The inability to fly in heavy weather was the downfall of past attempts at serious uses for large airships ie commercial operations by Zeppelin company.
The problem with faith-based charities is that (almost) invariably they tie their charity work with promoting their faith. If they are given government money, and use it to promote their faith, then indirectly the government is supporting their religion. If those faith based charities could demonstrate that their charitable work is not tied to the promotion of their faith, then there is no problem.
It's bad enough religious organisations get a tax break simply because they are religious organisations - where is the athiest equivalent for that?
But at the end of the day, it still means that the government should not be seen to be supporting any particular religious view. 'In God We Trust', 'God bless the United States of America' et al all espouse a particular religious view, which cannot be sanctioned with backing by government, regardless of how generic it seems.
The point is, the government is required to be mute on anything that could be construed as promoting any kind of religious view. If you remove all reference to $DEITY from government, how is that 'promoting' atheism?
If you ask me if I believe in god, and I say nothing, am I promoting atheism?
When it comes to religion, the standard government answer should be 'No Comment'.
My son has Asperger Syndrome (somthing quite a few slashdotters would know about). One of the effects of Asperger Syndrome is poor fine motor skills. His handwriting is marginal most of the time. He finds it a lot easier to do written work on the computer, than to write manually.
Gee you guys in Europe have funny cars - The tachometer in my car shows me the rpm of the engine, not the speed the car is going. I use the speedometer for that.
So what you are saying is that a bike doing 60kmh at 10000 rpm is faster than a car doing 60kmh at 2500 rpm, because 10000rpm is faster than 2500rpm?
We can just as little afford to follow the doctrinaires of an extreme individualism as the doctrinaires of an extreme socialism. Individual initiative, so far from being discouraged, should be stimulated; and yet we should remember that, as society develops and grows more complex, we continually find that things which once it was desirable to leave to individual initiative can, under changed conditions, be performed with better results by common effort. It is quite impossible, and equally undesirable, to draw in theory a hard-and-fast line which shall always divide the two sets of cases. This every one who is not cursed with the pride of the closest philosopher will see, if he will only take the trouble to think about some of our closet phenomena. For instance, when people live on isolated farms or in little hamlets, each house can be left to attend to its own drainage and water-supply; but the mere multiplication of families in a given area produces new problems which, because they differ in size, are found to differ not only in degree, but in kind from the old; and the questions of drainage and water-supply have to be considered from the common standpoint. It is not a matter for abstract dogmatizing to decide when this point is reached; it is a matter to be tested by practical experiment. Much of the discussion about socialism and individualism is entirely pointless, because of the failure to agree on terminology. It is not good to be a slave of names. I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action. The individualism which finds its expression in the abuse of physical force is checked very early in the growth of civilization, and we of to-day should in our turn strive to shackle or destroy that individualism which triumphs by greed and cunning, which exploits the weak by craft instead of ruling them by brutality. We ought to go with any man in the effort to bring about justice and the equality of opportunity, to turn the tool-user more and more into the tool-owner, to shift burdens so that they can be more equitably borne. The deadening effect on any race of the adoption of a logical and extreme socialistic system could not be overstated; it would spell sheer destruction; it would produce grosser wrong and outrage, fouler immortality, than any existing system. But this does not mean that we may not with great advantage adopt certain of the principles professed by some given set of men who happen to call themselves Socialists; to be afraid to do so would be to make a mark of weakness on our part.
Slashdot Mirror
What I want to know is:
If the universe is only 6009 years old, and God is eternal, what was god doing in the eternity that preceded the creation of our universe?
'Alliteration' is the word you are looking for.
No, it would end up like 'Being John Malkovich', when John Malcovich goes inside his own head.
here is a better link for sap/linux certification
http://www50.sap.com/linux/platforms/index.asp
between knowing 1+1=2, and knowing why.
The inability to fly in heavy weather was the downfall of past attempts at serious uses for large airships ie commercial operations by Zeppelin company.
Size xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxl condom...
Except you have to remove the 'empty' pellets from your car first.
The pellets don't get consumed, they are only used to store the hydrogen.
