Sentences with phrase «on point of difference»

Semara Resort and Spa: Affordable family resort with world - class, pay - as you - go kid's club Gold Coast entrepreneurs Tony Smith and his wife Simone have hit on a point of difference at their Seminyak resort, as they offer a...

Our views differ in certain highly important respects, and in our comments we have naturally concentrated our attention on these points of difference, and tried to explain our reasons for them.

Not exact matches

As you chill the methane and oxygen below its liquid point, you get a fairly meaningful density increase — you get on the order of 10 % to 12 % density increase, which makes quite a big difference for the propellant load.

A LendingTree survey found that customers who received five quotes on its platform for a typical 30 - year home loan of $ 223,000 witnessed a difference of 52 basis points from the highest to the lowest quotes.

Daily fantasy sports, where players draft a roster of football players to compete for points in a single - day worth of games, were acknowledged by Virginia lawmakers as a game of skill vs. pure chance, a key difference that allows sites to avoid a federal ban on online gambling.

On Wednesday, Morneau made a point of saying he sees a very big difference between a national pharmacare «strategy» and a «plan.»

No longer able to rely simply on price as a point of difference, Expedia and rival Booking Holdings, which owns Priceline, are fighting back by offering events and activities beyond hotel and airline reservations and spending lavishly to market directly to consumers.

Examine how those aspects point naturally to gaps and needs your organization can fill — and how filling them could make a difference on one or more of these social issues

There are differences in the Canadian and U.S. housing markets, differences that can generate sharply contrasting points of view on whether Canada will experience a housing meltdown comparable to the one in the U.S.

There are more than 1,000 cryptocurrencies currently listed on CoinMarketCap with new startups launching daily, so one needs to find their point of difference to stand out from the growing pool of cryptocurrency startups.

Each year I put the new chart in a plastic sleeve and when clients came into my office for a portfolio review, I would carefully point out the dramatic differences in performance between this consumer staples stock versus many of the cyclicals on the list, particularly Big Blue.

In order for currency on a scale such as local community currencies or loyalty points to be linked to other currencies, there is a need for a method to provide a medium of exchange that allows for the difference in scale.

So I find that a lot of people lower their standards on this point hoping for value appreciation to make up the difference.

Investors can make up their own mind on this point but should be aware of this critical difference.

Because mortgages are such big dollar amounts — the Mortgage Bankers Association reported the average loan request in March 2017 hit an all - time high at $ 313,300 — even a fraction of a percentage point can make a big difference in your monthly payment and how much you will spend on your home in the long run.

Each point on the chart is calculated by taking the difference between the number of advancing / declining issues and adding the result to the previous period's value.

A third and subtle point relates to the differences in the level of interest rates actually paid on different loan products (Graph 2) when compared with reference rates (Graph 1).

I'd like to get to the point of updating the portfolio details on a monthly basis (besides the passive income details), but there isn't always a noticeable difference from month - to - month.

The starting point for becoming more sophisticated on financial issues is to learn the difference between debt and equity and what types of funding are available for different types of businesses.

East Eastern theology, while holding more strictly than western theology on basic dogmas, is tolerant of differences of opinions on finer points Eastern church membership is contingent on commitment and behavior Eastern Christians have no difficulty maintaining definite beliefs while remaining tolerant.

Short of that I don't see the difference, and to say that you believe in a sky wizard seems perfectly on point to me.

Lewis S. Ford has addressed himself directly to the claim for nonphysical (but still temporal) successiveness in the genetic process in his article «On Genetic Successiveness: a Third Alternative» (1: 421 - 25).1 Ford begins by pointing out that the differences between phases in a single occasion can not be mere differences in complexity of integration.

If my suppositions in point # 1 are wrong, and there really is a difference, and are not reconcilable on any level, here or in the world to come, then I adopt the attitude of Romans 14 — the weaker brother.

