Magazines, and to a lesser extant newspapers, is a bit of a different medium. In that its really the ads that pay for the publishing, content, and such. The subscription alone does not and indeed, cannot, pay for the work that gets put into a printed work.
Think of magazines as ad-subsidized, maybe that's a bit easier to swallow.
but it's a little sad when I know the film-makers HAVE to do that
It's what Spielberg had to do with Jaws. The shark sucked, so he had to only hint, and imply and such. Turns out it made the movie better. It's lesson Spielberg still keeps to heart.
Well it's not 'supposedly.' It IS "open-ended, non-linear." You just didn't enjoy it. Which is fine. I happened to enjoy a roleplaying game that didn't tell me what to do, for a change. Not that I didn't enjoy Final Fantasy or Diablo, because I did. But Daggerfall, Morrowind, et al. were very cool.
"It sends a clear message to anyone tempted to become involved in chipping consoles that this is a criminal offence and will be dealt with accordingly," said Mr Rawlinson, deputy director general of Elspa.
"The modification of consoles is an activity that Elspa's anti-piracy team is prioritising. It is encouraging to see the UK courts do the same."
Don't mod your Xboxes!!!11!!one! It's a moral wrong against society. Remember if you want you play foreign games you are a CRIMINAL!.
It doesn't matter if Jefferson was referring to God as in the Christian God or another god of his choosing...his reference to God and that the rights being protected by the goverment are the rights granted to us by "our Creator". The U.S. Goverment is a construct of man by man for man. So what? I'm not arguing that. You can't deny the fact that English Law and United States Law is founded on the principles of the Bible...well you can deny it...but you would be wrong.
I'm not familiar with English Law, but I'd be right about United States Law. Again DEIST principles. It's a common myth to believe that it was, so I forgive you for believing it. But nothing in the Constitution or Declaration hint that it was based on principles of the Bible. One mention of God, not event the Bible or Jesus or anything like that, in the Declaration is not enough to say the whole thing is based on the Bible. Sorry.
The Declaration was a basis for creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was it not?
Not really. While created by the same people thus people with th esame beliefs, it would be incorrect to say one was based on the previous one. The Declaration was the most part simply that, a declaration, of why we Americans we're fighting against the Brits. The Constitution was created to establish a framework for government and the Bill of Rights was there to make sure protections of rights were in the Constitution.
On that note...I hear people say everyday stuff about "separation of church and state" as if it were in the constitution......
Sorry, I don't give strawman arguments the respect of me answering them.
How does one refer to God or a god in a non-religious way?
Quite easily. It's very possible to refer to God as a concept or metaphor.
How many ways can I say this though. Jefferson took God out of politics. He said the governments are strictly a construct of man. Governments derive their power from man. Yes Jefferson believed in God, but not the Christian God. So even if he meant God in a religous sense, he didn't mean it in a Christian sense, and therefore its wrong for one religon to say, "Jefferson meant our God." On top of that, the Declaration of Independance did not create the United States, the Constitution did. The Declaration while very, very important is not a legal US document.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong on many levels. There is no basis for your claim that Christian principles are part of this countries founding.
Do you consider the Declaration of Independence to be a founding document of the United States of America?
No. I believe the Constitution is the founding document.
Who is that "Creator" they are referring to? Even if they didn't mean THE God (which they did) it still shows that our rights are given to us by something outside of us...something greater than us and with the authority to do such a thing.
Didn't google enough eh? First off, the Declaration made one reference to a God, hardly a religous document so one wouldn't expect them to refer to God in a religous sense. Second, Jefferson definitely did not mean Creator in the way your thinking. I'll repeat, he was a Deist, and believed that God did not interfere with the affairs of men, only to judge them after this life. Third, you took the quote out of context. Let's examine the whole phrase shall we?
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness (emphasis added)
You said: That means the government can't touch them[our civil, human rights] for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.
I dunno, it appears to me that Jefferson already did that for us. He took God of politics by saying. We have these Rights, and they shouldn't be taken away because everyone deserves it, and its up to governments and not God to make sure that happens. It's pretty clear. Jefferson did all the work of arguing against you for me. I gotta thank the guy.
