In Western society, the economic socialists and the cultural liberals vote Democratic, so until we have a new election system that allows citizens to support a more diverse political policy set, we will continue to exist on a political continuum with the Republicans pulling us away from Communism and the Democrats pulling us towards it (more state control of the economy and less diverse political opinions available in the media).
The Republicans don't try to legislate what can be broadcast, or debated. And for the most part, they don't need to, because they've chosen the winning side when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the Democratic party struggles with this, and they've had to largely rely on controlling the mainstream media and the teacher's unions for indoctrination for the 28 years, but now that they've got solid control of the government back and their opponents on the ropes due to Bush's mismanagement, they're going to use the big bully club of slowly replacing as many justices in the court system to allow them to enforce their illegal laws, on the way to making opposition to their agenda a fringe movement.
Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs. It's just a matter of convincing Kennedy, and he's unreliable to read which is why he's the swing vote on the court for as long as Obama is president, unless Obama accidentally has a justice pick go conservative on him.
This will probably be used primarily against conservatives who oppose gay marriage, since homosexuals are currently attempting to control information sources to sway the voters who've rejected gay marriage in about 30 states. While most outspoken celebrities and MSM is on their side, they can't force their opponents off the internet unless they infringe upon their free speech rights, so that's what they're trying to do here.
As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights. Unfortunately, it looks like this Democratic government is going to overturn this under the guise of legislating political correctness.
I'd really like to see integration between RSS (through Google Reader) and portable devices. Sit at the computer for a few minutes (or eventually have the computer be smart enough to figure out on it's own which things you actually read from your list of feeds), and have the computer push the content you want to the reader. Then you can read at the table while you eat your breakfast the way so you can multitask.
The Point of Patents: First Mover Advantage
on
The Sewing Machine War
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The advantage to the inventor of an invention was supposed to be a limited 'first mover' advantage, where the inventor gets the opportunity to establish market share, name recognition, work out the bugs and recover some of the development cost for a limited period of time.
220 years ago, items were produced one at a time, and one craftsman would do all the work. Today, with mass production, the advantage should be gained or surrendered in a much shorter period of time. Three years is enough time with modern technology to secure the fruits of patent protection. Beyond that, we have serious limitations imposed by patents on real competition.
We should also add a new requirement, that if anybody, given only a description of what the device does, can make the same item or one that near perfectly replicates the function of the invention within one year, the patent should be considered obvious, and not allowed.
I know of somebody here in the US who has received adult stem cell treatments for leukemia here in the U.S., so this is being done here. It's just that this particular treatment hasn't been approved here in the US, and you can't guarantee getting into a test study (if somebody in the US has the treatment ready to test), or not being in the control group even if you get in the study.
How does it rate on Acid 1 & 2, and have the other browsers worked on reaching 100% on the previous tests also, or did they give up on previous tests when the next one was released?
What I said isn't an approval of the use of this method, just a recognition that the acceleration experienced to land at the end could be successful in not killing the astronauts.
I think the space shuttle orbits earth 16 times a day (90 minutes/orbit), or about 27,000 kph. Terminal velocity of the capsule is much lower (less than 300kph) than the speed of the capsule in orbit, which is why the reentry from space is so hot, because the spacecraft is losing speed as it reenters, not picking up speed. This is the same speed that was gained when the craft originally launched into orbital. Link
If you compare this to a fighter taking of from an aircraft carrier, a catapult changes the speed of the craft by 265m in two seconds which works out to 9Gs. I think fighter pilots and astronauts are trained for at least 10G acceleration, and this craft would be making a similar change in speed.
Tough, sure, but it's nothing that these guys aren't trained for.
H.L. Hunt, oil tycoon made a similar quote in the 1960s about his son, Lamar, co-founder of the AFL which later merged with the NFL, to form the AFC half of the current NFL.
From my first link: It was suggested to billionaire H. L. Hunt that he must be worried about son Lamar's pro football losses, which surely amounted to $1 million a year.
"Oh, I am, I am," the elder Hunt exclaimed. "At that rate he will be broke in 200 years."
That doesn't mean Clinton spent less, he was fortunate that the growth of computerization in the 90s increased productivity enough that the tax revenues from the increase in the tax base grew faster than his growth in spending, enough to balance the budget.
