It can't - unless that "film" is capable of more than 2 angles and a webcam is tracking the position of your head. You'd have to position your head such that the cutoff point between images is between your eyes. (There's some indication in the article that it might just be crummy 3D which opens up possibilities for slightly wider viewing angles.)
The general public, and most of the politicians believe that it is only a small section of society that is against censorship.
Are you talking about this censorship or about censorship in general? If in general, I think you'll find feelings opposing censorship to vary widely by local and be proportional to functioning democracy (In general).
Besides, you seem to be talking in circular logic here. The general public believes that only a small fraction of itself is against censorship? What kind of argument is that? Was there some weird meta-poll? (pollsters sometimes use weird circular questions like this...) It still says nothing about what the general public thinks about censorship, only what members of the general public believe that others think about censorship. (a very important distinction.)
Now you're just being silly. You're taking one passage from a chapter that clearly uses death as an analogy for sin (extensively) and suggesting that if it's allegorical in one passage, it must be allegorical throughout the book (library of books, actually). So sin was brought into the world through Adam. Your point is?
Strawman argument. Organizations were not taxed at the time. Individuals were. And praying for our secular leaders does not mean that we must agree with all the laws and policies that are in place.
(I'm not going to side in the "tax exemption" debate. I just hate it when people tell me what I believe. I'm sure others do to.)
And the people wanting separation of church and state are not "Christian enemies." It is this siege mentality that keeps the fundamentalists afraid to venture outside the flock, and engenders such divisive language.
There's some insight here. Christianity has it's enemies (Slashdot is mild by comparison). The "siege mentality" is a defensive measure that has built up over time. It is sometimes overblown (particularly among certain fundamentalists) which causes jumping at shadows when separation of church and state come up.
Just don't think for a moment that the religious side of this "war" is the only one that tries to change law and leverage the government.
You assume the "long day" theory includes evolution of man. A great many Christians draw a distinction between evolution of man and evolution of other life on Earth.
The major bullet point I took from the "philosophy of science" class is that nobody quite agrees on what science is. It's a search for truth that includes conjecture, hypothesis, testing, and observation. Beyond that, definitions vary wildly.
The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals.
Children grow up with preconceived notions. School leaders try to impress their values on the children in their care. This happens everywhere. The socialists, the group-responsibility, and the teach-to-the-lowest-denominator-so-no-child-can-fail groups have been at work in California for some time. Texas isn't the only state that "leads" in education, so I'm told.
Newton would have been branded a heretic, but only because he had non-mainstream beliefs about the trinity. He was deeply religious. (I thought it was in a Nova program on Hulu, but I can't find it now.)
The "good for you" argument started with an oft-quoted study on wine. It turns out that the health benefits identified came from the grape juice, not the alcohol. Of course, we never hear about that. (There's not nearly as much money to be made in juice.) There is a point where the grape in the wine seems more beneficial than the alcohol is harmful. (Better for the heart, extra work for the liver...) Hence their argument and "results".
Now it sounds like you're referring to another study, but you don't describe any methodology, results, or cite a reference. Thus, I simply don't buy it. I will keep my eyes open for whatever-it-is that you're talking about. In response to your painted scenario, I'd say we're designed to handle small quantities. That doesn't make it beneficial.
The alcohol and tobacco industries are very similar. They both make a profit from hurting people. Neither sincerely care. (Both claim to care.) Both have promoted "scientific studies" showing health benefits.
... If the mere fact of registration could be used as evidence then there would be an automatic excuse for not doing it, and the law would be unenforceable.
Mere semantics. Once you've said or written something, an argument can be made that you've voluntarily waived your 5th amendment rights. Sometimes a good lawyer can recover from that. Typically it'll stick. IANAL
Interesting. So, something akin to school vouchers was struck down as unconstitutional because only Roman Catholic schools took advantage of it? You seriously don't see the problem with that logic? (I'm in favor of school vouchers, so please excuse my angst on the topic.)
