Just an observation: the one point at which EBooks are more convenient is that I can carry my whole book-bag on my laptop. I use this quite a bit for theology research, having Greek & Hebrew Lexica, assorted dictionaries, commentaries, and 20 bible translations on hand at all times without have to carry a 100lb. bookbag.
I don't think there's a conspiracy, but I do think there's a movement. Surely you are aware of the degree to which the Enlightenment project has sought to remove Christianity from public discourse? Surely you can see that to move from "congress shall make no law making an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "separation of church and state" to "separation of church FROM state" (something that is often said by self-avowed secularists) is not very favorable to Christianity's role in society? Surely you are aware of sites like "infidels.org", which seek to "debunk" Christianity by any means available, however dishonest? Surely you've heard that there are large parts of the world (say... China, or the old Soviet Union, or North Korea, or the Middle East) where the Christian faith is systematically persecuted? And you are aware that any number of political movements have made said persecution part of their agenda? Surely you are aware that it is now illegal in France to wear a crucifix to school?
Look at it from the point of view of a Christian for a second. We are forced to pay taxes to support the public schools, whether we send our children to them or not. When we send them there, they are routinely pressured in ways that are diametrically opposed to our convictions--and I'm not just talking about Evolution. For example, I would prefer that my children not say the pledge of allegiance, but the public schools force them to stand up and listen to it being said on a daily basis. (This is not motivated by any sort of hatred for the flag or America, but our conviction that our citizenship is in heaven, and that America gets our willing obediance, but nor our allegiance.) My son, who will not say it, is held up for daily ridicule because of his religious convictions--and I have no alternative other than to keep paying for the public education that my children will not get. Surely this isn't fair? But this is just one example of the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
You need to look beyond your middle American bubble and recognize that Christianity has been persecuted, is being persecuted, and will continue to be persecuted. Furthermore, you need to read enough history to realize that much of what today is called "mainstream" is in fact a radical dismissal of religion in the public sphere. "Pluralism" is not a necessary tolerance of diversity, but an active agenda that is being pushed by many. And, if you don't believe me, I'll send you a Bibliography of books advocating pluralism that say exactly the same thing.
You know, I generally make a point of not bitching about moderation, but at this time the post above has been moded down as "overrated" (and that is the only moderation it has received.) Frankly, I can't see anything about this post that would make it suitable for a down-mod other than the fact that it is clearly written by a Christian with some sympathy for intelligent design.
(For what it's worth, before they got rid of the karma score, my karma was capped above 200 for a long time, then above the maximum when they lowered the max. I have some idea what in a post leads it to be down-moderated.)
This is exactly the sort of crap that leads to Christians feeling marginalized--because secularists ARE trying to marginalize us.
I don't have time to say much... but I think that the conversation would be helped with careful attention to some fine distinctions on both sides of the fence. So, I'll throw these out without trying to support them fully, and hopefully this will clarify the debate.
Generally speaking, Christian Creationism refers to the belief that God created the earth in a manner more or less literally described in the book of Genesis. It is founded in the selection of the Bible as the foundational source by Christians of a conservative persuasion. There are two major types of creationist: young earth creationists (who hold the earth was created 6-10000 years ago in 7 literal, 24 hour days) and old earth creationists (who acknowledge that the earth is much more than 6000 years old, and generally concede that the "days" might be much longer than 24 hours.
While most Christian creationists agree with intelligent design to a point, intelligent design attempts to argue that the scientific evidence implies a designer. ID theory entails nothing regarding the age of the earth, nor does it entail the Biblical account of creation.
Intelligent Design is often but not always associated with so-called "theistic evolution." Theistic evolution (as opposed to Darwinian evolution) holds that a theistic god did his creating through the process of guided evolution. I think that this is where most moderate-to-liberal Christians land. Note that this is several orders of magnitude more liberal than "creationism", and that is why comparisons of ID to creationism are really just slanderous.
