Don't be ridiculous. Churches don't pay taxes for the same reason the Rockefeller Foundation doesn't: they're charitable organizations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_organization#United_States) Would you please give an example or historical basis for your claim about the church?
P.S. Of course I'm talking US law here, but I've personally interacted with the church in Romania as well, and I'm quite certain they're not making threats, at least not the Roma I spent time with.
I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate the universe, and media probably makes it sound worse than it is, but is looking for life on other planets really a good use of taxpayer dollars? I mean, what evidence do we have that suggests there may be life on other planets?
Having said all that, I'm all for finding out more about Mars, and verifying its viability for colonization. I just think trying to find ET is pretty dumb.
What does that have to do with capitalism? In any other system it's the ruling party that gets to waste money. At least Microsoft (of whom I'm no fan) is spending money gotten via means other than coercion.
Creedo, do you vote? If you do, you are attempting to impose your beliefs (wrong or right) on your community (of varying scope). Why is it wrong for people who believe something with which you disagree to exercise this same privilege? If you don't vote, please excuse the rant - at least you're consistent.
So, I wrote the rest of this, then realized it's auxiliary, but I'll leave it anyway. My main point (which you missed) is that, if you do get pregnant inconveniently, you should bear the baby to term and give it up for adoption rather than murder it. Science is unquestionably on my side on this one. If you know when babies start to feel pain, when you can tell their gender, etcetera, you have to start to understand that current abortion law is a complete violation of the most basic human right - life.
Talk about misinformation. Your post has two of my favorite things: telling me what I think and being wrong about it. I *really* don't know why you tie misinformation and abstinence teaching together. One does not imply the other, by any means. I was abstinent until marriage, and I'm very happy with how that's working out for me, and it turns out sex is just as great as I was led to believe. If I could go back several years...I'd still wait until marriage. And seriously, I don't know ANY Christians who wouldn't want their kids to know that sperm getting to an egg (which is only there to catch it periodically) is the one and only way to get pregnant. Not getting pregnant and not getting STD's are NOT the reasons you should wait until you're married to have sex. There are plenty of other reasons I waited, and none of them are fear-motivated.
Look, if you think teaching people how to roll a condom onto a banana is important to keep people from getting pregnant, I'm afraid I probably can't help you. Anyone who needs to be taught how to use a condom...just, total fail. I think that ought to be a lower priority for schools where such a high percentage of kids can't read their own diplomas.
And seriously, all you haters, I know you gotta hate, but could you please be a little more specific with your reasoning? It's difficult to argue against broad generalizations that are based on, I dunno, how you see those stupid Christians in movies and on tv act. Srsly, guys. Big reasoning fail. Think for yourself a little bit. Be tolerant, or whatever.
Please help me understand what is sick and twisted about "Don't have sex outside of marriage (which, if modeled after biblical ideals, will provide a warm, loving environment for childhood), and if you do and make a baby, give the baby up for adoption rather than kill it."?
P.S. I'm not saying the Bible advocates giving up your kid for adoption if you deem yourself unable to provide the child a warm, loving environment, but I certainly advocate it.
What human rights do you believe are being attacked by Christians in the MW? To what deranged fantasies do you refer? What science do you believe is being attacked? Who is blaming the devil for liberals? (I blame America's failing educational system, ftr.) I have many, many friends who are Christians, throughout the US and internationally, and I can think of very few who would fit ANY of your claims, let alone all of them. And besides, part of the biblical idea of a good citizen is someone who obeys the law and upholds his moral, legal and social responsibilities to his neighbors...In America the fulfillment of those duties includes voting and possibly campaigning for laws you believe would make this a better place for everyone. If you believe everyone would be better off if they were legally required to wear green socks, you should try to get that law passed. That's part of being a good citizen. Who am I to belittle you for your belief about the green socks? The legislative process of the republic decides the outcome, and we both abide by it.
P.S. I would never condone the murder of an abortion doctor, but I do believe that infanticide (yes, I'm using the charged term) will be the issue of this era that is looked back upon with shame, much like slavery through the 19th century. Our descendants will look back and say, "They should have known better. How did they justify that?"
"doesn't even use the FreeBSD kernel". They also don't use the NetBSD or OpenBSD kernel. Or various other UNIX kernels. Including OpenGL support would have been one of the major hurdles, and since that's done, I think it's quite a stretch to say "probably as large a difference between them and the NT kernel." I could be wrong about this, but isn't the whole point about Linux being Unix-like that it was coded from scratch, not in any way a descendant of UNIX like OS X is? They are, ultimately, very similar platforms.
The last word should probably be spelled correctly. My point is, your tactic of talking down to me like I'm a child, and my tactic of harping on your ineptitude in the use of the English language are designed to make the other party feel like an idiot, without actually addressing the concerns or ideas relevant to the topic at hand. Anyway, you can have the last word, but please use grammar-check this time.
