I wonder about the efficiency of H2 production every time some political yahoo, or tree-hunging greenie starts ranting about fuel cells. Breaking hydrogen out of its current chemical compounds; hydrocarbons, water, etc will require a substantial amount of energy. Then the hydrogen has to be stored, and it is notorious for being one of the most difficult to store compounds in existence. Then you have safety issues because H2 is also highly flammable. One poster pointed out that H2 will dissipate while gasoline forms a puddle, but its greater propensity to explode in the first place probably counteracts that benefit. Then you have the issues with H2O exhaust. Yes, it is water vapor we are talking about, but when 100 million americans drive to work everyday, that is a lot of water vapor, the potential for ecosystem impact is very real.
H2 may be a feasible way to store energy but it is only one of dozens, from a broad array of chemical batteries to flywheels. However much hydrogen may be superior to other forms of battery, its use will never supplant our need to to actually GENERATE the electricity that is needed to charge all those batteries in the first place. Hydrocarbon fuels like methane and coal are falling from favor because of their harmful byproducts but legitimate efforts to reduce harmful emissions are having a substantial impact. Recent technological developments can reduce most harmful emmissions from coal by 90% and more. Plus growing concerns about the limit of supply may very well be proved pointless by the recent development of thermal depolymerisation technology (TDP) which permits the energy efficient conversion of carbonn based waste into fuel and other useful byproducts with no harmful outputs.
Windpower is an enviromental catastrophe second only to a damn break, the wind farms in california are inefficient, expensive, deafeningly noisy and mercilessly slaughter large numbers of wildlife, including several bald eagles, each year.
Solar power is also expensive, and unreliable, though it is useful enough that it will always play some part in meeting our generating needs it can only account for a small percentage of those needs.
We have pretty much built all the hydroelectric capacity we can, besides building dams also results in a substantial environmental impact, from flooded upstream areas that become reservoirs and variations in flow, to meet generating demand, damaging downstream wildlife.
A well run and designed nuclear plant like Plant Vogtle in Augusta, Georgia can produce power at about 1.4-1.7 cents a kw-hour, that is cheaper than coal, and almost as cheap as hydro. The radioactive waste that results from maintaining nuclear facilities can be safely and indefinitely managed, despite what some might have you believe. Especially if the Yucca Mountain repository comes online. An interesting side note: US nuclear plants have burned up over 6000 Russian Warheads, how's that for "Swords to Plowshares"?
Plus all of that only considers the current generation of plants in existence. Plants that were built in the 1970's. With the great leaps in commerical nuclear technology that have been made by US companies building plants in foreign countries, like Korea, Japan, and France, the next generation of plants that will, hopefully, be built in the coming decade, will be safer, cheaper, and more reliable. 30 years ago the accident at Three Mile Island brought us to the realization that commercial nuclear generation posed a serious danger. In the 30 years since then the nuclear power industry has proved it is capable and willing to work to eliminate the imediacy of that danger. While it once acted that way in response to federal regulation, it has learned that nuclear safety is a significant boon to their bottom line, since TMI most nuclear plants have gone from around 60% of operational capacity to over 90%. If people are willing to face their fears and cut through the spin, I believe they will find, as I have, that nuclear power can and
While it might be personally offensive to me that the president used his position to coerce/convince/entice a woman half his age to give him head, I agree it is not an impeachable offense. And so does everyone else. Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and purjery. Both of which are serious offenses because of what they say about his integrity, and his willingness to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. I will concede that Clinton was lying to avoid being sued for sexual harrassment, while Bush's objective was to start a war. However, while he exagerrated some things, making them seem signigicantly more sinister than maybe a democrat talking about the exact same report, I doubt he out and out lied. Of course Clinton did not out and out lie either, unless he was also lieing when he said he did not consider head to be "sexual relations." Of course, just because we do not find any weapons in Iraq does not mean they were not there. It just means that France, and Russia were able to stall long enough that Saddam moved all of the incriminating evidence out of the country. Especially the stuff they had sold him.
