Furthermore, I suppose you have performed every science experiment to verify that what you were taught in school is true.
No, not all of them. But the experiments we didn't perform, I could go out and test on my own. The Bible doesn't have this option. Also, considering that light bulbs, gasoline, paint thinner, etc., all work the way I was told they would, make for a good indication that what I was told is indeed correct.
If 2 is true, but the punishment for not believing in it is eternal damnation, I sure as hell am going to try to believe in #2!
That makes a lot of sense, even logical sense.
That makes no sense at all when you look at its actual meaning; in fact, it is probably one of the worst reasons someone could have for "believing". Faith out of fear is not faith; it's lipservice. Also, faith out of greed for the reward of heaven is not faith. That's a sin. I'd love to be there when St. Peter says to them "You did everything right, but for all the wrong reasons! Away with ye!".
Just so you know, the original Hebrew text of the bible should NOT be translated as "Thou shalt not kill" but rather "Thou shalt not murder". In biblical times, when people believed in witchcraft and that it killed and hurt other people, killing a witch would not be considered murder.
"Thou shalt not murder" appears well at face value, but murder and the "justified taking of life" are subjective.
Obviously, witchcraft does not exist--as in, the practice alone will not kill or harm anyone. This means that the lives of all those women burned at the stake were taken wrongfully. That fact can mean that the witch hunts were murder.
I assert that "Thou shalt not kill" is indeed a far better rule: if you kill no one, you can't accidentaly kill the innocent.
Nope. I don't box, so I'll relate it to Tae Kwon Do. It is a sport between two consenting particpants. Both know it is a physical sport with the potential of getting hurt. The goal is to win, not to hurt the other person. Oh, and there are rules; cheap shots will get you DQed.
I think that it makes children less sensitive towards violence, in video games.
I don't know about that. I've spent countless hours playing GTA, zooming in with the sniper rifle and shooting heads off, but on a TV show like CSI, if they have a scene with a dead body, I have to turn away or I'd probably throw up. If a game was too realistic, I wouldn't be able to play it. I imagine most people are the same.
Where Old Biff steals the DeLorean and gives the Sports Almanac to young Biff? Then Doc and Marty come back to a hellish timeline where Biff is a billionaire.
Why was Old Biff able to go back to 1956 and then return to the normal future, but Doc and Marty couldn't?
Here's an amusing but little-reported fact: every state that passed a concealed-carry law immediately experiences a significant (20%) drop in violent crime rates. I would never do it, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest if the citizens around me are packing heat; it keeps muggers away.
...until the paranoid gun weilder mistakenly shoots you, thinking your a mugger. How have the statistics with cases like this changed since concealed-carry laws passed?
The laws may have changed by now, but back when "Star Wars: Episope 1" was released in theaters and all the pirated vhs's were being sold on the street, I saw a few reports saying it's only illegal to sell, but not to buy. I guess what you said could've still applied, but if I do buy a copy on the street for $5 the day after the theater release, I can still deny knowing it was pirated.
Those sites were havens for illegal material. The administrators of those sites had ample opportunity (and the ability) to remove torrents that linked to copyrighted material.. but they chose not to.
How many slashdot posts are verbatim copies of copyrighted articals? I'd say at least one per front page story. Should this site be shut down because the moderators don't actively remove these posts?
I've never used supernove, or other such sites, so I don't know how much illegal file sharing went on, but bittorrent has plenty of legal uses too--all of Phish's concerts are shared legally via torrents, for instance--and it seems absurd to demand that these tracker sites be responsible for picking out the bad apples.
The same cannot be said if you run Linux on weird hardware that Windows XP would run fine on.
That's because the company that made the weird hardware also wrote a driver for Windows, otherwise Windows doesn't know what it is. They did not write a driver for Linux, otherwise it would run just fine.
I thought checking bounces was a method used to harvest email addresses. They send out 100 million 'test' emails using random names (dictionary attack) to @aol or @yahoo or where ever, and any 'test' that doesn't get bounced, you know is valid. I don't know if this is true, but it seems plausable to me.
I like the show (except the closeups of dead bodies), but it's just entertainment--not education. I don't know enough about the science in the show to be offended when they present theory, out dated or just plain wrong info as fact. Anyone who goes into forensics b/c they think it's like the show will quickly drop out. And yeah, there's enough stupid people that believe everything they see on TV that a jury could be contaiminated--but they'll probably get really confused when the case isn't over in an hour.
So, my question is, what takes the place of the advertising revenue? How and when is it acceptable for products to be advertised?
iTV. I think it'll eventually goto a pay-per-view for all content. You'll have your cable subscription fee, but that'll only give you the ability to then pay $0.99 to watch the morning news.
Either way, the death knell for free content-paid advertising may already be audible.
