Ummm... if by lawyer you meant "someone who actually read what was written and understood it" then by all means I'm a lawyer.
I guess that's the same place where, "Hopefully the spammers aren't that bright" means "they're stoopid ass-faces". I guess if I say, "Hopefully the freeway isn't too busy" what I mean is "the freeway is at a standstill".
I guess conjecture and speculation aren't allowed. Sorry. I'll get back to my "lawyering" now by which I mean "database programming", because apparently what one says isn't what one means.
Just because someone does something you don't like, since when did that make them more stupid (or less intelligent) than you?
He didn't assume they were stupid - he said "Hopefully the spamers aren't that bright". Sounds like he's assuming they could be intelligent but he hopes that they are not.
And the hizell does that have to do with anti-virus companies?
Do I think that the structure of the church and it's power influenced his view of how things should work, be structured and how power could be used? Yes.
Do I think the church influenced his early beliefs including his anti-Semitism? Yes.
I guess the bottom line is, "Do you think Hitler was a Chrisitian?" No, I guess. If anything Hitler probably saw himself as God or at the very least a divine force for his concept of God's will. Depending on how twisted his view of God and the universe was he may have considered himself a Christian and even a servant of God - however at odds he was with the church itself. His anti-religious statements are actually anti-church/clergy statements.
Will I continue to tweak Christians by quoted Hitler's praise for Christianity? Almost certainly. (Call it a character flaw.)
With a 4-digit ID you should know better than that:)
LOL
Unfortunately, because Hitler was completely bent on power _all_ of the information we have from his record has to be viewed through the lens of him saying whatever he thought would advance his agenda. Even in his candid and private moments he was such an ego-maniac and a figure of history that we have to consider that he was aware that everything he said might later be subject to study. But since there aren't too many people leaving the Nazi party and writing "insider books" like there are now we have only information that we have to heavily filter and is subject to interpretation. In _Mein Kampf_ he discusses at length how his religious upbringing formed his thoughts and philosophies - including his anti-Semitism. But again this may have been calculated to guide the German's reading it to his conclusions given that they had similiar upbringings. "See, I'm just like you and reached these conclusions and so should you." Nothing he says can be taken at face value.
I agree that even when Hitler refers to how he won't attack the church there is always an underlying theme, or even implicit threat, that as long as they don't bother his affairs of state they can continue to function. I have no doubt that the church, as with ANYTHING else, if he felt it got in his way he would work to destroy it. Some one as power mad as Hitler sees EVERYTHING as a function of the power it does, or can, wield. If he felt the church had the power to challenge his state he would work, as you implied, to weaken it's ability to challenge his state.
Ultimately he would have to arrive at a solution like Napoleon taking the crown from the church official and crowning himself rather than deriving any authority from the church. I think religion was too important a part of German "volk" culture that I think the best Hitler could have done is a King Henry and replaced the churches with a new state approved religion. But that gets harder to do as history marches on - religion derives much of its legitimacy from its age and history. Every religion was new once but once they've aged they mock newer religions as 'false'. Same with Kings - once that lineage that traces you back to Adam becomes suspect it is hard to control absolutely as God's chosen one.
I think he would have had a tough time in Germany replacing or destroying the church even if he decided it was necessary. But ultimately I don't think it would have been needed. The dominant church always seems to find in the Bible whatever they need to support the government: the Dutch Reformed in SA used the Bible to support apartheit, importing blacks for slavery in American south and now war in Iraq. Whether you think this reflects on the churches, the Bible or both is left up to you.
I was simply refuting the assertation that Hitler was against all religions and people (presumably Christians) challenged the validity of my quote. I was simply providing other quotes and an attribution for the quote in question. I have no doubt Hitler was an evil guy and a master at saying whatever needed to said at any given time. I also know that anything Hitler said about Christianity will not make me feel any differently about either Hitler or Chrsitianity. He was also a vegetarian - but again that doesn't effect my view of vegetarians.
This thread is wildly off topic and should be finished.
I'll look for the exact source - but if you doubt the sentiment expressed - don't...
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
National Socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State.... The decisive factor which can justify the existence alike of Church and State is the maintenance of men's spiritual and bodily health, for it that health were destroyed it would mean the end of the State and also the end of the Church.... It is my sincere hope that thereby for Germany, too, through free agreement there has been produced a final clarification of spheres in the functions of the State and of one Church.
