Only one translation (the King James Version) says 'meat' the rest say 'food'..
In addition the definition of 'meat' has been colloquiolized to mean 'animal flesh' in modern times where historically it has meant the inner fleshy part of any food... hence the phase "the meat of the problem" used as metaphor... or talking about the meat of a peach or apple or any other fruit or vegetable.
Yes 'weed' by which I assume you mean Cannabis is a food, it's seeds are very nutritious and full of protein, especially for birds... smoking it or eating it as a drug, no problem, do it responsibly and there's no problem with God.
The comment in the parent post wasn't directed at scientists... it was directed at Christians.. claiming that they all believed that nature is there to be exploited... which simply isn't true.
I am not a creationist, I believe completely in evolution but i also realize that all science is THEORY not fact... based on the data available a model is generated from which reasonable conclusions are made... those models can change at any time due to new and more accurate findings. So I don't discount any possibility but in the meanwhile I will use the models that are most accurate based on evidence... they are tools for further discovery not ends unto themselves anyways.
No one is expecting you to even look at a Bible but you can't very well criticize it or Christianity or any Religion without actually having read the primary text... RTFA, then comment based on an accurate understanding of the source material you are criticizing.
George W. Bush has a vision... you may not agree with all of it but it's there for all to see.
It includes:
Fight terrorism abroad by targeting nations who are sympathetic to terrorist groups agendas and seeking to establish terrorist hostile governments and preferably accountable governments wherein the people of those nations are empowered to choose how their nations and localities are governed.
Reform Social Security by giving the power back to the individual... promoting responsible retirement savings plans and retiring wasteful and easily subverted government programs.
Reform Health Care by giving the power back to the individual... promoting responsible health care savings plans and retiring wasteful and easily suibverted government programs...
I am seeing a trend here.
Kerry has a vision... you may not see it and it may be more of a mirage than a vision but it's not Bush's vision so it must be better right?
It includes:
Fighting terrorism by increasing the number of special forces substantially and providing more funding to intelligence agencies so they can together carry out targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders and foil plots of terrorism around the world... or at least here in America. Of course no one knows how or if this will work since it requires the complete cooperation of every nation in the world to find much less assassinate leaders of terrorism.. and hope that those leaders have absolutely no political sway or influence in at least one nation where he/she can hideout or use as a cover...
Reform Social Security by ???? stopping spending that is currently covered by loans taken out using SS funds as collateral... and raising taxes on the wealthy... though since we are the wealthiest nation in the world that could end up being a pretty big percentage of the population.
Reform Health Care by ??? spending more money and gauranteeing government health care for the poor and elderly while the middle class pays for it through higher premiums ??? plus more taxes.
Looks like they've corrected this mis-statement... the article now reads:
"Seiko Epson Corporation today announced that it has succeeded in leveraging its proprietary inkjet technology to develop ultra-thin 20-layer circuit board. "
Rather you would prefer to side with a group that says there is no reason for anything other than chance and that what we do in this world doesn't matter at all?
The Bible tells us that God gave the world and it's creatures to humanity to govern with care and thoughtfulness... not that "nature exists for the exploitation of humans"..
Bad people can subvert good teachings on both sides of the debate.
This brings the question of 'why were they using human stem cells' to study mice? Who's bright idea was it to say, "Hey, lets harvest some controversial human embryonic stem cells and use them in a study involving mice!"
Hmmm I'm thinking maybe they just wanted to say => "Look at us, look at us, we're just in time for some conference with research that shows human embryonic stem cells can be use to some effect (well not much really, but some..) in treating mice which have been grown to include an extreme version of a similar disease to human Parkinson's..."
No, the point wasn't that research using embryonic stem cells is a dead end... it's that it's not the only way to achieve the goal.
The Nazis did a lot of very interesting research in biomedical applications using human trials (nice way of saying it)... does that mean we are okay with that method? I'd say we are not okay with it and that we have achieved the same level of understanding using entirely different methods that did not require the death and suffering of people.
Yes, I'm comparing embryonic stem cell research with Nazi vivisection and live trial research...
you may not see them as the same but the fact remains that there are alternative methods available in science for achieving end results with the same quality level... without sacrificing our ethics, morals and dare I say humanity.
It's a tradeoff basically... convenience of using embryo's vs. ethics of using adult sources.
You may get initial results more quickly with embryo's but was it really worth the sacrifice when you could have the same results with adult stem cells while only putting a little more effort and time into it?
