Firstly, do you not think Obama has shown the relevant documents to the relevant people? He does not have to release them.
Actually, under US law, he doesn't have to show anything to anyone. All he has to do is state his intentions as a candidate and that he is eligable and that is it. As of today, he hasn't shown anything that has been unaltered or unchanged to anyone that didn't have some interest in his serving in office. What do I think, I do not know what to think because he can clear this up in a split second yet he refuses to do so.
Secondly, all the GOP has to do is come out and say "these claims have no credence whatsoever", instead they have been saying things like "he has a lot of questions to answer". Proof has been provided, and claimed to be false, so the production of some other document, whatever it is, will be claimed to be false also.
Well, actually, the GOP, or members of the GOP have come out and said they did not think he wasn't a non-natural citizen. And no, he doesn't have to produce some other document, all the birthers seem to want is the full document without any alterations so it can be verified for legitimacy. You see, Obama doesn't have to jump through hoops of fire to resolve this issue, all he has to do is show what he already has shown without the serial numbers and the raised seal number being blacked out so the number sequence can be validated as meeting the right time and place. That on fact is why most of the birthers hold on to the claim that seems to be supported by his own books that Obama personally authored. It really is that simple.
If you claimed to have won the state lottery, you would be expected to allow the state to view the serial number of the winning ticket so they can validate it. Yet with Obama, this little thing seems to be problematic for him.
This is the sort of propaganda and unverified "news" that is used to torpedo healthcare debate and pretty much anything related to Obama. It's the same quality of grandstanding where speakers like to emphasise his middle name "Hussein" to make him seem a) less Christian (and thus, less American), and b) "not like you [audience of speech]".
First, thanks for the link to the story, I haven't seen it until now. Second, as I already pointed out, Hawking himself admitted to getting help from foundations where the NHS let him down on his own website. The article attempts to gloss over their mistake, but as the NICE recommendations released last year stated, the UK shouldn't' spend more then 49k or so on extending anyone's life for a year. Regardless of what you think, that is a recommendation panel organized by your government giving advice to your government and if implemented, along with the refusal to treat for outside coverage (meaning the rule that if you purposely seek private medical treatment, the NHS will not treat you for that condition again), there is a good chance Hawking wouldn't have survived.
If you pay attention to most of the health care debate, it isn't the health care that is objectionable, it's the way it's attempting to be implemented that is. If we are starting from scratch, we should be able to honestly look at the failures in other systems and not incorporate them into ours. I'm not sure why you think that is dishonest and are dwelling on the mistake of the place someone lives instead of the reality of if it happened today and under today's rules, the outcome would be different. It's not a pointless and irresponsible jab at Obama, it constructive concern and criticism even if a fact was in error.
Even if they release another document, they'll just swap to the "he has dual citizenship so is also disqualified" angle, which I have also heard.
He doesn't need to release another document, he simply needs to release the document in it's entirety. As for the dual citizenship, there i
I've concentrated on your major lies just to keep this concise.
Your ignorance and misinformation does not make something a lie. All it does is illistrate my point about the same zealotry. It is however nice that you skipped over the parts in which you seem to think is accurate. That means there is some hope for you yet.
There are hundreds of millions of years of fossils that have been found all over the world. "Missing link" animals have been predicted and then found. If you have a better theory for the diversification of species that doesn't involve a supernatural being who refuses to reveal themselves, please let me know.
Lol.. My oh my, do you only listen to what you think you hear or what you want to hear? As I already pointed out with the canine discussion that the fossil records are interpreted and are not always reflective of what is real. Missing link animals have not been predicted and found, to date we do not have any missing link fossils on record. We do however have transitional fossils on record but nothing outside of theory connects them as separate species. Hence the conversation about the canines.
Now for alternative theories, I guess the very valid and scientific panspermia theory is not acceptable to you because that required life being magically planted on earth. Of course there is the tried and true Bubble Theory of evolution which negates the punctuated equilibrium theory as a means of speciation in the strictest sense. There are recent well versed scientific theories that counter the present punctuated equilibrium or vertical evolutionary theory with more mathematically sound postulations like horizontal evolution and such. The problem is that unless it is completely observed in action, neither can be more then a postulated interpretation of evidence found. That BTW, is what I was saying.
You've just developed a blind spot for your own religion. Remember, religions are nothing more than large, popular cults. If I was an animist and I believed that all animals had spirits, and that chickens were Gods, would you ban chicken in the lunch room to accommodate me? If I believed that teaching women was a sin against my God, should we ban girls from public education? It's not the fault of the government if reality is in conflict with your belief system. If the best explanation we have for the way the world operates conflicts with a book you want to be accepted by everyone, who wins?
There is not blind spot at all, As I said, the government cannot make a claim one way or another about any constitutionally protected religion. People in the government can make claims about their own faith or lack of but they must be clear in that it is their position and not any government's position. s for banning women and chickens, your reaching really hard but still failing to grasp anything substantial. The reason creation is in question is because it is where a specific conflict is being presented by the people teaching the programs as well as represented by the majority of the population. If the majority of the population thought chickens were evil, you could probably see bans on chickens in government run organizations. This is what has happened with smoking, not government building that I'm aware of allows smoking inside it and most states have banned smoking inside buildings that are open to the public or have employees. DO not confuse something that is so easily refuted with how you want things to be.
If the choice between accommodating all religions means there is no educational system, and accommodating no religions means that there is, please forgive me for not giving a damn about your hurt feelings.
I'm confused here, are you claiming that the role of the government run education system it to strike down religion or something? I presented a simple way top compartmentalize the issue a
The birthers are *not* right - do you not think that if there was even a *tiny* bit of credence to their claims that the GOP would be right in there like a shot? I can assure you that they will have looked into it with considerable vigour.
I never said the birthers were right, I said if they are right. You do not know if they are or are not correct in their claims as the only verifiable evidence that would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt is being withheld by Obama and the State of Hawaii. And no, the lack of action by one group of people would not mean something is either right or wrong. People and groups of people pick the battles they want to fight based on their own terms and not looking like a bunch of conspiracy theorist may be a desirable goal for the GOP. There even was a court case that the supreme court refused to hear because the plaintiff couldn't show standing. So the question is still there, the answers are still hidden behind people who have some sort of vested interest in Obama being president, and as of right now, the only documents that could set this straight once and for all is being hidden from the public for some unknown reason. And no, his birth certificate wouldn't show anything that isn't already public knowledge as expressed by Obama or his campaign so hiding it does lend the appearance of something being wrong with it.
