Ah! That is precisly the clarification I was seeking! It is the unfortunate nature of the medium that I could not know with any certainty which meaning you had intended for predate.
As an interesting point and a fun curiousity of English: predate predates predate by a little more than 400 years! The hunted meaning comes from c. 1460 via latin: prædationem. The latinesque contraction did not appear until 1864.
I appreciate your poetry modification, but I have just one question for you:
Do you mean predate as in PREdate or as in predATE. In other words, do you mean that the third place came before the first? Or you do mean that the third place actively hunts the first?
Both translations make grammatical and syntactic sense; however, from your 'tone' for lack of a better word, I don't imagine that you would indicate the third place to truly have come before the first place.
In which case, it begs the question of which third place predates the first place? I could make a fairly good case for MMORPG --which I happen to enjoy, mind you -- for they could cause great strife in the home. I cannot quite see how the loss of the Pub to the ubiquitous coffee house could bring about the fall of one's first place.
Much of my comment was not inherently directed at you; but, thank you for proving that you are not, in fact, out of touch with reality. I can appreciate you point, and conceed that you may be right about the quality of the soundblaster series for very high end audio.
I am actually curious if you know of any higher end audio cards that would be able to provide a lower base noise level for the PC. There is no inherent reason that the PC audio could not be at the same level as that in the super high end DVD player, and sufficient shielding around the analog portions of the card should be able to provide as clean an EM environment as the DVD player is able to for its analog portions. If one could find such a card for under $1000, it would maintain the PC as a viable alternative with more flexibility than the multi-thousand dollar DVD players.
I could even imagine that a company could accomplish similar results by buying SB cards in bulk and testing/binning them for resale at various qualities. They would be forced to sell the cards determined to be of lower quality (higher noise) at less than retail, but theoretically they could pick the cards with the fewest defects and sell them for enough to offset that loss and still make money. The question is, is the best quality that Creative can offer good enough, or is it a choice of component type and not just quality control that produces a noisier component?
Just a minor point really, but thank you for proving me wrong about my improper assumption, it is certainly something to consider if I'm ever able to enjoy an environment where my sound card would cause problems.
I may be a bit behind the times, but aren't the standard Creative Audigy whatever-the-heck-number-we're-on cards up to 7.1 with options such as TOSLINK and all sorts of hardware encoding/decoding up to snuff, and affordable?
Now granted, I'm not running the newest soundblaster card, and I don't have those fancy $2,500 speaker wires that another poster linked earlier; but, my little Soundblaster Audigy 2 Pro seems to make some pretty nice sounding music without any crazy distortions.
Of course, maybe I'm fatally flawed in the acoustical reception department, or I have some other grand character impugnment laid against me which renders me a poor judge of audio quality; but, I still figure that maybe $200 USD for the Creative Soundblaster X-Fi is probably worth the look before dumping $2000 dollars into a single use device.
At least with the media center PC you're not as limited in what functions you may perform with it as you are with the DVD player. I'm sure World of Warcraft would look just grand on a 100' screen.
Actually, the Fox network even admitted that it was stronger than expected DVD sales which harolded the return of Futurama and Family Guy. The networks aren't concerned with the opinions of people who won't give them money, which they have every right to be! In fact, they might just be legally obligated to care more about money than not.
Unfortunately I can no longer find substantiation for this; however, I was once taught the reason for the odd name of Japan. It turns out that the first westerners to interact with Nippon were a group of missionaries from Portugal in the 16th century. Well, these missionaries found out about Japan while they were in Malacca. Well, the malay way of saying "Rising Sun" (i.e. the land of the rising sun, Japan) is Japang which comes from the Chinese jih pun.
Well, it isn't hard to see how jih pun becomes Japão which becomes our English version, Japan.
By the by, ni pon/hon is literally the "source of the sun" or "sun source." Hence, the rising sun, land of. It all makes sense as Japan should be the first part of Asia minor to see the sun every day.
While I agree with your point that there is such a woeful lack of Fr available that one cannot easily test its explosive properties, I submit to you that to claim it is not would be disregarding all of the advances in elemental science we have made.
There is absolutely no reason to assume it would act any different from its predicessors in the Ia group, and it has the absolute lowest electronegativity of any element we've ever seen. This suggests that it would simply be a continuation of the tendencies of its fellow family members.
