In the US, it is unconstitutional for the government to give funding to churches. I don't know that this is clearly true. It is clear that in the US the government cannot constitutionally establish a church, make an already existing church the Church of the State, or prefer one church over another. It seems, however, that there is some grey area, and Bush made use of that gray area. See my comment here.
So, although the Supreme Court never actually decided whether or not Bush's grants to churches are constitutional, I think he did a decent job of finding a way to give grants to churches in that grey area. I mean, should the government not give money to a beneficial community program just because it happens to be run by a pastor? That program could do even more good if it had more money. And trust me, there are more than enough people in need to fill just about any program imaginable. Further, Bush carefully avoided making the grants only to faith-based programs--it is also available to other community programs. Then it's couched in the idea that it would be unfair to discriminate a beneficial community program just because a church runs it.
You might say "no" to my question above ("should the government not give money to a beneficial community program just because it happens to be run by a pastor?"), but I'm sure you can see how that does make the grounds for at least a colorable argument that the government can give money to a church without violating the establishment clause.
Basically as it appears to me, George Bush wanted to find a way to give money to churches, but the government is not supposed to embrace a religion. So he set up a program whereby faith-based organizations that help people may apply for federal grants in order to better help them to help people. So the grants don't fund a church so much as a beneficial program. Of course, a church is running the program--so the money goes to a church. Additionally, if the funds are used improperly--i.e., used to run the church rather than the beneficial program--it is government money going to run a church, which isn't supposed to happen. But it is not easy to justify giving greater oversight to a church than other programs receiving government funds, and who may just as easily abuse it (keeping in mind that giving greater oversight to churches would reduce oversight to non-churches receiving funds).
I see no difference between these government grants to churches and to the Boy Scouts. Bush's program does not require organizations receiving its grants to hire employees regardless of sexual orientation. And it certainly does not require that the programs pretend to be agnostic. So, it seems to me that government funding to Boy Scouts is a dead issue (even more so, given that the Boy Scouts have had these questions in court and tend to win).
Public funds may be used in the private sector. The government, for example, provides funding to churches (and yes, many of these churches also do not allow homosexuals in their chain of leadership and "pander" religion), whichout them suddenly becoming government entities.
Aren't those the 5 most prominant English-speaking countries? Am I missing someone?
Perhaps the Chinese government has something against the English language. Or perhaps this French writer thinks English speaking countries have some sort of conspiracy to suppress the French.
It sounds like the article is suggesting people can offer whole articles for submission. It seems that Wikipedia works because people can write just bits and pieces. And then, if I see something wrong, or if something changes, I can just make that minor little change myself. So, to fix some minor error in an Encycopedia Britannica article, I have to write a whole article? What if the article has some error within an article, or something has changed making the article no longer up-to-date and I want to just suggest a correction?
Yahoo's largest shareholders are corporations of various of various sorts (investment banks, retirement funds, etc) and billionaires. People reliant on payday loans have very little voting stock in Yahoo. For the most part, if there is a proxy fight, it will be because sophisticated corporations and billionaires decided to make it so--any comments from the "peasants" won't make it past the help desk.
That article is quite recent, but I don't quite understand where they found that copy of 9.5 Beta. It says build number 4758, which is odd because the Windows builds are in the 10,000s right now. More likely that's the build number off the mac versions. The mac build of that number coresponds with the Windows build of number 9903. The development team released build 10025 the day before the test and 10014 the week before. In fact the development team made significant optimizations in build 9981, which was released on May 9th. So, I'm just wondering why the test used Beta 1 when beta 2 was available, and even then, it seems like the writers should have used the build with profile-guided optimizations.
The best I can figure is that the article was actually written sometime between April 8th and April 17th. If this is the case then it seems that all of the browsers in the test should have been the most up-to-date builds of the respective browsers that were available in that time period. If this was not the case, then the test was rigged!
For me, I tried clicking randomly (three different ways: (1) click the answer nearest my mouse; (2) always click the first choice); or (3) click wildly all over the place) and actually tried answering the questions. On average I scored slightly better when I actually tried, but it was only a difference of a couple points.
