Why not quote the original document (covered by papal infallibility):
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. [...]
37. [...] For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
The Cliff Notes version of what Catholics are required to believe about evolution:
Maybe our bodies came from evolution (under God's will), but God Himself creates our immortal souls [at conception].
There was a first man and a first woman, whom we call Adam and Eve, who committed the first sin.
Yes, they're both rich white men. But aside from that there are a host of rather large differences.
For one thing, the Bush Doctrine is a serious departure from previous American foreign policy. Kerry has advocated an approach that relies on the sort of coalition-building that Bush Sr. used with such effectiveness in the first Gulf War.
So, let me get this straight. Kerry is nothing like Bush; instead, he's like elder Bush?
When every newspaper and every government document is on the web, it fundamentally changes democracy, society, and -- oh, yeah -- popular search engine queries.
"If memory serves, there was a dubious flirtation with nuclear fission reactors resulting in toxic side effects. By the beginning of the fusion era, these reactors had been replaced, but at this time, we should be able to find some."
This was the very issue that touchscreen voting was supposed to have solved, the sole redeeming virtue of touchscreen to counterbalance all the negativities.
The user interface problems, I trust, will eventually get solved on their own. But the underlying problems with electronic voting that we are all familiar with -- the most pressing issue -- will not be solved unless the public is made aware not only of the problem ("eat your vote", as the InfoWorld article blithely leads off with), but also the solutions.
So often I hear in social and political gatherings that "paper trails" are bad because paper shouldn't follow voters home lest their be voter intimidation. No one is familiar with printouts behind a glass window until I tell them about it.
That doesn't even get into secure paperless schemes, such as the one invented by David Chaum, the first inventor of digital cash (secure, anonymous, digital) and founder of DigiCash (another underreported technology that could solve all sorts of privacy issues such as with automated road tolling). Chaum's new voting technology is discussed in the October, 2004 Communications of the ACM, which is dedicated toward voting technology issues. ITAA should follow the lead of its academic counterpart ACM rather than propagating ignorance, and by extension, tyranny.
In another Maryland case involving Robin Ficker, a federal judge ruled in favor of the cybersquatter. This is in contrast to the Falwell case, where Falwell was successful against a cybersquatter merely because he had a trademark on his name. As I pointed out in my post, this amounts to trademarking a religion, and thereby quashing speech critical of that religion.
The courts have ruled: you may mock politicians, but not televangelists.
Peroutka is unable to attend the Miami third-party debate due to a busy schedule in Utah. The press release I had linked in my earlier message was for a PBS profiling show the night before that debate.
However, there will be at least one additional third-party debates, and Peroutka is planning to be in it -- Oct. 6 at Cornell (Word.doc)
...at least according to a press release dated tomorrow:-). The Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips got 98,000 votes in 2000, behind the Green (Nader), Reform (Buchanan), and Libertarian (Browne) parties, but ahead of the Natural Law Party (Hagelin).
That Kindall would probably have been less monopolisitc than Gates (though money has a way to corrupt -- e.g., is Ellison-cum-Peoplesoft benevolent?)
That BSD would have filled the role in place of Linux.
But I think the motivation behind the "flamebait" rating is the present-day analogue to why those of my generation revile Bill Gates -- that he didn't do anything special and any one of could have done it instead. The new generation evidently feels deeply inside the same regarding Linus and Linux.
Now if that isn't flamebait, I don't know what is:-! Seriously, the hostility to giving Linus credit on Slashdot is surprising. If not this explanation, then what?
Bill and Steve happened to be the ones who filled their respective roles -- if it weren't them in particular, others would have stepped up to do the same. If it weren't for Linus, the anti-MS-Windows crowd would probably be making 32-bit and 64-bit versions of FreeDOS instead of POSIX. Actually, forget FreeDOS. If it weren't for Linus, there probably wouldn't be any OSS movement -- closed-source shareware would have continued.
