"Note that as of Jan. 22, 2007, we have moved servers to Canada and is no longer subject to US DMCA laws. But we are keeping this copyright policy and procedure modeled after the DMCA, as it worked for us and for copyright owners in the past, and we find this procedure and takedown process to be mostly fair."
isoHunt's copyright policy
In Christianity, the universe was made for humans. We are the pinnacle of God's Creation, and the reason everything is here. This is what GP meant by "special". Evolutionarily, we are just a coincidence, a product of a random confluence of events, and if you tried to play out the history of the earth from the beginning, in all likelihood humanity wouldn't show up. For those who have a vested interest in being the greatest thing in the universe (except God, if he counts as being "in the universe"), the concept of evolution can be a little disturbing.
IANABiologist, but I would think 1) careful application of Occam's razor and 2) molecular biology. One species accumulating changes through known mechanisms to become another, similar species is a lot simpler an explanation than several similar yet unrelated species spontaneously springing up ex nihilo, in a chronological sequence that gives the appearance of the former. Additionally, I would think that phylogenetic trees constructed from molecular evidence tends to back up the fossil record.
Don't have a source handy, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the value of the density parameter obtained from experiment is very slightly less than one, making the universe a hyperbolic geometry, and thus infinitely extended. Could be wrong on this.
The idea that religion is explained by people who never question what their parents have told them is silly. While I don't have statistics, most religious people I know, rejected the beliefs of their parents
Which explains the relative geographical stability of religious beliefs over ti..oh, wait, no. The other thing. Doesn't explain.
My explanation for atheists is that they have never been exposed to anything but the most simplistic religious thought, and are too anxious to feel intellectually superior to religious people to seriously investigate anything that isn't condoned by the scientific hierarchy and their peers.
I was a minister for over 25 years, very serious about thoughtful Christianity, a graduate of Emory University with undergrad study in psychology and grad study in religion/theology.
After graduating with my BA, I went off to Bob Jones University. There I earned a Masters and a Ph.D. in Theology. Whatever you want to say about BJU, and there is a lot to be said, they were in touch academically in a scholastic sense. Namely, the languages were greatly stressed. I passed language exams in Hebrew, Greek, and German in order to get my degree. I wrote a 326 page dissertation. During my time in Greenville, I taught an adult SS class and worked in other various ministries. Lest someone say my faith was only intellectual, let me add that I spent an average of one hour a day in prayer, memorized Scripture, I wept over "lost souls," and "won souls" for the Lord.
While at the Bible College I began to access theological, philosophical, and historical source material to which I had previously no access, I studied Greek and Hebrew, and took a wide range of religious classes...I started to read everything I could get my hands on (e.g., the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Old Testament pseudepigrapha, New Testament pseudonymous writings and apocrypha, the Nag Hammadi Codices, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ugaritic Texts, the Amarna Letters, Philo of Alexandria, the Book of Enoch, Josephus, etc.), but always with the governing principle that "getting to the truth"...was of greater importance than my belief system, the narrow tenets of my faith
I began studying every theology, apologetics, and church history book I could find. I also began an interest in philosophy.
Within the span of my life as a Christian, I read just about anything worth reading (and not worth reading) in apologetics - aside from books that argued against theism and Christianity, probably about 120 or so books and who knows how many chapters and articles on philosophical, historical, and scientific apologetics, starting with McDowell and ending with Plantinga, Swinburne, and Alston...I used their arguments in papers for undergraduate philosophy courses. My dream was to study and get an MA in philosophy of religion and ethics under J.P. Moreland at Talbot...I was a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and read their journals (Faith and Philosophy and Philosophia Christi) religiously for several years. I would even spend many a beautiful day in musty library basements reading past issues of philosophy of religion journals.
I spent one semester studying at Jerusalem University College in Israel. I graduated this year at age 24 with a B.A. in Biblical Languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic).
During the first year of my conversion, I read the bible through, bought perhaps 50 apologetic books and Christian evidence materials, and read them through nearly at the pace of one book per night...I began attending the Southwest School of Bible
Though the basis of chiropractic is BS, in practise most chiropractic is just musculoskeletal manipulation, which a lot of the time is probably the appropriate treatment for back pain and the like.
No, they define the kilogram. The kilogram is the base unit, but prefixes are applied to the derived unit 'gram', and a gram is defined as one thousandth of a kilogram. Although I believe you are correct in that when the metric system was created, the gram was the base unit of mass, based on the mass of water.
2H2O ==> H3O+ + OH-
H3O+ + OH- ==> 2H2O
The enthalpy change of the one reaction is the negative of the other, so there is no net change in energy. GP pulled it out of basic chemistry, not his ass.
It doesn't make you forget, it just weakens the link between emotions and a memory. Consider: if you lost your car keys and were late for something important, you would probably get frustrated. A month later, recalling the event, you feel nothing. A rape victim, however, may have severe problems in intimate situations, because of the shame and fear she feels whenever something triggers her memory of the rape (this situation is a factor in post-traumatic stress disorder, BTW). The drug wouldn't affect one's recollection of the event, just emotions strongly associated with it.
(NB: I did not RTFA, but I did watch that episode of Boston Legal, so I think I'm pretty well-informed)
I just figure that on this planet, of all the various body types, ours won out.
