Neo-Nazis associate themselves with Nazi Germany, hardly christian nation.
People claiming to be Christian do break laws. But a very few people do not speak for the OVERWELMING majority. If that were the case, would you like to be associated with the Likes of PETA, ELF, and Earth First, because you are a leftist (if you are)? You see, pointing to a few wackos does not prove your point at all, no matter how much you would like it to.
Our government was inspired by BOTH, doesn't mean that it is mutually exclusive. You know the main reason the Bill of Rights was 10 in number? You know why there are three branches of Government right?
As for my views of Righty lefy are at the fringe. I fully admit it. I don't believe in Right wing / left wing like MOST have been taught. I believe in freedom and responsibility of the individual. Government's SOLE purpose, is NOT to provide welfare, PROVIDE SECURITY. Look at the Preamble to the US constitution.
IMHO all laws should be weighed against its stated goals.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
BTW I am against the Patriot Act, don't like GWB or his skull and bones brother JFK. Both are the same. Republicrat and Demican. I am a Libertarian.
Thomas Jefferson also wanted every school to have a Bible in it. You still agree with TJ?
The problem is that you only pick and choose what you are looking at, and dismiss or exlcude or otherwise ignore the parts you don't like.
I don't care if he was a diest, that is between him and his god.
there are Christian organizations who advocate the slaying of doctors in the name of "saving children."
Name one. There are liberal organizations that advocate violence too, you want me to judge you according to a few extremists? But unlike you, I can name a few left wing extremists, some of which I suppose you support even tacitly. PETA, ELF, Earth First. Not to mention the Unibomber Ted Kazinsky (sp).
I don't post anon. I let it all hang out, while you hide yourself. You remind me of those idiots hiding behind masks as they cut the heads off the "infadels".
Please note, that the answers given did not actually answer the questions as asked. Typical dumbass liberal spin. D good, R bad.
Take a hint from me. Quit watching Michael Moore pieces and actually read HISTORY books. If it wasn't for the US of A this world would look more like a Concentration Camp or a prison in Siberia.
"The US rails against 'religious extremists' (Muslims) while a good number of their people (fundamentalist Christians) seem to be equally as extreme."
Please name a single Fudamentalist Christian who has blown themselves up with a bomb?
Please name a single Fundamentalist Christian who has flown airplanes into buildings
Please name a single Fundamentalist Christian Organization that has the express goal of eliminating any other people group.
Please give one example of a Fundamentalist Christian calling for the extermination of infadels.
The problem with people LIKE YOU, is that they don't realize that "fundamental christians" are at the core of many, many advances that provide YOU with many of the things that you enjoy, like the democratic republic of the US of A.
It is the very principles that these "Fundamentalist Christians" espoused that you are using to bash them. You obvoiusly don't have a clue as to the true impact of "Fundamentalist Christians".
Oh, BTW, I am a Fundamentalist "christian" who happens to be a Libertarian.
Business types are afraid of OSS mostly for the fact that it's "unsupported." To them, support doesn't mean having developers on hand to fix problems so much as it does having someone to blame when things go wrong.
If that were true, then businesses would be suing M$ left and right, and M$ would have to accept responsibility for their crapware.
If that were true, then businesses would be suing the crapware developers who write the crap the brings windows to its knees.
The idea of supported, verses non-supported is a red herring of Corporate Think. In my department, we support ONLY IE, dispite the overwhelming tech problems associated with it. The only reason given is that it is "Industry Standard".
I have tried for years to get Mozilla as a default Browser and to get IE removed as supported software. However, the mentality is that the sheeple are too stupid to understand.
The fact is, that may be true, but I work for a school district, and I keep raising the point that we need to EDUCATE the teachers and staff.
The problem is, that teachers cannot be taught (as a group), as they think they are beyone the rest of us.
The only thing I can do is remind people daily, why I refuse to use IE. With all the various exploits in Windows and IE, my job goal is that much easier.
One of these days, it will hit someone that IE is the problem, that Windows IS the problem, that M$ IS the problem.
Now our new CIO has elected to stop that benefit using the argument that we should be dedicated staff who desire to be responsive and should do what it takes to make that happen.
"You should be a dedicated Officer of the company who desires to give us much deserved raises, so that we can be responsive, and do whatever else it takes to make us happy."
Basically throw their own corporate speak back at them, and see how it works on them.
You are speaking about Government definitions, regarding specifically intellegence classification system. I was using a more broad application in my definition, that would be more applicable outside of the intellegence community.
In fact, the intellegence definition is the typical oxymoron. Classified as "unclassified" is typical government stupidity. Think about it.
