I am not going to go through all of the facts that you got wrong. It would take too long. However, there are references written in the late first century and early second century that uniformly agree that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by the individuals that the Church today claims wrote them (if people were going to make up authors to assign to books they wanted to be considered authoritative, why aren't these books attributed to Peter, or other high profile disciples?). About the Gospel of John there is some question among the first and second century writers as to whether it was written by John the disciple or some other John.
There exist almost complete compilations that contain most (that is some parts of some, or all of the books have deteriorated to unreadability) of the New Testament (and no other documents)that are older than the Council of Trent.
Callisthenes wrote that Alexander insisted on the Persian proskynesis, the servile kneeling to the king, as well as other Oriental customs.
Also, it appears that Alexander was depicted in contemporary (c. 325 BC) coins. And who did found Alexandria in 331 BC.
I don't know if your skepticism in this regard will help your thesis. Even if one accepts the historicity of Christ, does that compel accepting His divinity?
The point is that the documentation of Jesus is pretty good, as good as any major historical figure. There exists documentation of Jesus outside of the New Testament. The fact that Jesus existed is as solid as any historical fact from that time period. That means that while Christianity may be wrong, it is not a superstition.
And Starship Troopers was a book that lends itself to being made into a movie. I think that you could conceivably make good movies out of the Foundation series, but I doubt anyone actually will.
My question was why was he surprised. In my experience Reuters is generally inaccurate, either do to deliberate bias, or laziness and or stupidity. Personally, the errors I have seen seem to have a pattern that indicates bias (not exactly a liberal bias, more a bias toward increased government power and reduced national identity).
Bible Thumpers have always sought to rule by infiltration and dominionism.
Public education has always been used by those who wish to change society by reaching the children. Many of the early proponents of government run education saw it as a way to overcome the religious influence of parents so that atheism could prevail. So, the fact that religious people are attempting to do the same thing in the opposite direction is not subversive.
Relative to your comment about superstition, several studies have indicated that people who hold do not believe in a god are more likely to hold to superstitious beliefs (Bigfoot is real, UFO's are aliens, the number 13 is unlucky, etc) than those who are strongly Christian (this may extend to Jews and Muslims, but I do not recall for sure).
Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.
No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.
That is what the poster you responded to said. Since the agreement wasn't for both sides to see data from the other it was overturned. The EU has been trying to get access to US banking records for quite some time. They want to be able to get access for their tax authorities.
Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.
The problem with steps like these is that they will mostly cause problems for people who tried to do the right thing by buying Windows 7 legitimately but now Microsoft identifies it as a pirate key (either because they got it from a shady character who was selling illegal copies with some pirated key, or because the legitmate key they got has since been pirated--or at least identified as pirated). People who knowingly are using a pirated copy will either have developed a work around that avoids this problem, or will be expecting this to come up and have a plan in place to deal with it.
This seems to come up every now and again. MS hasn't changed, they were never an innovation company. Thye got their start on becoming big by buying QDOS from another company. MS has always seen which innovations the market was grabbing onto and then either copied them or bought them.
It will turn out just like the place where they asked for public comment on off-shore drilling. When the overwhelming majority is not in favor of what they want to do, it will just disappear into a black hole and get ignored.
May I recommend vosgeschocolate.com. I don't know anybody who has tried their chocolate who knows of any better (there are a few who rate some others as just as good). Speaking of which, I need to order.
Governments (the government is not just the Federal government, there are also state and local governments) certainly did implement policies that favored one railroad over others.
Governments did pass laws and implement policies that favored Standard Oil over competitors.
Most local telecom monopolies were created by local government policy... AT&T then bought the local monopolies creating a national monopoly.
You appear to think that only the Federal government intervenes in the market to create monopolies. Most of the 19th and early 20th century trusts came into being as a result of local and state government intervention in the market place.
Yes, and those big 19th and early 20th century trusts were in that position because of government (not necessarily Federal) actions that had favored them over their competitors.
Almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention. The anti-trust laws were written to break up monopolies that had been created by government intervention in the market. Some of the classic examples of "essential" monopoly were created by the government. When electricity and telephone service first came on the scene most cities had many competitors selling either. The government stepped in and decided to make both of these regulated monopolies.
Yes, there were a couple mistakes in a 3,000 page document
These weren't "mistakes", they were intentionally included for the purpose of raising hysteria. The people composing the report were warned by scientists that these claims were not supported before the report was written. A company partially owned by the head of the IPCC received a multi-million dollar grant to investigate the supposed loss of the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035. Oh yeah, he then hired the guy who was the source for it (n a casual conversation with a journalist as an off the cuff comment not based on anything). So the head of the IPCC is told that there is no science behind the claim, but includes it in the report anyway and then takes a grant for millions of dollars to investigate it.
That makes no sense. Why would someone like Gary Kildall be scared off of a deal that a nobody like Bill Gates took in a heartbeat?
Because Bill Gates wasn't a "nobody". His father was (is?) one of the leading lawyers in Seattle. His mother served on the Board of the American Red Cross with the then CEO of IBM. Calling Bill Gates a "nobody" at the time he bought QDOS, is like calling George W. Bush a nobody when he served in the Air National Guard. Another important point is that because he father was a lawyer, he probably had some idea that the intimidating IBM NDA was just a standard big corporate document. And finally, Bill Gates had nothing to lose by signing the deal with IBM. Gary Kildall had a successful company to lose at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not going to go through all of the facts that you got wrong. It would take too long. However, there are references written in the late first century and early second century that uniformly agree that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by the individuals that the Church today claims wrote them (if people were going to make up authors to assign to books they wanted to be considered authoritative, why aren't these books attributed to Peter, or other high profile disciples?). About the Gospel of John there is some question among the first and second century writers as to whether it was written by John the disciple or some other John.
There exist almost complete compilations that contain most (that is some parts of some, or all of the books have deteriorated to unreadability) of the New Testament (and no other documents)that are older than the Council of Trent.
Callisthenes wrote that Alexander insisted on the Persian proskynesis, the servile kneeling to the king, as well as other Oriental customs.
Also, it appears that Alexander was depicted in contemporary (c. 325 BC) coins. And who did found Alexandria in 331 BC.
I don't know if your skepticism in this regard will help your thesis. Even if one accepts the historicity of Christ, does that compel accepting His divinity?
The point is that the documentation of Jesus is pretty good, as good as any major historical figure. There exists documentation of Jesus outside of the New Testament. The fact that Jesus existed is as solid as any historical fact from that time period. That means that while Christianity may be wrong, it is not a superstition.
We know that a historian Callisthenes wrote about Alexander in a work now lost, as well as another lost work by Ptolemy Soter.
That's nice, what did they write about Alexander?
Need that money for more prisons.
We're talking about California, what money?
And Starship Troopers was a book that lends itself to being made into a movie. I think that you could conceivably make good movies out of the Foundation series, but I doubt anyone actually will.
Aside from things written more than 300 years after his death, what do we know about Alexander the Great?
How in the world is "Bigfoot is real" any more or less superstitious than belief in Christianity?
Either they are all superstitious kooks or none of them.
The documentation for Jesus' life is better than the documentation for that of Alexander the Great.
That looks like a nice device at about the right price point.
My question was why was he surprised. In my experience Reuters is generally inaccurate, either do to deliberate bias, or laziness and or stupidity. Personally, the errors I have seen seem to have a pattern that indicates bias (not exactly a liberal bias, more a bias toward increased government power and reduced national identity).
Bible Thumpers have always sought to rule by infiltration and dominionism.
Public education has always been used by those who wish to change society by reaching the children. Many of the early proponents of government run education saw it as a way to overcome the religious influence of parents so that atheism could prevail. So, the fact that religious people are attempting to do the same thing in the opposite direction is not subversive.
