An all-powerful Creator would certainly be able to see the processes that would flow from his original definitions, but it's hard for me to agree that God "used" evolution to get us to where we are today.
Picture a white robed, bearded guy, peering down at the Earth. "Ho hum, are those boring reptiles ever going to go away?" he mumbles, then chuckles "God knows!", nonchalantly flicking a passing asteroid...
the process of moving God into smaller and smaller gaps can be taken to its limit, whether or not we actually close those gaps, and God can be said not to exist.
I'm not familair with the case but I call bullshit on general legal principle.
If what you say is true, then by definition you aren't impugning anyone's character - you're telling it like it is.
Asuming Australian law is based on English law, then truth is an absolute defence against any kind of defamation lawsuit. The only problem is that you (as defendant) would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's true - the plaintiff doesn't have to prove it isn't. I'm guessing that was why they settled - they didn't have (sufficient) proof.
they don't have the level of funding, or the long-term perspective, that would let them invent the next laser or the next transistor (both products of Bell Labs)
Sadly, labs don't invent things these days; law offices do.
You didn't make a second point. But as you don't know the difference between the head of an organisation and the pawns at the bottom, I suppose it's expecting too much that you'd be able to count.
You'd have to open the 'car storage' door, drive the car out, park, get out, close the door, and drive off.
You're right. Clearly that explains why my car-o-shack(tm) idea isn't already in common use. It's a pity that somebody doesn't invent a kind of clever gadget (using, I dunno, those magic radio waves or something) so that you could open the door without moving your big butt off the driver's seat.
Books older than a couple of years are worth $0, because of new editions.
I totally agree. I'm only reading/. now because Shakespeare cancelled our regular beer session - he's busy rewriting "Troilus and Cressida". As for Adam Smith, he hasn't shown his face down the local since some wag suggested, half jokingly, that "Wealth of Nations" was flawed because it doesn't reflect the modern, service-based, e-economy.
Wouldn't a better solution be to keep the vehicle is some kind of building? I guess it wouldn't fit in the house, but I've seen houses with small sheds attached at one end - some appear to already have large doors fitted. Should I patent this idea?
It's a very conservative guess, since it just counts the time of people who deleted it, and not the amounts of money lost by people who actually bought shit as a result of all the spam.
If words only have one meaning, and professional only means you get paid for it, what's the definition of unprofessional conduct? Forgetting to cash your paycheck, perhaps?
If you've got something big to plan, you plainly *do* use an unsecured public medium. You admit yourself that a Chechen leader was assassinated this way, and it's how the Madrid bombers were traced.
That's not a case of they *do*. It's a case of they *did*. The others, assuming they aren't stupid, have probably wised up by now.
Most criminals aren't IT experts. If they were all that clever, they would have regular well-paid jobs and wouldn't need to turn to a life of crime.
Did the directors of Enron need to turn to crime? What about Nick Leeson? And IIRC, OBL has a degree in engineering. How's the "criminal = poor and stupid" theory now?
To my responders who say original sin is worthy of the death penalty: death - EVENTUALLY, but not the death penalty, which ends your life prematurely.
What do you mean by prematurely? If God is omnipotent then surely nobody dies prematurely - they die (to misquote LoTR) precisely when He intends them to.
But a poll isn't a discussion. It's a poor substitute for it. Knowing that 17% of the class thinks that ferrets are cuter than ponies says nothing about why. To explain their reasons, they still need to speak up and risk being identified and given a wedgie at breaktime by any ferretophobes. in the vicinity.
Telephones in the 1890s weren't though; there wasn't such a thing as electronics. The so-called father of electronics (De Forest) was a toddler when the telephone was invented.
Slashdot Mirror
Graphic novel? That would be, like, a comic, right?
'Scuse me, but I've got the 1960s on line 3 - something about you stealing their style of speech...
If what you say is true, then by definition you aren't impugning anyone's character - you're telling it like it is.
Asuming Australian law is based on English law, then truth is an absolute defence against any kind of defamation lawsuit. The only problem is that you (as defendant) would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's true - the plaintiff doesn't have to prove it isn't. I'm guessing that was why they settled - they didn't have (sufficient) proof.
Maybe you should figure out the proper use of apostrophes first.
You didn't make a second point. But as you don't know the difference between the head of an organisation and the pawns at the bottom, I suppose it's expecting too much that you'd be able to count.
Wouldn't a better solution be to keep the vehicle is some kind of building? I guess it wouldn't fit in the house, but I've seen houses with small sheds attached at one end - some appear to already have large doors fitted. Should I patent this idea?
It's a very conservative guess, since it just counts the time of people who deleted it, and not the amounts of money lost by people who actually bought shit as a result of all the spam.
If words only have one meaning, and professional only means you get paid for it, what's the definition of unprofessional conduct? Forgetting to cash your paycheck, perhaps?
Did the directors of Enron need to turn to crime? What about Nick Leeson? And IIRC, OBL has a degree in engineering. How's the "criminal = poor and stupid" theory now?
Well what would you expect? I mean it's not as if they had anything to use as a benchmark, is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
But a poll isn't a discussion. It's a poor substitute for it. Knowing that 17% of the class thinks that ferrets are cuter than ponies says nothing about why. To explain their reasons, they still need to speak up and risk being identified and given a wedgie at breaktime by any ferretophobes. in the vicinity.
Just a matter of time.
9% pay cut, actually. To the nearest whole number.
A fair point. Kind of like arresting you for no reason, then charging you with resisting arrest.
"Both of the above" is also a valid option.
Thus, telephone == electronic is false.