IIRC, I thought somebody told me a long time ago that the authorities had removed it after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 (out of respect for the presidency, I assume), but apparently it is still there. Maybe they put it back up after he left office. I can't find anything online about its removal because the news orgs and blogs weren't on the web in 1992.
This is willful, blatant disregard for one of the most important principles in the US Constitution, that of checks and balances.
The legislative branch passed a law requiring action by the executive branch.
Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency operate as rogue legislative bodies. They create regulations, which generally are not laws passed by Congress.
There are no checks and balances between the EPA and the Executive Branch, because the EPA itself is unconstitutional.
Oh, and good luck to the Firefox team trying to save the "E" logo from this year's cake! That thing is HUGE!
Really, if you didn't have the story behind the photo, you'd think that the IE Team was congratulating itself for shipping IE.
Memo to MS: When you give someone a cake, it only makes sense to put the RECIPIENT's name on the cake. I mean, you're recognizing the shipping of Firefox. Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake? That's the object of the celebration.
- I can't download and keep my extensions for future install. I really don't like using up bandwidth downloading the same extensions each time I install Firefox.
Yes you can. Just right-click on the.xpi file and save it somewhere, like on a flash drive. When you want to install the extension, open the.xpi via File|Open or drag the xpi onto the Add-ons window. I keep all my extensions in a special folder.
Now, maybe you meant that Firefox doesn't offer a feature specially designed for storing the xpi files somewhere to be reinstalled. I don't think there's enough demand to merit that enhancement being added. Sounds like a reasonable idea for an extension, though.:)
It's a familiar pattern. The arrival of American intervention has often signaled the end of democracy for Arab nations, not the beginning.
The familiar pattern is that America causes waves of democracy wherever it goes. The American Century was the century of freedom. There would be NO liberal democracy in the world if it weren't for the Yankee "freedom man".
The BBC has good photos and a close-up with explanations of the people and objects seen.
Although we do not know the name of the recently discovered tribe in Brazil, or what language they speak, it is possible to tease out some clues as to their way of life from the aerial photographs taken by the Brazilian government....
it seems there's a silent majority of agnostics out there who would rather be left alone regarding religious matters.
I have mod points, but I just can't let this slide. Silent majority? Why are these great masses of agnostics lying to pollsters and claiming to be theists, even Christians?
The only place where non-theists were the majority was the Soviet Union (where beliefs choose YOU).
Or, "Scientific illiteracy here in the states is really bad, and I'm embarrassed that my church has a more atheistic attitude than our current administration."
On a related note, Biblical literacy in the churches is really bad.
Look, this story is about a fearful, waning institution that isn't secure enough in its doctrines to withstand the mockery and criticism of academia and the media. Catholic leaders are desperate to find things to say that will convince the world that Catholicism is a respectable religion. With the priest scandals, the Vatican is having to go into PR overdrive to show people, "Hey, we're normal, we're intelligent."
The paradox is: As Roman Catholicism (RC) assimilates to "progressive" philosophy, such a tactic, rather than saving the Church, will only accelerate its demise. If you want to be "progressive," why go to church at all? When a church loses its distinctiveness from the world, its raison d'être dissolves.
Disclaimer: 1) I actually agree that God could have created ET beings, but I consider it extremely unlikely. 2) I am not RC. I am very doubtful that RC adherents are born-again (of the Spirit).
I'm not against it for the truly needy, but it is commonly abused. The government is paying some people to sit around and watch Oprah. Welfare shouldn't be used to promote a lifestyle of laziness for those who could work.
Ok, let me have a Take #2:
The government's been doing that for people for years. They're called federal employees.
The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.
How does genetics indicate drought instead of flood (or something else)? Is this "analysis" or pure guessing?
Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions...
"These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their family records, in their nations. The nations on earth spread out from these after the flood." - Genesis 10:32
Further scattering: "So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth." - Genesis 11:8-9
Wow, thanks for that response. There is too much here to respond to, but I want to address the issue of theistic evolutionists.
