The number 6000 comes from determining the age at this time and saying it is that old. Of course a million years from now the date of origin will remain the same but recalulating the age will result in a different value. Assuming that people will still think it is 6000 years old , even 1 million years from now, is, well, stupid. There will be historical records to prove that it is stupid (unlike the last 6000 years in which historical records aren't always that good/accurate. FYI, people won't evolve into anything more by that time than they have at the current time (which is nothing since we didn't evolve) so no need to worry about that.
I'm not telling you to do anything. I don't have to anyway for multiple reasons, the least of which being you wouldn't listen. God will judge everyone; why should I waste my time doing it when my judgement for someone won't matter? Also, they don't take pleasure in it. Many times it is a method for trying to get someone to change their views on life. People used to fear God. Nowadays for many people it is hard to fear him when they don't even believe he exists to begin with but that is their choice. It is just unfortunate that they see their error only too late.
It isn't always a matter of guilt, but drawing a clear line between right and wrong, and knowing that if you do something wrong there WILL be consequences, whether you believe in them or not. You may not believe in the world being round but there are still people on the other side of the world who carry out their daily lives whether you think they exist or not; the same is true of God and the rules he laid out. And yes, we all have the freedom of choice, and similar to your example it can be said that letting them stand in front of a manger that is on the Court house grounds and pray does not force you to join them either and therefore they have every right to perform that act(publicly funded or not because that has nothing to do with the issue).
If you have no where to go then you can stay on as long as you need to until men, women, and children are safe since you shouldn't let them die and go to heaven (or hell) just because they are not atheist. However from my point of view that is flawed anyway since, by defintion of an atheist and the repercussions of that choice, atheists would have somewhere to go, however you would be allowing them to avoid that place by wanting them to get off the boat first. I'll leave it for your homework to figure out what I mean by saying that you would have somewhere to go; hint: it isn't heaven.
Publicly funded does not entail creating a law and thus does not violate the first amendment. The US gov't has no federal establishment of any religion so even if they made a law it would not be respecting an establishment because Congress has never established a national religion/church to begin with. When negroes get to use the water fountain it does not stop me from getting water too, however before that event occurred only whites could get water from the fountain. To relate that to this situation, when Christians have access to the water (religious expression in public) it does not stop you from expressing your own or not expressing it (as in if there is nothing to express to begin with). When you remove the ability for the Christians to get water you are not affected but they are. That would be like the blacks, the minority like the atheists, telling the whites that they aren't allowed access to the water anymore because allowing whites access prevents the blacks from accessing it (even though since desegregation occurred blacks have had no access issues) when it really doesn't. If the blacks were to do this, like the atheists are with Christians, it would just show that they are really the whiny (black) rednecks.
There are other issues, that have nothing to do with public funds, that atheists want removed from the public eye such as "IN God We Trust" removed from currency. It costs nothing extra to put that on there, the money is going to be made anyway, and yet atheists want it removed (its not a public funds issue). Of course we also have the Pledge being modified to remove God; having it in there does not force you to become Christian just like NOT having it in there does not force me to become atheist however removing it stops freedom of expression of religion (it has nothing to do with respecting an establishment because there is no federal establishment of religion).
I'm not fighting a losing battle because over 80% of the US population is Christian. Americans aren't opening up to anything other than a realization that they aren't allowed to even show signs of Christianity, except in private, despite it not affecting other people who do not agree with their views. Some people just don't want to admit there is a problem, think they can't affect the outcome, or for some reason they don't have a big problem with the current situation, but there are many others who realize there is a problem, want to make a difference, and will fight to retain what they had 200 years ago which is the ability to practice what you want in public without fear of having that right removed or being put in prison for your views. The colonists wanted freedom of religion because in England there WAS a gov't establishment of religion and if you did not agree with it bad things would happen to you. We DO NOT have that in the US so until we do there is nothing in the first amendment that applies to help you for your side of the fight. Christians can practice right in front of you, with the mayor, governor and city council too, and you don't have a leg to stand on to fight it.
Christians never, ever lost the right to express their religion however they want on their own time with their own money on their own land. The number of churches in this country is proof enough of that. What they lost, approximately 200 years ago when the constitution was created, was the right to shove it down my throat by force of law. And yes, useing government money and government land for a manger, is very, very clearly using law to shove it down my throat.
