A literal reading of Genesis 1:14-17 explicitly states it:
" And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." - KJV
Note that the "firmament" has both fowls and stars in it.
And earlier we had:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. " Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV)
so the firmament has water above it, and isn't "the entire universe except the surface of Earth".
Of course a literal reading is a silly idea, but that's all that was claimed.
That's right. That's why no one did either "invest and take on risk" or "buy anything" during the industrial revolution. An economic dead time if there ever was one!
Sure it might work. Except that whenever we test it it doesn't work. Rubbing two peices of lead together might make gold too, but since everytime someone has tested it it hasn't worked we are pretty safe in concluding it doesn't.
Not knowing why a treatment works is not exactly unusual in medicine. Treatments that don't work in double blind studies though are a different matter - they are common too but it means it doesn't work not that "it may work for reasons yet unknown to science".
It can be trivially proven, just find an example. Disproving is impossible with our current level of technology and completely impossible if our current understanding of physics is close to correct.
A copyright holder does not have the "right to distribute" by hooking up a projector to a power outlet in my house, putting the projector in my yard, and projecting their video onto the side of my house. I can simply pull the plug, call the police, or whatever.
If they've entered into an agreement with me then sure they might be able to sue me for not living up to my end if I pull that plug.
Similarly Ustream is free to block any video they are streaming at a whim, unless they've entered into some kind of contract saying they won't in which case sue away.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
And yet you don't know what the word "most" means?
Obviously you get a lawyer do what they advise. But that's beside the point, which was that those words are not a 'statement of fact' in the UK, they aren't said at all in the UK and hence aren't even just a statement.
Your US lawyer will tell you to "no comment" far more often that the UK lawyer due to differences in the results of doing so in the two legal systems.
Maybe try reading for comprehension, this little bit might have answered you query: "I not only want more pixels than that, but I want a bigger screen to put them on".
Prediction: If Obama gets relected, he'll still be blaming Bush 4 years from now.
As he should. We had 16 years of Clinton + Bush destroying the economy. It's going to take more than 8 years to fix that mess.
Of course Obama is doing the exact same thing so rather than fixing it he is making it worse. But McCain would have done the same thing too, and so will Romney if he wins. So we'll be at 24 years of actively destroying the economy when the next guy gets a chance to actually make unpopular choices and actually do something beneficial.
That's the US though, the UK has a different statement of fact: "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court"
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source?
Bacause most jurors do watch TV, that you don't is irrelevant. CSI is the defining show of that genre - you may notice the phrase "show such as CSI" was used not only CSI. Even jurors who don't watch such TV shows likely read a newspaper or watch news written by people who have watched said shows and that portray DNA evidence as a slam-dunk.
with bluetooth being the communication path. Had little linux machines with a bluetooth dongle which tracked visible bluetooth devices and also sent messages requesting silent mode and so on. It was just a minor part of a research project at uni, we did get pretty good tracking data though just from setting up nodes around the building and recording what devices were seen. You couldn't be sure that Bob usually arrives at 8:00am, went to his office, and then to the espresso machine room, and then back to his office every day - but his phone sure did.
No it doesn't. And the goal of every action is certainly not profit.
There was no business decision being made when I had peach with my breakfast instead of grapefruit this morning. There was no profit when we played Alhambra last night instead of Carcassonne.
This particular ponzi scheme, yes that was obvious to anyone who gave it half a second of thought.
Sometime being smarter (or more accutetly more knowledgable/experienced) can make spotting a ponzi scheme harder. Madoff is the obvious example. Sure the returns were way to good and consistent be legit and it looks like a ponzi scheme, however, some people who can see that then went that next level and instead concluded that Madoff was just insider trading or front running or whatever and wanted in on that scheme.
They were wrong of course, and deserve to lose their money since they weren't tricked into thinking they were in a legit investment, they were trying to get in on a scam (they just thought they were on the other side of it).
The unregulated currency is irrelevant. If some guy at the pub offers you 3300% interest on any cash you hand over to him when he doesn't pay up it is has nothing to do with the fact that the currency was regulated.
Of the top of my head I see four obvious suspects for such a capitalization loss:
1. Investors/speculators agreeing with the Jury. 2. Investors/speculators thinking that other investors/speculators will agree with the Jury. 3. Investors/speculators thinking that the legal system overall will side with the Jury (appeals and future similar cases). 4. Investors/speculators thinking that it will cost Samsung lots of money (directly or just opportunity costs in having to change things) and hence make them significantly less competitive.
Only one of those involves actually agreeing with the Jury themselves. I'm sure there are a bunch more too.
Because there's a computer on your desk that you are essentially always using, but you also want to note down something and not have to walk to the printer room to get it? You are engrossed in your minesweeper game when someone pops their head into the room and tells you an address you want to note down?
That you can use things with either hand seems completely irrelevant given the very subject is someone complaining that the mouse being made for the right hand is bad for left handed people. So clearly some people would prefer to use one hand over the other (and since the mouse tends to be placed on one of the computer swapping around to write something down would take longer than just doing one thing at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
A literal reading of Genesis 1:14-17 explicitly states it:
" And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." - KJV
Note that the "firmament" has both fowls and stars in it.
And earlier we had:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. " Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV)
so the firmament has water above it, and isn't "the entire universe except the surface of Earth".
Of course a literal reading is a silly idea, but that's all that was claimed.
