This whole thread is about the existance of God. Take a look. Your reading comprehension isn't much about your writing ability. If you want to participate in the other thread I recommend you post in that thread. I believe the ground has been well covered, however, and am done with it.
And it isn't just your spelling errors that makes your writing jibberish. It is the abundance of disjointed thoughts and non-sequiturs along with your childish ad hominem attacks.
Yes. It could be right next to your post as the Witty Moron Troll: When a poster has nothing of value to add to a discussion and must post bullshit accusations instead.
Perhaps it is just a sign that I have a job? I am not sure what you want me to follow up on. I am not sure how the Christian dominance of the United States proves that there is or isn't a God.
Plus your posts would rather more responses if they were halfway literate. I don't have the time to try to translate your jibberish.
Huh? Where did you get stupid from anything I said? It seems to me like you are putting words in my mouth. I would rather have my life in an atheists hands because I believe they would do anything scientifically possible to preserve that life. I don't believe that is as true of a religious person. I would also argue that the first reaction a religious person usually gives is that they will pray for me. Personally I'd rather have them do something that has been scientifically proven to work.
You have a chicken and egg problem. Ethical standards predate any religion. Name one standard that you believe is based on a particular religion and is not universal to all world religions? I find it unbelievable that so many people can't separate religion from ethics. I would sooner trust my life to an athiest that any religious person.
Oh yes. That's right because not believing in God automatically makes me an unethical human being. Religion is often used to defend an unethical behavior. How often do you hear of atheists killing or bombing because of their beliefs (or lack thereof)?
Perhaps you are right. Just seems like a poor choice of words for a discussion such as this. Although I am not sure what would be ethically wrong with helping the paralysed walk again.
Why would that be too bad? I would think that all real scientists would agree with me and support ethical research standards. It's a good thing that ethics and religion are not the same thing (some might argue that they are actually at odds with each other in this day and age).
How do you define dead or alive? Is an embryo any more alive than a corpse? Are either of them anything more than a collection of cells that cannot think or feel? Is an embryo more alive because you consider it to have some mythical soul or because under the right conditions it may become alive?
I will worry about playing God as soon as you can prove scientifically that there is a god. At no point should scientific research be affected by any religious beliefs and surely not the religious beliefs of one particular religion.
Can I offer you a class in reading comprehension? Original poster asked why Microsoft doesn't release the software created by the department. I responded that it probably is based on open source.
That seems like a pretty militaristic approach. "Private Hacker stole some code so now all of you will have to do knuckle push ups until your hands bleed." In the world I would like to live in everybody else doesn't have to pay for the transgressions of one person or group of people.
"audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any."
That is the sensationalist heading. If you read the actual article is says merger repeatedly, nentions the forming of a new company, and the inclusion of AOL as a brand. You trolls should really learn to read your links.
Yeah but how far do you have to drive to get to work? What are the salaries like? How many jobs are actually available in that area? If a company decides to move a plant or call center there wouldn't it raise the land values in the area? That would be great if you already live there but not for people who want to move there. I live in a pretty rural part of New York that is only an hour north of the city. My mortgage is way lower but it is offset somewhat by the cost of commuting (both time and money).
Just using this Salary Calculator here are some examples of what you would need to make if you were to move from Queens where you made $100K:
Little Rock - $73,660 Albuquerque - $83,996 Durham, NC - $86,865 New Orleans - $88,257 Billings, MT - $71,391
They come up with these by measureing five categories: housing costs (33%), utilities (8%), consumables (16%), transportation (10%), and other services (33%). Most of the savings you see are because of housing cost differences. I did rent for these comparisons because most people living in a large city like New York and don't own.
You know people always think that but the truth is that the cost of living is not nearly different enough to make up for the lower salaries. Just as an example. Salaries in a rural city like Little Rock are 50% of salaries in New York. And while the cost of housing may also be 50%, the cost of other necessities (food, gas, electric, etc.) is closer to 10% cheaper and non-essentials like cars, electronics, etc. are almost the same.
And what did any of this have to do with my point? I never said who had the stronger position at the time. I was just clarifying the difference between a purchase and a merger.
Time Warner and Comcast own Time Warner Cable - AOL doesn't play into at all. AOL was a broadband ISP before the merger. They had to offer broadband at a rate comparable to TWC in areas where both existed as per the FTC's conditions of approving the merger. DSL and Cable are two different businesses with different levels of competition and different costs.
Some areas can get cable and not dsl and some can get dsl but not cable. Obviously users who have dsl already can get dsl and therefore referring them to a dsl provider makes more sense.
Finally, you don't know what deal was arranged with Bell South for the referrals. Remember that AOL still provides broadband services and may have been able to negotiate a better deal with Bell South than with Time Warner Cable.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thread is about the existance of God. Take a look. Your reading comprehension isn't much about your writing ability. If you want to participate in the other thread I recommend you post in that thread. I believe the ground has been well covered, however, and am done with it.
And it isn't just your spelling errors that makes your writing jibberish. It is the abundance of disjointed thoughts and non-sequiturs along with your childish ad hominem attacks.
