A priest who used an ax to hack up a Rockford medical clinic where abortions are performed has been assigned to a top position at an Elgin church.
The Rev. John P. Earl began serving July 1 as parochial administrator at St. Joseph Catholic Church, 272 Division St.
In an interview Wednesday, Earl declined to discuss his arrest and subsequent guilty plea for the attack on the Northern Illinois Women's Clinic.
Instead, he urged a reporter to begin an investigation into whether DNA from the "blood and guts'' found at abortion clinics matches the DNA of people who enter and leave the clinic. Until he sees such a report, Earl said he had "no interest in talking to . . . any newspaper.''
Scared off by owner's shotgun
Earl's entanglement with the law began Sept. 30, 2000, when he was arrested after he admitted to crashing his car into a garage at the clinic and using an ax to break doors, windows and surveillance cameras on the building, according to police reports. He was charged with two counts of criminal damage to property.
Earl never actually made it inside the medical office, which performs abortions. He stopped his attack after the building's owner fired two warning shots from a shotgun, the reports stated.
The clinic was closed at the time of the incident, and no one was injured.
Earl pleaded guilty to the charges Feb. 14, 2001, and was sentenced to 30 months of probation and ordered to pay restitution and fines.
Yeah...and? What does the 28% bracket have to do with it?
For filing single, 25% tops out at 71,950. For filing jointly, 25% tops out at 119,950, not 2x71,950. Two people making $70k each who get married and filing joint will pay about $600 extra above what they paid as two single tax payers.
The violent actions of Christians/Catholics have ALWAYS been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole.
Wow, that is so not true. So very, very, very, very not true.
Catholic politicians in the USA who support our invasion of Iraq have not been denounced and condemned. In contrast to the Catholic politicians who support a woman's right to have some say over her body.
The violent actions of (so-called) Christians/Catholics against doctors, nurses, and patients at health care facilities in some crazed crusade against abortion have NEVER been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole. BTW, "you really shouldn't take the law into your own hands and go around shooting doctors, but those doctors should have known the risks when they agreed to treat women" doesn't count as "denounced and condemned."
Don't try to paint Christianity as some religion of peace tainted by a few bad apples. You have about 1500 years of history working against you.
Partially, but also your taxes are high because the government wants your wife barefoot and pregnant. When only one spouse has significant income, spreading the tax burden for that income over two people by filing jointly will save you money.
The closer two spouses are in income, the worse it gets. Rather than getting the advantage of sharing the tax burden, you've taken two smaller incomes and combined them into a large income in a higher tax bracket.
I do equations with MS Word on a daily basis, and the process is nothing like you describe.
What is this 'basic' tab you keep referring to? And why are you clicking on "=" and "+"? Is your keyboard missing those keys? Speaking of clicks, you can use the arrow keys to navigate the equations. There's no need to click all over the place.
Of course, you'd also have fewer clicks if you worked in any sort of logical order. In your OOo example, did you type '+' and then '^', then 'x' and '2'? No? Then why would you work in that order with Word? Working with the equation editor isn't always a linear left-to-right process, but you're all over the place.
There's no doubt the built-in Word equation editor is not the best, but your example is FUD--you've gone out of your way to make things harder than they need to be.
You could do the same thing by TYPING "z=x+y". Shift-arrow to select x+y. Click the root symbol. Shift-arrow to select the root symbol. Click the fraction icon. Type "2". Click the x. Click the superscript symbol. Type "2". Click the y. Click the superscript symbol. Type 2.
For simple examples such as this one, text entry will almost always beat the point-and-click builder, but it is the 21st century, and there are occasions when it helps to utilize the graphical aspects of a graphical user interface.
For more complex equations I find it helpful to have the symbols laid out as I compose. Are there any developers here who have never had an issue with a misplaced/missing } or )? I don't really feel like having to debug my Word docs.
Beta testers describe the joys of reading receipts, CDs, food labels, bulletin boards, conference printouts, or of simply reading books with privacy, without another person's help.
Ok, I hope I'm not the only one reminded of David Cross's impression of Stephen Hawking having phone sex.
I wonder what the voice options are. Sign me up for Alice from the Brady Bunch.