I think part of the problem is that NASA is too concerned with making sure no accidents happen (I read this on Cringley, who was starting a team to compete for the Google Moon prize, and it made a lot of sense). The cost difference between a launch vehicle that has 99% launch success and one with 100% success is huge.
As far as unmanned launches go, that's what insurance is for. Sure, it might suck if you work on a project that gets blown up, but if NASA were to drop it's cost to launch, they would be able to launch far more mass into orbit with which to get stuff done, even though more of it would fail to reach orbit. As far as manned missions go, that would be tough, especially on the families, but most of the individuals that are choosing to go into space consider it a hazard of the job, and know it's a risk they take to do the things they do.
NASA, much like this country at large, needs to get off it's ass, and get back the cowboy mentality of fighting off hardship, and doing what needs to be done. The malaise at NASA is indicative of our wider culture's softness and willingness to do the easy thing.
Not the GP, but here in Topeka, KS (which has salaries of a fraction of many coastal cities), tickets are $9.25 according to Fandango.
Regarding the original poster's situation, he could be in a situation like mine where part of his personal calculation involves a baby sitter for children, which probably costs as much or more than the cost of the tickets, but still has to be considered for if the expense fits in the budget.
For all, we've resorted to checking out movies from our local library. We get the movies within a month or two after the DVD release depending on how quickly we request them after they put the item in their system, and they have a pretty good back catalog, and will even buy requested items if they are available for purchase, which gives them nearly the same selection as Netflix. We can have 4 at a time, keep them 2-3 weeks depending on if we pick up or have them send by USPS, and watch them in the comfort of home. You don't have the ability to walk in and take one home until the wait list has dropped to 0, but if you are willing to wait a few weeks or months, you can save all of the money you spend on theater tickets, Netflix/video store fees, but using the services you already pay local taxes for. As for drop offs, you have to go to the library itself, or find your local drop box, either the library or their drop boxes are near to our usual driving around that it's not too inconvenient.
For a Christian who believes in the Trinity, the Trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God) is the perfect family. The Father is so powerful that his intellect is the Son, and the Father and Son's love for one another is the Holy Spirit. This is what the Bible is talking about when it says "God is love," that the existence of the Trinity is based on a creative Love, without which, God wouldn't exist.
Human sexual relations are designed to be imitative of the procreative love that is God, in order that humanity might learn about God by understanding human sexuality. All non-procreative acts are a violation of this design. Masturbation, homosexual sex, and contraceptive sex are all prohibited as violations of this design.
The commandment against adultery makes other potentially procreative acts illicit, namely adultery, fornication, and threesomes which is just a more sophisticated form of adultery or fornication.
I think XP and Vista are both setup to reboot by default instead of show the BSOD, or maybe the screen shows for just an instant.
I was a local help desk agent in an organization that went XP very early in it's life, and for the most part, I had few reasons to complain about XP's stability itself. In fact, despite using Firefox from a very early stage (.6 Phoenix), I have often been able to go a month between reboots, with the reboot needed for the monthly patches, otherwise I might be able to get along for months between reboots.
You got it backwards, the Southerners wanted a higher population, and so wanted to count each slave as a citizen for purposes deciding the number of representatives the south would have. The northern states didn't want to count the slaves for purposes of determining representation. The 3/5ths compromise struck a middle ground on the issue.
While there are incredibly great things about the Constitution, we really need to update the document.
If you dump the Electoral College for a straight popular vote, large states may be able to over power weaker states by virtue of more citizens. But removing it would re-enfranchise the voters of many states who feel their votes don't count because they are in states that are safe for one party or the other. Obama claimed he was going to campaign in every state, but he only seriously challenged in a handful of red states. Removing the electoral college would encourage each candidate to campaign in areas that their party hasn't campaigned in for a general presidential election for decades, because they've know either they or their opponent doesn't have a chance in the state.
I'd like to see us dump the tie between the state and the House of Representatives (but keep the Senate as is). Allow each party to register as many voters as possible, then allow each party to have a number of representatives based on the percentage of registered voters. The Libertarian, Green, and other independent parties may not be able to win representation in a single state, but if they represent 10 percent of the population, I think they should get 10% of the representation in one house of congress. Heck, you might have multiple parties pop up catering to more specific issues than 'liberal' and 'conservative' whatever those mean in a given issue.
And if a woman choses to stay home indefinitely, how does your plan account for the man to stay home indefinitely as well?