The comment on art and your response brought to my mind the quote which I have used for my sig. While the quote itself is in regards to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory by the then director in defense of its funding in front of congress, it can certainly be paraphrased. First, the full statement:
Otherwise, it has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things that we really venerate and honor in our country and are patriotic about. In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to make it worth defending.
But, why not, for this purpose:...it has nothing to do directly with making a living, except to make it worth living.
Well, is X has only one child, then X's child will be the one we care about, not X. Yes, technically X is also the ancestor of all, but not the youngest ancestor. Of course, with the range being from 3-5 kiloyears, one generation doesn't matter, I just though to point it out.
Well, the absolute best thing for CDs would be something along the lines of this, but you could always just stick it in the microwave for similar (though slightly less spectacular) results.
For a USB Memory stick, I'm sure that sticking it in a computer as the swap drive would do the trick very well. I believe the U.S. Military has a standard guide published for how to deal with various forms of data storage devices to be decomissioned, but I cannot now find it.
Suffice to say, I'm sure that a microwave would take care of your flash data aswell.
That is because, quite basically, RAID 0 isn't a RAID, it is an AID.
Or, in otherwords: RAID 0 just lumps all of your disks together into one super disk, but if one of those disks fail, the whole setup is down and data will be lost.
I agree with your sentiment; but, AFAIK, in the U.S. the would be Hitler's can still scream from the hilltops that they love Disney and that is not illegal.
Of course, this isn't quite as simple as that, because your hypothetical Disney supporting Hitler didn't create a little Disney-esque poster that let you enter it to find out about Disney as much as you'd like.
Of course, you say "...it's not in the manor they chose." But of course, it hopefuly isn't their bloody choice what other people get to say they enjoy. I'm of course assuming a lot about libel/slander/defamation/calumny laws in the U.S., but I really hope I'm right!
Those are all wonderful explainations, but as you said they're all somewhat axiomatic. They bring the equivalency in as an assumption; any attempt to derive that equivalence can only hope to, at best, determine if the theoretical framework is self consistant.
Don't get me wrong, that is an incredibly important test, but it will not yield new information. I think you're right about unified field theory being the key, for if we can get the mass equivalence out of it, all will be right with the world. Of course, it is possible that it is not a requisite for the universe that inertial mass and gravitational mass be equivalent, but that is even more difficult a proposition to prove!
Of course, we do not know how long it will take to get this TOE, because, as we all know...
In the beginning there was Aristotle, And objects at rest tended to remain at rest, And objects in motion tended to come to rest, And soon everything was at rest, And God saw that it was boring.
Then God created Newton, And objects at rest tended to remain at rest, But objects in motion tended to remain in motion, And energy was conserved and momentum was conserved and matter was conserved, And God saw that it was conservative.
Then God created Einstein, And everything was relative, And fast things became short, And straight things became curved, And the universe was filled with inertial frames, And God saw that it was relatively general, but some of it was especially relative.
Then God created Bohr, And there was the principle, And the principle was quantum, And all things were quantified, But some things were still relative, And God saw that it was confusing.
Then God was going to create Ferguson, And Ferguson would have unified, And he would have fielded a theory, And all would have been one, But it was the seventh day, And God rested, And objects at rest tend to remain at rest.
See, I still think that you're missing out, the both of you, on one of the most curious facts of all. Why is it that the inertial mass is the same as the gravitational mass?
What links the two?
I've not yet seen any satisfactory explaination for either, and I've looked, believe you me. (Not that it matters in this regard, but I have all but finished my non-research course load for my Ph.D. in Physics; therefor, I am quite familiar with the concepts and I have had a good long time to ask my questions and get no answer)
Carrying it to the end, google cache is a fully cited quotation. That the quotation encapsulates large portions of the original document does not make it illegal, AFAIK. I may be wrong, and if so, I would like anyone to point to a law (short of National Security, or contract laws (NDA)) which make it illegal to quote someone. I can see it being a bit touchy with reproductions of entire works, so perhaps your google cache comment is not without merit; however...
As the original article is about google news (which does not post the entire article in the first place), and a good many news outlets tend to take quotes without even properly citing the source, google can hardly be faulted for what it does.
I may be crazy, but I was just mulling it over in my head, trying to think of what other stable or metastable compound could possibly exist that would contain the most prevalent element in the universe, but I can't for the life of me come up with one.
