We have advanced far enough to have fairly consistently removed the threat "natural" selectors, e.g. lions and tigers and bears, but this simply means that other factors will have an increasingly important impact on our continuing evolution.
Factors like falling houses and flying monkeys perhaps?
Well, I would start by arguing that the fact that America has various technologies is EXACTLY what is intended in an unregulated market. Each company is free to go its own way, and the best technology for the money comes out on top.
One of my (probably scattered) points was that, while this is indeed supposed to be true, this doesn't really happen most of the time. I don't know all that much about cell phone technology, but it's entirely possible that there is one technology that is clearly superior to the others. If it's more or less a wash, then the economies of scale etc would seem to make it insanely more expensive to do it the way we do.
America: calling to a cellphone is free. Europe: calling to a cellphone costs from $0.25 to $0.45/min.
But at least in England, if somebody calls you on your cell phone, you don't pay.
Contrast that with the US where ( assuming you have free local calling and the call is local) if you call somebody on their cell from home, they pay. If you call cell to cell, you both pay. That's probably more of a 6 of one kind of thing though.
Are you sure about those prices in England though? I was there in 2001 and my wife bought a prepaid card for her old phone that she hadn't used since she last lived there years before. It worked out to somewhere around 60 minutes for 20 pounds if I remember correctly.
I'm really curious why both you and the parent think that the cell market in the US is any good.
Certainly there are many different players which looks good. I'm in Chicago, and Verizon is ranked number one in satisfaction here. I've been with them for 2 years and I can't stand their service. I've never stayed with one provider past one contract, and nobody I know ever has either. In every case I know of (only several friends admittedly) they are all trying to find a service that isn't complete crap.
So my current contract is up, and I'm checking out my options, and what I am faced with is a huge variety of tradeoffs without any really good choices:
I like that phone and it's features, oh but I can't use that phone unless I have this particular provider. Ok, I picked a phone and a provider I like, so how much is it? WTF?!? I have to guess how much I'll use it, pay for it whether I use it or not and get fucked hard if I guessed wrong?!?
There is an illusion of real choice, but it's only a choice in how you want to get fucked.
I mean honestly, where is the benefit in having multiple technologies when that has essentially zero basis on how the competition plays out? Does it do anything but make phone service X times as expensive as it would be otherwise where X is the number of competing technologies?
When all players make their money by the same scam of guess how much you'll use it, how does that benefit anybody?
I'm honestly curious what makes you think it's a good thing in this case. It looks to me like a textbook example of one of the few cases where a totally unregulated market is about the worst possible way to go.
For example, it kind of sucks that many humans die each year to starvation. Yet it's true. The sooner we realize that truth, the sooner we can do something about it. Do you like being bothered by people who want to relieve hunger? That knock on your door asking for donations? Even if you are a bit annoyed by them, you can recognize that millions are starving and that you ought to care.
But if eliminating starvation and suffering and all of that was really what they were all about, then they would be actively promoting sex education and birth control since those would actually do a lot more to end those things than what they do. See, the thing is that I do care. When people claim to, yet promote an agenda that can only keep things the same or make them worse as we know through thousands of years of evidence, then I have to seriously question their actual motives.
Now, there are lots of people who believe that they actually are doing good, but they can't even be bothered to think it through. I do feel bad for them, but I feel far worse for those who are being kept down in the interest of promoting the power of those in charge of their church.
That is the reality, regardless of which fantasy you want to subscribe to.
Actually, just the other day I had a Jews For Jesus guy at my door. He was spectacularly crazy.
Did you find out what they're all about? I used to see their fliers up all over campus when I was in college and wondered about that.
Isn't a "Jew for Jesus" basically just a way of describing a Christian? I mean the Jews follow the old testament and the Christians add on the Jesus bit?
I ran into this alot in the election cycle. people equating Bush with Islamic fundamentalists because of his wearing his faith out in the open.
No you didn't, because that never happened.
That has nothing to do with why GW is equated with Islamic fundamentalists. Nobody really cares if the president wears his faith out in the open. Most of them have, in fact. The problem, which is quite obvious to anybody who actually looks honestly at the issue and thinks about it, is that he used his prominence to promote an agenda of hatred which is totally opposed to his stated religious beliefs, to the principles which made this country great, and to the principles that his party claims to support.
