I've been there many times and just went there now. It's always worked for me.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
By the way, Firefox 1.0 Release Candidate is supposed to be released tomorrow.
That didn't happen with me until I installed Service Pack 2. I had a lot of trouble installing my Notepad replacement, which SP2 obliterated by putting the default Notepad back. I can't remember how I got around XP's shenanigans. I think I had to disable the "Cryptographic Services" service while I did the switch-a-roo. I might have had to disable something else, too. It was just trial and error until I succeeded.
There are two bugs causing these problems. It's my understanding that both have been fixed on the Seamonkey trunk, but the code for Firefox 1.0 had already branched. The bug patches were too complex to add to Firefox's code with such little time left to test for and fix regressions it might cause before the final release.
In other words, it will be fixed in Mozilla 1.8 and Firefox 1.1.
There's nothing about censorship. Broadwater wanted the FCC to put an end the media's deceitful stunts, and of course, it is only the God-haters in the media that do such things.
Actually, with regard to embryonic stem cell research, the statement was well-placed. That's what I was thinking of. But it doesn't relate to the use for pregnancy that you mentioned.
The issue is respecting human life. That includes life that some would toy, tamper, experiment with, or kill for the sake of research that might help other human life.
That last sentence should've gone somewhere else. Sorry, I'm in a hurry. Anyway, you hopefully got my points.
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to put one person's heart inside another person's chest. If you want to give someone a working heart, fine, but grow one "from scratch". I "know" transplants are just "wrong".
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to give one person the blood of another. If you need blood to save someone's life, then create blood "from scratch". I "know" transfusions are just "wrong".
You are grossly misrepresenting the positions of Christians, who are are very strong supporters of blood and organ donation. Churches often host blood drives. Some churches have gone door to door passing out organ donation cards. Blood drives and organ donation campaigns are popular Eagle Scout projects. It is because of the sanctity of life that we do support this science.
We support this science because it doesn't destroy other life or "potential life" in the process. There is no collateral damage, and all subjects are willing participants. Donating blood and organs are expressions of love for life and fellow man.
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to perform artificial insemination. If you want to help people who are trying to have children, you should er... create a child from scratch? Or maybe just pray for them (a lot)?
Prayer works. My existence is proof of that. In all sincerity, keep praying. God usually rewards a persistent prayer for life. But if you don't get pregnant, then take comfort in knowing that the all-knowing, all-seeing God of the universe knows that it's better that way.
Anyway, I "know" IVF is just "wrong".
The issue is respecting human life. That includes life that some would toy, tamper, experiment with, or kill for the sake of research that might help other human life.
Neurons are no more "sacred" than any other cell type (spermatozoons, for example). In fact, millions of both are wasted every second.
Thousands of people are "wasted" every year on the highways, but that doesn't mean you should intentionally run people over. There is a huge moral difference between incidental death and pre-meditated, intentional death. There ought to be a culture of life in civilization, wherein life of all people, regardless of age or developmental stage, is valued. Fetuses, the deformed, the mentally disabled, the elderly, the unconscious, the un-bodied (brains)... once you start drawing lines, it's a slippery slope.
The unbridled utilitarian mindset is dangerous. The only question it asks is: "How can I exploit whatever is around me?" And what are the most useful things around us? Living things. This is why we used oxen to pull plows, donkeys to carry packs, and horses for transportation. Applied to humans, it's also why we had slavery. And concentration camps and eugenics. These practices are ways that some humans are exploited for the perceived betterment of others. Embryonic stem cell research and abortion are cut from the same cloth.
Many ask the question: "When does life begin?" This is like when the man in Luke 10:29, wanting to justify himself, asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" The man's motivation was to limit the definition of "my neighbor" as much as possible. He didn't want to love any more people than was necessary to be righteous. Jesus then explained through a parable that that was the wrong question to ask. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, "Who can I be a neighbor to?"
The objective of the pro-life side is to a create a culture of life, through and through. Old life, new life, "potential" life, healthy life, impaired life... we should "err" on the side of protecting human life. We should not be biased to the conscious, those blessed to have their wits about them. Today, humans in their early stages are sacrificed for the convenience of humans in their later stages. Mentally impaired humans are sacrificed for the convenience o
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The Hebrew is very important. One will never fully understand Scripture without knowing Hebrew and Jewish culture. I'll suggest some resources if you ask me. But the person I responded to hardly seemed up to the task of looking up a word in a common Bible lexicon, which would have been sufficient to answer his question, much less studying a new language.