OR there actually is a(n) (un)known higher power Who is making "arbitrary" rules for the benefit of everyone, helping us to live the best way possible in a world that, due to our rebellion, is not as good as it could have been. Therefore, we should obey His rules, even when we don't understand why they are what they are. We all see things the way we want to, I suppose. Just don't pretend my explanation isn't just as valid as yours.
Perhaps I could have phrased that better: "phrasing designed to make the other guy feel like an idiot". My point is that you offered an old, unsettled question as though it were an answer. The Bible teaches that evil entered into the world because people rebelled against God, who is, and whose intentions were, totally good. You can say you don't believe that to be true, but it is a valid (albeit disputable) perspective. To act as though it were invalid is intellectually dishonest, and to capitalize on a tragedy in order to advance your views is reprehensible. You and Pat Robertson should hang out sometime.
First, great sentence construction! Second, religion is not philosophy, but rather an entire system of life than encapsulates everything from philosophy to cosmology to biology to sociology to nutrition and hygiene. Last, Christianity purports to be true. If it is true, we should be able to verify it, at least the testable aspects of it. Some of Christianity's claims are untestable by scientific means, but verification of the claims that could be tested would certainly lend credibility to the untestable claims, which is why religion does intersect with science in a major way. You're drastically oversimplifying the issue.
I'm rubber, you're glue.;P I'm just very tired of people relying on phrasing that makes the other guy feel like an idiot rather than actually offering new ideas. I suppose my response was a bit hypocritical, though.
...which is a good reason not to use it as an arguing point. Besides that, there are seven separate answers listed on that wikipedia page alone, one of which I prefer. You can claim there are no "real answers", but I would respond by pointing out that we come to this problem with a predisposition to a certain answer, and my perception of an answer being real versus your perception of it as lame is largely dependent on baggage we brought to the discussion.
My point is that someone using the problem of evil (with which I've long been familiar) as an argument against the existence of a god is not really a useful contribution to the discussion.
The iPad is one product...Netbooks are a genre of device. Add to that the aversion of folks like me to using anything put out by Apple, and I don't see much chance of the iPad replacing a whole genre of DIY-friendly hardware.
I use multiple monitors on my linux laptop with an Intel IGP. And, like others have said, that's not what the OP is asking about anyway. Don't spread FUD, please.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be ridiculous. Churches don't pay taxes for the same reason the Rockefeller Foundation doesn't: they're charitable organizations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_organization#United_States) Would you please give an example or historical basis for your claim about the church? P.S. Of course I'm talking US law here, but I've personally interacted with the church in Romania as well, and I'm quite certain they're not making threats, at least not the Roma I spent time with.
I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate the universe, and media probably makes it sound worse than it is, but is looking for life on other planets really a good use of taxpayer dollars? I mean, what evidence do we have that suggests there may be life on other planets? Having said all that, I'm all for finding out more about Mars, and verifying its viability for colonization. I just think trying to find ET is pretty dumb.
What does that have to do with capitalism? In any other system it's the ruling party that gets to waste money. At least Microsoft (of whom I'm no fan) is spending money gotten via means other than coercion.
please, because your usage confuses me. Is the anti-rooting implemented by Google, or by the hardware manufacturer? If the latter, ur doin' it rong!
Come on, nobody else picked up on the phrase, "allowing a far less ... inexpensive laser diode to be used."? Think about it.
Because we should always trust the observations of people who say "He may have got in". There's a better way, my friend.
Creedo, do you vote? If you do, you are attempting to impose your beliefs (wrong or right) on your community (of varying scope). Why is it wrong for people who believe something with which you disagree to exercise this same privilege? If you don't vote, please excuse the rant - at least you're consistent.
So, I wrote the rest of this, then realized it's auxiliary, but I'll leave it anyway. My main point (which you missed) is that, if you do get pregnant inconveniently, you should bear the baby to term and give it up for adoption rather than murder it. Science is unquestionably on my side on this one. If you know when babies start to feel pain, when you can tell their gender, etcetera, you have to start to understand that current abortion law is a complete violation of the most basic human right - life.
Talk about misinformation. Your post has two of my favorite things: telling me what I think and being wrong about it. I *really* don't know why you tie misinformation and abstinence teaching together. One does not imply the other, by any means. I was abstinent until marriage, and I'm very happy with how that's working out for me, and it turns out sex is just as great as I was led to believe. If I could go back several years...I'd still wait until marriage. And seriously, I don't know ANY Christians who wouldn't want their kids to know that sperm getting to an egg (which is only there to catch it periodically) is the one and only way to get pregnant. Not getting pregnant and not getting STD's are NOT the reasons you should wait until you're married to have sex. There are plenty of other reasons I waited, and none of them are fear-motivated.
Look, if you think teaching people how to roll a condom onto a banana is important to keep people from getting pregnant, I'm afraid I probably can't help you. Anyone who needs to be taught how to use a condom...just, total fail. I think that ought to be a lower priority for schools where such a high percentage of kids can't read their own diplomas.