No law was ever made that forces Christianity down your throat (thats what first amendment states, a LAW has to be made). There is no law that forces public officials to setup a manger therefore it does not violate the first amendment. A manger goes up and somehow by some magical force you are being pushed to the ground at gunpoint and forced to convert to Christianity, is that what you are saying? Short of that, NO ONE is forcing you to become a Christian. Another part of the first amendment is freedom of religious expression and it does not qualify that to be public or private, therefore it is both, therefore you can not remove public displays of CHristianity without violating the first amendment.
The gov't was willingly doing these things on their own (due to what I said previously, there is no law forcing them to do it in the first place) and the people did not mind because the majority of the population wants religion to be displayed publicly and those who do not agree can simply ignore it. Why don't you ignore it? Better yet, lay on my couch and explain to me why you can't just ignore it?
Re:no laughing matter (and how to avoid it)
on
Merck's Deleted Data
·
· Score: 0
Incidentally I create a lot of docs for the DOJ (as a subcontractor) and we heavily use the TrackChanges feature to track updates to a document before they are approved. This can have a noticeable impact on the size of the document however I've noticed that saving the file to a new filename reduces the filesize (and I assume cleans up the tracking data). If you know about this method, can you say how it compares to the tool you mentioned?
When two people believe in god so much to beat someone up because they said something anti-christian says, to me, that the leaders of the religious community have failed miserably to actually relay the teachings of their religion.
Don't forget the secularist leaders who keep failing miserably to actually relay the text of the first amendment of the US Constitution which states that (public and private) freedom of religious expression is very legal in this country whether those who are around when it is conducted like it or not. Removing this right is in violation of the first amendment. Keeping it intact still does not, however, impose on the right of those who don't express their religion (because they have none to express in the first place) to continue not expressing it.
I've met some brilliant preachers, and I recognize that even though I don't believe in their Magic Man In The Sky (tm)
It is much easier to believe in nothing at all right? (related to your other post where you say you an atheist) We can all believe (or not believe) what we want and as long we don't force anyone to share those views then we are okay, and as long as those views are not prevented from being expressed, in PUBLIC or private, like the First Amendment states. This is not related to your comment; I was just stating something that most people forget, especially atheists, but not necessarily you. By the way, is that your affectionate term for God or someone else's?
He even said that one of those men had to move his wife and kids out of town for the holidays because he feared for their safety. Let me reiterate, the ones getting threatened were the seculars and they were getting threatened by people who were presumably very much Christian.
Had to move his wife and kids out of town for the holidays huh? So...that would be like forever since there is a holiday in the US about every couple weeks, right? Or did you mean something else by saying "the holidays"? Just because they were getting threatened doesn't mean anyone was going to go through on their threats. Threats are still illegal but with all the flack Christianity is getting for simply existing and for followers practicing it in public Christians are getting tired of people doing every little thing they can to squash the expression of it and to get something fixed when that happens seems to take more and more on the part of the Christians. There is a breaking point in how much Christians can take before they can't hold back their feelings about how people treat their religion and with Christmas being attacked especially hard this Christmas (*NOT* this "holiday") it is no wonder we have some people speaking especially loud in defense of it.
My girlfriend raised her hand and asked why Gibson was claiming seculars were perpetuating a war when his own examples showed Christians doing all the threatening behavior and she pointed out that he had said several times how nice the seculars seemed to be when he interviewed them.
Sounds like the story where the bully is always beating up the little kid and when the little kid fights back and an adult sees it he gets in trouble for merely defending himself instead of the bully getting into trouble, who then laughs all the way home. Why should the secularists get angry? They simply have idiot leaders in the right position to remove public religious expression and therefore don't have a reason to get worked up over things. It's the CHristians who have to fight extra hard to get their rights and religious expression allowed in public again when the rights shouldn't have been removed to begin with.
