The point doesn't remain. The state is as much a governing entity as the federal government. They both serve the needs of the people. However, they carry out different functions. Some federal functions require equal representation for each state rather than by population. Remember, the United States of America is a Union of States, not a Union of Individuals.
Unless you're under the illusion that New York (or some similar state) contains 51% of the population?
And if it did, what of it? If more people, that is, the actual entities affected by the law, live in one area, then why exactly, pray, should their votes be devalued? Is land sentient? Is the purpose of government to work for the people it governs, or for the ground they live upon?
It doesn't have to do with the land. It has to do with the states which are political constructs.
Therefore, according to Scripture, you can't pick and choose (buffet style) which sections you like.
Sure you can --- people do it all the time, especially Christians. Furthermore, how do you account for contradictions in the Bible? "Eye for an eye" or "love thy brother"? Which one is it? Should Christians stone witches and rebellious children to death? It says to do so in the Bible. Get on it, dude. See you in prison.
Before the fall, Adam and Eve were running around naked doing their thing. Now, once they ate from the tree of knowledge, they noticed they were naked, and were ashamed. Now, if there was something wrong with their nudity, surely God was at fault for making them that way --- after all, they were not told they were being naughty. I submit that God was the original voyeur and smut afficionado; and that the reason God was so enraged at Adam and Eve is because God was caught checking them out!
This is the way it is: God gave us some rules about sexuality in the Bible.
That's right. God gives people matching parts, and hormones to produce a sex drive, and to top it all off, God makes sex feel real good. Then God tells us not to have sex out of wedlock. "Little Johnny, here's a lighter and there are some fireworks --- they make a beautiful show and a cool sound. I'm going into the house for a couple of hours. Now don't you light those fireworks."
If we follow them or not is up to us. But we can't go complaining to God when the rules he setup to govern our lives come back and bite us.
Right. Little Johnny isn't aware that the fuse to the firecracker also leads to the stack of dynamite two feet away --- placed there because I'm such a kind and loving father.
People say "How can you beleive in a God that would allow AIDS". When the fact is God hates things like porn and homosexuality.
Once again, God could easily have fashioned peoples' minds to avoid homosexuality and porn --- but CHOSE NOT TO. Draw your own conclusions.
Disobey his laws and you reap the rewards. What's really sad, is when your kids or your family have to wreap the rewards for you.
Oh no! I left the stack of dynamite too close to the house so little Johnny gets to blow up Mommy, little sis, and the cat too.
Let me ask you something: What kind of sick, twisted, psychopathic entity do you worship?
I didn't say that I don't care --- I enjoy music and film. However, when the cost of listening to music and watching films includes upgrading my home theatre equipment, being forced to purchase replacements rather than be allowed to make backups, and being restricted to the RIAA/MPAA catalog to the exclusion of independents without the capital to make their offerings compliant with the whole DRM scheme, I will do without and seek other forms of entertainment.
If they make it hard to casually copy something, and say loudly how illegal and terrible it is to want to, maybe people will buy instead of downloading.
I'll take option three and do without their magnificent, most holy content altogether.
You know, nobody's idol could be Cary Grant or James Bond.
Gee, this suit makes me feel like a powerful and attractive person
I'm gonna go lay down with my beautiful wife and ponder this moment.
It sounds like you put a great deal of stock in how people look. Small wonder in a world that increasingly values form over substance. Whatever will you do with your wife when her skin wrinkles and her tits sag --- kick her to the curb? Or will you simply ignore her and vainly strive to catch a glimpse of yourself in every mirror you pass by? You do realize that a turd with a shiny coat of paint, a ribbon, and a touch of perfume is still just a turd.
Scraping hair off your face with a knife and putting on a suit and tie is far different from mere grooming. Cats and monkeys work with what they have and maintain their individuality. Having to shave and suit up shouts to everyone that you are willing give up personal freedom in order to become a cog in the machine. Now that's something to be proud of.
By the same token, there is a usually a deep-seated psychological reason people need to dress and act like everyone else --- it probably has to do with fear of expressing individuality and being accepted. Hair grows naturally; but we aren't born with business suits and razors.
Religion involves faith in --- pay close attention now --- divine beings or gods. Atheism does not involve faith in gods. If you want to be understood, use the same language as your audience.
People miss the point when the point isn't clearly stated. One doesn't say "Atheists have as much faith in their nonsupportable belief as do people who are religious." Instead, they cloud the issue by using such charged (and literally incorrect) statements as "atheism is a religion".
The point is semantics. Religion does not mean "belief" or "faith". Religion has to do with a specific belief in the divine. Lack of belief in gods is not equivalent to belief in gods.
How does the saying go --- "If your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail"? The only people who claim that atheism is a religion are those who (a) are themselves religious, cannot conceive of someone who does not subscribe to a religious doctrine, and therefore forces everyone into the religious mold, or (b) doesn't understand the meaning of the word atheism.
