Nightingale

For individuals, it can be a solution to certain problems. For society as a whole, it's the cause of a lot of problems.

If you KNEW that the FSM was not true and that you just made it up, would you still hang on a cross for it in order to further your cause? You'd either have to be crazy (all of them?), insincere (no evidence for that), or sincere. These guys didn't just believe. They knew because they witnessed the fulfilled prophesy and miraculous events that occurred. 1. Peter – crucified 2. Andrew – crucified 3. Matthew – the sword 4. John – natural 5. James, son of Alphaeus – crucified 6. Philip – crucified 7. Simon – crucified 8. Thaddaeus – killed by arrows 9. James, brother of Jesus – stoned 10. Thomas – spear thrust 11. Bartholomew – crucified 12. James, son of Zebedee – the sword 913 people died because they followed Jim Jones. I'd list the names, but there are just too many. You can find them here http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/WhoDied/whodied_list.php 39 people died because they followed Marshall Applewhite. 74 people died because they followed David Koresh. If they KNEW that what they were saying wasn't true and they just made it up, would they still have died for it in order to further their cause?

However, if there's a mistake in copy 1, chances are, the person copying it, if told to copy exactly, would copy that mistake. so, by the time you get to copy 10, all the mistakes from the prior copies are included, plus whatever mistake the last guy made.

Increase the penalty for filing a false police report, plus fine them every dime it cost the police to investigate. The guy involved could probably file a defamation suit too, especially if the case got media attention. Prosecutors would have to be very certain that the report itself was wrong, though, and not just a case of mistaken identity.

Why would you respect someone simply because they're old? Respect beyond the basic respect that should be shown to all humans, is something that should be earned. Respect for experience, wisdom, tolerance, and kindness I would understand, but I don't think that just being on this planet for a long time is really a feat worthy of respect. Oh wait... this is the guy that jumped out of planes without a parachute. nevermind.

I figure it's either: Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Kallend, or Billvon. Michael Jackson, because he's well... Michael Jackson Bill Clinton because all the fundies seem to hate him and Billvon and Kallend because of their unique talents for logic and seeing the obvious.

That's in keeping with a large majority of the Bush apologists on dropzone who seem to still be campaigning against Clinton. I think you're both right. Honestly, in the next election, I'd really like to hear about what the new guy is going to do instead of what the last two guys did, but that's probably not going to happen, just because it's easier to sling mud at a known entity than bother to go out and research the new one.

Both. I think a lot of people get started in it to get a hand up. However, they soon discover that as soon as they start working, they'll have less money than if they weren't, because welfare paid more than their new job would. This is a plan that a friend and I came up with when we were philosophically solving all the world's problems over beer (repost): Open government stores (or, ideally, stores run by charities, or, as Billvon suggested, grocery stores with the ability to decline purchases that aren't staples) that sell staples at very cheap prices. Just the basics: healthy food, cheap clothes. Sell them at, or even slightly below cost. Instead of just sending people money, if they qualify for assistance, give them a difficult to forge photo ID debit card that only works at stores like this. Put a low amount of money (say $150 per family member) on the card each month. Set an amount of income that's considered "poverty" and use things like those cards and housing vouchers that corporations that run residential apartments must accept as regular currency to help (private landlords, such as people who rent out a room could be eligible to accept these, but they'd have to apply for permission. This is to both prevent slumlords and prevent someone from being required to accept vouchers if they're renting out a room or have a few small rental properties) Landlords are then reimbursed by the government for the face value of the voucher. For every $100 people make over the set income, they lose $25 in benefits. That way, they're encouraged to work, because they'll still have more money than if they didn't. Right now, people stay on welfare partially because they have more money than if they went to work. With a system like the above, you end up with a balance. The government helps out with essentials like food, clothing, and shelter only. That way, people have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof. Necessities only. Then, when they get a job, they end up with more money to spend than what the government was giving them, which is an incentive to find and keep a job. This system bypasses the issues involved with minimum wage, because it doesn't cost employers more. It also bypasses the issues with the welfare system of people spending welfare dollars in ways they're not meant to, and encourages people to work because while benefits decrease, they decrease by a value significantly less than the increased income. I'm sure there'd be some issues with a system like this, but it seems like there would be fewer issues than with our current system.

True, but I don't remember the last time someone introduced legislation based on Shakespeare.

Yeah, and the fact that they often (it's not just MockingBird) refer to the authenticity of the original documents to defend their doctrine despite the fact that the current Bible(s) bear(s) little resemblance to the original docs How is the content of the original Gospels different from the content of current versions? Specifically? Since nobody alive has actually seen the originals, we really don't have a clue. We have absolutely no way to compare the text of today with the original text. I don't know what the original text said. Neither do you.

I see you posted your actual pic on here. It's a well known character from literature (original illustration, there have been other more recent versions as well as movie and TV characterizations). 5 brownie points for a correct identification. I guess I'll have to give a clue. Moriarty. The bad guy from Sherlock Holmes. When I looked at the picture, I thought it looked like the illustrations from SH, but I couldn't place it.

There's lots of different opinions. Your opinion is different from Helen's and from the NIH's. People have different opinions about the war, about stem cells and about pretty damn near everything. The congressman said we shouldn't use taxpayer money to do something the congressman himself considers immoral. The problem is, you name it, and somebody out there is going to think it's immoral. So... going by the logic of the congressman, the government shouldn't be funding much of anything beyond what's absolutely necessary... wait a second... I kinda like that idea.