General theism (or deism) and evolutionism could be compatible, yes. I'll grant that. But if the theist purports to be of a religion based on the Bible, and he also accepts microbes-to-man evolution, he is living a contradiction. The creation account given in the Book of Genesis is fundamentally incompatible with many doctrines of modern evolutionism. Everybody gets caught up on the length of a "day" (Hebrew: yom) in Genesis 1 -- Is it 24 hours or millions of years? While I think the answer from the text is pretty obvious and believe that that issue alone is sufficient to make the two views unmixable, the divide goes far beyond that.
They all agree that the theory of optics explains rainbows.
The religious ones say that God created the universe and all the laws of the universe, and that optics is God's mechanism for creating rainbows.
The non-religious ones say optics is the mechanism creating rainbows and shrugs at the philosophical issues.
The atheists say optics creates rainbows and that we never needed any Noah story to explain rainbows.
The "religious" view here is the same as that of ID'ers and creationists.
They all agree that the evolution explains the diversity of life on earth.
The religious ones say that God created the universe and all the laws of the universe, and that evolution is God's mechanism for creating diversity of life.
The non-religious ones say evolution is the mechanism creating diversity of life and shrugs at the philosophical issues.
The atheists say evolution creates diversity of life and that we never needed any Genesis story to explain the diversity of life.
Some ID'ers may agree completely with the "religious" view. Creationists do, in part, accept it. The latter make a distinction between "macro-" and "micro-" evolution (although Answers In Genesis opposes this terminology). In fact, the account of Noah's Ark relies heavily on the truth of evolution, i.e. post-Flood speciation within created/preserved "kinds" ("kinds" translated from an ancient word; modern classifications are, well, modern).
Effectively all religious scientists accept evolution MUST be God's mechanism for creating the diversity of life, because the evidence demonstrating evolution is vast conclusive and crystal clear.
Yes, speciation or "micro-evolution." Not molecules-to-man or even monkeys-to-man evolution. (Or evolution of monkeys and men from a common ancestor.)
For ever since the creation of the universe, His invisible qualities - both His eternal power and His divine nature - have been clearly seen, because they can be understood from what He has made. - Romans 1:20
What do you think that is speaking of?
All of the things you said. The obvious visible things, for some people. The laws behind those things, for the inquisitive who have taken the time to discern them.
A rainbow, a rose, a waterfall, a sunset, the stars in the sky, all are aspects revealed of a deeper unified beauty behind them all, that can and does produce them all, that shows us each of those things.
Whatever wonder and beauty you see in the universe is but a manifestation of that deeper unifying beauty that encompasses all those things and more.
What do think about that "deeper unifying beauty"? Didn't something beyond nature have to exist before nature existed?
"Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment. Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end." - Psalms 102:25-27
Something so grand, so beautiful, so brilliant, so... everything!
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!" - Psalms 8:4-9
You see, creationism holds that humans are a special creation. In evolutionary history, at what point would hominids be "crowned with glory and honor"? At one point cave men themselves would be "beasts of the field." At the next, they'd get to lord over the low
I'm talking about the thousands of scientists of all fields (who are secretly not dogmatically materialist), who, in the normal course of their work of observing and experimenting, learn things about the earth or universe about which they can't help but conclude, or at least seriously entertain the thought, that the things they're seeing were designed by an intelligent Being.
Moreover, it doesn't require an academic to perceive a Creator.
For ever since the creation of the universe, His invisible qualities - both His eternal power and His divine nature - have been clearly seen, because they can be understood from what He has made. - Romans 1:20
God is not the God of the elite. He gave plenty of "low-hanging fruit" so that everyone, from the brilliant scientist to the slow-witted child, could understand and appreciate His awesomely complex and beautifully designed world.
This whole debate seems pretty strange to European eyes. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist Bible believing evangelical Christian, but, in Britain, people like me take the view that Genesis describes the evolutionary process pretty well.... Is that what your tour guide told you?
Sorry for the sarcasm. But at this rate of weakening doctrine, your church, too, will soon be a museum. Or a mosque.
I weep for Britain. I hope your flag will wave proudly for a long time to come.