Yes. It could be right next to your post as the Witty Moron Troll: When a poster has nothing of value to add to a discussion and must post bullshit accusations instead.
Perhaps it is just a sign that I have a job? I am not sure what you want me to follow up on. I am not sure how the Christian dominance of the United States proves that there is or isn't a God.
Plus your posts would rather more responses if they were halfway literate. I don't have the time to try to translate your jibberish.
Huh? Where did you get stupid from anything I said? It seems to me like you are putting words in my mouth. I would rather have my life in an atheists hands because I believe they would do anything scientifically possible to preserve that life. I don't believe that is as true of a religious person. I would also argue that the first reaction a religious person usually gives is that they will pray for me. Personally I'd rather have them do something that has been scientifically proven to work.
You have a chicken and egg problem. Ethical standards predate any religion. Name one standard that you believe is based on a particular religion and is not universal to all world religions? I find it unbelievable that so many people can't separate religion from ethics. I would sooner trust my life to an athiest that any religious person.
What does my belief have to do with this discussion? I have not stated a belief one way or the other.
How many of those life funtions does an embryo have? When you get to the molecular level how dead is that corpse really?
The burden of proof lies firmly with the person making the accusation. You have to prove what you believe. I do not have to disprove it.
Oh yes. That's right because not believing in God automatically makes me an unethical human being. Religion is often used to defend an unethical behavior. How often do you hear of atheists killing or bombing because of their beliefs (or lack thereof)?
Perhaps you are right. Just seems like a poor choice of words for a discussion such as this. Although I am not sure what would be ethically wrong with helping the paralysed walk again.
Why would that be too bad? I would think that all real scientists would agree with me and support ethical research standards. It's a good thing that ethics and religion are not the same thing (some might argue that they are actually at odds with each other in this day and age).
How do you define dead or alive? Is an embryo any more alive than a corpse? Are either of them anything more than a collection of cells that cannot think or feel? Is an embryo more alive because you consider it to have some mythical soul or because under the right conditions it may become alive?
I will worry about playing God as soon as you can prove scientifically that there is a god. At no point should scientific research be affected by any religious beliefs and surely not the religious beliefs of one particular religion.
Forget just smaller in inhabitable size - the populations are much smaller (from CIA fact book):
South Korea - 49M
Taiwan - 23M
Canada - 33M
US - 293M
20% of the US is a greater population than any of those countries.
Can I offer you a class in reading comprehension? Original poster asked why Microsoft doesn't release the software created by the department. I responded that it probably is based on open source.
Probably because it is based on something open-source like SpamAssassin.
That seems like a pretty militaristic approach. "Private Hacker stole some code so now all of you will have to do knuckle push ups until your hands bleed." In the world I would like to live in everybody else doesn't have to pay for the transgressions of one person or group of people.
A motion pictures according to copyright law are:
"audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any."
That is not just movies.
That is the sensationalist heading. If you read the actual article is says merger repeatedly, nentions the forming of a new company, and the inclusion of AOL as a brand. You trolls should really learn to read your links.
Yeah but how far do you have to drive to get to work? What are the salaries like? How many jobs are actually available in that area? If a company decides to move a plant or call center there wouldn't it raise the land values in the area? That would be great if you already live there but not for people who want to move there. I live in a pretty rural part of New York that is only an hour north of the city. My mortgage is way lower but it is offset somewhat by the cost of commuting (both time and money).
Just using this Salary Calculator here are some examples of what you would need to make if you were to move from Queens where you made $100K:
Little Rock - $73,660
Albuquerque - $83,996
Durham, NC - $86,865
New Orleans - $88,257
Billings, MT - $71,391
They come up with these by measureing five categories: housing costs (33%), utilities (8%), consumables (16%), transportation (10%), and other services (33%). Most of the savings you see are because of housing cost differences. I did rent for these comparisons because most people living in a large city like New York and don't own.
Forget DC. I am in Santa Monica on business and I am amazed at the number of homeless. There are far more than I have ever seen in Manhattan.
You know people always think that but the truth is that the cost of living is not nearly different enough to make up for the lower salaries. Just as an example. Salaries in a rural city like Little Rock are 50% of salaries in New York. And while the cost of housing may also be 50%, the cost of other necessities (food, gas, electric, etc.) is closer to 10% cheaper and non-essentials like cars, electronics, etc. are almost the same.
And what did any of this have to do with my point? I never said who had the stronger position at the time. I was just clarifying the difference between a purchase and a merger.
Time Warner and Comcast own Time Warner Cable - AOL doesn't play into at all. AOL was a broadband ISP before the merger. They had to offer broadband at a rate comparable to TWC in areas where both existed as per the FTC's conditions of approving the merger. DSL and Cable are two different businesses with different levels of competition and different costs.
Some areas can get cable and not dsl and some can get dsl but not cable. Obviously users who have dsl already can get dsl and therefore referring them to a dsl provider makes more sense.
Finally, you don't know what deal was arranged with Bell South for the referrals. Remember that AOL still provides broadband services and may have been able to negotiate a better deal with Bell South than with Time Warner Cable.