The sky won't fall but the walls might.
The sky won't fall but the walls might.
ISPs never were under FCC regulation, as far as I know.
There is a difference between having a locked door that the player can find a key for and open, versus a door that can never be opened.
In real life, there is no such thing as a door that won't ever open, so if you put such a thing in a game, you have created something that the player should reasonably expect to be able to interact with (by finding a way to open the door) but can't because you only put it there for decoration or whatever. This will lead to frustration when the player wastes time trying to figure out how to open the door. Unless, you've made it obvious that the door will never open by making it look fake, but then you've broken the immersion.
A few years ago, I set out looking for a law that forbade open carry of swords and nunchaku in my state (New York) and could not find one. I believe it is legal to open carry these items. However, cane swords were specifically banned, I presume because they are hidden.
They will soon. Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of humans that run Linux!
I like to think that I don't stretch my interpretation. There are times when I simply say "I don't know what this means," rather than try to force an interpretation based on everything else I know.
It is open to interpretation, and mine still allows for this. Like I said, if the atmosphere was full of dust and ash, and then cleared enough for light to get through (like an overcast day), you would have day and night, but you would not be able to see stars, the moon, or the sun. When the atmosphere finishes clearing up (on the fourth day), they become visible.
Obviously we look at it from different perspectives. I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and meant to teach us. I also believe science is another way of discovering the work of God. If one seems to contradict the other, I assume it is a failure in interpretation, because they should both agree.
My assumption is that you totally reject the Bible to begin with, so you can very easily conclude that it is any perceived inconsistency with what you already think you know just reinforces your opinion that it is rubbish.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I'll try to explain what I meant.
If the early earth had an atmosphere that was dense with ash or debris (from heavy volcanic activity and impacts with other objects), then it may have been so thick that sunlight could not reach the surface. When He said "Let there be light," it may have just been when the atmosphere cleared up and allowed light to reach the surface. Separating the day and the night just describes the rotation of the earth, but the fact that light only hits the surface when it faces the sun would not have been evident from that vantage point until the sky cleared enough to let light through.
I think that makes way more sense than saying he created the sun after creating the earth. It sounds like you're suggesting it could mean he created the sun first, but created sunlight after, but that also makes no sense to me. I probably misunderstood you though. Care to clarify?
I am not a young-earth creationist, but you should read more carefully.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
God said "Let there be light" on the first day (after having created the heavens and the earth), but since the point of view of that verse is from the Earth's surface ("and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"), that could just mean that "Let there be light" is just the first time sunlight has been able to reach the surface of the Earth, not necessarily that it was the creation of the sun.
Oh, good. I guess that means AOL has nothing to worry about, either.
So when browsers claim to be fully HTML5 compliant, will that even have any meaning anymore?
I remain skeptical that the US has no interest in his extradition to Sweden, but I have no motivation to spread FUD of any kind. I'm just waiting to see what happens, and trying to predict the outcome for fun - just like I might try to predict the winner of a football game. That is all. Do try and stay calm.
I didn't know about this. How long does this protection last? If they let him go free and then the US asks for him in a $TimeInterval, is he still under the UK's protection? (where $TimeInterval = 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, etc.)
What about the above-mentioned Temporary Surrender clause in the US-Sweden Extradition Treaty? Would Sweden really suffer sanctions if the US throws its political weight around to help them out?
This isn't about "USA EVIL!" This is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the State Department REALLY REALLY wants to get their hands on him.
The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.