All the GOP is doing it allowing them (the birthers) to continue down a path that they know is false because it is a goldmine for negative press for Obama.
Actually, I do not believe the GOP is involved with it one way or another. I'm not sure why you think they have the power to allow or disallow anything that a separate group of people are taking issue with. Do you have copies of the memo where the GOP is controlling these parties or something? Judging from your previous statement, I doubt it. This is because you claimed the GOP would be all over it if it were true and then attempted to claim that the GOP was somehow in control of it and allowing it. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me, how is it proof of inaccuracy because the GOP is not all over it yet you seem to think they are all over it because they have control over the birthers making the claim by being able to allow or disallow the claims?
There is no way he would get as far as taking the oath if everyone concerned, on both sides, was in any doubt as to the legitimacy of his office. Hell, they even went back and repeated the oath again with witnesses after the public version because of the slight mistake so that no one could possibly come at him with "he didn't take the oath properly, thus he is not the president". You *really* think they have overlooked something as obvious as where he was born?
And you know that from what? BTW, in the American system, you are not required to provide documentation of eligibility to run for and accept office. You have to swear or state that you are eligible but you are not required to provide proof. This is why Obama has not showed proof outside of altered documents or vaguely worded news paper clippings. And by altered documents, I mean documents with serial numbers and other marking of legitimacy being removed and hidden from inspection. So yes, it is possible that someone not qualified could campaign, be elected, and be seated as president or in any other elected office in the land.
If you asked me if it happened, I would say I do not know, but I would add that the one person who could put this to rest once and for all is refusing to do so for whatever reason and it has went so far as the state of hawaii sealing his birth certificate so no one could ever view it in it's original and legitimate form. If you think he is so legitimate, could you please explain why that is and why he refuses to show it? The birth certificate wouldn't show anything that isn't already public knowledge except a serial num
As a Washington state resident who also considers the amount of the state's budget deficit, I can't figure out how even a representative with MS ties could figure that this move should be viewed favorably. Let's shoot this down folks.
As an outsider who knows enough about tax laws, I can probably guess to the reasoning you are at a loss with.
There are two simple things abound here. One is the fact that Washington cannot really tax an entity based on business practices outside the state. The constitution forbids it unless congress agrees to allow it. MS's Nevada corps and hiding profits there are technical legal within the strictest legal sense of the law even if they are morally shady at best. If Washington goes after MS with a 2.8 billion dollar deficit, they are likely to be seeing close to that spent on legal fees between the two with MS taking it to federal courts (outside the scope of Washington State because the federal government has jurisdiction between the states) and appeals after appeals with Washington State likely losing.
The second part might be an additional potential loss of revenue for the state if MS becomes angered and responds by moving a significant portion of it's operation outside of the state to coincide within the new laws. That might mean that all of the MS sales within the state could be conducted outside the state and the only thing that could be collected is sales tax instead of an income tax on the profits. Technically, in states with income taxes, only the portion of income created from activities within the state are taxable to that state. If MS moves all of their in state licensing to Nevada, then it's possible that Washington State would miss out on all the new tax revenue they think they will be getting.
It's sad when government is in a weak bargaining position against a gigantic corporation, but I think that some in government are attempting to correct that instead of making it worse by this move with it's protections. It should guarantee that the state receives some funding from MS in addition to what it already has without making things worse for them. Further more, after the state is solvent again, it would be free to pursue any claims on the Nevada profits before the law granted the break. The only claims of (ex) post facto would be while the law was in place and the activity was permissive. Anything before or after the law being in place would be fair game if the law changed.
Science is antithetical to religion, because science is based on observable, measurable, and repeatable experiment, and religion depends on individual conviction and faith.
You're stretching it a bit here. There are lots of areas of science that is hypothetical, unmeasurable, non-observable, or repeatable. Coincidentally, some of these areas cover the same areas in which science and religion often conflict. Evolution for instance, is only observable in the minor detail and has never been observed in the way necessary for species to branch off into other species without changing or ignoring certain definitions. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying evolutionary theory is wrong or anything, it just requires a certain amount of faith in that what others are guessing at is the correct answer.
There was a discussion some time ago on what if there was no dogs alive right now and all we had was the fossil records. The conclusion was that we would classify breeds of the same species as a separate species altogether and in some cases classify the same breeds as different species altogether based around the difference in appearances. This sort of highlights the complexity of taxonomy and shows how much faith we have placed in science within this area.
Yes, evolution, just like a spherical earth orbiting a star, is the best theory we have to explain why the world is the way it is. If you choose to go to a bible study after a science class and try to empty your head of the facts you just learned, that's your business, but don't call it science.
I think you're forgetting that in America, we have the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. This means that no government organization, which a school science class is, can tell any student who is required and compelled by law to attend, that their religion is real of fake. You especially cannot do it on guesses based around circumstantial evidence that could change at any time. Now as for strict science, sure, I agree. Science and religion shouldn't be mixed unless consent of the student is given before hand. But to counter a statement, one either needs to be abolished or something else needs to be allowed. And no, the theory of evolution, in which places come in conflict with most religions, is not testable, not provable, not observable and not falsifiable in any different way then the religion is or isn't.
Of course this doesn't mean that going to church required someone to ignore "facts" they just learned either. In residential wiring, a red wire is a switched hot source where a black wire is a constant hot source. In DC wiring, Red is commonly denoting a constant hot source and Black is a ground or the equivalent of a neutral which is white in AC wiring. Someone doesn't lose the information they gained when going from one standard to any other. They simply apply what they know to the areas that require it. It's foolish to think that you would "empty your head of the facts you just learned" when going from one thing to another. Especially in this day and age when people often own and drive standard and automatic transmission cars without forgetting how to drive the other or play video games with different control inputs without forgetting how to play the other game. I mean you do not get completely confused when going from playing a Game on the Xbox verses a game on a Play Station or computer do you? Again, I think you reaching and stretching things a bit.