-Adolf Hitler, on a wireless on 22 July, the evening before the Evangelical Church Election
Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934
Found it. The quote is from Helmreich, Ernst Christian "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979
The entire quote is:
I am absolutely convinced of the great power and the deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion (Religionsstifter). Therefore I have turned against Ludendoriff and separated myself from him; therefore I reject Rosenberg's book. That book is written by a Protestant. It is not a party book. It is not written by him as a member of the party. The Protestants can settle matters with him.
My desire is that no confessional conflict arise. I must act correctly to both confessions. I will not tolerate a Kulturkampf.... I stand by my word. I will protect the rights and freedom of the church and will not permit them to be touched. You need have no apprehensions concerning the freedom of the church.
-Hitler [quoted from Helmreich, p.241]
I don't have a copy to check his source but he is noted author (with many historical books covering other topics) and the book is printed by an actual university press (Wayne State) and is not self published or any crap like that.
From the actual text of Hitler's speeches you can see that the sentiment isn't far from his other comments on Christianity. To contend that Hitler wanted a world free from religion is ridiculous. He saw the Christian church as his source of inspiraton and strength and thought it was important for the nation as well.
That would suck. No one would be able to find you on any search engine query for all the results.
Of course, in the future the only way to remain anonymous might be to have a name so common that it can't be filtered from the noise of web page META tags.
I named my kids "Nude Portman Viagra" and "Spam Nigeria Warez" because if I can't keep them off the grid I can at least make the very, very hard to find.
The SMT being added to the Power5 is called Hyperthreading by Intel PR.
Actually IBM claims that their version of SMT is much superior to HT with 30-60% improvement over the improvements gained bt Intel with HT. Specifically they say the expect to see 35-40%+ improvements using SMT under heavy usage.
If those numbers are right then it would be significantly better than HT. Although in fairness to Intel they are comparing Power5 server chips with PC-roots Xeon processors so there's probably alot more headroom on the ship to use.
Hardware requires factories to make components, people to assemble them, trucks to ship them and people to sell them. It can never be free.
The only way for the computer to be "free" is the way cell phones are now "free". When you sign-up for 3 years of M$ OS/Office suite subscription, MSN broadband with obligatory Passport suppport for on-line shopping and agree to transfer $500 to that account you will get a "free" PC. Ignore the fact that you will be paying $100/month to M$ for that "free" PC.
This fits in well with the M$ philosophy of business - they don't really care what "product" they sell as long as it comes with a M$ EULA and license. Check my journal for a more detailed look at the M$ business plan.
I'm running dual monitors on 233 (now 500Mhz BG3) with an ATI Rad 7000 in addition to the on-board video. With 10.2.8 I ran into random monitor blacking or corruption varying from 2 hours to a 4 days.
After I heard about others with the same problem I finally rolled back to 10.2.6. *SIGH*
There's a precident for this - the same set-up had screen corruption on sleep issues until the ATI updates in 10.1.5 update.
So we should ignore the constitution and rule of law to placate and appease a group of "kooks" because otherwise they might cause civil unrest. We should allow people to subvert the core beliefs our country was founded on in a trade against some vague and theoretical potential violence?
Peace at any cost? That's just sad. Maybe we have forgotten our forefathers...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Sorry - my spelling gets away from me sometimes - but don't ever address the point:
"One nation under God." The capital and lack of preposition means that it is, in fact, a proper name.
"One nation under Doug." works while "One nation under government." does not. That phrase requires a preposition "One nation under _a_ goverment."
The term "God" in the phrase is a proper name and refers to a single entity by that name rendering your argument silly at best.
If you don't believe in god's existence, then the statement "one nation under god" means "one nation under nothing" which is frankly a statement of fact. If you are a person of faith "God" is a great word: it can refer to any supreme being or pantheon you happen to believe in.
It is very much so. If you don't believe in god's existence, then the statement "one nation under god" means "one nation under nothing" which is frankly a statement of fact. If you are a person of faith "God" is a great word: it can refer to any supreme being or pantheon you happen to believe in.
