I you sell a $50 item, ebay gets at least $5 of that, paypal gets another $5, and soon your profits are down the tubes.
That's why you sell a $50.00 item for.01 cent, and then charge $50 + cost for shipping. No pickup allowed. Lot's of sellers do this. This reduces your ebay fee as they do not take a cut of the shipping (yet). Of course you're still SOL on the paypal end.
The Las Cruces landscape looks like Mos Eisley. It's desert, has adobe huts. Go to a used car lot and you'll even find scum and villany. Throw in a second sun and you woudn't be able to tell the difference.
The original order (in the order Lewis wrote them)
1: Lion Witch Wardrobe
2: Prince Caspian
3: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4: Silver Chair
5: Horse and his Boy
6: Magician's Nephew
7: The Last Battle
New order (chronological for events in Narnia)
1: Magician's Nephew
2: Lion Witch Wardrobe
3: Horse and his Boy
4: Prince Caspian
5: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6: Silver Chair
7: The Last Battle
I've heard it's made alot of money, but how does it hold up to the novels? I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.
The story followed the books very closely, much more than (for example) Peter Jackson did with LOTR.
The movie is what it is - a children's fairy tale. My 9 year old daughter absolutely loved it. But if you can't check your mind at the door, you won't like the movie.
The Christian allegory is unmistakeable as well. Aslan = Jesus is pretty obvious. Being a Christian myself, I had no problems with that. But the typical more secular slashdotter might not enjoy the movie if they don't ignore the religious parallels.
If you take atheism to its logical conclusion, all you get is there's no God. Anything else you get out of there is supposition.
atheists believe the rights are innate.
Seems to me you just contradicted yourself above. What are 'rights'? Who defines them? What makes them innate? You see, if there is no God, the word 'rights' has no concrete meaning. It is eventually defined by whoever is in power -and that's bad news if someone like Stalin is in charge. Human life has no unique value or meaning if it comes only by pure chance. If you or I define 'rights', you or I can take them away.
The difference is termininology - muslim extremists, christian fundamentalists.. in fact there's little difference - both prepared to kill for their beliefs.
The reocord of athiest extremism is no better - The Jacobins, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II - all were/are murderers.
Athiesm taken to its logical conclusion has no respect in the dignity of humnanity. Those of faith believe that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'. Atheism says that 'inalienable rights' don't exist.
I don't see why this bill (or free speech in general) has to be a partisan issue. In fact, Harry Reid (Democrat Senate Leader) was a co-sponsor of this bill.
The New York Times wrote in an editorial this week that "the Internet would become a free-fire zone without any limits on spending.
Seems to me that the NYT has a conflict in this issue too, as the blogs are in competition with the NYT. Keep in mind also - that under current FEC rules any editorial can be considered as an 'in kind contribution' to proponents or opponents of a bill. So the NYT would be wise to watch their back on this one.
Courts have already determined that the rules apply to existing media. A recent example is the gas tax initiative in Washington State. Two radio hosts came out against the gas tax and were promoting their view over the air waves. But a judge muzzled them by ruling that they did not have free speech rights to oppose the initiative on air, as this would be an 'in kind contribution' to the proponenents of the initiative.
As far as I can tell, the list referred to in the origional post (and your list as well) is just a roll of Senators that are on the Commerce Committee. It doesn't say whether they support the broadcast flag stuff or not.
In related news, 42% of teenagers in the survey expressed an interest in illegally obtaining alcoholic beverages, while this figure dropped to 0% for those aged 21 and older. Thereby proving that downloading music causes under aged drinking.;)
You believe it is morally correct to allow people to say what they will, simply because you live in a culture that thinks that is important. Other cultures are different, and assuming that your values are valid for a culture as radically different as China's is is simply incorrect.
According to TFA - people in China are looking for ways to evade the government's web controls. So despite differences in cultures they still value freedom.
That's like saying "stop hiring any developers with a programming background." I damn well want the people who write the laws to have some idea how the law works.
Americans accept the idea of the free expression of ideas at public schools.
From the poll:Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism....John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of American pragmatism..
So...Teach it all, and let the kids figure it out. Public School is not just a 13 year long science class.
Teach evolution as an explanation of natural selection in science class where it's appropriate. And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate. A well rounded education includes exposure to history, religion, literature and philosophy.
Why not include Scientology along with Judeo-Christian creation?
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
A recent poll shows that 42% believe in creationism, 18% in ID, and 26% in straight evolution. So why not teach all three and let people decide for themselves. Why is the idea of inclusion so threatening? If 42% of the people believed in scientology, then you might have an argument for including it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you sell a $50.00 item for .01 cent, and then charge $50 + cost for shipping. No pickup allowed. Lot's of sellers do this. This reduces your ebay fee as they do not take a cut of the shipping (yet). Of course you're still SOL on the paypal end.