If he actually were a Christian, and actually acted in accordance with those principles, then nobody would have drawn that parallel. It's the fact that he promotes a fundamentalist agenda based upon capitalizing on ignorant American's blind hatred of gays to the point of amending our constitution to specifically discriminate against a specific group for the first time in our nation's history that demonstrates absolutely that his principles are much more in line with the Islamic fundamentalists than they are with the principles of freedom that created this nation.
The United States Government has some strong Christians in it, but Christianity isn't nearly as fundamentalist and strictly adhering to the Bible at this point in time as say much of Islam sticks to the Koran.
Christianity isn't, that's true. The bastardization of Christianity that is promoted by Bush and a huge percentage of Americans who describe themselves as Christian is every bit as bad. So your point on that is true, but fails to actually address the issue.
Seriously, if you can't even be bothered to understand that people are drawing these parallels based on the actual facts rather than on some delusional "hatred of Christians" that you just made up for the purposes of your argument, then why bother posting at all?
Theism is faith in the existence of God. Atheism is the *lack of* faith in the existence of God.
There is no faith involved in atheism. It's actually the natural state of man. If you choose at some point to believe in a deity, then you have chosen to start believing in some god or other and hence are no longer an atheist.
A Topologist is a person who can't tell the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground, but can tell the difference between his ass and two holes in the ground.
But textbooks are teaching our children that natural selection can modify features outside established species, that is, create new species. That is a theory, ladies and gentlemen.
Therefore, the best way to present it to young students is *as a theory*. If the student is interested in a deeper understanding let him pursue further study as he/she advances in his academic career.
This is exactly what has happened in the past, what happens now, and what will continue happening in the future provided the fundies do not succeed in shoving their wholely religious beliefs down people's throats at gunpoint. I fail to see where you have an issue since what you say should happen is what is happening.
Intelligent Design is also theory.
Here's the problem. ID is not a theory. Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? Does it add anything at all to the discussion? Does it provide any new answers, or even any new questions?
The answer to all of these questions is absolutely not.
All ID says is that since Evolutionary theory is currently incomplete that therefore, it never will be and therefore god did it. This is not a theory, it is not science. The best any of the proponents of this have done is point out where evolutionary theory is incomplete. That's all well and good, but they don't add anything useful, or even propose another actual theory to explain the facts. All they do is claim that since the theory isn't perfect, that it is crap and we must throw god into it rather than continuing to actually look for answers.
Either teach both theories, or teach only fact and don't teach theory. I personally think the theories are important, so teach them both and let young students have open minds as they seek to better understand life and origins. Teach the theories and the evidences for both, and let the students duke it out with their own minds and (if they choose) with their own academic careers.
Which, hopefully now you understand is a completely ridiculous idea. Evolution is a 100% absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt proven *fact*. Look at dogs, seedless watermelons etc. for absolute proof of this. The Theory of evolution, which is the theory that seeks to explain the hows whys wheres etc. of this well-documented and universally observed fact, is a theory, it is taught as one, and is is the only thing we currently have which does any sort of a job of explaining the facts.
Additionally, teaching the evidence for ID is already done all the time. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. That is the nature of an omnipotent being who chose for whatever reasons to give no evidence of his existence. I'm really sorry that you don't like it, but it is your belief, not mine.
ID, or creationism does nothing of the sort. It doesn't even attempt to. What it does is pretend to in the interest of shoving religious beliefs into an arena where they have no place.
So attempting to give creationism some sort of scientific legitimacy in this manner doesn't teach students anything. It actually does a great deal of harm by blurring the line between scientific methods and logical thinking skills on the one side, and blind faith on the other. The fact is that America got where it is today largely through scientific and technological achievements. Destroying scientific education by replacing it with fairy tales (regardless of whether or not there actually is a god, the only evidence for it is fairy tales, so don't take this as a statement that there is no god) is not good science.
The "religious right" are always accused of having closed minds... but often the left can't see the spec in the rights eye for the plank in their own.
This is certainly true in some circumstances, but not this one. On the one hand you have a theory that does a fairly decent job of explaining the facts while oin the other you have blind faith masquerading as science in the interest of damaging our educational system and thereby causing horrific long-term damage to our nation's ability to compete in the world.
Basically, if you look at most sites they are composed of a few different types of pages. Each page may contain several different sections.
Take/. for example You have the title area, the sections along the side, the slashboxes (assuming that you have them turned on), then the stories.
There are others as well, but that's enough to get the idea.
So, you know how the site looks, what types of data go where, and even what that given type of data should look like on the page.
So in a CMS like Interwoven Teamsite, or Bricolage you can set up a variety of templates.