The whole point of the movie is that there are lots of "science people" who deduce from observation and experimentation that the evidence points to the existence of an Intelligent Designer. They are scared of presenting their conclusions due to the retribution of the intolerant, humanistic establishment.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a split-level <--Clinton / Prosperity--> street sign in South Carolina. Clinton and Prosperity are two towns, in opposite directions from this point.
IIRC, I thought somebody told me a long time ago that the authorities had removed it after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 (out of respect for the presidency, I assume), but apparently it is still there. Maybe they put it back up after he left office. I can't find anything online about its removal because the news orgs and blogs weren't on the web in 1992.
This is willful, blatant disregard for one of the most important principles in the US Constitution, that of checks and balances.
The legislative branch passed a law requiring action by the executive branch.
Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency operate as rogue legislative bodies. They create regulations, which generally are not laws passed by Congress.
There are no checks and balances between the EPA and the Executive Branch, because the EPA itself is unconstitutional.
Yes.
First step to quitting: Admit that you have a problem.
Really, if you didn't have the story behind the photo, you'd think that the IE Team was congratulating itself for shipping IE.
Memo to MS: When you give someone a cake, it only makes sense to put the RECIPIENT's name on the cake. I mean, you're recognizing the shipping of Firefox. Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake? That's the object of the celebration.
Wait millions of years? Oil can be produced from organic material in 20 minutes (see bottom gray box).
Yes you can. Just right-click on the .xpi file and save it somewhere, like on a flash drive. When you want to install the extension, open the .xpi via File|Open or drag the xpi onto the Add-ons window. I keep all my extensions in a special folder.
Now, maybe you meant that Firefox doesn't offer a feature specially designed for storing the xpi files somewhere to be reinstalled. I don't think there's enough demand to merit that enhancement being added. Sounds like a reasonable idea for an extension, though. :)
It's a familiar pattern. The arrival of American intervention has often signaled the end of democracy for Arab nations, not the beginning.
The familiar pattern is that America causes waves of democracy wherever it goes. The American Century was the century of freedom. There would be NO liberal democracy in the world if it weren't for the Yankee "freedom man".
England and America have directly been involved in dividing up Jewish land for 60 years, but you don't see Jews attacking the West.
...most likely to be shut down by a President McCain.
When doing something that is both unpopular and demonstrably ineffective, the obvious solution is to do more of it.
Just like taxes.
it seems there's a silent majority of agnostics out there who would rather be left alone regarding religious matters.
I have mod points, but I just can't let this slide. Silent majority? Why are these great masses of agnostics lying to pollsters and claiming to be theists, even Christians?
The only place where non-theists were the majority was the Soviet Union (where beliefs choose YOU).
Or, "Scientific illiteracy here in the states is really bad, and I'm embarrassed that my church has a more atheistic attitude than our current administration."
On a related note, Biblical literacy in the churches is really bad.
Look, this story is about a fearful, waning institution that isn't secure enough in its doctrines to withstand the mockery and criticism of academia and the media. Catholic leaders are desperate to find things to say that will convince the world that Catholicism is a respectable religion. With the priest scandals, the Vatican is having to go into PR overdrive to show people, "Hey, we're normal, we're intelligent."
The paradox is: As Roman Catholicism (RC) assimilates to "progressive" philosophy, such a tactic, rather than saving the Church, will only accelerate its demise. If you want to be "progressive," why go to church at all? When a church loses its distinctiveness from the world, its raison d'être dissolves.
Disclaimer: 1) I actually agree that God could have created ET beings, but I consider it extremely unlikely. 2) I am not RC. I am very doubtful that RC adherents are born-again (of the Spirit).
Maybe they have fewer people in jail because they've already executed them. Much more efficient and economical that way.
Charlie now attacks from a Trojan horse.
I'm not against it for the truly needy, but it is commonly abused. The government is paying some people to sit around and watch Oprah. Welfare shouldn't be used to promote a lifestyle of laziness for those who could work.
Ok, let me have a Take #2:
The government's been doing that for people for years. They're called federal employees.
The government's been doing that for years. It's called welfare.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.How does genetics indicate drought instead of flood (or something else)? Is this "analysis" or pure guessing?
Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions..."These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their family records, in their nations. The nations on earth spread out from these after the flood." - Genesis 10:32
Further scattering: "So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth." - Genesis 11:8-9
Wow, thanks for that response. There is too much here to respond to, but I want to address the issue of theistic evolutionists.
General theism (or deism) and evolutionism could be compatible, yes. I'll grant that. But if the theist purports to be of a religion based on the Bible, and he also accepts microbes-to-man evolution, he is living a contradiction. The creation account given in the Book of Genesis is fundamentally incompatible with many doctrines of modern evolutionism. Everybody gets caught up on the length of a "day" (Hebrew: yom) in Genesis 1 -- Is it 24 hours or millions of years? While I think the answer from the text is pretty obvious and believe that that issue alone is sufficient to make the two views unmixable, the divide goes far beyond that.
They all agree that the theory of optics explains rainbows.
The religious ones say that God created the universe and all the laws of the universe, and that optics is God's mechanism for creating rainbows.
The non-religious ones say optics is the mechanism creating rainbows and shrugs at the philosophical issues.
The atheists say optics creates rainbows and that we never needed any Noah story to explain rainbows.
The "religious" view here is the same as that of ID'ers and creationists.
They all agree that the evolution explains the diversity of life on earth.
The religious ones say that God created the universe and all the laws of the universe, and that evolution is God's mechanism for creating diversity of life.
The non-religious ones say evolution is the mechanism creating diversity of life and shrugs at the philosophical issues.
The atheists say evolution creates diversity of life and that we never needed any Genesis story to explain the diversity of life.
Some ID'ers may agree completely with the "religious" view. Creationists do, in part, accept it. The latter make a distinction between "macro-" and "micro-" evolution (although Answers In Genesis opposes this terminology). In fact, the account of Noah's Ark relies heavily on the truth of evolution, i.e. post-Flood speciation within created/preserved "kinds" ("kinds" translated from an ancient word; modern classifications are, well, modern).
Effectively all religious scientists accept evolution MUST be God's mechanism for creating the diversity of life, because the evidence demonstrating evolution is vast conclusive and crystal clear.
Yes, speciation or "micro-evolution." Not molecules-to-man or even monkeys-to-man evolution. (Or evolution of monkeys and men from a common ancestor.)
For ever since the creation of the universe, His invisible qualities - both His eternal power and His divine nature - have been clearly seen, because they can be understood from what He has made. - Romans 1:20
What do you think that is speaking of?
All of the things you said. The obvious visible things, for some people. The laws behind those things, for the inquisitive who have taken the time to discern them.
A rainbow, a rose, a waterfall, a sunset, the stars in the sky, all are aspects revealed of a deeper unified beauty behind them all, that can and does produce them all, that shows us each of those things.
Whatever wonder and beauty you see in the universe is but a manifestation of that deeper unifying beauty that encompasses all those things and more.
What do think about that "deeper unifying beauty"? Didn't something beyond nature have to exist before nature existed?
"Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment. Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end." - Psalms 102:25-27
Something so grand, so beautiful, so brilliant, so... everything!
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!" - Psalms 8:4-9
You see, creationism holds that humans are a special creation. In evolutionary history, at what point would hominids be "crowned with glory and honor"? At one point cave men themselves would be "beasts of the field." At the next, they'd get to lord over the low
Moreover, it doesn't require an academic to perceive a Creator. God is not the God of the elite. He gave plenty of "low-hanging fruit" so that everyone, from the brilliant scientist to the slow-witted child, could understand and appreciate His awesomely complex and beautifully designed world.
Sorry for the sarcasm. But at this rate of weakening doctrine, your church, too, will soon be a museum. Or a mosque.
I weep for Britain. I hope your flag will wave proudly for a long time to come.
The whole point of the movie is that there are lots of "science people" who deduce from observation and experimentation that the evidence points to the existence of an Intelligent Designer. They are scared of presenting their conclusions due to the retribution of the intolerant, humanistic establishment.
On the other side, we've got.... an ex-Nixon speechwiter/game show host. The neutrality of this post is disputed.