Finally, full-blown Darwinian evolution through natural selection (so far as I understand it) more or less insists that evolutionary processes are entirely naturalistic. It is this last that those of us who are theists (i.e. hold that a personal God created it all) but not creationists find onerous. And it is precisly this fault that ID proposes to fix.
The bottom line is that ID could be right, could be wrong -- I'm no biologist. But it's NOT creationism.
I've always felt (as a New Testament student and ordained minister) that the "business" of bible translation is a farce. Let's face it -- the *content* of bible's is already (more or less) free. As a pastor, I can buy modern translations of the bible for less than $2/per. What people pay for is the binding and the study aids, and publishing companies fund new translations primarily as a means to sell more people their fancy bindings and study aids.
(For what it's worth, my main bible is a 10 year old NRSV wide-margin minister's edition, with many many notes, all of them incisive and correct because I wrote them. It cost me less than $20 - cheap as bibles go. No $100 Leather-Bound NIV study bible with notes that are either stupid, wrong, or both here!)
The problem is that the funding-through-copyright-and-exclusive-deal-with- big-publisher model doesn't allow for uses that might cut into the publisher's profits. Thus, there is only one place online where you can get the NIV text, and you can't get it for any bible software that Zondervan doesn't "bless". Last time I looked, Zondervan wants you to fork over $10,000 before they will even talk to you.
Might be worth taking a look at the NET Bible project, at bible.org. I've actually come to like the translation a bit (and LOVE the notes. Omigosh, those notes. Did I mention the notes?)
I used to be an absolute linux zealot -- you know the kind, who kept trying to convince everyone that Emacs was all the word processor anyone needed. I bought a Mac because I liked the powerbooks (and intended to load linux on it), and instead kept OS X and have never looked back. You're right on the money.
Customarily, the courts have made it much harder for gov't to restrict freedom of speech when the speech itself has a redeeming value to society. The problem with games like GTA is that it's really hard to come up with some sort of redeeming value for a video game that involves stealing cars (and now, kinky sex.) Our society does have standards, and one of those standards is that car theft is bad. It's also quite hard to find any esthetic value in it--do the makers of GTA leave their cars unattended in downtown areas for the joy of car theft?
I understand where folks are coming from with the slippery slope aspect of this, but I really think that we would be much better served to focus on protecting speech that is a bit more... errm... substantial than gory video games.
Have you ever actually read them in the bible? They're not so concise as the pundits would have you think. Each one is accompanied by several verses of explanation.
I trust doctors to do their best, but I have come to recognize that sometimes my best is better than theirs. A couple of examples.
For several years, I was suffering from severe Asthma--coughing, sick all the time, couldn't work, sleeping 12 hours a day. Several different doctors prescribed six dozen different things, and nothing seemed to help. Finally, in desperation, I started doing my homework, and came to the conclusion (with the help of the medical websites) that the underlying problem was GERD--i.e. reflux. (It turns out that stomach acid can get in the esophagus and cause all kinds of problems.) I suggested this to my doctor, and he agreed that that was a possibility, and prescribed Nexium. Wham-bam! In two days, I could breath, and last year was the first year in a long time in which I haven't had a cold that wouldn't go away for a month or more. If I had just been a good patient and kept taking Asthma meds, I'd still be sick. In this case, the doctor just didn't have the time or the feel for my body to know what diagnosis made sense and what didn't. By becoming well-informed, I was able to do a better diagnosis than he could.
In another case, I recall when I was first diagnosed with ADHD (at the age of 26.) This diagnosis was made by two separate psychologists, with much testing and great care. I agreed with the diagnosis, because it fit my experience. However, when I went to a psychiatrist, he decided in about 20 minutes that I was really bipolar (I'm not) because I was training to be a minister, and without explaining that he had changed the diagnosis, prescribed a mood stabilizer. I spent the most hellish month of my life having all my wit, intelligence, energy, and will sapped by this awful drug before my wife finally put her foot down and found me another doctor who would listen. Oddly enough, the new doctor (a general practitioner willing to treat ADHD) listened to me, listened to the psychologists, and treated for ADHD, with excellent results. The sad thing is that, if this worthless non-English speaking shrink had said to me, "I think you're bipolar" I could have told him 16 dozen reasons why the diagnosis didn't fit. But he too busy being impressed with himself to think I could form a reasoned opinion.