One type will take the raw content that goes on the page. Usually you'll have an HTML form that the copywriter will put their text in and hit submit. You'll usually have several fields: Title, Tagline, Main body in one or more paragraphs.
So this content is then usually stored in a database.
Continuing with the/. example, when a story ends up on the front page, it is formatted to fit into the story section, if it runs over the max length, then it's cut off. Also, the "Read More" and other links are tacked on. Now, when you click on the read more link, it takes you to a different display of the same information. It has the complete text etc.
Generally, once you have your data stored, you can have any number of templates which define how that data will be presented. Your CMS can then generate all of these different HTML pages, or fragments of pages depending on how you set it up.
Now, most CMS's I'm familiar with include workflow capability as well.
So say you work at a newspaper. You are submitting a story for the sports section. So you click on your "New Sports Story" link in the CMS. It will present you with the appropriate form that you put your story into. Title, headline, paragraph, paragraph, etc as well as attaching any images that the template supports.
Once you hit submit (or preview), the actual HTML pages can be generated, but also, it will go through an approval process before it can go live.
So you submit your story, and it goes to the sports editor who has some issues. He enters his comments and sends it back to you. You resubmit, he approves it, and it goes to another editor who gets to give the final approval.
At this point, it might be updated directly to the live site.
Alternatively, you might be able to set it to roll out at a pecific date and time etc.
You can also have straight static HTML pages generated or generate the fragments and have your Web Application build pages dynamically based on who is looking at the page etc.
There is really quite a lot of customizability possible. I've used Interwoven and Bricolage mostly, and they are both really powerful once you start getting the m figured out.
Well, I think what happened was that we were arguing different ideas.
...if you're generalizing that belief to me or to self-professed Christians that I know who believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral then you are wrong.
Believe what you will. I have no issue with that whatsoever. Find anything as moral or immoral as you like, and more power to you.
My issue is with those who actively work to shove their idea of morality down my throat at gunpoint.
If that's not you, then I don't think I've said anything negative about you.
As far as Chris Kempler goes, his views sound pretty scary to allow in a public school funded by some of the very people he seems to despise.
You also didn't address my point. I was simply saying that suspicion of government assurances of nop infringement was reasonable if previous assurances had been quickly forgotten. It may have been quite reasonable to infringe on religious freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact that people will trust future assurances less. Whether breaking the assurance was legitimate, reasonable or just is completely beside the point.
The point is that it is in no way an infringement of any sort of freedom to say that you don't have the right to infringe freedoms. There's no need for any assurance. You do not under any circumstances have those rights. End of story.
And while you did not explicitely state that Christians hate non-Christians and want coerce others to become Christians your post most certainly did imply exactly that.
You can choose to hate non-Christians, and while they could choose to be Christian, you have no right to attempt to coerce them into it.
I in no way implied what you are saying.
The point I made is that you have the right to have your religious beliefs, and to express them.
It just so happens that most of the beliefs that the fundies in America like to express are the ones based in ignorant hatred which go completely against the religion that they claim to believe.
These aren't Christian beliefs, and these aren't Christian people, but they are who are under discussion.
In any discussion you're responsible for the implications of your statements.
True, but you are responsible for your own inferences.
I do not hate non-Christians nor do I wish to force them to become Christians. You implied that I did. You are wrong.
No, I didn't. Are you a sicko wack job who thinks that people should be banned from aspects of society because they are acting in the way god made them and that causes no harm whatsoever to others?
If so, then I am talking about you, I am right, and you are not a Christian.
If not, then I'm not talking about you.
I failed to notice the part of your post where you defended his right to make those statements that you disagreed with
So, where did you notice me trying to have him arrested for saying it.
I was merely exercising my right to point out the simple fact that he is an idiotic ass hat whose ideas are not even worth expressing. I have no interest in preventing him from saying whatever he wants, but I think it's important to point out that what he is saying is utterly insane and completely at odds with what he claims to believe.
I'm surprised that you fail to see the difference.
I'm not so foolish as to try and defend everything anyone calling themselves a Christian says. But I do try to understand where everyone is coming from.
As do I.
The simple fact is that he is coming from a position of pure unadulterated ignorance and hatred.
Don't you think that if there were any other possible explanation that somebody would have mentioned it at some point in the whole gay marriage debate in America? There isn't a single point anybody has made other than "We need to defend the sanctity of marriage". No mention of what is attacking it or how.