Sorry i didn't realize this comment wat directed at your personal crusade... SCI, which honestly looks like a wonderful cause.
I was simply attempting to inform people that Adult Stem Cell research is making significant progress and in many ways far surpassing embryonic research....
In nature the reaction may have been a long term sustained process...
We humans on the other hand want to extract energy from the reaction... which seems to be the big difference here...
Sure you can have a sustained reaction but can you DO anything with it? Our goal has been to use it as a super steam engine that drives a generator to create electricity. Nature has no such objective...
These are studies published in the last two weeks that successfully demonstrate that adult stem cells can be used for treatment of diseases such as Lou Gehrig's and Parkinsons. What is significant is that they are non-destructive techniques that do not require the destruction of the host provider... AND they will not be rejected by the person being treated or require the extensive anti-rejection treatments that using foreign stem cells to treat an individual would require.
In fact the study using mice can be directly compared to a similar study using embryonic stem cells:
The embryonic stem cell study only allowed the mice to survive an additional 11 days... while the adult stem cell study allowed the mice to live an additional two months! In mouse years that is a huge difference... 11 days or 60 days? which treatment was more successful?
The real point is that valid and successful research is being carried out that does not require the destruction of embryos... this is not to say that there isn't something to be learned from embryonic stem cell research, there is BUT and this is a big BUT... IT SIMPLY ISN'T THE ONLY VALID RESEARCH OPTION AVAILABLE.
That point made, you can no longer claim that stopping federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is giving up on treatment or cures for said degenerative diseases.. in fact IMHO without the ban some of these approaches may not have been considered due to the perceived superiority of using embryonic stem cells.
Not to mention that the traditional family isn't what the parent is referring to... since the 50's at least the so called tradtional family has been a nuclear family, or 2 parents and their children... the real traditional family was 2 parents, their children, their parents... all 4 of them if still alive, their brothers and sisters and their children... so a clan basically where the role of parenting was taken care of by a multitude of adult persons and where the loss of one was not catastrophic.
I'll call that the traditional 'extended' family and it definitely doesn't exist in any significant way in the modern world. Too bad, cause it is arguably the best way to raise a child... unfortunately we now let our children be raised by strangers and celebrities.
The fact that I didn't just say "The Terrorists" should be enough to let anyone know I was referring to separate groups, their agendas were beyond the scope of the comment.
If I was going to suggest what the insurgents should do it would be to turn over their weapons in an orderly fashion and cooperate with coaltion forces in finding foreign terrorists by providing any info they may have. Why would the US or anyone massacre the insurgents if they were to peacefully retire from aggression? If they insist on using violence to express their disagreement with the future direction of Iraq then they will be handled as violent militants have to be handled. Haven't they ever heard of peaceful protest? It would be far more effective at keeping US forces out of their neighborhoods.
Would it be okay with you if parents could have their kids euthanized because one parent had lost his/her job and they could no longer afford children? They aren't really people yet.. they're barely five, totally uneducated, provide no meaningful contribution to society and are in fact a drain on our resources and they can't vote, work or own land... not really people yet... it's the parents decision right? What difference would it make to society if they had their kids euthanized? We haven't really invested anything into their futures as yet so what do we care?
Don't try to argue, it is a perfectly valid comparison and you know it.
We only put labels such as fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, child on a young person for convenience in conversation.
How about this labeling comparison - start with 2 hours after conception - that new person is 2 hours old - fetus - that new person is 4 months and 2 hours old - 3rd trimester fetus - that person is 8 months and 2 hours old - birth - that person is 9 months 22 days and 2 hours old - first birthday - that person is 1 year, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old - thirtieth birthday - that person is 30 years, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old
Do you see that the counting of life begins at conception, not at birth.. you don't lose 9 months + of your life the day you are born... that person is the same person whether 2 hours old or 30 years old. At 30 years old that person has a whole lot more mass but is the same as when that person was 10 years and 1 year and 1 month... they've simply grown a lot in the 30 + years they've been alive.
Killing a 1 hour old person is the same as killing a 30 year old person, except the 30 year old person had a chance to experience life and contribute.. the 1 hour old was deprived of this chance altogether.
I will address the issue of whether a violent criminal should be put to death or not. It's not relevant in that the person being put to death had a choice about how they would live their life. That person chose to commit a violent crime. Death or life imprisonment or rehabilitation or hospitalization... the goal is not to punish the violent criminal but to protect society from said individuals chosen way of life.