When I got married, it was with a clear understanding and agreement between my wife and myself that she would be staying home with the children. We had both come to the conclusion that that was what we wanted independently prior to meeting, and clearly our children will benefit by being primarily in contact with one of their parents who will do a better job of raising them than some near minimum wage day care employee. No experience a child will receive is as important as the guidance and love of a parent, and the only way to give it is to be one there for them for the 12-16 hours a day they are awake, not outsourcing the job to the lowest bidder.
The benefit to the patent holder is supposed to be a head start in the market by allowing them to establish name recognition and other first mover advantages, not to milk customers in a non-competitive market for near forever. When the country began, it took much longer to develop and execute a plan to enter the market. Now days, if you can't get your foothold in a year or two, you never will. If fewer companies see shorter patents worth applying for, all the better.
Religion has, in part, to do with how did the universe come to be, and what does that mean for how an individual views the world. It can also relate to what something believes without proof, since no religion I've ever seen has proof of it validity.
Dawkins is clearly an atheist, and believes the universe just is. Since he has no proof of that, that is a religious belief, which he believes as strongly and irrationally as an Christian believes in God.
One of the oldest non-Biblical Christian documents is known as the Didache, at it explicitly forbids abortion. The Catholic Church has never allowed it, unless you'd like to provide some sort of proof. Nancy Pelosi tried to say something similar last year during the usual controversy leading up to the election, and she, and the millions who support her, were unable to provide the proof you would require. Now, some theologians, speculated that the soul developed at some point after conception, but that was part of the debate about some technical issues relating to soul, salvation, and maybe in part, abortion, but what you describe was not an actual teaching of the Church.
A similar case was the speculation by Augustine on the souls of unbaptized children, which he thought probably didn't deserve heaven or hell, so he postulated that they went to a previously unmentioned place known as 'Limbo'. Limbo took on a near-doctrine like presence in the Church for over a thousand years, but was never taught as an official doctrine, and was recently rejected.
As a non-resident non-citizen, does Dawkins have the same rights on American soil. I don't know, I'm just asking?
Unfortunately for him, he'd probably be better of taking a less vitriolic tactic. His type of act has a tendency to energize the opposition and encourage them to dig in and fight, where as a less controversial style might actually get his opposition to think a little more critically about what he says and compare that to their experience and consider some of their core beliefs to be out of line of common sense, instead of forcing them to reject everything he says out of hand.
I guess it's the difference between knocking over the whole wall of their belief instead of just eroding it a little at a time until it's so unstable that gravity finishes the job.
Actually, eleven voted to block a amendment to prevent reinstatement, but 57 voted for an alternative method to 'encourage' 'minority ownership', which means they will try to force local ownership by Democrat friendly minorities, who will then boot conservative shows off the air.
And as the GP parent posted, the Catholic Church does not treat the Bible as a science text, because the Church is not literal about the Bible on scientific issues, such as how the Earth was created, or its shape, etc.
The Church is literal in it's regard to most events concerning people, except where it contradicts itself, such as during the carrying of the cross, one Gospel says he carried it without exception while the others say he was helped by a man named Simon.
The Catholic Church is different from the Protestants in this way. Until the 4th century, there was no official Bible. The Church had sacred writings, but it's true authority rests with the hierarchy and the Bible is a source of information about the faith history of Christianity. Even after the informal settling of what was in the Bible, it was never formally put in Church law until the Protestants rejected 6 books on different criteria (linguistic origin instead of historical use in Christian Churches), then the Church finally added list of books to Church Law.
In rejecting the historical Church, the Protestant reformers placed all authority in the bible, although some said you couldn't believe anything not found printed in the text, and some said you could believe anything not contradicted by the text. Then, in the late 19th century, a new movement started focused on the first of the two styles, with 15 tenants that also had to be adhered to, one of which was the 6 days of creation is a literal truth that must be believed. These fundamentalists can't separate their belief in God from that tenant, because they haven't been taught how to think properly, so they think that they must believe in the creation myth or all of Christianity, as they believe, is wrong. These fundamentalist are very powerful in the areas that made up the South in the Civil War, with a lesser degree of influence in other areas that are Christian without being predominantly Fundamentalists, such as the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain areas.