Now I agree with the principles of the Lemon test, but I don't think it was applied correctly, even in that case. (unless there are details that would change my mind, but your post and Wikipedia don't contain such.)
That said, the Lemon test cannot be derived from the text of the Constitution, and may be fleeting. It's only been around for four decades. I think it goes further than the framers intended. (Legislating from the bench, even if it's good and proper, is still legislating from the bench.)
I hope things have changed since I last looked at this. I know there were people working on the problem.
File a bug report. They work for me every day.
Oh, there were already bug reports. The problem came down to the Xorg architecture and how it dealt with screens. The problem was caused somehow when Xrandr was introduced. Apparently, there were proposals on how to fix it, but there was no sign that anything was actually being done. (which doesn't mean that there wasn't, or that nothing has happened since.)
Do you mean to tell me that you have Xinerama (or Xrandr) running across multiple distinct video cards? On a moderately current Xorg installation? That would be cheery news.
"Legal tradition" does not imply unconstitutional. Sunday Alcohol bans sound pretty dumb, but aren't unconstitutional. (Of course, I think alcohol itself is pretty dumb, but that's just me.)
Slashdot Mirror
It can't - unless that "film" is capable of more than 2 angles and a webcam is tracking the position of your head. You'd have to position your head such that the cutoff point between images is between your eyes. (There's some indication in the article that it might just be crummy 3D which opens up possibilities for slightly wider viewing angles.)
Anybody with greater insight (or "in the know")?
I could be confused - but is "protestors" a word?
Random House seems to think that it is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/protestor. (as an alternate spelling; yeah, caught me offguard too.)
The general public, and most of the politicians believe that it is only a small section of society that is against censorship.
Are you talking about this censorship or about censorship in general? If in general, I think you'll find feelings opposing censorship to vary widely by local and be proportional to functioning democracy (In general).
Besides, you seem to be talking in circular logic here. The general public believes that only a small fraction of itself is against censorship? What kind of argument is that? Was there some weird meta-poll? (pollsters sometimes use weird circular questions like this...) It still says nothing about what the general public thinks about censorship, only what members of the general public believe that others think about censorship. (a very important distinction.)
How about all those students protesting against the Iraq war in the USA...? Was that a "left-right" issue.
Yeah. No duh?
I can't speak to your other examples, but I'm guessing you can't either.
There won't be a partition table with his suggestion. The boot sector set aside by the filesystem will be the very first sector of the disk.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, plain and simple. And I haven't ran into anyone with half a brain who would disagree with that.
Are you implying that I am? If so, then I could give you a lesson in semantics...
(Before replying, ask yourself what the differences are between truth, facts, and knowledge in context of the previous three posts.)
Now you're just being silly. You're taking one passage from a chapter that clearly uses death as an analogy for sin (extensively) and suggesting that if it's allegorical in one passage, it must be allegorical throughout the book (library of books, actually). So sin was brought into the world through Adam. Your point is?
Strawman argument. Organizations were not taxed at the time. Individuals were. And praying for our secular leaders does not mean that we must agree with all the laws and policies that are in place.
(I'm not going to side in the "tax exemption" debate. I just hate it when people tell me what I believe. I'm sure others do to.)
And the people wanting separation of church and state are not "Christian enemies." It is this siege mentality that keeps the fundamentalists afraid to venture outside the flock, and engenders such divisive language.
There's some insight here. Christianity has it's enemies (Slashdot is mild by comparison). The "siege mentality" is a defensive measure that has built up over time. It is sometimes overblown (particularly among certain fundamentalists) which causes jumping at shadows when separation of church and state come up.
Just don't think for a moment that the religious side of this "war" is the only one that tries to change law and leverage the government.
You assume the "long day" theory includes evolution of man. A great many Christians draw a distinction between evolution of man and evolution of other life on Earth.
Science grew out of philosophy.