Robert Horton - "The research was completed under the most testing of circumstances - an ongoing war. And therefore certain limitations were inevitable and need to be acknowledged right away"
Why would you publish a study that is by it's very nature inconclusive and impossible to verify? Why would you publish one in the week before a major election? I think you can answer these questions for yourselves.
I have no doubts that many civilians have died. Every other night I see a report about a car bomb going off in some crowded area killing ten or more and injuring 20-30 people, many of them women and children who later die from their wounds... rarely there is a report that a US soldier is killed or injured by these attacks.
I'm also certain that there have been civilian deaths as a result of Coalition Airstrikes. The insurgent forces and foreign terror groups both choose to hide among the civilian population... taking them hostage while claiming to be their protectors.
Instead of having Marriages left and right and divorces all over the place just get a civil union and avoid all the moral and ethical baggage religion tacks on to it... unless you are religious and believe in Marriage as an act of worship, which is how Christians and several other religions teach.
If your church doesn't allow for marriage between gay individuals that is a matter for the church to decide and those gay individuals to deal with. The Hebrew Temple won't marry you if you are not jewish, the Catholic Church won't marry you unless at least one of you is baptized and confirmed Catholic...
If you want to be together and enjoy partner status in regards to taxes or other benefits go get a civil union and avoid the issue all together... marriage is simply one accepted form of civil union.. not the only one. Well, it looks like it will be this way in the future.
The biggest difference is that Mozilla is a development PLATFORM... which just so happens to take the form of a web tools suite in it's most well known package.
Mozilla browser was and is a proof of concept, nothing more.
Firefox on the other hand is a focused application of Mozilla technologies. It's only purpose is to be a browser for web sites.
Now of course you can make your own decision about which software you want to use but remember that Mozilla browser may or may not continue to be supported, while Firefox has a clear mandate and a roadmap for future versions.
Why not? But instead of Gas being free... just give me free access to the refinery and details on how to refine it, then allow me to buy raw sweet crude by the gallon so I can make my own damn gas for pennies on the dollar.
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/arc hi ve/ar_abortion.html
Where do you fit in?
I don't agree with much of the treatment that food stock animals suffer. I don't have a problem with eating the flesh of animals though. If I could change the way we tend to the needs of the animals we eat I would... the food I eat would be more nutritious and generally healthier if raised organically and slaughtered decently. Food stock animals are grown the way they are not because of food concerns... it is all the by-products that are used by the cosmetics industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc, etc. that makes for industrialized slaughterhouses... the meat itself is the new by-product of "animal harvesting".
Even if everyone gave up eating meat the animal would still be 'processed' for their glands, their hormones, their fatty acids, their glycerin content, their bone meal, etc. Animal parts are a huge component in nearly all modern products from adhesives to skin creams to dyes in your clothing to shampoo to cleaning solvents... you better be using Simple Green or you're probably using animal parts to clean your kitchen.
hmmm, BBC, Xinhua, Al Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor, plenty of Reuters, Taipei Times, Hindustani Times... the list goes on and on.
Can you provide me with a more 'complicated' Iraq state description?
How about this:
Iraq is a nation divided into 3 majority cultures, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd but is home to a plurality of minority cultures as well, some being Christian, Wahabi Islam, Bhuddist, Hindu, Coptic and aetheist/secular. The 3 major cultures hold varying opinions of each other and each tolerate the minority cultures but would prefer not to have to deal with each other and at times have entered into open conflict. Held together by the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for 30 years (under threat and act of genocide) these groups face a new challenge... how to avoid civil war now that they have the freedom to decide their own future. The United States and their allies face a responsibility just as important, providing the means and support both financial and practical to achieve this goal and to enable Iraq to move forward into a new world they are ill prepared to encounter.
30 years of oppression, exhortation, economic rape and social stagnation has left Iraq an impotent nation with little self esteem and in need of the world's support. Unfortunately most of the world seems to care little for the people of Iraq other than what pillage they can claim from it's wreckage. The United States and it's allies are the only nations willing to supply the resources needed to resurrect a once grand nation since bankrupted by a sadistic and self serving dictator.
Most of the world seems to think the Iraqi people were better off living under the conditions imposed by Saddam Hussein. Most of the world seems to think that those conditions somehow were not being exploited by the culture of terror and would not have been further exploited if Saddam was still in power and still accumulating billions in revenue from the so-called 'oil for food program'.
