Difference is "important" details on Jesus's rank/nature that are significantly divergent between Mormonism and most other Christian sects. (I can't speak for Jehovah's Witnesses.)
As for Catholicism, you'd be surprised how many people take it seriously, even today. I know a 20-something who prays the Divine Office regularly, for instance.
You've already got a cross-join (probably by mistake, given that you even bothered to mention left outer as useful). I think that'd be illustration enough:)
Right. And when/if it appears in committee, I'll certainly pay attention. But this isn't even a glint in Parliament's eye yet; this "news article" can be traced back to speculation in the French government as to what other nations might be doing/planning.
Again, this is an important issue. But there's no reason to whip ourselves into a nerdrage when the law hasn't even been proposed yet.
Let me just take this opportunity to say that I am sick and tired of articles about some law that might be getting proposed for initial review in some obscure corner of a legislature somewhere. It reminds me of that one time everyone jumped down the Pope's throat for something that an editorialist speculated he'd be commenting on in his next encyclical. It's idle speculation. It's not even vaporware; we haven't heard anyone in the government say two bits about it, either for or against!
C'mon, editors. I'm told you used to be more selective than to post this kind of nonsense.:/
In my ideal world, the judge would just say: "Bailiff, take this scumbag out by the dumpster, kneecap him, gut shoot him, then feed him his own testicles... RIGHT NOW!"
To be fair though, this is the same ideal world which got a "does not play well with others" on its second grade report card.
For those of you who didn't want to read through six pages of thick words: the author is basically expanding the Drake equation to possibly include something past our current tech level. The idea is, if the really unlikely thing for life to survive is something we already passed (such as, life instantiating in the first place) then we have nothing to fear. But if it's something that happens once life already exists on a planet (very likely if another planet in our very solar system once held life) then we may soon be in for a world of hurt.
So, interesting speculation, even if people have been batting it around for years now.
Link? I've been looking for something like this for a while, but the closest I can find is Vuzix VR920 goggles which certainly do not have the "see through" feature.
Read the fine article, sir.
In fact, the summary may be enough.
What is cited as a big part of this man's conviction? Is it not that he tried to overexplain himself and acted paranoid-delusional under oath? Is it not that he tried to take matters into his own hands in a setting where charisma and social interaction are key, while simultaneously admitting over and over that he is unable to interact with normal society?
I hope that I'd not make the same mistake in his place. Maybe I'd even get off.
Slashdot Mirror
Which vowel of poverty? There are two (three if you count the 'y'.)
Difference is "important" details on Jesus's rank/nature that are significantly divergent between Mormonism and most other Christian sects. (I can't speak for Jehovah's Witnesses.)
As for Catholicism, you'd be surprised how many people take it seriously, even today. I know a 20-something who prays the Divine Office regularly, for instance.
See above.
For instance, one of these but with a human-readable bar code along the left side.
Only when tampering with the machine will not make it possible to cheat the vote, and there are very few (although >0) designs that allow for that.
You've already got a cross-join (probably by mistake, given that you even bothered to mention left outer as useful). I think that'd be illustration enough :)
Suggest an alternative system.
ISPs are not common carriers.
Right. And when/if it appears in committee, I'll certainly pay attention. But this isn't even a glint in Parliament's eye yet; this "news article" can be traced back to speculation in the French government as to what other nations might be doing/planning. Again, this is an important issue. But there's no reason to whip ourselves into a nerdrage when the law hasn't even been proposed yet.
I'd rather wait until there's actually a bill before Parliament that I can oppose, instead of some consortium in France talking out of its hat.
Let me just take this opportunity to say that I am sick and tired of articles about some law that might be getting proposed for initial review in some obscure corner of a legislature somewhere. It reminds me of that one time everyone jumped down the Pope's throat for something that an editorialist speculated he'd be commenting on in his next encyclical. It's idle speculation. It's not even vaporware; we haven't heard anyone in the government say two bits about it, either for or against!
C'mon, editors. I'm told you used to be more selective than to post this kind of nonsense. :/
Why haven't I seen a press release about this? You guys are getting lazy.
I always figured protein folding was one of those "hard to do, easy to check" type of things. Then again IANAMB.
Mod whoever modded this -1 Redundant +1 Funny please.
To simplify his conclusions I'd guess. *shrug*
For those of you who didn't want to read through six pages of thick words: the author is basically expanding the Drake equation to possibly include something past our current tech level. The idea is, if the really unlikely thing for life to survive is something we already passed (such as, life instantiating in the first place) then we have nothing to fear. But if it's something that happens once life already exists on a planet (very likely if another planet in our very solar system once held life) then we may soon be in for a world of hurt.
So, interesting speculation, even if people have been batting it around for years now.
Better than throwing up my hands and declaring the system intractable. And algorithms already exist for keeping a thing secret until it is ready.
Email me.
So today's process is rigged. Then how does an unrigged process look?
Better still, how do we build a process that is robust in the face of attempts to rig it?
I am interested in talking to you directly about answers to these questions. Email me.
Link? I've been looking for something like this for a while, but the closest I can find is Vuzix VR920 goggles which certainly do not have the "see through" feature.
Read the fine article, sir. In fact, the summary may be enough. What is cited as a big part of this man's conviction? Is it not that he tried to overexplain himself and acted paranoid-delusional under oath? Is it not that he tried to take matters into his own hands in a setting where charisma and social interaction are key, while simultaneously admitting over and over that he is unable to interact with normal society? I hope that I'd not make the same mistake in his place. Maybe I'd even get off.
If he's innocent I'm sorry for the man.
If he's guilty I pity him and his sociopathy.
Either way, though, I'm glad that the geek version of the OJ Simpson Trial is finally behind us.
Just the plausibility of that makes me want to punch a building.
It's a matter of priorities. As much as I'd like to see human beings on Mars, if going to Mars means underfunding the schools, then fuck Mars.