I spent a good 15 minutes negotiating my "documentation" with a Moroccan officer on the road to Essaouira. Luckily I didn't have much Dirham on me and my dollars were hidden in my suitcase. At some point he said I could leave him my license but obviously that wasn't going to happen lol.
What you have to remember is that they don't want a big hassle. They aren't going to arrest you because then the embassy gets involved and their bosses get pissed. It's just a job to them - they don't have any great sense of public protection. Where I got pulled over the guy tried to tell me that it was a village but there were two abandoned buildings practically in the middle of the desert lol.
If Joe McCarthy was ever right about anything it's because even a broken clock is right twice a day. He was a raging alcoholic bully who never should have been in office in the first place. History has shown that Communism never even came close to having even a foothold in this country.
Exactly. Anything Apple or Google does is just going to be for home users and small businesses which is not where Microsoft makes their big money. You'd have to pry Excel from my cold dead hands.
That's what most Americans don't get. "Liberals" in the US would be conservatives in most other countries. We are so far at the bottom of the "socialist" rating scale that we might as well be eliminated as an anomaly.
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
So basically you are saying that they provide a dumbed down experience for people who can't handle more than one button. That's basically what they've been doing for the last 15 years. Turns out playing to the lowest common denominator is a good business.
Well one could debate on the Nag Hammadi gospels. I could easily claim that John didn't write the Gospel of John or any of the others really. It's more likely that those Gospels didn't fit in with what the church was pushing.
I am not a fan of Paul. He can defend himself but I think he was a fraud. His view just differs from Jesus in too many ways. I believe Christianity should just be the Gospels - ALL of the Gospels - and nothing else. When you do that you end the debate on a lot of hateful topics - including homosexuality.
The Newspapers aren't supposedly handed down by God and considered by its readers to be flawless. The Gospels were originally written in Greek, translated by hand into Latin, and then only after the start of Protestantism did it start to be translated into local languages. That means for the English translation most people read was based on 1500 years of potential mistranslations and transcription errors. It's like playing the "phone game" over 1500 years and expecting the words to still mean something.
Also, to start, Mark and Luke were not disciples or direct witnesses. Their Gospels are just hearsay handed down a generation or two later. John's gospel is the most dramatically different he writes as if he was a witness but there is some doubt that was the case. Matthew supposedly was a direct witness but if he actually was literate (which wasn't all that common back then) he probably would have written in Aramaic - which means yet another level of translation.
Then you have all the Gnostic Gospels that the church decided didn't properly suit their purposes and did their best to destroy and exterminate anybody who preached from them. Same goes for the Apocrypha.
Over half of the rest of the new testament is the writings of the Apostle Paul (some of which have been historically validated). Paul was a PR machine. He was a prolific writer and marketer for the version of Christianity he was selling. His teachings, however, are dramatically different from the teachings of Jesus and he is the main reason the Christian church has drifted so far from what the original message of Jesus was.
You obviously haven't read much of it if you didn't realize it contradicts itself. The Gospels don't even agree on details and most of the stories of Jesus you hear around Christmas and Easter are actually picking and choosing from the different Gospels to make a somewhat coherent fable.
I think you have things backwards. They aren't going to start only selling ebooks with paper books. They are going to give the ebooks additionally for a small fee. If you want you still can just buy the ebook alone.
And Amazon is not a publisher - it's just a retailer.
The problem in Texas is that they ARE trying to influence the textbook companies and since they are one of the largest purchasers of textbooks they actually could potentially have some success. Except for the whole separation of church and state thing that keeps kicking their ass in court.
If you mean climate control then there are overwhelming boatloads of scientific evidence if you look for it. Years of data compiled and analyzed.
And what do you mean "supports the Bible"? I mean the bible doesn't even support itself with all the endless contradictions. There is no science in that. Not sure what SD is.
Educators in some parts of the country are too busy trying to get "Creation Science" into real science textbooks. They don't have time to figure out what is actually best for the students!
Right so believe the right wing liars who are achieving record profits from fossil fuels instead of the supposed left wing liars who are benefiting by - wait what are the benefiting by? Being published in a journal?
That doesn't prove that anything I said is patently false. It just means that 66.4% of the studies weren't designed to provide a conclusion on cause. It's not a vote one way or the other. It is outside the scope of what is trying to be measured. Most likely some of those studies are concerned with the real world impact of climate change without caring so much about the cause. If my study was on the impact of climate change on polar bears I am not going to espouse an opinion on why.
Well that is exactly it. It's the whole "cui bono" thing. Who benefits from lying about climate change? You could argue that all scientists, who generally don't make a lot of money and rarely agree with each other on much, benefit by having a climate change career OR you could argue that the fossil fuel industry benefits by continuing to have record profits. I think I know who I believe is more likely to be lying.
You obviously know nothing about the scientific community. For every one scientist making a discovery there are 10 trying to tear it apart. Getting 97% of scientists to agree on anything is a monumental feat. You might as well argue that the world is flat and that the sun rotates around the earth.
Yeah screw the 10's of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies overwhelmingly shows that man is causing an unprecedented acceleration of climate change.
Yeah well except that 97% of studies agree about man's impact on accelerating climate change. I guess 97% of experts could be wrong but you look at some charts you don't fully understand must be right.
Slashdot Mirror
I spent a good 15 minutes negotiating my "documentation" with a Moroccan officer on the road to Essaouira. Luckily I didn't have much Dirham on me and my dollars were hidden in my suitcase. At some point he said I could leave him my license but obviously that wasn't going to happen lol.
