an implication (at least to me) of freedom FROM religion.

What do you know? Something you and I and most Christians I know agree on!

Perhaps you, but certainly not most christians.

This is not a Christian thing; if you believe life starts before exiting the mother, then you are supporting murder (which I believe most humans oppose). If you don't believe a baby is alive until it has passed through the birth canal, I guess you don't have a problem with abortion, then, do you? I will say this though: I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here: I am merely responding to the pa

This is an interesting article, although they clearly made an error in research, as evidenced by the incorrect 6th item.

Oh man, fuck Christmas.

Seriously - are you kidding me with this "There's a war on Christmas" bullshit? FOX News wasn't raking in enough cash already from all the Christmas commercials for Kill 'em All Barbie and Girls Gone Wild Brand Toddler Gear ? They had to start publishing books about some bogus attack on Christianity? And who did they pick to lead this particular charge?

John fucking Gibson. This guy has wiener written all over him.

Bill O'Reilly gets all the credit as the biggest nutcase in FOXville, but Gibson really deserves his own special wing in the happy house. This motherfucker's embedded assignment reads "Up Karl Rove's ass."

What makes him such a dick? I mean, besides making a fortune by screaming hysterically about how oppressed Christians are by the other twenty percent? How about advocating bombing countries that don't vote the way we want in their own elections? Way to encourage democracy, fuckhead. And maybe he was kidding when he wished, on air, that the French had gotten the 2012 Olympics instead of the Brits so the terrorists would "blow up Paris," but it might have been just a touch over the top to call for it again on the day of the London train bombings. Classy move, asshole.

And really? That's just scratching the fucking surface. Anyone remember who was responsible for the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City? John does: Iraq. And speaking of Iraq, Gibson thinks Rove deserves a fucking medal for outing that CIA agent. And, like any good reporter, he wanted to burn the Florida ballots after his buddy Bush got "elected" rather than, I don't know, count them? "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing?" That right there is why sometimes it's useful for journalists to go to, what do you call that fucking place? Oh yeah, journalism school.

And now he's all worked up about Christmas being stolen. What is this, the fucking Fairytale Network? It's a national fucking holiday and we're spending gobs of our hard-earned tax dollars on wreaths and lights for your special Santa day. But these bastards are all "But they call them Holiday trees!" Here's a clue: no, they fucking don't. Ok, maybe in a couple places, like on FOXNews.com and at the White House, but if Christmas is under attack, I'm Kris fucking Kringle.

And guess who's stealing Christmas, according to Gibson. Go on -- guess. "A cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wra

Some bosses not only encourage it, but applaud it. Lifetime employment indeed :P

All kidding aside, check out the thought-provoking letter by Thomas Paine, a deist, near the 2nd half of this article. Paine puts forth one of the most rational arguments regarding the Bible and touches upon Intelligent Design.

http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm

Given Paine's arguments, I find it amusing that Intelligent Design is being promoted by Christians today.

Thomas Paine, like Ben Franklin and sixteen presidents of USA was a deist.

Here's a couple lists of famous people who were deists. Ones that might score some points with geeks include: Aristotle, Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, Victor Hugo, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking.

http://www.deistnet.com/deismfam.htm
http://www.nndb.com/lists/461/000107140/

http://www.nndb.com/people/144/000024072/james-cro mwell.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40982000/jpg /_40982156_portrait_afp203.jpg
Separated at birth? You decide....
In any case it is interesting that Copernicus or Kopernik continued his studies of astronomy as a hobby and not as a profession.
Good Copernicus quotes:

For I am not so enamoured of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them.
I shall now recall to mind that the motion of the heavenly bodies is circular, since the motion appropriate to a sphere is rotation in a circle.
Moreover, since the sun remains stationary, whatever appears as a motion of the sun is really due rather to the motion of the earth.
The earth also is spherical, since it presses upon its center from every direction.
The massive bulk of the earth does indeed shrink to insignificance in comparison with the size of the heavens.
We regard it as a certainty that the earth, enclosed between poles, is bounded by a spherical surface.
and finally....
To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.

BRILLIANT!

Can start here, complete with a nice color photo. Apparently got nailed by a pie at one point, but I imagine a couple spindles of blank DVD's would hurt a whole lot worse. Not that I would advocate such a thing.