Slashdot Mirror
In Western society, the economic socialists and the cultural liberals vote Democratic, so until we have a new election system that allows citizens to support a more diverse political policy set, we will continue to exist on a political continuum with the Republicans pulling us away from Communism and the Democrats pulling us towards it (more state control of the economy and less diverse political opinions available in the media).
The Republicans don't try to legislate what can be broadcast, or debated. And for the most part, they don't need to, because they've chosen the winning side when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the Democratic party struggles with this, and they've had to largely rely on controlling the mainstream media and the teacher's unions for indoctrination for the 28 years, but now that they've got solid control of the government back and their opponents on the ropes due to Bush's mismanagement, they're going to use the big bully club of slowly replacing as many justices in the court system to allow them to enforce their illegal laws, on the way to making opposition to their agenda a fringe movement.
Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs. It's just a matter of convincing Kennedy, and he's unreliable to read which is why he's the swing vote on the court for as long as Obama is president, unless Obama accidentally has a justice pick go conservative on him.
This will probably be used primarily against conservatives who oppose gay marriage, since homosexuals are currently attempting to control information sources to sway the voters who've rejected gay marriage in about 30 states. While most outspoken celebrities and MSM is on their side, they can't force their opponents off the internet unless they infringe upon their free speech rights, so that's what they're trying to do here.
As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights. Unfortunately, it looks like this Democratic government is going to overturn this under the guise of legislating political correctness.
Not to mention the gas the mowers use themselves.
I'd really like to see integration between RSS (through Google Reader) and portable devices. Sit at the computer for a few minutes (or eventually have the computer be smart enough to figure out on it's own which things you actually read from your list of feeds), and have the computer push the content you want to the reader. Then you can read at the table while you eat your breakfast the way so you can multitask.
The advantage to the inventor of an invention was supposed to be a limited 'first mover' advantage, where the inventor gets the opportunity to establish market share, name recognition, work out the bugs and recover some of the development cost for a limited period of time.
220 years ago, items were produced one at a time, and one craftsman would do all the work. Today, with mass production, the advantage should be gained or surrendered in a much shorter period of time. Three years is enough time with modern technology to secure the fruits of patent protection. Beyond that, we have serious limitations imposed by patents on real competition.
We should also add a new requirement, that if anybody, given only a description of what the device does, can make the same item or one that near perfectly replicates the function of the invention within one year, the patent should be considered obvious, and not allowed.
I know of somebody here in the US who has received adult stem cell treatments for leukemia here in the U.S., so this is being done here. It's just that this particular treatment hasn't been approved here in the US, and you can't guarantee getting into a test study (if somebody in the US has the treatment ready to test), or not being in the control group even if you get in the study.
I guess that depends on your setup. I tried it and got WinZip instead.
How does it rate on Acid 1 & 2, and have the other browsers worked on reaching 100% on the previous tests also, or did they give up on previous tests when the next one was released?
Forgot to proof read my link: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/capsules/
What I said isn't an approval of the use of this method, just a recognition that the acceleration experienced to land at the end could be successful in not killing the astronauts.
I think the space shuttle orbits earth 16 times a day (90 minutes/orbit), or about 27,000 kph. Terminal velocity of the capsule is much lower (less than 300kph) than the speed of the capsule in orbit, which is why the reentry from space is so hot, because the spacecraft is losing speed as it reenters, not picking up speed. This is the same speed that was gained when the craft originally launched into orbital. Link
If you compare this to a fighter taking of from an aircraft carrier, a catapult changes the speed of the craft by 265m in two seconds which works out to 9Gs. I think fighter pilots and astronauts are trained for at least 10G acceleration, and this craft would be making a similar change in speed.
Tough, sure, but it's nothing that these guys aren't trained for.
H.L. Hunt, oil tycoon made a similar quote in the 1960s about his son, Lamar, co-founder of the AFL which later merged with the NFL, to form the AFC half of the current NFL.
From my first link:
It was suggested to billionaire H. L. Hunt that he must be worried about son Lamar's pro football losses, which surely amounted to $1 million a year.
"Oh, I am, I am," the elder Hunt exclaimed. "At that rate he will be broke in 200 years."
That doesn't mean Clinton spent less, he was fortunate that the growth of computerization in the 90s increased productivity enough that the tax revenues from the increase in the tax base grew faster than his growth in spending, enough to balance the budget.