I've never seen anyone claim that science class teaches you that God doesn't exist. In fact, the Catholic Church has already accepted science as the "how" and God as the "why." You choose to interpret whatever holy text you're attached to in a certain way that conflicts with evolutionary science. And I'm sorry to say that however many pages it is, your holy text doesn't hold a candle to the depth and breadth of congruent scientific theory on matters such as the age of the un
I am *well aware* of the issues surrounding the birthers, however, it wouldn't have made a very god joke would it?
Oh, It was supposed to be a joke, was it? Well, it wasn't a very funny one and it seemed as if the real joke was someone not being able to tell the difference between citizens of a state and citizens of a county or a natural citizen as required by the constitution.
He doesn't have to release his private records if he doesn't want to - theres no "hearts and minds if [sic] idiots like me" to win. I'm British, living in the UK, so he doesn't gain anything by getting me on board.
Well, it what he has to do and what he does is two separate things. He does have to prove that he is eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States which may well mean that he needs to show the records. Anyways, it does seem as if the foreigners like Obama more then the American citizens do so it's probably true.
No one (sensible) is just "taking Obama's word for it", there is considerable evidence showing where he was born.
I thought you claimed that you understood the issues of the birthers? I guess maybe you do not. I'm not a birther but I do question why the records are so clouded and why Obama is purposely attempting to hide the few records that would prove his legitimacy without exposing anything that isn't already public knowledge. Anyways, according to the birthers, certain items on the documents made available to the public are purposely covered up like the birth certificate serial number which the birthers claim is because the number wouldn't match the time line claimed and would show he wasn't on US soil when born. Other issues seem to support that assertion like a time line outlined by his own books making it unlikely he was born in Hawaii and so on.
Now, I know you are claiming to be British and don't care, however, you might want to reconsider how much you care if the birthers are actually right. That would mean that all the laws Obama signs, all the treaties he negotiates, all the programs he puts in place, and all the international cooperation would become null and void because he wouldn't have had the legitimate power to construe and complete them. While this would mostly effect the American population, it would also impact any international affairs he participated in. His replacement could simply redo everything he has already done but that might not be possible if the replacement doesn't agree with his positions or if the congress has changed significantly enough to make it unlikely to happen. This might not effect you specifically, but getting an Angy republican as his replacement or a different congress might upset any agreements made in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq or a number of other things that could impact your country.
Whatever gave you that idea? Refutation comes more or less from opposition. Do you ask people who appose something what religion they are? Not to many people do and unless they are looking for some sort of fame, not to many people would dignify that question with a response. I'm not sure why Atheist seem to think that they should know everyone else' personal beliefs or why they think that whatever is in their head is the absolute truth but you need to relax a little and reexamine reality a little.
The macro verses micro came about from the distinct fact that evolution as in adaptation within the species (micro) is well supported in the bibles and is thought to have been necessary in many religions where creation dictates that speciation (macro) did not occur, at least it didn't with certain animals and humans.
There is also the problems with Micro evolution being the only thing directly observed or witnessed in nature without changing or altering definitions in order to make Macro evolution plausible in direct observations.
I'm all for allowing Texas to turn into a theocracy, and leaving individual states to decide their own education. Texans could then serve as a reminder that marrying religion and state is still an enormously stupid idea.
I don't think it's about a theocracy or marrying religion with the state. But the concept is sort of complicated as in science is sometimes taught to directly contradict religion which is why balance is seemingly wanted.
It would be a different story if evolution was taught as just a theory pertaining to science's explanation of the known world, but it's not and as we will probably see in response to this post or other posts within these threads, it's taught as the absolute undying fact of life which makes your religion some fairy tale or superstition. Now in a country that allows the freedom of religion and forbids the government from imposing a religion or forbidding one, there does come an issue of balance when you have a government institution telling people god is make believe and your stupid for believing in one.
Some people are so wrapped up in the concept of evolution or (which is one of the few places the bible comes into conflict with science), that they won't even allow a scientific debate on the accuracy of the current model of evolution. There has been some work noting a different mechanism for evolution and a different model then a world tree branching from one type of life into all we know today. The Bubble theory of evolution is one, then there is a another that IDers seem to latch on to which indicates the graphical representation should be more like blades of grass with branches moving from them then a single tree of life. Of course since IDers have latched onto this, most all atheist dismiss it out of hand even though it could completely be explained away scientifically and without any presence of a god or gods.
Your forgeting that the president is only sworn to the best of his ability.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I think your thinking of change and living in a different context. The words living document is generally seen as whoever in power can interpret it to their benefit at the time without making changes through the constitutionally appropriate amendment process. This means that in cases like Roe V Wade, the right to privacy which forbids the government from denying all abortions or dictating the health service provided to a person is either read into or out of the constitution depending on the people presently interpreting it.
The idea of a living document doesn't mean that it can be changed with enough consent of the governed parties, it's that words like "arms" or "right" or "the people" or "interstate commerce" can be interpreted to include or exclude certain values in which was not originally intended as pointed out by dictionary or literature references used at the time of the writing. This living status allows people to reinterpret the constitution or the rights of the people and states it protects without going through the amendment process as outlined in the constitution.
In short, we are basically saying the same thing except you seem to be using the literal definition of the idea of living document in which it conflicts with the modern use in society today and since the 1930's with the New Deal which incorporated the concept of reinterpretation in order to make unconstitutional programs allowable.
That's sort of misleading. What you pay for your house is what costs is necessary to release the previous owners claim to title over it. The interest rates and all are a cost of you not having enough capitol to make the purchase outright and isn't the purchase price of the house. In short, it's the purchase price of the loan to buy the house which is totally separate.
The same can be said about some claims in science as well. Certain claims can't be tested, they can be validated by evidence but without the aid of a time machine, abiogeneses, evolution, the big bang theory and so on can't really be tested and because all the evidence is interpreted facts about something that is no more or something that was different, then out interpretation can be just as skewed as any other theory or thing that is not science. Just ask someone what came before the big bang, you will either get an answer that boils down to something was just there, magically energy was introduced, and poof, here we are attempting to understand it because that something turned into a mud puddle somewhere on this planet and the energy adapted itself to a lightning bolt with no help from anything else but whatever was just there and the magic energy that just happened.
Sure, you might get some more answers to avoid this problem but it all boils down to something somehow just being and energy just happening.
You do understand that there are scientific theory in alternate to the current theory of evolution right? There are lots of scientific evidence pointing towards it too.
