What's the difference between the police sitting on my street corner watching everyone and, police sitting on any other road watching people? What do you think they do when they are on patrol or in a speed trap waiting for people to speed by? They can watch whoever they want wherever they want as long as it is on public property. Where is YOUR line? You act like they aren't sitting on the corner now and that's exactly what they do now as part of their job and if they don't they have nothing that says they can't. Nothing stops an ordinary Joe (as far as I know) either from sitting on your street corner and watching you.
Mine are on file(I'm not saying for what, criminal or civil). I could care less that the gov't has them. It isn't affecting me until I do something wrong and then the police already know that I'm in the system so even then it doesn't do too much more in my opinion.
Once arrested your fingerprints are kept on file forever. Given, DNA is more accurate but if fingerprints didn't have the accuracy they have then the FBI wouldn't keep them on file so the question I have is do you already know that fingerprints for arrestees are already kept on file? Whether they eventually are found guilty or innocent doesn't matter. Even civil fingerprints are kept indefinitely.
Well remember, DNA/prints are things that a person has to be able to give to law enforcement in most cases (at least if law enforcement wants to match the data to a person/name for someone who has not been arrested yet, and if they have been arrested the prints are already on file). It's not like the gov't can take it without you even knowing (99% of the time). They can grab your DNA off of the glass of water that you used but if they don't already know you then they won't have a name to match up with the data. This link http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis.htm details what the gov't has so far as of the last update to the site (it's mainly static content). Basically there are around 47 million subjects in the database right now. The majority of those are criminal but some are civil (gov't employees, contractors, subcontractors). Also, for anyone who knows someone who subscribes to National Geographic there was an article about the fingerprint database in a recent issue (although it wasn't that good I thought; focused too much on fingerprints when the Division handles more than just those) http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0505/featur e7/ Unfortunately the full article is not on the actual website however I read it a while back when it first came out (someone is borrowing it and I can't look again right now) and it details the current count of fingerprints but I don't remember what it was without looking. So in summary, the gov't has a lot of prints on file but only for those people who have submitted them (either b/c of a crime committed or because of a background check needed for a job).
Liberals are not trying to implement biblical law.
No shit, they wouldn't dream of mixing church and state.
Calling liberals atheists doesn't help your point much either.
I wasn't calling liberals atheists, nor was I calling atheists liberals. I was referring to both groups as having the same reaction if governmental law had any more Biblical law embedded in it than it already does.
To be honest I'm not sure what point you were trying to make because your post is essentially incoherent.
Maybe you weren't coherent enough to understand it? Either way you found it coherent enough to post a reply.
Build a Windows Terminal Server and attach a NAS or SAN to it. Or do something similar using Linux and KDE. Then just run slimmed down PCs as the terminals with a switched network.
Thank God someone is finally taking us back to the 18th Century. It's about time.
Maybe those who think the writers of the Constitution put the "separation of church and state" clause in there can actually ask them what they think now and realize they are wrong about their interpretation of the 1st amendment. Maybe that will finally shut them up.
The problem with Christians is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testamant unless it suits them.
The problem with Liberals is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testament.
So, here's the deal. Christians can pick and choose which portions of the old law they want to apply.
So, here's the deal. Liberals can pick and choose which portions of the old law they want to apply.
Don't create a double standard. Christians aren't the only ones. Everyone does it. Even if Christians wanted to apply ALL of the old law the atheists/liberals of the country would be up in arms and then what would your argument be after that, that they shouldn't be trying to apply Bible law in the real world? Make up your mind.
Trying not to sound a lot like a Bible whacko, I can't stop from pointing you to the Parable of the widow's mite. It concisely demonstrates the parent poster's point.
You don't sound like a Bible wacko but instead you just made yourself sound like a liberal or someone afraid of religion by making the reference of "Bible wacko". Just because someone reads the Bible does not make them a whacko, unless you are a liberal and then you view reading the Bible as the worst thing that someone could do and the person should be put to death like what happened during the Salem witch trials.
I hear W2.0 has some pretty good features but don't forget the service packs which will fix some security holes that existed out of the box or would that be In the box?
That is true. There are some fake Christians out there who do believe in the invisible phrase of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution and who don't believe in the Creation occuring.
Not quite, it is just that many scientists and teachers/professors consider the findings set in stone and therefore students are told that is the view. Students are not being told there could be or there are alternatives. They are told "this is the way it is, God is wrong, and your religion is worthless for explaining your reason for being here". I'm paraphrasing.
My problem with that theory is that it doesn't answer any questions about how life formed in the first place. There still has to be an origin world - and explaining how life appeared there is just as hard as explaining how it might have formed here in the absence of panspermia.
Ever hear of the Bible? Read it sometime; it actually has some answers you are looking for. The Big Bang gave us something from nothing but the ball of matter that exploded had to have come from somewhere right? But how if we had nothing already? Things like this can be answered if you actually consider that a higher power was involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The downside? Oh no, I'll have to watch commercials again. What ever will I do?
I use Tmpgenc or virtualdub to remove the commercials and then burn the data to dvd with menus.
But closing your mouth and taking a big gulp usually fixes the problem and eases your mind.
What's the difference between the police sitting on my street corner watching everyone and, police sitting on any other road watching people? What do you think they do when they are on patrol or in a speed trap waiting for people to speed by? They can watch whoever they want wherever they want as long as it is on public property. Where is YOUR line? You act like they aren't sitting on the corner now and that's exactly what they do now as part of their job and if they don't they have nothing that says they can't. Nothing stops an ordinary Joe (as far as I know) either from sitting on your street corner and watching you.
