There is no way that a court would require a plugin that merely uses a published interface to be released as open source. Consider the following situation:
1) A GPLed project releases documentation describing functions that must be exported from a shared library in order for it to be a plugin. 2) Some other author decides to write a closed-source shared library that exports said functions. 3) In order to use the shared library, the GPLed product must initiate a shared library load and map the closed-source library into its address space.
Nowhere in the above situation does the closed-source project link to the GPLed code, except when the GPLed code specifically initiates the interaction. Just because GPLed code interacts with closed-source code doesn't mean that the closed-source code must be open sourced--especially when the dynamic linking is performed by the GPLed code.
Furthermore, consider a situation where there is a generic plugin interface that works for two different software packages: one closed-source and the other a GPLed. If a court says in the above situation that the plugin must be GPLed, what happens in this one? Does the logic extend to this situation?
In my mind, it ultimately depends upon who is initiating the linking. If a developer links with GPLed code (dynamically or statically), the code that developer writes must be open sourced. But any code that a GPLed project links to cannot force code that it links to to become open sourced, otherwise entire software packages could be forced to become open sourced when they did nothing except write some software that a GPL software developer wanted to use.
If life is so damn complex that it requires a creator,
then the creator is so damn complex as to require a creator.
If we were discussing a creator that existed only within time and was not transcendent, then yes, the creator would require a creator, ad infinitum. However, if you take the approach that the creator created both time and space, then the creator exists outside of the constraints of time and space and thus does not require a creator since the creator is existent apart from the constraints of time and space, namely cause and effect. In this viewpoint, the creator is the ultimate cause of all else and is the effect of nothing.
Hey, if you want to get down to definitions, let's pull out a dictionary:
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural-cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy 1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2: a political unit that has a democratic government 3capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Based on 1a and b, it's rather hard to say that the politicians and general populace are redefining words, isn't it? After all, a phrase such as "democratic republic" is completely consistent with the above definition (notice 1b: "directly or indirectly"). By the way, the definition is pulled from Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com).
If you had taken a course on labor economics, you would find that the amount of education you receive directly correlates with the amount of return you get for that education. The higher the intelligence, the greater the return for a given year of education. It only stands to reason that those who are more intelligent receive more education. Now the increased money is both a result of the signal that the education gives employers (how intelligent the employee is, as explained previously) and also because of the skills gained from said education (which those of lower ability or intelligence cannot use as effectively).
Furthermore, consider the number of relatively uneducated people who lead companies, but who are also very intelligent. Like Bill Gates: whether or not you like him, it's hard to argue that he's not intelligent.
So really, while money earned usually has a direct correllation with the amount of education received, the amount of education received has a direct correllation to the intelligence. Also, intelligence in and of itself also can lead someone to earning more money (Bill Gates). Thus regardless of the path taken, ultimately higher intelligence usually (note...usually, not always--it depends upon vocation) leads to more success and income.
As coherent as the post seems, the poster draws a false parallel. W-OFDM is quite different than an equation such as E=mc^2. You are right that it is not possible (or at least shouldn't be possible) to patent an equation describing the physics of the universe. However where you are not correct is in drawing the parallel between that and W-OFDM. W-OFDM defines more than an equation--it defines a procedure that explains how one encodes and decodes digital information across an analog RF spectrum. Does it use physics? Certainly. But so does almost every single patent.
Basically the point is this: People cannot patent laws of physics (like E=mc^2), but they can patent ideas and procedures that use those laws constructively (like W-OFDM).
But that is precisely it. Even though the parts may have been preexistent, the sum of the parts was not done until the patent (assuming no prior art, of course). So whether or not the idea in the patent is an obvious jump is moot. The only thing that matters is that the idea in the patent had not been carried out previously--thus the interest in searching for prior art.
But, unfortunately for your argument, you two do not make up the whole of the public, so a unilateral decision by one in the public does not stand for the public as a whole.
I'm currently a senior in computer science here. I graduate in less than a month! But I have a job in the area, so I'm going to actually stay in town.:)
If you'd like to email me, just email KyleJ61782@yahoo.com:)
Before repeating quotes you have heard, what you might want to do is check with someone who actually can read the Greek of that passage you quote from John 19:30. So here's how the NIV translates verse 30:
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
Here's the actual Greek:
"Hote oun elaben to oxos ho Iêsous eipen, Tetelestai, kai klinas tên kephalên paredôken to pneuma."