The problem is seems isn't that science isn't being taught, it's that it's only a certain version of science is being taught and with that, all the benefits of critical thinking that science should instill in people are missing.
Perhaps you should attempt to understand the issue the birthers have instead of showing your ignorance of such things so profoundly in public.
The problem the birthers have is that according to the constitution, to be president, you have to be a natural born citizen as the requirements of the constitution spell out. No one is saying Obama isn't a citizen as in how the citizenship laws dictate but that he is not a natural citizen which makes him constitutionally unqualified to hold the office of the President of the United State of America.
The Idea that someone could claim citizenship in more then one state is completely pointless to the issue posed by the birthers because in either case, they would still be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Now, the entire issue of the birthers would completely disappear if Obama would just open and release his Birth certificate record which to this day he is refusing to do without something added or changed to keep the birther conspiracy alive. He is probably doing it just to win the hearts and minds if idiots just like you but we wouldn't know for sure without seeing the real birth records in it's entirety or an admission from Obama himself.
IS it actually over throwing the government if you are using the system to change the government?
Our system is set up so that it can be changed when needed. I'm not sure how anyone can think that using the system and working within the law and scope of the system is overthrowing anything. Now a violent take over or ignoring laws and constitutional provisions would be an overthrow but not working within the laws already in place.
Your fears seem to be simply that, nothing more then fear.
Regardless of who is right or wrong here, I think we are missing the point of consumer protection that is more appropriate to the situation. Any ISP sells the internet to the consumer, generally they do not sell just part of the internet service or their own special internet service (AOL excepted).
What this boils down to is that if the ISP filters something, sure, it's a free speech issue and possibly a content liability issue, but most of all, it's the consumer not getting what they paid for issue. If I purchase internet service, I expect to have all ports available and all IPs or domains available. The idea that the ISP can represent one thing and deliver another is something that has been core to several consumer protection laws (state, local and federal) since the Sherman anti trust ordeal. So aside from speech rights, aside from common carrier status, it really becomes an issue of the customer getting what they paid for in the first place.
The second amendment wasn't just for a revolution. It was to be prepared for an invasion and to protect yourself and family and to assist in maintaining order and lawful activities. If you look at the second amendment, you see that it's preceded with "a well regulated militia" as a perfunctory statement before any rights are discussed. This well regulated does not mean neat and tidy uniforms and everyone marching and drilling in lockstep for a parade while getting ready to behead the president and congress, well regulated means capable of using the weapon they are keeping with deliberate accuracy. In other words a good shot.
The very next portion is militia, originally the term militia wasn't just a now defunct revolutionary army. The militia was a group of citizens called into duty for a common purpose benefiting the community. This purpose could be to maintain the peace amongst criminal gangs taking over or rendering opposition to invading forces, or to protecting yourself, your family, neighbors and so on from unnecessary harm caused by other. The biggest fear when the second amendment was passed was that a tyrant or agent of a foreign power would infiltrate the government and then could de-arm Americans which would allow the foreign power to walk in and take over with little resistance or to pass oppressive laws or unconstitutional amendment (and yes, there can be unconstitutional amendments passed to amend the constitution). That is why it was necessary for a free state to have. Basically, over the last 100 years or so, we have stopped being a collection of "united" states and turned the federal government into a feudal overlord. The feds were originally and still constitutionally supposed to have a limited amount of power that was directed to them by the Constitution and whatever amendments that states enacted to give up or concede rule over.
As someone who has obviously thought and studied this more then you, I think you need to do some googling on the meaning of "your rights", the second amendment, and how bearing arms comes into play. The second amendment isn't just about guns either.
I wonder if entering shutdown -a in the run dialog box would halt the shut down process like it does when the lass or whatever process it was causes when it's killed.
There was some nasty spyware/malware crap that would look for some system processes and attach to them so when your removal tools attempted to kill them to remove the infection, the machine would reboot before the cleaning could be accomplished. To avoid this shutdown, you would have to enter "shutdown -a" in the run dialog box when it gave you the warning that it was shutting down.
But what NASA did in the 60's isn't considered safe in today's terms. In fact, what is considered safe in today's terms is derived from a lot of the failures of NASA in the past. It's also part of the reasons why NASA is having such difficulty going back to the moon today.
Although I do agree with your sentiment on collaborating without any pirated software. Maybe this is just a call to the OSS community to step up once again. They have filled various needs in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
In the beginning they might pay it as there seems to be a lot of researchers who have moon rocks on their wish list and a bunch of rich people with too much money wanting some sort of bragging rights.
However, there will come a time when they are too common and the value will drop. Then again, a lot of moon rocks aren't exactly moon rocks either, they are/can be meteorites that struck the moon which makes them foreign to it. That poses an interesting concept for study because you would be able to study meteors that weren't exposed to insane amounts of heat/friction while entering an atmosphere. The possibilities of signs of organic life increases as well as the ability to study natural formations without alterations as we are exposed to with meteorites on earth. There might still be a niche market for them depending on exactly how much is brought back.
Just wait until one of these things escapes and the terrorist band together with free nations to make them extinct again because they are attacking all the jumbo jets and the terrorist are on unemployment now.
Well, actually, he has a point. It would be more conservative to reduce spending to control living within your means then to take from other productive citizens to achieve the same goals. Granted this wouldn't always be possible but it's not very fiscally conservative if your recklessly spending your income either.
Balancing your budget by limiting spending would be more conservative if it's possible. It won't always be possible but the US government does a lot of spending outside it's constitutional allowed/allotted areas which could could be cut in order to avoid raising taxes.
Humans also have the ability of cognitive reasoning and this allows us to control our actions and urges and society expects us to do so. There are other options if Celibacy restrains someone to the point they can't fight urges, one of which is to leave the priesthood or completely ignore the celibacy with themselves or a consenting adult in secret.
You know, I'm almost tempted to go to an area which is just as reprehensible as molesting children and teenagers. This are would be rape, you seem to be thinking that women not wanting to screw a certain person is why the person decided to rape a women. It's all of their faults then right? Of course not and I don't suspect you were attempting to say that. But the same logic of requiring celibacy stands here if we are to believe you. If no woman will screw a guy, then his urges build up until he rapes one of them, so it's all the women who wouldn't give him some fault.
You mention that the Greek Orthodox doesn't have this problem. Have you ever googled that info?