I think part of the problem is that NASA is too concerned with making sure no accidents happen (I read this on Cringley, who was starting a team to compete for the Google Moon prize, and it made a lot of sense). The cost difference between a launch vehicle that has 99% launch success and one with 100% success is huge.
As far as unmanned launches go, that's what insurance is for. Sure, it might suck if you work on a project that gets blown up, but if NASA were to drop it's cost to launch, they would be able to launch far more mass into orbit with which to get stuff done, even though more of it would fail to reach orbit. As far as manned missions go, that would be tough, especially on the families, but most of the individuals that are choosing to go into space consider it a hazard of the job, and know it's a risk they take to do the things they do.
NASA, much like this country at large, needs to get off it's ass, and get back the cowboy mentality of fighting off hardship, and doing what needs to be done. The malaise at NASA is indicative of our wider culture's softness and willingness to do the easy thing.
Not the GP, but here in Topeka, KS (which has salaries of a fraction of many coastal cities), tickets are $9.25 according to Fandango.
Regarding the original poster's situation, he could be in a situation like mine where part of his personal calculation involves a baby sitter for children, which probably costs as much or more than the cost of the tickets, but still has to be considered for if the expense fits in the budget.
For all, we've resorted to checking out movies from our local library. We get the movies within a month or two after the DVD release depending on how quickly we request them after they put the item in their system, and they have a pretty good back catalog, and will even buy requested items if they are available for purchase, which gives them nearly the same selection as Netflix. We can have 4 at a time, keep them 2-3 weeks depending on if we pick up or have them send by USPS, and watch them in the comfort of home. You don't have the ability to walk in and take one home until the wait list has dropped to 0, but if you are willing to wait a few weeks or months, you can save all of the money you spend on theater tickets, Netflix/video store fees, but using the services you already pay local taxes for. As for drop offs, you have to go to the library itself, or find your local drop box, either the library or their drop boxes are near to our usual driving around that it's not too inconvenient.
That's one argument. Here's another:
For a Christian who believes in the Trinity, the Trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God) is the perfect family. The Father is so powerful that his intellect is the Son, and the Father and Son's love for one another is the Holy Spirit. This is what the Bible is talking about when it says "God is love," that the existence of the Trinity is based on a creative Love, without which, God wouldn't exist.
Human sexual relations are designed to be imitative of the procreative love that is God, in order that humanity might learn about God by understanding human sexuality. All non-procreative acts are a violation of this design. Masturbation, homosexual sex, and contraceptive sex are all prohibited as violations of this design.
The commandment against adultery makes other potentially procreative acts illicit, namely adultery, fornication, and threesomes which is just a more sophisticated form of adultery or fornication.
When I was an old man, we had to yell at those darn kids our own selves. What's the world coming to??! Now get off my lawn!!!
I think XP and Vista are both setup to reboot by default instead of show the BSOD, or maybe the screen shows for just an instant.
I was a local help desk agent in an organization that went XP very early in it's life, and for the most part, I had few reasons to complain about XP's stability itself. In fact, despite using Firefox from a very early stage (.6 Phoenix), I have often been able to go a month between reboots, with the reboot needed for the monthly patches, otherwise I might be able to get along for months between reboots.
You got it backwards, the Southerners wanted a higher population, and so wanted to count each slave as a citizen for purposes deciding the number of representatives the south would have. The northern states didn't want to count the slaves for purposes of determining representation. The 3/5ths compromise struck a middle ground on the issue.
While there are incredibly great things about the Constitution, we really need to update the document.
If you dump the Electoral College for a straight popular vote, large states may be able to over power weaker states by virtue of more citizens. But removing it would re-enfranchise the voters of many states who feel their votes don't count because they are in states that are safe for one party or the other. Obama claimed he was going to campaign in every state, but he only seriously challenged in a handful of red states. Removing the electoral college would encourage each candidate to campaign in areas that their party hasn't campaigned in for a general presidential election for decades, because they've know either they or their opponent doesn't have a chance in the state.
I'd like to see us dump the tie between the state and the House of Representatives (but keep the Senate as is). Allow each party to register as many voters as possible, then allow each party to have a number of representatives based on the percentage of registered voters. The Libertarian, Green, and other independent parties may not be able to win representation in a single state, but if they represent 10 percent of the population, I think they should get 10% of the representation in one house of congress. Heck, you might have multiple parties pop up catering to more specific issues than 'liberal' and 'conservative' whatever those mean in a given issue.