And here's a word for word translation of the Koine:
"When therefore he took the sour wine the Jesus said, It has finished, and bowing the head he gave up the spirit."
A more fluid, still literal, English translation would yield the following:
"Therefore, when he took the sour wine Jesus said, "It is finished," and bowing his head he gave up his spirit."
For your information, let me fully parse the word and account for why it is the way it is. The word translated into, "It is finished," tetelestai, is a perfect tense middle/passive voice (though in this case it must be passive since there's no object implied or otherwise), third person singular, indicative mood from the verb teleô. The verb teleô has many meanings, so here's a list from the Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon: "I. (1) to complete, fulfill, accomplish: generally, to perform, execute, Lat. perficere -- Pass. to be completed, fulfilled, accomplished: to come to pass, happen; (2) to make perfect, bring to maturity; (3) to bring to an end, finish, end: in Pass. to come to one's end; (4) sometimes intr. like teleutoô, to come to an end, be fulfilled, turn out. II. (1) to pay one's dues or taxes, to pay as tax, duty, due: generally to lay out, spend; (2) to be rated or assessed, to belong to, be classed among. III. to consecrate, initiate, Pass. to have oneself initiated." So yes, it *can* mean "the debt is paid," but I would argue against that for several reasons. First of all, in the account, Jesus is dying and his ministry up to his death is finished. Most logically it seems that his work on the earth before death is being referred to here. Secondly, the words "the debt" do not appear in the Greek text, so the Greek would have to be rendered "It is paid," not "the debt is paid," to be completely literal. Furthermore within the immediately surrounding context, no mention is made of debt. Finally, from a strictly Christian theological perspective, the debt had not been paid by that point, since Jesus had not suffered the pain of death, the subsequent descent into hell, and his resulting resurrection.
One other point to be made would be that it is relatively difficult to translate the Greek perfect into English, since their perfect tense is said with the viewpoint of the speaker now speaking about the ramifications of an action having occurred in the past. So a verb in the perfect tense does *not* refer to the past action, but actually to the present state/consequences. For example, take the verb lambanô, which means "I take." In the aorist, elabon, it means "I took." However, the perfect, eilêpha, can mean "I have taken" or just simply "I have" since if you have taken something, speaking about the current state now, you actually have it in your posession.
So feel free to take what I've said as you will. I can assure you, though, that the translation "it is finished" is at least as valid as "the debt is paid" if not a more accepted translation of what Jesus says.
By the way, all this comes by means of analysis from myself, a second year Greek student at the University of Illinois, so you could probably ask most people who know Greek and they could confirm what I have written here.
Actually, though, he was correct since in the latest forms of TCP found in kernels today (just check out the Linux source code...), ACKs are already used as probes to determine congestion *and* RTT for throughput purposes. With advancements like TCP Reno, and newer, rarely does TCP ever go into a full timeout, or even hit a point where multiplicative decrease is actually needed, more often just additive decrease is required to maintain efficient congestion control.
But you are correct, slow start is anything but. It certainly is much better than just flooding the network right off the bat, however yes, it does have an exponential start. The major disadvantage of slow start is the fact that it starts from one segment onward, which is obviously worse than just halving the window.
The problem with your reasoning, though, is that when an AC signal is passed through the circuit, impedance appears to be resistance anyways, so your argument is moot. However, it is true, if there are no inductors in the circuit, only capacitors (which I'd have an incredibly hard time believing), then you'd have to obtain a really, really high frequency to decrease impedence low enough to allow a discharge of the capacitors high enough to produce a 250W spike. The possibility of something like that happening within the innards of those speakers is for all intents and purposes impossible.
While it's true that they don't give off x-rays and gamma rays, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the fabric of space-time has particles and their corresponding anti-particles pop into and out of existence (mostly due to the vacuum energy of space). So, if one of these pairs happens to occur right on the event horizon, one particle could effectively be shot out away from it, while the other particle would fall into the hole. However, that particle shot into the hole, would in turn annihilate with some matter in the black hole, thus depleting the black hole of mass and thereby following the law of conservation of mass-energy.
