I'm not sure who really started it, and I think that point is irrelevant at this point. But I'm willing to bet Christians don't do the "hurr durr see bible is right" because they want to shoe horn in their perception of reality into it. I think it's more, an atheist or some other person shouts, the Bible is false because X in it is scientifically impossible!
Somehow atheists and Christians have rested some of the arguments on whether accounts in the Bible are scientifically accurate. So when science backs up the Bible, Christians are "hurr durr Bible is right"; and when science doesn't back it up, atheists are like, "hurr durr Bible is wrong."
Or a highly advanced race of aliens has been seeding our psyche for millennia, all so that when we become advanced enough, they can use us in their age old war against another highly advanced race of aliens that, along with the aforementioned race stayed behind to guide our development, as other even more advanced races moved out to the galactic rim so that us younger races could grow and mature!
I don't think you understand the Catholic Churches issue with Gnosticism... Gnostics said matter is evil. The simple version of why this conflicts with Catholicism is this: if matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. At a more basic level it also contradicts the Bible, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" Genesis 1:31 If everything God created was good, how can matter be evil?
Now I'm not asking you to agree with the logic or the explanation as to why it's wrong. My point is to illustrate that their problem with Gnostics had nothing to do with some aversion to science or philosophic thought.
If it were really about accepting science the pope would accept the scientific method and reasoning too.
Oh, you mean the modern scientific method that the Catholic Church basically wrote the book on how to do? Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, William of Ockham (Occam's Razor), Albertus Magnus, Theodoric of Freiberg, Jean Buridan. None of those name's rings a bell. Or when you were studying the history of scientific progress in the Western world were you asleep?
Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have been accepted theories in the Catholicism for just about as long as they were around (last century or so). In fact the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic priest! Pope John Paul II said that evolution was the most probable theory and referenced a predecessor Pope's words as agreeing with him.
The article itself thankfully references this fact:
But Pope Francis’s comments were more in keeping with the progressive work of Pope Pius XII, who opened the door to the idea of evolution and actively welcomed the Big Bang theory. In 1996, John Paul II went further and suggested evolution was “more than a hypothesis” and “effectively proven fact”.
Though they did seem to want to keep perpetuating the myth that the Church was ever anti-science. When it's just not true.
That is one giant non-sequitor. The party in power in each STATE chooses the district lines. California is majority Democrat, Wyoming is majority Republican. In the hypothetical we have Wyoming would probably get more Republican representatives, and California would lose Democratic representatives. So instead of 215 Dem to 220 Rep. You'd, get 196 Dem, and 239 Rep. But that's in a perfect world for the party doing the gerrymandering. If the people that left California were all Democrat leaning people, and they went to Wyoming, Wyoming would become more purple than red, and would pick up Democrat representatives. Also, if the people that remained in California were more Republican leaning, then California might pick up more Republican representatives. There's absolutely no guarantee that those representatives will stay the party they were.
All of that still doesn't account for which districts will be removed, or the fact that Wyoming doesn't have district lines, they do at-large representation.
You are making no sense. The point of rebalancing representatives in the House is so that the states are properly represented. If Michigan has 50% of the country's population, they're going to have 50% of the representatives (well 50% of 385 since each state get's 1 rep).
Gerrymandering is something completely separate from how many representatives a state gets in the House. Gerrymandering would in no way affect the number of representatives that California gets. Gerrymandering is what happens AFTER the census and AFTER it's determined how many representatives a state gets.
So in the made up crazy example I gave of California losing a bunch of it's population and Wyoming suddenly getting a bunch. California would for example go from 53 representatives to 34. The state of California would have to redraw their district lines, because now instead of 53 districts, they have 34. The party in power is the one that generally get's to draw those lines for the state. So, the party in power draws lines that would give them favorable election results. That's gerrymandering. It gives them a better chance of having a person elected from their party because they've drawn lines that keep the likelihood of populations with people who'd vote for the other party broken up. California still get's only 34 representatives, they're just more likely to be from party A than they are from party B.
So this...
Not with the way in which Congress has rigged the law in regards to the count of reps from each state.
Is complete nonsense. There's no rigging of laws or any laws about it. I think you may be confused by the fact that the number of total representatives no longer changes. Originally, it was one representative per 30,000 citizens. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 stopped that, and allows states to determine how to draw their districts, or even to have any.
Back to US Gov 101 for you. The census determines how many each state gets of the 435 representatives. If California loses a bunch of people and Wyoming suddenly get's a bunch more people. California loses representatives and Wyoming gains some.
I'm sorry you have something from this century? This is a different day and age, and it's not internationally accepted that you can take whatever territory you want. And don't try the whole, the Western world got to do this, blah blah, why isn't (insert third world country) allowed to, argument. China's been taking territory and doing the same crud for thousands of years.
When you're considered the sole liberator of a Dutch town and you hold a hill against 14,000 enemies for days, plus other heroics; I'd say that fairly qualifies as bad ass. I'll admit, I'm having trouble finding the sneaker bit, but I remember reading it somewhere.