Most of the world says 'live and let live' but they don't seem to care or at least don't act as if they care in what manner the people who can't speak out are in fact living. Most of the world seems satisfied to take the resources of those people without giving them back what they need most, self-respect.
I do believe the world is safer. We will never know what the world would look like if we could roll back the clock and decide differently. How do you think Al Gore would have responded to 9/11? Will the world be safer with John Kerry in office? Do the people behind terrorism make decisions based on who the American President is or what actions are taken by the US? France suffered a terrible attack on their train system by a terror group and they had denounced US actions... terror attacks predate the Bush administration... without Bush would they have stopped suddenly, saying 'no Bush, no Bombs'?
I don't think so. I think it would have continued to escalate and the world would be much more dangerous now without the last two years of action.
Which do you prefer... a World Police going around chasing after small agile anonymous cells of terrorists with unlimited funds from terror sponsoring nations or a plan to create a world that is inhospitable to the culture of terror by identifying and eliminating terror sponsoring nations and raising up democratic nations in their place.
The only way to stop terrorism is to remove the environment that fosters it. To do that you have to go through a two step process. First you have to confront and immobilize/remove those who support such environments. Second you have to transform said environment into one which will not allow such activities to gain support.
Just doing the first part of that process will not stop terrorists or a culture of terrorism, it will only send it underground again and delay it. So for instance, killing Osama bin Laden will not stop anything. The leadership will change and resources will shuffle around but eventually the people involved will regroup and begin again.
Currently the US government has pursued the first step and has had success in multiple campaigns (Afghanistan and Iraq). The US government has also pursued the second step and again has had success (Afghanistan and soon Iraq). By success I mean that they have accomplished a majority of the goal, being the removal of proponents/supporters of terrorism and establishing environments where a culture of terrorism is unacceptable.
More specifically the US government along with it's allies have in fact stopped the Taliban in Afghanistan from being the most powerful institution and have transformed that country into one where a democratically elected institution will hold sway. It may not be perfect yet but it is a damn fine start.
In Iraq a similar situation is happening now wherein Saddam Hussein, a known supporter of terrorism via financial support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas, has been deposed and removed from power. Likewise the institution of power is in the process of being transformed from one where a small minority controlled the future of the entire population to one where the majority will elect a representative government. Currently there is fighting between two minority groups... the US military and the Insurgent forces, some of whom are terrorist in nature, others are dissatisfied formerly powerful tribes. The majority in Iraq wants to bring about the same transformation that is the goal of the US goverment, that of a majority elected governing institution.
We know how to stop terrorism AND we are working on it. Do you expect decades of inbred hostility and anger to be swept aside in a few months of activity? The culture of terror has been building for at least that long and preys upon those who are most disenfranchised in the world, such as the people of Iraq who have been in such condition for over 30 years. Have some damn patience. Changing the world takes time.
The only real difference is that we know how to stop terrorists... cures for said 'rift raft' (you meant riff raff right?) of ailments may or may not be within our collective capabilities within our collective lifetimes... AND billions are being spent on such research, maybe not as directly as you'd like but certainly our capabilities are being extended through both public and private funding in the US and around the world. If a few billion in a given period of time could guarantee a cure do you think anyone would stop it from happening? Politicians have loved ones who suffer from these devastating conditions as well... how many Senators have had to deal with the prospect of prostate cancer?
I was thinking Garfield... ya know, the ultimate evolution of the cat... sits around all day eating lasagna and sleeping off the carb coma, while someone else does all the work..;-p
Yes. Try out CodeTek Virtual Desktop... not only will it give you virtual desktops, more than you can shake a stick at... but it also gives you the option of 'Focus-Follows-Mouse'... check it out here:
Slashdot Mirror
Only one translation (the King James Version) says 'meat' the rest say 'food'..
In addition the definition of 'meat' has been colloquiolized to mean 'animal flesh' in modern times where historically it has meant the inner fleshy part of any food... hence the phase "the meat of the problem" used as metaphor... or talking about the meat of a peach or apple or any other fruit or vegetable.
Yes 'weed' by which I assume you mean Cannabis is a food, it's seeds are very nutritious and full of protein, especially for birds... smoking it or eating it as a drug, no problem, do it responsibly and there's no problem with God.