I highly doubt that a fully correct understanding of the Bible would clash with science in any way.
A more apt statement: I highly doubt that a fully correct understanding of science (the world/universe) would clash with the Bible in any way.
Gen. 1:8 -- "God called the firmament Heaven." The firmament is simply the air between the clouds and the ocean.
I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."
I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.
I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.
If you want to learn more about the creationist viewpoint on this issue, you're in luck. There is a creationist site that has a a whole section on dinosaurs. Both the meteor and Flood theories are analyzed.
Ever heard of Salman Pak? It was a terrorist training camp in Baghdad where Arabs were trained to hijack planes and blow things up. I guess Saddam didn't notice. And we know that Saddam had personally corresponded with Osama bin Laden, but I guess that's coincidental hogwash, too.
and the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs
Do you understand the nature of high-level decision-making? You should take a college management course.
Leaders don't have the luxury of being Monday-morning/armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight. The preponderance of evidence in the eyes of the whole world was that Saddam had WMD. That was why the U.N. Security Council leveled 17 resolutions against his regime. Saddam had waged genocide with chemical warfare before, and he would've used WMD again. The national and international objections to the liberation had nothing to do with the "question" of Iraqi possession of WMD, because there were no significant disputes about that issue.
Even if Saddam didn't have them, do you know what preemption means? I'm not going to fight this again. Read this thread.
The bottom line is: we are better off with Saddam gone. Our allies (our true allies) are better off with Saddam gone. Iraq is better off with Saddam gone.
The only people in the world who are not better off (in the short term) are countries like France, Germany, and Russia who were illegally raking in billions of dollars by abusing the U.N. Oil-for-Food program and selling weapons to Saddam.
Increasing our security is not an error. Abolishing dictatorships is not an error. Liberating millions of people is not an error. Incapacitating those who fund and aid terrorists is not an error. Fighting ideology of hate is not an error. Spreading democracy is not an error.
Why can't you people celebrate??? Unite with us and share in our joy. Why are you so angry? The United States has made fantastically wonderful, inspiring, historic achievements in advancing peace and liberty! What we've done is nothing short of miraculous (thanks be to the Lord Almighty). The results are great for the country and great for the world. This is success, not failure. There is nothing for Bush to apologize for.
Yes, I did just compare Microsoft to Israel and Mozilla to Palestine.
I hope you are not on Mozilla's PR team. Man oh man!
If you want to be less controversial next time, you could make comparisons between the Nazis, 9-11 victims, and gay baby seals. And you are clueless as to why your freaks doubled on October 8? (Note to others: I am not one.) You recklessly tromped into THE MOST explosive, political/religious clash in the world. Did you honestly think that you were going to escape from that comment without any bad blood?
You should be aware that Palestine (the supposed Arab country) does not exist. I don't know how old you are, but the propagandist concept that such an Arab state had existed was invented by Yasser Arafat (a native of Cairo, Egypt) in 1964 in order to destroy the relatively new Jewish state of Israel. For a primer on the conflict, see History in a Nutshell (Flash animations).
So if Mozilla = Palestine, then Mozilla is nothing but a myth -- and a very evil and destructive one, at that.
Anyone else fail to see the logic with this statement? "Well, we spent ($100,000,000) last year, and the problem got worse, maybe if throw ($200,000,000) at it this time around it will get better!
I wish people would apply this logic to education and a myriad of other government programs.
On this point, however, abstinence is a change in the way sex ed is done. It is not an increase of the "same old same old."
Bush has made many extremely serious errors while in office. Everybody knows it,
"extremely serious errors" = things YOU disagree with
Get off your arrogant high horse. Everybody doesn't share your opinion.
You people can't accuse Bush of being divisive, and then claim that the country is a monolith against him. If that were true, what would be the point of these debates?
You're exactly right. And the censorship goes all ways.
The problem is that Canadians are too nice. They want to be ultra-neutral, so they tend to want to prohibit anti-anything. Saying something bad about anyone, even a terrorist, is frowned upon.
Human trafficking obviously should be prohibited. I don't know what its connection to "hate speech" is.
