Good question. Techcrunch reported it at 20%. Ars gave it 17% here.
But your point is fairly made - measuring browser usage is difficult - some sites report Chrome usage as low as 6%. From what I see, many people are mixing browser usage, with Firefox for development and plugins, and Chromium for other sites.
Is the menu bar really that useful? Apart from using it as a way to get to Preferences, I can't think of a single option that I use the Firefox menu bar for. Also, it takes up some screen area; on small screen devices it may be more optimal to drop the bar make the functions accessible from elsewhere.
Aint broke, don't fix it.
Maybe. On the other hand, Chrome has grabbed 20% market share in one year which is no small feat. There are reasons that people are switching to Chrome - allegedly quicker browsing and the user interface. It's worth experimenting with a similar approach in Firefox. Maybe it will work out, and maybe it won't, but if they don't try we will never know.
Indeed, the hypothetical numbers had a greater variance than one would find in the modern British system, but the point is the same.
a district that will be the same population
In the UK today the population variance between constituencies still seems higher than it should be. At the extremes there are (according to the 2001 census) Meirionnydd Nant Conwy with 41.4k people, and the Isle of Wight with 132.7k people. That means some UK citizens effectively get "3.2 times more representation" at the national level than some other UK citizens. Politicians are fond of pointing out that the healthcare a citizen receives shouldn't depend on their postcode - it's a shame they don't apply the same logic to political representation.
So what you're saying is that this guy would get elected because he had an enormous majority of voter support...... and the problem is?
Hermann Göring was a fan of "First Past The Post" - at Nuremburg he said that if Germany had had a FPTP system like Britain's or the USA's, the Nazi Party would have taken every seat in the Reichstag at the elections. As it was they only got 37% of the vote, and rose to absolute power by subverting the system rather than by votes. Regardless, Proportional Representation did actually work to give them only a representative number of seats to their 37% vote, rather than the 100% they'd have had in Britain.
So, the point is that it would be nice to have a political system that gives a single political party that represents 37% of the electorate only 37% of the power in running the country. A political system where 37% translates to 100% of the power, completely ignoring the desires of the other 63%, is a bit odd. Unfortunately, people tend to only arrive at this point of view when their favoured party loses.
Small communities need a voice... at least they won't get ignored as they would in a proportional representation system.
That may be true for geographic communities, but what about all of the other small communities that aren't bound by geography? If someone wants to go ahead and create a party for World of Warcraft players, why should they have less power at the national level because they are geographically distributed, rather than residing in a single region? Regions should obviously have some degree of ability to self manage, and that is what local councils are for. But when dividing power at a national level, why should a citizen of a small village in the highlands have more power than a citizen living in one of the UK's cities? Why is their point of view on national topics - national defence, global politics, the EU etc. - given more weight , and hence more importance, than a citizen who chooses to live in a city? Are people living in the country wiser? More experienced in worldly matters? Why is their view more important?
In a FPTP (first past the post system, an MP is accountable to their electorate.
Hypothetically, this may be the case. In reality, it is not really true. There are many MPs sitting in safe seats, where they know that nothing short of serious crime will stop people voting for them. The truth is that most people already vote for a party - they look for the Conservative or Labour candidate, then check the box.
I feel inclined to point out that it was the FPTP system that brought us the expenses scandal. How well did that work out? Apart from Jacqui Smith, I can't think of a single MP that was voted out in the way you suggest.
MPs need to take into account the interests of their electorate. Of the people they represent
MPs in a FPTP system do not need to take account of the interests of their electorate - they only need to take notice of the interests of the ~30% of people who voted for them. The rest have no representation.
In a proportional representation system, MPs will not be representing the people.
In a proportional representation system, MPs will be representing everyone equally, and not just the largest single voting block.
it encourages those who would try to run the country to consider problems for the country as a whole
It depends on what exactly you mean by "country". Are you referring to the people, or to the land? If you mean that power should be divided by land area, and that 10 people living on an island should have the same power as 1000 living in a town, then that is fine. But if you think that power should be divided equally amongst the citizens, so that 1000 people have more power than 10 regardless of where they reside, then the existing system is not fine...
So, sinking one loaded oil tanker dumped about as much oil into the ocean as this is expected to dump per month.
148 oil tankers were sunk during WW2.
Your logic assumes that all of the oil tankers sunk in WWII were fully loaded. This is not true. The oil tankers that were sunk were in various states between being fully loaded and completely empty.
sinking one loaded oil tanker dumped about as much oil into the ocean
Another bad logic assumption. Most oil tankers had their cargo burnt when torpedoed. A number sank but remained intact - not releasing oil. As the steel has corroded over the last 60 years they have begun to leak the oil, which is a problem. Case in point: the USS Mississinewa lay on the ocean floor for 57 years before being discovered, and was found to have 2 million gallons of recoverable oil still onboard. Only a smaller number of tankers would have released oil when under attack, not had this oil ignite and burn, and go on to be released into the ocean.