4 The answer to this question will depend (as Deleuze clearly recognizes), not simply upon an analysis of the nature of monadic units, but on confronting the issue at its most sensitive point, namely, with respect to the difference between the Leibnizian God who «compares and chooses,» and the Whiteheadian God who «affirms incompossibles and passes them through.»

It is in sharp tension with much in orthodox Christianity, but on many of the points of difference, it is more biblical than the philosophical theological development of the traditions under Greek influence.

We noted in chapter 2 that differences on this point are one of the theological factors that pluralize rather than unite theological schools.

In short, the «war on women» rhetoric and the inopportune statements by U.S. Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock only resulted in a three - percentage - point gain in «pro-choice» sentiment» a difference that falls within the poll's margin of error.

That kind of love not only overrides fear, anger, misunderstandings and cultural differences; it points to a truth that is more powerful than any force on heaven and on earth: The love of Christ.

From a Whiteheadian point of view, one expects that bodily differences do have an effect on personality traits, so that the characteristic differences between the male and female body would be likely to be accompanied by tendencies to personality difference as well.

The real point of evolution is HOW these differences allow the individual to have more success at passing on thier genes (getting laid) which in turn creates lineage of those traits.

(Searching for differences between Republican and Democratic foreign policy experts is akin, he suggests, to «contrasting the finer points of the sitcoms on NBC with those broadcast on CBS.»)

Aristotle is intent on pointing up the difference between conscious perception and the interplay of purely physical forces, i.e., those powers peculiar to bodies as such rather than specifically to sentient bodies.

To respond: In the first place, we should not exaggerate the difference between Whitehead and Hartshorne on this point, because Whitehead too speaks of «necessity» and defines metaphysical principles as those devoid of conceivable alternatives (PR 3/4, 4/5, 288/441; ESP 123, 124).

One frequently cited bar graph has been used to suggest, for the decade 1965 - 75, a severe diminution of seven mainline Protestant bodies by contrast both with their gains in the preceding ten years and with the continuing growth of selected conservative churches (see Jackson W. Carroll et al., Religion in America, 1950 to the Present [Harper & Row, 19791, p. 15) The gap in growth rates for 1965 - 75, as shown on that graph, is more than 29 percentage points (an average loss in the oldline denominations of 8.9 per cent against average gains among the conservatives of 20.5 per cent) This is indeed a substantial difference, but it does not approach the difference in growth rates recorded for the same religious groups in the 1930s, when the discrepancy amounted to 62 percentage points.

More important and more difficult to deal with than such differences in teaching on will and freedom, however, is a wall known only too well by those of us who have worked with Omega to help it make its Point: the wall of what Catholics are tempted pridefully to call pietistic faith and what Protestants are tempted cynically to call superstition.

The difference is Mr. I will never win Pulitzer... is that Islamic TERRORISTS come teams of 4 on 4 different planes sent from mosques and other places of Islam to kill jews... He is but one man... Who made his point... It was people like you that he was trying to change..

well just thinking about these wars in the muslim / mid-east world over religious differences (which may reflect mental states in many ways) in a world where most realize that living in the present moment is best way to happiness and being in the moment in non-strife and awareness through the teachings of masters such as found in the buddhist, taoist, zen, etc., etc., etc. spriritually based practices of religious like thought and teachings, etc. that to ask these scientifically educated populace whom have access to vast amounts of knowledges and understandings on the internet, etc. to believe in past beliefs that perhaps gave basis and inspiration to that which followed — but is not the end all of all times or knowledges — and is thus — non self - sustaining in a belief that does not encompass growth of knowledge and understanding of all truths and being as it is or could be — is to not respect the intelligence and minds and personage of even themselves — not to be disrespected nor disrespectful in any way — only to point out that perhaps too much is asked to put others into the cloak of blind faith and adherance to the past that disregards the realities of the present and the potential of the future... so you try to live in the past — and destroy your present and your future — where is the intelligence in that — and why do people continually fear monger or allow to be fear — mongered into this destructive vision of the future based upon the past?

