I don't really know what your point is about Christians.
Evidentally.
The debate was whether Kerry could be considered a good Catholic.
And my point, that you didn't get, is that the definition of "good Catholic" is subjective, just as the definition of "good Christian" is subjective, because religious belief is, ultimately, a personal thing.
That being said, about adultery, read Johm 8:3-11, you know, the part of the Bible where Jesus sais "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7, KJV)
Yes, I realize the bible contradicts itself, thank you for pointing that out. This is, of course, why there are so many Christian denominations out there... everyone picks and chooses the parts they like.
Also, about belief: Christianity itself (Ie the most basic level) requires you to believe nothing more than...
Thank you for providing *your* definition of Christianity. If I go talk to a Dutch Reformist friend of mine, he'll give me a different definition. And if I talked to a member of the United church, they'll give me yet another. Which is, again, the point that you missed.
Yeah! And from what I've heard, all Christians must believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that only 144000 people get to go to heaven! Hell, I don't remember the last time I saw a woman getting stoned for adultery. So, from what I've heard, most of the people out there who say they're Christian really aren't!
And if you didn't get the sarcasm: religion is a person thing. Different people are free to choose to believe different things. Moreover, some people are intelligent enough to realize that, while they may believe one thing, it isn't their right to force those beliefs on others, let alone have them codified in law. I know, I know, it's hard to believe! People with actual, sophisticated belief systems, where things aren't all black and white... amazing, eh?
Wow... +5 on a comment that's only vaguely connected with the article and is clearly just the poster bitching about their own favorite pet peave. Well done!
Well, given that it's on TV at least once a year, probably more, I just assumed everyone had watched it at some point.:) Of course, the fact that it's one of my favorite 80s movies probably has something to do with it, too...
The speed of light can be given in terms of other fundamental electromagnetic constants (1/sqrt(permeability of vacuum * permittivity of vacuum)), but I suspect that this doesn't really answer your question.
On the contrary, I think that answers the question perfectly. The speed of light is directly derivable from other fundamental constants which are inherent properties of our Universe.
And, of course, the way to answer the question "Why are those constants inherent properties of our universe?" is to invoke the anthropic principal: these constants are what they are because those are the values necessary to produce us, thus allowing us to ask the question in the first place.
Dude, nice troll! Classic stuff. Start off with something everyone agrees with (drinking age), go a bit further (handguns, concealed carry, taxes, etc), then bring out the big guns (the evils of sex ed and those damned gays)! Heck, you even got a "+1 Insightful"! Well done.
Funny. I've been with my wife for 6, and I certainly don't "act like a man", at least by your definition (specifically: being an asshole). In fact, given you've been with your woman for 7 years and you hold this rather amusing belief that women let themselves go once they've "locked themselves in", I'm doubly convinced that you're embittered. Is your wife aware of your feelings on this matter?
We also have the fact that the Prime Minister has to answer to his caucus and his cabinet. They can depose him by several political means. He has to answer to the House of Commons every day that it sits and then some.
Well, sort of. If a party has a majority, then the PM is only responsible to his own party (which is why, IMHO, the current minority government is, really, the ideal government). Thus, we have two forces at work: 1) A member of a party is largely unable to disent, for fear of being punished by the party leadership. This would be known as party discipline, and our former PM Mr. Chretien demonstrated it to incredible effect. 2) A party member simply does not want to be responsible for the deposing of his leader and the kickoff of a new election (since it may damage his party, not to mention that he might lose his own seat). Thus, a party with a majority is, by and large, unassailable, unless the leadership does something so supremely stupid that their own party revolts.
Now, there's little to be done about the latter, as it is integral to a party system. And, while the current set of leaders claim to oppose party discipline, and to have a desire to make the house more democratic, I've yet to see anything substantial happen with regards to the former (where are all those free votes, Mr. Martin?)
My point is that, from an architectural standpoint, our system isn't that much more democratic than the one down south. In fact, given the amount of power that can concentrate in the PMO (again, thanks Mr. Chretien), in some ways, we have a *less* democratic system (and don't get me started on the travesty that is the Notwithstanding Clause). However, our saving grace is that, by and large, money hasn't entered the political equation in a big way here in Canada, partly because of various laws on the books limiting private funding, and partly because the party system (and, ironically, party discipline) makes it more difficult to buy MPs.
Oh, and no, I'm not a conservative or an NDP-er.:)
That, of course, would be the brilliance of Pixar. Because they do cartoon-style animation, they can get away with a reduced level of realism (and thus decreased rendering complexity). This also means people are more... err, satisfied with their work. After all, there's nothing worse than seeing a poorly rendered human (in fact, there was an article on this very topic a while back, though I can't find the link), as opposed to a cutely rendered cartoon fish. Of course, that's not to say they don't do damned impressive stuff... the hair rendering in Monster's Inc. was really breathtaking, and their work in Finding Nemo was pretty impressive, too. But they definitely don't aim for photorealism.