Re:I'll take a different stab at it
on
PHP Hacks
·
· Score: 1
Well, yeah, if you want to be all logical about it and stuff.
Dude, don't harsh my mod
can you clarify that?
on
PHP Hacks
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Also, it covers the legality of the code samples...
And....? I presume if all the code samples were legal, such a statement would be unnecessary. I further presume such a statement to that effect would not warrant inclusion in a book review.
So just what is the aspect of the legality of the code samples in need of clarification? Is one of the 'hacks' phishing with PHP? Adding free copies to your Kinkos card? Downloading launch codes from the WOPR? They're using the PHP to cook up meth, aren't they? *peer*
Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.
Buddy, you gotta lay off the Redmond kool-aid. A true baseline for a browser that's integrated into the the OS is...nothing. Null. The empty set.
There should be no web browser that's integrated into the OS. There are many reasons for this, but I'll name one: security. Browsing the web is an inherently insecure operation. Why would you (for any technical reason) integrate that function into the core of your OS?
You wouldn't. IE is integrated into Windows for marketing reasons. Until that integration is done away with, we know MS isn't serious about all their security talk.
Would you integrate your digestive system into your hands? Eating would be so easy--you'd just have to touch stuff! What that's? Sometimes you touch stuff that isn't safe to eat? Here, put this 'patch' on.
For my boys I built microATX cubes....for about 1/4th the price....Sure, you may be 10 or 20 fps slower than your buddies, with a little less detail in the shadows, but who cares (especially when most LCD monitors top out at 60Hz refresh rate anyhow;-).
Well, then don't put anything you want to transfer between drives in the recycle bin.
I've done this type of copy--physically move the source drive into the computer with the target drive--many times with Windows 98, 2000, and XP. I've copied files and folders to and from 'My Documents', 'Desktop', 'Application Data', and other special folders. I've never had an issue with this approach.
There's prior art--big whoop. That, and five bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Prior art isn't some silver bullet that will lay waste to any patent. Prior art is just that: any work existing prior to the work included in the patent relating to the art of the work included in the patent.
The existence of prior art does not automatically invalidate the patent. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say, if it is not the case that all patents include prior art, then it certainly true of 99%+.
For example, I've invented an internal combustion engine which utilizes an innovative, non-obvious process to enable me to build a car which gets 100 miles to a gallon of extra virgin olive oil. However my process only works with oil produced by a specific method. In fact, it only works with oil from a special method that has been patented.
That special, patented olive-oil-producing method is prior art for my invention and would be included in my patent application, but has no bearing on whether my work is patent-worthy or not.
And let's say the implementation of my new engine is in a car with a specific type of existing transmission. That also would be prior art. And that also would have no bearing on the validity of any patent granted for my work.
I don't know why the concept of prior art is so hard for the/. crowd to grasp, but perhaps this example will help:
Is every computer program the intellectual property of the creator of the language used to write the program? You can't write the program without the language--it's prior art. If you were documenting a program, you'd certainly include some reference to the programming language used--it's prior art.
But you could certainly devise some innovative, non-obvious implementation of that language that would allow you to say, "this is my program."
I guess some heads (and brows) are in different places than others.
Yes, there is a lot of actual science and math thrown into Futurama scripts. But that fact doesn't negate my comments. Simply put, it's not the science and math that make the show funny. Actually, Yocto Yotta's links remind me how unfunny smart people can be. There's nothing wrong with being smart, but smart in-and-of-itself does not a joke make.
For example, they did the actual calculations to compute Fry's bank account balance after 1000 years at an average of two and a quarter percent. Accuracy is nice. But it's not funny. Funny would be, calculate the amount after 1000 years of compound interest, but leave Fry with the same 93 cents after bank fees and surcharges.
And the 1729 "joke"--come on. I guess you could say the reference was clever, but it ain't funny. (And yes, although I don't recall catching the reference during the episode, when I saw 1729 in the article I instantly thought of the Ramanujan-Hardy story.)
In one Q&A, David X. Cohen refers to the "several genuine ex-scientists on our writing staff," but then lists only one scientist. The other two guys are ex-engineers. (Yes, there is a difference. Someone who doesn't appreciate this shouldn't be making any "over-your-head gestures in my direction.)
