Speaking a second (what used to be your first) language at home or among friends is fine. But do not expect the natives to learn your ways. The natives expect you to learn their ways, and you're in their country. Then the natives will pick and choose what they like about your culture and integrate it into the culture overall. In the case of the Cubans, I love the inclusion of picadillo into our larger cuisine (Mexican and Puerto Rican picadillo, not so much).
You are correct that if he wanted the argument accepted by a wider audience of Christians, another passage would be better used.
However, the selection of the passage itself is valid. Christianity does not have one completely unified belief or doctrine, thus the proliferation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when differing Christians express their beliefs. The canon differs between the Christian sects even before we start applying hermeneutics.
That's what I was waiting for. Mark 16:9-20 doesn't really change matters of faith and Christian conduct. With this definition of inerrance it really doesn't matter whether it's included. It matters tremendously for literalists though.
Absolute biblical inerrancy(like what we see today that insists Mark 16:9-20 is inerrant) is an indefensible position and very few mainstream churches accept it
I guess you haven't heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Inerrancy is not as fringe as you portray it to be. And watch out for that term. Many people argue that Christianity itself, or varying degrees of adhering to the Bible, is an indefensible position.
You pick your version, you make your claims on that version. The author obviously picks a different, and widely accepted as authoritative, version of the book than you do. It's as simple as that. Neither of you is more correct than the other.
A bar owner decides whether he wants smoking in his bar or not. Those who decide not by-definition have non-smoking bars.
If non-smoking bars do not exist in your area (provided the nanny state hasn't decided they all must be, and probably decided what time your mommy needs to wipe your butt), then non-smokers are free to start non-smoking bars. It's a ripe market ready to be plucked if so many are tired of the smoke.
And remember, I say this as a non-smoker. If I want to go to a bar where there's smoking, then I have absolutely no right to complain about the smoke. I'm the one who went in there of my own free will.
The USPTO described how the term has taken on generic meaning, specifically mentioning its use on Android phones and tablets. My problem is that they all started using this term well after Apple applied for the trademark.
The USPTO's two-year wait before official decision itself may have allowed the term to become generic. Had it been awarded within a year, Apple would have had a trademark to defend before Android was even released.
That's not to mean other reasons for denial are invalid, but this one does stink.
I don't smoke. I want to go to a bar. I don't like being around smoke. Hmmm, I know, I think I'll go to a bar that allows smoking! Wait, no, that won't work, there's smoke there. Um...
What do I do? What do I do? Oh please nanny state, protect me! I'm too stupid to make basic decisions for myself.
One of the first Christians excommunicated for being logical. A huge number of criticisms of Christianity are instantly solved by Marcionism. Instead today we have logic bent to the breaking point in attempted defenses.
Inerrancy has been around for a while, but each proponent usually claims which version is inerrant. You would not base your inerrancy on any Bible version that includes Mark 16:9-20. Others choose differently.
And it was mostly achieved. However, the effect is obvious. Christian doctrine was solidified by a couple hundred people at that time. Anything that may have been considered Christian before or even after was invalidated.
It was also lopsided. The Council was in the East, attendees were overwhelmingly from the East, so Eastern thought prevailed. Western ideas, such as those popularized by Arius (Jesus created by God, so the whole "Father" thing makes more sense), didn't really have a chance. He and his ilk were banished, their works burned, possessors subject to execution. Any traces of Arianism were quickly eliminated in the East where it had little support, but it took a few hundred more years before it was mostly crushed in the West.
I think we would have quite a different Bible, and quite a different Christian doctrine, had attendance been equal between West and East.
They were defined as being arbitrary, capricious, with a capacity to do cruel things to people. Thus when stuff happened, we understood, it was consistent. They also weren't all-powerful, so if they couldn't do something good for us, we understood.
But then this new tribe comes along and defines its god as absolutely benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, and ensuing generations go crazy trying to reconcile those traits with reality.
When Apple released the first mobile multi-touch device. And the trademark application is restricted to mobile applications.
However, it is so basically descriptive I can see denying it. I just hope the USPTO didn't factor in the use of the term today, after Apple already made it popular. That's basically ripping off Apple's work.
I wouldn't call that "first to really use." I'd call that just using a little bit more than the previous aircraft, evolutionary baby steps.
Now 50% by weight, 80% by volume, that's really using composites. If you look at a diagram of 787 construction with colors for materials, it looks almost all composite colors, with bits of color here and there for the metals (leading edges and engine pylons appear to be most of it). Composites lightened the plane so much, the 10% of weight that is steel is the landing gear.
Well, the A380 was the first civil airliner to really use composites. It has >20%, whereas prior to that it was 10%.
It beat the 787's planned launch date by a year, but the 787 was delayed more.
Airliners had been using more bits of composites for a while, and the A380 continues that trend. The 787 is the one making the daring move to a mostly composite airplane.