But it doesn't - it means the Judeo-Christian god. Now things would be clearer if the noun and name were different but same way a cross means one thing in our culture the word "God" - especially capitalized - means only one thing. I am as comfortable having you say that as you would be having the pledge say "one nation under Allah" or "under Vishnu and Shiva". I think it's funny that everyone who yells about how great prayer is will suddenly discover the separation of church and state when a teacher leads his class in a prayer to Allah. It's easy to gloss over the details when you're the majority.
Failure to acknowledge that the state's athority is under that of God's is problematic
No - thinking that the government's power comes from a divine source rather than from the people. This is basis for a belief in democracy. The idea that the government gets authority from god died with the assumption that royalty was ordained by heaven.
>A secular government is MUCH less oppressive than a religious one This has no basis in fact. The Stalinist goverment of soviet russia was athiestic and oppressive.
I was careless - I should have said our government is less oppressive the less secular it becomes. When I can choose between birth control options because the religious laws surrounding them have been repealed the society is _less_ oppressed.
>The country becomes LESS oppressed as Christain-based morality laws are removed from the book I'm sure it will be a better place when murder, theft, fraud, coercion, the contract, freedom of choice and so on become obsolete. Please. You don't know what you are really talking about.
Those things are NOT illegal because the bible says so - they're illegal because they tear at the fabric of society. The difference between a democracy and a theocracy is that our laws are what all agree on as "bad for society as a whole" and then tested against the constitution. I find it funny that you think that "freedom of choice" flows into our society from the bible when it's the exact oposite. The more the bible is kept from secular law the more choices there are.
Why insult religous people after such a lucid post?
Because I thought it was funny. My post stands on its own - if you disagree with my sense of humor that's your choice.
=tkk
PS Care to address your implicit threat that the government would be overthrown if it didn't acknowledge that it was subordinate to god? That was the most interesting thing to me in your post but you completely ignored it in your reply.
That does nothing to dilute the point that other posters are making: * America was founded by Christian people. * Our nation was influenced by Christian thought - our morality and values were and are very much Christian (we sometimes forget the foregiveness and humility stuff). * Freedom of religion is intended to allow a citizen to worship as he or she believes or does not believe.
The poster I was replying to was trying to say that we had "forgotten our forefathers" because some people object to the phrase making children say "under God" in a compulsory pledge every morning. (And don't tell me it's not - I HAD to say it or write it every morning through 8th and 9th grade. The only way you could get out of it was if you were a Jehova witness. I always got a check minus because I never capitalized 'god' when I wrote it.) And he attempted to prove this by quoting some very religious sounding texts from some historical figures.
My point was that despite the religious rights attempt to re-cast the American founders as their brand of religious: 1) They weren't (TJ rearranged the Bible because he felt it didn't make sense the way it was including removing Revelations) 2) Despite their personal beliefs they purposely protected us from their personal beliefs and the religious beliefs of future leaders by law. Attempting to pervert their views - both religious AND legal is just wrong. And doubly wrong when they're arguing NOT about some tradition that dates from their era but from 1952. (Apparently George Washington rose from his grave to add those words in 1952 and now we're "forgetting him" by trying to remove them.)
There is another reason terms like "Under God", "so help me God", "endowed by its Creator", and "in God we trust" are necessary.Religous people place God's athourity above that of the Government. This reassures the religous masses that government knows it's limits. To fail to acknowledge this would set the government on a collision course with religion- when government becomes too oppressive and revolution occurs, religous tyranny is common.
Are you seriously arguing that the religious in this country are a revolutionary threat? Religious people are a danger if they feel that the government fails to bow to their "God" they are going to be overthrown if it ? That the religious right needs to placated to keep it from armed revolt against the government and setting up an oppressive religious state? Christian Taliban? Sounds more like Iraq or Pakistan to me. That dangerous talk in the "code Orange" times my friend.
Further more the disconnect in your statement is that you equate the government NOT acknowledging God as somehow being equivalent to oppressive. A secular government is MUCH less oppressive than a religious one. You have a wingnut like Scalia trying to use the Supreme Court to dictate what tow consenting adults can do in their bedroom purely because of his personal religious beliefs. The country becomes LESS oppressed as Christain-based morality laws are removed from the books - not more. Anything two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom will NEVER be as much of a threat to me as a government that thinks it should, or even can, regulate that behavior.
It is possible - indeed common for people who are very religous to not darken the door of a church.
And just as common for good people not be darkened by the door of a church.