I mean, if only there were some molecule, perhaps a diatomic one, which contained hydrogen and only hydrogen. That would be quite nice, hey, it may even give strong readings on that there gamma ray spectrometer. Sadly though, it seems my undergraduate degree in astrophysics did not prepare me adequetly, for I cannot think of any single source that could possibly show up as well as H2O.
Of course, with the additional data that might be provided another method, such as the RADAR like approach, we can remove such things as bubbles of hydrogen gas locked in the crust. Don't bash the poor scientists for doing what we do best, which is qualify our statements and try to make predictions that don't make us look like fools.
about actually damaging the hearing of the people being driven away by this device. If memory serves me correctly, 75 dB is pretty darn intense sound, though it is a very high frequency. Is there no discussion of what damage it will cause to those listening. After a long time hearing this very loud, very high frequency sound, I would imagine that those subjected to it will no longer be able to hear in that range. It seems patently absurd that this can be considered moral.
Is there to be culpability for destroying the hearing of the youth? I wonder how this plays out in the courts? Is it the listeners fault for being close enough to the sound source to have their ears damaged, or is it the originators fault for intentionally creating a noise which could be potentially destructive of hearing?
To me it shoudn't matter if they don't realize it would harm hearing; ignorance is not a defense. At the very least it could be considered neglegence.
I submit to you that we have observed "swift speciation" as you would like to call it, in the lab rest frame. (No kidding, no relativity that makes the species speciating think they are moving much slower than us so that we pass time less quickly than them, and to us they seem to fly through time. They really are at rest with us!)
We've observed it in yeast. So unless you now say that that which causes the yeast to evolve is an intelligent designer, the theory doesn't hold water. And if you do, then you've cheated.
Basically, who would want their God to exist only in the margins of science?
It amazes me how people can post while being ignorant of the actual debate.
Speciation can be observed in the lab with yeast. I even have a refereed article to prove it! The article hails from Science. 2002 Nov 29;298(5599):1773-5. and is entitled Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast.
A child of the parent post seems to think that we have no clear definition of how two species are different, but in fact we do for sexually reproducing species. Any two specimines that can produce viable offspring (that is, offspring that may reproduce aswell to produce new offspring) are considered to be of the same species. If this is not the case, they are of differing species and it is the task of biologists to determine where they branch from eachother.
So that takes care of the speciation argument against evolution.
This post is the healthiest religiously minded approach to science that I've read yet. It doesn't hurt that reading the last line made me giggle like a school girl. The thought of a deity proud of those that work their hardest to find as much as they can about the world, while that deity's followers attempt to persecute the seekers of knowledge is ironic and comical.
Actually, this reminds me of a Terry Pratchett novel from long ago entitled: Strata. (Not an Amazon.com link referral, I swear!)
If you haven't read it, I highly suggest it, particularly if you are a fan of Mr. Pratchett's books, as this is from long before he began writing discworld novels, but you see how he develops the ideas for his later books. Regardless, on to the point...
Minor spoiler warning:
In the book, the human race has advanced to the point where they can create planets using technology left around from the construction of earth by a race known as the Spindlers. They go through all of the effort of building planets and giving them a large fossil record so that people can explore for thousands of years after the founders have died and the societies that grow around them no longer believe (or even think) that they were brought there from earth.
(ROT13 encoded big spoiler follows):
Gur zbfg vagrerfgvat naq sha cneg bs gur fgbel pbzrf ng gur raq bs gur obbx, jura gur znva punenpgre qvfpbiref gung gur rnegu jnfa'g perngrq ol gur Fcvaqyref, naq abe jnf nalguvat ryfr va gurve havirefr. Fur qvfpbiref gung gurer jrer fbzr perngbef gung perngrq n zlgubybtl sbe na ragver havirefr, naq bayl nobhg 20,000 lrnef orsber guvf punenpgre yvirq.
So you never know, maybe it is all just planted evidence by someone/Someone. But, if it is, doesn't that just make it even more wonderful to uncover? You would think that this philosophy would be perfect for those with strong religious beliefs, as it lets them retain those beliefs, and still function/excel in the scientifically based world of today and the years Beyond 2000.