Mine are on file(I'm not saying for what, criminal or civil). I could care less that the gov't has them. It isn't affecting me until I do something wrong and then the police already know that I'm in the system so even then it doesn't do too much more in my opinion.
3. Sun provides corporate support for StarOffice. You're on your own for OOo.
Honest question, who actually ever calls Microsoft concerning Office/Word for this to be relevant to call Sun?
Once arrested your fingerprints are kept on file forever. Given, DNA is more accurate but if fingerprints didn't have the accuracy they have then the FBI wouldn't keep them on file so the question I have is do you already know that fingerprints for arrestees are already kept on file? Whether they eventually are found guilty or innocent doesn't matter. Even civil fingerprints are kept indefinitely.
Well remember, DNA/prints are things that a person has to be able to give to law enforcement in most cases (at least if law enforcement wants to match the data to a person/name for someone who has not been arrested yet, and if they have been arrested the prints are already on file). It's not like the gov't can take it without you even knowing (99% of the time). They can grab your DNA off of the glass of water that you used but if they don't already know you then they won't have a name to match up with the data. This link http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis.htm details what the gov't has so far as of the last update to the site (it's mainly static content). Basically there are around 47 million subjects in the database right now. The majority of those are criminal but some are civil (gov't employees, contractors, subcontractors). Also, for anyone who knows someone who subscribes to National Geographic there was an article about the fingerprint database in a recent issue (although it wasn't that good I thought; focused too much on fingerprints when the Division handles more than just those) http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0505/featur e7/ Unfortunately the full article is not on the actual website however I read it a while back when it first came out (someone is borrowing it and I can't look again right now) and it details the current count of fingerprints but I don't remember what it was without looking. So in summary, the gov't has a lot of prints on file but only for those people who have submitted them (either b/c of a crime committed or because of a background check needed for a job).
Liberals are not trying to implement biblical law.
No shit, they wouldn't dream of mixing church and state.
Calling liberals atheists doesn't help your point much either.
I wasn't calling liberals atheists, nor was I calling atheists liberals. I was referring to both groups as having the same reaction if governmental law had any more Biblical law embedded in it than it already does.
To be honest I'm not sure what point you were trying to make because your post is essentially incoherent.
Maybe you weren't coherent enough to understand it? Either way you found it coherent enough to post a reply.
Build a Windows Terminal Server and attach a NAS or SAN to it. Or do something similar using Linux and KDE. Then just run slimmed down PCs as the terminals with a switched network.
Thank God someone is finally taking us back to the 18th Century. It's about time.
Maybe those who think the writers of the Constitution put the "separation of church and state" clause in there can actually ask them what they think now and realize they are wrong about their interpretation of the 1st amendment. Maybe that will finally shut them up.
Is that why you decided to post?
The problem with Christians is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testamant unless it suits them.
The problem with Liberals is that they don't really adhere to anything in the Old Testament.
So, here's the deal. Christians can pick and choose which portions of the old law they want to apply.
So, here's the deal. Liberals can pick and choose which portions of the old law they want to apply.
Don't create a double standard. Christians aren't the only ones. Everyone does it. Even if Christians wanted to apply ALL of the old law the atheists/liberals of the country would be up in arms and then what would your argument be after that, that they shouldn't be trying to apply Bible law in the real world? Make up your mind.
Trying not to sound a lot like a Bible whacko, I can't stop from pointing you to the Parable of the widow's mite. It concisely demonstrates the parent poster's point.
You don't sound like a Bible wacko but instead you just made yourself sound like a liberal or someone afraid of religion by making the reference of "Bible wacko". Just because someone reads the Bible does not make them a whacko, unless you are a liberal and then you view reading the Bible as the worst thing that someone could do and the person should be put to death like what happened during the Salem witch trials.
I hear W2.0 has some pretty good features but don't forget the service packs which will fix some security holes that existed out of the box or would that be In the box?
by the fucking iPod
Is that the newest edition, superceding the nano ipod?
How about a guy with no name?
Gee, and I wonder how these precise rules and laws got created? They are too complicated and work together too well for it all to be an accident.
Joule is only an appropriate measurement for discreet things ... such as, "the chemical reaction consumed 30 joules of energy."
Sssshhh, don't tell everyone.
Just name them after real scum bags ...
Next year "Clinton" is supposed to be on the list.
Stuff happens, hurricanes, tsunami's, earthquakes it has happened since the man first walked upright.
So that would be from about day one. Sounds about right.
What exactly goes into "entertainment and devices"?
Well, since you asked: http://sybian.com/
You must be a Greek pagan if you prefer Zeus.
That is true. There are some fake Christians out there who do believe in the invisible phrase of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution and who don't believe in the Creation occuring.
Not quite, it is just that many scientists and teachers/professors consider the findings set in stone and therefore students are told that is the view. Students are not being told there could be or there are alternatives. They are told "this is the way it is, God is wrong, and your religion is worthless for explaining your reason for being here". I'm paraphrasing.
My problem with that theory is that it doesn't answer any questions about how life formed in the first place. There still has to be an origin world - and explaining how life appeared there is just as hard as explaining how it might have formed here in the absence of panspermia.
Ever hear of the Bible? Read it sometime; it actually has some answers you are looking for. The Big Bang gave us something from nothing but the ball of matter that exploded had to have come from somewhere right? But how if we had nothing already? Things like this can be answered if you actually consider that a higher power was involved.
By the way, the plural of "virus" is "viruses".