The claim that every WWII oil tanker was fully loaded at the time of being sunk, and upon being sunk immediately released all of that oil into the ocean, is clearly invalid.
The problem with this is that many good applications won't support the release for the same amount of time.
True if by "support" you mean "no newer versions". That is frustrating when new versions get bug fixes. On the other hand, the old versions that have already been released will still work. And you do still get back-ported security updates, which is essential for corporate deployment.
Now, if sexuality is environmental, wouldn't you expect identical twins (who, to a good approximation, will have a very similar first five years) to have the same sexuality?
"If index cases for a particular trait (e.g. homosexuality) are selected from twins in a given population, then the rate of concordance for that trait between the index case and his or her cotwin can be compared for monozygotic and dizygotic twins. It is assumed that the environment in which each member of a twin pair is reared is virtually identical, as twins are identical in age, and tend to have very similar experiences during childhood (e.g. they get similar attention from their parents, attend the same schools, etc.). Therefore, any difference in the concordance rates for the trait between monozygotic and dizygotic twins must be due to the former sharing all of their genes and the latter only sharing half of their genes."
However, also note:
"One of the fundamental assumptions of the twin study method is that closer resemblance in monozygotic twins is due to closer genetic similarity rather than more shared environment, i.e. that monozygotic and dizygotic twins share environment to the same extent. However, there is considerable evidence that the common environment is not the same for the two types of twins; the 'twinning reaction', or mutual dependence between twins, is greater between identical twins than between fraternal twins"
And also:
"The studies summarised are of inconsistent quality, with biased and limited samples."
it has been interesting to watch the spin doctors morph AGW into what I think is a more likely and accurate way to put it - "climate change". Something Earth has experienced for its entire existence.
"Global warming" is an accurate term - it was meant to refer to the global mean temperature increasing. The problem was that many non-scientists don't understand how mean values are calculated, and hence didn't understand that the mean could increase even though some regions might cool. The myth that Any Cooling Disproves Global Warming became widespread, and so scientists began to talk about "climate change" instead.
There is a good summary of separated homosexual twin studies here. The conclusion is that, if one twin is gay, then the probability of the other being gay is around 55%. Many people misunderstand genetics and statistics, and think that this implies being gay is not genetic, since they expect there to be a 100% probability "because it's genetic and twins have the same genes". This is a incorrect view. Quote from a more detailed explanation of why:
"Assume that 5% of males have a homosexual orientation as adults. Consider two identical newborn twin boys who were separated at birth and raised in different homes without any contact with each other. If homosexuality were caused by something in the environment, then, if twin #1 turned out to be gay, the chances of the other twin becoming a gay adults would only be about 5%. That is because the second twin would have been exposed to a totally different environment during his upbringing. So his chances of being gay would be the same as for any other male -- about 5%. But, studies have reliably shown that if one twin is gay, there is about a 55% chance that the other twin will be gay."
and about 50% of studies find that genetics is a significant factor in homosexuality and 50% do not
If one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has "only" a 48% chance of also developing the disorder. This does not mean that genetics is not a significant factor.
You are of course aware that here in England we burned orders of magnitudes more Catholics at the stake, than the inquisition ever had people done away
It should be noted that both Catholics and Protestants were burned at the stake in Britain:
"During the reign of Queen Mary in England ( 1553- 1558), some two hundred and seventy seven people were burnt at the stake for heresy against the Catholic church and conspiracy against the Queen, including Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley. Between 1555- 57 seventeen Protestants were burnt at the stake outside of the Star Inn in the town of Lewes in Sussex. The traditional bonfire celebrations held annually in the town on 5 November commemorate the burnings as well as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605."
The worst kind of evil is having the power to stop evil, but doing nothing about it.
... Therefore if God did exist, he would be the worst kind of evil.
It is the kind of logical reasoning that religious people dislike. If a good, compassionate and moral being would try to prevent a child being raped by a priest, but God has that power and yet does nothing, then is God a moral being? And if you, as a human, would show greater compassion and morality than God in this situation, does that make you better than God in at least one way?
If that's the case, couldn't you now sue Levi directly for Price Fixing?
Price fixing is only illegal within a legal jurisdiction that makes it illegal. It is legal for companies to charge varying amounts to customers in different nations of the EU (there may be varying distribution costs etc.). However, that doesn't apply to the Levi case, since Tesco were apparently buying from outside the EU, and there is no law that stops a company charging different prices in, say, the US, the EU, or the rest of the world.
The actual act of importing goods isn't illegal - there are thousands of EU companies that make a living from importing goods from outside the EU. The logic in the Tesco vs Levi case was that trademark law enables a manufacturer to dictate how that trademark is used in commercial retail environments. Each item of clothing contains a distinctive trademarked logo - hence the trademark owner can dictate how each item of clothing is sold within a commercial retail environment. The finding may be annoying for the general public, but I can see how the judges came to that conclusion given current laws.