The reason patients don't trust doctors? Because we shouldn't trust them! The bottom line is that the old, paternalistic line of "doctor knows best" doesn't work. I have to take responsibility for my own health, and the doctor should be a consultant rather than an autocrat. Unfortunately, many doctors haven't learned this, and continue to play nonsense like obscuring diagnoses and refusing to let patients have access to their own test results without a court order.
Study after study has shown that the reason quack medicine is so popular is because people want to take charge. The sooner the medical community gets off its high horse and accomodates this, the better.
Well, first of all (as I made fairly clear in the GP) what we mean by those terms is spelled out in our value statement.
We always offer "top-quality" service, because we can do that. However, if we promised "top-quality" (or "good") business practices, then that invites the question of "good for whom?" Business practices that are the best possible for us would be bad for our customers. Business practices that are the best possible for the customer would surely lead to us going out of business. And, no, I don't think it's unreasonable that we draw some distinctions here. Otherwise, we could come up with something as meaningless as "We try to be a top-quality organization, in ever respect."
I think you miss the point of a mission statement: this is a statement of overall guiding principle, not a policy manual. As such, it is an opportunity for me as a leader/manager (whether in the church or in business) to articulate the points that are most important to emphasize. It articulates how we are going to make our organization better--not every detail.
Take the example of the computer store--I should hope it would be obvious that we need to clean bathrooms. But I'm not going to put clean bathrooms in the business statement precisely because clean bathrooms ARE obvious and not a point I feel a need to emphasize.
In the church... have you ever thought about how many different missions a church can perform? Everything from entertainment to housing to soup kitchens to therapy to rehabilitation to medical services to doctrine to political action to... the list is endless. The purpose for a church in setting a mission statement is to say, here's what we are going to emphasize.
The problem is not churches with mission statements, it's churches with mission statements that read like press releases. As a pastor, I've worked hard to get my church to adopt a mission statement so that I could then compare anything they want to do with the mission statement and eliminate a lot of the cruft. (Thus far, I haven't been able to get it through... but the day is young.:)
The problem, usually, is that everyone wants to keep these things generic, bland, and inoffensive. They shouldn't be. For an example of a good mission statement, consider this one I wrote for a computer store I'm a partner in:
Mission: We will serve our customers with (1) top-quality service, (2) good advice and (3) fair business practices.
No weasel words, no paradigms--shifting or otherwise--and no nonsense. What we mean by these terms is spelled out in our values statement (which I won't reproduce here.) Because I have this statement, I can hold my employees accountable to it.
A mission or vision that nobody understands is worthless. But a good one is priceless.
Personally, I don't think Apple's decision to go Intel had too much to do with processor roadmaps. Instead, I think it was primarily driven by Apple's desire to ease interoperability with Windows.
Put more bluntly, Apple is switching to Intel so that Wine and VirtualPC/VMWare will work at full speed. Right now, I know many many people who would switch to a Mac in an instant, except they need some small, vertical application that only runs on Windows. By switching to Intel, Apple gets the opportunity to build Windows compatibility into their OS (using WINE code, customised) and capitalize on that market.
I'm not looking for this to be good enough to kill the market for native Mac apps (let's face it: emulating Windows is hard)--just good enough to let me continue using the 2-3 windows applications that I absolutely must have to do my business.
I can tell you this: the instant an Intel-based powerbook is available, I will be buying it so that I can run Windows in VMWare (or equivalent software) and get rid of my Windows laptop at long last. It's a convenience thing.
well your throwing around completely meaningless names, i should stop you and say that both hitler and bush were/are christians.
Let's put it this way... if you really aren't aware that Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Dung (or Pol Pot for that matter), their official, arrogant atheism, and the millions of people they killed in the name of a particular form of atheist ideology, then it's hardly profitable having a discussion with you.