While it may be a problem in some instances to have such a law allowing due process, it does protect the rights of the accused. What's this with guilty until proven innocent?! Remember, the laws of the land were made with the idea that the laws would be applied equally and fairly across all individuals, whether accused or not. Now, that's not to say that the government doesn't pander to corporate interests. What it does mean is that for those cases where corporate interests aren't at stake, the law is quite fair. Unfortunately, personal interests have been all too quickly forgotten in light of corporate money.
And had you been around at the time, you would have found that everyone was anti-Semetic. That's not to say that his views were justified, but to say that they weren't necessarily out of line with everyone else. Remember, people's opinions are shaped by the society around them.
Look how far anti-Semitism carried in history. Even in 1939 at the beginning of the second world war there were still many, many anti-Semites - even in the United States! That he was an anti-Semite is a non-issue. Had you been born then, you would most likely have been one too.
And that he was anti-Catholic? Not surprising either. Look at Ireland: Protestants and Catholics are fighting each other. Why (well, originally)? Because they have (and had) different beliefs. It's also quite understanding that a relatively new faction that split off from the Church at the time hated where it came from. After all, isn't that why it split in the first place? Protestants are just that: protesting Catholocism, thereby being anti-Catholic. They differ on fundamental Christian doctrines.
I don't in any way subscribe to anti-Catholocism (except that maybe because I'm Protestant, and even then not in a bigoted manner) or anti-Semitism. It's just that at the time of Newton, such things were commonplace, and so really have no bearing on whether or not he is "a stink" in the room or not. Actually taking a look at the historical surroundings of famous figures sheds light onto their beliefs. It just forces us to realize that these men were extraordinary in their discoveries, not their convictions.
But we also have the choice to update open source clients so that we can continue using them instead of the AOL endorsed client. IANAL but I don't believe that AOL can legally block non-AOL clients from accessing AIM if the clients are capable. All that AOL can do is try to keep ahead of the independent clients to prevent them from catching up.
Unfortunately, the stability of Novell does no good for you if your servers go down as is the case with the servers that the company that I work for uses.
Thank you for the correction. I should have chosen a different word than "invented." However, that doesn't change the fact that Newton (and Leibniz, etc.) made calculus more available to people precisely because they collected all that information. Without that vision, as you stated, Einstein and others couldn't have done what they did nearly as easily (not to say that what they did was by any means easy...:).
Yes, everything is built incrementally, but what about those increments that change everything? That's probably what he means.
After all, think about the invention of calculus. This has made physics possible, thus making many things that we take for granted possible (computers, etc.). Now, one could say that calculus is just a logical progression from algebra. However, think about the thought processes and the jumps that had to be made just to make that logical progression possible.
It's for this exact reason that we really can't see the really big innovations until they actually hit us. And that's also the reason why they don't happen very often. Very few people are actually creative enough to think beyond what society currently has.
I don't want to sound like a flame, because this certainly isn't meant to be one.
I guess that I really don't agree with your putting conservation ahead of favoring human life. After all, Genesis 1:27 does say that we're made in God's image, so who are we to destroy that?
Going on with creation also has the command from God in Genesis 1:28a, "Be fruitful and increase in number." Supporting abortion doesn't seem to support this command from God.
One could also argue the point that our human bodies are temples of God as 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 and 2 Corinthians 6:16 states. Who are we to destroy these temples?
I guess that from my point of view, I believe that human life is way more important than natural conservation will ever be (unless without conservation humans would die, which doesn't seem to be imminent here). As such, I choose G.W. Bush because he aligns himself with this ideal also.
Just some food for thought.
Kyle Johnson "We've upped our standards, now up yours!"
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way that a court would require a plugin that merely uses a published interface to be released as open source. Consider the following situation:
1) A GPLed project releases documentation describing functions that must be exported from a shared library in order for it to be a plugin.
2) Some other author decides to write a closed-source shared library that exports said functions.
3) In order to use the shared library, the GPLed product must initiate a shared library load and map the closed-source library into its address space.