Religion, like theism, entails belief in divinities or gods. Atheism literally means "without theism". So, saying atheism is a religion is like saying that people who are broke also have $100 in their pocket. It's a contradiction.
There seems to be some confusion about free-fall. In free-fall, the only force acting on a body IS gravity. Free-fall doesn't eliminate gravity, it eliminates the supporting contact force delivered by an object situated between you and the source of the gravitational field.
From the point of view of someone who has never used any kind of spreadsheet, the learning curve for LaTeX is probably the same as that for Excel. There is a nice tutorial "The Not-so-Short Guide to LaTeX" online that will have you typesetting basic documents within minutes --- including italics, bold, and section headings. More advanced features require more time to learn --- the same as with any sufficiently complex application. Basic LaTeX is no more difficult to learn than HTML.
How convenient that you used "large user base" in your implicit definition of "best". I'll have to call fanboy on that. There are, I'm sure, many examples of excellent, useful, easy to learn, full-featured, near bug-free software out in the wild. LaTeX comes to mind.
Our only job is to get an A, any way we know how...
There's one of your problems right there. If you just want an A, go to a diploma mill, deposit your money, and you won't even have to meet a professor. Universities are designed for people who actually want to LEARN something.
A work environment (like the kitchen of a McDonalds) is not isomorphic to a study environment (like a library). Processing a command for two orders of fries and a milkshake is different from processing a 30 minute proof of some theorem from functional analysis. These activities require different levels of concentration. Anything can be pushed to an extreme. If you allow one student with a laptop, then you have to allow all of them to use them. That magnifies the sound output in due proportion to the number of students. At what point does it become a nuisance? When one student cannot concentrate because of the racket.
We need to be able to function and learn in an environment which is full of distractions, because that's where technology and the world is headed right now.
That is one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever heard. How about we put wall-to-wall speakers in every operating room in every hospital and blast the surgeons with The Who at 150dB 24/7? If they botch an operation because they were distracted, instruct them that they should learn to function in an environment full of distractions. The classroom is a controlled environment that is supposed to be conducive to learning.
Slashdot Mirror
The point doesn't remain. The state is as much a governing entity as the federal government. They both serve the needs of the people. However, they carry out different functions. Some federal functions require equal representation for each state rather than by population. Remember, the United States of America is a Union of States, not a Union of Individuals.
Unless you're under the illusion that New York (or some similar state) contains 51% of the population? And if it did, what of it? If more people, that is, the actual entities affected by the law, live in one area, then why exactly, pray, should their votes be devalued? Is land sentient? Is the purpose of government to work for the people it governs, or for the ground they live upon?
It doesn't have to do with the land. It has to do with the states which are political constructs.
Therefore, according to Scripture, you can't pick and choose (buffet style) which sections you like.
Sure you can --- people do it all the time, especially Christians. Furthermore, how do you account for contradictions in the Bible? "Eye for an eye" or "love thy brother"? Which one is it? Should Christians stone witches and rebellious children to death? It says to do so in the Bible. Get on it, dude. See you in prison.
Look up "fornication" in your concordance.
Thanks. Here's another (post anyway).
Before the fall, Adam and Eve were running around naked doing their thing. Now, once they ate from the tree of knowledge, they noticed they were naked, and were ashamed. Now, if there was something wrong with their nudity, surely God was at fault for making them that way --- after all, they were not told they were being naughty. I submit that God was the original voyeur and smut afficionado; and that the reason God was so enraged at Adam and Eve is because God was caught checking them out!
This is the way it is: God gave us some rules about sexuality in the Bible.
That's right. God gives people matching parts, and hormones to produce a sex drive, and to top it all off, God makes sex feel real good. Then God tells us not to have sex out of wedlock. "Little Johnny, here's a lighter and there are some fireworks --- they make a beautiful show and a cool sound. I'm going into the house for a couple of hours. Now don't you light those fireworks."
If we follow them or not is up to us. But we can't go complaining to God when the rules he setup to govern our lives come back and bite us.
Right. Little Johnny isn't aware that the fuse to the firecracker also leads to the stack of dynamite two feet away --- placed there because I'm such a kind and loving father.
People say "How can you beleive in a God that would allow AIDS". When the fact is God hates things like porn and homosexuality.
Once again, God could easily have fashioned peoples' minds to avoid homosexuality and porn --- but CHOSE NOT TO. Draw your own conclusions.
Disobey his laws and you reap the rewards. What's really sad, is when your kids or your family have to wreap the rewards for you.
Oh no! I left the stack of dynamite too close to the house so little Johnny gets to blow up Mommy, little sis, and the cat too.
Let me ask you something: What kind of sick, twisted, psychopathic entity do you worship?
