Civil law does loosen the restrictions on ex post facto, but it doesn't eliminate it completely. If applied retroactively, this would clearly be a law aimed at punishing a specific individual who had no reasonable expectation at the time he got the patent that the law would be changed to invalidate it. Regardless of whether this is a legitimate patent (it's not 100% clear from the article that it isn't), the people who own the patent have clearly spent a lot of money getting and defending it. I don't think the courts would look fondly on Congress suddenly yanking it out from under them with no compensation (nor, frankly, should they).
I'm all for patent change, but even if they pass it, it won't help this case.
You can't retroactively change the laws. The laws may be lousy, but the fact is that these people got their patent legally under the current system. Now that they've got it, Congress can't all of a sudden decide they don't like the law and tell them, "well, on second thought maybe you can't have this patent." Any change would only apply to new patents. If they tried to apply it retroactively, the courts would shoot it down in a heartbeat.
On the other hand, maybe a billion-dollar bailout will turn some heads and lead to some real reform down the road. This is $1B that our Congress-Critters can't spend on their own pet projects, and that's a language that they can all understand.
Actually, the Christian position is not that the serial rapist is more deserving than the philanthropist. Rather, the Christian position is that no one, no matter how good they are, is free from all evil (everyone does bad things, just some worse than others) and therefore no one is deserving of heaven. However, by the simple act of asking for forgiveness for their sins, God will forgive them and allow them into heaven regardless of the severity of the sins they've committed during their life.
As to whether Gandhi is going to heaven or hell, a true Christian understands that the decision lies with God and it's not our place to speculate.
From a legal standpoint, I think they are in a good position to make the argument that they "don't know" of the infringement (of course IANAL). Sure, they know that people are using YouTube to post infringing videos, and since they're smart people, I'm sure they're equally aware that there are big-ticket items that get posted such as "The Daily Show". They don't, however, have specific knowledge at the time the video is uploaded that it is an infringing video, since they don't have a human being who sits and watches videos when they are uploaded nor is there a practical way of automatically vetting videos to check for copyright infringement. Sure, they could do some sort of pattern matching against the name and/or description of the video but that would be far from an effective or comprehensive way to keep copyrighted videos off of YouTube. How would they know that something that mentions "The Daily Show" is really an infringing video? It could just as easily be some guy in a basement with a web cam doing a review of last night's episode. And the Daily Show is far from the only infringing video that gets uploaded. No, I think that YouTube has a really good case to make that they are not infringing (B) because they don't in fact have the technical ability to control posting of infringing videos in any practical way other than by reacting to reports from external sources.
If you read TFA, you'll find that it doesn't say anything about comments in errno.h being copied. In fact, it doesn't even mention errno.h. Unless I missed something, the only reference to errno.h is in talking about the #define for EPERM. There aren't many ways to #define EPERM, so if there is similarity between the definition that SCO claims to own and the version that exists in errno.h, I think any reasonable person could understand how that could happen without Linus having copy-pasted the file.
I don't see anything here that implies Linus Torvald's credibility has been in the least bit impugned, and I think more people need to stand up and say that. This is exactly how rumors get started that can seriously impact an honest person's credibility, and all because of a poorly worded Slashdot description (that itself doesn't even question Linus' credibility).
And, by the way, I realize that Catholic is a subset of Christian, but when I say Christian I'm talking about the dangerous fundamentalist born-again movement sweeping the United States (Sweeping it right into the shitter)
Then say "fundamentalist Christian". The extreme fundamentalist Christian viewpoint that you're referring to is not only itself a subset of Christianity, but a much smaller subset than Catholicism. There are lots of Christians who aren't Catholic and aren't fundamentalist (have you ever met a Presbyterian?). Additionally, of those who do fall into the more fundamentalist, conservative Christian category, the majority are not of the extreme fundamentalist viewpoint that you are talking about. Many of them are in fact rational, scientific-minded people who don't "break their brain" reconciling their beliefs with the world around them. You can take the bible to be the unerring word of God without assuming that whatever English translation you're reading needs to be taken 100% literally. In fact, I even know a few conservative Christians that believe pretty strongly in evolution.
Actually, in a way he's right. There is a mechanism in Article V of the U.S. Constitution that allows for 2/3 of the states to call for a constitutional convention that would have the power to throw out the entire constitution and rewrite it from the ground up. Then, upon ratification by 3/4 of the states it would become law.