I'm illiterate, though, so it's probably just me...
I did that a bunsh of tyms--maibie it's just mee, but randomly clickering dosn't seam to make a difrince to me number. If Im randomely clicker the closerest anser or reely trie, my nuber is the same.
Opera is a complete non-starter. It has *nothing* to offer over either the pre-installed safari, or the "go get it in 4 seconds" firefox. Being a convert from Firefox a couple years back, and having tried Safari on several occasions, I have to disagree. Safari seems to be pretty much a barebones browser. I didn't see any special features that made me think there was any reason for me to use it. Firefox bothered me because it had such a huge memory footprint, and I found that I rarely used most of the novel extentions that aren't available as features in any other browser.
For me Opera has almost everything I want while not eating RAM like candy (no browser has everything I want...so that much is hopeless). I love the immense customizeability of Opera--without having to bother with sometimes trouble causing (and sometimes incompatible during version upgrades) extensions. The main benefit of Firefox, which is otherwise just a standard browser, is clearly the extensions. I discovered that all the extensions that I thought were actually useful were built-in to Opera (though sometimes it takes a bit of digging). Adblock, flashblock, gestures, custom buttons, "speed dial," inline search, custom search (even from the address bar), password saver, other info saver, match settings and notes across computers, customizeable shortcuts for everything and anything you could possibly want, save sessions, user-javascript, opens from a cold start almost instantly...the list goes on (these are the ones that come to mind; other Opera users might mention other things, like the panel or Dragonfly, but I don't really use those features). All from a 6 MB download that doesn't dry up your RAM after running for a few hours.
So I keep Firefox around, but I don't use it very often.
Actually, none of them were that bad. One of them started at $80,000/y. It seemed more like he picked a random sample of 12 entry level jobs a few months ago, took pictures of the associated workspaces and is now looking to get four articles on Slashdot (some of these already made it): 10 Best Workspaces in IT, 10 Worst Workspaces in IT; Ten Worst Entry-Level IT Jobs; and Ten Best Entry-Level IT Jobs--all from the same 12 jobs.
This sounds awful close to the standard Slashdot business model.
Besides, your "ELUA" was written after I already wrote the comment (meaning it wasn't possible for me to agree to your terms prior to writting the comment), which clearly puts Psystar in a different position than that which you pose.
So, yes, I think the EULA that Psystar, a business, accepted the terms of from Apple is enforceable. You have to understand that these two companies are in a country in which "freedom of contract" is a fundamental tenet. None of the normal defenses work--Psystar clearly knows that it is violating a contract it has with Apple. I'm pretty sure it will eventually suffer the consequences, assuming it doesn't die on its own first.
This isn't about software patents or peer-to-peer file sharing by individuals. This isn't a contract of adhesion between a large corporation and a "helpless" individual. This is one sophisticated corporation (corporations are presumed to be sophisticated) trying to slap another sophisticated corporation in the face and run away. If this goes to trial, the chances of Psystar getting past summary judgment are about zero.
Yeah--there's tons of legal precedence to back it up. The problem with EULAs (which have actually been upheld, despite the problem I'm about to discuss) is that an individual really has no bargaining power with a large corporation. Additionally, the EULA is generally far beyond that person's ability to understand. So, a person who reads an EULA still does not know his or her rights with regard to the software, and even if he or she does, she has no bargaining power to negotiate different rights. This is called a contract of adhesion. It's a "take it or leave it" contract. Meaning, if you want to use Apple software, you use it on Apple's terms.
Psystar, on the other hand, is in a radically different position from an individual. A corporation, unlike an individual, is presumed to be sophisticated--it understands the EULA. Further, the disparity of bargaining power between corporations (even between a large corporation and a small one) is not nearly as great as between a large corporation and an individual. Accordingly, corporations are not able to enter into contracts of adhesion--the concept just doesn't make sense to the law. So, because of the US states' policies allowing freedom of contract, a corporation is welcome to contract itself into whatever bad position it feels like (while individuals are supplied some protections). Psystar, by installing Mac OS agrees to the terms of its agreement with Apple which restrict installation of the software onto non-Apple hardware. So, Psystar has an agreement with Apple, and Psystar is violating that agreement with every machine it sells with Mac OS preinstalled.
