A few weeks ago, the U.S. Northeast was hit by a major ice storm. At the peak, ~1.4 million people were without power across Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and upstate New York. FEMA declared emergencies in several areas, and each state declared emergencies and disaster areas in additional areas. Like a lot of people, I lost power for several days, which means I also lost heat and water (not on municipal water or on piped gas). This guy had the presence of mind to take a few pictures of the ice layers... it was kind of astonishing, at least to me.
One of the article pages had an ad for "The Tesla Shield: Transformational Technology for Mind Body and Soul" (courtesy of the Google Ad Network on that page). Wow. It's a nice reminder that people still buy this crap. Only $200 for the base model, although you can spend up to $2000 for the "Eye of Horus" version which "Incorporates Upgraded Internal Componentry PLUS Hyperspace Radionics Function PLUS 12 Specially Selected Precious Gemstones Chosen For Their Therapeutic And Metaphysical Properties: Diamond, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, Amethyst, Lapis lazuli, Garnet, Turquoise, Quartz, Opal, Aquamarine, Topaz."
Safari doesn't create a different version of the web page. It shows the original HTML version, just graphically scaled down. So EMG should be suing all the other cell phone browser companies. As the article notes:
Now, it seems to me that this is a description of what every single mobile phone on the market does. Every mobile phone EXCEPT the iPhone, that is. Remember all those commercials touting how the iPhone doesn't display a simplified Web site, but the full Web page?... The press release issued by EMG claims that the iPhone uses the same method as their invention. So, doesn't every other mobile phone do this as well? Should a patent granted last month hand over intellectual property rights for every single handheld device that accesses the Web?
are only valuable if they are believed to be based on truth. If any of the statements of the Bible can be shown to be untrue, then how can we know that the statements that cannot be verified are not also false? Jesus referred to the creation account, specifically when asked about divorce and marriage. If the creation account, as found in the Bible is demonstrably false, then why should Jesus reference to it not be equally false and therefore be disregarded? If the foundational statements about God and creation in Genesis are false, then why should the rest of the statements from anywhere in Scripture not also be false?
You are making some assumptions here.
The Bible's creation account is literal. Many Christians dispute this; they say Genesis is figurative, and point to translation discrepencies (e.g. the word "day" having multiple meanings, even within the same passages). It is a literary narrative, not a scientific textbook.
Jesus' referral to the creation account meant he was a 6-Day Creationist. Your reference is to Mark 10, which says this: "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law [allowing divorce]," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Jesus could easily be appealing to internal consistency problems within the Pharisee's own beliefs to prove them wrong, rather than making a statement about science and creationism.
When one part is wrong, we must throw out everything. This is a false argument. You would have to stop looking at the Internet and all magazines, newspapers, television shows, blogs, etc., if this were the case.
I act morally, without religion, & I have even seen animals behave morally... ergo : religion is superfluous.
Or else, as Jesus said of some non-Christians, perhaps you are not far from the kingdom of heaven, because true religion is in your heart and actions rather than in going to Religiosity Measurement Meetings every Sunday.
But all these moral tenets can be built from utilitarian (or Kantian if you find that more appealing) philosophy, so there really is no need to appeal to the supernatural in order to build a moral framework.
How do you construct a universally-accepted consensual system of ethics, without appealing to a source of morality external to all the system's participants? To what common ground do you appeal?
i find it even more insulting to think that even if there is a god, why doesn't he show himself? and how do these religious people know for a fact that what they are praying to, really is that god?
And even if there is a god, then why doesn't he interfere ? is he incapable ? or not willing ? in both cases he loses the right to be prayed to.
Plenty of people believe God does show himself (or herself) but typically in very personally-meaningful ways (visions, miracles, and the like) that science would chalk up as inexplicable or crazy. They're not scientifically repeatable events; if they were, faith wouldn't be personal, would it?
It's funny how little of the Bible is devoted to declaring the methods and means of God's creation of the universe; most of it has to do with history and moral/ethical guidelines. Jesus never discusses creationism, but he spends a lot of time suggesting that we help the poor, defend the defenseless, and be true and honest in all our relationships. This is really the goal of religion: defining our everyday actions. Whether the universe was created in six days or six bazillion years, has very little effect on whether you love your brother or not.
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary tax increase. And Obama hasn't even made the claim that it is to be temporary. The only thing temporary will be that $250,000 ceiling -- that'll be reduced.