Relative to your comment about superstition, several studies have indicated that people who hold do not believe in a god are more likely to hold to superstitious beliefs (Bigfoot is real, UFO's are aliens, the number 13 is unlucky, etc) than those who are strongly Christian (this may extend to Jews and Muslims, but I do not recall for sure).
I am surprised to find that the Reuters rehash of the press release was so sloppy.
Why? My experience is that Reuters stories are generally very sloppy. They often seem to distort information to reflect a certain bias.
Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.
No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.
That is what the poster you responded to said. Since the agreement wasn't for both sides to see data from the other it was overturned. The EU has been trying to get access to US banking records for quite some time. They want to be able to get access for their tax authorities.
Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.
Isn't that the whole point of these rules?
This means that Obama's speeches would really encourage pests to grow and have healthy development?
Well, it's worked that way in the federal government so far.
Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.
The problem with steps like these is that they will mostly cause problems for people who tried to do the right thing by buying Windows 7 legitimately but now Microsoft identifies it as a pirate key (either because they got it from a shady character who was selling illegal copies with some pirated key, or because the legitmate key they got has since been pirated--or at least identified as pirated). People who knowingly are using a pirated copy will either have developed a work around that avoids this problem, or will be expecting this to come up and have a plan in place to deal with it.
This seems to come up every now and again. MS hasn't changed, they were never an innovation company. Thye got their start on becoming big by buying QDOS from another company. MS has always seen which innovations the market was grabbing onto and then either copied them or bought them.
It will turn out just like the place where they asked for public comment on off-shore drilling. When the overwhelming majority is not in favor of what they want to do, it will just disappear into a black hole and get ignored.
His colleague was _sued_ (by a crank) based on released FOIA data. It might explain a certain reluctance to disclose data to known trolls.
"known trolls" now equals people who have found significant errors in another scientist's released data?
May I recommend vosgeschocolate.com. I don't know anybody who has tried their chocolate who knows of any better (there are a few who rate some others as just as good). Speaking of which, I need to order.
Governments (the government is not just the Federal government, there are also state and local governments) certainly did implement policies that favored one railroad over others.
Governments did pass laws and implement policies that favored Standard Oil over competitors.
Most local telecom monopolies were created by local government policy... AT&T then bought the local monopolies creating a national monopoly.
You appear to think that only the Federal government intervenes in the market to create monopolies. Most of the 19th and early 20th century trusts came into being as a result of local and state government intervention in the market place.
Yes, and those big 19th and early 20th century trusts were in that position because of government (not necessarily Federal) actions that had favored them over their competitors.
Almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention. The anti-trust laws were written to break up monopolies that had been created by government intervention in the market. Some of the classic examples of "essential" monopoly were created by the government. When electricity and telephone service first came on the scene most cities had many competitors selling either. The government stepped in and decided to make both of these regulated monopolies.
Where did I say that the IPCC was one guy?
Yes, there were a couple mistakes in a 3,000 page document
These weren't "mistakes", they were intentionally included for the purpose of raising hysteria. The people composing the report were warned by scientists that these claims were not supported before the report was written. A company partially owned by the head of the IPCC received a multi-million dollar grant to investigate the supposed loss of the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035. Oh yeah, he then hired the guy who was the source for it (n a casual conversation with a journalist as an off the cuff comment not based on anything). So the head of the IPCC is told that there is no science behind the claim, but includes it in the report anyway and then takes a grant for millions of dollars to investigate it.
That makes no sense. Why would someone like Gary Kildall be scared off of a deal that a nobody like Bill Gates took in a heartbeat?
Because Bill Gates wasn't a "nobody". His father was (is?) one of the leading lawyers in Seattle. His mother served on the Board of the American Red Cross with the then CEO of IBM. Calling Bill Gates a "nobody" at the time he bought QDOS, is like calling George W. Bush a nobody when he served in the Air National Guard. Another important point is that because he father was a lawyer, he probably had some idea that the intimidating IBM NDA was just a standard big corporate document. And finally, Bill Gates had nothing to lose by signing the deal with IBM. Gary Kildall had a successful company to lose at the time.