Go to scifi's farscape page. You can read the "journey log" wich is essentially a teaser for each episode. It is best if you just read up to where you are to get an idea of what it going on. But the logs leave enough unsaid to still make the episodes worth watching if you are like me and loose control and just read all of them. Right now they are rerunning earlier season 3 stuff on fridays. This Friday they will be showing "Thanks for Sharing," and Wednesday they will show "Family Ties" the last episode of season 1. There will not be any truly new episodes until the season finale in January. After you read the journey logs there is lots of other interesting stuff, like the character profiles and Chrichton's notes. Though my personal favorite was the "character insights" with the director that are in the "farscape primer." The character insights more than anything will help you get an idea of what is going on in the show.
Regardless of personal ideologies the survival of a nation is dependant upon its citizen's willingness to protect it. Personally I do not believe in using blanket retribution as an effective way of dealing with problems. I am not going to go around beating 6 year olds to make sure that one never messes with my computer. However, as a citizen of this slightly less screwed up than usual nation I am willing to advocate the the immediate and merciless destruction of any and all who oppose our way of life. Up to and including afflicting quasi-innocent bystanders so that their survivors will actually discourage future attacks in a somewhat Machievellian fashion. Such that, the next time something like this happens everyone should line up to turn in the perpatrators to avoid more retribution. In such an environment the likelihood of that next time ever even occurring are greatly reduced. I am willing to do things as a US citizen that I would never do as a person becuase as I US citizen I am more than a person. I am a member of the longest running experiment in Liberty on this planet. While it is flawed, if I want posterity to enjoy even this flawed Liberty then I must be willing to defend it. Yes, war is a terrible thing, but the better we act to root out its seeds the less likely that our children will have to learn that fact firsthand. Yes I am talking terrorism, but we either "fight fire with fire" or surrender and while I generally do not advocate "the ends justify the means" I do when the only other alternative is just "the end." After all, what is terrorism but politicians condemning methods they are not allowed to use themselves.
As far as I know all "solutions" to cases like this fall into two categories.
1) "Kill them all and count the bodies." -CIA basic operating procedures
2) "Always leave your enemy a way out, the only truly dangerous enemy is a desperate one." -Sun Tzu
So what do all US hating terrorists want from the US? They want us dead or at least out of their lives. So are we to trade the lives of the Kosovo Albanians, or Isrealis for fewer people hating us for being Free? If we take Sun Tzu's advice and try and leave them an option, what do we offer? Exile to Antarctica? frontal lobotomies? When the disparate strategies of the CIA and Sun Tzu were originally brought to my attention, (I believe it was in a Tom Clancy novel, the same guy who wrote about using Boeings full of jet fuel as offensive weapons) I could not understand the need for the CIA's ruthless, even barbaric, practice. Now I think that I better understand; Sun Tzu was talking about rational enemies, but the CIA is trained to deal with the more difficult kind.
I am all for a slightly restrained offensive against all nations deemed to be supporting terrorist activities. I say give them the choice of performing "acts of good faith" such as the ejection of known terrorists, freezing of assets, destruction of training infrastructure, and CESSASTION OF PROPAGANDA, to back up all the verbal condemning that everyone is bandying about. Then, for those that do not comply, we introduce them to the business end of our own version of a passenger jet full of fuel, they are called fuel-air bombs.
Since it is extremely important I will reiterate that an end to the propaganda is of vital importance. If people like the PA were not brainwashing their children to be martyrs, it would be a lot harder for Bin Laden to find opertives. We also need an end to the double standards. If anyone was even bothering to look, they would know that Lebanon actually treats the Palestinian "refugees" in their country worse than Isreal treats the civilian population of the West Bank. Funny how no one tried to bring that up at the UN racism conference.
Correction, Tyndale knew Latin, he was originally a member of the clergy, he did not know the Greek and Hebrew he needed to make a "new" translation from the oldest manuscripts.
Hey that site is a real neat propaganda point. Funny how they do not mention that the first bible printed was named after a Catholic Bishop in recognition of his influence on the printer's life. Plus the unfarnished lie in stating that Tyndale translated the first English Bible. Tyndale translated the first Protestant English Bible, working largely from Luther's text since he knew about enough Latin to translate "Veni, Vidi, Vici". On the other hand some of the English translations of his Catholic (Bible translating) predecesors can still be seen today. History can be a real bitch when you bother with actual facts.