A theatre group is the moral equivalent of the peer-to-peer Internet philosophy (and here I mean non-server based -- I'm not talking about file sharing P2P networks) in the drama world. And it's a great way to meet babes. I'm so sick of seeing Slashdot editors and users hang on for every last Hollywood announcement and release, especially given the MPAA/RIAA abuses.
Don't be a victim to the broadcast flag -- be creative and make your own entertainment.
(Also beware of performing copyrighted scripts -- you're not even allowed to videotape such performances. Be creative in the script department as well.)
BLS's own "U-6" includes those who gave up
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics itself keeps track of those who have given up looking for work. It measures these in a statistic called "U-6", but it's "U-3" that is called the "official unemployment rate" that is reported by the mainstream media. The mainstream media -- and it seems also snopes.com -- never mention U-6. See my blog article Real U.S. unemployment rate is 9.5%.
The story summary said specifically "mainstream media dissected", so I just had to suggest my site. While I'm at it, I'll mention my direct "competitors" that I know of that also fit that description:
1984 Sony v. Universal case regarding Sony's Betamax VTRs and copying of copyrighted movies
Not exactly. It covered time-shifting, of which copyrighted movies were a particular example. The Supreme Court was almost at a loss of what to do due to ambiguity of Copyright law and the lack of widespread VCRs in the home when the last major Copyright law was written (1976). They dared to divine the intention of Congress by saying that time-shifting constituted fair-use, and hinted that Congress should follow up with a more specific law in the future. Now Congress is doing the clarification, and it looks like it won't be in the consumer's favor.
More trivia: before the Betamax decision, movies would come on HBO before videotape release (prime example: Star Wars -- HBO copies for a time were the only way to get a Star Wars videotape). Due to the assumed illegality of taping off HBO, movie studios considered HBO airing to constitute less ownership than selling videotapes. The Betamax decision reversed this notion, and thusly also the order of release.
The cell phone has such potential to replace the radio and act as a time-shifting Personal Audio Recorder, but it's not quite there yet. One should be able to browse, puchase, and download MP3s -- both music and talk shows -- from a cell phone at any time. And when broadband wireless (aka 3G) is finally made available to cell phones in the U.S., cell phones could replace both FM and XM.
For amplification, interfaces to car radios would be commonplace -- cassette adapters or FM broadcast.
All of this could be done today (except for the high speed wireless real-time audio streaming) if only a manufacturer would introduce the hardware and subscription model, as Apple did with the iPod. Even the high speed wireless portion could be done today in San Diego an Washington, DC if a manufacturer would just take advantage of the existing 1x-EVDO networks there.
One of my side hobbies is making people feel old by reminding them of past events that seemed like yesterday. I remember in 1995 saying to someone, "remember the early 90's with hip-packs? We're in the mid-nineties now."
I think I'll be saying the same thing about ringtones in 2006. At the office, it used to be a game to show off ringtones in a meeting -- all phones were left on. But that's gotten old, and so now they're all on vibrate. Of course the rules are looser in social situations, but I think it'll get old there too -- think restaurants, movies, even at-home DVD movies.
Besides staleness, I believe ringtones are an anachronism because:
The concept of a telephone ringing is from the 20th century where one had to run to the phone, rather than the phone being a personal borg-like appliance.
Cell phones are getting smaller all the time, so it's not as likely for one to, for example, leave it at the office desk and walk around the office.
What I see more likely is the cell phone replacing the iPod, but of course it's going to take some innovative hardware manufacturer to push this; the music industry is too laggard and reticent.
I use my digital camera with a large-capacity compact flash card. It's not as small as a USB keychain, but the $$$ serves two purposes -- store a hard drive backup, or have the capacity for a bevy of vacation photos -- just not at the same time.
The most egregious case of cybersquatting is, of course, whitehouse.com (anchor tag intentionally omitted). But the U.S. government cannot trademark whitehouse.gov.