The roman Catholic church has more mid level management in one country then Toyota probably does world wide. I forget the structure but in a large city, you can have two or three people that oversee the churches in those cities before getting to someone that oversees more then the city (like the state or territory or whatever).
While I'm sure that someone might screw something up at some point in time, I do not see it as a problem seeing how they are all managed. It's more like a corporation in that rules will be in place, warnings about what not to do (like a password of "God" or "Jesus" or "Mary" or something). The tech savy people will already probably be doing this stuff, those who aren't, will most likely look for instruction or direction from higher up the chain. I'm confident that policies and access and all that will be taken care of for these people. It's just how organized the catholic church is.
As for selling faith verses a product, I see your point but I don't see it as a problem. The issues will be so far and in between that when they are pointed out and ridiculed, it will appear much like elitists evangelical atheist bashing once again and most no one will pay attention except for those already of the belief. Let me demonstrate what I mean here. Most atheist move into a conversation about religion with, isn't it more logical or probable that this happened or that this doesn't exist seeing how there is no proof. Then as soon as someone mentions the bible or some personal experience or something else that probably could be explained away relatively easily, the atheist jumps to attempts at insulting the person by calling them ignorant, stupid, or referring to their deity as fairy-tales and so on. That never hurts anyone's beliefs as it's just seen as the wicked attempting to corrupt- something already foretold in the bible and church teachings. The problems if any, will be totally ignored as soon as it becomes ridiculed by anyone with any faith. in fact, it might even increase people's faith who are borderline because of how childish it seems. Putting people down because they didn't something stupid is so third grade and bullyish that people end up rooting for the little guy to punch the bully out. SO in the end, it will only end up being cheerleaders rooting for the home team with outsiders ignoring it and the visiting team rallying behind their players. It's not going to be a wide spread problem and most likely not a problem at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, under US law, he doesn't have to show anything to anyone. All he has to do is state his intentions as a candidate and that he is eligable and that is it. As of today, he hasn't shown anything that has been unaltered or unchanged to anyone that didn't have some interest in his serving in office. What do I think, I do not know what to think because he can clear this up in a split second yet he refuses to do so.
Well, actually, the GOP, or members of the GOP have come out and said they did not think he wasn't a non-natural citizen. And no, he doesn't have to produce some other document, all the birthers seem to want is the full document without any alterations so it can be verified for legitimacy. You see, Obama doesn't have to jump through hoops of fire to resolve this issue, all he has to do is show what he already has shown without the serial numbers and the raised seal number being blacked out so the number sequence can be validated as meeting the right time and place. That on fact is why most of the birthers hold on to the claim that seems to be supported by his own books that Obama personally authored. It really is that simple.
If you claimed to have won the state lottery, you would be expected to allow the state to view the serial number of the winning ticket so they can validate it. Yet with Obama, this little thing seems to be problematic for him.
First, thanks for the link to the story, I haven't seen it until now. Second, as I already pointed out, Hawking himself admitted to getting help from foundations where the NHS let him down on his own website. The article attempts to gloss over their mistake, but as the NICE recommendations released last year stated, the UK shouldn't' spend more then 49k or so on extending anyone's life for a year. Regardless of what you think, that is a recommendation panel organized by your government giving advice to your government and if implemented, along with the refusal to treat for outside coverage (meaning the rule that if you purposely seek private medical treatment, the NHS will not treat you for that condition again), there is a good chance Hawking wouldn't have survived.
If you pay attention to most of the health care debate, it isn't the health care that is objectionable, it's the way it's attempting to be implemented that is. If we are starting from scratch, we should be able to honestly look at the failures in other systems and not incorporate them into ours. I'm not sure why you think that is dishonest and are dwelling on the mistake of the place someone lives instead of the reality of if it happened today and under today's rules, the outcome would be different. It's not a pointless and irresponsible jab at Obama, it constructive concern and criticism even if a fact was in error.
He doesn't need to release another document, he simply needs to release the document in it's entirety. As for the dual citizenship, there i
Your ignorance and misinformation does not make something a lie. All it does is illistrate my point about the same zealotry. It is however nice that you skipped over the parts in which you seem to think is accurate. That means there is some hope for you yet.
Lol.. My oh my, do you only listen to what you think you hear or what you want to hear? As I already pointed out with the canine discussion that the fossil records are interpreted and are not always reflective of what is real. Missing link animals have not been predicted and found, to date we do not have any missing link fossils on record. We do however have transitional fossils on record but nothing outside of theory connects them as separate species. Hence the conversation about the canines.
Now for alternative theories, I guess the very valid and scientific panspermia theory is not acceptable to you because that required life being magically planted on earth. Of course there is the tried and true Bubble Theory of evolution which negates the punctuated equilibrium theory as a means of speciation in the strictest sense. There are recent well versed scientific theories that counter the present punctuated equilibrium or vertical evolutionary theory with more mathematically sound postulations like horizontal evolution and such. The problem is that unless it is completely observed in action, neither can be more then a postulated interpretation of evidence found. That BTW, is what I was saying.
There is not blind spot at all, As I said, the government cannot make a claim one way or another about any constitutionally protected religion. People in the government can make claims about their own faith or lack of but they must be clear in that it is their position and not any government's position. s for banning women and chickens, your reaching really hard but still failing to grasp anything substantial. The reason creation is in question is because it is where a specific conflict is being presented by the people teaching the programs as well as represented by the majority of the population. If the majority of the population thought chickens were evil, you could probably see bans on chickens in government run organizations. This is what has happened with smoking, not government building that I'm aware of allows smoking inside it and most states have banned smoking inside buildings that are open to the public or have employees. DO not confuse something that is so easily refuted with how you want things to be.
I'm confused here, are you claiming that the role of the government run education system it to strike down religion or something? I presented a simple way top compartmentalize the issue a
I never said the birthers were right, I said if they are right. You do not know if they are or are not correct in their claims as the only verifiable evidence that would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt is being withheld by Obama and the State of Hawaii. And no, the lack of action by one group of people would not mean something is either right or wrong. People and groups of people pick the battles they want to fight based on their own terms and not looking like a bunch of conspiracy theorist may be a desirable goal for the GOP. There even was a court case that the supreme court refused to hear because the plaintiff couldn't show standing. So the question is still there, the answers are still hidden behind people who have some sort of vested interest in Obama being president, and as of right now, the only documents that could set this straight once and for all is being hidden from the public for some unknown reason. And no, his birth certificate wouldn't show anything that isn't already public knowledge as expressed by Obama or his campaign so hiding it does lend the appearance of something being wrong with it.