It seems like Apple's in a good spot in this potential law suit, and Psystar is not.
I think they'd look terrible if they sued this company. At the same time, however, if they don't sue, then they're inviting other companies to do the same as Psystar. Then what do we make of the EULA? Not enforcing their EULA could cause a landslide.
My guess is that they will wait until the company dies. Then, if, for some reason, it fails to die, they'll sue 'em--and win, of course. Clearly, Apple has this one--this is a blatent knowing violation of the EULA by a for-profit corporation.
No kidding--I'm not on Mac, but HP drivers are terrible on Windows too.
How about the 50 MB (seriously) driver to run this printer. I thought, "what could possibly be in that thing?"
Well, how about a pretty crappy photo manager, a pretty crappy scanning utility, etc., then it wants to run all the time and have stuff blinking on my desktop (along with all those other programs blinking on my desktop--if I actually let all the programs do this my monitor would look like the circus is in town and I wouldn't have any space left to see anything).
So I thought I'd finish off with a bit of useful advice--I thought I had found a driver on HP's page for just the printer driver and that's it weighing in at about 13 MB with no annoying crap. Turns out, however, that I'm either dreaming or it's gone--the three driver options for my printer are 50 MB, 250 MB, or 365 MB! Something tells me a printer driver does not need to be 50 MB, let alone 365. And whatever programs make of that other 300 MB must be written pretty bad to take up that much space.
Personally, I take the modern Mormons' fear and rejection of the idea that women can and will have multiple husbands as a Satanic influence upon the Church. The thing is, though, I never rejected this idea. You are confusing my unwillinness to pretend that what you say is doctrine as a rejection of it. What I am actually saying is that you can point to no authoritative source that shows me the doctrine one way or the other, and because of this I am neither willing to accept not reject it.
It seems to me very plausible that women "can and will have multiple husbands"--after all the Handbook says that a deceased woman may be sealed to all of her lawful husbands. But I'm not about to jump the gun (you, on the other hand, are perfectly willing to jump the gun) to say that all of these men will be that woman's eternal companion. The handbook just doesn't say that. And if that is the case, then what is the purpose of the extra restrictions on when and how a woman may be sealed to multiple men? Don't take that to mean I'm rejecting your hypothesis--I'm merely pointing out that there is some indicia to the contrary. Here, I'll sum it up: The statement you are trying to make just plain has not been revealed to us common folk. Has it not been revealed because it's not true or has it not been revealed despite its truth (as with many other truths)? That I don't know, and will not pretend to know.
As for the letter from the relief society--no matter how official it was back in the day, you give me no reason why it should trump an Official Handbook of Instruction written far more recently after much much more revelation. So that thing I will stick to: until you find me something worthy of trumping a clear unequivocal statement in the 1999 Handbook of Instructions, I will stand by my current understanding that a woman while alive may be sealed to only one man, no matter whether the seal is for time or for eternity. After her death, on the other hand, I take no position aside from or beyond the language in the handbook (as discussed above).
You are forgetting about the millennial reign of Christ
True--except I wasn't so much forgetting about the Millennial reign as just ignoring it. You're correct that we'll make lots of mistakes with regard to sealings and he'll make sure we get those corrected. For example, perhaps your mother really doesn't want to be sealed to those guys. Or perhaps she did want to be at the time she died, but then changed her mind.
However, I think it is rash to say "my mother will have 3 husbands 'for time and all eternity'!" The handbook doesn't say that. The handbook says that after a woman has died she may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally wed while alive (with a caveat irrelevant to the instant discussion regarding surviving husbands). The book does not say "and she will be with these three men for time and all eternity." The book also does not say "and she will choose which seal to accept." Or anything else--it just says what it says without further background or reasoning. Accordingly, I think it's rash to assume that all of these sealings will be upheld (given that it defies the conventional wisdom of church members) just as it is rash to assume that only one will actually be valid (given that the seals may be performed). Any further interpretation is not in the manual and appears to be nothing more than speculation as far as I can tell.