What you have to remember is that they don't want a big hassle. They aren't going to arrest you because then the embassy gets involved and their bosses get pissed. It's just a job to them - they don't have any great sense of public protection. Where I got pulled over the guy tried to tell me that it was a village but there were two abandoned buildings practically in the middle of the desert lol.
If Joe McCarthy was ever right about anything it's because even a broken clock is right twice a day. He was a raging alcoholic bully who never should have been in office in the first place. History has shown that Communism never even came close to having even a foothold in this country.
Exactly. Anything Apple or Google does is just going to be for home users and small businesses which is not where Microsoft makes their big money. You'd have to pry Excel from my cold dead hands.
Gauntlet. Highly addictive. A quarter sink for sure.
That's what most Americans don't get. "Liberals" in the US would be conservatives in most other countries. We are so far at the bottom of the "socialist" rating scale that we might as well be eliminated as an anomaly.
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
So basically you are saying that they provide a dumbed down experience for people who can't handle more than one button. That's basically what they've been doing for the last 15 years. Turns out playing to the lowest common denominator is a good business.
And amazingly they all have a Cuban accent - "you got some 'splaining to do!"
Well one could debate on the Nag Hammadi gospels. I could easily claim that John didn't write the Gospel of John or any of the others really. It's more likely that those Gospels didn't fit in with what the church was pushing.
I am not a fan of Paul. He can defend himself but I think he was a fraud. His view just differs from Jesus in too many ways. I believe Christianity should just be the Gospels - ALL of the Gospels - and nothing else. When you do that you end the debate on a lot of hateful topics - including homosexuality.
The Newspapers aren't supposedly handed down by God and considered by its readers to be flawless. The Gospels were originally written in Greek, translated by hand into Latin, and then only after the start of Protestantism did it start to be translated into local languages. That means for the English translation most people read was based on 1500 years of potential mistranslations and transcription errors. It's like playing the "phone game" over 1500 years and expecting the words to still mean something.
Also, to start, Mark and Luke were not disciples or direct witnesses. Their Gospels are just hearsay handed down a generation or two later. John's gospel is the most dramatically different he writes as if he was a witness but there is some doubt that was the case. Matthew supposedly was a direct witness but if he actually was literate (which wasn't all that common back then) he probably would have written in Aramaic - which means yet another level of translation.
Then you have all the Gnostic Gospels that the church decided didn't properly suit their purposes and did their best to destroy and exterminate anybody who preached from them. Same goes for the Apocrypha.
Over half of the rest of the new testament is the writings of the Apostle Paul (some of which have been historically validated). Paul was a PR machine. He was a prolific writer and marketer for the version of Christianity he was selling. His teachings, however, are dramatically different from the teachings of Jesus and he is the main reason the Christian church has drifted so far from what the original message of Jesus was.
Here - Bill Nye can help you with that.
And here is a list of contradictions. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
You obviously haven't read much of it if you didn't realize it contradicts itself. The Gospels don't even agree on details and most of the stories of Jesus you hear around Christmas and Easter are actually picking and choosing from the different Gospels to make a somewhat coherent fable.
I think you have things backwards. They aren't going to start only selling ebooks with paper books. They are going to give the ebooks additionally for a small fee. If you want you still can just buy the ebook alone.
And Amazon is not a publisher - it's just a retailer.
The problem in Texas is that they ARE trying to influence the textbook companies and since they are one of the largest purchasers of textbooks they actually could potentially have some success. Except for the whole separation of church and state thing that keeps kicking their ass in court.
If you mean climate control then there are overwhelming boatloads of scientific evidence if you look for it. Years of data compiled and analyzed.
And what do you mean "supports the Bible"? I mean the bible doesn't even support itself with all the endless contradictions. There is no science in that. Not sure what SD is.
Educators in some parts of the country are too busy trying to get "Creation Science" into real science textbooks. They don't have time to figure out what is actually best for the students!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/creationists-textbooks-texas_n_3689154.html
Startup isn't a measure of dollars but time. Although one could argue that after 4 years it isn't really a startup based on time either.
Right so believe the right wing liars who are achieving record profits from fossil fuels instead of the supposed left wing liars who are benefiting by - wait what are the benefiting by? Being published in a journal?
That doesn't prove that anything I said is patently false. It just means that 66.4% of the studies weren't designed to provide a conclusion on cause. It's not a vote one way or the other. It is outside the scope of what is trying to be measured. Most likely some of those studies are concerned with the real world impact of climate change without caring so much about the cause. If my study was on the impact of climate change on polar bears I am not going to espouse an opinion on why.
Well that is exactly it. It's the whole "cui bono" thing. Who benefits from lying about climate change? You could argue that all scientists, who generally don't make a lot of money and rarely agree with each other on much, benefit by having a climate change career OR you could argue that the fossil fuel industry benefits by continuing to have record profits. I think I know who I believe is more likely to be lying.
Well yes most likely most of us will be dead before it matters. Good thing you don't have kids, though! Man they'll be screwed by your selfishness.
You obviously know nothing about the scientific community. For every one scientist making a discovery there are 10 trying to tear it apart. Getting 97% of scientists to agree on anything is a monumental feat. You might as well argue that the world is flat and that the sun rotates around the earth.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities
Yeah screw the 10's of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies overwhelmingly shows that man is causing an unprecedented acceleration of climate change.
Yeah well except that 97% of studies agree about man's impact on accelerating climate change. I guess 97% of experts could be wrong but you look at some charts you don't fully understand must be right.
Do you mean his position on the reason people don't want to take action or the position on the fact that we need to action?