It's been ringing for a while. 'Profit-through-advertisment' is a dying paradigm and I think all tv shows--news, movies, talkshows, etc.--will eventually take an iTunes approach. $0.99 per morning news watched; $4.99 to watch the new episode of C.S.I. Of course, they'll probably pass legislation saying your only "renting" the show for one view.
Kerry's foreign policy plan was getting Bush out of office. I think he would have said to our allies--that seem to absolutely hate Bush--"Dubya's gone, will you help us clean up the mess he made?" And then hope that France, Germany and others would decide to help foot the bill. Kerry also addressed that terrorism will always exist; Bush seems to think that God will give him the power to somehow stop it completely.
I also voted for Kerry as a vote against Bush b/c the polls showed a 54% to 46% Bush lead in North Carolina--close enough for me to justify the vote. Unfortunatly it was way off and in hindsight I should've voted for Nader.
Use the Popular Vote, drop the Electorial College, and every vote truly is equal.
I used to think that until it was suggested that the EC is in place to prevent the election from being a popular vote. There are too many uninformed voters who make there decision based on half-truths and buzzwords. Can you tell me the pros and cons of Kerry's/Bush's plan for medicare/education/war on terror/etc... How can you criticize a candidate if you don't know what he stands for? How can you support someone if you only have a vague idea of what they support? (I'm not asking you directly, just proposing questions that should be answered before voting).
In my opinion, the voice of 1 informed person is far more valuable than that of 10 uninformed people.
*I admitted no guilt.* I was actually somewhat disappointed that the cop didn't show up. I had the whole case planned out and would've gotten off on reasonable doubt. Basically, a car 'rolled' through a stop sign and the cop didn't catch up and pull me over for a good 5 miles (I assume b/c the road was inaccesible for him). I basically mapped out the road and showed that there were over 10 sidestreets that the perpetraitor could have exitted and that I, driving the same style car, could have turned on. I assume that's why he didn't bother to show up.
Slashdot Mirror
That makes no sense at all when you look at its actual meaning; in fact, it is probably one of the worst reasons someone could have for "believing". Faith out of fear is not faith; it's lipservice. Also, faith out of greed for the reward of heaven is not faith. That's a sin. I'd love to be there when St. Peter says to them "You did everything right, but for all the wrong reasons! Away with ye!".
Obviously, witchcraft does not exist--as in, the practice alone will not kill or harm anyone. This means that the lives of all those women burned at the stake were taken wrongfully. That fact can mean that the witch hunts were murder.
I assert that "Thou shalt not kill" is indeed a far better rule: if you kill no one, you can't accidentaly kill the innocent.
The laws may have changed by now, but back when "Star Wars: Episope 1" was released in theaters and all the pirated vhs's were being sold on the street, I saw a few reports saying it's only illegal to sell, but not to buy. I guess what you said could've still applied, but if I do buy a copy on the street for $5 the day after the theater release, I can still deny knowing it was pirated.
I've never used supernove, or other such sites, so I don't know how much illegal file sharing went on, but bittorrent has plenty of legal uses too--all of Phish's concerts are shared legally via torrents, for instance--and it seems absurd to demand that these tracker sites be responsible for picking out the bad apples.
I think Yahoogle sounds better.
Gentlewhisperr's post is in violation of The Age Company Ltd's copyright on that artical. I demand that Slashdot remove the post!
You've been watching political mudsling ads again, haven't you?
I like the show (except the closeups of dead bodies), but it's just entertainment--not education. I don't know enough about the science in the show to be offended when they present theory, out dated or just plain wrong info as fact. Anyone who goes into forensics b/c they think it's like the show will quickly drop out. And yeah, there's enough stupid people that believe everything they see on TV that a jury could be contaiminated--but they'll probably get really confused when the case isn't over in an hour.
/. won't let me quote you b/c you used too many CAPS??
Anyway... Using someones proprietary software is not the issue, using someones pirated proprietary software is the issue.
cout << "IP IS BS" << endl; . .
. .
printf("IP IS BS\n");
. .
int i;
char * s = "IP IS BS\0";
for(i=0; i<strlen(s); i++)
___printf("%c", s[i]);
printf("\n");
The output is the same, but the means to get there are completely independant of each other.
There are hundreds of lethal incidents worldwide, caused by people driving cars.
There are hundreds of lethal incidents worldwide, caused by people engaging in life.
Simply banning something is not the solution.
I also voted for Kerry as a vote against Bush b/c the polls showed a 54% to 46% Bush lead in North Carolina--close enough for me to justify the vote. Unfortunatly it was way off and in hindsight I should've voted for Nader.
In my opinion, the voice of 1 informed person is far more valuable than that of 10 uninformed people.