John Adams in a letter to TJ also said:"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
and
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
and a bunch of other stuff. And Washington talked a good game but very rarely attended church and didn't have much use for religion. The founding fathers were largely Diests who had experienced/seen religious persecution and wanted none of it.
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -T Jefferson
Stop trying to recast the founding fathers as some brand of religious wackos - even if they had been they left good laws in place to prevent the mixture of church and state. Respect them enough to let that stand.
Still not convinced? From the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen."
This treaty was written under Washington, revised and approved personally by Adams before being signed.
Remember, the Ten Commandments is a very early and almost universally understood code of laws.
I hear this argument - let's look....
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. [Um, seems kinda religous to me.]
2) Thou shalt not make any graven images. [Unless you're talking about plates for fake 20s this has no legal imapct.]
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. [Again - since when is THAT a law?]
4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. [Do I need to say it?]
5) Honor thy father and thy mother. [A good idea - but legally vague.]
6) Thou shalt not murder. [At last - a real law!]
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery. [Nope.]
8) Thou shalt not steal. [That's 2.]
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor. [Perjury. 3.]
10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor. [Probably decent advice but not illegal - in fact probably the basis for American society.]
So the score is 3 laws, 2 pieces of decent advice and 5 strictly religous Judeo-Christian specific edicts. Hardly a "universally accepted" basis of anything in the legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... if by lawyer you meant "someone who actually read what was written and understood it" then by all means I'm a lawyer.
I guess that's the same place where, "Hopefully the spammers aren't that bright" means "they're stoopid ass-faces". I guess if I say, "Hopefully the freeway isn't too busy" what I mean is "the freeway is at a standstill".
I guess conjecture and speculation aren't allowed. Sorry. I'll get back to my "lawyering" now by which I mean "database programming", because apparently what one says isn't what one means.
Enjoy your $5.
=tkk
Just because someone does something you don't like, since when did that make them more stupid (or less intelligent) than you?
He didn't assume they were stupid - he said "Hopefully the spamers aren't that bright". Sounds like he's assuming they could be intelligent but he hopes that they are not.
And the hizell does that have to do with anti-virus companies?
=tkk
His address is 127.0.0.1!
But don't bother going there - I've pwned his box and I'm busy deleting his files as we speak. SuX0r!
=tkk
Do I think that the structure of the church and it's power influenced his view of how things should work, be structured and how power could be used?
Yes.
Do I think the church influenced his early beliefs including his anti-Semitism?
Yes.
I guess the bottom line is, "Do you think Hitler was a Chrisitian?"
No, I guess. If anything Hitler probably saw himself as God or at the very least a divine force for his concept of God's will. Depending on how twisted his view of God and the universe was he may have considered himself a Christian and even a servant of God - however at odds he was with the church itself. His anti-religious statements are actually anti-church/clergy statements.
Will I continue to tweak Christians by quoted Hitler's praise for Christianity?
Almost certainly. (Call it a character flaw.)
And now that's definitely enough about all that,
=tkk
With a 4-digit ID you should know better than that :)
LOL
Unfortunately, because Hitler was completely bent on power _all_ of the information we have from his record has to be viewed through the lens of him saying whatever he thought would advance his agenda. Even in his candid and private moments he was such an ego-maniac and a figure of history that we have to consider that he was aware that everything he said might later be subject to study. But since there aren't too many people leaving the Nazi party and writing "insider books" like there are now we have only information that we have to heavily filter and is subject to interpretation.
In _Mein Kampf_ he discusses at length how his religious upbringing formed his thoughts and philosophies - including his anti-Semitism. But again this may have been calculated to guide the German's reading it to his conclusions given that they had similiar upbringings. "See, I'm just like you and reached these conclusions and so should you." Nothing he says can be taken at face value.
I agree that even when Hitler refers to how he won't attack the church there is always an underlying theme, or even implicit threat, that as long as they don't bother his affairs of state they can continue to function. I have no doubt that the church, as with ANYTHING else, if he felt it got in his way he would work to destroy it. Some one as power mad as Hitler sees EVERYTHING as a function of the power it does, or can, wield. If he felt the church had the power to challenge his state he would work, as you implied, to weaken it's ability to challenge his state.