Although differences of opinion are both unavoidable and to be encouraged, they must be viewed as an interim stage on the way toward a point of consensus, which itself must then be challenged on the way toward some future consensus.

Therefore, in light of this and Gunter's arguments, I see no irreconcilable, or even significant difference between Whitehead and Bergson on the point raised by Northrop regarding spatialization and distortion.

By the end of the Assembly, as Kenneth Slack pointed out, «most of the members felt that there was more danger from undue stress on the evangelism of individuals than the other way round, despite widely expressed anxiety, given expression by Stott, that liberation in political, social and economic sense was in danger of replacing salvation from sin at the heart of the redeeming gospel».73 There was no doubt that, despite the narrowing of the range of disagreements, important differences continued, especially with regard to the meaning of salvation and the program of dialogue with people of other faiths.

There are enough differences of opinion on these points — and all of them defended from some statements in the New Testament — to keep us busy for the remainder of this book.

Ford then tried to develop a perspective on these differences, and found himself on most points of divergence increasingly drawn to Whitehead's original perspective, rather than to Hartshorne's modifications.

At first glance, the difference between Whitehead and Leclerc on this point might seem to be only a matter of emphasis; that is, Whitehead emphasizes the constituent parts, Leclerc the resultant totality.

The Roman Catholic and the fundamentalist Protestant positions, though with obvious differences, meet in holding to an authoritarian and traditionalist point of view as over against the liberal emphasis on free inquiry.

The above established relationship between the philosophy of organism and the genetic early forms of our perception of reality say nothing against the philosophy of organism, but rather say something for it, on the condition that the existence of essential niveau differences, the integration of necessary differentiations, and the rejection of anthropomorphic formations, point to an obvious need for a whole new conceptual elaboration.

We did end up having a discussion about different faiths - expressing nor endorsing opinions on any in particular but merely educating the students on the differences (and then they pointed out the lack of difference between many).

I agree with Bill Maher, but then again I'm a lifelong atheist... I have never believed for one minute that the god as portrayed in the bible or koran has any possibility of being real to everyone, otherwise that god would make itself obvious and not hide behind man made lies and cultural practices that self perpetuate thanks fo fear... otherwise there would not be several thousand man made religions trying to claim that god as their own... yes, it is an opinion, only valid to the opinion holder and no one else... Bill, thanks for so strongly making that point, not that it makes any difference to god fearing people... they will hold on to their opinion as strongly as they hold on to their shotgun, thinking that each provides them with some form of security... to intelligent people, neither is secure and neither leads to true freedom of the mind...

Whitehead offers an alternative formulation and claims on behalf of his formulation that it can account for all experimental results accounted for by the Einsteinian formulation but that it represents a different interpretation of these results in terms of a more adequate concept of nature (PNK vi; CN vii, 182; IS 125 - 35).18 The major theoretical difference between the two formulations is that whereas in the Einsteinian formulation the metric structure of the space - time continuum is variable from point to point and in differing directions (that is, heterogeneous and nonisotropic), in the Whiteheadian formulation the metric structure of the space - time continuum is uniform from point to point and in differing directions (that is, homogeneous and isotropic).

He warns of the real danger of dialogue leading to the dilution of confessional standards, leveling out all genuine differences, doctrinal minimalism, or what he calls common denominator ecumenicity, all of which have resulted in darkening the light of truth such that «believers do not even know at what points they are really one, to say nothing of the points on which they are divided.»

11The latter comments occur in the context of the chapter on the «bifurcation of nature, but it is clear that Whitehead (at this point in time) holds the idealists responsible for this bifurcation, along with reductionists like Newton and dualists like Locke, because all bog down on the alleged difference, and the subsequent question of the relation between, nature and mind, rather than developing a pure concept of nature in itself.