I'm against Christians who beat up people and threats are not a good way to conduct business but I can understand where they are coming from as far as the threats are concerned. It's easy to threaten someone and not make good on it because you are only saying something at that point and not making good on it. And they probably have no intention on making good on their threat (at least some of them). They just think that it is the only way to get back again what was lost and hope it is enough for those on the other side to understand that it is not right, for example, for secularlists to remove any association of "Christmas" around Christmas time when the majority of Americans celebrate it for what it really is meant to be celebrated for. This year companies are going so far as to REWRITE Christmas carols so that they don't have "Christmas" anymore in them. I believe Honda is one of them. We have tons of "holiday sales" during Christmas time but when 4th of July comes around companies all of a sudden have an actual "Fourth of July sale". Companies love the extra revenue but won't dare say where it comes from. They are cowards basically. People can only take so much attack on their religion (or career, lifestyle, unpopular hobbies, etc.) before they have to speak up in some form or another and sometimes then they blow up to let out their frustration (and sometimes rage).
To get back on topic, evolution/Creation debate in schools is another aspect of society where secularists (the small percentage that exist) don't want the majority imposing on their views and yet nothing is being pushed onto them but they are adamant about removing others' religions around them so they don't have to see it. Bottom line: The professor shouldn't have been beaten up but he shouldn't have done what he did ( that isn't an admission that he got what he deserved).
Well you aren't being trolled, at least by my definition of it. The only thing I do that I forgot to mention was that I do run AdAware once in a while. As far as knowing whether or not I'm infected, I know you wouldn't agree with this method and I'm not saying I do it on purpose as a test, but as of right now I would consider myself not infected because no one has said anything about the files I trade with them. Now that isn't a guarantee but that is one metric to go by.
I'm not behind a firewall and I used to have SP1 installed but after having to reinstall (and no it wasn't an infection) I went ahead and put SP2 on but I'm still not behind a firewall and I also don't run anti-virus and I'm perfectly fine. I also don't use outlook express and run stuff that I get as attachments from people I don't know. I'm also on broadband cable. Don't act like getting online is similar to stepping into a quarantined house w/o a breathing mask on because it isn't.
By this logic there is no sense in any further employees giving two weeks notice if their employment really ends the day of their resignation. They can get paid for the last 2 weeks and if desired immediately start their other job (if they have one lined up already). In essence, for two weeks, they get paid twice.
Uh, since Google IS a search engine and doesn't release multiple versions of the same operating system and doesn't have a game console so I think they have real reasons as to why their site is UNcluttered.
The three letter Gov't Agency for which I do contract work for (FBI) does not fill USB ports with epoxy and will allow the use of USB drives as long as they have been officially virus scanned and marked as such with a person's initials. Wireless networking is forbidden though and I don't know about RFI shielding. I am also not allowed to have a cell phone with a camera but a regular cell phone is okay except for in a data center where I have to give the phone up temporarily as no transmission-type devices are allowed in there (like 2 way pagers). All files originating from the Internet must be virus scanned as well (all companies should do this). If you are found with a camera you are escorted and not allowed back on the facility until you do not have the camera anymore.
I don't mean to come across as not feeling for your position(I would hate to lose the work, not to mention the support that I had garnered and have to recoup it all over again) but when you started using Wikipedia you knew the potential risks involved with a site that allows anyone to modify content. You could say to yourself that it couldn't happen to you but, again, you were still aware of the risks and you chose to move forward.
First, you can take them back assuming the store has one available. MS wasn't able to meet demand necessarily, let alone having extras for "miscellaneous" reasons.
Second, not being able to take a bridge back to the store is why MS isn't in the civil engineering business.
You don't know but the law stops anyone under 21 from buying alcohol and trafficing/distributing drugs is illegal in all cases. Parents have better peace of mind knowing that there are federal/state laws for drugs and alcohol so that when their kids go to another house there is less of a chance that their child will get involved in drugs and alcohol. With video games, music, and tv the situation is not the same despite adult themes being introduced into all 3 and still, in many cases, being targeted toward minors.
A directory server implements the LDAP protocol. ADS is a directory server but it also does a lot more but it is still LDAP compatible and compliant. All the various implementations of LDAP do it in variou ways though.
I wouldn't make the claim that ADS is just a bastardized form of LDAP. Sure, MS has modified their implementation of LDAP in basic ways and they also added stuff to the schema to support a Windows environment but the Windows stuff won't affect a Netscape/iPlanet/RH/Fedora implementation and the basic implementation variations are what every other company does with LDAP so MS isn't alone in that respect. It is easy to interface with the LDAP underneath ADS to perform normal LDAP queries and at work we even interfaced a custom Java app with Windows XP to use the client's Kerberos ticket to have a single sign-on solution with the ADS server.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an atheist you insensitive clod.
