With all their cash, they can catch up in a big hurry. Also, with their market position they can bide their time. How long did it take NT/2000/XP to become somewhat respectable?
So government enforcing a contract is a regulation? A regulation, as I think of it, tells you what to sell or how much of something you can sell. Enforcing honesty in contracts is one of the basic and necessary functions of government.
Are you being serious here? Fraud and dishonesty are not "allowed" in a free market systems. The reason democracy and free markets go hand in hand is because free markets require the rule of law and the protections of contracts the rule of law ensures.
If you want to see corruption go to a dictatorship or communist government. You could have a psudo-capitalist system in a dictatorship but it would be a far cry from a free market which involved the free exchange of goods and services.
Maybe a lot of patent holders know IBM, or other companies holding a lot of patents and have an interest in Linux, could fight fire with fire.
Don't Worry About Accurately Representing Opponent
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
People who have a problem with evolution don't have a problem with mutation. They have a problem with mutations creating new things. A fly becoming a lizard or something like that (I know that is a crass simplification). Viruses becoming viruses is not an issue for them.
That's what subpoenas are for. A prosecutor or investigator has cause. A judge approves. Your privacy gets invaded. Privacy rights don't trump hiding bodies in your basement.
You missed my point. ID is a broad movement which tries to find evidence of design. That is not the same thing as trying to understand science in terms of Genesis chapter 1. The Vatican seems to be reacting to a certain type of Creationism.
But since most people can't seem to accurately represent the ID movement, I can understand the Vatican's reacting to strawmen.
And the merits or faults with ID theory aren't established by anyone any more than in Galileo's day.
There is a difference between saying Genesis Chapter 1 is not trying to give a detailed scientific explanation and saying the point of Jesus' story was about leading and not magic. No, the people who knew Jesus believed he performed miracles. They claimed to see him risen from the dead. And they were writing those books to relate what they saw and heard. And then went out and died for what they were talking about.
Their comments are about the intent behind Gen. 1. ID proponents aren't going for a model based on a certain reading of Gen. chapter 1. In other words, they are arguing against straw men.
This article is about how the Vatican thinks Genesis 1 was intended to be taken. I agree as a wacky "fundamentalist" (cue spooky music) that Gen. 1 is not meant to be a science textbook and is not written as such (although there may be general points that apply to science), what does this have to do with Intelligent Design as I said in my post above.
Intelligent Design isn't about having a set interpretation of Gen. 1 and forcing it into science. There are Roman Catholic IDers, agnostic IDers (few, I admit), etc., etc.
So I think that the Vatican is reacting to newspapers articles about ID instead of ID.
So, yes, Gen. chapter 1 is not a science textbook and is trying to make general points. Bully for them. My socks are white.
back in the day, they said McCain-Feingold would be found unconstitutional because it clearly limited speech. That's why many politicians voted for it. (besides the fact that campaign finance reform is favorable to incumbants) Supreme Court was fine with by a 5-4 vote or so. I'm not going to rest on the Supreme Court to protect my freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
With all their cash, they can catch up in a big hurry. Also, with their market position they can bide their time. How long did it take NT/2000/XP to become somewhat respectable?
It's always the coverup that gets you, not the original crime. Martha Stewart, Richard Nixon...
So government enforcing a contract is a regulation? A regulation, as I think of it, tells you what to sell or how much of something you can sell. Enforcing honesty in contracts is one of the basic and necessary functions of government.
Laws against fraud protect the freedoms of those who are buying. You have no right to defraud somebody. Sell what you want. Just be upfront about it.
Are you being serious here? Fraud and dishonesty are not "allowed" in a free market systems. The reason democracy and free markets go hand in hand is because free markets require the rule of law and the protections of contracts the rule of law ensures.
If you want to see corruption go to a dictatorship or communist government. You could have a psudo-capitalist system in a dictatorship but it would be a far cry from a free market which involved the free exchange of goods and services.
Hate to break the news, but corruption and immoral behavior exists in all economic systems.
Maybe a lot of patent holders know IBM, or other companies holding a lot of patents and have an interest in Linux, could fight fire with fire.
People who have a problem with evolution don't have a problem with mutation. They have a problem with mutations creating new things. A fly becoming a lizard or something like that (I know that is a crass simplification). Viruses becoming viruses is not an issue for them.
That's what subpoenas are for. A prosecutor or investigator has cause. A judge approves. Your privacy gets invaded. Privacy rights don't trump hiding bodies in your basement.
That's a good explanation of your beliefs. Don't have time to comment on it right now but I appreciate it.
Given the assumptions of the atheistic worldview, there is no reason to have any sense of outrage, moral or otherwise. All is vanity.
Feel free to try. There's a difference between agreeing and understanding.
The mere fact that you care is inconsistent with your worldview.
Your comments show me how there are few to no consistent atheists. If God doesn't exist, who cares?
I'm really wondering if this is a serious comment. Trying to interact with you is force?
Let's cut down on the hyperbole.
Yes, because it violates the laws of non-contradiction. There are no distinctions? So I've reached Nirvana? err, no...
While Gen. 1 is congruent with design, design doesn't necessitate Gen. 1.
You missed my point. ID is a broad movement which tries to find evidence of design. That is not the same thing as trying to understand science in terms of Genesis chapter 1. The Vatican seems to be reacting to a certain type of Creationism.
But since most people can't seem to accurately represent the ID movement, I can understand the Vatican's reacting to strawmen.
And the merits or faults with ID theory aren't established by anyone any more than in Galileo's day.
There is a difference between saying Genesis Chapter 1 is not trying to give a detailed scientific explanation and saying the point of Jesus' story was about leading and not magic. No, the people who knew Jesus believed he performed miracles. They claimed to see him risen from the dead. And they were writing those books to relate what they saw and heard. And then went out and died for what they were talking about.
Their comments are about the intent behind Gen. 1. ID proponents aren't going for a model based on a certain reading of Gen. chapter 1. In other words, they are arguing against straw men.
This article is about how the Vatican thinks Genesis 1 was intended to be taken. I agree as a wacky "fundamentalist" (cue spooky music) that Gen. 1 is not meant to be a science textbook and is not written as such (although there may be general points that apply to science), what does this have to do with Intelligent Design as I said in my post above.
Intelligent Design isn't about having a set interpretation of Gen. 1 and forcing it into science. There are Roman Catholic IDers, agnostic IDers (few, I admit), etc., etc.
So I think that the Vatican is reacting to newspapers articles about ID instead of ID.
So, yes, Gen. chapter 1 is not a science textbook and is trying to make general points. Bully for them. My socks are white.
who are involved or receptive to the message of the Intelligent Design movement...that would make this article pertinent how?
back in the day, they said McCain-Feingold would be found unconstitutional because it clearly limited speech. That's why many politicians voted for it. (besides the fact that campaign finance reform is favorable to incumbants) Supreme Court was fine with by a 5-4 vote or so. I'm not going to rest on the Supreme Court to protect my freedom of speech.
Campaign finance reform is at the heart of this. When you try to take the money out of politics, free speech gets hurt.
A better solution would be to get the politics out of money.
Dark Lord Imperial Stout comes directly to mind.
Adding coffee to beer is nothing new. Beer involves grain. This is something altogether different.
Mead is fermented honey. Beer is fermented grains (with other stuff added like fruit, honey or coffee). Wine is fermented grapes/fruit.
Fermented coffee would be?