Currently our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God are enumerated in our founding documents as a legal concept. That means the government can't touch them for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.
Ah yes, the old myth that the Constituion was written on legal principles. The fact the you believe it shows ignorance and unwillingness to know the facts. The Constitution had NOTHING to do with religous beliefs, espcially Christian beliefs. If you REALLY had to call the Constitution anything, call a Deist document, but even that was stretching it. Our Founding Fathers were strong believers that "our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God" was false and the governments derive their power from the consent of the governed and not God at all. You sir, need to do a bit research. Hell, Google a little. You might learn something.
Alright, I'm saying this only cause I've seen too many of the replies. I don't think the author meant the literal Paris Hilton, nor do i think it matters whether's she hot or not. To get across the point, the author is just using Paris Hilton as a symbol of Bimbo Average, or Super Popular Girl.
And by the way, if you would stop doing something just because one or some popular people are doing it, such as buying a PSP, you're a Conformist Rebel who entertains thoughts of being an "individualist" while you're actually letting the popular people form what you are and do in the opposite way.
everyone thought it was great, lined up at their e-door to help
perhaps "everyone" was a bit strong. Certainly its not to hard to fathom, that a lot of people agree with one side, but a lot of people take the opposite side. On Slashdot, groupthink hits both sides of any issue.
A friend of mine called their tech support for problems relating to a virus. The guy on the other line said he would help if he could but he said "I have to do everything by himself. I work with a bunch of monkeys."
You know you could just say that you're playing Final Fantasy V. People would know what you're talking about. Unless of course I'm totally mistaken and there is another RPG out there with an androgynous pirate captain.
Slashdot Mirror
...How many animals they tested before they found crocodile fought off HIV?
Scientist: Perhaps pigs can fend off HIV?
*Lab_Assistant injects Porky with HIV
*Porky leaves channel (AIDS)
Scientist: Nope! Time to try eagle next!
Magazines, and to a lesser extant newspapers, is a bit of a different medium. In that its really the ads that pay for the publishing, content, and such. The subscription alone does not and indeed, cannot, pay for the work that gets put into a printed work.
Think of magazines as ad-subsidized, maybe that's a bit easier to swallow.
Martin Lawrence set black equality back so far I wanted to startup the underground railroad.
That sir, has made my day. Thank you.
It's a country with 1,306,313,812 people, or sayeth Wikipedia. I think Blizzard can deal with the loss and handle targeting the 18-35 market in China.
How much of Blizzard's Chinese $$ come from minors, do you think?
Wouldn't all of the team die, minus The Rock?
You want political stories in the GAMES section?
but it's a little sad when I know the film-makers HAVE to do that
It's what Spielberg had to do with Jaws. The shark sucked, so he had to only hint, and imply and such. Turns out it made the movie better. It's lesson Spielberg still keeps to heart.
Well it's not 'supposedly.' It IS "open-ended, non-linear." You just didn't enjoy it. Which is fine. I happened to enjoy a roleplaying game that didn't tell me what to do, for a change. Not that I didn't enjoy Final Fantasy or Diablo, because I did. But Daggerfall, Morrowind, et al. were very cool.
/obscure?
Yes, very obscure. But I got the reference.
It doesn't matter if Jefferson was referring to God as in the Christian God or another god of his choosing...his reference to God and that the rights being protected by the goverment are the rights granted to us by "our Creator". The U.S. Goverment is a construct of man by man for man. So what? I'm not arguing that. You can't deny the fact that English Law and United States Law is founded on the principles of the Bible...well you can deny it...but you would be wrong.
.....
I'm not familiar with English Law, but I'd be right about United States Law. Again DEIST principles. It's a common myth to believe that it was, so I forgive you for believing it. But nothing in the Constitution or Declaration hint that it was based on principles of the Bible. One mention of God, not event the Bible or Jesus or anything like that, in the Declaration is not enough to say the whole thing is based on the Bible. Sorry.
The Declaration was a basis for creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was it not?
