Superman or Wonder Woman invited him to the Justice League?
Or he a Marvel guy? Because I'm pretty sure Iron Man already has the role of "ineffective robot guy" taken.
Seeing as you didn't mention it I'll throw out the WISP idea. A wireless ISP. Getting more common in rural areas. I used one for a while...though Wal-Marts brilliantly unrestricted rfid system nearly killed the ISP....until they were forced to jack up our prices and install a repeater. Thanks Wal Mart...but I digress.
Look into a Wireless ISP instead of actually building one yourself.
No. You're kind of missing the point. She's 10 and supposedly did this at the age of 7. First. At that age can she be held legally responsible for her actions? Usually not. Can her PARENTS be held responsible? I think everyone involved should look into cases of shoplifting. Because honestly that's the age kids experiment and do that. When a 7 year old is caught shoplifting how do the authorities handle it? Do they arrest her? Take her downtown and book her? Or do they call attention to it, discuss it with the parents and let the kid go with a warning. ESPECIALLY on a first time offense. The RIAA has a tiny case that hinges on the actions of a 7 year old girl. No jury, even in Texas, will rule in favor of the RIAA. The kid's age is the main reason. 7 year olds just aren't capable of those kind of moral decisions. Hell even 10 year olds are frequently found to be the same way. Why do you think they are classified as minors?
They aren't adults. Regardless of parenting, minors cannot make rational decisions. That's why the 10 year old that beats their best friend to death just goes to jail until their 18. They cannot fully comprehend the law.
What the RIAA is trying to do is make a parent culpable for their child's actions. That is some extremely dangerous precedent to set. That means that when a kid is out with a friend and they steal something or hurt someone their PARENTS will be held responsible for the action, as though they themselves did it. And that raises the question of which parent should be blamed?
In this case people blame the mother for allowing access to the computer. But if they say parents are responsible for the actions of children one could argue that the girl's dad should also be held responsible. He was a terrible parent and so his kid stole.
No. It just doesn't work that way. Minors are minors. Conscience, sentient beings that are incapable of making major moral decisions due to their age. They are not their parents and their parents cannot be held responsible for their actions.
I mean dang, if the RIAA can win then people could sue the parents of the Va Tech shooter, or the Columbine shooters. Would that be fair either?
The thing is she was 7 at the time of the alleged infringement. Even here in the "evil" United States we look out for kids. They can depose the poor kid but no jury will take it seriously. At the age of 7 the voracity of a kid's statements is EASILY brought into question. They are a minor (to the extreme!). Even at 10, 3 years after the fact, what she says will be highly suspicious. 3 years for a 10 year old is vastly different then for a 25 or even a 14 year old. Her testimony just isn't reliable.
The woman needs to keep pressing for a trial. Don't let these azzles get summary judgements or anything else. She gets a jury and she's fine, and the RIAA is in big trouble.
They're probably hoping the threat of deposition will scare the woman into settling.
This would be very interesting if people, you know, UNDER the age of 50 actually voted.
And come on. Hilary has already mad her stance on censorship clear. I don't think she cares about the Generation X & Y voting population...so why should the rest of the party care either?
Yeah. I have a tendency to confuse my various Christian philosophies. However I am still very curious as to how modern fundamentalism is so heavily influenced by Calvinism. I how does "damned if you do damned if you don't" equate "Darwin is a fucktard?"
That's the main point the first fellow posted and it's the one I'd really like him to explain to me. Because I really do not see it. And naturally he'll go into how I completely misunderstood Calvinism in my above posts...but I think you cleared me up just nicely....so I really do hope he explains his post.
No clearly you missed out on "Perseverance of the saints." Once a person has been "chosen" (the believe in Jesus and attend Church and all that good stuff) then they must continue doing good otherwise clearly they weren't really chosen in the first place.
Perhaps salvation wasn't the proper word. But it is only living as God intended (because he CHOSE you) you can be saved. If you don't do as God wanted you won't reach salvation in Heaven because God didn't really choose you to begin with. There I spelled it out.
I mean I could say your extremely BROAD definition of Calvinism sounds like something picked up off a pamphlet, but I actually want to see how you tie basic Calvinism to modern fundamentalism.
And for the record...I'm not even a Calvinist.
And yeah, Arminianism says you don't have to be good to go to Heaven (because God planned on you being a dumbass) however it also says you must maintain FAITH to be saved.
Salvation is a basic tenet of ALL facets of Christianity and although downplayed in some, it is never non existent (quite unlike fundamentalism which is not always found in Christianity).
So yeah, please draw those lines for me. My feeble mine CRAVES your wisdom.