And, BTW, as others have noted, Hitler was no Christian by anyone's standard (being baptised as an infant doesn't make you a believe in Jesus Christ, and Hitler had specific and well-documented plans to destroy German Christianity by paganizing the state religion), and Bush is no Hitler. Have you ever considered that the very fact that you are allowed to accuse Bush of being a Hitler proves he's no Hitler?
And, just so you know (numnutz), I voted for Kerry. So put your stereotype back where it belongs and grow up.
However, I see and hear the reverse all the time. Happened to my wife (back when she was just my girlfriend). She had a pro Wicca bumper sticker and some god nut busted her windshield and wrote nasty stuff on her car with a magic marker, stuff along the lines that they should bring back witch burning. Kind and wonderful people, they are.
I'll make you a deal: you don't compare me to such "God Nuts" -- i.e. some teenager on a fling who thought it would be fun to divert the blame to Christians -- and I won't compare you to some of the great atheists of history... like Stalin or Mao. On the other hand, you give Christianity some credit for the Mother Theresa's, Wilberforces, Martin Luther Kings, and Saints Frances, and I'll let you have J.S. Mill and the like.
The sad thing about sick minds is that they can pervert any belief system. That's not the fault of the belief system, that's the fault of the minds.
Nawww... you're missing the point that IPV6 is designed to require significantly fewer entries in routing tables for the same number of networks. Yes, the addresses are 4 times as long, but that doesn't make the routing table takes four times the memory.
There is no reason to think that, even if the vote in Florida had been allowed to go forward (by which you mean recount after recount, under increasingly improbable scenarios until one was found to favor Gore) that Gore would have won. If Gore had managed to get a count that favore him, Bush would have contested that using exactly the sort of absurd logic that Gore was trying to use to get Bush's win overturned. Bottom line: three counts were completed, and Bush won all three. So get over it already.
Actually we are in the warmest periode in 10 000 years it seems, since the ice on Kilimanjaro for instance has not been as reduced as it now for the last 10 000 years. It is true that when the dinosaures roamed, Svalbard which is north of Iceland, was inhabitated by creates that needed warm weather. But that is millions of years ago.
Actually, the evidence suggests that the lack of ice on Kilmanjaro has less to do with global warming and more to do with deforestation--because the forests at the base of Kilmanjaro have been cut down, the air blowing up the mountain is dryer, leading to a receeding in the ice pack.
This is one of the things that frustrates me about "climate change"--all evidence is unritically adopted to support the theory. The change in terminology, from "global warming" to "climate change" is itself a shift designed to support exactly this sort of pseudo-scientific scullduggery.
Back in 1999, I actually bought a boxed set of Wordperfect for Linux at MicroCenter--they've been selling at least some Linux software in-store for years.
Actually, Ohio got the attention because it was closer, not because there were more irregularities--no credible evidence has surfaced of significant irregularities in Ohio.
As the father of twin, Autistic 4-year-olds, I'm outraged at the proposal that we should abort babies who show signs of autism! My daughters are bright, intelligent, interesting people who look at the world through a different lens. With help, they've made enormous progress.
That's what the US government want you to believe, yes. In reality it's because America is paranoid about communism even to this day.
No, reality is that there is a sizable body of Cuban refugees, concentrated in Florida. These refugees (really immigrants now) want Castro punished, so he's punished. My "Tia Maria" (Adopted Aunt Maria) was a Cuban refugee, and she HATED Castro with a purple passion.
Go back and take a look at the last few presidential elections and not how often Florida was a close state that could make or break a close election - and how many Cubans live in Florida. The reason we still have an embargo on Cuba is because nobody wants to take a chance of alienating these voters and losing an election because of it. It's got nothing to do with communism (which even most Republicans no longer see as a threat.)
Kind of makes you think - if the Clinton administration had taken a more cynical tack in the Elliot Gonzales case, Gore might well have carried Florida in 2000, seeing as he only lost it by 300 votes or so.