In fact, it's exactly that mechanism that got us our current constitution. A constitutional convention was called to fix the problems in the Articles of Confederation (the precursor to our current constitution) and the convention attendees decided to just throw the whole thing out and start over again.
Come on, there's no way this frog could have eaten a fly. It was only.4 inches long. Haven't you ever seen a movie? The bugs were all the size of Volkswagens back then. If anything, the fly would be eating the frog.
If you have people skills, you can get along with people anywhere. It doesn't take skill to get along with people who think just like you.
Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to live amongst people who think similar to you, just saying that you might find yourself well-served by honing your people skills in an area where it really is a challenge to do.
There certainly are countries where foreigners don't have rights, but in the U.S. legal foreign immigrants have long been held to enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else (except where those rights are specifically limited to citizens, such as running for elected office). Heck, even Dubya hasn't pushed the idea of foreigners arrested within the borders of the U.S. being shipped off to Cuba or denied trial.
You may not feel that foreigners should be granted the same rights, but legally they are, and I think any politician is going to have a very hard time justifying (and getting passed) the forced implantation of a tracking device in legal immigrants or guest workers. And if he did, I just don't think the courts would uphold it, any more than they would uphold the bugging of all immigrant phones without reasonable cause or random searches of immigrant homes.
What?? There is no law in the US that requires a company to do business with everyone who shows up. The only restriction is that you can't discriminate based on a fairly narrow set up criteria, such as race or gender (and even those have exceptions). If Google chose to do business with white pirates, but refused African-American pirates, then they might have a problem. Otherwise they're free to do business with whomever they choose.
Well here's a quick, very unscientific, estimation:
A quick look at my Firefox history (which stores 9 days of info) shows that it's a little under 1 meg in size. That means that over a month I'd generate 3 megs of history. However, since most web page hits actually result in dozens of actual HTTP requests and most of my browsing is to pages I've already visited, it's reasonable to say that a complete log of my browsing would be at least 10x that, so let's say 30MB/month, or 360MB/year.
My email (which goes back 3.5 years) is about 1GB, but I'd say it's safe to assume that between spam and messages that I didn't need, I've only kept 1% of the email I've received in that time, so 100GB/3.5years would give us about 30GB/year.
I don't keep logs of my instant messaging, but let's just round up to an even 50GB/year for the whole thing. Of course, I'm probably an atypically heavy user of the internet, so for the sake of discussion let's say that the average user is really only 10% of that, or 5GB/year (which is probably very low).
5GB/year * 200Million U.S. internet users is 953 Petabytes of generated data every year. At a current storage cost of about $4M/petabyte, ISPs would (under this law) have to bear a combined total of almost $4 billion / year just to buy storage space for all of this data (which doesn't even begin to take into account the physical space to store the storage servers, the people to run them, the electricity to run them, the backups, etc., etc.).
Conclusion: This is completely infeasible, regardless of whether the law is passed. After all of the costs are factored in, you'd probably end up seeing a doubling (if not more) in the cost of Internet access just to support this.
Let's wait until we're in the middle of the problem before we look at fixing it? That's like saying don't fireproof your house until it's on fire.
If we could look at the legislation being proposed and say that any unintended side effects will be outweighed by the abuses it aims to prevent, then I'd be all for it. There is no question in my mind that ISPs should not be throttling the bandwidth of companies that don't pay them protection money. However these kinds of laws always have unintended consequences and once in place may be extremely hard to remove. As it stands now, the system is working, and it's rarely a smart idea to fix something that isn't broken. Also, it's almost always easier to get a law made than to get one unmade. If the ISPs were to start abusing their power, don't think for a second that CNN, Google, and Microsoft wouldn't throw plenty of lobbying dollars into the pot to correct the problem. On the other hand, if the law is passed and we find that it actually has the effect of preventing VOIP and streamed video from functioning properly, there may not be an entity big enough to lobby for the law's repeal (which would take more effort than getting it passed anyway---lawmakers don't like to admit they were wrong).
Without net neutrality Slashdot's parent company could have blocked any attempts by Digg to prosper. Microsoft could have blocked Google. YouTube wouldn't have amounted to much compared to Google Video. Net Neutrality helps great ideas become reality. We would never even know about many of the little startups that have become the great sites that they are today.
