Do you know how it's really made? Reforming natural gas - a fossil fuel! Congratulations, you've managed to shift our dependence on fossil fuels from crude oil to natural gas (which is even more scarce) while reducing the overall energy yield from the raw fuel and still not reducing carbon emissions.
But this is exactly what the greenies want: the illusion of progress even if it defeats their stated goals. Or maybe this shows Bush as a Machiavellian genius, since his purported hydrogen economy placates the greenies but is so impractical that he doesn't need to worry about ever implementing it, but even if it is rammed through, his oil cronies still reap a windfall.
Probably because "Open Source Software" has never pretended to be otherwise?
Plus, OSS projects are not hamstrung by a stifling overarching bloated bureaucracy. If Microsoft wanted to be as agile as OSS, it could ponder embracing its fiefdoms and reducing its bureaucracy.
Either he's offering up this bill with no intention of seeing it passed, or he recognizes the death of free speech on the American internet as an acceptible price to pay for his rise to power.
But how is McCain going to gain more from this than he loses? It will be a fiasco.
This obscenity makes my eyes burn! Since "titty fucking" is being used as a compound adjective, it must be hyphenated! Also, "christ", as a proper name, must be capitalized.
So if I read you correctly, he's not a Christian worthy of your disdain because he bothers to think for himself (as the New Testament suggests he should) and not simply "obey the word"?
I would argue that any Christian whose faith is not ABSOLUTE is not a Theist at all. They are Theistic Agnostics.
Look at the Socialist countries of Europe, and see how they're performing better than the US.
I'm pretty sure that these countries have private ownership of businesses and personal property. This makes them only "socialistic". Naked Socialism would work out about as well as Communism did.
(not all myths are about deities, just listen to any left-winger talking about the virtues of socialism and you'll wonder if he has ever learned anything about the past century's history)
It is always amazing that people with religion are required to tolerate those without, but those without religion don't have to do the same.
Isn't the requirement captured in some sort of "turn the other cheek" thing (that far too many religious people ignore)? There is no such requirement in atheism. What do you call people who don't follow their own rules?
Or I could say "Trade as evil, look how many wars have started over trade issues!"
Have there ever been wars fought over "trade"? It seems to me that any such wars would be caused by a lack of trade. This is one reason that first-world democracies don't invade each other—there is no need to conquer the other guy to get his resources when he is willing to dig it up and deliver it to your doorstep.
And we have plenty of evidence that genetic changes occur on all scales. Most obviously, human chromosome 2 is clearly the fusion of two other chromosomes (which have been given the rather antropocentric names of 2p and 2q) in other primates.
There are also people walking around today who have an unusual number of chromosomes, especially involving the sex chromosomes. It also seems fairly obvious to me, though I am no expert of the subject, that the Y chromosome is a distant mutation branched off from the X chromosome. In figurative terms, God created Eve first and then made Adam from one of her ribs.
I believe that they were not the only parents. It looks like to me that the creation events of the first chapter of Genesis are a separate event from the creation spoken out in the second chapter.
I've never heard anyone else mention that the Bible says that man was created twice. What is this second creation?
Nowadays for example, some people believe that the planets have some effect on hour lives, but science is not to advanced to know *why* and *how* are these effects hence the Zodiac signs and astrology. I am sure in 50 years or more scientists will find the reasons (magnetic fields, quantum fields or whatever) that produce those effects.
You are assuming that there is something to astrology where there almost certainly is not. In 50 years, science almost certainly will have no evidence of a better explanation of astrology than what science has now: that people are dumb.
Is it possible that it is all some psychologically oriented event? Is it possible that when I die, I'll simply rot? Yes, absolutely! But I have a hope and a faith in something that, if it is true, will provide an eternal joy and peace. And if it is not true, then what have I really lost?
It is interesting that your faith is not absolute, that you accept the possibility that there is no God. I would argue that this makes you a Theistic Agnostic rather than a Christian.
Personally, I am an Atheistic Agnostic. I am guided by rationality. I believe that if there is a God, and he is rational, he will no option but to understand and accept my position, so what have I really lost? (Not that I have any choice in the matter, since I have no capacity to force myself to truly believe any particular thing.) OTOH, if there is a God and he is not rational, then we are both fucked! (Why would an irrational God keep his supposed promises to you?)
I think that God's real test is whether you are able to hold absolute beliefs with zero positive evidence and mountains of negative evidence. If you can, then you are labelled a dangerously gullible fool and sent to Hell.
Rationality? I think not. It's people like this who truly demonstrate why society is degenerating to the point of self-destruction.
A fertilized egg and an 7-month-old baby have two things in common: neither of them is a sentient being (in the Star Trek sense of the word) but both have the potential to become one. I don't see how a rational person can defend the killing of a fertilized egg and the eating of an animal but not the killing of a pre-sentient baby or especially a blob of undifferentiated human cells. Please show me the reasoning. (Note: quoting scripture is not reasoning; it is the opposite.)
It is people with absolute beliefs who will destroy civilization.
Like begins at conception, twins share a soul and chimeras have two.
Wow, only religious nuts make absolute statements like this with no empirical evidence or rationality. Please quote the verse of the Bible where each of your three assertions is unambiguously stated.
If looks fun, though. Let's try it: All religious people are nuts. If you disagree, you eat babies.
Would it then be OK to kill newborns prior to 3 months old?