It's fairly obvious that Darby doesn't agree with "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".
That is quite obviously not true. I agree with that completely.
Your entire point was that by not allowing you to actively discriminate against a segment of the population for merely being themselves that your religious freedoms are being encroached.
This is completely insane, so I pointed that out.
He also seems to be labouring under the delusion that Christians hate non-Christians and want to coerce them into becoming Christians.
I said neither of these things. What various people who call themselves Christian, but don't have the foggiest idea what it really means are doing is trying to force their repressive ideas down everybody else's throat at gunpoint. This is again, a simple statement of fact.
Your religion is something you chose. Gay is how some people are born.
The fact that the religion you chose has decided to despise your own god's choice in making a certain person a certain way shows that you think you know better than your own god how the world should work.
So, the point is that your freedom to choose to believe certain things is in no way curtailed. The only thing that is happening is that your ability to prevent people from living their lives as your god intended them to has been limited, and rightfully so.
You can choose to hate black people. They can not choose not to be black. You can choose to hate non-Christians, and while they could choose to be Christian, you have no right to attempt to coerce them into it. You have apparently chosen to hate gay people, and they can not choose not to be gay. The best they could do to satisfy your sickening desire to force them into your idea of what a person should be is to not live their lives like people do.
Pull your deranged head out of your ass, realise that you do not have the right to tell people how to live and so preventing you from engaging in you sick fascist desires is *in no way* a curtailment of any of your freedoms.
If you really think it is, then consider that I firmly believe that sick wierdos who want to run other people's lives would be much better people with a bullet hole where their head used to be. You wouldn't want to curtail my religious freedom to *act* upon that belief, would you?
Oh holy crap, you should really go into marketing. Obviously, it wouldn't work for long, but the world would be a funnier place until you got tossed out;-)
I think that your whole problem is with religion. Certainly, if people believed in what these people claim to believe, then they would obviously be in opposition to gay marriage. This would not necessarily mean that they hate gays--in fact the dictates of their religion would forbid that--it might just mean that they have an externally imposed ethical structure.
My problem isn't with religion. If they believed what they claim to believe, then they would be in no way opposed to gay marriage, they would support it. It's the fact that they regularly piss in the face of what they claim to believe that is the actual problem. It's actually also the proof that their opposition is purely based in hatred. They blindly hate gays with such a religious fervor, that they completely disregard that it goes against what they claim to believe to act as they do. Now, that is some fucked up blind, hatred.
I mean you, like everybody (else?) on the anti side has yet to come up with a single other rational explanation for the opposition besides ignorant hatred. Even if the religion they claim to follow stood against it, it is still irrelevant to a civil institution. They didn't invent marriage, and nobody is trying to tell their church what to do. The only thing they hope to prevent is for a person to be allowed hospital visitation rights from their loved ones. That is basically it. That is a product of a severly diseased mind blind with hatred. What other possible explanation could there be?
Since you brought up the issue of the consistency as it pertains to the adherents of religion, I would like to point out that it is infinitely easier to be consistent when one's morality is self-determined than it is when it is externally imposed.
This is arguably true, but wholly irrelevant to anything in the real world. There is no externally imposed morality. Not even in religion, because they just twist it to fit whatever they want. Thou shall not kill?!? Why do most of these jackasses support capital punishemnt then? Why does the catholic church spend so much time and money protecting baby rapers? Seriously, at least act sane.
In any event, I think that your sense of outrage, your arguments and protestations are merely a smokescreen for the fact that you have yet to come to grips with some far more important issues and their implications. You are struggling with the same questions man has always struggled with: is there a God and, if so, what is his/her nature? All of the bluff and bluster does not negate the fact that you are quite unsure about what your response should be to these questions and you are suffering unnecessarily because of it.
You're clearly an insane person.
I expect people to live up to the standards that this country claims to believe in. This means keeping your religion out of my laws. It means letting other people live their lives.
How you switched this around to your fucked up deluded religious beliefs is beyond me though.
Slashdot Mirror
What distribution are you using?
Also which version of ivtv and which X driver?
I'm having a problem getting my pvr-350 working on gentoo.
We have advanced far enough to have fairly consistently removed the threat "natural" selectors, e.g. lions and tigers and bears, but this simply means that other factors will have an increasingly important impact on our continuing evolution.
Factors like falling houses and flying monkeys perhaps?
Now that was brilliant ;-)
/* Drunk. Fix later */
Well, I would start by arguing that the fact that America has various technologies is EXACTLY what is intended in an unregulated market. Each company is free to go its own way, and the best technology for the money comes out on top.