My points are: the obscure (and not so obscure) science and math references are the garnish, not the meat, of what makes Futurama funny. (Though there is certainly much room for differences in sense of humor, so that point is weak.)
Futurama did not fail because the writers were too smart--although that does not guarantee success, either. Futurama failed because it got the worst time slot in the history of television.
Lastly, I was responding to the GP's smugness.
"I enjoy the humor in Futurama. Maybe it's because I'm a nerd...or maybe it's because I read a lot and I like obscure references."
"I don't want to sound like a snob but I wonder if Futurama suffers from being too genre or personality specific. Does it target only graduate level people with its nerdy humor?"
It did make the poster sound like a snob in regards to something I really don't think he has a place to feel snobby about, and so, IMNSHO, he came off sounding a bit idiotic. I did not say I don't understand the humor. I don't understand (or agree with) the references to "intellectual" or "graduate level" humor.
PS - I didn't call the GP poster an idiot. I said he sounded like one.
I don't want to sound like a snob but I wonder if Futurama suffers from being too genre or personality specific. Does it target only graduate level people with its nerdy humor?
I've heard/seen such references to Futurama before, and I can only wonder, what the heck are you talking about?
I love Futurama; I laugh at Futurama; I'm exciting there will be more Futurama. But I would never describe Futurama as "intellectual" or "graduate level" humor.
Due to the setting--1000 years in the future--Futurama has a lot SciFi/advanced technical gadgetry references, but those are often along the lines of the Smell-O-Scope. Most of it is intellectually-acceptable potty humor. And I mean that in a good way.
Futurama is around the same nebulous region inhabited by Mel Brooks movies. Certainly funny stuff, but if you consider that high-brow humor, you need a brow lift.
I think Futurama is great, but I don't use it as a crutch to boost my ego. When you discuss your appreciation of Futurama as if it's some advanced skill, you don't sound like a snob. You sound like an idiot.
People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, ok? They come to Chotchkie's
for the atmosphere and the attitude. That's what the flair's about.
It's about fun.
Maybe it is RFT or a stripped down PDF; but something where you can tell the intern to release this press release, and not count on him being smart enough to check for hidden comments and workflow information. It sould be WYSIAYG -- what you see is ALL you get -- and any additional features, other than possibly a small and well defined set of metadata, should parse as an error.
No offense meant to original poster; but, if this post is any judge of your writing it might be wise to consider hiring a professional technical writer... at least an editor. No offense meant, but your english could use a little polish.
Slashdot Mirror
They're like veal!
We can trim population and reduce hunger by eating cripples. /aisle seat, please.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-abort0 6.html/
Priest who axed abortion clinic gets Elgin post
July 6, 2006
BY TOM POLANSEK Courier News
A priest who used an ax to hack up a Rockford medical clinic where abortions are performed has been assigned to a top position at an Elgin church.
The Rev. John P. Earl began serving July 1 as parochial administrator at St. Joseph Catholic Church, 272 Division St.
In an interview Wednesday, Earl declined to discuss his arrest and subsequent guilty plea for the attack on the Northern Illinois Women's Clinic.
Instead, he urged a reporter to begin an investigation into whether DNA from the "blood and guts'' found at abortion clinics matches the DNA of people who enter and leave the clinic. Until he sees such a report, Earl said he had "no interest in talking to . . . any newspaper.''
Scared off by owner's shotgun
Earl's entanglement with the law began Sept. 30, 2000, when he was arrested after he admitted to crashing his car into a garage at the clinic and using an ax to break doors, windows and surveillance cameras on the building, according to police reports. He was charged with two counts of criminal damage to property.
Earl never actually made it inside the medical office, which performs abortions. He stopped his attack after the building's owner fired two warning shots from a shotgun, the reports stated.
The clinic was closed at the time of the incident, and no one was injured.
Earl pleaded guilty to the charges Feb. 14, 2001, and was sentenced to 30 months of probation and ordered to pay restitution and fines.
Yeah...and? What does the 28% bracket have to do with it?
For filing single, 25% tops out at 71,950. For filing jointly, 25% tops out at 119,950, not 2x71,950. Two people making $70k each who get married and filing joint will pay about $600 extra above what they paid as two single tax payers.
