Yes and no. In the strict sense, there will be exceptions but yes, being able to act without regard to the laws of nature that the appearant world is bound by would qualify as supernatural.

Here is the complaint in PDF
http://www.ftc.gov/system/file...

It says section 5(a) but I'm having trouble locating section 5.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

Anyone got any ideas where I'm doing it wrong?

I'm not sure your sentence parses.

Are you saying creationism is not realistic or not realistic for a scientific understanding? I would agree with the later, there not enough information for the former.

Why does there need to be a creationist explanation?

Do you really understand what creation means? It means something was created and in the case of religious creation, everything was. Why was it created? It's hard to say but nothing here is proof that creation doesn't work. It's just evidence that creation isn't needed to work. It's like a car, you can use a key to start it but you can also hot wire it and start without a key. That doesn't mean the key no longer works- it just may no longer be necessary to work in order to start the car.

In fact, if you follow the religious examples (creationist), god gave man dominion over his creations. He also gave him knowledge. And we know in the new testament, that Jesus says God is still working and so was he. So in essence, you would search and find an understanding that didn't require the need for a God to create anything in order to understand it and have dominion (rule) over it. We also know that God gave us free will and you will either go to God or reject him/her. Nothing prevents anything from being created when a being is above the laws of nature that we are bound by and understand, including our understanding of those creations which may be by design of the creation.

Expecting a supernatural explanation for natural events and understandings is not very scientific.

I never really liked USB for sound. Might be another old habit too.

The problem as it was last time I messed with it was that USB power would start causing issues when you chained more devices to it. It was important to make sure you used powered hubs if connecting something (several devices) with more power consumption than a mouse or keyboard.

Perhaps I should give it another look. It's been a while.

This was more obvious when senators were appointed by the states however those states decided- instead of being directly elected by the population of the state.

The house of representatives was supposed to be exactly that, representatives of the people. The senate was supposed to represent the state as originally, the feds were limited in what they could do. The president was supposed to be a common figure head for foreign relations and such while keeping congress in check with his veto or acceptance of bills and the administration of the laws passed.

I don't think it is that complicated (as simple as it sounds).

This is pure show. They kicked the station head out, not the entire CIA. The station will continue doing what it is doing because it gets orders from higher up the chain. They know this but it makes good political theater and appears like something was done for the populace to be appeased.

The US does it too. The IRS commissioner (Steven Miller) who supposedly resigned because of the so called scandals was quitting anyways. It was just show.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

2001 would have been before the capacitor plague hit hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

If you look down to the industrial espionage part, I heard the story a little different. Instead of a worker stealing the recipe and copying it wrong, I heard there was a hacking incident and sabotages files were purposely placed in the areas the hackers were looking at. The faulty electrolyte recipe was supposedly on of them and they used it to pinpoint which manufacturer was trying to steal information. But that could have just been rumor.

I stopped buying high end discrete sound cards a long time ago. I still buy and use discrete cards when I build a system and sometimes when trouble shooting them though.

It might be more out of habit since I started buying and building computers when sound was almost always an add on. On Board sound probably wasn't even invented then. One thing that always annoyed me was on board devices going south and not enough expansion slots to add a card in. This used to be common with on board sound and network devices. It's also so much easier pulling a card to trouble shoot hardware issues than turning one off in the bias and hoping it actually disabled the chip. I've seen some plug and play happenings turn the devices back on once the OS booted.

I cannot tell a big difference in sound quality or CPU overhead any more either. But I guess habits are hard to break.

Actually, it shows how specious you argument was.

From what I see, you are basically defining your own axioms so that everything is OK, with no reference to standard morality. Your argument is basically: let's assume anything already in the atmosphere can't be bad since it pre exists, and let's not worry about deaths as I'm not the one dying.

You would do well to pay attention to what I actually say and not suppose things in my stead. I have said it twice now so pay attention. Coal is not some super toxic material. It is damaging and kills people but it is not super toxic. The vast majority of people who die from coal exposure is a fraction of other things they die from.

First, the contraception mandate was not ever signed into law. It is a regulation created by the department of health and human services (also known as a rule) well after the law became law but the power to do so was in the law. Hobby Lobby is not required to follow the mandate.

Second, the parent I replied to was attempting to distort the ruling in order to inflame people with his wording choices on abortion. I pointed out how wrong he was.

