What's your point? What do pharmaceutical and telecom companies care about file trading? All political campaigns get money from companies. Is there something peculiar about this list?
"Everything that can be invented has already been invented." - Charles H. Duell, U.S. Commissioner of Patents, in 1899 (Disclaimer)
Even if you were right, there are millions of us youngsters born in the 70s and 80s who don't know a lot of these names, much less ever heard the music. It's new music to our ears.
There would be lots of life left in jazz if the music got more exposure and promotion.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And this?
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Re:Dear "environmentalist" NIMBYs everywhere,
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
The rational libertarian, moderate and liberal people of the United States who want to see clean, cheap energy so as to save our environment and power our lives at the same time
Hey, add conservatives to that list! We want clean, cheap energy, too. No need for the foul language, though. That's just one more kind of pollution.:)
the post-9/11 hysteria, fueled by FOX News and color-coded alerts.
It was 9/11 that fueled (ahem) the beginning of the hysteria.
It's extremely incongruous for you to unload all your criticism for economic turbulence and fear (of which there really is not much anymore; "hysteria" is hyperbole) on the Dept. of Homeland Security and a TV news network conveying relevant news about terrorist activities and measures being taken to prevent future attacks, while omitting from your criticism the primary role that certain non-Republicans (i.e., terrorists, remember those guys? the Saudis?) played.
So the bible predicts that when the messiah comes, the moon will generate light, not merely reflect it?
Well, Isaiah 13:10 mentions the sun right before the part about the moon: "The sun will be dark when it rises." Whoah! The sun doesn't rise! The earth is just spinning on its axis so that half its surface is facing opposite the sun. Does that make the verse wrong? Of course not. It's just a description of how the sun appears.
And how can the sun rise and be dark? There's no need for wild speculations involving quantum physics. Ezekiel 32:7 provides some more information about this prophecy. In this verse God says, "I will cover the sun with a cloud." A very dark cloud. Simple.
Moving on to the part of the verse actually questioned, common literal translations read, "the moon will not shed its light." The Complete Jewish Bible reads, "the moon will no longer shine." Isaiah is describing what a person will see, and light does in fact normally shine from the surface of the moon. The moon does not emit light; it does shine light in the same way that light shines from a bald head. It's like a TCP packet hopping from node to node from its source address to its destination address. There are many sending and receiving nodes along the way. From the moon to the earth is the second of two hops that "moonlight" makes. When the light shines (emitted) from the sun to the moon, it is sunlight. When it shines (reflected) from the moon to the earth, it is moonlight. If you were on the moon, you would see light shining from the earth ("earthlight"). Since light shines from the moon, that light is its own light for that route of its journey. It's not the original source, but it is the light source as far as most people are concerned. We know that moonlight is light reflected from the sun, but describing a prophetic vision in that way would have awkwardly avoided the common, straightforward, everyman expressions for describing visual appearances of such daily realities and would not have enhanced the prophetic picture of earthly conditions that Isaiah is trying to paint here for people to be watching for.
1 Kings 7:23 -- The Bible does not state that Pi=3.0. I addressed this bogus claim here.
Leviticus 21:16-21 -- This is about the qualifications for priests in ancient Israel. Just as the animals given for sacrifice had to be without physical blemish, a priest handling the animals would also have to be without physical blemish. It is all symbolic. In contrast, the Messiah brought in the era of personal priesthood. Every believer is to be a priest. Don't ask me to explain the beliefs or practices particular to Roman Catholicism.
Exodus 4:11 -- I don't understand your objection with this text. Read the context.
[T]he Hebrew phrase for âchew the cudâ(TM) simply means âraising up what has been swallowedâ(TM). Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed âraise up what has been swallowedâ(TM). The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
1 Chronicles 16:30 -- I didn't think you were being serious with this one at first, but since I see that other skeptics on the web have brought it up, I'll point you to an answer.
Isaiah 13:10 -- Yet again, see the context. This is prophecy to occur near the time of the second coming of Messiah.
Genesis 19:8 -- Well, it seemed that it was going to be either his daughters or the angels. Lot had a terrible set of options. Again, if you read the context, you'll see that Lot did not actually give his daughters over to the Sodomites. Even if he had, it wouldn't necessarily mean that God looked favorably on it.
Might I suggest a book? How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1940).
Understand the book - What is the author saying?
Interpret the book - What does the author mean?