Read first, then rant:
"Where we got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church" by Henry G Graham, see link below.
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInqu iry.asp?userid=4NIZVGWFY1&mscssid=89U9LK66JXML8PMG K7L6Q3H94SS5EMM1&isbn=1888992042
"The violation of rights" has never been an "official" Catholic position. If a right is recongized to exist, the Catholic Church respects it, and sometimes even respects rights that are not recognized to exist. I eagerly await you supplying me with specific examples of Catholic, or Christian intolerance that lead to violance. The last time I can think of that Christians made history for killing people was back during the Reformation, and we were killing each other!
Please note that culures often have more than one component: when, Spanish, Portugese, British, French, etc settlers invaded other lands and starting raping and pillaging, these were Christians in name only, conforming to a social standard that ostracised those who did not profess belief in Christ. A good look at history will reveal dozens of examples of Monks, priests, missionaries working to help and protect native populations. If you remember from your history lessons, people left Europe for the three G's, gold, glory, and God. It might help to understand that the people seeking gold and glory were usually not also seeking God's glory, such a thing would be generally impossible.
Personally I see this ISP move as the Church doing what it has always done, staying on the cutting edge of social development. The Pope was elected by the College of Cardinals before the European Monarchies even took shape. I may be wrong but I doubt it has ever even used slave labor, (monks who have volunatarily sworn theirs lives to servitude are not slaves). The Inquisitions which people love to bang on so much was actually considered more humane and just than the royal courts. According to the Bible the Apostles promoted VOLUNTARY socialism 1500 years before Marx was born. The Crusades were nothing more than an attempt to "protect foreign interests" and while a lot of people have a problem with that, from that perspective, the only difference between the Crusades and Bush Sr.'s intervention to liberate Kuwait is that the US won, and had nifty technology that kept their men from getting killed in the process. Course this kind of advanced thinking can backfire. For example, the Children's Crusade, started by an inspiration to "convert the Moslems through love" failed because nobody thought it would work so the kids got betrayed. However, this same kind of peaceful activism was succesfully utilized by Ghandi to liberate India from British Occupation.
And do not blame what is happening in Kosovo on religious tensions either. That is ethnic violence, like between Isreal and the Palestinians. They are not fighting over theology or ideology but over conflicting bloodrights. If they belonged to the same religion maybe they would get along, maybe not, after all look at Southern Mexico. If they had no religion, maybe they would fight anyway, check out the Basque Separatists.(AFAIK the Basque Separatists lack key support for their independant state because they want to set up a leftist regime in it.)
Then again, since the church has so much political clout in the region, they may just move into the legal system and demand filtering by all ISP's so that only the word of the almighty (Christian)God is available.
When the Ayatolla of Iran takes over militarily and forces a hyper-conservative flavor of Islam on the people, we shun the country and declare it a "rogue state." When Afganistan begins enforcing strict moral codes on the population (such as women are not allowed outside the home, ever), it makes it onto all the e-mail circuits as a crime against humanity. When the Catholic Church buys its way into imposing its moral standards onto a country.... then what?
In this case, the Church is running a business, not a governemnt, if you are unsure of the difference, read up on Libertarians (http://www.harrybrowne.org). Also the Church tends to comply with those silly UN resolutions on Human Rights, and International Law, unlike certain, Jihad obssesed countries I can think of. If a democratically elected government decides that certain actions should not occur, be it public nudity, suicide, smoking, or murder, this is generally considered ok. Heavily Catholic or not, the Philipines still claims to be a democracy.
Jihad -Holy War in which people are given a choice between life, as the aggresor chooses, or death, as the aggressor chooses.
Evangelism -Making people aware that they have a choice between the life they live now, and a new life that they might find more enjoyable if they would only think about it.
> Paul had his sons in the next book and not one of them was killed in the first.
Paul did have a son in the first book and the son did die. (see previous posts)
> The emporer's daughter was created solely for this television adaption.
Her physical role was expanded to fill in pieces of plot that were otherwise lost due to lack of narration and chapter headings.
> There were no weirding modules in the television mini as there should have been,
I do not personally remember any weirding modules, but a lot of people seem to be saying that they were a Lynch invention.