Wow, that is so not true. So very, very, very, very not true.
Catholic politicians in the USA who support our invasion of Iraq have not been denounced and condemned. In contrast to the Catholic politicians who support a woman's right to have some say over her body.
The violent actions of (so-called) Christians/Catholics against doctors, nurses, and patients at health care facilities in some crazed crusade against abortion have NEVER been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole. BTW, "you really shouldn't take the law into your own hands and go around shooting doctors, but those doctors should have known the risks when they agreed to treat women" doesn't count as "denounced and condemned."
Don't try to paint Christianity as some religion of peace tainted by a few bad apples. You have about 1500 years of history working against you.
Partially, but also your taxes are high because the government wants your wife barefoot and pregnant. When only one spouse has significant income, spreading the tax burden for that income over two people by filing jointly will save you money.
The closer two spouses are in income, the worse it gets. Rather than getting the advantage of sharing the tax burden, you've taken two smaller incomes and combined them into a large income in a higher tax bracket.
I do equations with MS Word on a daily basis, and the process is nothing like you describe.
What is this 'basic' tab you keep referring to? And why are you clicking on "=" and "+"? Is your keyboard missing those keys? Speaking of clicks, you can use the arrow keys to navigate the equations. There's no need to click all over the place.
Of course, you'd also have fewer clicks if you worked in any sort of logical order. In your OOo example, did you type '+' and then '^', then 'x' and '2'? No? Then why would you work in that order with Word? Working with the equation editor isn't always a linear left-to-right process, but you're all over the place.
There's no doubt the built-in Word equation editor is not the best, but your example is FUD--you've gone out of your way to make things harder than they need to be.
You could do the same thing by TYPING "z=x+y". Shift-arrow to select x+y. Click the root symbol. Shift-arrow to select the root symbol. Click the fraction icon. Type "2". Click the x. Click the superscript symbol. Type "2". Click the y. Click the superscript symbol. Type 2.
For simple examples such as this one, text entry will almost always beat the point-and-click builder, but it is the 21st century, and there are occasions when it helps to utilize the graphical aspects of a graphical user interface.
For more complex equations I find it helpful to have the symbols laid out as I compose. Are there any developers here who have never had an issue with a misplaced/missing } or )? I don't really feel like having to debug my Word docs.
I mean, I'm sure it's great for the blind people. But how are all those dogs going to get jobs?
Won't somebody please think of the dogs?
Ok, I hope I'm not the only one reminded of David Cross's impression of Stephen Hawking having phone sex.
I wonder what the voice options are. Sign me up for Alice from the Brady Bunch.
Well, yeah, if you want to be all logical about it and stuff.
Dude, don't harsh my mod
And....? I presume if all the code samples were legal, such a statement would be unnecessary. I further presume such a statement to that effect would not warrant inclusion in a book review.
So just what is the aspect of the legality of the code samples in need of clarification? Is one of the 'hacks' phishing with PHP? Adding free copies to your Kinkos card? Downloading launch codes from the WOPR? They're using the PHP to cook up meth, aren't they? *peer*
Buddy, you gotta lay off the Redmond kool-aid. A true baseline for a browser that's integrated into the the OS is...nothing. Null. The empty set.
There should be no web browser that's integrated into the OS. There are many reasons for this, but I'll name one: security. Browsing the web is an inherently insecure operation. Why would you (for any technical reason) integrate that function into the core of your OS?
You wouldn't. IE is integrated into Windows for marketing reasons. Until that integration is done away with, we know MS isn't serious about all their security talk.
Would you integrate your digestive system into your hands? Eating would be so easy--you'd just have to touch stuff! What that's? Sometimes you touch stuff that isn't safe to eat? Here, put this 'patch' on.
Think of the children!
Well, then don't put anything you want to transfer between drives in the recycle bin.
I've done this type of copy--physically move the source drive into the computer with the target drive--many times with Windows 98, 2000, and XP. I've copied files and folders to and from 'My Documents', 'Desktop', 'Application Data', and other special folders. I've never had an issue with this approach.