The major bullet point I took from the "philosophy of science" class is that nobody quite agrees on what science is. It's a search for truth that includes conjecture, hypothesis, testing, and observation. Beyond that, definitions vary wildly.
The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals.
Children grow up with preconceived notions. School leaders try to impress their values on the children in their care. This happens everywhere. The socialists, the group-responsibility, and the teach-to-the-lowest-denominator-so-no-child-can-fail groups have been at work in California for some time. Texas isn't the only state that "leads" in education, so I'm told.
Newton would have been branded a heretic, but only because he had non-mainstream beliefs about the trinity. He was deeply religious. (I thought it was in a Nova program on Hulu, but I can't find it now.)
Liquid bread? I guess it makes sense (historically). All these years and we still have trouble finding healthy preservatives!
Bush 2.0? Ok, maybe, but only because the other proposed "feature set" wasn't selected. We were going to have a 4 year circus one way or the other.
The "good for you" argument started with an oft-quoted study on wine. It turns out that the health benefits identified came from the grape juice, not the alcohol. Of course, we never hear about that. (There's not nearly as much money to be made in juice.) There is a point where the grape in the wine seems more beneficial than the alcohol is harmful. (Better for the heart, extra work for the liver...) Hence their argument and "results".
Now it sounds like you're referring to another study, but you don't describe any methodology, results, or cite a reference. Thus, I simply don't buy it. I will keep my eyes open for whatever-it-is that you're talking about. In response to your painted scenario, I'd say we're designed to handle small quantities. That doesn't make it beneficial.
The alcohol and tobacco industries are very similar. They both make a profit from hurting people. Neither sincerely care. (Both claim to care.) Both have promoted "scientific studies" showing health benefits.
... If the mere fact of registration could be used as evidence then there would be an automatic excuse for not doing it, and the law would be unenforceable.
Now you're catching on.
Mere semantics. Once you've said or written something, an argument can be made that you've voluntarily waived your 5th amendment rights. Sometimes a good lawyer can recover from that. Typically it'll stick. IANAL
Interesting. So, something akin to school vouchers was struck down as unconstitutional because only Roman Catholic schools took advantage of it? You seriously don't see the problem with that logic? (I'm in favor of school vouchers, so please excuse my angst on the topic.)
Now I agree with the principles of the Lemon test, but I don't think it was applied correctly, even in that case. (unless there are details that would change my mind, but your post and Wikipedia don't contain such.)
That said, the Lemon test cannot be derived from the text of the Constitution, and may be fleeting. It's only been around for four decades. I think it goes further than the framers intended. (Legislating from the bench, even if it's good and proper, is still legislating from the bench.)
I hope things have changed since I last looked at this. I know there were people working on the problem.
File a bug report. They work for me every day.
Oh, there were already bug reports. The problem came down to the Xorg architecture and how it dealt with screens. The problem was caused somehow when Xrandr was introduced. Apparently, there were proposals on how to fix it, but there was no sign that anything was actually being done. (which doesn't mean that there wasn't, or that nothing has happened since.)
Do you mean to tell me that you have Xinerama (or Xrandr) running across multiple distinct video cards? On a moderately current Xorg installation? That would be cheery news.
You're still ignoring the definition of "established religion". (Check the second link)
The anti-establishment clause is about freedom to worship. How does this law impinge on your freedom of worship?
... the fact of registration could not be used as evidence against you...
Uh huh. Right. If you volunteer the information, you'd better believe it'll wind up in court as evidence.
And which religion do you suggest was being established?
(Note: Christianity isn't a religion. It's a large set of religions.)
Context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
I'm on the West Coast. I'm just playing devils advocate here.
I thought so too. Granted, the main point I intended to make was the citation. (Based on the obvious need...)
"Legal tradition" does not imply unconstitutional. Sunday Alcohol bans sound pretty dumb, but aren't unconstitutional. (Of course, I think alcohol itself is pretty dumb, but that's just me.)
That would be ex post facto. Though I guess the law is already unconstitutional...