Well, not to be flamebait, but TFA is talking about one "minor" group of Christians that do not, by the doctorine of the Church, believe the Bible to be 100% accurate.
As has been pointed out to me by my girlfriend , and on Slashdot before, the Catholic Church has no problem with, and teaches in their private schools, evolution.
The Church has had pretty bad problems in the past, but it is now relatively benign when compared to some faiths practiced in various parts of the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah! That is precisly the clarification I was seeking! It is the unfortunate nature of the medium that I could not know with any certainty which meaning you had intended for predate.
As an interesting point and a fun curiousity of English: predate predates predate by a little more than 400 years! The hunted meaning comes from c. 1460 via latin: prædationem. The latinesque contraction did not appear until 1864.
I appreciate your poetry modification, but I have just one question for you:
Do you mean predate as in PREdate or as in predATE. In other words, do you mean that the third place came before the first? Or you do mean that the third place actively hunts the first?
Both translations make grammatical and syntactic sense; however, from your 'tone' for lack of a better word, I don't imagine that you would indicate the third place to truly have come before the first place.
In which case, it begs the question of which third place predates the first place? I could make a fairly good case for MMORPG --which I happen to enjoy, mind you -- for they could cause great strife in the home. I cannot quite see how the loss of the Pub to the ubiquitous coffee house could bring about the fall of one's first place.
A little clarification is all I ask.
Yeah, it made perfect sense.
Much of my comment was not inherently directed at you; but, thank you for proving that you are not, in fact, out of touch with reality. I can appreciate you point, and conceed that you may be right about the quality of the soundblaster series for very high end audio.
I am actually curious if you know of any higher end audio cards that would be able to provide a lower base noise level for the PC. There is no inherent reason that the PC audio could not be at the same level as that in the super high end DVD player, and sufficient shielding around the analog portions of the card should be able to provide as clean an EM environment as the DVD player is able to for its analog portions. If one could find such a card for under $1000, it would maintain the PC as a viable alternative with more flexibility than the multi-thousand dollar DVD players.
I could even imagine that a company could accomplish similar results by buying SB cards in bulk and testing/binning them for resale at various qualities. They would be forced to sell the cards determined to be of lower quality (higher noise) at less than retail, but theoretically they could pick the cards with the fewest defects and sell them for enough to offset that loss and still make money. The question is, is the best quality that Creative can offer good enough, or is it a choice of component type and not just quality control that produces a noisier component?
Just a minor point really, but thank you for proving me wrong about my improper assumption, it is certainly something to consider if I'm ever able to enjoy an environment where my sound card would cause problems.
I may be a bit behind the times, but aren't the standard Creative Audigy whatever-the-heck-number-we're-on cards up to 7.1 with options such as TOSLINK and all sorts of hardware encoding/decoding up to snuff, and affordable?
Now granted, I'm not running the newest soundblaster card, and I don't have those fancy $2,500 speaker wires that another poster linked earlier; but, my little Soundblaster Audigy 2 Pro seems to make some pretty nice sounding music without any crazy distortions.
Of course, maybe I'm fatally flawed in the acoustical reception department, or I have some other grand character impugnment laid against me which renders me a poor judge of audio quality; but, I still figure that maybe $200 USD for the Creative Soundblaster X-Fi is probably worth the look before dumping $2000 dollars into a single use device.
At least with the media center PC you're not as limited in what functions you may perform with it as you are with the DVD player. I'm sure World of Warcraft would look just grand on a 100' screen.
Actually, the Fox network even admitted that it was stronger than expected DVD sales which harolded the return of Futurama and Family Guy. The networks aren't concerned with the opinions of people who won't give them money, which they have every right to be! In fact, they might just be legally obligated to care more about money than not.
Bah, what's a few thousand miles to two complete strangers on the interwebs?
Unfortunately I can no longer find substantiation for this; however, I was once taught the reason for the odd name of Japan. It turns out that the first westerners to interact with Nippon were a group of missionaries from Portugal in the 16th century. Well, these missionaries found out about Japan while they were in Malacca. Well, the malay way of saying "Rising Sun" (i.e. the land of the rising sun, Japan) is Japang which comes from the Chinese jih pun.
Well, it isn't hard to see how jih pun becomes Japão which becomes our English version, Japan.
By the by, ni pon/hon is literally the "source of the sun" or "sun source." Hence, the rising sun, land of. It all makes sense as Japan should be the first part of Asia minor to see the sun every day.
While I agree with your point that there is such a woeful lack of Fr available that one cannot easily test its explosive properties, I submit to you that to claim it is not would be disregarding all of the advances in elemental science we have made.
There is absolutely no reason to assume it would act any different from its predicessors in the Ia group, and it has the absolute lowest electronegativity of any element we've ever seen. This suggests that it would simply be a continuation of the tendencies of its fellow family members.
The comment on art and your response brought to my mind the quote which I have used for my sig. While the quote itself is in regards to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory by the then director in defense of its funding in front of congress, it can certainly be paraphrased. First, the full statement:
...it has nothing to do directly with making a living, except to make it worth living.
Otherwise, it has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things that we really venerate and honor in our country and are patriotic about. In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to make it worth defending.
But, why not, for this purpose:
Well, is X has only one child, then X's child will be the one we care about, not X. Yes, technically X is also the ancestor of all, but not the youngest ancestor. Of course, with the range being from 3-5 kiloyears, one generation doesn't matter, I just though to point it out.
Well, the absolute best thing for CDs would be something along the lines of this, but you could always just stick it in the microwave for similar (though slightly less spectacular) results.
For a USB Memory stick, I'm sure that sticking it in a computer as the swap drive would do the trick very well. I believe the U.S. Military has a standard guide published for how to deal with various forms of data storage devices to be decomissioned, but I cannot now find it.
Suffice to say, I'm sure that a microwave would take care of your flash data aswell.
That is because, quite basically, RAID 0 isn't a RAID, it is an AID.
Or, in otherwords: RAID 0 just lumps all of your disks together into one super disk, but if one of those disks fail, the whole setup is down and data will be lost.
RAID = Redundant Array of Independant Disks.
RAID 0 = Array of Independant Disks.
But can I check my email and access the Internet Explorer?
I agree with your sentiment; but, AFAIK, in the U.S. the would be Hitler's can still scream from the hilltops that they love Disney and that is not illegal.
Of course, this isn't quite as simple as that, because your hypothetical Disney supporting Hitler didn't create a little Disney-esque poster that let you enter it to find out about Disney as much as you'd like.
Of course, you say "...it's not in the manor they chose." But of course, it hopefuly isn't their bloody choice what other people get to say they enjoy. I'm of course assuming a lot about libel/slander/defamation/calumny laws in the U.S., but I really hope I'm right!
Don't get me wrong, that is an incredibly important test, but it will not yield new information. I think you're right about unified field theory being the key, for if we can get the mass equivalence out of it, all will be right with the world. Of course, it is possible that it is not a requisite for the universe that inertial mass and gravitational mass be equivalent, but that is even more difficult a proposition to prove!
Of course, we do not know how long it will take to get this TOE, because, as we all know...
See, I still think that you're missing out, the both of you, on one of the most curious facts of all. Why is it that the inertial mass is the same as the gravitational mass?
What links the two?
I've not yet seen any satisfactory explaination for either, and I've looked, believe you me. (Not that it matters in this regard, but I have all but finished my non-research course load for my Ph.D. in Physics; therefor, I am quite familiar with the concepts and I have had a good long time to ask my questions and get no answer)
Sadly, I call bullshit on your argument.
Carrying it to the end, google cache is a fully cited quotation. That the quotation encapsulates large portions of the original document does not make it illegal, AFAIK. I may be wrong, and if so, I would like anyone to point to a law (short of National Security, or contract laws (NDA)) which make it illegal to quote someone. I can see it being a bit touchy with reproductions of entire works, so perhaps your google cache comment is not without merit; however...
As the original article is about google news (which does not post the entire article in the first place), and a good many news outlets tend to take quotes without even properly citing the source, google can hardly be faulted for what it does.
I may be crazy, but I was just mulling it over in my head, trying to think of what other stable or metastable compound could possibly exist that would contain the most prevalent element in the universe, but I can't for the life of me come up with one.
I mean, if only there were some molecule, perhaps a diatomic one, which contained hydrogen and only hydrogen. That would be quite nice, hey, it may even give strong readings on that there gamma ray spectrometer. Sadly though, it seems my undergraduate degree in astrophysics did not prepare me adequetly, for I cannot think of any single source that could possibly show up as well as H2 O.