What makes you assume that environmentalists are opposed to scientific solutions per se?
Their religion would die.
They would have to find real jobs.
They would lose an issue with which to demonize capitalism/corporations/the rich/Republicans.
They would be bitter and jealous that the capitalist/corporate world had done more to "save the environment" (which is already true) than they had with all their useless whining and tree hugging.
Of course, not all environmentalists would be opposed.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
By the way, Firefox 1.0 Release Candidate is supposed to be released tomorrow.
Read the article. The source is NBC News. Drudge is just the messenger.
Me too. Look at this chart.
That didn't happen with me until I installed Service Pack 2. I had a lot of trouble installing my Notepad replacement, which SP2 obliterated by putting the default Notepad back. I can't remember how I got around XP's shenanigans. I think I had to disable the "Cryptographic Services" service while I did the switch-a-roo. I might have had to disable something else, too. It was just trial and error until I succeeded.
In other words, it will be fixed in Mozilla 1.8 and Firefox 1.1.
No political bias on CNN either.
Firefox is still fast becoming the browser of choice. See this chart.
There's nothing about censorship. Broadwater wanted the FCC to put an end the media's deceitful stunts, and of course, it is only the God-haters in the media that do such things.
When we say "God bless America," we really mean it.
Actually, with regard to embryonic stem cell research, the statement was well-placed. That's what I was thinking of. But it doesn't relate to the use for pregnancy that you mentioned.
The issue is respecting human life. That includes life that some would toy, tamper, experiment with, or kill for the sake of research that might help other human life.
That last sentence should've gone somewhere else. Sorry, I'm in a hurry. Anyway, you hopefully got my points.
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to give one person the blood of another. If you need blood to save someone's life, then create blood "from scratch". I "know" transfusions are just "wrong".
You are grossly misrepresenting the positions of Christians, who are are very strong supporters of blood and organ donation. Churches often host blood drives. Some churches have gone door to door passing out organ donation cards. Blood drives and organ donation campaigns are popular Eagle Scout projects. It is because of the sanctity of life that we do support this science.
We support this science because it doesn't destroy other life or "potential life" in the process. There is no collateral damage, and all subjects are willing participants. Donating blood and organs are expressions of love for life and fellow man.
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to perform artificial insemination. If you want to help people who are trying to have children, you should er... create a child from scratch? Or maybe just pray for them (a lot)?
Prayer works. My existence is proof of that. In all sincerity, keep praying. God usually rewards a persistent prayer for life. But if you don't get pregnant, then take comfort in knowing that the all-knowing, all-seeing God of the universe knows that it's better that way.
Anyway, I "know" IVF is just "wrong".
The issue is respecting human life. That includes life that some would toy, tamper, experiment with, or kill for the sake of research that might help other human life.
Neurons are no more "sacred" than any other cell type (spermatozoons, for example). In fact, millions of both are wasted every second.
Thousands of people are "wasted" every year on the highways, but that doesn't mean you should intentionally run people over. There is a huge moral difference between incidental death and pre-meditated, intentional death. There ought to be a culture of life in civilization, wherein life of all people, regardless of age or developmental stage, is valued. Fetuses, the deformed, the mentally disabled, the elderly, the unconscious, the un-bodied (brains)... once you start drawing lines, it's a slippery slope.
The unbridled utilitarian mindset is dangerous. The only question it asks is: "How can I exploit whatever is around me?" And what are the most useful things around us? Living things. This is why we used oxen to pull plows, donkeys to carry packs, and horses for transportation. Applied to humans, it's also why we had slavery. And concentration camps and eugenics. These practices are ways that some humans are exploited for the perceived betterment of others. Embryonic stem cell research and abortion are cut from the same cloth.
Many ask the question: "When does life begin?" This is like when the man in Luke 10:29, wanting to justify himself, asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" The man's motivation was to limit the definition of "my neighbor" as much as possible. He didn't want to love any more people than was necessary to be righteous. Jesus then explained through a parable that that was the wrong question to ask. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, "Who can I be a neighbor to?"
The objective of the pro-life side is to a create a culture of life, through and through. Old life, new life, "potential" life, healthy life, impaired life... we should "err" on the side of protecting human life. We should not be biased to the conscious, those blessed to have their wits about them. Today, humans in their early stages are sacrificed for the convenience of humans in their later stages. Mentally impaired humans are sacrificed for the convenience o
Here's a picture of that incident.