Ultimately he would have to arrive at a solution like Napoleon taking the crown from the church official and crowning himself rather than deriving any authority from the church. I think religion was too important a part of German "volk" culture that I think the best Hitler could have done is a King Henry and replaced the churches with a new state approved religion. But that gets harder to do as history marches on - religion derives much of its legitimacy from its age and history. Every religion was new once but once they've aged they mock newer religions as 'false'. Same with Kings - once that lineage that traces you back to Adam becomes suspect it is hard to control absolutely as God's chosen one.
I think he would have had a tough time in Germany replacing or destroying the church even if he decided it was necessary. But ultimately I don't think it would have been needed. The dominant church always seems to find in the Bible whatever they need to support the government: the Dutch Reformed in SA used the Bible to support apartheit, importing blacks for slavery in American south and now war in Iraq. Whether you think this reflects on the churches, the Bible or both is left up to you.
=tkk
I was simply refuting the assertation that Hitler was against all religions and people (presumably Christians) challenged the validity of my quote. I was simply providing other quotes and an attribution for the quote in question.
I have no doubt Hitler was an evil guy and a master at saying whatever needed to said at any given time. I also know that anything Hitler said about Christianity will not make me feel any differently about either Hitler or Chrsitianity. He was also a vegetarian - but again that doesn't effect my view of vegetarians.
This thread is wildly off topic and should be finished.
'Nuff said.
=tkk
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
National Socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State.... The decisive factor which can justify the existence alike of Church and State is the maintenance of men's spiritual and bodily health, for it that health were destroyed it would mean the end of the State and also the end of the Church.... It is my sincere hope that thereby for Germany, too, through free agreement there has been produced a final clarification of spheres in the functions of the State and of one Church.
-Adolf Hitler, on a wireless on 22 July, the evening before the Evangelical Church Election
Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934
Found it. The quote is from Helmreich, Ernst Christian "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979
The entire quote is:
I am absolutely convinced of the great power and the deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion (Religionsstifter). Therefore I have turned against Ludendoriff and separated myself from him; therefore I reject Rosenberg's book. That book is written by a Protestant. It is not a party book. It is not written by him as a member of the party. The Protestants can settle matters with him.
My desire is that no confessional conflict arise. I must act correctly to both confessions. I will not tolerate a Kulturkampf.... I stand by my word. I will protect the rights and freedom of the church and will not permit them to be touched. You need have no apprehensions concerning the freedom of the church.
-Hitler [quoted from Helmreich, p.241]
I don't have a copy to check his source but he is noted author (with many historical books covering other topics) and the book is printed by an actual university press (Wayne State) and is not self published or any crap like that.
From the actual text of Hitler's speeches you can see that the sentiment isn't far from his other comments on Christianity. To contend that Hitler wanted a world free from religion is ridiculous. He saw the Christian church as his source of inspiraton and strength and thought it was important for the nation as well.
=tkk
P.S. If you think quotes lie and would rather have pictures of Hitler greeting cardinals and bishops giving the Nazi salute those are available as well.
"I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won't allow any other religion to be promoted." -Hitler
Is there a mod higher than +5 for funny?
And you posted anon. I tip my hat to you, sir or madam.
=tkk
That would suck. No one would be able to find you on any search engine query for all the results.
Of course, in the future the only way to remain anonymous might be to have a name so common that it can't be filtered from the noise of web page META tags.
I named my kids "Nude Portman Viagra" and "Spam Nigeria Warez" because if I can't keep them off the grid I can at least make the very, very hard to find.
=tkk
The SMT being added to the Power5 is called Hyperthreading by Intel PR.
Actually IBM claims that their version of SMT is much superior to HT with 30-60% improvement over the improvements gained bt Intel with HT. Specifically they say the expect to see 35-40%+ improvements using SMT under heavy usage.
If those numbers are right then it would be significantly better than HT. Although in fairness to Intel they are comparing Power5 server chips with PC-roots Xeon processors so there's probably alot more headroom on the ship to use.
=tkk
Hardware requires factories to make components, people to assemble them, trucks to ship them and people to sell them. It can never be free.
The only way for the computer to be "free" is the way cell phones are now "free". When you sign-up for 3 years of M$ OS/Office suite subscription, MSN broadband with obligatory Passport suppport for on-line shopping and agree to transfer $500 to that account you will get a "free" PC. Ignore the fact that you will be paying $100/month to M$ for that "free" PC.
This fits in well with the M$ philosophy of business - they don't really care what "product" they sell as long as it comes with a M$ EULA and license. Check my journal for a more detailed look at the M$ business plan.