One of my (probably scattered) points was that, while this is indeed supposed to be true, this doesn't really happen most of the time.
I don't know all that much about cell phone technology, but it's entirely possible that there is one technology that is clearly superior to the others. If it's more or less a wash, then the economies of scale etc would seem to make it insanely more expensive to do it the way we do.
America: calling to a cellphone is free.
Europe: calling to a cellphone costs from $0.25 to $0.45/min.
But at least in England, if somebody calls you on your cell phone, you don't pay.
Contrast that with the US where ( assuming you have free local calling and the call is local) if you call somebody on their cell from home, they pay. If you call cell to cell, you both pay.
That's probably more of a 6 of one kind of thing though.
Are you sure about those prices in England though?
I was there in 2001 and my wife bought a prepaid card for her old phone that she hadn't used since she last lived there years before. It worked out to somewhere around 60 minutes for 20 pounds if I remember correctly.
I'm really curious why both you and the parent think that the cell market in the US is any good.
Certainly there are many different players which looks good. I'm in Chicago, and Verizon is ranked number one in satisfaction here. I've been with them for 2 years and I can't stand their service. I've never stayed with one provider past one contract, and nobody I know ever has either. In every case I know of (only several friends admittedly) they are all trying to find a service that isn't complete crap.
So my current contract is up, and I'm checking out my options, and what I am faced with is a huge variety of tradeoffs without any really good choices:
I like that phone and it's features, oh but I can't use that phone unless I have this particular provider. Ok, I picked a phone and a provider I like, so how much is it?
WTF?!? I have to guess how much I'll use it, pay for it whether I use it or not and get fucked hard if I guessed wrong?!?
There is an illusion of real choice, but it's only a choice in how you want to get fucked.
I mean honestly, where is the benefit in having multiple technologies when that has essentially zero basis on how the competition plays out? Does it do anything but make phone service X times as expensive as it would be otherwise where X is the number of competing technologies?
When all players make their money by the same scam of guess how much you'll use it, how does that benefit anybody?
I'm honestly curious what makes you think it's a good thing in this case. It looks to me like a textbook example of one of the few cases where a totally unregulated market is about the worst possible way to go.
For example, it kind of sucks that many humans die each year to starvation. Yet it's true. The sooner we realize that truth, the sooner we can do something about it. Do you like being bothered by people who want to relieve hunger? That knock on your door asking for donations? Even if you are a bit annoyed by them, you can recognize that millions are starving and that you ought to care.
But if eliminating starvation and suffering and all of that was really what they were all about, then they would be actively promoting sex education and birth control since those would actually do a lot more to end those things than what they do.
See, the thing is that I do care. When people claim to, yet promote an agenda that can only keep things the same or make them worse as we know through thousands of years of evidence, then I have to seriously question their actual motives.
Now, there are lots of people who believe that they actually are doing good, but they can't even be bothered to think it through. I do feel bad for them, but I feel far worse for those who are being kept down in the interest of promoting the power of those in charge of their church.
That is the reality, regardless of which fantasy you want to subscribe to.
Actually, just the other day I had a Jews For Jesus guy at my door. He was spectacularly crazy.
Did you find out what they're all about?
I used to see their fliers up all over campus when I was in college and wondered about that.
Isn't a "Jew for Jesus" basically just a way of describing a Christian? I mean the Jews follow the old testament and the Christians add on the Jesus bit?
I ran into this alot in the election cycle. people equating Bush with Islamic fundamentalists because of his wearing his faith out in the open.
No you didn't, because that never happened.
That has nothing to do with why GW is equated with Islamic fundamentalists. Nobody really cares if the president wears his faith out in the open. Most of them have, in fact. The problem, which is quite obvious to anybody who actually looks honestly at the issue and thinks about it, is that he used his prominence to promote an agenda of hatred which is totally opposed to his stated religious beliefs, to the principles which made this country great, and to the principles that his party claims to support.
If he actually were a Christian, and actually acted in accordance with those principles, then nobody would have drawn that parallel.
It's the fact that he promotes a fundamentalist agenda based upon capitalizing on ignorant American's blind hatred of gays to the point of amending our constitution to specifically discriminate against a specific group for the first time in our nation's history that demonstrates absolutely that his principles are much more in line with the Islamic fundamentalists than they are with the principles of freedom that created this nation.