Nonclassified implies that it was never classified, while unclassified implies that it was once classified, but now is not.
I don't know which is more accurate in this case being the typical slashdotter, and not actually reading the article.
Which brings me to my point. Half the time I don't even bother trying to read the article and the other half the time it is slashdotted, which is about the same result.:-/
Pretty extreme example of a Hypocrite expecting others to work for free. I'm probably not the only one who didn't bother looking into your hypocritical life after seeing your lame response.
Or are you really a skilled volunteer where you work?
I have been using a MySQL / Perl solution called WebGUI for quite a while now. It is a full CMS system that is truly open source and cross platform, running on *nix, Windows and MacOS.
It truly is powerful yet very easy to use. Plenty of features such as Submissions system, Bulletin Board, Calendar, Syndicated Content and much more.
If you are looking for such a solution, feel free to give it a try.
This one shows the standing orders for buys and sells, which if you do a comparison, shows possible daily trend. More Sell orders can mean declining price. Also look for the variation of prices between the sell and buy sides. A huge descrepancy can mean valuation problems within the market.
I will use the same evidence you use. Try reading the book Buried Alive. It deals with the evidence science claims as proof of evolution, and provides a startaling alternative option.
Plenty of science is available on the subject, the problem is the politics of science.
Evolution is not science, is not testable, is not provable. If it were scientific, it would be. It is a belief system established to fit some of the facts we have.
I know exactly what Evolution says. But survival of the fittest doesn't prove evolution, even if it is true.
Simply because there is another option to survival of the fittest, that being the SLOWING DOWN of De-Evolution.
Taking your fruitfly example, what you end up with is a subspecies that has less genetic material to draw from. While it may enhance the survivability of a few generations, it actually reduces the gene pool.
Further, it doesn't change the fruitfly into something else. What you end up with is a fruit fly population that is less than what started.
In fact, most genetic mutations are actually terrible and deadly. For evolution to work genetic mutation, not gene manipulation must also come into play.
Even ECOLOGISTS monitor genetic mutations as a sign of things going bad, and NOT as evolution. Even science doesn't believe what it claims to believe.
Because their form proved adaptable or survivable to the changes in environment over that period?
Actually what it proves is that there is little or no adaptation of species for millions of years while evolution is supposedly taking place.
You statement's logic kind of proves my point. Evolutionist take whatever data they find and says "that proves evolution" even when it proves nothing or worse, tends to disprove evolution.
What if the text books you learned from are all wrong. The fact is they are, often quoting sources long since proven wrong.
Evolution hasn't proven its case by a long shot. In fact, much of the evidence evolutionists claim does not prove anything close to Evolution.
Evolution has yet to show any sort of steady change in a species over time, though most of the time they interpret it that way.
Why is there so little variation among the fossil record within a single species (say T-Rex) even though that record supposedly spans millions of years?
Evolutionists ignore the obvious problems with evolution.
Accuracy of what? Even your bias is biased. Evolution has yet to be proven, and is, in fact, a RELIGIOUS belief. It is something you believe in, without any proof whatsoever. The best Evolution has come up with is interpretation of circumstantial evidence, not all of which actually supports evolution.
Ask an evolutionist the following question: "why do various species show little to no evolutionary change when they spanned millions of years in the strata of time?"
Unless all the FOUND T-Rexs they have found all are from within the same few thousand year period, evolution fails a primary test of provability. That being that the variations found within all the species can be explained by other possible methods.
What if "Survival of the fittest" wasn't really evolutionary, but rather DE-Evolutionary, and accounted for the slower de-evolution of life?
Of course Evolutionists will debate this issue, because it doesn't fit their world view.
Accuracy has little or nothing to do with this debate. Faith does.
You can see that most people who want to buy aren't buying it because of its value, but because of its potential lack of value. While it seems most people wanting to sell are trying to get out with the least amount of loss.
Using the link above, you can gain some additional insight.
IF you look at the sell orders (ASK) vs the buy (BID) orders outstanding, it tells a horrible story for people who own SCO.
Things to look for. What are people willing to pay for SCO, vs what people are asking to sell it. Compare both groups to the current asking price and you can see that most people who want to buy aren't the same as those who want to sell. People wanting to buy really know what the value is, while those people willing to sell are looking to squeeze a few extra $ out before cashing out.
Expect the $ to drop substantially. Then perhaps you might find SCO does get its wish and get bought out by someone. Although it would be fun just watching the ship sink into the abyss.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I am a nut.
No. Some have tried to make that case.
Neo-Nazis associate themselves with Nazi Germany, hardly christian nation.