> nor did Paul use the weirding voice to crash the ship that was taking he and his mother over the desert! Key to the development of the character's awareness of his abilities!
I agree with you on this one, I a guessing the scene was cut out to save on time, sets and paying the soldiers to learn more lines.
> He DID NOT marry the fabricated emporer's daughter in the book! Complete garbage!
Yes he did, why else would Chani say "History will remember us as wives." Paul married the emporer's daughter in order to solidify his authority among the Nobility by giving himself a legitmate claim to rule other than "If you do not do what I say I will end spice production!"
It has already been said about 4 times, but you have forgetten part of the story: Leto is Paul and Chani's first son and he is killed during a Sadurkar(sp) raid in the southern regions. In the next book Chani will give birth to twins Leto II and a girl whose name escapes me.
I was actually dissapointed during the movie because Paul's sister did not portray her sorrow at the death of her nephew that I remember her expressing in the book. Something along the lines of "If you kill me at least I will not have to tell my brother of his son's death."
Abraham and Lot are both in the old testament. Before Christ came "to fulfill the law." Back before our God let us nail Him to a tree and then defied death to show us how deeply we are in His debt, He used a more worldly aproach to convincing people that He truly was the One and Only. However, it did not work, the Isrealites kept forgetting Who was in charge. So He had to reassert His Supreme authority in a rather unique way. By letting us kill Him, or try to anyway.
An excellent example of how things have changed since Christ showed up is that the ten commandments have been replaced by the 14 beatitudes.
I am aware of the fact that most people do not put these two colleges that close to each other in ANY sort of ranking. Personally even I did not at first. However there are some interesting things about the IT industry that make this matter less. This whole set of posts has to do with people who have IT degrees but not the know-how. Such people will not have very successful careers regardless of where they get their degree. Now here is the interesting tidbit: In 1999 graduating Comp Engineers from IIT reporting an average annual salary of 45.6k, but GT graduates with the same degree reported an average starting salary that was only 45.1k. True this is not a very big difference, but the fact that the supposedly better school came out on bottom indicates that most people, while they think coming from a good school is nice, are more interested in what you learned at school, not what school you learned it at. I have heard a great deal to this effect over the last year as I searched for my own future school. Hence, while GT undeniably has better facilities, IIT has a much more attentive environment, and there are, evidently, not nearly as many freeloaders around. So what value can I attribute to all of GT's added opportunities if I find myself unable to take advantage of them?
The different quality of life I would experience at either of these two schools plays a very large role in which one choose to attend. I have visited both IIT and GT. GT for a two-hour tour and seminar deal, but IIT for an entire weekend. While at IIT I stayed in one of the frat houses, and got to experience "Greek life", IIT style. To give you an idea:
There was a frat bylaw that prohibited hazing.
They threw a party while I was there, and there were three major activities:
1. Dancing (surprise!)
2. Euchre, standard bet was $0.50 a game OMG!
3. N64
In addition, drinking was rather curtailed and the standard beverage was soda not beer.
However, the GT respondent has a point, due to the sheer size of GT it would be rather easy to surround myself with fellow geeks, except for one problem; I have a tolerant disposition which causes flakes, extremists and weirdoes, to seek me out and cling to me with incredible tenacity. For example, among my best friends are found: the class valedictorian (my role model), a Marxist, an anarchist, several children of Baptist missionaries (this would be less weird if I was not Roman Catholic), the only kid in the class expected to not graduate. I can just see myself "carrying" half a dozen flakes through the introductory engineering courses and into their sophomore year. I have already done this with the future dropout, and I do not look forward to doing it again. True I could cut them off, but I find that requires a sort of callousness spirit, which I proudly lack. Although, I may be forced to acquire it in the future. (and the debate roars on...)