The difference is that not everyone considers the war to be immoral. Analysis of the president's position on embryonic stem cell research should not depend on your own personal opinion of the morality of an altogether different issue. Letting the genocide continue in Iraq or Darfur is also immoral, isn't it? I understand though. It is getting more and more difficult to justify the position in support of embryonic stem cell research, especially now that it isn't the most promising, or even a necessary path for the future of stem cell research. Not everyone considers stem cell research immoral either. The morality of genocide should be irrelevant politically at this point, because we've signed a treaty obligating ourselves to stop it. Regarding embryonic stem cells and alternatives: Professor Helen Blau of Stanford University, who conducts research with adult stem cells: "The whole field of (adult stem cell) research is in its infancy; it's only two years old," she said. "We don't know the potential of those cells, we don't know how to enlist that potential. ... Embryonic stem cell research, Blau explained, has been conducted for decades, and scientists have learned a great deal -- things like what factors induce the cells to grow and differentiate and migrate to different parts of the body -- about these early master cells... We don't know at this point which will be better for what...We need to learn from both. We need to learn the differences, the relative advantages, and we learn a tremendous amount by comparing the two cells...I feel strongly we need embryonic stem cells. The answers are not just going to come from the adult stem cells and it would be extremely short-sighted to shift completely to just adult stem cells." National Institute for Health stem cell primer: "Adult stem cells are often present only in minute quantities, are difficult to isolate and purify, and their numbers may decrease with age"

OMG. What a brat. If she hasn't learned how to gracefully accept a gift by age 16, then she doesn't deserve one, and her parents should return it, if possible, and send her to her room with no television, computer, cell phone, or iPod until she learns that when you're handed something nice, the proper response is "thank you."

You state that the congressman considers the war immoral. Is that your assertion or that of the congressman? Is it possible that a war could be morally justified/not immoral? In your view, is it possible for medical research to be immoral? In order for someone to take a position opposing some research on moral grounds, should they have to pass your test of moral purity on every other issue? Isn't all this a moot point? Now that embryonic stem cell research has been shown to not be where the research is providing results, and now that amniotic fluid can provide what embryos were providing? Sounds like he said the congressman thought the research was immoral and Kallend thought the war was immoral, and was asking what's the difference... either way, you're spending taxpayer money on something somebody considers immoral.

At least they haven't banned it yet.

LOL. Terrorists are responsible for terrorism. Without guns, they'll find some other way to terrorize. That's what they do. Next, we'll be banning fertilizer and pointy sticks.

Some versions of the bible are called "Red Letter" and they have all the words of Jesus printed in red while the rest is in black.

I was looking for information and trying to investigate my experience. I did actually attend a church in my area for a while (not that it's any of your business) and came to the conclusion that any religion that teaches people to hate and judge isn't for me.

That conversation was years ago, and I don't recall saying I was referring to the Christian god. Just acknowledging a spiritual experience and asking questions. And it's rude to post things that people have told you privately in PMs.

Doesn't hating something by definition mean an acknowledgment of it's existence? And no, I don't see many athiests trying to outlaw christianity. I have seen athiests trying to outlaw christianity's effort to outlaw things. Speaking of laws, I'm supposed to be studying for the bar exam right now, so I'm going to go do that.

I don't oppose Christianity. I do oppose the current Christian policies of involvement in politics, which is unique to the Christian religion here in the USA (if it were Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, or Athiests, I'd still be pissed off). Certain Christians try to get their beliefs coded into law and taught in public schools. They're not content to live their lives and allow others to live theirs and make their own choices about their own lives. They want to control the lives of others and base our legal system on "righteousness" or "virtue" rather than justice. I oppose legislating personal morality. I don't care what someone else believes. It's not my business. When it affects my life and my ability to make my own choices... then I care.

MacBook Pros have a dedicated video chip. MacBooks don't. The macbook has plenty video performance for anything you're going to do except gaming and video editing. It's okay for video editing (works fine for the basics) but not great for graphics intensive gaming. James can turn all the graphics on on Warcraft and get 70 frames a second. In my iBook, I have to shut some video options off to keep it smooth. He says he wouldn't hesitate to buy either, but don't do it today, wait til after MacWorld tomorrow.

$575 for one gig of RAM is a a lot to ask IMHO. That is the current quote to upgrade a Macbook Pro from 2 gig to 3 gig. The RAM is easily user serviceable in the mac laptops. Crucial.com carries all the compatible RAM for much cheaper than ordering it from the factory. Apple's memory is good, but it's four times as expensive, and it's the same stuff with the apple label on it.

My mac helped me survive law school! My mac always works, is completely compatible with the school's networks (and chapman's network is quite literally held together with duct tape, so it certainly isn't new or sophisticated, and it's built for PCs), and I've had no issues at all with sending Office files from the mac to the professor's PCs. I've loaned my computer to three other students who had their PCs in the shop. Two bought macs. My professor, after cursing his school issued PC for failing to properly load his PC created power point presentation: "Can I use that? I need something that works." The only down side of having a mac in law school is that in California, at least, you can't use it to take the bar exam. That's certainly not going to stop me from acquiring a macbook after the bar. Not that there's anything at all wrong with my iBook. You can just never have too many macs. There's a reason why PCs have users and Macs have evangelists.