The United States Government has some strong Christians in it, but Christianity isn't nearly as fundamentalist and strictly adhering to the Bible at this point in time as say much of Islam sticks to the Koran.
Christianity isn't, that's true. The bastardization of Christianity that is promoted by Bush and a huge percentage of Americans who describe themselves as Christian is every bit as bad. So your point on that is true, but fails to actually address the issue.
Seriously, if you can't even be bothered to understand that people are drawing these parallels based on the actual facts rather than on some delusional "hatred of Christians" that you just made up for the purposes of your argument, then why bother posting at all?
You're still wrong though ;-)
Theism is faith in the existence of God.
Atheism is the *lack of* faith in the existence of God.
There is no faith involved in atheism.
It's actually the natural state of man. If you choose at some point to believe in a deity, then you have chosen to start believing in some god or other and hence are no longer an atheist.
A Topologist is a person who can't tell the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground, but can tell the difference between his ass and two holes in the ground.
In fact a bludger used to be a bloke who lived off the immoral earnings of a prostitute.
"Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?"
But textbooks are teaching our children that natural selection can modify features outside established species, that is, create new species. That is a theory, ladies and gentlemen.
Therefore, the best way to present it to young students is *as a theory*. If the student is interested in a deeper understanding let him pursue further study as he/she advances in his academic career.
This is exactly what has happened in the past, what happens now, and what will continue happening in the future provided the fundies do not succeed in shoving their wholely religious beliefs down people's throats at gunpoint. I fail to see where you have an issue since what you say should happen is what is happening.
Intelligent Design is also theory.
Here's the problem.
ID is not a theory. Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? Does it add anything at all to the discussion? Does it provide any new answers, or even any new questions?
The answer to all of these questions is absolutely not.
All ID says is that since Evolutionary theory is currently incomplete that therefore, it never will be and therefore god did it. This is not a theory, it is not science. The best any of the proponents of this have done is point out where evolutionary theory is incomplete. That's all well and good, but they don't add anything useful, or even propose another actual theory to explain the facts. All they do is claim that since the theory isn't perfect, that it is crap and we must throw god into it rather than continuing to actually look for answers.
Either teach both theories, or teach only fact and don't teach theory. I personally think the theories are important, so teach them both and let young students have open minds as they seek to better understand life and origins. Teach the theories and the evidences for both, and let the students duke it out with their own minds and (if they choose) with their own academic careers.
Which, hopefully now you understand is a completely ridiculous idea. Evolution is a 100% absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt proven *fact*. Look at dogs, seedless watermelons etc. for absolute proof of this.
The Theory of evolution, which is the theory that seeks to explain the hows whys wheres etc. of this well-documented and universally observed fact, is a theory, it is taught as one, and is is the only thing we currently have which does any sort of a job of explaining the facts.
Additionally, teaching the evidence for ID is already done all the time. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. That is the nature of an omnipotent being who chose for whatever reasons to give no evidence of his existence.
I'm really sorry that you don't like it, but it is your belief, not mine.
ID, or creationism does nothing of the sort. It doesn't even attempt to. What it does is pretend to in the interest of shoving religious beliefs into an arena where they have no place.
So attempting to give creationism some sort of scientific legitimacy in this manner doesn't teach students anything. It actually does a great deal of harm by blurring the line between scientific methods and logical thinking skills on the one side, and blind faith on the other.
The fact is that America got where it is today largely through scientific and technological achievements. Destroying scientific education by replacing it with fairy tales (regardless of whether or not there actually is a god, the only evidence for it is fairy tales, so don't take this as a statement that there is no god) is not good science.
The "religious right" are always accused of having closed minds... but often the left can't see the spec in the rights eye for the plank in their own.
This is certainly true in some circumstances, but not this one.
On the one hand you have a theory that does a fairly decent job of explaining the facts while oin the other you have blind faith masquerading as science in the interest of damaging our educational system and thereby causing horrific long-term damage to our nation's ability to compete in the world.
Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge
Basically, if you look at most sites they are composed of a few different types of pages.
/. for example
/. example, when a story ends up on the front page, it is formatted to fit into the story section, if it runs over the max length, then it's cut off.
Each page may contain several different sections.
Take
You have the title area, the sections along the side, the slashboxes (assuming that you have them turned on), then the stories.
There are others as well, but that's enough to get the idea.
So, you know how the site looks, what types of data go where, and even what that given type of data should look like on the page.
So in a CMS like Interwoven Teamsite, or Bricolage you can set up a variety of templates.
