The religio-philosophical worldview wherein only the material world exists, for the most part. Refusing to admit even the possibility of any non-physical reality.
Yes most scientists attempted to discover how God created the world but whenever what they discovered differed from what the Word of God stated, they were imprisoned/executed/banished so they tended to have to separate the 2.
Such as? The only immediate example I can think of that meets your 'imprisoned/executed/banished' account is Galileo, and from what I've read, this was more for his views on the church than for his views on scientific matters, the traditional lore notwithstanding. (That and the one scientific/political argument he got into...the Pope requested a specific statement be made in a book Galileo was working on; Galileo did include it, but had it uttered by a character known as Simplicio. In this case, the name was a descriptive; apparently Simplicio was supposed to be the uneducated moron being answered by the more intelligent types.)
Following your definition of secularlism, please tell me which tenets of science are secular and fail the 2 tests.
One simple count...exactly what parts of the test for the evolutionary hypothesis are falsifiable?
Exactly how do you figure your logic makes the two fundamentally different? Before the rise of secularism, most scientists believed their task was to discover how God had built the world. And several of the tenets of secularism that are currently labeled as 'science' seem to fail the two tests you gave.
I am trying to program a work-related report system. The reports are generated in php, and I have been requested to have the results sent via email to the individual who needs to review them. (That is, one person generates the reports to look at via an external program, but another person also needs to review them and gets the results in email.)
I found a mailing script we use for something else, and thought I'd managed to modify it for my purposes, but I keep running into a rather strange problem. I'm trying to send an html message to the user's inbox; instead of being the body of the email, the message is being added as an attachment. The original program I modified was designed to send a message and a file; I thought I'd gotten rid of the file-sending portion, but apparently I am incorrect in this.
The code below is a copy of the script I'm using:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use diagnostics;
use Net::SMTP;
use MIME::Lite;
my $from_address = '******@*******.com';
my $to_address = '******@*******.com';
my $mail_host = 'mail.hiwaay.net';
my $msg;
print "Sending email from $from_address\nto $to_address via $mail_host\n\n";
my $subject = 'Test Report';
my $message_body = '<TABLE BORDER=2 RULES=2 GROUPS WIDTH=90%><CAPTION><B><FONT SIZE=+1></FONT></B></CAPTION><TR><TD ALIGN=RIGHT>Company Totals</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Pest #</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Pest $</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Term #</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Term $</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Vent #</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Vent $</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Other #</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Other $</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT SIZE=-2>Total #</TD><TD ALIGN=RIGHT FONT …
>Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
I would say it has something to do with plastic.
My bet would be on glue requiring contact with air to harden. Leave open a bottle some time, then check. (On Elmer's Glue or related versions: Completely remove the cap, don't just untwist the knob.)
>Do penguins have knees?
Ask someone who knows the anatomy of a penguin
Or, go look it up. That's the title of one of the books in the Imponderables series. (I think my favorite title from that series is 'When did Wild Poodles roam the Earth?')
>In libraries, do they put the bible in the fiction or non-fiction section?
See cinema answer.
I'll give you that one. Non-fiction, alongside the scriptures of other religions and all commentary. In libraries running the Dewey Decimal system, the whole shebang is the 200 section.
Ok, i got abit bored. but i'd say quite a few (more than half) if you had time, EnderX.
If you decide to get unbored, feel free to try sending a PM. I'd say I can probably come up with a few others myself...it's fun trying, at least.
This is also assuming the key itself works. A while back, I purchased a new drive for a computer I was planning to give away; it took something like three months before I could retrieve it in working condition from the computer store, because, according to the store owner, the store manager, and at least one tech, the numbers printed on the sticker affixed to the case were invalid.
On the supposed scattering problem: What's the dosage of such substances that would be scattered in that event?
According to the encyclopedia function of Reference.com, U-235 has a half-life of 7×108 years, while Pu-239 has a half-life of ~24,000 years. Sure, they're dangerous, because of the possiblity of using them in a bomb (hence the original warhead problem), but I don't think the radiation from them would be able to do much without a massive dosage.