As for inferior weapons, sorry that's a myth. The Chinese had AK-47s (the most advanced assault rifle at the time) and the brand new MiG-15 which was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft at the time. The North Koreans (and I'd assume Chinese since they were supplying them) also had T-34 tanks, which were circa 1940 tanks. The Korean war, saw some of the USSR's newest weapons brought to bear.
As for "kill ratio" let's break down the numbers, using the link YOU provided.
Total Strength: 972,214 (UN) vs 1,642,600 (China/N Korea); majority of forces were South Korean (602,902) and Chinese (1,350,000).
Casualties: 178,426 dead to anywhere between 367,283-750,282
The UN had half to 2/3s the forces that the Chinese had; yet the Chinese had double to quadruple the casualties. I'm sorry, but that's not doing very well.
The last time China brought it's military to bear in a major fight (Korea), they didn't do THAT well.10,000 US troops were able to resist 40,000 Chinese troops for several days. And quite comically, 20 Canadians in sneakers were able to hold off 14,000 Chinese for three days. Granted, those Canadians were led by probably the most bad ass soldier in WW2 and the Korean War, it's still kind of sad.
They don't speak out in favor of intervening in countries with human right's crises, because they're afraid it'll happen it to them. They don't speak out against disarming countries' nuclear armaments because they don't want it done to them. You're right on many levels. I just simplified the notion.
Well, I don’t see China playing the geopolitical game.
Then either your head is in the sand or you're just blind. Just because they're not aggressively using their military abroad doesn't mean they are not playing the geopolitical game. They've been doing it pretty aggressively in the Pacific for at least the last decade. Plotting down oil platforms in other country's waters, blockading other countries' military forces at sea, claiming other countries' territory as their own, etc etc.
You're mistaking isolationist tendencies with benevolence. China is pathologically afraid of meddling in other countries' affairs because it's afraid that it could be used as pretense for other countries to do the same to them.
Re:Give it another decade - the problem will solve
on
The Future of Stamps
·
· Score: 1
The post office is not being operated in the red because mail is cheap. It has to do with their outdated updated pension rules.
How is it a good thing that you can only use 3 checks per month for free? Most banks in the US have automated checking and bill payment, and allow you to use as many checks as you like. You usually just have to pay $10 for a pack of 200.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure who really started it, and I think that point is irrelevant at this point. But I'm willing to bet Christians don't do the "hurr durr see bible is right" because they want to shoe horn in their perception of reality into it. I think it's more, an atheist or some other person shouts, the Bible is false because X in it is scientifically impossible!
Somehow atheists and Christians have rested some of the arguments on whether accounts in the Bible are scientifically accurate. So when science backs up the Bible, Christians are "hurr durr Bible is right"; and when science doesn't back it up, atheists are like, "hurr durr Bible is wrong."
Or a highly advanced race of aliens has been seeding our psyche for millennia, all so that when we become advanced enough, they can use us in their age old war against another highly advanced race of aliens that, along with the aforementioned race stayed behind to guide our development, as other even more advanced races moved out to the galactic rim so that us younger races could grow and mature!
I don't think you understand the Catholic Churches issue with Gnosticism... Gnostics said matter is evil. The simple version of why this conflicts with Catholicism is this: if matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. At a more basic level it also contradicts the Bible, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" Genesis 1:31 If everything God created was good, how can matter be evil?
Now I'm not asking you to agree with the logic or the explanation as to why it's wrong. My point is to illustrate that their problem with Gnostics had nothing to do with some aversion to science or philosophic thought.
If it were really about accepting science the pope would accept the scientific method and reasoning too.
Oh, you mean the modern scientific method that the Catholic Church basically wrote the book on how to do? Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, William of Ockham (Occam's Razor), Albertus Magnus, Theodoric of Freiberg, Jean Buridan. None of those name's rings a bell. Or when you were studying the history of scientific progress in the Western world were you asleep?
Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have been accepted theories in the Catholicism for just about as long as they were around (last century or so). In fact the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic priest! Pope John Paul II said that evolution was the most probable theory and referenced a predecessor Pope's words as agreeing with him.
The article itself thankfully references this fact:
But Pope Francis’s comments were more in keeping with the progressive work of Pope Pius XII, who opened the door to the idea of evolution and actively welcomed the Big Bang theory. In 1996, John Paul II went further and suggested evolution was “more than a hypothesis” and “effectively proven fact”.
Though they did seem to want to keep perpetuating the myth that the Church was ever anti-science. When it's just not true.
That is one giant non-sequitor. The party in power in each STATE chooses the district lines. California is majority Democrat, Wyoming is majority Republican. In the hypothetical we have Wyoming would probably get more Republican representatives, and California would lose Democratic representatives. So instead of 215 Dem to 220 Rep. You'd, get 196 Dem, and 239 Rep. But that's in a perfect world for the party doing the gerrymandering. If the people that left California were all Democrat leaning people, and they went to Wyoming, Wyoming would become more purple than red, and would pick up Democrat representatives. Also, if the people that remained in California were more Republican leaning, then California might pick up more Republican representatives. There's absolutely no guarantee that those representatives will stay the party they were.