Forget PC. I've seen a ton of guys get married and start putting on the fat. It really does go both ways. Simply put, when people get married, they settle into a sedentary lifestyle. This is especially true when the kids come along, because there's little time to fit in physical activity.
Frankly, the only advantage men have is that, typically, they have a higher initial percentage of muscle mass, so it takes a little longer for the fat to pile on. But, once it piles on...
BTW, you'll do much better in life if you try not to be an embittered, angry, sexist prick.
... is TeX or Postscript better for storing more-or-less arbitrary data in an easy-to-parse format? Because that's the real point of XML. The advantage of something like XML:FO is that you can then take this nicely formatted data and convert it directly into something printable.
And before you say it, no, there's no point converting to TeX or something else... if you're going that far, you might as well go straight to PDF, which is what XML:FO facilitates.
I never said it was a good to have unwanted kids; it certainly isn't. But it is good to want kids, and then good to have them.
So, does not wanting children make a person "bad"? Would I be less bad if I had a child, even though I didn't want it?
Incidentally, there are millions of people today that end up having unwanted children because they feel pressured by people like you who tell them that they're "bad" for not wanting children. Does that in turn make *you* bad?
It's also about nurturing childing and passing along knowledge and values. But it's hard to do much of that without having a horse in the race, so to speak.
I completely disagree. Being a teacher, or a tutor, or a godparent, or an uncle allows you to do exactly those things without ever having to be a parent. Or are you actually deluded enough to believe that your parents are the sole source of knowledge and values that are instilled within you?
Yes, you can. There are a number of things metropolitan areas can do to significantly reduce light pollution (just changing street lights to use hoods which prevent light from reflecting back into space would make a *huge* difference). And, in the end, while it would require an upfront investment, they'd make their money back due improved efficiency.
Don't kid yourself. Urban need not equate to light polluted. Which is good, because light pollution doesn't just affect the skies. It also affects your health, and the health of those around you, both human and animal.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really know what your point is about Christians.
Evidentally.
The debate was whether Kerry could be considered a good Catholic.
And my point, that you didn't get, is that the definition of "good Catholic" is subjective, just as the definition of "good Christian" is subjective, because religious belief is, ultimately, a personal thing.
That being said, about adultery, read Johm 8:3-11, you know, the part of the Bible where Jesus sais "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7, KJV)
Yes, I realize the bible contradicts itself, thank you for pointing that out. This is, of course, why there are so many Christian denominations out there... everyone picks and chooses the parts they like.
Also, about belief: Christianity itself (Ie the most basic level) requires you to believe nothing more than...
Thank you for providing *your* definition of Christianity. If I go talk to a Dutch Reformist friend of mine, he'll give me a different definition. And if I talked to a member of the United church, they'll give me yet another. Which is, again, the point that you missed.
Yeah! And from what I've heard, all Christians must believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that only 144000 people get to go to heaven! Hell, I don't remember the last time I saw a woman getting stoned for adultery. So, from what I've heard, most of the people out there who say they're Christian really aren't!
And if you didn't get the sarcasm: religion is a person thing. Different people are free to choose to believe different things. Moreover, some people are intelligent enough to realize that, while they may believe one thing, it isn't their right to force those beliefs on others, let alone have them codified in law. I know, I know, it's hard to believe! People with actual, sophisticated belief systems, where things aren't all black and white... amazing, eh?
You might want to double-check that...
What about Gnumeric? There is more than one major spreadsheet app out there...
Wow... +5 on a comment that's only vaguely connected with the article and is clearly just the poster bitching about their own favorite pet peave. Well done!
Lovely. I assume the sig code lets you enter a >120 character sig, but then proceeds to truncate it? Gotta love that...
You should probably credit the Dead Milkmen for that... I was curious where it came from and had to look it up in Google. :)
Yeah, it's so funny when you take quotes out of context. He he, you're so clever. Idiot.
Not everyone saw the movie.
:) Of course, the fact that it's one of my favorite 80s movies probably has something to do with it, too...
Well, given that it's on TV at least once a year, probably more, I just assumed everyone had watched it at some point.
Good God, please tell me this post is redundant. Am I really that old??
The speed of light can be given in terms of other fundamental electromagnetic constants (1/sqrt(permeability of vacuum * permittivity of vacuum)), but I suspect that this doesn't really answer your question.
On the contrary, I think that answers the question perfectly. The speed of light is directly derivable from other fundamental constants which are inherent properties of our Universe.
And, of course, the way to answer the question "Why are those constants inherent properties of our universe?" is to invoke the anthropic principal: these constants are what they are because those are the values necessary to produce us, thus allowing us to ask the question in the first place.
And read this for a more detailed explanation of the issue.