Technically, Obama is proposing that we expire a 3% tax cut that Bush introduced (and which was slated to expire in 2010 anyway), so the only thing Obama might change is expiring it a year early, and only for people who have bigger incomes. But he has strongly suggested -- if not committed to policy -- that this is needed to get the middle-class economic machine running better, and will be re-examined when that has occured. Maybe you don't agree, and you would like to preserve the tax cut past its expiration date? Do you make more than $250K a year? (well, that's household; individuals would lose the 3% tax cut if they earn over $200K)
BTW, if the top tax rate was currently 97%, how would you feel about that "3%" tax increase?
This is a useless hypothetical question, since the tax rate is around 36% -- very, very different.
Of course, ALL of this discussion is totally moot. Neither Obama or McCain modified their economic policies much in the wake of the Wall Street bailout and the continued crumbling of financial markets, so the reality of what Obama will do is likely to be much different than what he said pre-election. And the same would have been said for McCain, had he won.
You say that the press supported Obama because he was going to win. I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him. Personally, I feel that the election was close enough that it could have gone the other way had the media been fair.
FWIW: historically, when there is a serious economic downturn in an election year, the incumbent's party will lose. It does not matter if the incumbent is Democrat or Republican; voters often want change.
This and even more is what we voted for with George W. Bush.
There, fixed that for you.
And I have a hard time calling it socialism to ask people who make more than $250,000 to pay 3% more tax so they can temporarily help out struggling people and get our economy back on track. Those who have, have an obligation to help those who do not. A lot of people are working their asses off, and still struggling to get by.
I have relatives who are on welfare, foodstamps, WIC, or some combination thereof... it's sadly funny to hear them complain about Obama's alleged socialist goals.
Huh... I don't bittorrent at all, but we've got several computers here pushing through an old Netgear box that cost me $100 a few years ago... hasn't been reset in at least a year.
So, you would get the trial without asking and then they would start charging you without asking.
This happens all the time in the U.S. I get calls from telemarketers offering add-on services to credit cards ("Super Credit Safety-o-matic Pro will protect you and your dog from identity theft!") that will be free the first month but I can always "cancel later". No thanks.
People forget this stuff regularly. For example, I've worked with a number of nonprofits that offer monthly giving as an option (e.g. instead of giving $100 now, you can sign up for the organization to charge your credit card $10/month). A surprising number of donors forget that they do this, and after a year or two will notice the charge on their credit card and ask what it's about. Or they will remember the original donation but forget that they signed up for monthly donations, so they think they are old donors when really they're current donors.
Google's algorithm is not so simple, apparently. Quotes do limit the search considerably, but clearly, leaving out the quotes does not mean you get all possible matches of the words.
Well, let's see how smart Google really is. Search for "Joe the Plumber" without quotes: 33,451 - same search as above, but a different result.
Search for "Plumber -Joe" (also without quotes): 219,000.
Search for "Joe -Plumber" (also without quotes: 8,450,000.
I'm guessing that Google knows what I mean by "Joe the plumber" without quotes. But it appears that Joe has thousands of new articles written about him since earlier today!
Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!
I think you are imagining things in order to fit your ideology. Searching in Google for these guys (even restricting searches to Google's News 2008 archive) turns up far more results for Ayers, Wright and Rezko than for Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.
Slashdot Mirror
Natural disasters seem to be all the rage lately.
A few weeks ago, the U.S. Northeast was hit by a major ice storm. At the peak, ~1.4 million people were without power across Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and upstate New York. FEMA declared emergencies in several areas, and each state declared emergencies and disaster areas in additional areas. Like a lot of people, I lost power for several days, which means I also lost heat and water (not on municipal water or on piped gas). This guy had the presence of mind to take a few pictures of the ice layers... it was kind of astonishing, at least to me.
One of the article pages had an ad for "The Tesla Shield: Transformational Technology for Mind Body and Soul" (courtesy of the Google Ad Network on that page). Wow. It's a nice reminder that people still buy this crap. Only $200 for the base model, although you can spend up to $2000 for the "Eye of Horus" version which "Incorporates Upgraded Internal Componentry PLUS Hyperspace Radionics Function PLUS 12 Specially Selected Precious Gemstones Chosen For Their Therapeutic And Metaphysical Properties: Diamond, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, Amethyst, Lapis lazuli, Garnet, Turquoise, Quartz, Opal, Aquamarine, Topaz."
Safari doesn't create a different version of the web page. It shows the original HTML version, just graphically scaled down. So EMG should be suing all the other cell phone browser companies. As the article notes:
I was thinking we should rename the "slashdot effect" to SLASHZILLA! It's like taking a rage-filled rampage all over your bandwidth....
%3
You are making some assumptions here.