@MidiMagic: In this case, the choice belongs to my boss, who tells me what needs to be put on the page, that the results have to be printable from the browser to paper, and that the page needs to be made to look neat on paper. Unless the browser's going to shrink the results for me, these aren't compatible with portrait formatting. Too many items.
@Thread: Found the problem...simple PEBKAC error in the code. I'd somehow forgotten to close off a set of table tags.
Power corrupts. Humankind is inherently corrupt by nature, giving someone the kind of power a dictator would wield would mean that they would eventually turn it to their own self-service, at the expense of those under them.
>Yeah... but which one do you think is better, democracy or dictatorship?
A dictatorship all the way. I much rather have a bad government than a weak, fickle, or non-existent one. So a dictatorship is a win-win situation.
A dictatorship is only win-win if you're the dictator, or one of those he favors. Otherwise, you'll have serious problems, with no recourse except for revolution (which'll have problems of its own).
If you're purely concerned with effeciency, a dictatorship is better. No mess about 'elections' or 'voting on the issues' or anything like that, just 'Because I, Dictator N, said DO IT!'.
If you're concerned about value of life, that depends on a couple of factors. The value of life for the dictator's friends and lackeys would be a lot better than that of the average peon under his/her sway; I'd say the value of life that a democratic society can provide to its inhabitants falls somewhere inbetween the two.
Isn't it somewhere in the book of Revelations (Bible) that indicates we are in our final days when people are required to have a number tattooed on the forehead? I'm sure you said that in jest, but then ....
Revelation 13 is the reference you're after. The specific verses are 16-18, listed below.
16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Note: the 'He' in verse 16 refers not the the beast who's number is being given, but to a second beast who basically exaults the first one. The scriptures refer to him as a beast coming up from out of the earth, as opposed to the (number) beast rising from the sea at the beginning of the chapter. I do not know if this beast from the earth is the same as the False Prophet listed in scripture; the two seem to have similar functions, at least. I'll look into that.
I'm having a bit of trouble figuring something out. I have a css file I use to attempt to break pages in the correct spot, and to force a landscape print so as to ensure that the words on the web reports my php program builds aren't packed together when printed out. The following is a complete copy of the text of the css file I use to do this-
p { page-break-before: always;}
@page
{
size landscape;
}
The css file is called from my program with the following command-
For some reason, I'm now having trouble getting this to work on a new program. As far as I can tell, the only differences are that a) the new program includes others that also make use of the page-break function, and b) the new files are in a different directory from the original css file. A copy of the css file has been placed in this directory, however.
Before, I've always used a single php file; now, I've got three separate files that get called from a single higher one. With this program, I cannot get the pagebreaks to occur when they are supposed to according to the css file.
I have tried the following to attempt to solve this: 1) Each of the original files included the reference to the css file. I commented those out, leaving instead a single copy in the higher-level file that calls(includes) …
What makes you say that? It's not like he's going after something honorable. All Dave is doing is pointing out errors in the bloated scion of a twisted dream born from broken promises.
iamthwee, you are one cool likable fellow! At least you have a brain that works well!
Given the discussion, I am assuming that this statement translates across as nothing more than "I like what you said because it agrees with what I think".
Depends. If the alphabet agency in question was set up by extra-constitutional laws, but does not specifically violate the constitution, I'd say it's in an uncertain area between the two.
Exactly where does the Constitution vest the powers claimed by the EPA, IRS, FCC, ICC, FTC, etc. ? The wording as you have just given it merely states that the laws necessary for those duties in the Constitution to be carried out are valid.
Ever read what the Koran has to say about treating with non-muslims, Ene Uran? From what I've seen, if they're lucky, Jews and Christians (People of the Book) get forced into slave-like servitude in Muslim societies. The unlucky ones, or anyone else, are to be killed outright unless they feel themselves subdued. (That is, choose to convert to Islam.) So I think I'd be a bit biased too, the same as I would against any other ideology whose primary purpose is to either enslave or kill me. You wouldn't? Or would you simply convert?