All of that still doesn't account for which districts will be removed, or the fact that Wyoming doesn't have district lines, they do at-large representation.
You are making no sense. The point of rebalancing representatives in the House is so that the states are properly represented. If Michigan has 50% of the country's population, they're going to have 50% of the representatives (well 50% of 385 since each state get's 1 rep).
And right there is some proof of my point.
What are you talking about?!?!
Gerrymandering is something completely separate from how many representatives a state gets in the House. Gerrymandering would in no way affect the number of representatives that California gets. Gerrymandering is what happens AFTER the census and AFTER it's determined how many representatives a state gets.
So in the made up crazy example I gave of California losing a bunch of it's population and Wyoming suddenly getting a bunch. California would for example go from 53 representatives to 34. The state of California would have to redraw their district lines, because now instead of 53 districts, they have 34. The party in power is the one that generally get's to draw those lines for the state. So, the party in power draws lines that would give them favorable election results. That's gerrymandering. It gives them a better chance of having a person elected from their party because they've drawn lines that keep the likelihood of populations with people who'd vote for the other party broken up. California still get's only 34 representatives, they're just more likely to be from party A than they are from party B.
So this...
Not with the way in which Congress has rigged the law in regards to the count of reps from each state.
Is complete nonsense. There's no rigging of laws or any laws about it. I think you may be confused by the fact that the number of total representatives no longer changes. Originally, it was one representative per 30,000 citizens. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 stopped that, and allows states to determine how to draw their districts, or even to have any.
Back to US Gov 101 for you. The census determines how many each state gets of the 435 representatives. If California loses a bunch of people and Wyoming suddenly get's a bunch more people. California loses representatives and Wyoming gains some.
Right now the Republicans pose a much bigger threat to America.
If you think you're helping the country, then you'd be wrong. You're part of the problem. Partisanship is a cancer in any democratic government.
What's your point? The old way, which counts the people who "do vote" still includes the one's who "can vote."
I'm sorry you have something from this century? This is a different day and age, and it's not internationally accepted that you can take whatever territory you want. And don't try the whole, the Western world got to do this, blah blah, why isn't (insert third world country) allowed to, argument. China's been taking territory and doing the same crud for thousands of years.
Well first, since you seem to think I'm lying (fair enough, taunting me though is a bit over the line, but then you're an AC...):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://www.torontosun.com/2013...
When you're considered the sole liberator of a Dutch town and you hold a hill against 14,000 enemies for days, plus other heroics; I'd say that fairly qualifies as bad ass. I'll admit, I'm having trouble finding the sneaker bit, but I remember reading it somewhere.
As for inferior weapons, sorry that's a myth. The Chinese had AK-47s (the most advanced assault rifle at the time) and the brand new MiG-15 which was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft at the time. The North Koreans (and I'd assume Chinese since they were supplying them) also had T-34 tanks, which were circa 1940 tanks. The Korean war, saw some of the USSR's newest weapons brought to bear.
As for "kill ratio" let's break down the numbers, using the link YOU provided.
Total Strength: 972,214 (UN) vs 1,642,600 (China/N Korea); majority of forces were South Korean (602,902) and Chinese (1,350,000).
Casualties: 178,426 dead to anywhere between 367,283-750,282
The UN had half to 2/3s the forces that the Chinese had; yet the Chinese had double to quadruple the casualties. I'm sorry, but that's not doing very well.
Well hell, now I'm in.
Just because you can write a conditional like, if(1=2), it doesn't mean you have any logic.
Or my personal favorite, if pineapple then kangaroo.
*Ba dum dish*
The last time China brought it's military to bear in a major fight (Korea), they didn't do THAT well.10,000 US troops were able to resist 40,000 Chinese troops for several days. And quite comically, 20 Canadians in sneakers were able to hold off 14,000 Chinese for three days. Granted, those Canadians were led by probably the most bad ass soldier in WW2 and the Korean War, it's still kind of sad.
They don't speak out in favor of intervening in countries with human right's crises, because they're afraid it'll happen it to them. They don't speak out against disarming countries' nuclear armaments because they don't want it done to them. You're right on many levels. I just simplified the notion.
Well I for one want my name in the news for being able to speak grade schooler French!
Well, I don’t see China playing the geopolitical game.
Then either your head is in the sand or you're just blind. Just because they're not aggressively using their military abroad doesn't mean they are not playing the geopolitical game. They've been doing it pretty aggressively in the Pacific for at least the last decade. Plotting down oil platforms in other country's waters, blockading other countries' military forces at sea, claiming other countries' territory as their own, etc etc.
You're mistaking isolationist tendencies with benevolence. China is pathologically afraid of meddling in other countries' affairs because it's afraid that it could be used as pretense for other countries to do the same to them.
The post office is not being operated in the red because mail is cheap. It has to do with their outdated updated pension rules.
How is it a good thing that you can only use 3 checks per month for free? Most banks in the US have automated checking and bill payment, and allow you to use as many checks as you like. You usually just have to pay $10 for a pack of 200.
I prefer paying my bills by mail...