People claiming to be Christian do break laws. But a very few people do not speak for the OVERWELMING majority. If that were the case, would you like to be associated with the Likes of PETA, ELF, and Earth First, because you are a leftist (if you are)? You see, pointing to a few wackos does not prove your point at all, no matter how much you would like it to.
Our government was inspired by BOTH, doesn't mean that it is mutually exclusive. You know the main reason the Bill of Rights was 10 in number? You know why there are three branches of Government right?
As for my views of Righty lefy are at the fringe. I fully admit it. I don't believe in Right wing / left wing like MOST have been taught. I believe in freedom and responsibility of the individual. Government's SOLE purpose, is NOT to provide welfare, PROVIDE SECURITY. Look at the Preamble to the US constitution.
IMHO all laws should be weighed against its stated goals.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
BTW I am against the Patriot Act, don't like GWB or his skull and bones brother JFK. Both are the same. Republicrat and Demican. I am a Libertarian.
The problem is that you only pick and choose what you are looking at, and dismiss or exlcude or otherwise ignore the parts you don't like.
I don't care if he was a diest, that is between him and his god.
Name one. There are liberal organizations that advocate violence too, you want me to judge you according to a few extremists? But unlike you, I can name a few left wing extremists, some of which I suppose you support even tacitly. PETA, ELF, Earth First. Not to mention the Unibomber Ted Kazinsky (sp).
I don't post anon. I let it all hang out, while you hide yourself. You remind me of those idiots hiding behind masks as they cut the heads off the "infadels".
Jeopardy questions to your answers.
Who freed the bastard French from the Nazi's?
Who are the French still Jeolous of?
Who defeated Nazism?
Who defeated Empirial Japan?
Who cause the Berlin wall to fall?
Please note, that the answers given did not actually answer the questions as asked. Typical dumbass liberal spin. D good, R bad.
Take a hint from me. Quit watching Michael Moore pieces and actually read HISTORY books. If it wasn't for the US of A this world would look more like a Concentration Camp or a prison in Siberia.
Please name a single Fudamentalist Christian who has blown themselves up with a bomb?
Please name a single Fundamentalist Christian who has flown airplanes into buildings
Please name a single Fundamentalist Christian Organization that has the express goal of eliminating any other people group.
Please give one example of a Fundamentalist Christian calling for the extermination of infadels.
The problem with people LIKE YOU, is that they don't realize that "fundamental christians" are at the core of many, many advances that provide YOU with many of the things that you enjoy, like the democratic republic of the US of A.
It is the very principles that these "Fundamentalist Christians" espoused that you are using to bash them. You obvoiusly don't have a clue as to the true impact of "Fundamentalist Christians".
Oh, BTW, I am a Fundamentalist "christian" who happens to be a Libertarian.
If that were true, then businesses would be suing M$ left and right, and M$ would have to accept responsibility for their crapware.
If that were true, then businesses would be suing the crapware developers who write the crap the brings windows to its knees.
The idea of supported, verses non-supported is a red herring of Corporate Think. In my department, we support ONLY IE, dispite the overwhelming tech problems associated with it. The only reason given is that it is "Industry Standard".
I have tried for years to get Mozilla as a default Browser and to get IE removed as supported software. However, the mentality is that the sheeple are too stupid to understand.
The fact is, that may be true, but I work for a school district, and I keep raising the point that we need to EDUCATE the teachers and staff.
The problem is, that teachers cannot be taught (as a group), as they think they are beyone the rest of us.
The only thing I can do is remind people daily, why I refuse to use IE. With all the various exploits in Windows and IE, my job goal is that much easier.
One of these days, it will hit someone that IE is the problem, that Windows IS the problem, that M$ IS the problem.
I look forward to that day. It is my only hope.
"You should be a dedicated Officer of the company who desires to give us much deserved raises, so that we can be responsive, and do whatever else it takes to make us happy."
Basically throw their own corporate speak back at them, and see how it works on them.
[blockquote]2,568 persistent Gaussians, possible radio transmissions from a distant planet.[/blockquote]
....
The transmission title reads
"To Serve Man"
to ....... Mos Eisley
You are speaking about Government definitions, regarding specifically intellegence classification system. I was using a more broad application in my definition, that would be more applicable outside of the intellegence community.
In fact, the intellegence definition is the typical oxymoron. Classified as "unclassified" is typical government stupidity. Think about it.
Nonclassified implies that it was never classified, while unclassified implies that it was once classified, but now is not.
:-/
I don't know which is more accurate in this case being the typical slashdotter, and not actually reading the article.
Which brings me to my point. Half the time I don't even bother trying to read the article and the other half the time it is slashdotted, which is about the same result.
No Darl McBride?