Evaluate the book - Is the author right or wrong?
You often attempted to evaluate texts without even knowing what was being said, much less interpreting it.
or "the principal and choice part of knowledge [its starting point and its essence]," as stated here,
would be the best place to start learning. I have three buttons for reference sources in my Mozilla PrefBar: Google, Dictionary, and the Bible. I have found the third to be the most valuable of all.
Every now and then, I stumble upon a website that is just a veritable tome of knowledge
There are 66 veritable tomes of knowledge in this single online compilation. It's completely searchable by word or numerical reference and available in many languages and versions. Five languages are offered in audio, too. It's all free.
Here's some insightful analysis from timothy's Fortune link.
Wal-Mart in 2003 is, in short, a lot like America in 2003: a sole superpower with a down-home twang. As with Uncle Sam, everyone's position in the world will largely be defined in relation to Mr. Sam. Is your company a "strategic competitor" like China or a "partner" like Britain? Is it a client state like Israel or a supplier to the opposition like Yemen? Is it France, benefiting from the superpower's reach while complaining the whole time? Or is it... well, a Target? You can admire the superpower or resent it or--most likely--both. But you can't ignore it.
Most vocal/.ers appear to fall into the French category; benefiting from the superpower's reach while complaining the whole time. You'll have to read the rest of the article to understand why that is true, so please RTF[riendly]A before you attempt to rebut.
Right, Wal-Mart is to blame for the poor living conditions in China.
Newsflash: Life is hard in Communist countries. There are political reasons why those conditions exist in places like China and Cuba but not in America or Britain, and it has nothing to do with Wal-Mart. Consider that if Wal-Mart was not providing jobs there, these people's wages might be $0.00/day.
I'm more concerned about how Hollywood injects its social mores into the movies themselves that are on the DVDs
... on the movie screens, TV screens, airplane screens, t-shirts, toys, kids' lunchboxes, billboards, newspapers, magazines, the web, and radio waves (ads) -- all of which essentially saturates our entire culture with Hollywood's mores when only a very small percentage of Americans pay to see any particular movie.
In terms of the effect it has on their quality of life
That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.
The thinking is: I need what *I* have. People who have more than I have don't need it, so it is okay to pilfer it. The Rule of Fairness that flows from this is: It's okay to confiscate someone's assets up to the point that their economic standard of living is below mine [yours].
This effectively saps the incentive out of people to become wealthy and establish businesses (and provide jobs, pay salaries). Why work hard yourself when you can let someone else do the heavy lifting to generate wealth and have the government confiscate it and deliver it to your doorstep? At some point, the government will have to force people to work so that there will be a pool of wealth to redistribute, and moreover, to keep the country going.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
Slashdot Mirror
Uh huh
someone can be sent by the company that owns it to break both your legs.
No, they send in jack-booted thugs and incinerate you.
Thankfully, that administration is gone.
What copyrights did little Elian violate?
They believe in polygamy.
What's your point? What do pharmaceutical and telecom companies care about file trading? All political campaigns get money from companies. Is there something peculiar about this list?
I don't know about LDS, but they appear to be influenced by LSD.
Even if you were right, there are millions of us youngsters born in the 70s and 80s who don't know a lot of these names, much less ever heard the music. It's new music to our ears.
There would be lots of life left in jazz if the music got more exposure and promotion.
Hey, add conservatives to that list! We want clean, cheap energy, too. No need for the foul language, though. That's just one more kind of pollution. :)
It was 9 / 11 that fueled (ahem) the beginning of the hysteria.
It's extremely incongruous for you to unload all your criticism for economic turbulence and fear (of which there really is not much anymore; "hysteria" is hyperbole) on the Dept. of Homeland Security and a TV news network conveying relevant news about terrorist activities and measures being taken to prevent future attacks, while omitting from your criticism the primary role that certain non-Republicans (i.e., terrorists, remember those guys? the Saudis?) played.
Here's more hysteria-fueling propaganda from MS[FOX?]NBC[.gov?]: The terrorists are here!
If the U.S. Congress ever created legislation requiring the government to use free software, the bill should be named the "Bill of GNU Rights."
Brazil is going toss Microsoft's software out the OpenWindows.
Well, Isaiah 13:10 mentions the sun right before the part about the moon: "The sun will be dark when it rises." Whoah! The sun doesn't rise! The earth is just spinning on its axis so that half its surface is facing opposite the sun. Does that make the verse wrong? Of course not. It's just a description of how the sun appears.