Dude, nice troll! Classic stuff. Start off with something everyone agrees with (drinking age), go a bit further (handguns, concealed carry, taxes, etc), then bring out the big guns (the evils of sex ed and those damned gays)! Heck, you even got a "+1 Insightful"! Well done.
AKA, conservatism. *duck!* ;)
Whoops, my bad... s/your wife/your woman/...
Yes, that's the one! Thanks! Into Del.icio.us it goes... :)
Funny. I've been with my wife for 6, and I certainly don't "act like a man", at least by your definition (specifically: being an asshole). In fact, given you've been with your woman for 7 years and you hold this rather amusing belief that women let themselves go once they've "locked themselves in", I'm doubly convinced that you're embittered. Is your wife aware of your feelings on this matter?
We also have the fact that the Prime Minister has to answer to his caucus and his cabinet. They can depose him by several political means. He has to answer to the House of Commons every day that it sits and then some.
:)
Well, sort of. If a party has a majority, then the PM is only responsible to his own party (which is why, IMHO, the current minority government is, really, the ideal government). Thus, we have two forces at work: 1) A member of a party is largely unable to disent, for fear of being punished by the party leadership. This would be known as party discipline, and our former PM Mr. Chretien demonstrated it to incredible effect. 2) A party member simply does not want to be responsible for the deposing of his leader and the kickoff of a new election (since it may damage his party, not to mention that he might lose his own seat). Thus, a party with a majority is, by and large, unassailable, unless the leadership does something so supremely stupid that their own party revolts.
Now, there's little to be done about the latter, as it is integral to a party system. And, while the current set of leaders claim to oppose party discipline, and to have a desire to make the house more democratic, I've yet to see anything substantial happen with regards to the former (where are all those free votes, Mr. Martin?)
My point is that, from an architectural standpoint, our system isn't that much more democratic than the one down south. In fact, given the amount of power that can concentrate in the PMO (again, thanks Mr. Chretien), in some ways, we have a *less* democratic system (and don't get me started on the travesty that is the Notwithstanding Clause). However, our saving grace is that, by and large, money hasn't entered the political equation in a big way here in Canada, partly because of various laws on the books limiting private funding, and partly because the party system (and, ironically, party discipline) makes it more difficult to buy MPs.
Oh, and no, I'm not a conservative or an NDP-er.
That, of course, would be the brilliance of Pixar. Because they do cartoon-style animation, they can get away with a reduced level of realism (and thus decreased rendering complexity). This also means people are more... err, satisfied with their work. After all, there's nothing worse than seeing a poorly rendered human (in fact, there was an article on this very topic a while back, though I can't find the link), as opposed to a cutely rendered cartoon fish. Of course, that's not to say they don't do damned impressive stuff... the hair rendering in Monster's Inc. was really breathtaking, and their work in Finding Nemo was pretty impressive, too. But they definitely don't aim for photorealism.
Forget PC. I've seen a ton of guys get married and start putting on the fat. It really does go both ways. Simply put, when people get married, they settle into a sedentary lifestyle. This is especially true when the kids come along, because there's little time to fit in physical activity.
Frankly, the only advantage men have is that, typically, they have a higher initial percentage of muscle mass, so it takes a little longer for the fat to pile on. But, once it piles on...
BTW, you'll do much better in life if you try not to be an embittered, angry, sexist prick.
'course, that isn't limited to just the ladies...
... is TeX or Postscript better for storing more-or-less arbitrary data in an easy-to-parse format? Because that's the real point of XML. The advantage of something like XML:FO is that you can then take this nicely formatted data and convert it directly into something printable.
And before you say it, no, there's no point converting to TeX or something else... if you're going that far, you might as well go straight to PDF, which is what XML:FO facilitates.
Dang! Thanks a lot, dude... *shudder*
I never said it was a good to have unwanted kids; it certainly isn't. But it is good to want kids, and then good to have them.
So, does not wanting children make a person "bad"? Would I be less bad if I had a child, even though I didn't want it?
Incidentally, there are millions of people today that end up having unwanted children because they feel pressured by people like you who tell them that they're "bad" for not wanting children. Does that in turn make *you* bad?
It's also about nurturing childing and passing along knowledge and values. But it's hard to do much of that without having a horse in the race, so to speak.
I completely disagree. Being a teacher, or a tutor, or a godparent, or an uncle allows you to do exactly those things without ever having to be a parent. Or are you actually deluded enough to believe that your parents are the sole source of knowledge and values that are instilled within you?
You can't have it both ways.
Yes, you can. There are a number of things metropolitan areas can do to significantly reduce light pollution (just changing street lights to use hoods which prevent light from reflecting back into space would make a *huge* difference). And, in the end, while it would require an upfront investment, they'd make their money back due improved efficiency.
Don't kid yourself. Urban need not equate to light polluted. Which is good, because light pollution doesn't just affect the skies. It also affects your health, and the health of those around you, both human and animal.