"Won out"? In what sense are we winners? Certainly not reproductive success. If you mean "we developed the highest levels of intelligence", then it's kind of hard to see how any body plan with decent manual dexterity in the right environment couldn't turn out similar intelligence. And I only include manual dexterity because it increases the selective value of intelligence (because it means you're able to use tools) - I doubt it's really necessary at all.
RTFS, dude. "Best President for Nerds" doesn't just mean "Hooray for science" policies. Quite a few people here (myself included) are privacy nuts, and I imagine there's a large consensus in favour of copyright reform. Personal liberty also tends to be a big one.
To the Most High and Mighty Prince
James
By the Grace of God
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, &c.
Later on, it says, "...patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is...", "...David was a worthy Prince...", "...wee have a Prince [King James, as far as I can tell] that seeketh the increase of the spirituall wealth of Israel...", "...was...Nero a good Prince?", generally using 'Prince' as interchangeable with the modern meaning of 'King'. The article on Prince seems to confirm that the original meaning of the world was just 'ruler', and so could be applied to any sovereign. I have asked at the Wikipedia Reference Desk about this, but I'm fairly confident that your PJV (unless the translation is actually different) is just an alternative title for the KJV.
That's capitalism at its best, right?...I'm not hep to the current anti-copyright rhetoric here on Slashdot
The current rhetoric, as far as I can tell, is that copyright is a state-granted artificial monopoly (and therefore not really capitalism at all), that modern content-publishers use a faulty business model (based on the premise that high-fidelity reproduction of content is difficult), and that society has no responsibility to ensure that since certain businesses continue to make money using the same business practises they have historically (compare: buggy-whip makers went out of business after automobiles became widespread).
We've come a long way since, "information wants to be free".
Pshaw. If you want a free market then you have to be against copyrights, since they are governmental market regulation. Hell, they're basically a form of subsidy for authors, meant to benefit the public. So really, one would imagine that it would be socialists or communists that are in favor of copyrights, while free-market capitalists are against them.
To be fair, since communism requires the abolition of private property (I'm pretty sure), communists would be against copyright as well. Depending on how you define socialism, you could go either way with that. The pro-copyrightists, in my experience, tend to be the middle-of-the-road, semi-classical liberal, semi-socialist, big-government types.
Slashdot Mirror
Case-sensitivity, perhaps? That is, 0-9, A-Z, a-x.
"Note that as of Jan. 22, 2007, we have moved servers to Canada and is no longer subject to US DMCA laws. But we are keeping this copyright policy and procedure modeled after the DMCA, as it worked for us and for copyright owners in the past, and we find this procedure and takedown process to be mostly fair."
isoHunt's copyright policy
I don't think copyright infringement is a crime. Which is to say, I'm pretty sure it's a civil matter.
In Christianity, the universe was made for humans. We are the pinnacle of God's Creation, and the reason everything is here. This is what GP meant by "special". Evolutionarily, we are just a coincidence, a product of a random confluence of events, and if you tried to play out the history of the earth from the beginning, in all likelihood humanity wouldn't show up. For those who have a vested interest in being the greatest thing in the universe (except God, if he counts as being "in the universe"), the concept of evolution can be a little disturbing.
IANABiologist, but I would think 1) careful application of Occam's razor and 2) molecular biology. One species accumulating changes through known mechanisms to become another, similar species is a lot simpler an explanation than several similar yet unrelated species spontaneously springing up ex nihilo, in a chronological sequence that gives the appearance of the former. Additionally, I would think that phylogenetic trees constructed from molecular evidence tends to back up the fossil record.
Don't have a source handy, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the value of the density parameter obtained from experiment is very slightly less than one, making the universe a hyperbolic geometry, and thus infinitely extended. Could be wrong on this.
Arrrggh, how could I forget? Sam Harris (who has a degree in philosophy), as well as the population of Category:Atheist philosophers at Wikipedia.
Which explains the relative geographical stability of religious beliefs over ti..oh, wait, no. The other thing. Doesn't explain.
A search for "deconversion" on Debunking Christianity yields several counterexamples:
If you eat it, you don't have any cake any more. Geddit?
No, they define the kilogram. The kilogram is the base unit, but prefixes are applied to the derived unit 'gram', and a gram is defined as one thousandth of a kilogram. Although I believe you are correct in that when the metric system was created, the gram was the base unit of mass, based on the mass of water.
2H2O ==> H3O+ + OH-
H3O+ + OH- ==> 2H2O
The enthalpy change of the one reaction is the negative of the other, so there is no net change in energy. GP pulled it out of basic chemistry, not his ass.
There were, however, many other people who plotted his assassination, even if they never succeeded. May want to learn to read.
It doesn't make you forget, it just weakens the link between emotions and a memory. Consider: if you lost your car keys and were late for something important, you would probably get frustrated. A month later, recalling the event, you feel nothing. A rape victim, however, may have severe problems in intimate situations, because of the shame and fear she feels whenever something triggers her memory of the rape (this situation is a factor in post-traumatic stress disorder, BTW). The drug wouldn't affect one's recollection of the event, just emotions strongly associated with it.
(NB: I did not RTFA, but I did watch that episode of Boston Legal, so I think I'm pretty well-informed)
RTFS, dude. "Best President for Nerds" doesn't just mean "Hooray for science" policies. Quite a few people here (myself included) are privacy nuts, and I imagine there's a large consensus in favour of copyright reform. Personal liberty also tends to be a big one.
We've come a long way since, "information wants to be free".