Hm, I'm not sure it's Calvinism as much as Arminianism, and even then it's a bastardized version set up by the megachurches to make people feel better about themselves.
And I'm still not clear on why Calvinism (or Arminianism) is coloring the fundamentalists' views on evolution. Those are both philosophies that call for salvation through proper living and abiding by God's tenets. Neither specifically calls on evangelism to find Heaven. (Evangelism and fundamentalism being the chief reasons people reject evolution.)
Your comment on the versions of the Bible is true (over the years we've lost a LOT of the Bible's original meaning due to poor translations). However I'm pretty sure you don't mean Calvinism.
First Calvinism is a philosophy churches associate with, second Calvinism is all about hard work getting you to heaven. It doesn't call for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Look at the presbys, they are as close to hard line Calvinists as we'll get in this day and age, and they assuredly do NOT interpret the Bible so literally.
Same with Arminianism. It is a religious philosophy that serves as a foundation for churches, but it is the churches that actually preach fundamentalism (fundies are they folks that believe in a literal interpretation). And you find fundies in all denominations, not just Protestant. Even the Episcopalians/Anglicans (assuredly NOT Protestant) have an offshoot fundie branch (American Reformed Episcopalian).
You good sir should check out SCUMMVM.org. You will find what you seek.
Ironically (perhaps intentional) you mention a desire to play a game for 20 minutes and walk away yet you love adventure games and those have a tendency to seat up time like WoW after a new patch.
But yeah. Viva la Revolution! (Wonder when Nitendo patents that one?)
That is why we should remove all sources of income from our representatives. They should A. Have to come to work for free (they get food and shelter of course), B. Should NOT be allowed to reenter the private markets after serving, etc. Thus everyone would do what's in the best interests for prosperity of all and not be able to take any non-monetary kickbacks in the future.
Check out Singapore. They have some of the highest paid public officials in the world. They also have the strictest corruption laws. They also have the lowest rate of corruption around.
Ask someone in Singapore why. They'll say it is because of how much they pay their officials.
Not the best example, as they are certianly not a liberal democracy like the U.S., however you can't ignore those facts.
Besides. The officials are going to work for the people that pay them the most. In Congress's case that would be Abramoff. In Singapore's case that would be the people. We get what we pay for. Sure Singapore's viewpoint might be considered cynical, but it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Superman or Wonder Woman invited him to the Justice League? Or he a Marvel guy? Because I'm pretty sure Iron Man already has the role of "ineffective robot guy" taken.
Apparently I'm not a writer but a prolific techno god in Russia. This is exciting news.
Seeing as you didn't mention it I'll throw out the WISP idea. A wireless ISP. Getting more common in rural areas. I used one for a while...though Wal-Marts brilliantly unrestricted rfid system nearly killed the ISP....until they were forced to jack up our prices and install a repeater. Thanks Wal Mart...but I digress. Look into a Wireless ISP instead of actually building one yourself.
No. You're kind of missing the point. She's 10 and supposedly did this at the age of 7. First. At that age can she be held legally responsible for her actions? Usually not. Can her PARENTS be held responsible? I think everyone involved should look into cases of shoplifting. Because honestly that's the age kids experiment and do that. When a 7 year old is caught shoplifting how do the authorities handle it? Do they arrest her? Take her downtown and book her? Or do they call attention to it, discuss it with the parents and let the kid go with a warning. ESPECIALLY on a first time offense. The RIAA has a tiny case that hinges on the actions of a 7 year old girl. No jury, even in Texas, will rule in favor of the RIAA. The kid's age is the main reason. 7 year olds just aren't capable of those kind of moral decisions. Hell even 10 year olds are frequently found to be the same way. Why do you think they are classified as minors? They aren't adults. Regardless of parenting, minors cannot make rational decisions. That's why the 10 year old that beats their best friend to death just goes to jail until their 18. They cannot fully comprehend the law. What the RIAA is trying to do is make a parent culpable for their child's actions. That is some extremely dangerous precedent to set. That means that when a kid is out with a friend and they steal something or hurt someone their PARENTS will be held responsible for the action, as though they themselves did it. And that raises the question of which parent should be blamed? In this case people blame the mother for allowing access to the computer. But if they say parents are responsible for the actions of children one could argue that the girl's dad should also be held responsible. He was a terrible parent and so his kid stole. No. It just doesn't work that way. Minors are minors. Conscience, sentient beings that are incapable of making major moral decisions due to their age. They are not their parents and their parents cannot be held responsible for their actions. I mean dang, if the RIAA can win then people could sue the parents of the Va Tech shooter, or the Columbine shooters. Would that be fair either?