I don't think so - my sister is a (Type I) Diabetic, and it's always been my understanding that the primary issue in Diabetes is not a surplus of sugar, but a shortage of Insulin. I don't see how this device could change the fact that your body absolutely needs insuling to operate.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude ... you really need to get out more, if you're connecting video games to orgasms.
Just an observation: the one point at which EBooks are more convenient is that I can carry my whole book-bag on my laptop. I use this quite a bit for theology research, having Greek & Hebrew Lexica, assorted dictionaries, commentaries, and 20 bible translations on hand at all times without have to carry a 100lb. bookbag.
I'll never buy my kids a laptop. When they are ready to own something so breakable, they'll be ready to pay for it themselves. They can *work*.
Look at it from the point of view of a Christian for a second. We are forced to pay taxes to support the public schools, whether we send our children to them or not. When we send them there, they are routinely pressured in ways that are diametrically opposed to our convictions--and I'm not just talking about Evolution. For example, I would prefer that my children not say the pledge of allegiance, but the public schools force them to stand up and listen to it being said on a daily basis. (This is not motivated by any sort of hatred for the flag or America, but our conviction that our citizenship is in heaven, and that America gets our willing obediance, but nor our allegiance.) My son, who will not say it, is held up for daily ridicule because of his religious convictions--and I have no alternative other than to keep paying for the public education that my children will not get. Surely this isn't fair? But this is just one example of the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
You need to look beyond your middle American bubble and recognize that Christianity has been persecuted, is being persecuted, and will continue to be persecuted. Furthermore, you need to read enough history to realize that much of what today is called "mainstream" is in fact a radical dismissal of religion in the public sphere. "Pluralism" is not a necessary tolerance of diversity, but an active agenda that is being pushed by many. And, if you don't believe me, I'll send you a Bibliography of books advocating pluralism that say exactly the same thing.
(For what it's worth, before they got rid of the karma score, my karma was capped above 200 for a long time, then above the maximum when they lowered the max. I have some idea what in a post leads it to be down-moderated.)
This is exactly the sort of crap that leads to Christians feeling marginalized--because secularists ARE trying to marginalize us.
I don't have time to say much ... but I think that the conversation would be helped with careful attention to some fine distinctions on both sides of the fence. So, I'll throw these out without trying to support them fully, and hopefully this will clarify the debate.
Generally speaking, Christian Creationism refers to the belief that God created the earth in a manner more or less literally described in the book of Genesis. It is founded in the selection of the Bible as the foundational source by Christians of a conservative persuasion. There are two major types of creationist: young earth creationists (who hold the earth was created 6-10000 years ago in 7 literal, 24 hour days) and old earth creationists (who acknowledge that the earth is much more than 6000 years old, and generally concede that the "days" might be much longer than 24 hours.
While most Christian creationists agree with intelligent design to a point, intelligent design attempts to argue that the scientific evidence implies a designer. ID theory entails nothing regarding the age of the earth, nor does it entail the Biblical account of creation.
Intelligent Design is often but not always associated with so-called "theistic evolution." Theistic evolution (as opposed to Darwinian evolution) holds that a theistic god did his creating through the process of guided evolution. I think that this is where most moderate-to-liberal Christians land. Note that this is several orders of magnitude more liberal than "creationism", and that is why comparisons of ID to creationism are really just slanderous.
Finally, full-blown Darwinian evolution through natural selection (so far as I understand it) more or less insists that evolutionary processes are entirely naturalistic. It is this last that those of us who are theists (i.e. hold that a personal God created it all) but not creationists find onerous. And it is precisly this fault that ID proposes to fix.
The bottom line is that ID could be right, could be wrong -- I'm no biologist. But it's NOT creationism.
(For what it's worth, my main bible is a 10 year old NRSV wide-margin minister's edition, with many many notes, all of them incisive and correct because I wrote them. It cost me less than $20 - cheap as bibles go. No $100 Leather-Bound NIV study bible with notes that are either stupid, wrong, or both here!)
The problem is that the funding-through-copyright-and-exclusive-deal-with- big-publisher model doesn't allow for uses that might cut into the publisher's profits. Thus, there is only one place online where you can get the NIV text, and you can't get it for any bible software that Zondervan doesn't "bless". Last time I looked, Zondervan wants you to fork over $10,000 before they will even talk to you.