And how can the sun rise and be dark? There's no need for wild speculations involving quantum physics. Ezekiel 32:7 provides some more information about this prophecy. In this verse God says, "I will cover the sun with a cloud." A very dark cloud. Simple.
Moving on to the part of the verse actually questioned, common literal translations read, "the moon will not shed its light." The Complete Jewish Bible reads, "the moon will no longer shine." Isaiah is describing what a person will see, and light does in fact normally shine from the surface of the moon. The moon does not emit light; it does shine light in the same way that light shines from a bald head. It's like a TCP packet hopping from node to node from its source address to its destination address. There are many sending and receiving nodes along the way. From the moon to the earth is the second of two hops that "moonlight" makes. When the light shines (emitted) from the sun to the moon, it is sunlight. When it shines (reflected) from the moon to the earth, it is moonlight. If you were on the moon, you would see light shining from the earth ("earthlight"). Since light shines from the moon, that light is its own light for that route of its journey. It's not the original source, but it is the light source as far as most people are concerned. We know that moonlight is light reflected from the sun, but describing a prophetic vision in that way would have awkwardly avoided the common, straightforward, everyman expressions for describing visual appearances of such daily realities and would not have enhanced the prophetic picture of earthly conditions that Isaiah is trying to paint here for people to be watching for.
Leviticus 21:16-21 -- This is about the qualifications for priests in ancient Israel. Just as the animals given for sacrifice had to be without physical blemish, a priest handling the animals would also have to be without physical blemish. It is all symbolic. In contrast, the Messiah brought in the era of personal priesthood. Every believer is to be a priest. Don't ask me to explain the beliefs or practices particular to Roman Catholicism.
Exodus 4:11 -- I don't understand your objection with this text. Read the context.
Deuteronomy 14:7 -- I'll quote from this page:
1 Chronicles 16:30 -- I didn't think you were being serious with this one at first, but since I see that other skeptics on the web have brought it up, I'll point you to an answer.Isaiah 13:10 -- Yet again, see the context. This is prophecy to occur near the time of the second coming of Messiah.
Genesis 19:8 -- Well, it seemed that it was going to be either his daughters or the angels. Lot had a terrible set of options. Again, if you read the context, you'll see that Lot did not actually give his daughters over to the Sodomites. Even if he had, it wouldn't necessarily mean that God looked favorably on it.
Might I suggest a book? How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1940).
- Understand the book - What is the author saying?
- Interpret the book - What does the author mean?
- Evaluate the book - Is the author right or wrong?
You often attempted to evaluate texts without even knowing what was being said, much less interpreting it.Every now and then, I stumble upon a website that is just a veritable tome of knowledge
There are 66 veritable tomes of knowledge in this single online compilation. It's completely searchable by word or numerical reference and available in many languages and versions. Five languages are offered in audio, too. It's all free.
12)Get ICQ Plus (freeware) - covers up ads with cool skins, adds transparency ability
Newsflash: Life is hard in Communist countries. There are political reasons why those conditions exist in places like China and Cuba but not in America or Britain, and it has nothing to do with Wal-Mart. Consider that if Wal-Mart was not providing jobs there, these people's wages might be $0.00/day.
... on the movie screens, TV screens, airplane screens, t-shirts, toys, kids' lunchboxes, billboards, newspapers, magazines, the web, and radio waves (ads) -- all of which essentially saturates our entire culture with Hollywood's mores when only a very small percentage of Americans pay to see any particular movie.
You have heard that there are two things in life that are certain: death and taxes.
The difference is that death doesn't get worse every year.
Russia has a 13% flat tax.
Since when were ex-KGB Soviet Commies like Vladamir Putin "extreme right-wing"? :)
What's a good tool like xmllint you'd recommend for Windows?
Amen!
I don't know if you've tried getting funding to start a project or an idea, but it's incredibly difficult.
Maybe you need to see this guy. :-)
Hebrew has cursive.
That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.
This effectively saps the incentive out of people to become wealthy and establish businesses (and provide jobs, pay salaries). Why work hard yourself when you can let someone else do the heavy lifting to generate wealth and have the government confiscate it and deliver it to your doorstep? At some point, the government will have to force people to work so that there will be a pool of wealth to redistribute, and moreover, to keep the country going.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson