NathanMuir
Mar 25, 02:42 PM
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:35 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Ehh...I agree with you that bullying period, causes alot of pain. The only difference is, you can do situps to "fit in"...these kids are who they are. Kinda Apples and Oranges
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Ehh...I agree with you that bullying period, causes alot of pain. The only difference is, you can do situps to "fit in"...these kids are who they are. Kinda Apples and Oranges
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Doc750
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
you people who think being charged for tethering is justified, exemplify what is wrong with this country. You would bend over and take anything up the rear end, just b/c it was written in a contract.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
rdstoll
May 5, 12:49 PM
AT&T should be embarrassed. Seriously, I had Sprint PCS in the late 90's that had much better call performance than AT&T does today. Having been with Verizon prior to switching to AT&T to get the iPhone I used to think the device was the problem but it's clear it's AT&T.
Worst part is that I got an email from AT&T just last week saying they just "completed a major upgrade" in Chicago. I'm still getting dropped calls left and right and 3G isn't that great either. And this is AFTER the upgrade??
Worst part is that I got an email from AT&T just last week saying they just "completed a major upgrade" in Chicago. I'm still getting dropped calls left and right and 3G isn't that great either. And this is AFTER the upgrade??
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
Palanka
Oct 26, 12:00 AM
I cant stand AT&T...Their service sucks.. Your company would go under if it were to their "business services" department.
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
Sodner
Mar 18, 08:44 AM
Get em AT&T. Bust them all. Hold them to the contracts they signed. Fine them, cancel them, jail them. Do what's in your right per the contract to punish all the theives.
leshkanyc
Nov 10, 03:01 PM
Yes, i did! And it's a BIG difference vs ****** AT&T
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
BC2009
Mar 18, 11:34 AM
Someone is failing... hard
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 01:40 PM
There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.
jasonbrennan
Jul 12, 12:34 PM
What about BLU RAY?
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:52 AM
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
I understand what you are getting at. I still personally feel it is a fad, and it is drawing to a close. But I alone can't label it as such. :(
Speaking of fads, when will the current craze if wearing HUGE face covering sunglassess end? :cool: :p
I understand what you are getting at. I still personally feel it is a fad, and it is drawing to a close. But I alone can't label it as such. :(
Speaking of fads, when will the current craze if wearing HUGE face covering sunglassess end? :cool: :p
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:26 AM
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
shawnce
Oct 25, 11:53 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon? IBM has been shipping 8 core POWER5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5) in a single MCM with 36 MiBs of L3 cache for a couple of years now. IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER) has a long history with these types of things. ...of course they cost far more then what Intel is putting out in the near future.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:56 AM
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:14 PM
Tell me again: do condoms help prevent the spread of HIV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=condom%20hiv%20transmission), or do they actually cause the spread of HIV (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm)? Which was it? I can't recall.
All things being equal, they prevent HIV versus not using them. But the promotion of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle increases the risk overall. That's what that argument is about, not that hard to get, really.
All things being equal, they prevent HIV versus not using them. But the promotion of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle increases the risk overall. That's what that argument is about, not that hard to get, really.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 02:23 AM
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
MacMyDay
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
takao
Mar 14, 12:31 PM
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
MovieCutter
Apr 12, 10:59 PM
You guys are all failing to realize that it's not the software that makes a great editor. This release gives us full time editors render capability that we've been wanting for years, multicore awareness, slick timeline editing capabilities, etc. It's not going to change our final product, just give us a slicker way to get there.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
dethmaShine
May 2, 05:00 PM
What are you even talking about?
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
akw
Mar 20, 05:50 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
Maybe he's not for hire. Not everyone can be bought. Or, maybe he's already working for Napster.
Maybe he's not for hire. Not everyone can be bought. Or, maybe he's already working for Napster.
No comments:
Post a Comment