Nowhere in the above situation does the closed-source project link to the GPLed code, except when the GPLed code specifically initiates the interaction. Just because GPLed code interacts with closed-source code doesn't mean that the closed-source code must be open sourced--especially when the dynamic linking is performed by the GPLed code.
Furthermore, consider a situation where there is a generic plugin interface that works for two different software packages: one closed-source and the other a GPLed. If a court says in the above situation that the plugin must be GPLed, what happens in this one? Does the logic extend to this situation?
In my mind, it ultimately depends upon who is initiating the linking. If a developer links with GPLed code (dynamically or statically), the code that developer writes must be open sourced. But any code that a GPLed project links to cannot force code that it links to to become open sourced, otherwise entire software packages could be forced to become open sourced when they did nothing except write some software that a GPL software developer wanted to use.
If we were discussing a creator that existed only within time and was not transcendent, then yes, the creator would require a creator, ad infinitum. However, if you take the approach that the creator created both time and space, then the creator exists outside of the constraints of time and space and thus does not require a creator since the creator is existent apart from the constraints of time and space, namely cause and effect. In this viewpoint, the creator is the ultimate cause of all else and is the effect of nothing.
Hey, if you want to get down to definitions, let's pull out a dictionary:
: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections : a political unit that has a democratic government : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a
2
3 capitalized
4
5
Based on 1a and b, it's rather hard to say that the politicians and general populace are redefining words, isn't it? After all, a phrase such as "democratic republic" is completely consistent with the above definition (notice 1b: "directly or indirectly"). By the way, the definition is pulled from Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com).
If you had taken a course on labor economics, you would find that the amount of education you receive directly correlates with the amount of return you get for that education. The higher the intelligence, the greater the return for a given year of education. It only stands to reason that those who are more intelligent receive more education. Now the increased money is both a result of the signal that the education gives employers (how intelligent the employee is, as explained previously) and also because of the skills gained from said education (which those of lower ability or intelligence cannot use as effectively).
Furthermore, consider the number of relatively uneducated people who lead companies, but who are also very intelligent. Like Bill Gates: whether or not you like him, it's hard to argue that he's not intelligent.
So really, while money earned usually has a direct correllation with the amount of education received, the amount of education received has a direct correllation to the intelligence. Also, intelligence in and of itself also can lead someone to earning more money (Bill Gates). Thus regardless of the path taken, ultimately higher intelligence usually (note...usually, not always--it depends upon vocation) leads to more success and income.
As coherent as the post seems, the poster draws a false parallel. W-OFDM is quite different than an equation such as E=mc^2. You are right that it is not possible (or at least shouldn't be possible) to patent an equation describing the physics of the universe. However where you are not correct is in drawing the parallel between that and W-OFDM. W-OFDM defines more than an equation--it defines a procedure that explains how one encodes and decodes digital information across an analog RF spectrum. Does it use physics? Certainly. But so does almost every single patent.
Basically the point is this: People cannot patent laws of physics (like E=mc^2), but they can patent ideas and procedures that use those laws constructively (like W-OFDM).
But that is precisely it. Even though the parts may have been preexistent, the sum of the parts was not done until the patent (assuming no prior art, of course). So whether or not the idea in the patent is an obvious jump is moot. The only thing that matters is that the idea in the patent had not been carried out previously--thus the interest in searching for prior art.
But, unfortunately for your argument, you two do not make up the whole of the public, so a unilateral decision by one in the public does not stand for the public as a whole.
I'm currently a senior in computer science here. I graduate in less than a month! But I have a job in the area, so I'm going to actually stay in town. :)
:)
If you'd like to email me, just email KyleJ61782@yahoo.com
Kyle
Before repeating quotes you have heard, what you might want to do is check with someone who actually can read the Greek of that passage you quote from John 19:30. So here's how the NIV translates verse 30:
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
Here's the actual Greek:
"Hote oun elaben to oxos ho Iêsous eipen, Tetelestai, kai klinas tên kephalên paredôken to pneuma."
And here's a word for word translation of the Koine:
"When therefore he took the sour wine the Jesus said, It has finished, and bowing the head he gave up the spirit."
A more fluid, still literal, English translation would yield the following:
"Therefore, when he took the sour wine Jesus said, "It is finished," and bowing his head he gave up his spirit."