Remember, Airbus execs said the 787's extensive use of composites was "ridiculous" at the time. Sure, they were comfortable with bits here and there as in the A330 and some more in the A380, but they weren't willing to take the risk and jump in to really do something with composites.
Along with this thinking, for the A350 Airbus was just going to update the A330 and present it to customers, but they told Airbus to go back to the drawing board. In 2007, after most of the 787's composite design was known, Airbus came out with a composite A350 that by pure coincidence used almost the same ratio of composites to other materials as the 787 does.
Hon Hai/Foxconn, Apple's iPad manufactuer in China, is also setting up production in Brazil. It's nothing more than that. I wouldn't expect a Brazilian and Chinese iPad to be any different, except maybe in the bikini line.
He has to stay there for ten years if he wants the full monster payoff. Just keeping the stock steady will get him $200 million in five years, another $200 million in ten. And if he manages to raise it at the rate of the last few years, he'll easily be a bilionaire.
It was mainly supplier shortages. A big one was special fasteners for the composite airframe. Even worse was that to avoid disruption of supply lines they put regular fasteners on the parts for transit, which had to later be removed, replaced and the composites re-inspected.
Your right to enjoy your vice stops where involuntarily it impacts the health or life of another individual
My addition. Smokers in a bar that declares itself as a smoking bar do not present a risk to anyone who has not voluntarily accepted that risk. All patrons and employees would be willingly drinking and working in that environment, and are free to leave to find a non-smoking bar for their respective activities.
You also shouldn't work in or frequent a dance club if you don't like loud noise, you shouldn't work in or frequent a silkscreener or printer if you don't like the smell of solvents..
Simple. Freedom all around.
On the other hand, drivers do not have the option of driving on a "non-drinking" road. They risk getting hit by a drunk driver no matter what road they are on. We need to ban alcohol.
Slashdot Mirror
No-Touch and One-Touch are current trademarks for devices that operate with no touch or one touch.
Everything has serviceable components.
Speaking a second (what used to be your first) language at home or among friends is fine. But do not expect the natives to learn your ways. The natives expect you to learn their ways, and you're in their country. Then the natives will pick and choose what they like about your culture and integrate it into the culture overall. In the case of the Cubans, I love the inclusion of picadillo into our larger cuisine (Mexican and Puerto Rican picadillo, not so much).
You are correct that if he wanted the argument accepted by a wider audience of Christians, another passage would be better used.
However, the selection of the passage itself is valid. Christianity does not have one completely unified belief or doctrine, thus the proliferation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when differing Christians express their beliefs. The canon differs between the Christian sects even before we start applying hermeneutics.
That's what I was waiting for. Mark 16:9-20 doesn't really change matters of faith and Christian conduct. With this definition of inerrance it really doesn't matter whether it's included. It matters tremendously for literalists though.
I guess you haven't heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Inerrancy is not as fringe as you portray it to be. And watch out for that term. Many people argue that Christianity itself, or varying degrees of adhering to the Bible, is an indefensible position.
You pick your version, you make your claims on that version. The author obviously picks a different, and widely accepted as authoritative, version of the book than you do. It's as simple as that. Neither of you is more correct than the other.
A bar owner decides whether he wants smoking in his bar or not. Those who decide not by-definition have non-smoking bars.
If non-smoking bars do not exist in your area (provided the nanny state hasn't decided they all must be, and probably decided what time your mommy needs to wipe your butt), then non-smokers are free to start non-smoking bars. It's a ripe market ready to be plucked if so many are tired of the smoke.
And remember, I say this as a non-smoker. If I want to go to a bar where there's smoking, then I have absolutely no right to complain about the smoke. I'm the one who went in there of my own free will.
The USPTO described how the term has taken on generic meaning, specifically mentioning its use on Android phones and tablets. My problem is that they all started using this term well after Apple applied for the trademark.
The USPTO's two-year wait before official decision itself may have allowed the term to become generic. Had it been awarded within a year, Apple would have had a trademark to defend before Android was even released.
That's not to mean other reasons for denial are invalid, but this one does stink.
I don't smoke. I want to go to a bar. I don't like being around smoke. Hmmm, I know, I think I'll go to a bar that allows smoking! Wait, no, that won't work, there's smoke there. Um...
What do I do? What do I do? Oh please nanny state, protect me! I'm too stupid to make basic decisions for myself.
One of the first Christians excommunicated for being logical. A huge number of criticisms of Christianity are instantly solved by Marcionism. Instead today we have logic bent to the breaking point in attempted defenses.
Inerrancy has been around for a while, but each proponent usually claims which version is inerrant. You would not base your inerrancy on any Bible version that includes Mark 16:9-20. Others choose differently.
Slow cooker makes the best venison, aside from deer jerky and grilled tenderloin steaks.