The comment in the parent post wasn't directed at scientists... it was directed at Christians.. claiming that they all believed that nature is there to be exploited... which simply isn't true.
I am not a creationist, I believe completely in evolution but i also realize that all science is THEORY not fact... based on the data available a model is generated from which reasonable conclusions are made... those models can change at any time due to new and more accurate findings. So I don't discount any possibility but in the meanwhile I will use the models that are most accurate based on evidence... they are tools for further discovery not ends unto themselves anyways.
No one is expecting you to even look at a Bible but you can't very well criticize it or Christianity or any Religion without actually having read the primary text... RTFA, then comment based on an accurate understanding of the source material you are criticizing.
George W. Bush has a vision... you may not agree with all of it but it's there for all to see.
It includes:
Fight terrorism abroad by targeting nations who are sympathetic to terrorist groups agendas and seeking to establish terrorist hostile governments and preferably accountable governments wherein the people of those nations are empowered to choose how their nations and localities are governed.
Reform Social Security by giving the power back to the individual... promoting responsible retirement savings plans and retiring wasteful and easily subverted government programs.
Reform Health Care by giving the power back to the individual... promoting responsible health care savings plans and retiring wasteful and easily suibverted government programs...
I am seeing a trend here.
Kerry has a vision... you may not see it and it may be more of a mirage than a vision but it's not Bush's vision so it must be better right?
It includes:
Fighting terrorism by increasing the number of special forces substantially and providing more funding to intelligence agencies so they can together carry out targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders and foil plots of terrorism around the world... or at least here in America. Of course no one knows how or if this will work since it requires the complete cooperation of every nation in the world to find much less assassinate leaders of terrorism.. and hope that those leaders have absolutely no political sway or influence in at least one nation where he/she can hideout or use as a cover...
Reform Social Security by ???? stopping spending that is currently covered by loans taken out using SS funds as collateral... and raising taxes on the wealthy... though since we are the wealthiest nation in the world that could end up being a pretty big percentage of the population.
Reform Health Care by ??? spending more money and gauranteeing government health care for the poor and elderly while the middle class pays for it through higher premiums ??? plus more taxes.
I'm seeing a trend here...
more later.
Looks like they've corrected this mis-statement... the article now reads:
"Seiko Epson Corporation today announced that it has succeeded in leveraging its proprietary inkjet technology to develop ultra-thin 20-layer circuit board. "
Rather you would prefer to side with a group that says there is no reason for anything other than chance and that what we do in this world doesn't matter at all?
The Bible tells us that God gave the world and it's creatures to humanity to govern with care and thoughtfulness... not that "nature exists for the exploitation of humans"..
Bad people can subvert good teachings on both sides of the debate.
This brings the question of 'why were they using human stem cells' to study mice? Who's bright idea was it to say, "Hey, lets harvest some controversial human embryonic stem cells and use them in a study involving mice!"
Hmmm I'm thinking maybe they just wanted to say => "Look at us, look at us, we're just in time for some conference with research that shows human embryonic stem cells can be use to some effect (well not much really, but some..) in treating mice which have been grown to include an extreme version of a similar disease to human Parkinson's..."
No, the point wasn't that research using embryonic stem cells is a dead end... it's that it's not the only way to achieve the goal.
The Nazis did a lot of very interesting research in biomedical applications using human trials (nice way of saying it)... does that mean we are okay with that method? I'd say we are not okay with it and that we have achieved the same level of understanding using entirely different methods that did not require the death and suffering of people.
Yes, I'm comparing embryonic stem cell research with Nazi vivisection and live trial research...
you may not see them as the same but the fact remains that there are alternative methods available in science for achieving end results with the same quality level... without sacrificing our ethics, morals and dare I say humanity.
It's a tradeoff basically... convenience of using embryo's vs. ethics of using adult sources.
You may get initial results more quickly with embryo's but was it really worth the sacrifice when you could have the same results with adult stem cells while only putting a little more effort and time into it?
Sorry i didn't realize this comment wat directed at your personal crusade... SCI, which honestly looks like a wonderful cause.
I was simply attempting to inform people that Adult Stem Cell research is making significant progress and in many ways far surpassing embryonic research....
In nature the reaction may have been a long term sustained process...
We humans on the other hand want to extract energy from the reaction... which seems to be the big difference here...
Sure you can have a sustained reaction but can you DO anything with it? Our goal has been to use it as a super steam engine that drives a generator to create electricity. Nature has no such objective...