The number 6000 comes from determining the age at this time and saying it is that old. Of course a million years from now the date of origin will remain the same but recalulating the age will result in a different value. Assuming that people will still think it is 6000 years old , even 1 million years from now, is, well, stupid. There will be historical records to prove that it is stupid (unlike the last 6000 years in which historical records aren't always that good/accurate. FYI, people won't evolve into anything more by that time than they have at the current time (which is nothing since we didn't evolve) so no need to worry about that.
I'm not telling you to do anything. I don't have to anyway for multiple reasons, the least of which being you wouldn't listen. God will judge everyone; why should I waste my time doing it when my judgement for someone won't matter? Also, they don't take pleasure in it. Many times it is a method for trying to get someone to change their views on life. People used to fear God. Nowadays for many people it is hard to fear him when they don't even believe he exists to begin with but that is their choice. It is just unfortunate that they see their error only too late.
Too bad your sarcasm doesn't even make sense since a million years from now the earth will be 1,006,000 years old. It can't stay 6000 forever.
It isn't always a matter of guilt, but drawing a clear line between right and wrong, and knowing that if you do something wrong there WILL be consequences, whether you believe in them or not. You may not believe in the world being round but there are still people on the other side of the world who carry out their daily lives whether you think they exist or not; the same is true of God and the rules he laid out. And yes, we all have the freedom of choice, and similar to your example it can be said that letting them stand in front of a manger that is on the Court house grounds and pray does not force you to join them either and therefore they have every right to perform that act(publicly funded or not because that has nothing to do with the issue).
If you have no where to go then you can stay on as long as you need to until men, women, and children are safe since you shouldn't let them die and go to heaven (or hell) just because they are not atheist. However from my point of view that is flawed anyway since, by defintion of an atheist and the repercussions of that choice, atheists would have somewhere to go, however you would be allowing them to avoid that place by wanting them to get off the boat first. I'll leave it for your homework to figure out what I mean by saying that you would have somewhere to go; hint: it isn't heaven.
There are other issues, that have nothing to do with public funds, that atheists want removed from the public eye such as "IN God We Trust" removed from currency. It costs nothing extra to put that on there, the money is going to be made anyway, and yet atheists want it removed (its not a public funds issue). Of course we also have the Pledge being modified to remove God; having it in there does not force you to become Christian just like NOT having it in there does not force me to become atheist however removing it stops freedom of expression of religion (it has nothing to do with respecting an establishment because there is no federal establishment of religion).
I'm not fighting a losing battle because over 80% of the US population is Christian. Americans aren't opening up to anything other than a realization that they aren't allowed to even show signs of Christianity, except in private, despite it not affecting other people who do not agree with their views. Some people just don't want to admit there is a problem, think they can't affect the outcome, or for some reason they don't have a big problem with the current situation, but there are many others who realize there is a problem, want to make a difference, and will fight to retain what they had 200 years ago which is the ability to practice what you want in public without fear of having that right removed or being put in prison for your views. The colonists wanted freedom of religion because in England there WAS a gov't establishment of religion and if you did not agree with it bad things would happen to you. We DO NOT have that in the US so until we do there is nothing in the first amendment that applies to help you for your side of the fight. Christians can practice right in front of you, with the mayor, governor and city council too, and you don't have a leg to stand on to fight it.
Christians never, ever lost the right to express their religion however they want on their own time with their own money on their own land. The number of churches in this country is proof enough of that. What they lost, approximately 200 years ago when the constitution was created, was the right to shove it down my throat by force of law. And yes, useing government money and government land for a manger, is very, very clearly using law to shove it down my throat.
No law was ever made that forces Christianity down your throat (thats what first amendment states, a LAW has to be made). There is no law that forces public officials to setup a manger therefore it does not violate the first amendment. A manger goes up and somehow by some magical force you are being pushed to the ground at gunpoint and forced to convert to Christianity, is that what you are saying? Short of that, NO ONE is forcing you to become a Christian. Another part of the first amendment is freedom of religious expression and it does not qualify that to be public or private, therefore it is both, therefore you can not remove public displays of CHristianity without violating the first amendment.