You can also make a pretty good facsimile of kalua pork in a slow cooker, and it's a lot easier than digging a pit in the back yard.
And it was mostly achieved. However, the effect is obvious. Christian doctrine was solidified by a couple hundred people at that time. Anything that may have been considered Christian before or even after was invalidated.
It was also lopsided. The Council was in the East, attendees were overwhelmingly from the East, so Eastern thought prevailed. Western ideas, such as those popularized by Arius (Jesus created by God, so the whole "Father" thing makes more sense), didn't really have a chance. He and his ilk were banished, their works burned, possessors subject to execution. Any traces of Arianism were quickly eliminated in the East where it had little support, but it took a few hundred more years before it was mostly crushed in the West.
I think we would have quite a different Bible, and quite a different Christian doctrine, had attendance been equal between West and East.
They were defined as being arbitrary, capricious, with a capacity to do cruel things to people. Thus when stuff happened, we understood, it was consistent. They also weren't all-powerful, so if they couldn't do something good for us, we understood.
But then this new tribe comes along and defines its god as absolutely benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, and ensuing generations go crazy trying to reconcile those traits with reality.
Or isn't it? You can't pick and choose, keep moving the goalposts.
Personally, I see it as more evidence that it's just a bunch of stories cobbled together.
When Apple released the first mobile multi-touch device. And the trademark application is restricted to mobile applications.
However, it is so basically descriptive I can see denying it. I just hope the USPTO didn't factor in the use of the term today, after Apple already made it popular. That's basically ripping off Apple's work.
I wouldn't call that "first to really use." I'd call that just using a little bit more than the previous aircraft, evolutionary baby steps.
Now 50% by weight, 80% by volume, that's really using composites. If you look at a diagram of 787 construction with colors for materials, it looks almost all composite colors, with bits of color here and there for the metals (leading edges and engine pylons appear to be most of it). Composites lightened the plane so much, the 10% of weight that is steel is the landing gear.
A380 is just "Let's build it bigger." I really didn't think the Europeans would stoop to a pointless penis size contest, but there it is.
Let's increase boarding times, expand the cattle car theme. Let's make airports have to expand. Let's reinforce the annoying hub-and-spoke model.
Technically it is a decent aircraft that made moderate technological advances over its predecessors, but it never should have been built.
It was about the bids for the Air Force tanker contracts. It wasn't technical information like how to build a composite airplane.
I don't Boeing ever made it to court either. Some people were fired, one went to prison, and Boeing was heavily penalized.
A non-smoker goes to a smoking bar voluntarily; thus, he breathes the smoke voluntarily. A smoker doesn't make him do it.
First stock award of 500,000 shares ($200 million at current value) comes at five years.
Quite after 4 years, 364 days, the $200 million (or whatever it's worth then) goes bye-bye.
He's rich, and he'll get much more rich pulling a Hurd, but he'll only get super-rich if he stays on for at least five years AND does a good job.
It beat the 787's planned launch date by a year, but the 787 was delayed more.
Airliners had been using more bits of composites for a while, and the A380 continues that trend. The 787 is the one making the daring move to a mostly composite airplane.
Remember, Airbus execs said the 787's extensive use of composites was "ridiculous" at the time. Sure, they were comfortable with bits here and there as in the A330 and some more in the A380, but they weren't willing to take the risk and jump in to really do something with composites.
Along with this thinking, for the A350 Airbus was just going to update the A330 and present it to customers, but they told Airbus to go back to the drawing board. In 2007, after most of the 787's composite design was known, Airbus came out with a composite A350 that by pure coincidence used almost the same ratio of composites to other materials as the 787 does.
Hon Hai/Foxconn, Apple's iPad manufactuer in China, is also setting up production in Brazil. It's nothing more than that. I wouldn't expect a Brazilian and Chinese iPad to be any different, except maybe in the bikini line.
He has to stay there for ten years if he wants the full monster payoff. Just keeping the stock steady will get him $200 million in five years, another $200 million in ten. And if he manages to raise it at the rate of the last few years, he'll easily be a bilionaire.
It was mainly supplier shortages. A big one was special fasteners for the composite airframe. Even worse was that to avoid disruption of supply lines they put regular fasteners on the parts for transit, which had to later be removed, replaced and the composites re-inspected.
My addition. Smokers in a bar that declares itself as a smoking bar do not present a risk to anyone who has not voluntarily accepted that risk. All patrons and employees would be willingly drinking and working in that environment, and are free to leave to find a non-smoking bar for their respective activities.
You also shouldn't work in or frequent a dance club if you don't like loud noise, you shouldn't work in or frequent a silkscreener or printer if you don't like the smell of solvents..
Simple. Freedom all around.
On the other hand, drivers do not have the option of driving on a "non-drinking" road. They risk getting hit by a drunk driver no matter what road they are on. We need to ban alcohol.