Links here:
Olfactory Bulb Stem Cells And Lou Gehrig's Disease
Jefferson Scientists Find New Way To Convert Adult Human Stem Cells To Dopamine Neurons
These are studies published in the last two weeks that successfully demonstrate that adult stem cells can be used for treatment of diseases such as Lou Gehrig's and Parkinsons. What is significant is that they are non-destructive techniques that do not require the destruction of the host provider... AND they will not be rejected by the person being treated or require the extensive anti-rejection treatments that using foreign stem cells to treat an individual would require.
In fact the study using mice can be directly compared to a similar study using embryonic stem cells:
Human Spinal Cord Cells Help Rats With Lou Gehrig's Disease
The embryonic stem cell study only allowed the mice to survive an additional 11 days... while the adult stem cell study allowed the mice to live an additional two months! In mouse years that is a huge difference... 11 days or 60 days? which treatment was more successful?
The real point is that valid and successful research is being carried out that does not require the destruction of embryos... this is not to say that there isn't something to be learned from embryonic stem cell research, there is BUT and this is a big BUT... IT SIMPLY ISN'T THE ONLY VALID RESEARCH OPTION AVAILABLE.
That point made, you can no longer claim that stopping federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is giving up on treatment or cures for said degenerative diseases.. in fact IMHO without the ban some of these approaches may not have been considered due to the perceived superiority of using embryonic stem cells.
'nuff said.
Not to mention that the traditional family isn't what the parent is referring to... since the 50's at least the so called tradtional family has been a nuclear family, or 2 parents and their children... the real traditional family was 2 parents, their children, their parents... all 4 of them if still alive, their brothers and sisters and their children... so a clan basically where the role of parenting was taken care of by a multitude of adult persons and where the loss of one was not catastrophic.
I'll call that the traditional 'extended' family and it definitely doesn't exist in any significant way in the modern world. Too bad, cause it is arguably the best way to raise a child... unfortunately we now let our children be raised by strangers and celebrities.
The fact that I didn't just say "The Terrorists" should be enough to let anyone know I was referring to separate groups, their agendas were beyond the scope of the comment.
If I was going to suggest what the insurgents should do it would be to turn over their weapons in an orderly fashion and cooperate with coaltion forces in finding foreign terrorists by providing any info they may have. Why would the US or anyone massacre the insurgents if they were to peacefully retire from aggression? If they insist on using violence to express their disagreement with the future direction of Iraq then they will be handled as violent militants have to be handled. Haven't they ever heard of peaceful protest? It would be far more effective at keeping US forces out of their neighborhoods.
Would it be okay with you if parents could have their kids euthanized because one parent had lost his/her job and they could no longer afford children? They aren't really people yet.. they're barely five, totally uneducated, provide no meaningful contribution to society and are in fact a drain on our resources and they can't vote, work or own land... not really people yet... it's the parents decision right? What difference would it make to society if they had their kids euthanized? We haven't really invested anything into their futures as yet so what do we care?
Don't try to argue, it is a perfectly valid comparison and you know it.
We only put labels such as fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, child on a young person for convenience in conversation.
How about this labeling comparison
- start with 2 hours after conception - that new person is 2 hours old
- fetus - that new person is 4 months and 2 hours old
- 3rd trimester fetus - that person is 8 months and 2 hours old
- birth - that person is 9 months 22 days and 2 hours old
- first birthday - that person is 1 year, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old
- thirtieth birthday - that person is 30 years, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old
Do you see that the counting of life begins at conception, not at birth.. you don't lose 9 months + of your life the day you are born... that person is the same person whether 2 hours old or 30 years old. At 30 years old that person has a whole lot more mass but is the same as when that person was 10 years and 1 year and 1 month... they've simply grown a lot in the 30 + years they've been alive.
Killing a 1 hour old person is the same as killing a 30 year old person, except the 30 year old person had a chance to experience life and contribute.. the 1 hour old was deprived of this chance altogether.
I will address the issue of whether a violent criminal should be put to death or not. It's not relevant in that the person being put to death had a choice about how they would live their life. That person chose to commit a violent crime. Death or life imprisonment or rehabilitation or hospitalization... the goal is not to punish the violent criminal but to protect society from said individuals chosen way of life.
