Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Cue the young earth creationists (Score 1) 267

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?

Comment Re:Cue the young earth creationists (Score 1) 267

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.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 289

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.

Comment Re:April fools (Score 1) 470

This could be a response to any number of comments in this thread, but the fact is that the Bible does not say how old the world is. The 6000 year theory is just someone's interpretation. As a Christian, it boggles my mind why other Christians hold on to that idea so strongly, when the Biblical evidence for that interpretation is so weak.

Comment Re:Supremacy Clause (Score 1) 601

The case you cite deals specifically with traffic law and can't be generalized to all situations, but let's look at it anyway.

That a Federal employee is not immune from arrest for noncompliance with State traffic regulation where performance of his duties did not necessitate such noncompliance is well illustrated by the following excerpt from the opinion of the court in Oklahoma v. Willingham, 143 F.Supp. 445 (E.D.Okla., 1956, (p. 448):

          The State of Oklahoma has not only the right hut the responsibility to regulate travel upon its highways. The power of the state to regulate such travel has not been surrendered to the Federal Government. An employee of the Federal Government must obey the traffic laws of the state although he may be traveling in the ordinary course of his employment. No law of the United States authorizes a rural mail carrier, while engaged in delivering mail on his route, to violate the provisions of the state those who use the highways.

          Guilt or innocence is not involved, but there is involved a question of whether or not the prosecution is based on an official act of the defendant. There is nothing official about how or when the defendant re-entered the lane of traffic on the highway. There is no official connection between the acts complained of and the official duties of the mail carrier. The mere fact that the defendant was on duty and delivering mail along his route does not present any federal question and administration of the work of the Post Office Department does not require a carrier, while delivering mail, to drive his car from a stopped position into the path of an approaching automobile. When he is charged with doing so, his defense is under state law and is not different from that of any other citizen.

          Where, on the other hand, the Federal employee could not discharge his duties without violating State or local traffic regulations, it has been that he is immune from any liability under State or local law for such noncompliance.

(emphasis mine)

Basically, the whole case boils down to this: Federal agents cannot violate state laws and are not immune to prosecution normally. However, when there is no other choice, then the agent is held immune for a particular act. In the case it mentions a Federal agent in pursuit of a suspect that broke traffic laws and ended up hitting someone with his vehicle. He is held immune to that, the same way a cop or fire engine would be held immune for speeding and running lights on their way to a scene.

None of this has anything to do with the discussion of the TSA. Try again.

Comment Re:Supremacy Clause (Score 2) 601

That is only so because so many people accept that. I think a more sane interpretation (one that the Supreme Court, itself, used to follow before FDR) does not give Congress powers as broad as they are claiming. It is still possible to reverse that interpretation, and while I don't really expect it to happen, I will continue to advocate for it.

Comment Re:Supremacy Clause (Score 1) 601

That doesn't give the TSA the right to assault people. If a TSA agent punches someone in the stomach, that is obviously assault and that agent will be arrested and prosecuted under state law. If the state defines assault in a way that makes their pat downs assault (or some other crime), they can legally do that to protect their citizens.

Comment Re:Supremacy Clause (Score 2) 601

Treaties are a loophole. They don't need to have a delegated power behind them. I parse the clause this way: The Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

There was a Supreme Court case that dealt with this. Congress passed a law that regulated some migratory birds in some way (gave them certain protections or whatever). A state objected and took it to the Supreme Court and had the law overturned as unconstitutional because the Federal government doesn't have that power (they even tried to argue that the birds crossing state borders constituted interstate commerce, ha!) In response, they made a treaty (with Canada maybe? I can't quite remember) that made the same protections for the birds. The state objected again, but the court said, nope, sorry that is now the supreme law of the land.

I don't really like that, because it bypasses the House of Representatives completely and it makes it much easier to essentially amend the Constitution by treaty. This is what makes things like ACTA so fracking dangerous!

Slashdot Top Deals

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.