Not really. While created by the same people thus people with th esame beliefs, it would be incorrect to say one was based on the previous one. The Declaration was the most part simply that, a declaration, of why we Americans we're fighting against the Brits. The Constitution was created to establish a framework for government and the Bill of Rights was there to make sure protections of rights were in the Constitution.
On that note...I hear people say everyday stuff about "separation of church and state" as if it were in the constitution.
Sorry, I don't give strawman arguments the respect of me answering them.
How does one refer to God or a god in a non-religious way?
Quite easily. It's very possible to refer to God as a concept or metaphor.
How many ways can I say this though. Jefferson took God out of politics. He said the governments are strictly a construct of man. Governments derive their power from man. Yes Jefferson believed in God, but not the Christian God. So even if he meant God in a religous sense, he didn't mean it in a Christian sense, and therefore its wrong for one religon to say, "Jefferson meant our God." On top of that, the Declaration of Independance did not create the United States, the Constitution did. The Declaration while very, very important is not a legal US document.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong on many levels. There is no basis for your claim that Christian principles are part of this countries founding.
No. I believe the Constitution is the founding document.
Who is that "Creator" they are referring to? Even if they didn't mean THE God (which they did) it still shows that our rights are given to us by something outside of us...something greater than us and with the authority to do such a thing.
Didn't google enough eh? First off, the Declaration made one reference to a God, hardly a religous document so one wouldn't expect them to refer to God in a religous sense. Second, Jefferson definitely did not mean Creator in the way your thinking. I'll repeat, he was a Deist, and believed that God did not interfere with the affairs of men, only to judge them after this life. Third, you took the quote out of context. Let's examine the whole phrase shall we?
You said:
That means the government can't touch them[our civil, human rights] for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.
I dunno, it appears to me that Jefferson already did that for us. He took God of politics by saying. We have these Rights, and they shouldn't be taken away because everyone deserves it, and its up to governments and not God to make sure that happens. It's pretty clear. Jefferson did all the work of arguing against you for me. I gotta thank the guy.
I'm a bad typist who doesn't preview. the old myth is that the Constitution was written on Christian principles.
Ugh, I hate it when I do that.
Currently our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God are enumerated in our founding documents as a legal concept. That means the government can't touch them for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.
Ah yes, the old myth that the Constituion was written on legal principles. The fact the you believe it shows ignorance and unwillingness to know the facts. The Constitution had NOTHING to do with religous beliefs, espcially Christian beliefs. If you REALLY had to call the Constitution anything, call a Deist document, but even that was stretching it. Our Founding Fathers were strong believers that "our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God" was false and the governments derive their power from the consent of the governed and not God at all. You sir, need to do a bit research. Hell, Google a little. You might learn something.
I cannot think of the originator of this, but keep in mind this definition:
A celebrity is someone who is famous for being famous.
Alright, I'm saying this only cause I've seen too many of the replies. I don't think the author meant the literal Paris Hilton, nor do i think it matters whether's she hot or not. To get across the point, the author is just using Paris Hilton as a symbol of Bimbo Average, or Super Popular Girl.
And by the way, if you would stop doing something just because one or some popular people are doing it, such as buying a PSP, you're a Conformist Rebel who entertains thoughts of being an "individualist" while you're actually letting the popular people form what you are and do in the opposite way.
everyone thought it was great, lined up at their e-door to help
perhaps "everyone" was a bit strong. Certainly its not to hard to fathom, that a lot of people agree with one side, but a lot of people take the opposite side. On Slashdot, groupthink hits both sides of any issue.
Well if you make it two words it kinda makes sense. "Birth day" as in the Day of your/its Birth. But I suppose that's stretch.
I hope no one was hurt due to flying game discs.
That probably had more todo with LInk being a playable character than anything.
Thanks. Now I have the theme song stuck in my head.
So the Gramps opened up the bag,
And took out the magical shoes...
Ugh.
A friend of mine called their tech support for problems relating to a virus. The guy on the other line said he would help if he could but he said "I have to do everything by himself. I work with a bunch of monkeys."
You know you could just say that you're playing Final Fantasy V. People would know what you're talking about. Unless of course I'm totally mistaken and there is another RPG out there with an androgynous pirate captain.