=tkk
I dunno, maybe the person wearing their webserver went for coffee and is just out of range right now.
=tkk
Here's a tool from Microsoft.
And here's another tool from Microsoft.
=tkk
So, on an average day around 5 minutes (if that) of maintenence and then that leaves what? 23 hours, 55 minutes for "real work".
;)
Dude, on an "average" day get some sleep.
Please.
=tkk
You're confused? I misread it as Donald Love and I wondered why the ceepy conglomco/radio-magnet from GTA3 was commenting on anything....
;)
"Hello. You are listening to a Donald Love media station.
Enjoy."
=tkk
Do you have two monitors?
I'm running dual monitors on 233 (now 500Mhz BG3) with an ATI Rad 7000 in addition to the on-board video. With 10.2.8 I ran into random monitor blacking or corruption varying from 2 hours to a 4 days.
After I heard about others with the same problem I finally rolled back to 10.2.6. *SIGH*
There's a precident for this - the same set-up had screen corruption on sleep issues until the ATI updates in 10.1.5 update.
=TKK
my jaw dropped
That was because of the very first required palladium instruction:
Open wide and prepare to take it like Bill's bitch that you are about to become.
He's clearly ready to comply. I, however, am not.
=tkk
So we should ignore the constitution and rule of law to placate and appease a group of "kooks" because otherwise they might cause civil unrest. We should allow people to subvert the core beliefs our country was founded on in a trade against some vague and theoretical potential violence?
Peace at any cost? That's just sad. Maybe we have forgotten our forefathers...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
=tkk
Sorry - my spelling gets away from me sometimes - but don't ever address the point:
"One nation under God." The capital and lack of preposition means that it is, in fact, a proper name.
"One nation under Doug." works while "One nation under government." does not. That phrase requires a preposition "One nation under _a_ goverment."
The term "God" in the phrase is a proper name and refers to a single entity by that name rendering your argument silly at best.
If you don't believe in god's existence, then the statement "one nation under god" means "one nation under nothing" which is frankly a statement of fact. If you are a person of faith "God" is a great word: it can refer to any supreme being or pantheon you happen to believe in.
Get a copy of Strunk and White.
=tkk
It is very much so. If you don't believe in god's existence, then the statement "one nation under god" means "one nation under nothing" which is frankly a statement of fact. If you are a person of faith "God" is a great word: it can refer to any supreme being or pantheon you happen to believe in.
But it doesn't - it means the Judeo-Christian god. Now things would be clearer if the noun and name were different but same way a cross means one thing in our culture the word "God" - especially capitalized - means only one thing.
I am as comfortable having you say that as you would be having the pledge say "one nation under Allah" or "under Vishnu and Shiva". I think it's funny that everyone who yells about how great prayer is will suddenly discover the separation of church and state when a teacher leads his class in a prayer to Allah. It's easy to gloss over the details when you're the majority.
Failure to acknowledge that the state's athority is under that of God's is problematic
No - thinking that the government's power comes from a divine source rather than from the people. This is basis for a belief in democracy. The idea that the government gets authority from god died with the assumption that royalty was ordained by heaven.
>A secular government is MUCH less oppressive than a religious one
This has no basis in fact. The Stalinist goverment of soviet russia was athiestic and oppressive.
I was careless - I should have said our government is less oppressive the less secular it becomes. When I can choose between birth control options because the religious laws surrounding them have been repealed the society is _less_ oppressed.
>The country becomes LESS oppressed as Christain-based morality laws are removed from the book
I'm sure it will be a better place when murder, theft, fraud, coercion, the contract, freedom of choice and so on become obsolete. Please. You don't know what you are really talking about.
Those things are NOT illegal because the bible says so - they're illegal because they tear at the fabric of society. The difference between a democracy and a theocracy is that our laws are what all agree on as "bad for society as a whole" and then tested against the constitution.
I find it funny that you think that "freedom of choice" flows into our society from the bible when it's the exact oposite. The more the bible is kept from secular law the more choices there are.
Why insult religous people after such a lucid post?
Because I thought it was funny. My post stands on its own - if you disagree with my sense of humor that's your choice.
=tkk
PS Care to address your implicit threat that the government would be overthrown if it didn't acknowledge that it was subordinate to god? That was the most interesting thing to me in your post but you completely ignored it in your reply.