Now, the RFRA or religious freedom and restoration act and the court ruling specifically spells out how and when these regulations can be ignored.

The court found that the mandate was not the least restrictive means and referred to what the government is already doing to get around religious arguments for other people, groups and entities as support for it not being the least restrictive. So according to this ruling, if there is a religious claim to be excluded and there is a less restrictive means to further the compelling government interest, it can be ignored by the person, company, group and so on.

but that doesn't mean the compelling government interest disappears or that the government cannot pursue it. It just means they have to use the lest (less) restrictive means to maintain or further it.

Where and what is? Restrictions on forming a corporation? No, it's not. Nothing in the US Constitution about corporations, you'd have to check state ones for their authority .

Listen, the constitution has provisions in it that says government cannot do certain things. The 14th amendment makes these prohibited things bound to the states also. If the constitution says no law can be made prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then any law, including state law, that says you have no religious rights if you do X is defacto unconstitutional. Quit forgetting the important parts in order to push what you want to demonize (corporations).

So, can the US government, either state or federal, require corporations to pass out bibles to all their employees and contractors and reserve one hour of the work week for paid bible study? If not, why not and how does that jive with your disposition on corporations?

But you're not offering any substantial reason for your prayer being mandated, or even the pledge of allegiance, while simultaneously ignoring the compulsory nature of public schooling. And you'll find little support for changing that mandate. Not zero, but little. It does exist, and a lot of silliness has resulted from that.

I didn't provide any substantial reason for prayer being mandated because the concept is ludicrous on it's own due to the US constitution forbidding it. But lets join your journey, suppose there was a study that showed people who pray do better in society (make better citizens) than people who do not. Surely you cannot be against better citizens can you? It doesn't matter though because it would still be unconstitutional. And yes, most school districts are incorporated for the purpose of separating their liability from the city. Or to be more accurate, "A school district is a legally separate body corporate and politic"

I'm not sure what you mean by "ever vote democrat again" but if you want to remove the officially endorsed partisanship in the US, I wouldn't necessarily mind. Get rid of those stupid partisan primaries, thank you very much. Especially since they come with stupid "official" requirements that aren't even enforceable. (Check the recent bullshit in Mississippi for example.) And the last part of sentence doesn't connect to the previous, so you'll have to explain what you mean by that before I can respond.

Yes, that came out mangled. What I was trying to ask is if you thought it would be reasonable for the government to say if you vote democrat you cannot have a bank account because they regulate banks? I would assume not but I saw your reply. Let me answer this, no it would not be reasonable because the government cannot make any law prohibiting your free speech or freedom of association and denying you the ability to have a bank account because of that would be violating the first amendment.

As for Mississippi, it's rather simple. Hold the primaries together, the person voting asked for either a democrat, republican, or independent ticket and they can choose from one but not more. If you feel the need to switch parties in order to vote whomever you think would lose to your guy, you run the risk of your guy not wining their primary.

This sentence also seems to lack context, yes, it's true, but you're saying this because of what reason? If you want to complain that the system of conducting elections in the US is poorly done, get in line. It's a long one.

It lost it's composure because I mangled the previous sentence. It's supportive of the government being able to check if you vote for a democrat or not in order to ban you from having a bank account. I would hope you would find the entire thought of that situation repulsive and unconstitutional- as it is just that.

You are correct, it does sound ridiculous. However, a lot of things sound that way in today's world.

Maybe the FBI and NSA couldn't use the monitoring they are doing on Americans to find people looking for this stuff in some attempt to find a terrorist cell so they released them to narrow down their search (either by looking closer at those who download it or those who don't but searched for it previously).

As for first responders, You can always know where first responders are by creating an accident that requires them. After about 10 minutes, attack with stage two. Car bombings in Iraq and other hot spots tend to use this. They send a bomb in close to an area, send another in to blow up, 10-20 minutes later, first responders are on scene trying to save lives and the second bomb goes off,.

Its not yhe data that thry claim is wrong with the lack of warming claim.

What they say busts the claim is that the oceans all the sudden are more of a sink then in years past. Actually, they do not claim anything is magically different other than the understanding of ow much of a sink the oceans are. Of course i find that problematic because the temps 30 years ago would have had the same intrraction. But evidently in the slow warming periods, it is important to make that claim as it clearly busts other claims.

And the brilliance of an AC poster failing to shine at all yet again.