Yet all of those things happened without the laws that are currently being proposed. I'm with everyone else here in my belief that ISPs shouldn't be able to extort money out of entities on the internet in order to provide them with full bandwidth, but I have serious reservations about instituting a new set of laws (which always have unintended consequences) to protect against a problem that isn't occurring. If the ISPs really do start hitting up Google or CNN for money to give them the same bandwidth everyone else gets, then I'll start thinking that we need a new law (of course, as another poster pointed out, that would likely already be illegal---in the U.S. at least---under existing common carrier and racketeering laws).
In order for his money-market fund to become insolvent, Yahoo, Google, Nike, and Coca Cola would have to be fined the value of every public stock simultaneously. This laughably unlikely now, but it would be even less likely to happen since every single share holder faces a similar risk and the controlling interest might face an even larger risk.
Just like it was laughably unlikely that Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Anderson would simultaneously collapse?
The problem is that in reality the majority of shareholders have little or no control over the day-to-day operations of a company. Moreover, they almost never have any idea that wrongdoing is occurring until it's too late. With the exception of those companies that have majority control vested in just a couple of people, most shareholders have little to no access to the actual operations of the company, and let's face it, illegal or unethical practices don't get printed in the quarterly reports.
Anyway, most illegal actions by corporate officers are carried out to benefit the corporate officers, not the corporation. In fact, most of the incidents that I can think of were done to the direct detriment of the corporation and the stockholders. In the real world, most people aren't willing to risk jail for someone else, and certainly not for a bunch of someones they've never met. Profitable companies don't fire their CEOs because the profits could have been higher if the company had acted unethically, and if the CEO is illegally covering up or propping up an unprofitable company with illegal or unethical dealings it's to save himself from the shareholders, so it doesn't really make sense to punish the shareholders when his crime against the shareholders is discovered, does it?
Additionally, corporate officers only open themselves up to personal liability from a shareholder suit in cases of gross negligence of their fiduciary duty. Really, unless the officer personally profited from an action that had a negative impact on the company he was charged with running (and he had reasonable reason to know that would be the outcome), it's highly unlikely that the shareholders would bring suit against him and even less likely that they would win if they did. Of course, the shareholders could always fire him, which is really what most of these guys are worried about.
The great-grandparent is right that they need to grow a pair, though. It's unlikely that a CEO running a profitable company would get fired because he failed to pursue even more profits at the expense of Chinese human rights. The truth of the matter is that most people in the U.S. support human rights and would not punish someone for standing up for them. Of course, the nature of people in big-company CEO positions being what they are (they're generally not risk-takers) laws like this one that help give CEOs the balls to do the right thing are indeed a positive step. And the CEOs are supporting the laws because for the most part they're decent freedom-loving people just like you and me and would like to do the right thing---they're just not willing to risk their country-club memberships and vacations in the south of France to do it.
So when Joe Sixpack's pension becomes insolvent because the money-market fund it had invested in is forced to liquidate all of its stock in Yahoo, Google, Nike, and Coca Cola, that would just be a good lesson?
The fact is, our financial system depends on an amoral corporate structure (which is different from an immoral structure). Yes, we could create a new system that tries to be built on moral responsibility on the part of investors, but history has shown that such a system is less stable and less likely to lead to an overall increase in wealth because it severely reduces the incentives for people to take risks with their money. For example, I might be more than willing to invest $10,000 in a startup company because I can afford to lose that much money and think the risk is worth the potential reward. However, I'm not going to invest $10,000 if it would expose all of my assets to potential loss. Similarly, I'm even less likely to invest that $10,000 in a more established corporation where I may be exposing myself to massive loss for an expected return of much less.
It is much better to have an amoral structure on the money supply end of things, and then impose an appropriate level of ethics and morality on the corporation through laws that restrict what the company is allowed to do (thereby freeing the corporate officers from worry that they'll be punished by the shareholders for "doing the right thing", which is what the majority of them would like to do anyway).
You're assuming that the enemy will never develop the technology to scan somebody using one of the RFID readers in order to find out if one is present.
Iran. We're just not willing to admit it, because then things would move from the relative calm of Iraq and Afghanistan to military losses more in line with what we saw in Vietnam, Korea, or (God forbid) World War II.