That does nothing to dilute the point that other posters are making:
* America was founded by Christian people.
* Our nation was influenced by Christian thought - our morality and values were and are very much Christian (we sometimes forget the foregiveness and humility stuff).
* Freedom of religion is intended to allow a citizen to worship as he or she believes or does not believe.
The poster I was replying to was trying to say that we had "forgotten our forefathers" because some people object to the phrase making children say "under God" in a compulsory pledge every morning.
(And don't tell me it's not - I HAD to say it or write it every morning through 8th and 9th grade. The only way you could get out of it was if you were a Jehova witness. I always got a check minus because I never capitalized 'god' when I wrote it.)
And he attempted to prove this by quoting some very religious sounding texts from some historical figures.
My point was that despite the religious rights attempt to re-cast the American founders as their brand of religious:
1) They weren't (TJ rearranged the Bible because he felt it didn't make sense the way it was including removing Revelations)
2) Despite their personal beliefs they purposely protected us from their personal beliefs and the religious beliefs of future leaders by law.
Attempting to pervert their views - both religious AND legal is just wrong. And doubly wrong when they're arguing NOT about some tradition that dates from their era but from 1952. (Apparently George Washington rose from his grave to add those words in 1952 and now we're "forgetting him" by trying to remove them.)
There is another reason terms like "Under God", "so help me God", "endowed by its Creator", and "in God we trust" are necessary.Religous people place God's athourity above that of the Government. This reassures the religous masses that government knows it's limits. To fail to acknowledge this would set the government on a collision course with religion- when government becomes too oppressive and revolution occurs, religous tyranny is common.
Are you seriously arguing that the religious in this country are a revolutionary threat? Religious people are a danger if they feel that the government fails to bow to their "God" they are going to be overthrown if it ? That the religious right needs to placated to keep it from armed revolt against the government and setting up an oppressive religious state? Christian Taliban?
Sounds more like Iraq or Pakistan to me. That dangerous talk in the "code Orange" times my friend.
Further more the disconnect in your statement is that you equate the government NOT acknowledging God as somehow being equivalent to oppressive. A secular government is MUCH less oppressive than a religious one. You have a wingnut like Scalia trying to use the Supreme Court to dictate what tow consenting adults can do in their bedroom purely because of his personal religious beliefs. The country becomes LESS oppressed as Christain-based morality laws are removed from the books - not more.
Anything two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom will NEVER be as much of a threat to me as a government that thinks it should, or even can, regulate that behavior.
It is possible - indeed common for people who are very religous to not darken the door of a church.
And just as common for good people not be darkened by the door of a church.
=tkk
John Adams also recognized this:
John Adams in a letter to TJ also said:"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
and
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
and a bunch of other stuff. And Washington talked a good game but very rarely attended church and didn't have much use for religion. The founding fathers were largely Diests who had experienced/seen religious persecution and wanted none of it.
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-T Jefferson
Stop trying to recast the founding fathers as some brand of religious wackos - even if they had been they left good laws in place to prevent the mixture of church and state. Respect them enough to let that stand.
Still not convinced? From the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen."
This treaty was written under Washington, revised and approved personally by Adams before being signed.
=tkk
Remember, the Ten Commandments is a very early and almost universally understood code of laws.
I hear this argument - let's look....
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
[Um, seems kinda religous to me.]
2) Thou shalt not make any graven images.
[Unless you're talking about plates for fake 20s this has no legal imapct.]
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
[Again - since when is THAT a law?]
4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
[Do I need to say it?]
5) Honor thy father and thy mother.
[A good idea - but legally vague.]
6) Thou shalt not murder.
[At last - a real law!]
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
[Nope.]
8) Thou shalt not steal.
[That's 2.]
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.
[Perjury. 3.]
10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor.
[Probably decent advice but not illegal - in fact probably the basis for American society.]
So the score is 3 laws, 2 pieces of decent advice and 5 strictly religous Judeo-Christian specific edicts. Hardly a "universally accepted" basis of anything in the legal system.
=Tod K
It's not the size... it's what you DO with it.
;)
Yeah, that's what every guy who is worried about size says.
and It's not heavy, it's just awkward means it's heavy. Just to clear that up too.
=tkk
PS Sorry - I couldn't help myself.