Might be worth taking a look at the NET Bible project, at bible.org. I've actually come to like the translation a bit (and LOVE the notes. Omigosh, those notes. Did I mention the notes?)
I used to be an absolute linux zealot -- you know the kind, who kept trying to convince everyone that Emacs was all the word processor anyone needed. I bought a Mac because I liked the powerbooks (and intended to load linux on it), and instead kept OS X and have never looked back. You're right on the money.
I understand where folks are coming from with the slippery slope aspect of this, but I really think that we would be much better served to focus on protecting speech that is a bit more ... errm... substantial than gory video games.
Have you ever actually read them in the bible? They're not so concise as the pundits would have you think. Each one is accompanied by several verses of explanation.
For several years, I was suffering from severe Asthma--coughing, sick all the time, couldn't work, sleeping 12 hours a day. Several different doctors prescribed six dozen different things, and nothing seemed to help. Finally, in desperation, I started doing my homework, and came to the conclusion (with the help of the medical websites) that the underlying problem was GERD--i.e. reflux. (It turns out that stomach acid can get in the esophagus and cause all kinds of problems.) I suggested this to my doctor, and he agreed that that was a possibility, and prescribed Nexium. Wham-bam! In two days, I could breath, and last year was the first year in a long time in which I haven't had a cold that wouldn't go away for a month or more. If I had just been a good patient and kept taking Asthma meds, I'd still be sick. In this case, the doctor just didn't have the time or the feel for my body to know what diagnosis made sense and what didn't. By becoming well-informed, I was able to do a better diagnosis than he could.
In another case, I recall when I was first diagnosed with ADHD (at the age of 26.) This diagnosis was made by two separate psychologists, with much testing and great care. I agreed with the diagnosis, because it fit my experience. However, when I went to a psychiatrist, he decided in about 20 minutes that I was really bipolar (I'm not) because I was training to be a minister, and without explaining that he had changed the diagnosis, prescribed a mood stabilizer. I spent the most hellish month of my life having all my wit, intelligence, energy, and will sapped by this awful drug before my wife finally put her foot down and found me another doctor who would listen. Oddly enough, the new doctor (a general practitioner willing to treat ADHD) listened to me, listened to the psychologists, and treated for ADHD, with excellent results. The sad thing is that, if this worthless non-English speaking shrink had said to me, "I think you're bipolar" I could have told him 16 dozen reasons why the diagnosis didn't fit. But he too busy being impressed with himself to think I could form a reasoned opinion.
The reason patients don't trust doctors? Because we shouldn't trust them! The bottom line is that the old, paternalistic line of "doctor knows best" doesn't work. I have to take responsibility for my own health, and the doctor should be a consultant rather than an autocrat. Unfortunately, many doctors haven't learned this, and continue to play nonsense like obscuring diagnoses and refusing to let patients have access to their own test results without a court order.
Study after study has shown that the reason quack medicine is so popular is because people want to take charge. The sooner the medical community gets off its high horse and accomodates this, the better.
We always offer "top-quality" service, because we can do that. However, if we promised "top-quality" (or "good") business practices, then that invites the question of "good for whom?" Business practices that are the best possible for us would be bad for our customers. Business practices that are the best possible for the customer would surely lead to us going out of business. And, no, I don't think it's unreasonable that we draw some distinctions here. Otherwise, we could come up with something as meaningless as "We try to be a top-quality organization, in ever respect."
I think you miss the point of a mission statement: this is a statement of overall guiding principle, not a policy manual. As such, it is an opportunity for me as a leader/manager (whether in the church or in business) to articulate the points that are most important to emphasize. It articulates how we are going to make our organization better--not every detail.
Take the example of the computer store--I should hope it would be obvious that we need to clean bathrooms. But I'm not going to put clean bathrooms in the business statement precisely because clean bathrooms ARE obvious and not a point I feel a need to emphasize.
