Fair enough, and judging by some of the other responses, you were justified in your interpretation. I guess I overestimate /.'s rationalism. To be clear, I don't attribute Parmenides with any great insight into the quantum nature of the universe, anymore than I think that Democritus had any clue about what we've come to call "atoms". That being said, the line of reasoning on "what is" vs. "what is not" does have some interesting things to think about if time is indeed an emergent phenomenon.

He obviously wasn't "right" in the sense of having anything useful to say about the world in any scientific sense - I would have thought that goes without saying. I just found the parallel amusing. You're reading a bit too much into an off-hand comment.

This sounds a lot like what he was saying 2500 years ago.

From Wikipedia:

I've interviewed for a company that required you to write out a stack implementation in C++ from scratch during the interview. It's a great problem, since it's quite easy to define, nearly everyone knows what is required, but it's complicated enough that when coding by hand on paper, every entry-level programmer is going to make a mistake, and you can see how they think when you tell them there's a mistake. Even when they get it right, you get a lot of insight into their problem-solving style by listening to them defend the design.

The paper is real, but its value as currency is only due to a collective agreement to value it as such.

If a right can be forfeit, then it's no longer a right - it's a privilege. In a democracy, the ability to vote has to be one of THE fundamental rights that can never be taken away. Otherwise, you end up with the situation the US currently sees where large chunks of people are disenfranchised, and the government loses its claim to be representative of its citizens.

Whether you firearm ownership is a fundamental right, a secondary right that must yield to other more fundamental rights in a conflict, or a privilege that the government has the ability to revoke, makes a big difference as to whether you feel that any level of gun control is acceptable.

Then why stop at harvesting organs? Why not use the dead as food? Why bother following a person's will, and just let the living do what they want with a person's estate?

I can't say that any of my university classes were so dense that there was three hours of information packed into a single lecture. I'd say half of them were about 10 minutes of information packed into an hour-long lecture and obfuscated to make it seem like there was more content that there was.

This would seem to fit. When you search in OneNote it'll give you a list of all the pages that have that search term (including UCRing images, and searching through recorded audio).

But if you have to pay for a new subscription each time you get caught, there's a strong disincentive to keep making your copies available.

A fingerprint scanner! On a portable device! Will Apple ever stop hammering us with the revolutionary new features!

Yup. The easiest is to upgrade to windows 7 Pro or Ultimate and install XP Mode

I'm not sure where your information is from, but, as far as breaks go, there's no federal legislation at all, it varies from province to province. Generally you're entitled to a half-hour break every 5 hours, which must be paid if you're required to remain on site, but can otherwise be unpaid.

There's no special provision anywhere for law-enforcement (except that the RCMP are not allowed to strike. Farm workers, commercial fishers, oil field workers, loggers, home care givers, professionals, managers and some categories of salespersons have special federal provisions in other areas of worker's rights.

Paul does certainly use language that would appear to require a single "original fall" event by one person, but it's also likely, given the historical context and his generally lax exegesis of the old testament, that he's simply appropriating the Adam story out of context to make a point in contrast to Jesus. Certainly,there's a complete lack of reference in the Old Testament to Adam after Genesis 5, and no concept of original sin.

There also isn't a case in the bible where someone is condemned based on original sin, any punishment meted out to a person is based on a specific choice that person made. Bad things do happen to "good" people, it's true, but even Jesus denied that those were necessarily punishment for sin.

The concept of original sin is far from universally accepted in christianity. The concept of universal sin, is nearly universal, but inherrited sin isn't. Also, nearly all Protestant churches would deny that Mary was without sin, original or othewise.

You're being awefully generallistic here. There's no such command in the Bible, and it's only tradition that leads to this being the accepted belief in many christian sects. Even in the bible itself, it's pretty clear that there were other people outside of Adam and Eve that Cain would have reason to fear after killing his brother. It's also fairly defensible to read the second creation story as the specific creation of the nation of Israel, and not the general creation of the world. Here, Adam is at most the first patriarch of Israel, and possibly just a symbolic one at that.