As for women being sealed to more than one man at a time. I don't believe I am "just plain wrong." The handbook says very clearly that "[a] living woman may be sealed to only one husband." It doesn't say "a living woman may be sealed for time and eternity to only one husband, but may also be sealed for time to a second husband." I do study the Church's history pretty well, but it doesn't take more than a basic understanding of Church history to understand this. The document you directed my attention to, in footnote 45, states that Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt Smith (wow!) was "sealed for time and eternity to Joseph Smith on 24 July 1843; and for time to Parley P. Pratt on the same day." You are correct in that you have directed me to an instance of a piece of writing that states this woman was sealed to more than one man during her lifetime. This has no bearing whatsoever, however, on the policy of the Church today. I'll offer a couple reasons why.
First, when Joseph Smith received the revelation on baptisms for the dead, he sent people out proxy baptizin'. He soon was told by the Lord that he wasn't quite doing it right--men should be baptized for men and women for women. The policy of the Church with regard to the performances of proxy baptisms changed at that point, and Joseph Smith said, "hey, we need to change the policy a bit--from now on, each person can only do a proxy baptism for someone of his or her own gender." Your 150 year old counterpart may have said, "no, Joseph, that's incorrect, I have record of baptisms for the dead from last month and we clearly at that time allowed women to be baptised for men and vice versa." Joseph, I imagine, would have replied, "yes we did, but the Lord sent me a memo telling me that we can't do that anymore. So despite what we've done in the past, this is what we'll do now." In short, the Church implemented a procedure, received further direction from the Lord, then refined that procedure (and baptisms for the dead were further refined several times since then--most recently this past year). To compare, it may be that the policy of the Church in 1843 (the time of this woman's sealings) allowed Sis. Pratt (weird, that's the name of a sister from my mission) to be sealed to more than one man at a time. The current policy of the Church, however, is clear: "A living woman may be sealed to only one husband." And I'm not about to dispute that unequivocal statement with the fact of a 150 year old sealing in the early Church mentioned in footnote 45 of this obscure document. I could just see my bishop now, "[blink...blink] Yes, Brother L, but our policies have chang
Most Mormons take this to mean that "plural marriage" involves only men having multiple wives and not women having multiple husbands, but they are wrong, and the bishop's Church Handbook of Instruction proves that they are wrong, as women are re-sealed "for time and all eternity" to all of their spouses upon death. I don't believe this interpretation of the Church Handbook of Instructions is quite correct--for two reasons. First, an outdated handbook isn't very useful for "proving" a current church procedure. Second, the handbook cited states:
A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life. It appears to me, then, there is no automatic policy to seal women to all her husbands after her death. It seems instead that it depends on the intent of that woman and her families understanding of that intent--because they'd have to be the ones that go to the temple to do the proxy ordinances.
Here's my summary of the procedure. When a sealing is cancelled, it is gone. That woman is just plain no longer sealed to that man and without further action will never be sealed to him again. She may then be sealed to a different man. After her death she remains sealed to her second husband and not to her first.
But imagine this--a woman is sealed to a man. That man dies. The seal remains in place, but "[a] living woman may be sealed to only one husband." A woman at this point has two choices: (1) cancel the first sealing. This would make the first sealing go away forever (again, assuming no further action). Or (2) leave the first seal in place and marry a man for time only (note that sealings for time only exist, but the rule is that a woman may only be sealed to one man--not differentiating between types of seals, so she can't even get a sealing for time only to her new husband without cancelling the first seal). When the woman dies she may now be sealed to both of her husbands. If she cancelled her first sealing, she may be resealed to that man. Or, if she married the second man for time only, she may now be sealed to that man.
Another scenario would involve a woman who married a man (but was not sealed to him--perhaps she wasn't Mormon yet) who later died. Then the woman was sealed to a different man (she's joined the church now). When she dies she may be sealed to her first husband, after he receives his other ordinances, without cancelling her sealing to her second husband, but only after her second husband has died.