The gov't was willingly doing these things on their own (due to what I said previously, there is no law forcing them to do it in the first place) and the people did not mind because the majority of the population wants religion to be displayed publicly and those who do not agree can simply ignore it. Why don't you ignore it? Better yet, lay on my couch and explain to me why you can't just ignore it?
Incidentally I create a lot of docs for the DOJ (as a subcontractor) and we heavily use the TrackChanges feature to track updates to a document before they are approved. This can have a noticeable impact on the size of the document however I've noticed that saving the file to a new filename reduces the filesize (and I assume cleans up the tracking data). If you know about this method, can you say how it compares to the tool you mentioned?
When two people believe in god so much to beat someone up because they said something anti-christian says, to me, that the leaders of the religious community have failed miserably to actually relay the teachings of their religion.
Don't forget the secularist leaders who keep failing miserably to actually relay the text of the first amendment of the US Constitution which states that (public and private) freedom of religious expression is very legal in this country whether those who are around when it is conducted like it or not. Removing this right is in violation of the first amendment. Keeping it intact still does not, however, impose on the right of those who don't express their religion (because they have none to express in the first place) to continue not expressing it.
I've met some brilliant preachers, and I recognize that even though I don't believe in their Magic Man In The Sky (tm)
It is much easier to believe in nothing at all right? (related to your other post where you say you an atheist) We can all believe (or not believe) what we want and as long we don't force anyone to share those views then we are okay, and as long as those views are not prevented from being expressed, in PUBLIC or private, like the First Amendment states. This is not related to your comment; I was just stating something that most people forget, especially atheists, but not necessarily you. By the way, is that your affectionate term for God or someone else's?
He even said that one of those men had to move his wife and kids out of town for the holidays because he feared for their safety. Let me reiterate, the ones getting threatened were the seculars and they were getting threatened by people who were presumably very much Christian.
Had to move his wife and kids out of town for the holidays huh? So...that would be like forever since there is a holiday in the US about every couple weeks, right? Or did you mean something else by saying "the holidays"? Just because they were getting threatened doesn't mean anyone was going to go through on their threats. Threats are still illegal but with all the flack Christianity is getting for simply existing and for followers practicing it in public Christians are getting tired of people doing every little thing they can to squash the expression of it and to get something fixed when that happens seems to take more and more on the part of the Christians. There is a breaking point in how much Christians can take before they can't hold back their feelings about how people treat their religion and with Christmas being attacked especially hard this Christmas (*NOT* this "holiday") it is no wonder we have some people speaking especially loud in defense of it.
My girlfriend raised her hand and asked why Gibson was claiming seculars were perpetuating a war when his own examples showed Christians doing all the threatening behavior and she pointed out that he had said several times how nice the seculars seemed to be when he interviewed them.
Sounds like the story where the bully is always beating up the little kid and when the little kid fights back and an adult sees it he gets in trouble for merely defending himself instead of the bully getting into trouble, who then laughs all the way home. Why should the secularists get angry? They simply have idiot leaders in the right position to remove public religious expression and therefore don't have a reason to get worked up over things. It's the CHristians who have to fight extra hard to get their rights and religious expression allowed in public again when the rights shouldn't have been removed to begin with.
I'm against Christians who beat up people and threats are not a good way to conduct business but I can understand where they are coming from as far as the threats are concerned. It's easy to threaten someone and not make good on it because you are only saying something at that point and not making good on it. And they probably have no intention on making good on their threat (at least some of them). They just think that it is the only way to get back again what was lost and hope it is enough for those on the other side to understand that it is not right, for example, for secularlists to remove any association of "Christmas" around Christmas time when the majority of Americans celebrate it for what it really is meant to be celebrated for. This year companies are going so far as to REWRITE Christmas carols so that they don't have "Christmas" anymore in them. I believe Honda is one of them. We have tons of "holiday sales" during Christmas time but when 4th of July comes around companies all of a sudden have an actual "Fourth of July sale". Companies love the extra revenue but won't dare say where it comes from. They are cowards basically. People can only take so much attack on their religion (or career, lifestyle, unpopular hobbies, etc.) before they have to speak up in some form or another and sometimes then they blow up to let out their frustration (and sometimes rage).