I have a Rolex that was given to me by my grandfather when I graduated from College. He gave one to every one of his grandkids upon graduation, not because he wanted us to be able to show off wealth but because they're a damn good watch and he thought everyone in business needed a damn good watch....and you know what? It really is a damn good watch, and when you think about it it's really not that expensive. Sure, you could buy a $150 Timex every five years and keep time just as well, but $5000 for a handmade precision machine that will appreciate in value and last the rest of my life is hardly a sign of decadent idiocy.
Number of abortion providers murdered in the last 15 years: < 25 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm)
Number of people killed by Muslim suicide bombers on Tuesday: > 60 (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/?page=details&i d=5772&t=Archive)
I'm not going to defend anyone who kills an abortion doctor, or imply that each one wasn't a terrible tragedy. The truth of the matter, however, is that the scale of the two problems just doesn't compare at all.
Also, for what it's worth, I do believe the bible with all of my being, and I have in fact read it. Actually, I've not only read it, I've studied it enough to understand the source of the apparent contradictions, and why they aren't really contradictions. In fact, under real scrutiny the Bible holds up better than just about any other work of comparable size out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Civil law does loosen the restrictions on ex post facto, but it doesn't eliminate it completely. If applied retroactively, this would clearly be a law aimed at punishing a specific individual who had no reasonable expectation at the time he got the patent that the law would be changed to invalidate it. Regardless of whether this is a legitimate patent (it's not 100% clear from the article that it isn't), the people who own the patent have clearly spent a lot of money getting and defending it. I don't think the courts would look fondly on Congress suddenly yanking it out from under them with no compensation (nor, frankly, should they).
I'm all for patent change, but even if they pass it, it won't help this case.
You can't retroactively change the laws. The laws may be lousy, but the fact is that these people got their patent legally under the current system. Now that they've got it, Congress can't all of a sudden decide they don't like the law and tell them, "well, on second thought maybe you can't have this patent." Any change would only apply to new patents. If they tried to apply it retroactively, the courts would shoot it down in a heartbeat.
On the other hand, maybe a billion-dollar bailout will turn some heads and lead to some real reform down the road. This is $1B that our Congress-Critters can't spend on their own pet projects, and that's a language that they can all understand.
Actually, the Christian position is not that the serial rapist is more deserving than the philanthropist. Rather, the Christian position is that no one, no matter how good they are, is free from all evil (everyone does bad things, just some worse than others) and therefore no one is deserving of heaven. However, by the simple act of asking for forgiveness for their sins, God will forgive them and allow them into heaven regardless of the severity of the sins they've committed during their life.
As to whether Gandhi is going to heaven or hell, a true Christian understands that the decision lies with God and it's not our place to speculate.
From a legal standpoint, I think they are in a good position to make the argument that they "don't know" of the infringement (of course IANAL). Sure, they know that people are using YouTube to post infringing videos, and since they're smart people, I'm sure they're equally aware that there are big-ticket items that get posted such as "The Daily Show". They don't, however, have specific knowledge at the time the video is uploaded that it is an infringing video, since they don't have a human being who sits and watches videos when they are uploaded nor is there a practical way of automatically vetting videos to check for copyright infringement. Sure, they could do some sort of pattern matching against the name and/or description of the video but that would be far from an effective or comprehensive way to keep copyrighted videos off of YouTube. How would they know that something that mentions "The Daily Show" is really an infringing video? It could just as easily be some guy in a basement with a web cam doing a review of last night's episode. And the Daily Show is far from the only infringing video that gets uploaded. No, I think that YouTube has a really good case to make that they are not infringing (B) because they don't in fact have the technical ability to control posting of infringing videos in any practical way other than by reacting to reports from external sources.
Yes, I'm quite new to Slashdot, as you can clearly tell from my user id.
If you read TFA, you'll find that it doesn't say anything about comments in errno.h being copied. In fact, it doesn't even mention errno.h. Unless I missed something, the only reference to errno.h is in talking about the #define for EPERM. There aren't many ways to #define EPERM, so if there is similarity between the definition that SCO claims to own and the version that exists in errno.h, I think any reasonable person could understand how that could happen without Linus having copy-pasted the file.
I don't see anything here that implies Linus Torvald's credibility has been in the least bit impugned, and I think more people need to stand up and say that. This is exactly how rumors get started that can seriously impact an honest person's credibility, and all because of a poorly worded Slashdot description (that itself doesn't even question Linus' credibility).
Port 69 is reserved for TFTP, although maybe we could just backronym that to something like "Tends For Teh Pr0n".