Actually, I do not believe the GOP is involved with it one way or another. I'm not sure why you think they have the power to allow or disallow anything that a separate group of people are taking issue with. Do you have copies of the memo where the GOP is controlling these parties or something? Judging from your previous statement, I doubt it. This is because you claimed the GOP would be all over it if it were true and then attempted to claim that the GOP was somehow in control of it and allowing it. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me, how is it proof of inaccuracy because the GOP is not all over it yet you seem to think they are all over it because they have control over the birthers making the claim by being able to allow or disallow the claims?
And you know that from what? BTW, in the American system, you are not required to provide documentation of eligibility to run for and accept office. You have to swear or state that you are eligible but you are not required to provide proof. This is why Obama has not showed proof outside of altered documents or vaguely worded news paper clippings. And by altered documents, I mean documents with serial numbers and other marking of legitimacy being removed and hidden from inspection. So yes, it is possible that someone not qualified could campaign, be elected, and be seated as president or in any other elected office in the land.
If you asked me if it happened, I would say I do not know, but I would add that the one person who could put this to rest once and for all is refusing to do so for whatever reason and it has went so far as the state of hawaii sealing his birth certificate so no one could ever view it in it's original and legitimate form. If you think he is so legitimate, could you please explain why that is and why he refuses to show it? The birth certificate wouldn't show anything that isn't already public knowledge except a serial num
As an outsider who knows enough about tax laws, I can probably guess to the reasoning you are at a loss with.
There are two simple things abound here. One is the fact that Washington cannot really tax an entity based on business practices outside the state. The constitution forbids it unless congress agrees to allow it. MS's Nevada corps and hiding profits there are technical legal within the strictest legal sense of the law even if they are morally shady at best. If Washington goes after MS with a 2.8 billion dollar deficit, they are likely to be seeing close to that spent on legal fees between the two with MS taking it to federal courts (outside the scope of Washington State because the federal government has jurisdiction between the states) and appeals after appeals with Washington State likely losing.
The second part might be an additional potential loss of revenue for the state if MS becomes angered and responds by moving a significant portion of it's operation outside of the state to coincide within the new laws. That might mean that all of the MS sales within the state could be conducted outside the state and the only thing that could be collected is sales tax instead of an income tax on the profits. Technically, in states with income taxes, only the portion of income created from activities within the state are taxable to that state. If MS moves all of their in state licensing to Nevada, then it's possible that Washington State would miss out on all the new tax revenue they think they will be getting.
It's sad when government is in a weak bargaining position against a gigantic corporation, but I think that some in government are attempting to correct that instead of making it worse by this move with it's protections. It should guarantee that the state receives some funding from MS in addition to what it already has without making things worse for them. Further more, after the state is solvent again, it would be free to pursue any claims on the Nevada profits before the law granted the break. The only claims of (ex) post facto would be while the law was in place and the activity was permissive. Anything before or after the law being in place would be fair game if the law changed.
You're stretching it a bit here. There are lots of areas of science that is hypothetical, unmeasurable, non-observable, or repeatable. Coincidentally, some of these areas cover the same areas in which science and religion often conflict. Evolution for instance, is only observable in the minor detail and has never been observed in the way necessary for species to branch off into other species without changing or ignoring certain definitions. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying evolutionary theory is wrong or anything, it just requires a certain amount of faith in that what others are guessing at is the correct answer.
There was a discussion some time ago on what if there was no dogs alive right now and all we had was the fossil records. The conclusion was that we would classify breeds of the same species as a separate species altogether and in some cases classify the same breeds as different species altogether based around the difference in appearances. This sort of highlights the complexity of taxonomy and shows how much faith we have placed in science within this area.
I think you're forgetting that in America, we have the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. This means that no government organization, which a school science class is, can tell any student who is required and compelled by law to attend, that their religion is real of fake. You especially cannot do it on guesses based around circumstantial evidence that could change at any time. Now as for strict science, sure, I agree. Science and religion shouldn't be mixed unless consent of the student is given before hand. But to counter a statement, one either needs to be abolished or something else needs to be allowed. And no, the theory of evolution, in which places come in conflict with most religions, is not testable, not provable, not observable and not falsifiable in any different way then the religion is or isn't.
Of course this doesn't mean that going to church required someone to ignore "facts" they just learned either. In residential wiring, a red wire is a switched hot source where a black wire is a constant hot source. In DC wiring, Red is commonly denoting a constant hot source and Black is a ground or the equivalent of a neutral which is white in AC wiring. Someone doesn't lose the information they gained when going from one standard to any other. They simply apply what they know to the areas that require it. It's foolish to think that you would "empty your head of the facts you just learned" when going from one thing to another. Especially in this day and age when people often own and drive standard and automatic transmission cars without forgetting how to drive the other or play video games with different control inputs without forgetting how to play the other game. I mean you do not get completely confused when going from playing a Game on the Xbox verses a game on a Play Station or computer do you? Again, I think you reaching and stretching things a bit.
Oh, It was supposed to be a joke, was it? Well, it wasn't a very funny one and it seemed as if the real joke was someone not being able to tell the difference between citizens of a state and citizens of a county or a natural citizen as required by the constitution.
Well, it what he has to do and what he does is two separate things. He does have to prove that he is eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States which may well mean that he needs to show the records. Anyways, it does seem as if the foreigners like Obama more then the American citizens do so it's probably true.
I thought you claimed that you understood the issues of the birthers? I guess maybe you do not. I'm not a birther but I do question why the records are so clouded and why Obama is purposely attempting to hide the few records that would prove his legitimacy without exposing anything that isn't already public knowledge. Anyways, according to the birthers, certain items on the documents made available to the public are purposely covered up like the birth certificate serial number which the birthers claim is because the number wouldn't match the time line claimed and would show he wasn't on US soil when born. Other issues seem to support that assertion like a time line outlined by his own books making it unlikely he was born in Hawaii and so on.