Robert Horton - "The research was completed under the most testing of circumstances - an ongoing war. And therefore certain limitations were inevitable and need to be acknowledged right away"
Why would you publish a study that is by it's very nature inconclusive and impossible to verify? Why would you publish one in the week before a major election? I think you can answer these questions for yourselves.
I have no doubts that many civilians have died. Every other night I see a report about a car bomb going off in some crowded area killing ten or more and injuring 20-30 people, many of them women and children who later die from their wounds... rarely there is a report that a US soldier is killed or injured by these attacks.
I'm also certain that there have been civilian deaths as a result of Coalition Airstrikes. The insurgent forces and foreign terror groups both choose to hide among the civilian population... taking them hostage while claiming to be their protectors.
Instead of having Marriages left and right and divorces all over the place just get a civil union and avoid all the moral and ethical baggage religion tacks on to it... unless you are religious and believe in Marriage as an act of worship, which is how Christians and several other religions teach.
If your church doesn't allow for marriage between gay individuals that is a matter for the church to decide and those gay individuals to deal with. The Hebrew Temple won't marry you if you are not jewish, the Catholic Church won't marry you unless at least one of you is baptized and confirmed Catholic...
If you want to be together and enjoy partner status in regards to taxes or other benefits go get a civil union and avoid the issue all together... marriage is simply one accepted form of civil union.. not the only one. Well, it looks like it will be this way in the future.
Read the rest of the post...I make the same point when I state that the Mozilla Browser is a proof of concept for the Mozilla Platform..
The biggest difference is that Mozilla is a development PLATFORM... which just so happens to take the form of a web tools suite in it's most well known package.
Mozilla browser was and is a proof of concept, nothing more.
Firefox on the other hand is a focused application of Mozilla technologies. It's only purpose is to be a browser for web sites.
Now of course you can make your own decision about which software you want to use but remember that Mozilla browser may or may not continue to be supported, while Firefox has a clear mandate and a roadmap for future versions.
OMG, wish I had some points to spend on you..... talk about FUD.
This is like saying that Linux will never achieve the Desktop...
That Linus will be thrown in jail for conspiracy
That Apple Pie will be banned
That baseball will be declared to be a communist sport...
point made?
Yes, basically you are an imbecile and incompetent to boot...
Nothing you describe will come to pass.. because we have checks and balances... if not a reasonable president....
FUD, pure and simple... not interesting at all.....
Insightful? More like opinion... majority voted for said government so definitely opinion...
I'm sure AU has good reasons for supporting US policy for good or ill....
patience is a virtue...
Why not? But instead of Gas being free... just give me free access to the refinery and details on how to refine it, then allow me to buy raw sweet crude by the gallon so I can make my own damn gas for pennies on the dollar.
Read this:
c hi ve/ar_abortion.html
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/ar
Where do you fit in?
I don't agree with much of the treatment that food stock animals suffer. I don't have a problem with eating the flesh of animals though. If I could change the way we tend to the needs of the animals we eat I would... the food I eat would be more nutritious and generally healthier if raised organically and slaughtered decently. Food stock animals are grown the way they are not because of food concerns... it is all the by-products that are used by the cosmetics industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc, etc. that makes for industrialized slaughterhouses... the meat itself is the new by-product of "animal harvesting".
Even if everyone gave up eating meat the animal would still be 'processed' for their glands, their hormones, their fatty acids, their glycerin content, their bone meal, etc. Animal parts are a huge component in nearly all modern products from adhesives to skin creams to dyes in your clothing to shampoo to cleaning solvents... you better be using Simple Green or you're probably using animal parts to clean your kitchen.
hmmm, BBC, Xinhua, Al Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor, plenty of Reuters, Taipei Times, Hindustani Times... the list goes on and on.
Can you provide me with a more 'complicated' Iraq state description?
How about this:
Iraq is a nation divided into 3 majority cultures, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd but is home to a plurality of minority cultures as well, some being Christian, Wahabi Islam, Bhuddist, Hindu, Coptic and aetheist/secular. The 3 major cultures hold varying opinions of each other and each tolerate the minority cultures but would prefer not to have to deal with each other and at times have entered into open conflict. Held together by the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for 30 years (under threat and act of genocide) these groups face a new challenge... how to avoid civil war now that they have the freedom to decide their own future. The United States and their allies face a responsibility just as important, providing the means and support both financial and practical to achieve this goal and to enable Iraq to move forward into a new world they are ill prepared to encounter.