The thing is she was 7 at the time of the alleged infringement. Even here in the "evil" United States we look out for kids. They can depose the poor kid but no jury will take it seriously. At the age of 7 the voracity of a kid's statements is EASILY brought into question. They are a minor (to the extreme!). Even at 10, 3 years after the fact, what she says will be highly suspicious. 3 years for a 10 year old is vastly different then for a 25 or even a 14 year old. Her testimony just isn't reliable. The woman needs to keep pressing for a trial. Don't let these azzles get summary judgements or anything else. She gets a jury and she's fine, and the RIAA is in big trouble. They're probably hoping the threat of deposition will scare the woman into settling.
This would be very interesting if people, you know, UNDER the age of 50 actually voted. And come on. Hilary has already mad her stance on censorship clear. I don't think she cares about the Generation X & Y voting population...so why should the rest of the party care either?
Yeah. I have a tendency to confuse my various Christian philosophies. However I am still very curious as to how modern fundamentalism is so heavily influenced by Calvinism. I how does "damned if you do damned if you don't" equate "Darwin is a fucktard?" That's the main point the first fellow posted and it's the one I'd really like him to explain to me. Because I really do not see it. And naturally he'll go into how I completely misunderstood Calvinism in my above posts...but I think you cleared me up just nicely....so I really do hope he explains his post.
No clearly you missed out on "Perseverance of the saints." Once a person has been "chosen" (the believe in Jesus and attend Church and all that good stuff) then they must continue doing good otherwise clearly they weren't really chosen in the first place. Perhaps salvation wasn't the proper word. But it is only living as God intended (because he CHOSE you) you can be saved. If you don't do as God wanted you won't reach salvation in Heaven because God didn't really choose you to begin with. There I spelled it out. I mean I could say your extremely BROAD definition of Calvinism sounds like something picked up off a pamphlet, but I actually want to see how you tie basic Calvinism to modern fundamentalism. And for the record...I'm not even a Calvinist. And yeah, Arminianism says you don't have to be good to go to Heaven (because God planned on you being a dumbass) however it also says you must maintain FAITH to be saved. Salvation is a basic tenet of ALL facets of Christianity and although downplayed in some, it is never non existent (quite unlike fundamentalism which is not always found in Christianity). So yeah, please draw those lines for me. My feeble mine CRAVES your wisdom.
Hm, I'm not sure it's Calvinism as much as Arminianism, and even then it's a bastardized version set up by the megachurches to make people feel better about themselves. And I'm still not clear on why Calvinism (or Arminianism) is coloring the fundamentalists' views on evolution. Those are both philosophies that call for salvation through proper living and abiding by God's tenets. Neither specifically calls on evangelism to find Heaven. (Evangelism and fundamentalism being the chief reasons people reject evolution.)
Your comment on the versions of the Bible is true (over the years we've lost a LOT of the Bible's original meaning due to poor translations). However I'm pretty sure you don't mean Calvinism. First Calvinism is a philosophy churches associate with, second Calvinism is all about hard work getting you to heaven. It doesn't call for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Look at the presbys, they are as close to hard line Calvinists as we'll get in this day and age, and they assuredly do NOT interpret the Bible so literally. Same with Arminianism. It is a religious philosophy that serves as a foundation for churches, but it is the churches that actually preach fundamentalism (fundies are they folks that believe in a literal interpretation). And you find fundies in all denominations, not just Protestant. Even the Episcopalians/Anglicans (assuredly NOT Protestant) have an offshoot fundie branch (American Reformed Episcopalian).
You good sir should check out SCUMMVM.org. You will find what you seek. Ironically (perhaps intentional) you mention a desire to play a game for 20 minutes and walk away yet you love adventure games and those have a tendency to seat up time like WoW after a new patch. But yeah. Viva la Revolution! (Wonder when Nitendo patents that one?)
That is why we should remove all sources of income from our representatives. They should A. Have to come to work for free (they get food and shelter of course), B. Should NOT be allowed to reenter the private markets after serving, etc. Thus everyone would do what's in the best interests for prosperity of all and not be able to take any non-monetary kickbacks in the future. Check out Singapore. They have some of the highest paid public officials in the world. They also have the strictest corruption laws. They also have the lowest rate of corruption around. Ask someone in Singapore why. They'll say it is because of how much they pay their officials. Not the best example, as they are certianly not a liberal democracy like the U.S., however you can't ignore those facts. Besides. The officials are going to work for the people that pay them the most. In Congress's case that would be Abramoff. In Singapore's case that would be the people. We get what we pay for. Sure Singapore's viewpoint might be considered cynical, but it works.