That's an interesting interpretation of the document. Tell me, what in the Handbook of Instructions led you to any of the statements above? Instead, it sounds to me like preconceived notions that have nothing to do with the released document (I say this because your comments make clear that you haven't actually read the portions of the handbook relating to your very odd claims. Instead you just make yourself sound very uneducated).
Slashdot Mirror
Vonage, Skype, and MagicJack. There are plenty of people out there who use these as their "regular phone."
So, although the Supreme Court never actually decided whether or not Bush's grants to churches are constitutional, I think he did a decent job of finding a way to give grants to churches in that grey area. I mean, should the government not give money to a beneficial community program just because it happens to be run by a pastor? That program could do even more good if it had more money. And trust me, there are more than enough people in need to fill just about any program imaginable. Further, Bush carefully avoided making the grants only to faith-based programs--it is also available to other community programs. Then it's couched in the idea that it would be unfair to discriminate a beneficial community program just because a church runs it.
You might say "no" to my question above ("should the government not give money to a beneficial community program just because it happens to be run by a pastor?"), but I'm sure you can see how that does make the grounds for at least a colorable argument that the government can give money to a church without violating the establishment clause.
Basically as it appears to me, George Bush wanted to find a way to give money to churches, but the government is not supposed to embrace a religion. So he set up a program whereby faith-based organizations that help people may apply for federal grants in order to better help them to help people. So the grants don't fund a church so much as a beneficial program. Of course, a church is running the program--so the money goes to a church. Additionally, if the funds are used improperly--i.e., used to run the church rather than the beneficial program--it is government money going to run a church, which isn't supposed to happen. But it is not easy to justify giving greater oversight to a church than other programs receiving government funds, and who may just as easily abuse it (keeping in mind that giving greater oversight to churches would reduce oversight to non-churches receiving funds).
The US Supreme Court made it very difficult for most people to challenge the constitutionality of Bush's program in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
I see no difference between these government grants to churches and to the Boy Scouts. Bush's program does not require organizations receiving its grants to hire employees regardless of sexual orientation. And it certainly does not require that the programs pretend to be agnostic. So, it seems to me that government funding to Boy Scouts is a dead issue (even more so, given that the Boy Scouts have had these questions in court and tend to win).
Public funds may be used in the private sector. The government, for example, provides funding to churches (and yes, many of these churches also do not allow homosexuals in their chain of leadership and "pander" religion), whichout them suddenly becoming government entities.
Aren't those the 5 most prominant English-speaking countries? Am I missing someone?
Perhaps the Chinese government has something against the English language. Or perhaps this French writer thinks English speaking countries have some sort of conspiracy to suppress the French.
It sounds like the article is suggesting people can offer whole articles for submission. It seems that Wikipedia works because people can write just bits and pieces. And then, if I see something wrong, or if something changes, I can just make that minor little change myself. So, to fix some minor error in an Encycopedia Britannica article, I have to write a whole article? What if the article has some error within an article, or something has changed making the article no longer up-to-date and I want to just suggest a correction?
Yes--you're right!
Wait, no--your comment is hurting my worship of Google. Please stop.
Although KDE4.1(?) was planning to impliment the ability to run Apple Widgets (or whatever they're called).
Of course, Apple didn't design them to work cross-platform, though.
?
Yahoo's largest shareholders are corporations of various of various sorts (investment banks, retirement funds, etc) and billionaires. People reliant on payday loans have very little voting stock in Yahoo. For the most part, if there is a proxy fight, it will be because sophisticated corporations and billionaires decided to make it so--any comments from the "peasants" won't make it past the help desk.
That article is quite recent, but I don't quite understand where they found that copy of 9.5 Beta. It says build number 4758, which is odd because the Windows builds are in the 10,000s right now. More likely that's the build number off the mac versions. The mac build of that number coresponds with the Windows build of number 9903. The development team released build 10025 the day before the test and 10014 the week before. In fact the development team made significant optimizations in build 9981, which was released on May 9th. So, I'm just wondering why the test used Beta 1 when beta 2 was available, and even then, it seems like the writers should have used the build with profile-guided optimizations.