The problem with faith-based charities is that (almost) invariably they tie their charity work with promoting their faith. If they are given government money, and use it to promote their faith, then indirectly the government is supporting their religion. If those faith based charities could demonstrate that their charitable work is not tied to the promotion of their faith, then there is no problem.
It's bad enough religious organisations get a tax break simply because they are religious organisations - where is the athiest equivalent for that?
But at the end of the day, it still means that the government should not be seen to be supporting any particular religious view. 'In God We Trust', 'God bless the United States of America' et al all espouse a particular religious view, which cannot be sanctioned with backing by government, regardless of how generic it seems.
The point is, the government is required to be mute on anything that could be construed as promoting any kind of religious view. If you remove all reference to $DEITY from government, how is that 'promoting' atheism?
If you ask me if I believe in god, and I say nothing, am I promoting atheism?
When it comes to religion, the standard government answer should be 'No Comment'.
My son has Asperger Syndrome (somthing quite a few slashdotters would know about). One of the effects of Asperger Syndrome is poor fine motor skills. His handwriting is marginal most of the time. He finds it a lot easier to do written work on the computer, than to write manually.
Laziness doesn't enter into it.
I thought it was a requirement
Hmmmmm.... 4 legged carnivore is well adapted to follow small, fast-moving things and catch them with its mouth. Why am I not surprised?
'When will it be enough?'
Claire Swires et al.
airport codes
SQL: San Carlos Airport - which just happens to be right near Oracle HQ, and is where Larry Ellison parks the jet.
Gee you guys in Europe have funny cars - The tachometer in my car shows me the rpm of the engine, not the speed the car is going. I use the speedometer for that.
So what you are saying is that a bike doing 60kmh at 10000 rpm is faster than a car doing 60kmh at 2500 rpm, because 10000rpm is faster than 2500rpm?
"A single blight that affected a few key crops could do some real damage."
Something about Ireland and potatoes come to mind...
We can just as little afford to follow the doctrinaires of an extreme individualism as the doctrinaires of an extreme socialism. Individual initiative, so far from being discouraged, should be stimulated; and yet we should remember that, as society develops and grows more complex, we continually find that things which once it was desirable to leave to individual initiative can, under changed conditions, be performed with better results by common effort. It is quite impossible, and equally undesirable, to draw in theory a hard-and-fast line which shall always divide the two sets of cases. This every one who is not cursed with the pride of the closest philosopher will see, if he will only take the trouble to think about some of our closet phenomena. For instance, when people live on isolated farms or in little hamlets, each house can be left to attend to its own drainage and water-supply; but the mere multiplication of families in a given area produces new problems which, because they differ in size, are found to differ not only in degree, but in kind from the old; and the questions of drainage and water-supply have to be considered from the common standpoint. It is not a matter for abstract dogmatizing to decide when this point is reached; it is a matter to be tested by practical experiment. Much of the discussion about socialism and individualism is entirely pointless, because of the failure to agree on terminology. It is not good to be a slave of names. I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action. The individualism which finds its expression in the abuse of physical force is checked very early in the growth of civilization, and we of to-day should in our turn strive to shackle or destroy that individualism which triumphs by greed and cunning, which exploits the weak by craft instead of ruling them by brutality. We ought to go with any man in the effort to bring about justice and the equality of opportunity, to turn the tool-user more and more into the tool-owner, to shift burdens so that they can be more equitably borne. The deadening effect on any race of the adoption of a logical and extreme socialistic system could not be overstated; it would spell sheer destruction; it would produce grosser wrong and outrage, fouler immortality, than any existing system. But this does not mean that we may not with great advantage adopt certain of the principles professed by some given set of men who happen to call themselves Socialists; to be afraid to do so would be to make a mark of weakness on our part.
Theodore Rooseveldt
"The horror. The horror..."
Or 'Patton' - "No-one ever won a war by dying for their country. The way you win wars is by making the other dumb bastard die for their country"
Just have your credit card handy when you dial 911.
I used Pick once. I wish that at that time I had remembered what my mother used to tell me
'If you pick it, it won't get better'
Nah - just have them put down. Anyone who can't appreciate good sarcasm doesn't really have a reason to live, do they?
and African slaves
Windows XP Non-Starter?