Going on down the spectrum, there is bush2004.com, which satires Bush. Could Bush trademark his own name so as to shut this site down? At this particular moment of eroding free speech, probably not yet. Criticism of the president holds a special place when it comes to the First Amendment.
Now we step down spectrum another notch to fallwell.com. Jerry Falwell is a prominent religious and political figure -- perhaps not #1 like Bush, but certainly in the top thousand. He is able to squelch criticsm because he trademarked his name.
Falwell has intentionally blurred politics, religion, and business. Trademark was meant to protect consumers from sham products, not restrict discussion of politics and religion.
Here we have trademark law in conflict with the First Amendment regarding politics and religion. Trademark law was already being applied to block criticism of a business. Now it's being extended into politics and religion, the heart of the First Amendment.
Going further on down the spectrum, Robin Ficker, a political candidate of much less stature than Falwell, was unable to shut down robinficker.com. Why? Because he didn't trademark his name.
In the realm of criticizing Falwell, today it's domain names. Will it be blog content tomorrow, like the Ford case?
Slashdot Mirror
People seem to forget that Clinton had NATO bomb Serbia and Kosovo.
Elder Bush wins the election of 2004 either way.
This has only happened since 2002 -- forget 1997.
http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin7/Star_Trek_IV .htm
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BL0zc.107743% 24Qc.4131568%40twister1.libero.it
This was the very issue that touchscreen voting was supposed to have solved, the sole redeeming virtue of touchscreen to counterbalance all the negativities.
The user interface problems, I trust, will eventually get solved on their own. But the underlying problems with electronic voting that we are all familiar with -- the most pressing issue -- will not be solved unless the public is made aware not only of the problem ("eat your vote", as the InfoWorld article blithely leads off with), but also the solutions.
So often I hear in social and political gatherings that "paper trails" are bad because paper shouldn't follow voters home lest their be voter intimidation. No one is familiar with printouts behind a glass window until I tell them about it.
That doesn't even get into secure paperless schemes, such as the one invented by David Chaum, the first inventor of digital cash (secure, anonymous, digital) and founder of DigiCash (another underreported technology that could solve all sorts of privacy issues such as with automated road tolling). Chaum's new voting technology is discussed in the October, 2004 Communications of the ACM, which is dedicated toward voting technology issues. ITAA should follow the lead of its academic counterpart ACM rather than propagating ignorance, and by extension, tyranny.
To me "take back the web" means preventing seizures of free-speech hard drives. There is still Mosaic and Lynx, after all, right?
The courts have ruled: you may mock politicians, but not televangelists.
However, there will be at least one additional third-party debates, and Peroutka is planning to be in it -- Oct. 6 at Cornell (Word .doc)
...at least according to a press release dated tomorrow :-). The Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips got 98,000 votes in 2000, behind the Green (Nader), Reform (Buchanan), and Libertarian (Browne) parties, but ahead of the Natural Law Party (Hagelin).
I'll admit that I missed two things:
- That Kindall would probably have been less monopolisitc than Gates (though money has a way to corrupt -- e.g., is Ellison-cum-Peoplesoft benevolent?)
- That BSD would have filled the role in place of Linux.
But I think the motivation behind the "flamebait" rating is the present-day analogue to why those of my generation revile Bill Gates -- that he didn't do anything special and any one of could have done it instead. The new generation evidently feels deeply inside the same regarding Linus and Linux.Now if that isn't flamebait, I don't know what is :-! Seriously, the hostility to giving Linus credit on Slashdot is surprising. If not this explanation, then what?
Bill and Steve happened to be the ones who filled their respective roles -- if it weren't them in particular, others would have stepped up to do the same. If it weren't for Linus, the anti-MS-Windows crowd would probably be making 32-bit and 64-bit versions of FreeDOS instead of POSIX. Actually, forget FreeDOS. If it weren't for Linus, there probably wouldn't be any OSS movement -- closed-source shareware would have continued.