Then say "fundamentalist Christian". The extreme fundamentalist Christian viewpoint that you're referring to is not only itself a subset of Christianity, but a much smaller subset than Catholicism. There are lots of Christians who aren't Catholic and aren't fundamentalist (have you ever met a Presbyterian?). Additionally, of those who do fall into the more fundamentalist, conservative Christian category, the majority are not of the extreme fundamentalist viewpoint that you are talking about. Many of them are in fact rational, scientific-minded people who don't "break their brain" reconciling their beliefs with the world around them. You can take the bible to be the unerring word of God without assuming that whatever English translation you're reading needs to be taken 100% literally. In fact, I even know a few conservative Christians that believe pretty strongly in evolution.
Actually, in a way he's right. There is a mechanism in Article V of the U.S. Constitution that allows for 2/3 of the states to call for a constitutional convention that would have the power to throw out the entire constitution and rewrite it from the ground up. Then, upon ratification by 3/4 of the states it would become law.
In fact, it's exactly that mechanism that got us our current constitution. A constitutional convention was called to fix the problems in the Articles of Confederation (the precursor to our current constitution) and the convention attendees decided to just throw the whole thing out and start over again.
Come on, there's no way this frog could have eaten a fly. It was only .4 inches long. Haven't you ever seen a movie? The bugs were all the size of Volkswagens back then. If anything, the fly would be eating the frog.
If you have people skills, you can get along with people anywhere. It doesn't take skill to get along with people who think just like you.
Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to live amongst people who think similar to you, just saying that you might find yourself well-served by honing your people skills in an area where it really is a challenge to do.
There certainly are countries where foreigners don't have rights, but in the U.S. legal foreign immigrants have long been held to enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else (except where those rights are specifically limited to citizens, such as running for elected office). Heck, even Dubya hasn't pushed the idea of foreigners arrested within the borders of the U.S. being shipped off to Cuba or denied trial.
You may not feel that foreigners should be granted the same rights, but legally they are, and I think any politician is going to have a very hard time justifying (and getting passed) the forced implantation of a tracking device in legal immigrants or guest workers. And if he did, I just don't think the courts would uphold it, any more than they would uphold the bugging of all immigrant phones without reasonable cause or random searches of immigrant homes.
What?? There is no law in the US that requires a company to do business with everyone who shows up. The only restriction is that you can't discriminate based on a fairly narrow set up criteria, such as race or gender (and even those have exceptions). If Google chose to do business with white pirates, but refused African-American pirates, then they might have a problem. Otherwise they're free to do business with whomever they choose.
Well here's a quick, very unscientific, estimation:
A quick look at my Firefox history (which stores 9 days of info) shows that it's a little under 1 meg in size. That means that over a month I'd generate 3 megs of history. However, since most web page hits actually result in dozens of actual HTTP requests and most of my browsing is to pages I've already visited, it's reasonable to say that a complete log of my browsing would be at least 10x that, so let's say 30MB/month, or 360MB/year.
My email (which goes back 3.5 years) is about 1GB, but I'd say it's safe to assume that between spam and messages that I didn't need, I've only kept 1% of the email I've received in that time, so 100GB/3.5years would give us about 30GB/year.
I don't keep logs of my instant messaging, but let's just round up to an even 50GB/year for the whole thing. Of course, I'm probably an atypically heavy user of the internet, so for the sake of discussion let's say that the average user is really only 10% of that, or 5GB/year (which is probably very low).
5GB/year * 200Million U.S. internet users is 953 Petabytes of generated data every year. At a current storage cost of about $4M/petabyte, ISPs would (under this law) have to bear a combined total of almost $4 billion / year just to buy storage space for all of this data (which doesn't even begin to take into account the physical space to store the storage servers, the people to run them, the electricity to run them, the backups, etc., etc.).
Conclusion: This is completely infeasible, regardless of whether the law is passed. After all of the costs are factored in, you'd probably end up seeing a doubling (if not more) in the cost of Internet access just to support this.
The problem is that in reality the majority of shareholders have little or no control over the day-to-day operations of a company. Moreover, they almost never have any idea that wrongdoing is occurring until it's too late. With the exception of those companies that have majority control vested in just a couple of people, most shareholders have little to no access to the actual operations of the company, and let's face it, illegal or unethical practices don't get printed in the quarterly reports.
