Which is true, the vast majority of the time. The Pope is only considered infallable when claiming ex cathedra which is almost exclusively used for the canonization of saints. There are fewer than 15 acknowledged papal statements that are considered ex cathedra and consequently infallable. It was a rhetorical question made from a flawed premise that ended at the right conclusion. That's of course discarding any sort of argument against papal infallibility made from within the Catholic Church or other Christian faiths.
However, as juancn stated, the philosophy of the church and faith is a deeply complicated matter that a few simple sentence cannot do justice. Terms rarely as blanket statements and are usually far more nuanced than people realize. Religious orders themselves have influenced things in various ways. The Jesuits have always been an interesting order to follow and it certainly doesn't hurt that Pope Francis is the first Jesuit elected to the Papacy.
I probably understand Christianity's structure better than most Christians and I don't consider myself a Christian but I probably don't understand it better than most priests or pastors who have dedicated their lives to studying the scripture.
I believe that most people with a rabid hatred of Christianity are driven to it by some negative experience involving a person acting as a Christian. I hold this belief because the arguments I see them consistently making do not make any sense if you've studied the structure of Christianity. They are frequently wrong and if you press them on it they tend to fall back towards it being the practitioners.
The following is written as a non-Christian who has studied and attempted to understand Christianity.
If all you want is to be a Christian then all you need is the New Testament. The Old Testament is for use in the study of Christianity for explaining the old order, explaining God, and providing the prophecies of the Messiah's coming.
Generally speaking, I disregard any arguments about Christians as soon as people start bringing up the Old Testament. They're latching on to what they believe are inconsistencies because they don't understand how the faith is structured. It's only useful as an argument against specific Christians who have previously invoked the Old Testament and I don't consider "The Bible says..." to be invoking the Old Testament.
Papal infallibility is very rarely invoked outside of the canonization of saints. There's a handful that invoke infallibility with 11 officially recognized, through the entire existance of the church, but only the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary are well known. There are a set of conditions by which a statement by a Pope can be declared infallible. In general, unless the Pope says that it must be done by the whole church it's not considered infallible.
Deadpan is a form of comic delivery in which humor is presented without a change in emotion or body language. It is usually spoken in a casual, monotone, or cantankerous voice, and expresses a calm, sincere, or grave demeanor, often in spite of the ridiculousness of the subject matter.
If the Pope is (according to the Catholic Church) the infallible representative of God on this earth, then logically now, how can two popes say two different things?
If you want to argue about papal infallibility it's probably wise that you understand papal infallibility and ex cathedra before uttering idiotic statements like what I quoted.
$15/hr minimum wage simply drove the innovation. It became very profitable to use the kiosk over the human element. If it is being deployed elsewhere then the minimum wage is still more expensive than the kiosks but cost savings weren't very high or the kiosks will be more expensive but they're anticipating greater customer satisfaction from having the kiosks over humans.
If you're going to be pedantic us proper terms. Tanks are armored fighting vehicles. The specific vehicle in the article is an infantry fighting vehicle which is also an armored fighting vehicle. Armored fighting vehicles basically include anything that is motorized and used in combat so tanks, IFVs, APCs, armored cars, self-propelled artillery, and others.
A crew of 6 for an IFV is bizzare. 3 is usually sufficient (commander, driver, gunner) but they contain room for usually 6 soldiers as well for 9 men in the vehicle.
IFV vs APC is a function of the purpose of the armament on the vehicle. For something to be classed as an IFV is must have a 20mm armament and its armament must be used in a direct fire support role. APCs are unarmed or have armament for self-defense.
A commercial vehicle is any vehicle owned by company or used to transport passengers. The limitations only apply to vehicles with a GVW over 10,000 lbs. BNSF, Union Pacific, and Norfolk Sourthern all have hundred of commercial vehicles in their fleet but only a fraction of that number require log books. Every pickup truck you see with their logo is a commercial vehicle that probably has a GVW between 9,000 and 9,500.
Little to no good? Incorrect. It actually does harm by increasing the exposure risk. Passenger densities have increased when attempting to get into terminals which makes the TSA screening lines the second most densly packed area after the planes themselves. Additionally, having replaced the old metal-detector lines has caused the amount of wait time to increase which means that travellers are now spending even more time in the 2nd most densely packed region.
But the CDC needs to handle the message to the public and proper guidance of control and treatment procedures; in this case they made enough mistakes that it muddled the issue, confusing the populace and creating mistrust and fear when trust and faith in the medical community is exactly what needs to happen right now.
Muddied the issue is an understatement. When Tom Frieden goes out and says, "you cannot get ebola from travelling on public transportation," and then within 30 seconds says, "people with ebola shouldn't use public transportation to avoid infecting others," you have a big fucking problem with communication and message. I get what he was trying to say but the message is self-contradictory on the surface and that's what matters to most people that are hearing it.
You didn't read the summary or the article as the line...
During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day.
Least active female versus most active male. The comparison isn't useful as you need comparable activity levels in order to generate comparable data. Comparing least active female against most active male is dishonest spin meant to feed an agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
"I know ice sculpting and hedge art."
Sounds like a character for use in a gay porno.
$5m might be a sound starting point.
Which is true, the vast majority of the time. The Pope is only considered infallable when claiming ex cathedra which is almost exclusively used for the canonization of saints. There are fewer than 15 acknowledged papal statements that are considered ex cathedra and consequently infallable. It was a rhetorical question made from a flawed premise that ended at the right conclusion. That's of course discarding any sort of argument against papal infallibility made from within the Catholic Church or other Christian faiths.