In the church ... have you ever thought about how many different missions a church can perform? Everything from entertainment to housing to soup kitchens to therapy to rehabilitation to medical services to doctrine to political action to ... the list is endless. The purpose for a church in setting a mission statement is to say, here's what we are going to emphasize.
Rambling . Later.
The problem, usually, is that everyone wants to keep these things generic, bland, and inoffensive. They shouldn't be. For an example of a good mission statement, consider this one I wrote for a computer store I'm a partner in:
No weasel words, no paradigms--shifting or otherwise--and no nonsense. What we mean by these terms is spelled out in our values statement (which I won't reproduce here.) Because I have this statement, I can hold my employees accountable to it.A mission or vision that nobody understands is worthless. But a good one is priceless.
Put more bluntly, Apple is switching to Intel so that Wine and VirtualPC/VMWare will work at full speed. Right now, I know many many people who would switch to a Mac in an instant, except they need some small, vertical application that only runs on Windows. By switching to Intel, Apple gets the opportunity to build Windows compatibility into their OS (using WINE code, customised) and capitalize on that market.
I'm not looking for this to be good enough to kill the market for native Mac apps (let's face it: emulating Windows is hard)--just good enough to let me continue using the 2-3 windows applications that I absolutely must have to do my business.
I can tell you this: the instant an Intel-based powerbook is available, I will be buying it so that I can run Windows in VMWare (or equivalent software) and get rid of my Windows laptop at long last. It's a convenience thing.
And, BTW, as others have noted, Hitler was no Christian by anyone's standard (being baptised as an infant doesn't make you a believe in Jesus Christ, and Hitler had specific and well-documented plans to destroy German Christianity by paganizing the state religion), and Bush is no Hitler. Have you ever considered that the very fact that you are allowed to accuse Bush of being a Hitler proves he's no Hitler?
And, just so you know (numnutz), I voted for Kerry. So put your stereotype back where it belongs and grow up.
The sad thing about sick minds is that they can pervert any belief system. That's not the fault of the belief system, that's the fault of the minds.
Nawww... you're missing the point that IPV6 is designed to require significantly fewer entries in routing tables for the same number of networks. Yes, the addresses are 4 times as long, but that doesn't make the routing table takes four times the memory.
There is no reason to think that, even if the vote in Florida had been allowed to go forward (by which you mean recount after recount, under increasingly improbable scenarios until one was found to favor Gore) that Gore would have won. If Gore had managed to get a count that favore him, Bush would have contested that using exactly the sort of absurd logic that Gore was trying to use to get Bush's win overturned. Bottom line: three counts were completed, and Bush won all three. So get over it already.
This is one of the things that frustrates me about "climate change"--all evidence is unritically adopted to support the theory. The change in terminology, from "global warming" to "climate change" is itself a shift designed to support exactly this sort of pseudo-scientific scullduggery.
Back in 1999, I actually bought a boxed set of Wordperfect for Linux at MicroCenter--they've been selling at least some Linux software in-store for years.
The 4-billion-year-old-but-still-created earth has a name: "Old Earth Creationism"
Actually, Ohio got the attention because it was closer, not because there were more irregularities--no credible evidence has surfaced of significant irregularities in Ohio.
How is this any better than Eugenics?!??!?!
Too mad to write sensibly. I'll shut up now.
Go back and take a look at the last few presidential elections and not how often Florida was a close state that could make or break a close election - and how many Cubans live in Florida. The reason we still have an embargo on Cuba is because nobody wants to take a chance of alienating these voters and losing an election because of it. It's got nothing to do with communism (which even most Republicans no longer see as a threat.)
Kind of makes you think - if the Clinton administration had taken a more cynical tack in the Elliot Gonzales case, Gore might well have carried Florida in 2000, seeing as he only lost it by 300 votes or so.
I don't think so - my sister is a (Type I) Diabetic, and it's always been my understanding that the primary issue in Diabetes is not a surplus of sugar, but a shortage of Insulin. I don't see how this device could change the fact that your body absolutely needs insuling to operate.