Now, I know you are claiming to be British and don't care, however, you might want to reconsider how much you care if the birthers are actually right. That would mean that all the laws Obama signs, all the treaties he negotiates, all the programs he puts in place, and all the international cooperation would become null and void because he wouldn't have had the legitimate power to construe and complete them. While this would mostly effect the American population, it would also impact any international affairs he participated in. His replacement could simply redo everything he has already done but that might not be possible if the replacement doesn't agree with his positions or if the congress has changed significantly enough to make it unlikely to happen. This might not effect you specifically, but getting an Angy republican as his replacement or a different congress might upset any agreements made in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq or a number of other things that could impact your country.
Whatever gave you that idea? Refutation comes more or less from opposition. Do you ask people who appose something what religion they are? Not to many people do and unless they are looking for some sort of fame, not to many people would dignify that question with a response. I'm not sure why Atheist seem to think that they should know everyone else' personal beliefs or why they think that whatever is in their head is the absolute truth but you need to relax a little and reexamine reality a little.
The macro verses micro came about from the distinct fact that evolution as in adaptation within the species (micro) is well supported in the bibles and is thought to have been necessary in many religions where creation dictates that speciation (macro) did not occur, at least it didn't with certain animals and humans.
There is also the problems with Micro evolution being the only thing directly observed or witnessed in nature without changing or altering definitions in order to make Macro evolution plausible in direct observations.
I don't think it's about a theocracy or marrying religion with the state. But the concept is sort of complicated as in science is sometimes taught to directly contradict religion which is why balance is seemingly wanted.
It would be a different story if evolution was taught as just a theory pertaining to science's explanation of the known world, but it's not and as we will probably see in response to this post or other posts within these threads, it's taught as the absolute undying fact of life which makes your religion some fairy tale or superstition. Now in a country that allows the freedom of religion and forbids the government from imposing a religion or forbidding one, there does come an issue of balance when you have a government institution telling people god is make believe and your stupid for believing in one.
Some people are so wrapped up in the concept of evolution or (which is one of the few places the bible comes into conflict with science), that they won't even allow a scientific debate on the accuracy of the current model of evolution. There has been some work noting a different mechanism for evolution and a different model then a world tree branching from one type of life into all we know today. The Bubble theory of evolution is one, then there is a another that IDers seem to latch on to which indicates the graphical representation should be more like blades of grass with branches moving from them then a single tree of life. Of course since IDers have latched onto this, most all atheist dismiss it out of hand even though it could completely be explained away scientifically and without any presence of a god or gods.
Your forgeting that the president is only sworn to the best of his ability.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I think your thinking of change and living in a different context. The words living document is generally seen as whoever in power can interpret it to their benefit at the time without making changes through the constitutionally appropriate amendment process. This means that in cases like Roe V Wade, the right to privacy which forbids the government from denying all abortions or dictating the health service provided to a person is either read into or out of the constitution depending on the people presently interpreting it.
The idea of a living document doesn't mean that it can be changed with enough consent of the governed parties, it's that words like "arms" or "right" or "the people" or "interstate commerce" can be interpreted to include or exclude certain values in which was not originally intended as pointed out by dictionary or literature references used at the time of the writing. This living status allows people to reinterpret the constitution or the rights of the people and states it protects without going through the amendment process as outlined in the constitution.
In short, we are basically saying the same thing except you seem to be using the literal definition of the idea of living document in which it conflicts with the modern use in society today and since the 1930's with the New Deal which incorporated the concept of reinterpretation in order to make unconstitutional programs allowable.
That's sort of misleading. What you pay for your house is what costs is necessary to release the previous owners claim to title over it. The interest rates and all are a cost of you not having enough capitol to make the purchase outright and isn't the purchase price of the house. In short, it's the purchase price of the loan to buy the house which is totally separate.
The same can be said about some claims in science as well. Certain claims can't be tested, they can be validated by evidence but without the aid of a time machine, abiogeneses, evolution, the big bang theory and so on can't really be tested and because all the evidence is interpreted facts about something that is no more or something that was different, then out interpretation can be just as skewed as any other theory or thing that is not science. Just ask someone what came before the big bang, you will either get an answer that boils down to something was just there, magically energy was introduced, and poof, here we are attempting to understand it because that something turned into a mud puddle somewhere on this planet and the energy adapted itself to a lightning bolt with no help from anything else but whatever was just there and the magic energy that just happened.
Sure, you might get some more answers to avoid this problem but it all boils down to something somehow just being and energy just happening.
You do understand that there are scientific theory in alternate to the current theory of evolution right? There are lots of scientific evidence pointing towards it too.
The problem is seems isn't that science isn't being taught, it's that it's only a certain version of science is being taught and with that, all the benefits of critical thinking that science should instill in people are missing.
Perhaps you should attempt to understand the issue the birthers have instead of showing your ignorance of such things so profoundly in public.
The problem the birthers have is that according to the constitution, to be president, you have to be a natural born citizen as the requirements of the constitution spell out. No one is saying Obama isn't a citizen as in how the citizenship laws dictate but that he is not a natural citizen which makes him constitutionally unqualified to hold the office of the President of the United State of America.
The Idea that someone could claim citizenship in more then one state is completely pointless to the issue posed by the birthers because in either case, they would still be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Now, the entire issue of the birthers would completely disappear if Obama would just open and release his Birth certificate record which to this day he is refusing to do without something added or changed to keep the birther conspiracy alive. He is probably doing it just to win the hearts and minds if idiots just like you but we wouldn't know for sure without seeing the real birth records in it's entirety or an admission from Obama himself.
IS it actually over throwing the government if you are using the system to change the government?
Our system is set up so that it can be changed when needed. I'm not sure how anyone can think that using the system and working within the law and scope of the system is overthrowing anything. Now a violent take over or ignoring laws and constitutional provisions would be an overthrow but not working within the laws already in place.
Your fears seem to be simply that, nothing more then fear.
Regardless of who is right or wrong here, I think we are missing the point of consumer protection that is more appropriate to the situation. Any ISP sells the internet to the consumer, generally they do not sell just part of the internet service or their own special internet service (AOL excepted).
What this boils down to is that if the ISP filters something, sure, it's a free speech issue and possibly a content liability issue, but most of all, it's the consumer not getting what they paid for issue. If I purchase internet service, I expect to have all ports available and all IPs or domains available. The idea that the ISP can represent one thing and deliver another is something that has been core to several consumer protection laws (state, local and federal) since the Sherman anti trust ordeal. So aside from speech rights, aside from common carrier status, it really becomes an issue of the customer getting what they paid for in the first place.