For your information, let me fully parse the word and account for why it is the way it is. The word translated into, "It is finished," tetelestai, is a perfect tense middle/passive voice (though in this case it must be passive since there's no object implied or otherwise), third person singular, indicative mood from the verb teleô. The verb teleô has many meanings, so here's a list from the Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon: "I. (1) to complete, fulfill, accomplish: generally, to perform, execute, Lat. perficere -- Pass. to be completed, fulfilled, accomplished: to come to pass, happen; (2) to make perfect, bring to maturity; (3) to bring to an end, finish, end: in Pass. to come to one's end; (4) sometimes intr. like teleutoô, to come to an end, be fulfilled, turn out. II. (1) to pay one's dues or taxes, to pay as tax, duty, due: generally to lay out, spend; (2) to be rated or assessed, to belong to, be classed among. III. to consecrate, initiate, Pass. to have oneself initiated." So yes, it *can* mean "the debt is paid," but I would argue against that for several reasons. First of all, in the account, Jesus is dying and his ministry up to his death is finished. Most logically it seems that his work on the earth before death is being referred to here. Secondly, the words "the debt" do not appear in the Greek text, so the Greek would have to be rendered "It is paid," not "the debt is paid," to be completely literal. Furthermore within the immediately surrounding context, no mention is made of debt. Finally, from a strictly Christian theological perspective, the debt had not been paid by that point, since Jesus had not suffered the pain of death, the subsequent descent into hell, and his resulting resurrection.
One other point to be made would be that it is relatively difficult to translate the Greek perfect into English, since their perfect tense is said with the viewpoint of the speaker now speaking about the ramifications of an action having occurred in the past. So a verb in the perfect tense does *not* refer to the past action, but actually to the present state/consequences. For example, take the verb lambanô, which means "I take." In the aorist, elabon, it means "I took." However, the perfect, eilêpha, can mean "I have taken" or just simply "I have" since if you have taken something, speaking about the current state now, you actually have it in your posession.
So feel free to take what I've said as you will. I can assure you, though, that the translation "it is finished" is at least as valid as "the debt is paid" if not a more accepted translation of what Jesus says.
By the way, all this comes by means of analysis from myself, a second year Greek student at the University of Illinois, so you could probably ask most people who know Greek and they could confirm what I have written here.
God bless,
Kyle Johnson
Actually, though, he was correct since in the latest forms of TCP found in kernels today (just check out the Linux source code...), ACKs are already used as probes to determine congestion *and* RTT for throughput purposes. With advancements like TCP Reno, and newer, rarely does TCP ever go into a full timeout, or even hit a point where multiplicative decrease is actually needed, more often just additive decrease is required to maintain efficient congestion control.
But you are correct, slow start is anything but. It certainly is much better than just flooding the network right off the bat, however yes, it does have an exponential start. The major disadvantage of slow start is the fact that it starts from one segment onward, which is obviously worse than just halving the window.
The problem with your reasoning, though, is that when an AC signal is passed through the circuit, impedance appears to be resistance anyways, so your argument is moot. However, it is true, if there are no inductors in the circuit, only capacitors (which I'd have an incredibly hard time believing), then you'd have to obtain a really, really high frequency to decrease impedence low enough to allow a discharge of the capacitors high enough to produce a 250W spike. The possibility of something like that happening within the innards of those speakers is for all intents and purposes impossible.
It's nice to know that those who are the most derogatorily vociferous are those who don't even use User IDs.
The energy companies? How about the oncologists 10 years down the road?!
At least they don't share bugs with the other 95% of the computers out there...
Kyle
While it's true that they don't give off x-rays and gamma rays, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the fabric of space-time has particles and their corresponding anti-particles pop into and out of existence (mostly due to the vacuum energy of space). So, if one of these pairs happens to occur right on the event horizon, one particle could effectively be shot out away from it, while the other particle would fall into the hole. However, that particle shot into the hole, would in turn annihilate with some matter in the black hole, thus depleting the black hole of mass and thereby following the law of conservation of mass-energy.