The best I can figure is that the article was actually written sometime between April 8th and April 17th. If this is the case then it seems that all of the browsers in the test should have been the most up-to-date builds of the respective browsers that were available in that time period. If this was not the case, then the test was rigged!
How about:
/. by a large margin! Hahahaha! How do I sign up for Facebook? I'm deleting my Slashdot account now that this survey has enlightened me.
3. Facebook.com 106.62
8. Myspace.com 103.86
Myspace takes
For me, I tried clicking randomly (three different ways: (1) click the answer nearest my mouse; (2) always click the first choice); or (3) click wildly all over the place) and actually tried answering the questions. On average I scored slightly better when I actually tried, but it was only a difference of a couple points.
I'm illiterate, though, so it's probably just me...
I did that a bunsh of tyms--maibie it's just mee, but randomly clickering dosn't seam to make a difrince to me number. If Im randomely clicker the closerest anser or reely trie, my nuber is the same.
For me Opera has almost everything I want while not eating RAM like candy (no browser has everything I want...so that much is hopeless). I love the immense customizeability of Opera--without having to bother with sometimes trouble causing (and sometimes incompatible during version upgrades) extensions. The main benefit of Firefox, which is otherwise just a standard browser, is clearly the extensions. I discovered that all the extensions that I thought were actually useful were built-in to Opera (though sometimes it takes a bit of digging). Adblock, flashblock, gestures, custom buttons, "speed dial," inline search, custom search (even from the address bar), password saver, other info saver, match settings and notes across computers, customizeable shortcuts for everything and anything you could possibly want, save sessions, user-javascript, opens from a cold start almost instantly...the list goes on (these are the ones that come to mind; other Opera users might mention other things, like the panel or Dragonfly, but I don't really use those features). All from a 6 MB download that doesn't dry up your RAM after running for a few hours.
So I keep Firefox around, but I don't use it very often.
Actually, none of them were that bad. One of them started at $80,000/y. It seemed more like he picked a random sample of 12 entry level jobs a few months ago, took pictures of the associated workspaces and is now looking to get four articles on Slashdot (some of these already made it): 10 Best Workspaces in IT, 10 Worst Workspaces in IT; Ten Worst Entry-Level IT Jobs; and Ten Best Entry-Level IT Jobs--all from the same 12 jobs.
This sounds awful close to the standard Slashdot business model.
I think that's what the parent meant to say. Or so the language implies. He just hit the "Submit" button without first hitting the "Preview" button.
I never said all EULA are enforceable.
Besides, your "ELUA" was written after I already wrote the comment (meaning it wasn't possible for me to agree to your terms prior to writting the comment), which clearly puts Psystar in a different position than that which you pose.
So, yes, I think the EULA that Psystar, a business, accepted the terms of from Apple is enforceable. You have to understand that these two companies are in a country in which "freedom of contract" is a fundamental tenet. None of the normal defenses work--Psystar clearly knows that it is violating a contract it has with Apple. I'm pretty sure it will eventually suffer the consequences, assuming it doesn't die on its own first.
This isn't about software patents or peer-to-peer file sharing by individuals. This isn't a contract of adhesion between a large corporation and a "helpless" individual. This is one sophisticated corporation (corporations are presumed to be sophisticated) trying to slap another sophisticated corporation in the face and run away. If this goes to trial, the chances of Psystar getting past summary judgment are about zero.
Yeah--there's tons of legal precedence to back it up. The problem with EULAs (which have actually been upheld, despite the problem I'm about to discuss) is that an individual really has no bargaining power with a large corporation. Additionally, the EULA is generally far beyond that person's ability to understand. So, a person who reads an EULA still does not know his or her rights with regard to the software, and even if he or she does, she has no bargaining power to negotiate different rights. This is called a contract of adhesion. It's a "take it or leave it" contract. Meaning, if you want to use Apple software, you use it on Apple's terms.