Of course, with the additional data that might be provided another method, such as the RADAR like approach, we can remove such things as bubbles of hydrogen gas locked in the crust. Don't bash the poor scientists for doing what we do best, which is qualify our statements and try to make predictions that don't make us look like fools.
about actually damaging the hearing of the people being driven away by this device. If memory serves me correctly, 75 dB is pretty darn intense sound, though it is a very high frequency. Is there no discussion of what damage it will cause to those listening. After a long time hearing this very loud, very high frequency sound, I would imagine that those subjected to it will no longer be able to hear in that range. It seems patently absurd that this can be considered moral.
Is there to be culpability for destroying the hearing of the youth? I wonder how this plays out in the courts? Is it the listeners fault for being close enough to the sound source to have their ears damaged, or is it the originators fault for intentionally creating a noise which could be potentially destructive of hearing?
To me it shoudn't matter if they don't realize it would harm hearing; ignorance is not a defense. At the very least it could be considered neglegence.
We've observed it in yeast. So unless you now say that that which causes the yeast to evolve is an intelligent designer, the theory doesn't hold water. And if you do, then you've cheated.
Basically, who would want their God to exist only in the margins of science?
It amazes me too.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but what follows is a link to the full text of the article referred to in the parent. PDF WARNING.
/ Bio343/papers/Greig.pdf
Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast.
And also, the requisite CoralCache mirror:
http://www.bio.davidson.edu.nyud.net:8090/Courses
Speciation can be observed in the lab with yeast. I even have a refereed article to prove it! The article hails from Science. 2002 Nov 29;298(5599):1773-5. and is entitled Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast.
A child of the parent post seems to think that we have no clear definition of how two species are different, but in fact we do for sexually reproducing species. Any two specimines that can produce viable offspring (that is, offspring that may reproduce aswell to produce new offspring) are considered to be of the same species. If this is not the case, they are of differing species and it is the task of biologists to determine where they branch from eachother.
So that takes care of the speciation argument against evolution.
This post is the healthiest religiously minded approach to science that I've read yet. It doesn't hurt that reading the last line made me giggle like a school girl. The thought of a deity proud of those that work their hardest to find as much as they can about the world, while that deity's followers attempt to persecute the seekers of knowledge is ironic and comical.
Actually, this reminds me of a Terry Pratchett novel from long ago entitled: Strata. (Not an Amazon.com link referral, I swear!)
If you haven't read it, I highly suggest it, particularly if you are a fan of Mr. Pratchett's books, as this is from long before he began writing discworld novels, but you see how he develops the ideas for his later books. Regardless, on to the point...
Minor spoiler warning:
In the book, the human race has advanced to the point where they can create planets using technology left around from the construction of earth by a race known as the Spindlers. They go through all of the effort of building planets and giving them a large fossil record so that people can explore for thousands of years after the founders have died and the societies that grow around them no longer believe (or even think) that they were brought there from earth.
(ROT13 encoded big spoiler follows):
Gur zbfg vagrerfgvat naq sha cneg bs gur fgbel pbzrf ng gur raq bs gur obbx, jura gur znva punenpgre qvfpbiref gung gur rnegu jnfa'g perngrq ol gur Fcvaqyref, naq abe jnf nalguvat ryfr va gurve havirefr. Fur qvfpbiref gung gurer jrer fbzr perngbef gung perngrq n zlgubybtl sbe na ragver havirefr, naq bayl nobhg 20,000 lrnef orsber guvf punenpgre yvirq.
So you never know, maybe it is all just planted evidence by someone/Someone. But, if it is, doesn't that just make it even more wonderful to uncover? You would think that this philosophy would be perfect for those with strong religious beliefs, as it lets them retain those beliefs, and still function/excel in the scientifically based world of today and the years Beyond 2000.
Better bumper sticker (though it little makes sense):
"My other car...believes in evolution, too."
Well, not to be flamebait, but TFA is talking about one "minor" group of Christians that do not, by the doctorine of the Church, believe the Bible to be 100% accurate. As has been pointed out to me by my girlfriend , and on Slashdot before, the Catholic Church has no problem with, and teaches in their private schools, evolution. The Church has had pretty bad problems in the past, but it is now relatively benign when compared to some faiths practiced in various parts of the USA.