One type will take the raw content that goes on the page. Usually you'll have an HTML form that the copywriter will put their text in and hit submit. You'll usually have several fields: Title, Tagline, Main body in one or more paragraphs.
So this content is then usually stored in a database.
Continuing with the
Also, the "Read More" and other links are tacked on.
Now, when you click on the read more link, it takes you to a different display of the same information.
It has the complete text etc.
Generally, once you have your data stored, you can have any number of templates which define how that data will be presented. Your CMS can then generate all of these different HTML pages, or fragments of pages depending on how you set it up.
Now, most CMS's I'm familiar with include workflow capability as well.
So say you work at a newspaper.
You are submitting a story for the sports section.
So you click on your "New Sports Story" link in the CMS.
It will present you with the appropriate form that you put your story into. Title, headline, paragraph, paragraph, etc as well as attaching any images that the template supports.
Once you hit submit (or preview), the actual HTML pages can be generated, but also, it will go through an approval process before it can go live.
So you submit your story, and it goes to the sports editor who has some issues.
He enters his comments and sends it back to you.
You resubmit, he approves it, and it goes to another editor who gets to give the final approval.
At this point, it might be updated directly to the live site.
Alternatively, you might be able to set it to roll out at a pecific date and time etc.
You can also have straight static HTML pages generated or generate the fragments and have your Web Application build pages dynamically based on who is looking at the page etc.
There is really quite a lot of customizability possible.
I've used Interwoven and Bricolage mostly, and they are both really powerful once you start getting the m figured out.
There are two issues here.
...if you're generalizing that belief to me or to self-professed Christians that I know who believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral then you are wrong.
One:...
Two...
Well, I think what happened was that we were arguing different ideas.
Believe what you will. I have no issue with that whatsoever.
Find anything as moral or immoral as you like, and more power to you.
My issue is with those who actively work to shove their idea of morality down my throat at gunpoint.
If that's not you, then I don't think I've said anything negative about you.
As far as Chris Kempler goes, his views sound pretty scary to allow in a public school funded by some of the very people he seems to despise.
You also didn't address my point. I was simply saying that suspicion of government assurances of nop infringement was reasonable if previous assurances had been quickly forgotten. It may have been quite reasonable to infringe on religious freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact that people will trust future assurances less. Whether breaking the assurance was legitimate, reasonable or just is completely beside the point.
The point is that it is in no way an infringement of any sort of freedom to say that you don't have the right to infringe freedoms.
There's no need for any assurance. You do not under any circumstances have those rights.
End of story.
And while you did not explicitely state that Christians hate non-Christians and want coerce others to become Christians your post most certainly did imply exactly that.
You can choose to hate non-Christians, and while they could choose to be Christian, you have no right to attempt to coerce them into it.
I in no way implied what you are saying.
The point I made is that you have the right to have your religious beliefs, and to express them.
It just so happens that most of the beliefs that the fundies in America like to express are the ones based in ignorant hatred which go completely against the religion that they claim to believe.
These aren't Christian beliefs, and these aren't Christian people, but they are who are under discussion.
In any discussion you're responsible for the implications of your statements.
True, but you are responsible for your own inferences.
I do not hate non-Christians nor do I wish to force them to become Christians. You implied that I did. You are wrong.
No, I didn't.
Are you a sicko wack job who thinks that people should be banned from aspects of society because they are acting in the way god made them and that causes no harm whatsoever to others?
If so, then I am talking about you, I am right, and you are not a Christian.
If not, then I'm not talking about you.
I failed to notice the part of your post where you defended his right to make those statements that you disagreed with
So, where did you notice me trying to have him arrested for saying it.
I was merely exercising my right to point out the simple fact that he is an idiotic ass hat whose ideas are not even worth expressing.
I have no interest in preventing him from saying whatever he wants, but I think it's important to point out that what he is saying is utterly insane and completely at odds with what he claims to believe.
I'm surprised that you fail to see the difference.
I'm not so foolish as to try and defend everything anyone calling themselves a Christian says. But I do try to understand where everyone is coming from.
As do I.
The simple fact is that he is coming from a position of pure unadulterated ignorance and hatred.
Don't you think that if there were any other possible explanation that somebody would have mentioned it at some point in the whole gay marriage debate in America?
There isn't a single point anybody has made other than "We need to defend the sanctity of marriage".
No mention of what is attacking it or how.
What kind of nitrogen oxides though?