Anyway, most illegal actions by corporate officers are carried out to benefit the corporate officers, not the corporation. In fact, most of the incidents that I can think of were done to the direct detriment of the corporation and the stockholders. In the real world, most people aren't willing to risk jail for someone else, and certainly not for a bunch of someones they've never met. Profitable companies don't fire their CEOs because the profits could have been higher if the company had acted unethically, and if the CEO is illegally covering up or propping up an unprofitable company with illegal or unethical dealings it's to save himself from the shareholders, so it doesn't really make sense to punish the shareholders when his crime against the shareholders is discovered, does it?
Additionally, corporate officers only open themselves up to personal liability from a shareholder suit in cases of gross negligence of their fiduciary duty. Really, unless the officer personally profited from an action that had a negative impact on the company he was charged with running (and he had reasonable reason to know that would be the outcome), it's highly unlikely that the shareholders would bring suit against him and even less likely that they would win if they did. Of course, the shareholders could always fire him, which is really what most of these guys are worried about.
The great-grandparent is right that they need to grow a pair, though. It's unlikely that a CEO running a profitable company would get fired because he failed to pursue even more profits at the expense of Chinese human rights. The truth of the matter is that most people in the U.S. support human rights and would not punish someone for standing up for them. Of course, the nature of people in big-company CEO positions being what they are (they're generally not risk-takers) laws like this one that help give CEOs the balls to do the right thing are indeed a positive step. And the CEOs are supporting the laws because for the most part they're decent freedom-loving people just like you and me and would like to do the right thing---they're just not willing to risk their country-club memberships and vacations in the south of France to do it.
So when Joe Sixpack's pension becomes insolvent because the money-market fund it had invested in is forced to liquidate all of its stock in Yahoo, Google, Nike, and Coca Cola, that would just be a good lesson?
The fact is, our financial system depends on an amoral corporate structure (which is different from an immoral structure). Yes, we could create a new system that tries to be built on moral responsibility on the part of investors, but history has shown that such a system is less stable and less likely to lead to an overall increase in wealth because it severely reduces the incentives for people to take risks with their money. For example, I might be more than willing to invest $10,000 in a startup company because I can afford to lose that much money and think the risk is worth the potential reward. However, I'm not going to invest $10,000 if it would expose all of my assets to potential loss. Similarly, I'm even less likely to invest that $10,000 in a more established corporation where I may be exposing myself to massive loss for an expected return of much less.
It is much better to have an amoral structure on the money supply end of things, and then impose an appropriate level of ethics and morality on the corporation through laws that restrict what the company is allowed to do (thereby freeing the corporate officers from worry that they'll be punished by the shareholders for "doing the right thing", which is what the majority of them would like to do anyway).
You're assuming that the enemy will never develop the technology to scan somebody using one of the RFID readers in order to find out if one is present.
I'm curious, when writing that post did you think about the potential double meaning in a comment about Indian states migrating to OK?
Iran. We're just not willing to admit it, because then things would move from the relative calm of Iraq and Afghanistan to military losses more in line with what we saw in Vietnam, Korea, or (God forbid) World War II.
How exactly is copying Apple's trademarked graphics to make an interface that looks almost identical to Apple's in any way creative.
I have a Rolex that was given to me by my grandfather when I graduated from College. He gave one to every one of his grandkids upon graduation, not because he wanted us to be able to show off wealth but because they're a damn good watch and he thought everyone in business needed a damn good watch. ...and you know what? It really is a damn good watch, and when you think about it it's really not that expensive. Sure, you could buy a $150 Timex every five years and keep time just as well, but $5000 for a handmade precision machine that will appreciate in value and last the rest of my life is hardly a sign of decadent idiocy.
Number of abortion providers murdered in the last 15 years: < 25 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm)
i d=5772&t=Archive)
Number of people killed by Muslim suicide bombers on Tuesday: > 60 (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/?page=details&
I'm not going to defend anyone who kills an abortion doctor, or imply that each one wasn't a terrible tragedy. The truth of the matter, however, is that the scale of the two problems just doesn't compare at all.
Also, for what it's worth, I do believe the bible with all of my being, and I have in fact read it. Actually, I've not only read it, I've studied it enough to understand the source of the apparent contradictions, and why they aren't really contradictions. In fact, under real scrutiny the Bible holds up better than just about any other work of comparable size out there.