And the immigrants that have made the USA great are those that chose to join the melting pot, not those who chose to make the melting pot join them!
Considering that Hermes Trismegistus is noted as a patron of the esoteric versions of alchemy (the parts of alchemy that don't comprise today's chemistry), I'd be somewhat suspicious of any comparisons between his 'revelations' or logic drawing on them, and what we fondly call reality.
I just want to know how he's defining predestined. If he's using the traditional "it will happen, there's nothing you can do to escape it" sense, then I do not believe that it exists. But if he's using a slightly different variant of "This is how things are planned out", then I'm willing to allow that. How many people do you know that can stick to a given plan 100%?
I do believe in free will. And I do not believe that free will means that an omnipotent, omniscient being cannot exist. Josh, you're the one who brought this up this time: You seem to be implying that a being having the power to do something will automatically do said something. Am I inferring correctly what you intend?
yeah, i like mayo on the bun. it's good. and then you put mustard and lettuce and little onions and chips and chesse, it's the best hotdog you'll ever have.
Found this one on a site I visit fairly frequently. Supposedly a true story; as are most of the entries on the site.
It seems this military base had a massive mainframe computer that handled everything. Every day at about the same time, it would throw spurious errors for about 15-20 minutes, then stop. The techs worked for weeks both remotely and in the console room trying to find the problem. Finally, a tech went tot he actual computer room (hard to get into due to security limitations) and called the console room. The tech in the console room said "it's happenning now," so the tech in the computer room started looking at all the systems. He heard an odd whirring noise in one corner of the room, and asssumed it was a problem with a hard drive, a tape transport, or something similar. When he got there, a lowly Private was waxing the floor with a motor-driven polisher. The cable for the polisher was plugged into one of the outlets inside a computer cabinet. He asked the private "Do you do this often?" "Every day at this time, sir." "Do you always use that outlet?" "Yes, sir--that's the one the Sergeant told me to use." "OK. Would you mind using one of the ones on the wall from now on?" "Whatever you say, sir." The tech locked all the computer cabinets (per policy) and left.
The tech related the story to his boss; the boss called the base …
The Scotland one was more of a working holiday, so after the 12 hour drive I ended up spending 5 or 6 hours a day working on my book. The book is a study of identity in the digital age, so I guess that really counts as geek activity :)
follow the links I posted. They are only two of many many recent studies.
I can't. You'd have to make up your own mind.
"This site features work by Dr. Gregory Herek, an internationally recognized authority on sexual prejudice (also called homophobia), hate crimes, and AIDS stigma. It provides factual information to promote the use of scientific knowledge for education and enlightened public policy related to sexual orientation and HIV/AIDS."
Drawn from what looked to be the 'main site' page for the first link you gave, the one connected to the word 'Research'. Considering the site itself is the 'RAINBOW' directory, and that the description sounds like the traditional 'Pro-Homosexual Activist' (Note: Not necessarily homosexual, merely one of those who supports them), I'm afraid I'd consider the evidence provided therein to be biased.
Mister jwenting must be the Archy Bunker of the Lowlands.
When the second amendment was written arms were knives, sabers, muskets that took ten minutes to load, and single shot pistols. That's what the right to bear arms was intented to cover.
Now you talk about machine guns, automatic weapons, and sniper rifles that can blow your brains out from 2 miles away. Pretty soon we are talking about beam weapons, and photon torpedoes. Where do we stop?
Admittedly, the right to bear arms has somewhat to do with the nature of the weaponry. The last major case to deal with it before the United States Supreme Court, if I recall correctly, was in the 1930's, and stated that the defendant's 'Sawed-off Shotguns' weren't valid militia weapons. I'm not sure event that's correct, but in any event, the ruling said nothing about their right to bear the weapons, only that the weapons themselves weren't legit as 'militia' weapons.