While it may be a problem in some instances to have such a law allowing due process, it does protect the rights of the accused. What's this with guilty until proven innocent?! Remember, the laws of the land were made with the idea that the laws would be applied equally and fairly across all individuals, whether accused or not. Now, that's not to say that the government doesn't pander to corporate interests. What it does mean is that for those cases where corporate interests aren't at stake, the law is quite fair. Unfortunately, personal interests have been all too quickly forgotten in light of corporate money.
Kyle
...who's to force them to actually go to Australia to defend themselves? How can Australian law be applied to a US based company?
:)
Just another thing to convince me that anarchy is the only way...
Kyle
And had you been around at the time, you would have found that everyone was anti-Semetic. That's not to say that his views were justified, but to say that they weren't necessarily out of line with everyone else. Remember, people's opinions are shaped by the society around them.
Look how far anti-Semitism carried in history. Even in 1939 at the beginning of the second world war there were still many, many anti-Semites - even in the United States! That he was an anti-Semite is a non-issue. Had you been born then, you would most likely have been one too.
And that he was anti-Catholic? Not surprising either. Look at Ireland: Protestants and Catholics are fighting each other. Why (well, originally)? Because they have (and had) different beliefs. It's also quite understanding that a relatively new faction that split off from the Church at the time hated where it came from. After all, isn't that why it split in the first place? Protestants are just that: protesting Catholocism, thereby being anti-Catholic. They differ on fundamental Christian doctrines.
I don't in any way subscribe to anti-Catholocism (except that maybe because I'm Protestant, and even then not in a bigoted manner) or anti-Semitism. It's just that at the time of Newton, such things were commonplace, and so really have no bearing on whether or not he is "a stink" in the room or not. Actually taking a look at the historical surroundings of famous figures sheds light onto their beliefs. It just forces us to realize that these men were extraordinary in their discoveries, not their convictions.
KyleBut we also have the choice to update open source clients so that we can continue using them instead of the AOL endorsed client. IANAL but I don't believe that AOL can legally block non-AOL clients from accessing AIM if the clients are capable. All that AOL can do is try to keep ahead of the independent clients to prevent them from catching up.
Kyle
Unfortunately, the stability of Novell does no good for you if your servers go down as is the case with the servers that the company that I work for uses.
Oh well, we do the best we can...
KyleThank you for the correction. I should have chosen a different word than "invented." However, that doesn't change the fact that Newton (and Leibniz, etc.) made calculus more available to people precisely because they collected all that information. Without that vision, as you stated, Einstein and others couldn't have done what they did nearly as easily (not to say that what they did was by any means easy... :).
KyleKyle
Yes, everything is built incrementally, but what about those increments that change everything? That's probably what he means.
After all, think about the invention of calculus. This has made physics possible, thus making many things that we take for granted possible (computers, etc.). Now, one could say that calculus is just a logical progression from algebra. However, think about the thought processes and the jumps that had to be made just to make that logical progression possible.
It's for this exact reason that we really can't see the really big innovations until they actually hit us. And that's also the reason why they don't happen very often. Very few people are actually creative enough to think beyond what society currently has.
KyleKyle
True, but at least it shows greater interest than if you spam a *congressman*.
BTW, political correctness is the bane of our society.
KyleKyle
> >Please, don't make me come find you and vomit in your face. "Alot" is not a word. It's "A lot." Definite article "A", adjective "lot." Two words.
>As long as you're being all holier-than-thou about grammar, why not try looking up "lot" and discovering that it's a noun, not an adjective.
And the even funnier thing is that "A" isn't even a definite article. It's the indefinite article. :)
I don't want to sound like a flame, because this certainly isn't meant to be one.
I guess that I really don't agree with your putting conservation ahead of favoring human life. After all, Genesis 1:27 does say that we're made in God's image, so who are we to destroy that?
Going on with creation also has the command from God in Genesis 1:28a, "Be fruitful and increase in number." Supporting abortion doesn't seem to support this command from God.
One could also argue the point that our human bodies are temples of God as 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 and 2 Corinthians 6:16 states. Who are we to destroy these temples?
I guess that from my point of view, I believe that human life is way more important than natural conservation will ever be (unless without conservation humans would die, which doesn't seem to be imminent here). As such, I choose G.W. Bush because he aligns himself with this ideal also.
Just some food for thought.
Kyle Johnson
"We've upped our standards, now up yours!"