Whatever.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
/. crowd to grasp, but perhaps this example will help:
There's prior art--big whoop. That, and five bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Prior art isn't some silver bullet that will lay waste to any patent. Prior art is just that: any work existing prior to the work included in the patent relating to the art of the work included in the patent.
The existence of prior art does not automatically invalidate the patent. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say, if it is not the case that all patents include prior art, then it certainly true of 99%+.
For example, I've invented an internal combustion engine which utilizes an innovative, non-obvious process to enable me to build a car which gets 100 miles to a gallon of extra virgin olive oil. However my process only works with oil produced by a specific method. In fact, it only works with oil from a special method that has been patented.
That special, patented olive-oil-producing method is prior art for my invention and would be included in my patent application, but has no bearing on whether my work is patent-worthy or not.
And let's say the implementation of my new engine is in a car with a specific type of existing transmission. That also would be prior art. And that also would have no bearing on the validity of any patent granted for my work.
I don't know why the concept of prior art is so hard for the
Is every computer program the intellectual property of the creator of the language used to write the program? You can't write the program without the language--it's prior art. If you were documenting a program, you'd certainly include some reference to the programming language used--it's prior art.
But you could certainly devise some innovative, non-obvious implementation of that language that would allow you to say, "this is my program."
It's a great show, no doubt. Just don't get carried away patting yourself on the back for being a viewer.
I guess some heads (and brows) are in different places than others.
Yes, there is a lot of actual science and math thrown into Futurama scripts. But that fact doesn't negate my comments. Simply put, it's not the science and math that make the show funny. Actually, Yocto Yotta's links remind me how unfunny smart people can be. There's nothing wrong with being smart, but smart in-and-of-itself does not a joke make.
For example, they did the actual calculations to compute Fry's bank account balance after 1000 years at an average of two and a quarter percent. Accuracy is nice. But it's not funny. Funny would be, calculate the amount after 1000 years of compound interest, but leave Fry with the same 93 cents after bank fees and surcharges.
And the 1729 "joke"--come on. I guess you could say the reference was clever, but it ain't funny. (And yes, although I don't recall catching the reference during the episode, when I saw 1729 in the article I instantly thought of the Ramanujan-Hardy story.)
In one Q&A, David X. Cohen refers to the "several genuine ex-scientists on our writing staff," but then lists only one scientist. The other two guys are ex-engineers. (Yes, there is a difference. Someone who doesn't appreciate this shouldn't be making any "over-your-head gestures in my direction.)
My points are: the obscure (and not so obscure) science and math references are the garnish, not the meat, of what makes Futurama funny. (Though there is certainly much room for differences in sense of humor, so that point is weak.)
Futurama did not fail because the writers were too smart--although that does not guarantee success, either. Futurama failed because it got the worst time slot in the history of television.
Lastly, I was responding to the GP's smugness.
It did make the poster sound like a snob in regards to something I really don't think he has a place to feel snobby about, and so, IMNSHO, he came off sounding a bit idiotic. I did not say I don't understand the humor. I don't understand (or agree with) the references to "intellectual" or "graduate level" humor.PS - I didn't call the GP poster an idiot. I said he sounded like one.
PPS - Welcome back Futurama! woohoo!
I've heard/seen such references to Futurama before, and I can only wonder, what the heck are you talking about?
I love Futurama; I laugh at Futurama; I'm exciting there will be more Futurama. But I would never describe Futurama as "intellectual" or "graduate level" humor.
Due to the setting--1000 years in the future--Futurama has a lot SciFi/advanced technical gadgetry references, but those are often along the lines of the Smell-O-Scope. Most of it is intellectually-acceptable potty humor. And I mean that in a good way.
Futurama is around the same nebulous region inhabited by Mel Brooks movies. Certainly funny stuff, but if you consider that high-brow humor, you need a brow lift.
I think Futurama is great, but I don't use it as a crutch to boost my ego. When you discuss your appreciation of Futurama as if it's some advanced skill, you don't sound like a snob. You sound like an idiot.
Old wives don't really have tails--it's an old wives tale.
Shouldn't that be:
3. If you can hear thunder, Thor missed you. This time.
The lightning that hits you, you won't hear. They're like the mob that way.
That wasn't suicide, it was "a good PR move."
Did the OP say the document would be in English?