Note that study only picked 42 science articles. This does not mean that britannica has that rate of errors for other diciplines.
The Las Cruces landscape looks like Mos Eisley. It's desert, has adobe huts. Go to a used car lot and you'll even find scum and villany. Throw in a second sun and you woudn't be able to tell the difference.
1: Lion Witch Wardrobe
2: Prince Caspian
3: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4: Silver Chair
5: Horse and his Boy
6: Magician's Nephew
7: The Last Battle
New order (chronological for events in Narnia)
1: Magician's Nephew
2: Lion Witch Wardrobe
3: Horse and his Boy
4: Prince Caspian
5: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6: Silver Chair
7: The Last Battle
The story followed the books very closely, much more than (for example) Peter Jackson did with LOTR.
The movie is what it is - a children's fairy tale. My 9 year old daughter absolutely loved it. But if you can't check your mind at the door, you won't like the movie.
The Christian allegory is unmistakeable as well. Aslan = Jesus is pretty obvious. Being a Christian myself, I had no problems with that. But the typical more secular slashdotter might not enjoy the movie if they don't ignore the religious parallels.
atheists believe the rights are innate.
Seems to me you just contradicted yourself above. What are 'rights'? Who defines them? What makes them innate? You see, if there is no God, the word 'rights' has no concrete meaning. It is eventually defined by whoever is in power -and that's bad news if someone like Stalin is in charge. Human life has no unique value or meaning if it comes only by pure chance. If you or I define 'rights', you or I can take them away.
The reocord of athiest extremism is no better - The Jacobins, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II - all were/are murderers.
Athiesm taken to its logical conclusion has no respect in the dignity of humnanity. Those of faith believe that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'. Atheism says that 'inalienable rights' don't exist.
Maybe it helps them avoid lawsuits?
It's bad enough that we're losing high tech jobs, but if our women stop shaving and washing that will be the coup de grâce.
According to TFA it was donor sperm - which implies that papa knew.
The New York Times wrote in an editorial this week that "the Internet would become a free-fire zone without any limits on spending.
Seems to me that the NYT has a conflict in this issue too, as the blogs are in competition with the NYT. Keep in mind also - that under current FEC rules any editorial can be considered as an 'in kind contribution' to proponents or opponents of a bill. So the NYT would be wise to watch their back on this one.
Courts have already determined that the rules apply to existing media. A recent example is the gas tax initiative in Washington State. Two radio hosts came out against the gas tax and were promoting their view over the air waves. But a judge muzzled them by ruling that they did not have free speech rights to oppose the initiative on air, as this would be an 'in kind contribution' to the proponenents of the initiative.
*Tin Foil Hat*
This supposed 'rural' area of Oregon is home to a huge US military dump of chemical nerve agents. -- over 7.4 million pounds. It is also conveniently located next to the Columbia river and has access to two major interstates and several railway lines that intersect next to the dump.
Now (surprise surprise) there is a huge broad band infrastructure there as well. I'm thinking they didn't do this all for the onion farmers. :-)
That works out to about $3.00 for an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper.
Where the 20 senators support this coming from?
Is the person's name Rupert Murdoch?
In related news, 42% of teenagers in the survey expressed an interest in illegally obtaining alcoholic beverages, while this figure dropped to 0% for those aged 21 and older. Thereby proving that downloading music causes under aged drinking. ;)
Yes! We need to go to the old Soviet style gulag. They knew how to deal out justice without capitalism.
According to TFA - people in China are looking for ways to evade the government's web controls. So despite differences in cultures they still value freedom.
A search for "internet browser" brings opera back at #1.
You must be a lawyer. ;)
1)Macs are for Democrats and Commies.
2)Rush Limbaugh uses a Mac.
3)Therefore Rush is a Democrat or Commie.
Don't they teach logic at these schools? -Professor Kirke
From the poll: Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism....John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of American pragmatism..
So...Teach it all, and let the kids figure it out. Public School is not just a 13 year long science class.
Teach evolution as an explanation of natural selection in science class where it's appropriate. And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate. A well rounded education includes exposure to history, religion, literature and philosophy.
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
A recent poll shows that 42% believe in creationism, 18% in ID, and 26% in straight evolution. So why not teach all three and let people decide for themselves. Why is the idea of inclusion so threatening? If 42% of the people believed in scientology, then you might have an argument for including it.
Or have Forest Gump wipe his muddy face on the blank shirt. That will get you a nice smiley face.