Don't be a victim to the broadcast flag -- be creative and make your own entertainment.
(Also beware of performing copyrighted scripts -- you're not even allowed to videotape such performances. Be creative in the script department as well.)
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics itself keeps track of those who have given up looking for work. It measures these in a statistic called "U-6", but it's "U-3" that is called the "official unemployment rate" that is reported by the mainstream media. The mainstream media -- and it seems also snopes.com -- never mention U-6. See my blog article Real U.S. unemployment rate is 9.5%.
Also thememoryhole.org.
The story summary said specifically "mainstream media dissected", so I just had to suggest my site. While I'm at it, I'll mention my direct "competitors" that I know of that also fit that description:
Shameless plug: this was covered almost a year ago in my blog article U.S. corroborating with WIPO to overturn Betamax decision and also eliminate public domain (which I've shamelessly plugged here before).
More trivia: before the Betamax decision, movies would come on HBO before videotape release (prime example: Star Wars -- HBO copies for a time were the only way to get a Star Wars videotape). Due to the assumed illegality of taping off HBO, movie studios considered HBO airing to constitute less ownership than selling videotapes. The Betamax decision reversed this notion, and thusly also the order of release.
U.S. taxpayers pay $700m for Taxol wonder cancer drug; Bristol-Myers reaps $1700m profit
Tom Rokicki computed the Game of Life using Amiga's Blitter. March 17, 1987 UseNet post.
For amplification, interfaces to car radios would be commonplace -- cassette adapters or FM broadcast.
All of this could be done today (except for the high speed wireless real-time audio streaming) if only a manufacturer would introduce the hardware and subscription model, as Apple did with the iPod. Even the high speed wireless portion could be done today in San Diego an Washington, DC if a manufacturer would just take advantage of the existing 1x-EVDO networks there.
I think I'll be saying the same thing about ringtones in 2006. At the office, it used to be a game to show off ringtones in a meeting -- all phones were left on. But that's gotten old, and so now they're all on vibrate. Of course the rules are looser in social situations, but I think it'll get old there too -- think restaurants, movies, even at-home DVD movies.
Besides staleness, I believe ringtones are an anachronism because:
- The concept of a telephone ringing is from the 20th century where one had to run to the phone, rather than the phone being a personal borg-like appliance.
- Cell phones are getting smaller all the time, so it's not as likely for one to, for example, leave it at the office desk and walk around the office.
What I see more likely is the cell phone replacing the iPod, but of course it's going to take some innovative hardware manufacturer to push this; the music industry is too laggard and reticent.I use my digital camera with a large-capacity compact flash card. It's not as small as a USB keychain, but the $$$ serves two purposes -- store a hard drive backup, or have the capacity for a bevy of vacation photos -- just not at the same time.
When does the TV movie come out?
After that, it was the U.S. boycott of 1980, then the Russia boycott of 1984. From 1988 on, it's been all commercials and tape delays.
Going on down the spectrum, there is bush2004.com, which satires Bush. Could Bush trademark his own name so as to shut this site down? At this particular moment of eroding free speech, probably not yet. Criticism of the president holds a special place when it comes to the First Amendment.
Now we step down spectrum another notch to fallwell.com. Jerry Falwell is a prominent religious and political figure -- perhaps not #1 like Bush, but certainly in the top thousand. He is able to squelch criticsm because he trademarked his name.
Falwell has intentionally blurred politics, religion, and business. Trademark was meant to protect consumers from sham products, not restrict discussion of politics and religion.
Here we have trademark law in conflict with the First Amendment regarding politics and religion. Trademark law was already being applied to block criticism of a business. Now it's being extended into politics and religion, the heart of the First Amendment.
Going further on down the spectrum, Robin Ficker, a political candidate of much less stature than Falwell, was unable to shut down robinficker.com. Why? Because he didn't trademark his name.
In the realm of criticizing Falwell, today it's domain names. Will it be blog content tomorrow, like the Ford case?