Me for example, I have a tough decision to make in the next month or so. I can go to GeorgiaTech and get all the benefits of a large state institute or I can go to IllinoisTech in Chicago and get the benefits of a smaller school which may mean fewer options, but at least what they do do they should do well. As opposed to the massive scale of GTech were some classes and students are bound to slip through the cracks into "flake-land." Georgia's co-op program is better known though...(this could go on for pages...) Anybody out there got an opinon/ bit of advice/ flame to share on this topic?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder about the efficiency of H2 production every time some political yahoo, or tree-hunging greenie starts ranting about fuel cells. Breaking hydrogen out of its current chemical compounds; hydrocarbons, water, etc will require a substantial amount of energy. Then the hydrogen has to be stored, and it is notorious for being one of the most difficult to store compounds in existence. Then you have safety issues because H2 is also highly flammable. One poster pointed out that H2 will dissipate while gasoline forms a puddle, but its greater propensity to explode in the first place probably counteracts that benefit. Then you have the issues with H2O exhaust. Yes, it is water vapor we are talking about, but when 100 million americans drive to work everyday, that is a lot of water vapor, the potential for ecosystem impact is very real.
H2 may be a feasible way to store energy but it is only one of dozens, from a broad array of chemical batteries to flywheels. However much hydrogen may be superior to other forms of battery, its use will never supplant our need to to actually GENERATE the electricity that is needed to charge all those batteries in the first place. Hydrocarbon fuels like methane and coal are falling from favor because of their harmful byproducts but legitimate efforts to reduce harmful emissions are having a substantial impact. Recent technological developments can reduce most harmful emmissions from coal by 90% and more. Plus growing concerns about the limit of supply may very well be proved pointless by the recent development of thermal depolymerisation technology (TDP) which permits the energy efficient conversion of carbonn based waste into fuel and other useful byproducts with no harmful outputs.
Windpower is an enviromental catastrophe second only to a damn break, the wind farms in california are inefficient, expensive, deafeningly noisy and mercilessly slaughter large numbers of wildlife, including several bald eagles, each year.
Solar power is also expensive, and unreliable, though it is useful enough that it will always play some part in meeting our generating needs it can only account for a small percentage of those needs.
We have pretty much built all the hydroelectric capacity we can, besides building dams also results in a substantial environmental impact, from flooded upstream areas that become reservoirs and variations in flow, to meet generating demand, damaging downstream wildlife.
A well run and designed nuclear plant like Plant Vogtle in Augusta, Georgia can produce power at about 1.4-1.7 cents a kw-hour, that is cheaper than coal, and almost as cheap as hydro. The radioactive waste that results from maintaining nuclear facilities can be safely and indefinitely managed, despite what some might have you believe. Especially if the Yucca Mountain repository comes online. An interesting side note: US nuclear plants have burned up over 6000 Russian Warheads, how's that for "Swords to Plowshares"?
Plus all of that only considers the current generation of plants in existence. Plants that were built in the 1970's. With the great leaps in commerical nuclear technology that have been made by US companies building plants in foreign countries, like Korea, Japan, and France, the next generation of plants that will, hopefully, be built in the coming decade, will be safer, cheaper, and more reliable. 30 years ago the accident at Three Mile Island brought us to the realization that commercial nuclear generation posed a serious danger. In the 30 years since then the nuclear power industry has proved it is capable and willing to work to eliminate the imediacy of that danger. While it once acted that way in response to federal regulation, it has learned that nuclear safety is a significant boon to their bottom line, since TMI most nuclear plants have gone from around 60% of operational capacity to over 90%. If people are willing to face their fears and cut through the spin, I believe they will find, as I have, that nuclear power can and
While it might be personally offensive to me that the president used his position to coerce/convince/entice a woman half his age to give him head, I agree it is not an impeachable offense. And so does everyone else. Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and purjery. Both of which are serious offenses because of what they say about his integrity, and his willingness to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. I will concede that Clinton was lying to avoid being sued for sexual harrassment, while Bush's objective was to start a war. However, while he exagerrated some things, making them seem signigicantly more sinister than maybe a democrat talking about the exact same report, I doubt he out and out lied. Of course Clinton did not out and out lie either, unless he was also lieing when he said he did not consider head to be "sexual relations." Of course, just because we do not find any weapons in Iraq does not mean they were not there. It just means that France, and Russia were able to stall long enough that Saddam moved all of the incriminating evidence out of the country. Especially the stuff they had sold him.