Or else, as Jesus said of some non-Christians, perhaps you are not far from the kingdom of heaven, because true religion is in your heart and actions rather than in going to Religiosity Measurement Meetings every Sunday.
How do you construct a universally-accepted consensual system of ethics, without appealing to a source of morality external to all the system's participants? To what common ground do you appeal?
Plenty of people believe God does show himself (or herself) but typically in very personally-meaningful ways (visions, miracles, and the like) that science would chalk up as inexplicable or crazy. They're not scientifically repeatable events; if they were, faith wouldn't be personal, would it?
It's funny how little of the Bible is devoted to declaring the methods and means of God's creation of the universe; most of it has to do with history and moral/ethical guidelines. Jesus never discusses creationism, but he spends a lot of time suggesting that we help the poor, defend the defenseless, and be true and honest in all our relationships. This is really the goal of religion: defining our everyday actions. Whether the universe was created in six days or six bazillion years, has very little effect on whether you love your brother or not.
Which means the religious folks will ask, who created the singularity?
Technically, Obama is proposing that we expire a 3% tax cut that Bush introduced (and which was slated to expire in 2010 anyway), so the only thing Obama might change is expiring it a year early, and only for people who have bigger incomes. But he has strongly suggested -- if not committed to policy -- that this is needed to get the middle-class economic machine running better, and will be re-examined when that has occured. Maybe you don't agree, and you would like to preserve the tax cut past its expiration date? Do you make more than $250K a year? (well, that's household; individuals would lose the 3% tax cut if they earn over $200K)
This is a useless hypothetical question, since the tax rate is around 36% -- very, very different.
Of course, ALL of this discussion is totally moot. Neither Obama or McCain modified their economic policies much in the wake of the Wall Street bailout and the continued crumbling of financial markets, so the reality of what Obama will do is likely to be much different than what he said pre-election. And the same would have been said for McCain, had he won.
FWIW: historically, when there is a serious economic downturn in an election year, the incumbent's party will lose. It does not matter if the incumbent is Democrat or Republican; voters often want change.
There, fixed that for you.
And I have a hard time calling it socialism to ask people who make more than $250,000 to pay 3% more tax so they can temporarily help out struggling people and get our economy back on track. Those who have, have an obligation to help those who do not. A lot of people are working their asses off, and still struggling to get by.
I have relatives who are on welfare, foodstamps, WIC, or some combination thereof... it's sadly funny to hear them complain about Obama's alleged socialist goals.
True. I was saving three characters by including www. instead of http:/// -- but we could leave both off.
This gives me an idea for a new set of yard signs: "Single? Bored? www.slashdot.org"
Huh... I don't bittorrent at all, but we've got several computers here pushing through an old Netgear box that cost me $100 a few years ago... hasn't been reset in at least a year.
So, you would get the trial without asking and then they would start charging you without asking.
This happens all the time in the U.S. I get calls from telemarketers offering add-on services to credit cards ("Super Credit Safety-o-matic Pro will protect you and your dog from identity theft!") that will be free the first month but I can always "cancel later". No thanks.
People forget this stuff regularly. For example, I've worked with a number of nonprofits that offer monthly giving as an option (e.g. instead of giving $100 now, you can sign up for the organization to charge your credit card $10/month). A surprising number of donors forget that they do this, and after a year or two will notice the charge on their credit card and ask what it's about. Or they will remember the original donation but forget that they signed up for monthly donations, so they think they are old donors when really they're current donors.
Don't forget this (possibly NSFW).
Google's algorithm is not so simple, apparently. Quotes do limit the search considerably, but clearly, leaving out the quotes does not mean you get all possible matches of the words.
Well, let's see how smart Google really is. Search for "Joe the Plumber" without quotes: 33,451 - same search as above, but a different result.
Search for "Plumber -Joe" (also without quotes): 219,000.
Search for "Joe -Plumber" (also without quotes: 8,450,000.
I'm guessing that Google knows what I mean by "Joe the plumber" without quotes. But it appears that Joe has thousands of new articles written about him since earlier today!
Insert Twain's statement here about statistics and lies.
Okay, we'll take poor Joe out of his quotes. We still get 28,389 results. Still less than quoteless Wright or Ayers.
Anyone else remember that awful sequel?
Nice try.
But there are alternative search phrases, as you note. Let's check some others.
Hardly the massive media conspiracy you describe.
I think you are imagining things in order to fit your ideology. Searching in Google for these guys (even restricting searches to Google's News 2008 archive) turns up far more results for Ayers, Wright and Rezko than for Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.