I highly doubt that a fully correct understanding of the Bible would clash with science in any way.
A more apt statement: I highly doubt that a fully correct understanding of science (the world/universe) would clash with the Bible in any way.
Will they have big, yellow billboards along the way there?
I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."
I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.
I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.
If you want to learn more about the creationist viewpoint on this issue, you're in luck. There is a creationist site that has a a whole section on dinosaurs. Both the meteor and Flood theories are analyzed.
Ever heard of Salman Pak? It was a terrorist training camp in Baghdad where Arabs were trained to hijack planes and blow things up. I guess Saddam didn't notice. And we know that Saddam had personally corresponded with Osama bin Laden, but I guess that's coincidental hogwash, too.
and the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs
Do you understand the nature of high-level decision-making? You should take a college management course.
Leaders don't have the luxury of being Monday-morning/armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight. The preponderance of evidence in the eyes of the whole world was that Saddam had WMD. That was why the U.N. Security Council leveled 17 resolutions against his regime. Saddam had waged genocide with chemical warfare before, and he would've used WMD again. The national and international objections to the liberation had nothing to do with the "question" of Iraqi possession of WMD, because there were no significant disputes about that issue.
Even if Saddam didn't have them, do you know what preemption means? I'm not going to fight this again. Read this thread.
The bottom line is: we are better off with Saddam gone. Our allies (our true allies) are better off with Saddam gone. Iraq is better off with Saddam gone.
The only people in the world who are not better off (in the short term) are countries like France, Germany, and Russia who were illegally raking in billions of dollars by abusing the U.N. Oil-for-Food program and selling weapons to Saddam.
Increasing our security is not an error. Abolishing dictatorships is not an error. Liberating millions of people is not an error. Incapacitating those who fund and aid terrorists is not an error. Fighting ideology of hate is not an error. Spreading democracy is not an error.
Why can't you people celebrate??? Unite with us and share in our joy. Why are you so angry? The United States has made fantastically wonderful, inspiring, historic achievements in advancing peace and liberty! What we've done is nothing short of miraculous (thanks be to the Lord Almighty). The results are great for the country and great for the world. This is success, not failure. There is nothing for Bush to apologize for.
I hope you are not on Mozilla's PR team. Man oh man!
If you want to be less controversial next time, you could make comparisons between the Nazis, 9-11 victims, and gay baby seals. And you are clueless as to why your freaks doubled on October 8? (Note to others: I am not one.) You recklessly tromped into THE MOST explosive, political/religious clash in the world. Did you honestly think that you were going to escape from that comment without any bad blood?
You should be aware that Palestine (the supposed Arab country) does not exist. I don't know how old you are, but the propagandist concept that such an Arab state had existed was invented by Yasser Arafat (a native of Cairo, Egypt) in 1964 in order to destroy the relatively new Jewish state of Israel. For a primer on the conflict, see History in a Nutshell (Flash animations).
So if Mozilla = Palestine, then Mozilla is nothing but a myth -- and a very evil and destructive one, at that.
Palestine is vaporware; Mozilla is not.
Here is the kind of questions I'd like to see. Below is a sample.
I wish people would apply this logic to education and a myriad of other government programs.
On this point, however, abstinence is a change in the way sex ed is done. It is not an increase of the "same old same old."
"extremely serious errors" = things YOU disagree with
Get off your arrogant high horse. Everybody doesn't share your opinion.
You people can't accuse Bush of being divisive, and then claim that the country is a monolith against him. If that were true, what would be the point of these debates?
The problem is that Canadians are too nice. They want to be ultra-neutral, so they tend to want to prohibit anti-anything. Saying something bad about anyone, even a terrorist, is frowned upon.
Human trafficking obviously should be prohibited. I don't know what its connection to "hate speech" is.
- Their religion would die.
- They would have to find real jobs.
- They would lose an issue with which to demonize capitalism/corporations/the rich/Republicans.
- They would be bitter and jealous that the capitalist/corporate world had done more to "save the environment" (which is already true) than they had with all their useless whining and tree hugging.
Of course, not all environmentalists would be opposed.Plague of locusts in Africa