So yeah, if the actual military begins to develop better systems, then the militias, whose purpose is to enable the people to protect themselves from the military should the government turn tyrannical, should also be permitted the same level of equipment.
i cannot speak for other environmentalists. i can only speak for myself.
i am not against building hospitals, roads or anything which counts as development. but i do have a problem with the needless destruction and of earth and its ecosystems or its lifeforms especially if it goes hand in hand with an obstinate refusal to except responsibility for it.
Would you consider yourself a conservationist or a preservationist? I ask because you step up to defend the preservationists, but by your own statements you sound more like a conservationist.
it may surprise you to know that one reason that i want the earth to live is that the human race is going to die with the planet if the planet dies. in addition to that i am actually more for nuclear power than for coal powered stations. and you dont have to tell me that we dont, at this moment, have the technology to turn everything to solar energy or wind energy or wave energy or something like that. but if we would have had it then i would have had a problem with nuclear power.
The major problem with nuclear power is that many people seem to automatically assume that a nuclear plant is by definition a Chernobyl, a China Syndrome waiting to happen. But even in Chernobyl, the count isn't that great. Deaths directly attributed to the disaster are 47 workers who were present at the scene, and nine children who had thyroid cancer. …
In my opinion, the only condiment worth using is mustard, and that only on hamburgers, hotdogs, and ham sandwiches. So no, no ketchup on my eggs...nothing on my eggs.
Then why even bother with getting the southern states to ratify the 13th? The Radical Republicans seemed to be treating the provisional southern governments as states again until the south refused to bow down on the 14th amendment.
i have nothing against you killing them. i just told you that i kill pests myself if they invade my garden. what i want to know is why do you play golf with them. do you honestly want to tell me that there is no way that you can kill them quickly? i cant even see how it is effective to kill them by playing golf with them. if you set out with a determine campaign of killing of a pest then you would kill far more in a smaller amount of time than you would by enjoying a nice game of golf.
From what I can tell off of this article, 'Cane Toad Golf' simply involves killing the creatures by method of blunt object. The article also states that the frogs are apparently tough enough to withstand blows from sharp objects. (Not sure if this means edged or pointed.) It's not an actual 'round of golf'.
as far as standing up for people who have sex with animals. what on earth in my post gave you that idea? sure kill the man. in fact throw the pig into a crocodile pool. i dont understand why the animal has to die too but if your religion demands it then sure kill the animal too. what i am against is you using that verse as a justification for torturing animals.
He didn't. He used it as an argument against PETA, on the grounds that PETA (or …
And thus not the 1st... IMO the 14th is restrictive of individual rights and therefore unconstitutional (as the constitution is designe to define the power of the federal government, not limit that of others).
I can't speak for 'unconstitutional', but I've seen enough written about the historical evidence for political foul play in its passing that I'm skeptical. As was mentioned elsewhere, many southern states were not counted for the purposes of its passing, because they refused to accept the 14th.
However, the Radical Republican Congress which imposed the 14th also imposed the 13th amendment, accepting the ratification of the southern states for it. There were no major changes in state governments between the two amendments. Logically, therefore, if the arguments given for the passage of the 14th amendment are valid (southern states aren't part of the union and therefore aren't needed to ratify the amendment), then the 13th amendment would seem to be invalid, as non-union governments were allowed to ratify it. And if the 13th is valid, then the 14th isn't.
I also recall reading about a state legislature (sorry, can't recall which state) which voted on the amendment while some seats were under contention. (Seats were held by Radical Republicans, but there was a question of whether or not they had actually won those seats.) After the amendment was ratified, it was discovered that those seats should have gone to the Democrats who opposed the Radical Republican seatholders. But the Radical Republicans refused to …
All politicians produce carbon dioxide and hot air.
Maybe we need a BIG containment dome around Washington DC, to keep hot air, carbon dioxide, and excess taxation and regulation from escaping.
Leave a screened in ventilation point somewhere. That way we can use the hot air for our own purposes, and maybe it'll help keep the excessive regulations from leaving on the wind.