Go to scifi's farscape page. You can read the "journey log" wich is essentially a teaser for each episode. It is best if you just read up to where you are to get an idea of what it going on. But the logs leave enough unsaid to still make the episodes worth watching if you are like me and loose control and just read all of them. Right now they are rerunning earlier season 3 stuff on fridays. This Friday they will be showing "Thanks for Sharing," and Wednesday they will show "Family Ties" the last episode of season 1. There will not be any truly new episodes until the season finale in January. After you read the journey logs there is lots of other interesting stuff, like the character profiles and Chrichton's notes. Though my personal favorite was the "character insights" with the director that are in the "farscape primer." The character insights more than anything will help you get an idea of what is going on in the show.
Here a link to make it easy for you Farscape
Regardless of personal ideologies the survival of a nation is dependant upon its citizen's willingness to protect it. Personally I do not believe in using blanket retribution as an effective way of dealing with problems. I am not going to go around beating 6 year olds to make sure that one never messes with my computer. However, as a citizen of this slightly less screwed up than usual nation I am willing to advocate the the immediate and merciless destruction of any and all who oppose our way of life. Up to and including afflicting quasi-innocent bystanders so that their survivors will actually discourage future attacks in a somewhat Machievellian fashion. Such that, the next time something like this happens everyone should line up to turn in the perpatrators to avoid more retribution. In such an environment the likelihood of that next time ever even occurring are greatly reduced. I am willing to do things as a US citizen that I would never do as a person becuase as I US citizen I am more than a person. I am a member of the longest running experiment in Liberty on this planet. While it is flawed, if I want posterity to enjoy even this flawed Liberty then I must be willing to defend it. Yes, war is a terrible thing, but the better we act to root out its seeds the less likely that our children will have to learn that fact firsthand. Yes I am talking terrorism, but we either "fight fire with fire" or surrender and while I generally do not advocate "the ends justify the means" I do when the only other alternative is just "the end." After all, what is terrorism but politicians condemning methods they are not allowed to use themselves.
As far as I know all "solutions" to cases like this fall into two categories.
1) "Kill them all and count the bodies." -CIA basic operating procedures
2) "Always leave your enemy a way out, the only truly dangerous enemy is a desperate one." -Sun Tzu
So what do all US hating terrorists want from the US? They want us dead or at least out of their lives. So are we to trade the lives of the Kosovo Albanians, or Isrealis for fewer people hating us for being Free? If we take Sun Tzu's advice and try and leave them an option, what do we offer? Exile to Antarctica? frontal lobotomies? When the disparate strategies of the CIA and Sun Tzu were originally brought to my attention, (I believe it was in a Tom Clancy novel, the same guy who wrote about using Boeings full of jet fuel as offensive weapons) I could not understand the need for the CIA's ruthless, even barbaric, practice. Now I think that I better understand; Sun Tzu was talking about rational enemies, but the CIA is trained to deal with the more difficult kind.
I am all for a slightly restrained offensive against all nations deemed to be supporting terrorist activities. I say give them the choice of performing "acts of good faith" such as the ejection of known terrorists, freezing of assets, destruction of training infrastructure, and CESSASTION OF PROPAGANDA, to back up all the verbal condemning that everyone is bandying about. Then, for those that do not comply, we introduce them to the business end of our own version of a passenger jet full of fuel, they are called fuel-air bombs.
Since it is extremely important I will reiterate that an end to the propaganda is of vital importance. If people like the PA were not brainwashing their children to be martyrs, it would be a lot harder for Bin Laden to find opertives. We also need an end to the double standards. If anyone was even bothering to look, they would know that Lebanon actually treats the Palestinian "refugees" in their country worse than Isreal treats the civilian population of the West Bank. Funny how no one tried to bring that up at the UN racism conference.
The World Net Daily news worth reading about.
Correction, Tyndale knew Latin, he was originally a member of the clergy, he did not know the Greek and Hebrew he needed to make a "new" translation from the oldest manuscripts.
Hey that site is a real neat propaganda point. Funny how they do not mention that the first bible printed was named after a Catholic Bishop in recognition of his influence on the printer's life. Plus the unfarnished lie in stating that Tyndale translated the first English Bible. Tyndale translated the first Protestant English Bible, working largely from Luther's text since he knew about enough Latin to translate "Veni, Vidi, Vici". On the other hand some of the English translations of his Catholic (Bible translating) predecesors can still be seen today. History can be a real bitch when you bother with actual facts.
u iry.asp?userid=4NIZVGWFY1&mscssid=89U9LK66JXML8PMG K7L6Q3H94SS5EMM1&isbn=1888992042
Read first, then rant:
"Where we got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church" by Henry G Graham, see link below.