30 years of oppression, exhortation, economic rape and social stagnation has left Iraq an impotent nation with little self esteem and in need of the world's support. Unfortunately most of the world seems to care little for the people of Iraq other than what pillage they can claim from it's wreckage. The United States and it's allies are the only nations willing to supply the resources needed to resurrect a once grand nation since bankrupted by a sadistic and self serving dictator.
Most of the world seems to think the Iraqi people were better off living under the conditions imposed by Saddam Hussein. Most of the world seems to think that those conditions somehow were not being exploited by the culture of terror and would not have been further exploited if Saddam was still in power and still accumulating billions in revenue from the so-called 'oil for food program'.
Most of the world says 'live and let live' but they don't seem to care or at least don't act as if they care in what manner the people who can't speak out are in fact living. Most of the world seems satisfied to take the resources of those people without giving them back what they need most, self-respect.
I do believe the world is safer. We will never know what the world would look like if we could roll back the clock and decide differently. How do you think Al Gore would have responded to 9/11? Will the world be safer with John Kerry in office? Do the people behind terrorism make decisions based on who the American President is or what actions are taken by the US? France suffered a terrible attack on their train system by a terror group and they had denounced US actions... terror attacks predate the Bush administration... without Bush would they have stopped suddenly, saying 'no Bush, no Bombs'?
I don't think so. I think it would have continued to escalate and the world would be much more dangerous now without the last two years of action.
Which do you prefer... a World Police going around chasing after small agile anonymous cells of terrorists with unlimited funds from terror sponsoring nations or a plan to create a world that is inhospitable to the culture of terror by identifying and eliminating terror sponsoring nations and raising up democratic nations in their place.
The only way to stop terrorism is to remove the environment that fosters it. To do that you have to go through a two step process. First you have to confront and immobilize/remove those who support such environments. Second you have to transform said environment into one which will not allow such activities to gain support.
Just doing the first part of that process will not stop terrorists or a culture of terrorism, it will only send it underground again and delay it. So for instance, killing Osama bin Laden will not stop anything. The leadership will change and resources will shuffle around but eventually the people involved will regroup and begin again.
Currently the US government has pursued the first step and has had success in multiple campaigns (Afghanistan and Iraq). The US government has also pursued the second step and again has had success (Afghanistan and soon Iraq). By success I mean that they have accomplished a majority of the goal, being the removal of proponents/supporters of terrorism and establishing environments where a culture of terrorism is unacceptable.
More specifically the US government along with it's allies have in fact stopped the Taliban in Afghanistan from being the most powerful institution and have transformed that country into one where a democratically elected institution will hold sway. It may not be perfect yet but it is a damn fine start.
In Iraq a similar situation is happening now wherein Saddam Hussein, a known supporter of terrorism via financial support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas, has been deposed and removed from power. Likewise the institution of power is in the process of being transformed from one where a small minority controlled the future of the entire population to one where the majority will elect a representative government. Currently there is fighting between two minority groups... the US military and the Insurgent forces, some of whom are terrorist in nature, others are dissatisfied formerly powerful tribes. The majority in Iraq wants to bring about the same transformation that is the goal of the US goverment, that of a majority elected governing institution.
We know how to stop terrorism AND we are working on it. Do you expect decades of inbred hostility and anger to be swept aside in a few months of activity? The culture of terror has been building for at least that long and preys upon those who are most disenfranchised in the world, such as the people of Iraq who have been in such condition for over 30 years. Have some damn patience. Changing the world takes time.
The only real difference is that we know how to stop terrorists... cures for said 'rift raft' (you meant riff raff right?) of ailments may or may not be within our collective capabilities within our collective lifetimes... AND billions are being spent on such research, maybe not as directly as you'd like but certainly our capabilities are being extended through both public and private funding in the US and around the world. If a few billion in a given period of time could guarantee a cure do you think anyone would stop it from happening? Politicians have loved ones who suffer from these devastating conditions as well... how many Senators have had to deal with the prospect of prostate cancer?
I was thinking Garfield... ya know, the ultimate evolution of the cat... sits around all day eating lasagna and sleeping off the carb coma, while someone else does all the work.. ;-p
is there any way to do this with OS X?
Yes. Try out CodeTek Virtual Desktop... not only will it give you virtual desktops, more than you can shake a stick at... but it also gives you the option of 'Focus-Follows-Mouse'... check it out here:
http://codetek.com/ctvd/