I can't remember the last time I wanted or even needed to run SIX videos while playing Quake in the BG.
Pretty extreme example of a Hypocrite expecting others to work for free. I'm probably not the only one who didn't bother looking into your hypocritical life after seeing your lame response.
Or are you really a skilled volunteer where you work?
I have been using a MySQL / Perl solution called WebGUI for quite a while
now. It is a full CMS system that is truly open source and cross
platform, running on *nix, Windows and MacOS.
It truly is powerful yet very easy to use. Plenty of features such as Submissions system, Bulletin Board, Calendar, Syndicated Content and much more.
If you are looking for such a solution, feel free to give it a try.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=SCOX
This one shows the standing orders for buys and sells, which if you do a comparison, shows possible daily trend. More Sell orders can mean declining price. Also look for the variation of prices between the sell and buy sides. A huge descrepancy can mean valuation problems within the market.
I will use the same evidence you use. Try reading the book Buried Alive. It deals with the evidence science claims as proof of evolution, and provides a startaling alternative option.
Plenty of science is available on the subject, the problem is the politics of science.
Evolution is not science, is not testable, is not provable. If it were scientific, it would be. It is a belief system established to fit some of the facts we have.
LOL
I know exactly what Evolution says. But survival of the fittest doesn't prove evolution, even if it is true.
Simply because there is another option to survival of the fittest, that being the SLOWING DOWN of De-Evolution.
Taking your fruitfly example, what you end up with is a subspecies that has less genetic material to draw from. While it may enhance the survivability of a few generations, it actually reduces the gene pool.
Further, it doesn't change the fruitfly into something else. What you end up with is a fruit fly population that is less than what started.
In fact, most genetic mutations are actually terrible and deadly. For evolution to work genetic mutation, not gene manipulation must also come into play.
Even ECOLOGISTS monitor genetic mutations as a sign of things going bad, and NOT as evolution. Even science doesn't believe what it claims to believe.
Actually what it proves is that there is little or no adaptation of species for millions of years while evolution is supposedly taking place.
You statement's logic kind of proves my point. Evolutionist take whatever data they find and says "that proves evolution" even when it proves nothing or worse, tends to disprove evolution.
[blockquote]Why would god kill off an entire species (say T-Rex)? Could it be that this infallible "god" made a mistake?[/blockquote]
Logical fallacy. Assumption of facts, and begging the question. Quite a response from someone not predjudice and willing to look at facts.
My point is that BOTH sides have faith. You believe what you believe, not because it is true, but because that is what you have faith in.
What if the text books you learned from are all wrong. The fact is they are, often quoting sources long since proven wrong.
Evolution hasn't proven its case by a long shot. In fact, much of the evidence evolutionists claim does not prove anything close to Evolution.
Evolution has yet to show any sort of steady change in a species over time, though most of the time they interpret it that way.
Why is there so little variation among the fossil record within a single species (say T-Rex) even though that record supposedly spans millions of years?
Evolutionists ignore the obvious problems with evolution.
Accuracy of what? Even your bias is biased. Evolution has yet to be proven, and is, in fact, a RELIGIOUS belief. It is something you believe in, without any proof whatsoever. The best Evolution has come up with is interpretation of circumstantial evidence, not all of which actually supports evolution.
Ask an evolutionist the following question: "why do various species show little to no evolutionary change when they spanned millions of years in the strata of time?"
Unless all the FOUND T-Rexs they have found all are from within the same few thousand year period, evolution fails a primary test of provability. That being that the variations found within all the species can be explained by other possible methods.
What if "Survival of the fittest" wasn't really evolutionary, but rather DE-Evolutionary, and accounted for the slower de-evolution of life?
Of course Evolutionists will debate this issue, because it doesn't fit their world view.
Accuracy has little or nothing to do with this debate. Faith does.
Yeah, saying what I meant.
You can see that most people who want to buy aren't buying it because of its value, but because of its potential lack of value. While it seems most people wanting to sell are trying to get out with the least amount of loss.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Using the link above, you can gain some additional insight.
IF you look at the sell orders (ASK) vs the buy (BID) orders outstanding, it tells a horrible story for people who own SCO.
Things to look for. What are people willing to pay for SCO, vs what people are asking to sell it. Compare both groups to the current asking price and you can see that most people who want to buy aren't the same as those who want to sell. People wanting to buy really know what the value is, while those people willing to sell are looking to squeeze a few extra $ out before cashing out.
Expect the $ to drop substantially. Then perhaps you might find SCO does get its wish and get bought out by someone. Although it would be fun just watching the ship sink into the abyss.
Mandrake 10 announce, just after slashdot goes off line. I guess that they were updating the system.