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInq
"The violation of rights" has never been an "official" Catholic position. If a right is recongized to exist, the Catholic Church respects it, and sometimes even respects rights that are not recognized to exist. I eagerly await you supplying me with specific examples of Catholic, or Christian intolerance that lead to violance. The last time I can think of that Christians made history for killing people was back during the Reformation, and we were killing each other!
Please note that culures often have more than one component: when, Spanish, Portugese, British, French, etc settlers invaded other lands and starting raping and pillaging, these were Christians in name only, conforming to a social standard that ostracised those who did not profess belief in Christ. A good look at history will reveal dozens of examples of Monks, priests, missionaries working to help and protect native populations. If you remember from your history lessons, people left Europe for the three G's, gold, glory, and God. It might help to understand that the people seeking gold and glory were usually not also seeking God's glory, such a thing would be generally impossible.
Personally I see this ISP move as the Church doing what it has always done, staying on the cutting edge of social development. The Pope was elected by the College of Cardinals before the European Monarchies even took shape. I may be wrong but I doubt it has ever even used slave labor, (monks who have volunatarily sworn theirs lives to servitude are not slaves). The Inquisitions which people love to bang on so much was actually considered more humane and just than the royal courts. According to the Bible the Apostles promoted VOLUNTARY socialism 1500 years before Marx was born. The Crusades were nothing more than an attempt to "protect foreign interests" and while a lot of people have a problem with that, from that perspective, the only difference between the Crusades and Bush Sr.'s intervention to liberate Kuwait is that the US won, and had nifty technology that kept their men from getting killed in the process. Course this kind of advanced thinking can backfire. For example, the Children's Crusade, started by an inspiration to "convert the Moslems through love" failed because nobody thought it would work so the kids got betrayed. However, this same kind of peaceful activism was succesfully utilized by Ghandi to liberate India from British Occupation.
And do not blame what is happening in Kosovo on religious tensions either. That is ethnic violence, like between Isreal and the Palestinians. They are not fighting over theology or ideology but over conflicting bloodrights. If they belonged to the same religion maybe they would get along, maybe not, after all look at Southern Mexico. If they had no religion, maybe they would fight anyway, check out the Basque Separatists.(AFAIK the Basque Separatists lack key support for their independant state because they want to set up a leftist regime in it.)
Then again, since the church has so much political clout in the region, they may just move into the legal system and demand filtering by all ISP's so that only the word of the almighty (Christian)God is available.
When the Ayatolla of Iran takes over militarily and forces a hyper-conservative flavor of Islam on the people, we shun the country and declare it a "rogue state." When Afganistan begins enforcing strict moral codes on the population (such as women are not allowed outside the home, ever), it makes it onto all the e-mail circuits as a crime against humanity. When the Catholic Church buys its way into imposing its moral standards onto a country.... then what?
In this case, the Church is running a business, not a governemnt, if you are unsure of the difference, read up on Libertarians (http://www.harrybrowne.org). Also the Church tends to comply with those silly UN resolutions on Human Rights, and International Law, unlike certain, Jihad obssesed countries I can think of. If a democratically elected government decides that certain actions should not occur, be it public nudity, suicide, smoking, or murder, this is generally considered ok. Heavily Catholic or not, the Philipines still claims to be a democracy.
Jihad -Holy War in which people are given a choice between life, as the aggresor chooses, or death, as the aggressor chooses.
Evangelism -Making people aware that they have a choice between the life they live now, and a new life that they might find more enjoyable if they would only think about it.
> Paul had his sons in the next book and not one of them was killed in the first.
Paul did have a son in the first book and the son did die. (see previous posts)
> The emporer's daughter was created solely for this television adaption.
Her physical role was expanded to fill in pieces of plot that were otherwise lost due to lack of narration and chapter headings.
> There were no weirding modules in the television mini as there should have been,
I do not personally remember any weirding modules, but a lot of people seem to be saying that they were a Lynch invention.