If it was dinitrogen oxide, then most people would seem to think it was pretty funny.
It's fairly obvious that Darby doesn't agree with "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".
That is quite obviously not true.
I agree with that completely.
Your entire point was that by not allowing you to actively discriminate against a segment of the population for merely being themselves that your religious freedoms are being encroached.
This is completely insane, so I pointed that out.
He also seems to be labouring under the delusion that Christians hate non-Christians and want to coerce them into becoming Christians.
I said neither of these things.
What various people who call themselves Christian, but don't have the foggiest idea what it really means are doing is trying to force their repressive ideas down everybody else's throat at gunpoint.
This is again, a simple statement of fact.
Damn straight.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
And those who want to help people learn very quickly that that isn't what the job is about.
They either go with the other side or get out.
The main use of police forces these days is as a revenue generator.
Look, you backwards ass nutjob.
Your religion is something you chose.
Gay is how some people are born.
The fact that the religion you chose has decided to despise your own god's choice in making a certain person a certain way shows that you think you know better than your own god how the world should work.
So, the point is that your freedom to choose to believe certain things is in no way curtailed.
The only thing that is happening is that your ability to prevent people from living their lives as your god intended them to has been limited, and rightfully so.
You can choose to hate black people. They can not choose not to be black.
You can choose to hate non-Christians, and while they could choose to be Christian, you have no right to attempt to coerce them into it.
You have apparently chosen to hate gay people, and they can not choose not to be gay.
The best they could do to satisfy your sickening desire to force them into your idea of what a person should be is to not live their lives like people do.
Pull your deranged head out of your ass, realise that you do not have the right to tell people how to live and so preventing you from engaging in you sick fascist desires is *in no way* a curtailment of any of your freedoms.
If you really think it is, then consider that I firmly believe that sick wierdos who want to run other people's lives would be much better people with a bullet hole where their head used to be.
You wouldn't want to curtail my religious freedom to *act* upon that belief, would you?
...Assinol Plus... ...Roidwipes2000...
;-)
Oh holy crap, you should really go into marketing.
Obviously, it wouldn't work for long, but the world would be a funnier place until you got tossed out
GPL can only be used with GPL. Thats the problem!!!
I see.
That explains why I can't run Apache on Linux.
I think that your whole problem is with religion. Certainly, if people believed in what these people claim to believe, then they would obviously be in opposition to gay marriage. This would not necessarily mean that they hate gays--in fact the dictates of their religion would forbid that--it might just mean that they have an externally imposed ethical structure.
My problem isn't with religion.
If they believed what they claim to believe, then they would be in no way opposed to gay marriage, they would support it.
It's the fact that they regularly piss in the face of what they claim to believe that is the actual problem.
It's actually also the proof that their opposition is purely based in hatred. They blindly hate gays with such a religious fervor, that they completely disregard that it goes against what they claim to believe to act as they do.
Now, that is some fucked up blind, hatred.
I mean you, like everybody (else?) on the anti side has yet to come up with a single other rational explanation for the opposition besides ignorant hatred. Even if the religion they claim to follow stood against it, it is still irrelevant to a civil institution.
They didn't invent marriage, and nobody is trying to tell their church what to do.
The only thing they hope to prevent is for a person to be allowed hospital visitation rights from their loved ones.
That is basically it.
That is a product of a severly diseased mind blind with hatred. What other possible explanation could there be?
Since you brought up the issue of the consistency as it pertains to the adherents of religion, I would like to point out that it is infinitely easier to be consistent when one's morality is self-determined than it is when it is externally imposed.
This is arguably true, but wholly irrelevant to anything in the real world. There is no externally imposed morality. Not even in religion, because they just twist it to fit whatever they want.
Thou shall not kill?!? Why do most of these jackasses support capital punishemnt then?
Why does the catholic church spend so much time and money protecting baby rapers?
Seriously, at least act sane.
In any event, I think that your sense of outrage, your arguments and protestations are merely a smokescreen for the fact that you have yet to come to grips with some far more important issues and their implications. You are struggling with the same questions man has always struggled with: is there a God and, if so, what is his/her nature? All of the bluff and bluster does not negate the fact that you are quite unsure about what your response should be to these questions and you are suffering unnecessarily because of it.
You're clearly an insane person.
I expect people to live up to the standards that this country claims to believe in.
This means keeping your religion out of my laws.
It means letting other people live their lives.
How you switched this around to your fucked up deluded religious beliefs is beyond me though.