And seriously, all you haters, I know you gotta hate, but could you please be a little more specific with your reasoning? It's difficult to argue against broad generalizations that are based on, I dunno, how you see those stupid Christians in movies and on tv act. Srsly, guys. Big reasoning fail. Think for yourself a little bit. Be tolerant, or whatever.
Please help me understand what is sick and twisted about "Don't have sex outside of marriage (which, if modeled after biblical ideals, will provide a warm, loving environment for childhood), and if you do and make a baby, give the baby up for adoption rather than kill it."?
P.S. I'm not saying the Bible advocates giving up your kid for adoption if you deem yourself unable to provide the child a warm, loving environment, but I certainly advocate it.
What human rights do you believe are being attacked by Christians in the MW? To what deranged fantasies do you refer? What science do you believe is being attacked? Who is blaming the devil for liberals? (I blame America's failing educational system, ftr.) I have many, many friends who are Christians, throughout the US and internationally, and I can think of very few who would fit ANY of your claims, let alone all of them. And besides, part of the biblical idea of a good citizen is someone who obeys the law and upholds his moral, legal and social responsibilities to his neighbors...In America the fulfillment of those duties includes voting and possibly campaigning for laws you believe would make this a better place for everyone. If you believe everyone would be better off if they were legally required to wear green socks, you should try to get that law passed. That's part of being a good citizen. Who am I to belittle you for your belief about the green socks? The legislative process of the republic decides the outcome, and we both abide by it. P.S. I would never condone the murder of an abortion doctor, but I do believe that infanticide (yes, I'm using the charged term) will be the issue of this era that is looked back upon with shame, much like slavery through the 19th century. Our descendants will look back and say, "They should have known better. How did they justify that?"
Epic job by the OA of putting the cart before the horse.
"doesn't even use the FreeBSD kernel". They also don't use the NetBSD or OpenBSD kernel. Or various other UNIX kernels. Including OpenGL support would have been one of the major hurdles, and since that's done, I think it's quite a stretch to say "probably as large a difference between them and the NT kernel." I could be wrong about this, but isn't the whole point about Linux being Unix-like that it was coded from scratch, not in any way a descendant of UNIX like OS X is? They are, ultimately, very similar platforms.
Is there any reason why you couldn't use dd with an offset to accomplish this?
The last word should probably be spelled correctly. My point is, your tactic of talking down to me like I'm a child, and my tactic of harping on your ineptitude in the use of the English language are designed to make the other party feel like an idiot, without actually addressing the concerns or ideas relevant to the topic at hand. Anyway, you can have the last word, but please use grammar-check this time.
And the reason is...?
OR there actually is a(n) (un)known higher power Who is making "arbitrary" rules for the benefit of everyone, helping us to live the best way possible in a world that, due to our rebellion, is not as good as it could have been. Therefore, we should obey His rules, even when we don't understand why they are what they are. We all see things the way we want to, I suppose. Just don't pretend my explanation isn't just as valid as yours.
Perhaps I could have phrased that better: "phrasing designed to make the other guy feel like an idiot". My point is that you offered an old, unsettled question as though it were an answer. The Bible teaches that evil entered into the world because people rebelled against God, who is, and whose intentions were, totally good. You can say you don't believe that to be true, but it is a valid (albeit disputable) perspective. To act as though it were invalid is intellectually dishonest, and to capitalize on a tragedy in order to advance your views is reprehensible. You and Pat Robertson should hang out sometime.
First, great sentence construction! Second, religion is not philosophy, but rather an entire system of life than encapsulates everything from philosophy to cosmology to biology to sociology to nutrition and hygiene. Last, Christianity purports to be true. If it is true, we should be able to verify it, at least the testable aspects of it. Some of Christianity's claims are untestable by scientific means, but verification of the claims that could be tested would certainly lend credibility to the untestable claims, which is why religion does intersect with science in a major way. You're drastically oversimplifying the issue.
I'm rubber, you're glue. ;P I'm just very tired of people relying on phrasing that makes the other guy feel like an idiot rather than actually offering new ideas. I suppose my response was a bit hypocritical, though.
...which is a good reason not to use it as an arguing point. Besides that, there are seven separate answers listed on that wikipedia page alone, one of which I prefer. You can claim there are no "real answers", but I would respond by pointing out that we come to this problem with a predisposition to a certain answer, and my perception of an answer being real versus your perception of it as lame is largely dependent on baggage we brought to the discussion.
My point is that someone using the problem of evil (with which I've long been familiar) as an argument against the existence of a god is not really a useful contribution to the discussion.
We'll see how long that lasts.
Do you always pick the most cliche response possible? You're good at it.
My point was that, no matter how popular the iPad gets, it won't be a netbook, and won't fill the same market spot as the netbook.
The iPad is one product...Netbooks are a genre of device. Add to that the aversion of folks like me to using anything put out by Apple, and I don't see much chance of the iPad replacing a whole genre of DIY-friendly hardware.
I use multiple monitors on my linux laptop with an Intel IGP. And, like others have said, that's not what the OP is asking about anyway. Don't spread FUD, please.