However, as juancn stated, the philosophy of the church and faith is a deeply complicated matter that a few simple sentence cannot do justice. Terms rarely as blanket statements and are usually far more nuanced than people realize. Religious orders themselves have influenced things in various ways. The Jesuits have always been an interesting order to follow and it certainly doesn't hurt that Pope Francis is the first Jesuit elected to the Papacy.
I probably understand Christianity's structure better than most Christians and I don't consider myself a Christian but I probably don't understand it better than most priests or pastors who have dedicated their lives to studying the scripture.
I believe that most people with a rabid hatred of Christianity are driven to it by some negative experience involving a person acting as a Christian. I hold this belief because the arguments I see them consistently making do not make any sense if you've studied the structure of Christianity. They are frequently wrong and if you press them on it they tend to fall back towards it being the practitioners.
The following is written as a non-Christian who has studied and attempted to understand Christianity.
If all you want is to be a Christian then all you need is the New Testament. The Old Testament is for use in the study of Christianity for explaining the old order, explaining God, and providing the prophecies of the Messiah's coming.
Generally speaking, I disregard any arguments about Christians as soon as people start bringing up the Old Testament. They're latching on to what they believe are inconsistencies because they don't understand how the faith is structured. It's only useful as an argument against specific Christians who have previously invoked the Old Testament and I don't consider "The Bible says..." to be invoking the Old Testament.
The Jesuits are pretty awesome.
Papal infallibility is very rarely invoked outside of the canonization of saints. There's a handful that invoke infallibility with 11 officially recognized, through the entire existance of the church, but only the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary are well known. There are a set of conditions by which a statement by a Pope can be declared infallible. In general, unless the Pope says that it must be done by the whole church it's not considered infallible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Deadpan is a form of comic delivery in which humor is presented without a change in emotion or body language. It is usually spoken in a casual, monotone, or cantankerous voice, and expresses a calm, sincere, or grave demeanor, often in spite of the ridiculousness of the subject matter.
If the Pope is (according to the Catholic Church) the infallible representative of God on this earth, then logically now, how can two popes say two different things?
If you want to argue about papal infallibility it's probably wise that you understand papal infallibility and ex cathedra before uttering idiotic statements like what I quoted.
Doesn't feature Jack Black, however if you us John Candy as a stand in for Jack Black it works.
The real pro investors knew to pull out in time.
They also tend to rely on condoms and other contraceptives rather than relying on knowing when to pull out in time.
Luxembourg isn't involved? How queer.
/deadpan
Yes.
If they're re-using FTDI's manufacturer ID, then they're counterfeit.
No, at most it is a trademark violation.
Counterfeit goods are trademark violations.
$15/hr minimum wage simply drove the innovation. It became very profitable to use the kiosk over the human element. If it is being deployed elsewhere then the minimum wage is still more expensive than the kiosks but cost savings weren't very high or the kiosks will be more expensive but they're anticipating greater customer satisfaction from having the kiosks over humans.
If you're going to be pedantic us proper terms. Tanks are armored fighting vehicles. The specific vehicle in the article is an infantry fighting vehicle which is also an armored fighting vehicle. Armored fighting vehicles basically include anything that is motorized and used in combat so tanks, IFVs, APCs, armored cars, self-propelled artillery, and others.
A crew of 6 for an IFV is bizzare. 3 is usually sufficient (commander, driver, gunner) but they contain room for usually 6 soldiers as well for 9 men in the vehicle.
IFV vs APC is a function of the purpose of the armament on the vehicle. For something to be classed as an IFV is must have a 20mm armament and its armament must be used in a direct fire support role. APCs are unarmed or have armament for self-defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
A commercial vehicle is any vehicle owned by company or used to transport passengers. The limitations only apply to vehicles with a GVW over 10,000 lbs. BNSF, Union Pacific, and Norfolk Sourthern all have hundred of commercial vehicles in their fleet but only a fraction of that number require log books. Every pickup truck you see with their logo is a commercial vehicle that probably has a GVW between 9,000 and 9,500.
Little to no good? Incorrect. It actually does harm by increasing the exposure risk. Passenger densities have increased when attempting to get into terminals which makes the TSA screening lines the second most densly packed area after the planes themselves. Additionally, having replaced the old metal-detector lines has caused the amount of wait time to increase which means that travellers are now spending even more time in the 2nd most densely packed region.
But the CDC needs to handle the message to the public and proper guidance of control and treatment procedures; in this case they made enough mistakes that it muddled the issue, confusing the populace and creating mistrust and fear when trust and faith in the medical community is exactly what needs to happen right now.
Muddied the issue is an understatement. When Tom Frieden goes out and says, "you cannot get ebola from travelling on public transportation," and then within 30 seconds says, "people with ebola shouldn't use public transportation to avoid infecting others," you have a big fucking problem with communication and message. I get what he was trying to say but the message is self-contradictory on the surface and that's what matters to most people that are hearing it.
You didn't read the summary or the article as the line...
During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day.
Was in both places.
Assemble pedants! Which is it?
Least active female versus most active male. The comparison isn't useful as you need comparable activity levels in order to generate comparable data. Comparing least active female against most active male is dishonest spin meant to feed an agenda.
Slashdot hates dealerships because Tesla Motors.