> nor did Paul use the weirding voice to crash the ship that was taking he and his mother over the desert! Key to the development of the character's awareness of his abilities!
I agree with you on this one, I a guessing the scene was cut out to save on time, sets and paying the soldiers to learn more lines.
> He DID NOT marry the fabricated emporer's daughter in the book! Complete garbage!
Yes he did, why else would Chani say "History will remember us as wives." Paul married the emporer's daughter in order to solidify his authority among the Nobility by giving himself a legitmate claim to rule other than "If you do not do what I say I will end spice production!"
It has already been said about 4 times, but you have forgetten part of the story: Leto is Paul and Chani's first son and he is killed during a Sadurkar(sp) raid in the southern regions. In the next book Chani will give birth to twins Leto II and a girl whose name escapes me.
I was actually dissapointed during the movie because Paul's sister did not portray her sorrow at the death of her nephew that I remember her expressing in the book. Something along the lines of "If you kill me at least I will not have to tell my brother of his son's death."
Abraham and Lot are both in the old testament. Before Christ came "to fulfill the law." Back before our God let us nail Him to a tree and then defied death to show us how deeply we are in His debt, He used a more worldly aproach to convincing people that He truly was the One and Only. However, it did not work, the Isrealites kept forgetting Who was in charge. So He had to reassert His Supreme authority in a rather unique way. By letting us kill Him, or try to anyway.
.htm (the section on sects is pretty interesting)
An excellent example of how things have changed since Christ showed up is that the ten commandments have been replaced by the 14 beatitudes.
You want answers? We have answers: www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/topical
I am aware of the fact that most people do not put these two colleges that close to each other in ANY sort of ranking. Personally even I did not at first. However there are some interesting things about the IT industry that make this matter less. This whole set of posts has to do with people who have IT degrees but not the know-how. Such people will not have very successful careers regardless of where they get their degree. Now here is the interesting tidbit: In 1999 graduating Comp Engineers from IIT reporting an average annual salary of 45.6k, but GT graduates with the same degree reported an average starting salary that was only 45.1k. True this is not a very big difference, but the fact that the supposedly better school came out on bottom indicates that most people, while they think coming from a good school is nice, are more interested in what you learned at school, not what school you learned it at. I have heard a great deal to this effect over the last year as I searched for my own future school. Hence, while GT undeniably has better facilities, IIT has a much more attentive environment, and there are, evidently, not nearly as many freeloaders around. So what value can I attribute to all of GT's added opportunities if I find myself unable to take advantage of them?
The different quality of life I would experience at either of these two schools plays a very large role in which one choose to attend. I have visited both IIT and GT. GT for a two-hour tour and seminar deal, but IIT for an entire weekend. While at IIT I stayed in one of the frat houses, and got to experience "Greek life", IIT style. To give you an idea:
1. Dancing (surprise!)
2. Euchre, standard bet was $0.50 a game OMG!
3. N64
In addition, drinking was rather curtailed and the standard beverage was soda not beer.
However, the GT respondent has a point, due to the sheer size of GT it would be rather easy to surround myself with fellow geeks, except for one problem; I have a tolerant disposition which causes flakes, extremists and weirdoes, to seek me out and cling to me with incredible tenacity. For example, among my best friends are found: the class valedictorian (my role model), a Marxist, an anarchist, several children of Baptist missionaries (this would be less weird if I was not Roman Catholic), the only kid in the class expected to not graduate. I can just see myself "carrying" half a dozen flakes through the introductory engineering courses and into their sophomore year. I have already done this with the future dropout, and I do not look forward to doing it again. True I could cut them off, but I find that requires a sort of callousness spirit, which I proudly lack. Although, I may be forced to acquire it in the future. (and the debate roars on...)
Me for example, I have a tough decision to make in the next month or so. I can go to GeorgiaTech and get all the benefits of a large state institute or I can go to IllinoisTech in Chicago and get the benefits of a smaller school which may mean fewer options, but at least what they do do they should do well. As opposed to the massive scale of GTech were some classes and students are bound to slip through the cracks into "flake-land." Georgia's co-op program is better known though...(this could go on for pages...) Anybody out there got an opinon/ bit of advice/ flame to share on this topic?