In my opinion, yes. Of course, I am stricken with a mental disease called "rationality". There is no known cure.
OTOH, a baby represents one of few chances for a pair of humans to reproduce, so killing one without BOTH parents' permission would be a rather severe crime.
Third, if you "hardly call her sentient", I feel bad for your daughter. Mine did things that I found fascinating every day (even at two months), which I doubt a cluster of cells could have managed.
I imagine the parent poster was using the Star Trek definition of the term "sentient". Was your daughter solving differential equations at two months old? Did she do anything "fascinating" that would distinguish her mental functioning from that of an animal?
My take is that a baby isn't a "person" until it shows mental capabilities which exceed that of an animal. This doesn't happen for several months. It is legal to kill an animal. (I had two distinctly different types of animal for lunch.)
Slashdot Mirror
But this is exactly what the greenies want: the illusion of progress even if it defeats their stated goals. Or maybe this shows Bush as a Machiavellian genius, since his purported hydrogen economy placates the greenies but is so impractical that he doesn't need to worry about ever implementing it, but even if it is rammed through, his oil cronies still reap a windfall.
Plus, OSS projects are not hamstrung by a stifling overarching bloated bureaucracy. If Microsoft wanted to be as agile as OSS, it could ponder embracing its fiefdoms and reducing its bureaucracy.
A free market does an excellent job of supplying almost everything except a free market.
But how is McCain going to gain more from this than he loses? It will be a fiasco.
This obscenity makes my eyes burn! Since "titty fucking" is being used as a compound adjective, it must be hyphenated! Also, "christ", as a proper name, must be capitalized.
Have the conspiracy theorists ever converged on a single opinion of whether Bush invaded Iraq to raise or lower oil prices?
I would argue that any Christian whose faith is not ABSOLUTE is not a Theist at all. They are Theistic Agnostics.
I'm pretty sure that these countries have private ownership of businesses and personal property. This makes them only "socialistic". Naked Socialism would work out about as well as Communism did.
Idealism is religion.
Isn't the requirement captured in some sort of "turn the other cheek" thing (that far too many religious people ignore)? There is no such requirement in atheism. What do you call people who don't follow their own rules?
Have there ever been wars fought over "trade"? It seems to me that any such wars would be caused by a lack of trade. This is one reason that first-world democracies don't invade each other—there is no need to conquer the other guy to get his resources when he is willing to dig it up and deliver it to your doorstep.
There are also people walking around today who have an unusual number of chromosomes, especially involving the sex chromosomes. It also seems fairly obvious to me, though I am no expert of the subject, that the Y chromosome is a distant mutation branched off from the X chromosome. In figurative terms, God created Eve first and then made Adam from one of her ribs.
I've never heard anyone else mention that the Bible says that man was created twice. What is this second creation?
You are assuming that there is something to astrology where there almost certainly is not. In 50 years, science almost certainly will have no evidence of a better explanation of astrology than what science has now: that people are dumb.
Let's hope that Microsoft fixes this problem very quickly. It is important that all Microsoft users pay every last penny for their habit.
The Wikipedia page on ECMA doesn't show it to be much more than an MS rubber stamp. What are MSOOXML's chances at the actual standards organizations?
No, it sounds like the smart money is in being a social-program recipient. So kids, why not go into that?
But that's why they all have tattoos and body piercings, so as not to conform. Oh wait... they're all doing it... never mind.
It is interesting that your faith is not absolute, that you accept the possibility that there is no God. I would argue that this makes you a Theistic Agnostic rather than a Christian. Personally, I am an Atheistic Agnostic. I am guided by rationality. I believe that if there is a God, and he is rational, he will no option but to understand and accept my position, so what have I really lost? (Not that I have any choice in the matter, since I have no capacity to force myself to truly believe any particular thing.) OTOH, if there is a God and he is not rational, then we are both fucked! (Why would an irrational God keep his supposed promises to you?)
I think that God's real test is whether you are able to hold absolute beliefs with zero positive evidence and mountains of negative evidence. If you can, then you are labelled a dangerously gullible fool and sent to Hell.
A fertilized egg and an 7-month-old baby have two things in common: neither of them is a sentient being (in the Star Trek sense of the word) but both have the potential to become one. I don't see how a rational person can defend the killing of a fertilized egg and the eating of an animal but not the killing of a pre-sentient baby or especially a blob of undifferentiated human cells. Please show me the reasoning. (Note: quoting scripture is not reasoning; it is the opposite.)
It is people with absolute beliefs who will destroy civilization.
Wow, only religious nuts make absolute statements like this with no empirical evidence or rationality. Please quote the verse of the Bible where each of your three assertions is unambiguously stated.
If looks fun, though. Let's try it: All religious people are nuts. If you disagree, you eat babies.
In my opinion, yes. Of course, I am stricken with a mental disease called "rationality". There is no known cure.
OTOH, a baby represents one of few chances for a pair of humans to reproduce, so killing one without BOTH parents' permission would be a rather severe crime.
I imagine the parent poster was using the Star Trek definition of the term "sentient". Was your daughter solving differential equations at two months old? Did she do anything "fascinating" that would distinguish her mental functioning from that of an animal?
My take is that a baby isn't a "person" until it shows mental capabilities which exceed that of an animal. This doesn't happen for several months. It is legal to kill an animal. (I had two distinctly different types of animal for lunch.)