That's right. That's why no one did either "invest and take on risk" or "buy anything" during the industrial revolution. An economic dead time if there ever was one!
Sure it might work. Except that whenever we test it it doesn't work. Rubbing two peices of lead together might make gold too, but since everytime someone has tested it it hasn't worked we are pretty safe in concluding it doesn't.
Not knowing why a treatment works is not exactly unusual in medicine. Treatments that don't work in double blind studies though are a different matter - they are common too but it means it doesn't work not that "it may work for reasons yet unknown to science".
"Seems strange that Jeremy Hunt is getting a hard time for believing in homeopathy. The Education Secretary believes in God. " - http://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/242964690030960640
Some of us are poor, and can easily store our net worth in the form of ammo in just three shoeboxes.
It can be trivially proven, just find an example. Disproving is impossible with our current level of technology and completely impossible if our current understanding of physics is close to correct.
A copyright holder does not have the "right to distribute" by hooking up a projector to a power outlet in my house, putting the projector in my yard, and projecting their video onto the side of my house. I can simply pull the plug, call the police, or whatever.
If they've entered into an agreement with me then sure they might be able to sue me for not living up to my end if I pull that plug.
Similarly Ustream is free to block any video they are streaming at a whim, unless they've entered into some kind of contract saying they won't in which case sue away.
And yet you don't know what the word "most" means?
Obviously you get a lawyer do what they advise. But that's beside the point, which was that those words are not a 'statement of fact' in the UK, they aren't said at all in the UK and hence aren't even just a statement.
Your US lawyer will tell you to "no comment" far more often that the UK lawyer due to differences in the results of doing so in the two legal systems.
Maybe try reading for comprehension, this little bit might have answered you query: "I not only want more pixels than that, but I want a bigger screen to put them on".
As he should. We had 16 years of Clinton + Bush destroying the economy. It's going to take more than 8 years to fix that mess.
Of course Obama is doing the exact same thing so rather than fixing it he is making it worse. But McCain would have done the same thing too, and so will Romney if he wins. So we'll be at 24 years of actively destroying the economy when the next guy gets a chance to actually make unpopular choices and actually do something beneficial.
That's the US though, the UK has a different statement of fact: "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court"
Bacause most jurors do watch TV, that you don't is irrelevant. CSI is the defining show of that genre - you may notice the phrase "show such as CSI" was used not only CSI. Even jurors who don't watch such TV shows likely read a newspaper or watch news written by people who have watched said shows and that portray DNA evidence as a slam-dunk.
with bluetooth being the communication path. Had little linux machines with a bluetooth dongle which tracked visible bluetooth devices and also sent messages requesting silent mode and so on. It was just a minor part of a research project at uni, we did get pretty good tracking data though just from setting up nodes around the building and recording what devices were seen. You couldn't be sure that Bob usually arrives at 8:00am, went to his office, and then to the espresso machine room, and then back to his office every day - but his phone sure did.
Because you can't make calls from a device that is set to vibrate and not ring on an incoming call, right?
Posting anonymously is not networking.
No it doesn't. And the goal of every action is certainly not profit.
There was no business decision being made when I had peach with my breakfast instead of grapefruit this morning. There was no profit when we played Alhambra last night instead of Carcassonne.
Because every action you do or recommend doing must be a business model designed to make a profit?
Is the internet cafe manager is liable for messages sent by a customer, then the phone company is liable for such messages sent from a mobile phone?
This particular ponzi scheme, yes that was obvious to anyone who gave it half a second of thought.
Sometime being smarter (or more accutetly more knowledgable/experienced) can make spotting a ponzi scheme harder. Madoff is the obvious example. Sure the returns were way to good and consistent be legit and it looks like a ponzi scheme, however, some people who can see that then went that next level and instead concluded that Madoff was just insider trading or front running or whatever and wanted in on that scheme.
They were wrong of course, and deserve to lose their money since they weren't tricked into thinking they were in a legit investment, they were trying to get in on a scam (they just thought they were on the other side of it).
Sure it sounds familiar. It also sounds nothing like a Ponzi scheme. But who cares about actually using meaningful terms, right?
The unregulated currency is irrelevant. If some guy at the pub offers you 3300% interest on any cash you hand over to him when he doesn't pay up it is has nothing to do with the fact that the currency was regulated.
Of the top of my head I see four obvious suspects for such a capitalization loss:
1. Investors/speculators agreeing with the Jury.
2. Investors/speculators thinking that other investors/speculators will agree with the Jury.
3. Investors/speculators thinking that the legal system overall will side with the Jury (appeals and future similar cases).
4. Investors/speculators thinking that it will cost Samsung lots of money (directly or just opportunity costs in having to change things) and hence make them significantly less competitive.
Only one of those involves actually agreeing with the Jury themselves. I'm sure there are a bunch more too.
If you think you'd make less than $100 million per year with others able to use whatever the patent is for then yes.
Because there's a computer on your desk that you are essentially always using, but you also want to note down something and not have to walk to the printer room to get it? You are engrossed in your minesweeper game when someone pops their head into the room and tells you an address you want to note down?
That you can use things with either hand seems completely irrelevant given the very subject is someone complaining that the mouse being made for the right hand is bad for left handed people. So clearly some people would prefer to use one hand over the other (and since the mouse tends to be placed on one of the computer swapping around to write something down would take longer than just doing one thing at a time.