The second amendment wasn't just for a revolution. It was to be prepared for an invasion and to protect yourself and family and to assist in maintaining order and lawful activities. If you look at the second amendment, you see that it's preceded with "a well regulated militia" as a perfunctory statement before any rights are discussed. This well regulated does not mean neat and tidy uniforms and everyone marching and drilling in lockstep for a parade while getting ready to behead the president and congress, well regulated means capable of using the weapon they are keeping with deliberate accuracy. In other words a good shot.
The very next portion is militia, originally the term militia wasn't just a now defunct revolutionary army. The militia was a group of citizens called into duty for a common purpose benefiting the community. This purpose could be to maintain the peace amongst criminal gangs taking over or rendering opposition to invading forces, or to protecting yourself, your family, neighbors and so on from unnecessary harm caused by other. The biggest fear when the second amendment was passed was that a tyrant or agent of a foreign power would infiltrate the government and then could de-arm Americans which would allow the foreign power to walk in and take over with little resistance or to pass oppressive laws or unconstitutional amendment (and yes, there can be unconstitutional amendments passed to amend the constitution). That is why it was necessary for a free state to have. Basically, over the last 100 years or so, we have stopped being a collection of "united" states and turned the federal government into a feudal overlord. The feds were originally and still constitutionally supposed to have a limited amount of power that was directed to them by the Constitution and whatever amendments that states enacted to give up or concede rule over.
As someone who has obviously thought and studied this more then you, I think you need to do some googling on the meaning of "your rights", the second amendment, and how bearing arms comes into play. The second amendment isn't just about guns either.
I wonder if entering shutdown -a in the run dialog box would halt the shut down process like it does when the lass or whatever process it was causes when it's killed.
There was some nasty spyware/malware crap that would look for some system processes and attach to them so when your removal tools attempted to kill them to remove the infection, the machine would reboot before the cleaning could be accomplished. To avoid this shutdown, you would have to enter "shutdown -a" in the run dialog box when it gave you the warning that it was shutting down.
But what NASA did in the 60's isn't considered safe in today's terms. In fact, what is considered safe in today's terms is derived from a lot of the failures of NASA in the past. It's also part of the reasons why NASA is having such difficulty going back to the moon today.
Although I do agree with your sentiment on collaborating without any pirated software. Maybe this is just a call to the OSS community to step up once again. They have filled various needs in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
In the beginning they might pay it as there seems to be a lot of researchers who have moon rocks on their wish list and a bunch of rich people with too much money wanting some sort of bragging rights.
However, there will come a time when they are too common and the value will drop. Then again, a lot of moon rocks aren't exactly moon rocks either, they are/can be meteorites that struck the moon which makes them foreign to it. That poses an interesting concept for study because you would be able to study meteors that weren't exposed to insane amounts of heat/friction while entering an atmosphere. The possibilities of signs of organic life increases as well as the ability to study natural formations without alterations as we are exposed to with meteorites on earth. There might still be a niche market for them depending on exactly how much is brought back.
Just wait until one of these things escapes and the terrorist band together with free nations to make them extinct again because they are attacking all the jumbo jets and the terrorist are on unemployment now.
Well, actually, he has a point. It would be more conservative to reduce spending to control living within your means then to take from other productive citizens to achieve the same goals. Granted this wouldn't always be possible but it's not very fiscally conservative if your recklessly spending your income either.
Balancing your budget by limiting spending would be more conservative if it's possible. It won't always be possible but the US government does a lot of spending outside it's constitutional allowed/allotted areas which could could be cut in order to avoid raising taxes.
Humans also have the ability of cognitive reasoning and this allows us to control our actions and urges and society expects us to do so. There are other options if Celibacy restrains someone to the point they can't fight urges, one of which is to leave the priesthood or completely ignore the celibacy with themselves or a consenting adult in secret.
You know, I'm almost tempted to go to an area which is just as reprehensible as molesting children and teenagers. This are would be rape, you seem to be thinking that women not wanting to screw a certain person is why the person decided to rape a women. It's all of their faults then right? Of course not and I don't suspect you were attempting to say that. But the same logic of requiring celibacy stands here if we are to believe you. If no woman will screw a guy, then his urges build up until he rapes one of them, so it's all the women who wouldn't give him some fault.
You mention that the Greek Orthodox doesn't have this problem. Have you ever googled that info?
The roman Catholic church has more mid level management in one country then Toyota probably does world wide. I forget the structure but in a large city, you can have two or three people that oversee the churches in those cities before getting to someone that oversees more then the city (like the state or territory or whatever).
While I'm sure that someone might screw something up at some point in time, I do not see it as a problem seeing how they are all managed. It's more like a corporation in that rules will be in place, warnings about what not to do (like a password of "God" or "Jesus" or "Mary" or something). The tech savy people will already probably be doing this stuff, those who aren't, will most likely look for instruction or direction from higher up the chain. I'm confident that policies and access and all that will be taken care of for these people. It's just how organized the catholic church is.
As for selling faith verses a product, I see your point but I don't see it as a problem. The issues will be so far and in between that when they are pointed out and ridiculed, it will appear much like elitists evangelical atheist bashing once again and most no one will pay attention except for those already of the belief. Let me demonstrate what I mean here. Most atheist move into a conversation about religion with, isn't it more logical or probable that this happened or that this doesn't exist seeing how there is no proof. Then as soon as someone mentions the bible or some personal experience or something else that probably could be explained away relatively easily, the atheist jumps to attempts at insulting the person by calling them ignorant, stupid, or referring to their deity as fairy-tales and so on. That never hurts anyone's beliefs as it's just seen as the wicked attempting to corrupt- something already foretold in the bible and church teachings. The problems if any, will be totally ignored as soon as it becomes ridiculed by anyone with any faith. in fact, it might even increase people's faith who are borderline because of how childish it seems. Putting people down because they didn't something stupid is so third grade and bullyish that people end up rooting for the little guy to punch the bully out. SO in the end, it will only end up being cheerleaders rooting for the home team with outsiders ignoring it and the visiting team rallying behind their players. It's not going to be a wide spread problem and most likely not a problem at all.