Psystar, on the other hand, is in a radically different position from an individual. A corporation, unlike an individual, is presumed to be sophisticated--it understands the EULA. Further, the disparity of bargaining power between corporations (even between a large corporation and a small one) is not nearly as great as between a large corporation and an individual. Accordingly, corporations are not able to enter into contracts of adhesion--the concept just doesn't make sense to the law. So, because of the US states' policies allowing freedom of contract, a corporation is welcome to contract itself into whatever bad position it feels like (while individuals are supplied some protections). Psystar, by installing Mac OS agrees to the terms of its agreement with Apple which restrict installation of the software onto non-Apple hardware. So, Psystar has an agreement with Apple, and Psystar is violating that agreement with every machine it sells with Mac OS preinstalled.
It seems like Apple's in a good spot in this potential law suit, and Psystar is not.
I think they'd look terrible if they sued this company. At the same time, however, if they don't sue, then they're inviting other companies to do the same as Psystar. Then what do we make of the EULA? Not enforcing their EULA could cause a landslide.
My guess is that they will wait until the company dies. Then, if, for some reason, it fails to die, they'll sue 'em--and win, of course. Clearly, Apple has this one--this is a blatent knowing violation of the EULA by a for-profit corporation.
No kidding--I'm not on Mac, but HP drivers are terrible on Windows too.
How about the 50 MB (seriously) driver to run this printer. I thought, "what could possibly be in that thing?"
Well, how about a pretty crappy photo manager, a pretty crappy scanning utility, etc., then it wants to run all the time and have stuff blinking on my desktop (along with all those other programs blinking on my desktop--if I actually let all the programs do this my monitor would look like the circus is in town and I wouldn't have any space left to see anything).
So I thought I'd finish off with a bit of useful advice--I thought I had found a driver on HP's page for just the printer driver and that's it weighing in at about 13 MB with no annoying crap. Turns out, however, that I'm either dreaming or it's gone--the three driver options for my printer are 50 MB, 250 MB, or 365 MB! Something tells me a printer driver does not need to be 50 MB, let alone 365. And whatever programs make of that other 300 MB must be written pretty bad to take up that much space.
It seems to me very plausible that women "can and will have multiple husbands"--after all the Handbook says that a deceased woman may be sealed to all of her lawful husbands. But I'm not about to jump the gun (you, on the other hand, are perfectly willing to jump the gun) to say that all of these men will be that woman's eternal companion. The handbook just doesn't say that. And if that is the case, then what is the purpose of the extra restrictions on when and how a woman may be sealed to multiple men? Don't take that to mean I'm rejecting your hypothesis--I'm merely pointing out that there is some indicia to the contrary. Here, I'll sum it up: The statement you are trying to make just plain has not been revealed to us common folk. Has it not been revealed because it's not true or has it not been revealed despite its truth (as with many other truths)? That I don't know, and will not pretend to know.
As for the letter from the relief society--no matter how official it was back in the day, you give me no reason why it should trump an Official Handbook of Instruction written far more recently after much much more revelation. So that thing I will stick to: until you find me something worthy of trumping a clear unequivocal statement in the 1999 Handbook of Instructions, I will stand by my current understanding that a woman while alive may be sealed to only one man, no matter whether the seal is for time or for eternity. After her death, on the other hand, I take no position aside from or beyond the language in the handbook (as discussed above).
Could not connect to remote server
You tried to access the address http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fnalcodeletter.jpg, which is currently unavailable. Please make sure that the Web address (URL) is correctly spelled and punctuated, then try reloading the page.
You are forgetting about the millennial reign of Christ
True--except I wasn't so much forgetting about the Millennial reign as just ignoring it. You're correct that we'll make lots of mistakes with regard to sealings and he'll make sure we get those corrected. For example, perhaps your mother really doesn't want to be sealed to those guys. Or perhaps she did want to be at the time she died, but then changed her mind.