And if a woman choses to stay home indefinitely, how does your plan account for the man to stay home indefinitely as well?
When I got married, it was with a clear understanding and agreement between my wife and myself that she would be staying home with the children. We had both come to the conclusion that that was what we wanted independently prior to meeting, and clearly our children will benefit by being primarily in contact with one of their parents who will do a better job of raising them than some near minimum wage day care employee. No experience a child will receive is as important as the guidance and love of a parent, and the only way to give it is to be one there for them for the 12-16 hours a day they are awake, not outsourcing the job to the lowest bidder.
The benefit to the patent holder is supposed to be a head start in the market by allowing them to establish name recognition and other first mover advantages, not to milk customers in a non-competitive market for near forever. When the country began, it took much longer to develop and execute a plan to enter the market. Now days, if you can't get your foothold in a year or two, you never will. If fewer companies see shorter patents worth applying for, all the better.
Religion has, in part, to do with how did the universe come to be, and what does that mean for how an individual views the world. It can also relate to what something believes without proof, since no religion I've ever seen has proof of it validity.
Dawkins is clearly an atheist, and believes the universe just is. Since he has no proof of that, that is a religious belief, which he believes as strongly and irrationally as an Christian believes in God.
One of the oldest non-Biblical Christian documents is known as the Didache, at it explicitly forbids abortion. The Catholic Church has never allowed it, unless you'd like to provide some sort of proof. Nancy Pelosi tried to say something similar last year during the usual controversy leading up to the election, and she, and the millions who support her, were unable to provide the proof you would require. Now, some theologians, speculated that the soul developed at some point after conception, but that was part of the debate about some technical issues relating to soul, salvation, and maybe in part, abortion, but what you describe was not an actual teaching of the Church.
A similar case was the speculation by Augustine on the souls of unbaptized children, which he thought probably didn't deserve heaven or hell, so he postulated that they went to a previously unmentioned place known as 'Limbo'. Limbo took on a near-doctrine like presence in the Church for over a thousand years, but was never taught as an official doctrine, and was recently rejected.
As a non-resident non-citizen, does Dawkins have the same rights on American soil. I don't know, I'm just asking?
Unfortunately for him, he'd probably be better of taking a less vitriolic tactic. His type of act has a tendency to energize the opposition and encourage them to dig in and fight, where as a less controversial style might actually get his opposition to think a little more critically about what he says and compare that to their experience and consider some of their core beliefs to be out of line of common sense, instead of forcing them to reject everything he says out of hand.
I guess it's the difference between knocking over the whole wall of their belief instead of just eroding it a little at a time until it's so unstable that gravity finishes the job.
Actually, eleven voted to block a amendment to prevent reinstatement, but 57 voted for an alternative method to 'encourage' 'minority ownership', which means they will try to force local ownership by Democrat friendly minorities, who will then boot conservative shows off the air.
And as the GP parent posted, the Catholic Church does not treat the Bible as a science text, because the Church is not literal about the Bible on scientific issues, such as how the Earth was created, or its shape, etc.
The Church is literal in it's regard to most events concerning people, except where it contradicts itself, such as during the carrying of the cross, one Gospel says he carried it without exception while the others say he was helped by a man named Simon.
The Catholic Church is different from the Protestants in this way. Until the 4th century, there was no official Bible. The Church had sacred writings, but it's true authority rests with the hierarchy and the Bible is a source of information about the faith history of Christianity. Even after the informal settling of what was in the Bible, it was never formally put in Church law until the Protestants rejected 6 books on different criteria (linguistic origin instead of historical use in Christian Churches), then the Church finally added list of books to Church Law.
In rejecting the historical Church, the Protestant reformers placed all authority in the bible, although some said you couldn't believe anything not found printed in the text, and some said you could believe anything not contradicted by the text. Then, in the late 19th century, a new movement started focused on the first of the two styles, with 15 tenants that also had to be adhered to, one of which was the 6 days of creation is a literal truth that must be believed. These fundamentalists can't separate their belief in God from that tenant, because they haven't been taught how to think properly, so they think that they must believe in the creation myth or all of Christianity, as they believe, is wrong. These fundamentalist are very powerful in the areas that made up the South in the Civil War, with a lesser degree of influence in other areas that are Christian without being predominantly Fundamentalists, such as the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain areas.