To get back on topic, evolution/Creation debate in schools is another aspect of society where secularists (the small percentage that exist) don't want the majority imposing on their views and yet nothing is being pushed onto them but they are adamant about removing others' religions around them so they don't have to see it. Bottom line: The professor shouldn't have been beaten up but he shouldn't have done what he did ( that isn't an admission that he got what he deserved).
Well you aren't being trolled, at least by my definition of it. The only thing I do that I forgot to mention was that I do run AdAware once in a while. As far as knowing whether or not I'm infected, I know you wouldn't agree with this method and I'm not saying I do it on purpose as a test, but as of right now I would consider myself not infected because no one has said anything about the files I trade with them. Now that isn't a guarantee but that is one metric to go by.
I'm not behind a firewall and I used to have SP1 installed but after having to reinstall (and no it wasn't an infection) I went ahead and put SP2 on but I'm still not behind a firewall and I also don't run anti-virus and I'm perfectly fine. I also don't use outlook express and run stuff that I get as attachments from people I don't know. I'm also on broadband cable. Don't act like getting online is similar to stepping into a quarantined house w/o a breathing mask on because it isn't.
It's New York City, it's Fifth Avenue, and it's day time. Nuff said?
By this logic there is no sense in any further employees giving two weeks notice if their employment really ends the day of their resignation. They can get paid for the last 2 weeks and if desired immediately start their other job (if they have one lined up already). In essence, for two weeks, they get paid twice.
Uh, since Google IS a search engine and doesn't release multiple versions of the same operating system and doesn't have a game console so I think they have real reasons as to why their site is UNcluttered.
No reason to team up, Sears is owned by KMart.
The three letter Gov't Agency for which I do contract work for (FBI) does not fill USB ports with epoxy and will allow the use of USB drives as long as they have been officially virus scanned and marked as such with a person's initials. Wireless networking is forbidden though and I don't know about RFI shielding. I am also not allowed to have a cell phone with a camera but a regular cell phone is okay except for in a data center where I have to give the phone up temporarily as no transmission-type devices are allowed in there (like 2 way pagers). All files originating from the Internet must be virus scanned as well (all companies should do this). If you are found with a camera you are escorted and not allowed back on the facility until you do not have the camera anymore.
We put so much effort into convincing our kids how great our country is and how smart they are for being able to turn on a computer.
If only we could teach their parents how to turn on the computer we'd be set; oh, and setting the clock on the VCR.
I don't mean to come across as not feeling for your position(I would hate to lose the work, not to mention the support that I had garnered and have to recoup it all over again) but when you started using Wikipedia you knew the potential risks involved with a site that allows anyone to modify content. You could say to yourself that it couldn't happen to you but, again, you were still aware of the risks and you chose to move forward.
First, you can take them back assuming the store has one available. MS wasn't able to meet demand necessarily, let alone having extras for "miscellaneous" reasons. Second, not being able to take a bridge back to the store is why MS isn't in the civil engineering business.
You don't know but the law stops anyone under 21 from buying alcohol and trafficing/distributing drugs is illegal in all cases. Parents have better peace of mind knowing that there are federal/state laws for drugs and alcohol so that when their kids go to another house there is less of a chance that their child will get involved in drugs and alcohol. With video games, music, and tv the situation is not the same despite adult themes being introduced into all 3 and still, in many cases, being targeted toward minors.
A directory server implements the LDAP protocol. ADS is a directory server but it also does a lot more but it is still LDAP compatible and compliant. All the various implementations of LDAP do it in variou ways though.
I wouldn't make the claim that ADS is just a bastardized form of LDAP. Sure, MS has modified their implementation of LDAP in basic ways and they also added stuff to the schema to support a Windows environment but the Windows stuff won't affect a Netscape/iPlanet/RH/Fedora implementation and the basic implementation variations are what every other company does with LDAP so MS isn't alone in that respect. It is easy to interface with the LDAP underneath ADS to perform normal LDAP queries and at work we even interfaced a custom Java app with Windows XP to use the client's Kerberos ticket to have a single sign-on solution with the ADS server.