Thanks. That was most interesting.
I didn't say that I don't care --- I enjoy music and film. However, when the cost of listening to music and watching films includes upgrading my home theatre equipment, being forced to purchase replacements rather than be allowed to make backups, and being restricted to the RIAA/MPAA catalog to the exclusion of independents without the capital to make their offerings compliant with the whole DRM scheme, I will do without and seek other forms of entertainment.
If they make it hard to casually copy something, and say loudly how illegal and terrible it is to want to, maybe people will buy instead of downloading.
I'll take option three and do without their magnificent, most holy content altogether.
You know, nobody's idol could be Cary Grant or James Bond.
Gee, this suit makes me feel like a powerful and attractive person
I'm gonna go lay down with my beautiful wife and ponder this moment.
It sounds like you put a great deal of stock in how people look. Small wonder in a world that increasingly values form over substance. Whatever will you do with your wife when her skin wrinkles and her tits sag --- kick her to the curb? Or will you simply ignore her and vainly strive to catch a glimpse of yourself in every mirror you pass by? You do realize that a turd with a shiny coat of paint, a ribbon, and a touch of perfume is still just a turd.
Scraping hair off your face with a knife and putting on a suit and tie is far different from mere grooming. Cats and monkeys work with what they have and maintain their individuality. Having to shave and suit up shouts to everyone that you are willing give up personal freedom in order to become a cog in the machine. Now that's something to be proud of.
By the same token, there is a usually a deep-seated psychological reason people need to dress and act like everyone else --- it probably has to do with fear of expressing individuality and being accepted. Hair grows naturally; but we aren't born with business suits and razors.
Religion involves faith in --- pay close attention now --- divine beings or gods. Atheism does not involve faith in gods. If you want to be understood, use the same language as your audience.
People miss the point when the point isn't clearly stated. One doesn't say "Atheists have as much faith in their nonsupportable belief as do people who are religious." Instead, they cloud the issue by using such charged (and literally incorrect) statements as "atheism is a religion".
Say what you mean, and say it mean. -- FOETUS
The point is semantics. Religion does not mean "belief" or "faith". Religion has to do with a specific belief in the divine. Lack of belief in gods is not equivalent to belief in gods.
Oops --- I screwed up my bold tags. I intended to boldify the first two words only. Note to self: Use preview next time.
Disbelief in or denial of ...
Disbelief in gods is not the same as asserting that gods do not exist. The latter is stronger than the former. Look into weak and strong atheism.
How does the saying go --- "If your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail"? The only people who claim that atheism is a religion are those who (a) are themselves religious, cannot conceive of someone who does not subscribe to a religious doctrine, and therefore forces everyone into the religious mold, or (b) doesn't understand the meaning of the word atheism.
Religion, like theism, entails belief in divinities or gods. Atheism literally means "without theism". So, saying atheism is a religion is like saying that people who are broke also have $100 in their pocket. It's a contradiction.
There seems to be some confusion about free-fall. In free-fall, the only force acting on a body IS gravity. Free-fall doesn't eliminate gravity, it eliminates the supporting contact force delivered by an object situated between you and the source of the gravitational field.
From the point of view of someone who has never used any kind of spreadsheet, the learning curve for LaTeX is probably the same as that for Excel. There is a nice tutorial "The Not-so-Short Guide to LaTeX" online that will have you typesetting basic documents within minutes --- including italics, bold, and section headings. More advanced features require more time to learn --- the same as with any sufficiently complex application. Basic LaTeX is no more difficult to learn than HTML.
How convenient that you used "large user base" in your implicit definition of "best". I'll have to call fanboy on that. There are, I'm sure, many examples of excellent, useful, easy to learn, full-featured, near bug-free software out in the wild. LaTeX comes to mind.
Our only job is to get an A, any way we know how ...
There's one of your problems right there. If you just want an A, go to a diploma mill, deposit your money, and you won't even have to meet a professor. Universities are designed for people who actually want to LEARN something.
A work environment (like the kitchen of a McDonalds) is not isomorphic to a study environment (like a library). Processing a command for two orders of fries and a milkshake is different from processing a 30 minute proof of some theorem from functional analysis. These activities require different levels of concentration. Anything can be pushed to an extreme. If you allow one student with a laptop, then you have to allow all of them to use them. That magnifies the sound output in due proportion to the number of students. At what point does it become a nuisance? When one student cannot concentrate because of the racket.
We need to be able to function and learn in an environment which is full of distractions, because that's where technology and the world is headed right now.
That is one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever heard. How about we put wall-to-wall speakers in every operating room in every hospital and blast the surgeons with The Who at 150dB 24/7? If they botch an operation because they were distracted, instruct them that they should learn to function in an environment full of distractions. The classroom is a controlled environment that is supposed to be conducive to learning.