However, I think it is rash to say "my mother will have 3 husbands 'for time and all eternity'!" The handbook doesn't say that. The handbook says that after a woman has died she may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally wed while alive (with a caveat irrelevant to the instant discussion regarding surviving husbands). The book does not say "and she will be with these three men for time and all eternity." The book also does not say "and she will choose which seal to accept." Or anything else--it just says what it says without further background or reasoning. Accordingly, I think it's rash to assume that all of these sealings will be upheld (given that it defies the conventional wisdom of church members) just as it is rash to assume that only one will actually be valid (given that the seals may be performed). Any further interpretation is not in the manual and appears to be nothing more than speculation as far as I can tell.
As for women being sealed to more than one man at a time. I don't believe I am "just plain wrong." The handbook says very clearly that "[a] living woman may be sealed to only one husband." It doesn't say "a living woman may be sealed for time and eternity to only one husband, but may also be sealed for time to a second husband." I do study the Church's history pretty well, but it doesn't take more than a basic understanding of Church history to understand this. The document you directed my attention to, in footnote 45, states that Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt Smith (wow!) was "sealed for time and eternity to Joseph Smith on 24 July 1843; and for time to Parley P. Pratt on the same day." You are correct in that you have directed me to an instance of a piece of writing that states this woman was sealed to more than one man during her lifetime. This has no bearing whatsoever, however, on the policy of the Church today. I'll offer a couple reasons why.
First, when Joseph Smith received the revelation on baptisms for the dead, he sent people out proxy baptizin'. He soon was told by the Lord that he wasn't quite doing it right--men should be baptized for men and women for women. The policy of the Church with regard to the performances of proxy baptisms changed at that point, and Joseph Smith said, "hey, we need to change the policy a bit--from now on, each person can only do a proxy baptism for someone of his or her own gender." Your 150 year old counterpart may have said, "no, Joseph, that's incorrect, I have record of baptisms for the dead from last month and we clearly at that time allowed women to be baptised for men and vice versa." Joseph, I imagine, would have replied, "yes we did, but the Lord sent me a memo telling me that we can't do that anymore. So despite what we've done in the past, this is what we'll do now." In short, the Church implemented a procedure, received further direction from the Lord, then refined that procedure (and baptisms for the dead were further refined several times since then--most recently this past year). To compare, it may be that the policy of the Church in 1843 (the time of this woman's sealings) allowed Sis. Pratt (weird, that's the name of a sister from my mission) to be sealed to more than one man at a time. The current policy of the Church, however, is clear: "A living woman may be sealed to only one husband." And I'm not about to dispute that unequivocal statement with the fact of a 150 year old sealing in the early Church mentioned in footnote 45 of this obscure document. I could just see my bishop now, "[blink...blink] Yes, Brother L, but our policies have chang
Here's my summary of the procedure. When a sealing is cancelled, it is gone. That woman is just plain no longer sealed to that man and without further action will never be sealed to him again. She may then be sealed to a different man. After her death she remains sealed to her second husband and not to her first.
But imagine this--a woman is sealed to a man. That man dies. The seal remains in place, but "[a] living woman may be sealed to only one husband." A woman at this point has two choices: (1) cancel the first sealing. This would make the first sealing go away forever (again, assuming no further action). Or (2) leave the first seal in place and marry a man for time only (note that sealings for time only exist, but the rule is that a woman may only be sealed to one man--not differentiating between types of seals, so she can't even get a sealing for time only to her new husband without cancelling the first seal). When the woman dies she may now be sealed to both of her husbands. If she cancelled her first sealing, she may be resealed to that man. Or, if she married the second man for time only, she may now be sealed to that man.
Another scenario would involve a woman who married a man (but was not sealed to him--perhaps she wasn't Mormon yet) who later died. Then the woman was sealed to a different man (she's joined the church now). When she dies she may be sealed to her first husband, after he receives his other ordinances, without cancelling her sealing to her second husband, but only after her second husband has died.
That's an interesting interpretation of the document. Tell me, what in the Handbook of Instructions led you to any of the statements above? Instead, it sounds to me like preconceived notions that have nothing to do with the released document (I say this because your comments make clear that you haven't actually read the portions of the handbook relating to your very odd claims. Instead you just make yourself sound very uneducated).