Anyone that's done a little research knows the scientists there really did some questionable stuff. They would also know that they've (CRU/IPCC) been taken to task by others in the scientific community for doing so.
There was a small amount of criticism from the scientific community regarding small details, but the consensus was that the leaked emails did reveal a conspiracy, and did not alter any of the science. See: Nature, Scientific AmericanNew Scientist, the Royal Society.
I don't know what else to say other than you are wrong. You're just wrong. If you demonstrate that a theory is not viable, you are not obligated to keep trying to tweak the broken theory in absence of a competing one.
Actually the GP is correct. In order to replace a theory, you need to present a better theory - one that accounts for the observed data, and that does so with a lower error than the current theory. You can point out all the little problems that the current theory has, and that is useful work, but you will not invalidate the theory by doing this. Pointing out problems with Newtonian physics did not invalidate the theory. It was only succeeded as a theory when Einstein came up with a better theory - relativity - that matched the observed data with a lower error. Right now, there are known problems with relativity - the theory does not match the data in certain situations - but relativity does not become invalidated as a theory until someone comes up with a better theory.
If you find a sufficiently serious methodological flaw in a theory after it is presented (such as bad data for instance,) it is no longer a valid theory.
No theory is perfect. How serious must a flaw be to invalidate a theory? It is a debatable question. Newtonian physics has some "serious" flaws - is it not a theory? If a theory is the best theory you have - it explains the data with a lower error than any other existing model - but there are known errors, it does not suddenly become a non-theory when someone points out a problem with the theory.
Do you think people were putting enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then to cause it?
Do you think that for AGW to be the cause of the increase in global temperature over the last century, it must also be the cause of every temperature variation ever?
Finally, someone who understands the scientific methodology. Yes, to "disprove" global warming, sceptics would need to come up with a model for the observed data that has a lower error than the existing models. It is amazing how many sceptics justify their "science" by talking about Al Gore and conspiracy theories. That is not how science works. Make a new model. Show that your model fits the data better than the existing model. If you think the observed data is wrong, then construct and verify your own data set. Show that your new dataset has a lower error than the existing dataset. Repeat ad infinitum. That is how science works.
You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?/You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?
Maybe that is what you want it to mean. The reality is that Christian theologians have argued for a long time about the exact meaning of the phrase "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.". See Wikipedia : Turn the other cheeck
Note the rest of the quote: "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.". That philosophy is about as far from the American firearm lobby and their ideals of "protecting your property with lethal force" as it is possible to be.
But we don't live in 1200 AD, we live in the present.
And in the present, the National Liberation Front of Tripura is one of the most active terrorist groups in the world, and has used gunpoint conversions to convert entire towns to Christianity. The Lord's Resistance Army have been fighting for decades for the establishment of a Christian state in Uganda. The face that there are Christians in the military shows that Christianity itself does not exclude the possibility of engaging in violent activity.
Yes, Christianity did terrible things in the past but currently similar things are being done by Muslims
Currently similar things are being done by people of all religions. Christianity does not get a free pass. See Wikipedia Christian Violence. (link to random old version of article since any article on religious violence is an editwar and most of the content appears to be missing atm).
Slashdot Mirror
Good question. Techcrunch reported it at 20%. Ars gave it 17% here.
But your point is fairly made - measuring browser usage is difficult - some sites report Chrome usage as low as 6%. From what I see, many people are mixing browser usage, with Firefox for development and plugins, and Chromium for other sites.
Is the menu bar really that useful? Apart from using it as a way to get to Preferences, I can't think of a single option that I use the Firefox menu bar for. Also, it takes up some screen area; on small screen devices it may be more optimal to drop the bar make the functions accessible from elsewhere.
Aint broke, don't fix it.
Maybe. On the other hand, Chrome has grabbed 20% market share in one year which is no small feat. There are reasons that people are switching to Chrome - allegedly quicker browsing and the user interface. It's worth experimenting with a similar approach in Firefox. Maybe it will work out, and maybe it won't, but if they don't try we will never know.
Indeed, the hypothetical numbers had a greater variance than one would find in the modern British system, but the point is the same.
a district that will be the same population
In the UK today the population variance between constituencies still seems higher than it should be. At the extremes there are (according to the 2001 census) Meirionnydd Nant Conwy with 41.4k people, and the Isle of Wight with 132.7k people. That means some UK citizens effectively get "3.2 times more representation" at the national level than some other UK citizens. Politicians are fond of pointing out that the healthcare a citizen receives shouldn't depend on their postcode - it's a shame they don't apply the same logic to political representation.
So what you're saying is that this guy would get elected because he had an enormous majority of voter support... ... and the problem is?
Hermann Göring was a fan of "First Past The Post" - at Nuremburg he said that if Germany had had a FPTP system like Britain's or the USA's, the Nazi Party would have taken every seat in the Reichstag at the elections. As it was they only got 37% of the vote, and rose to absolute power by subverting the system rather than by votes. Regardless, Proportional Representation did actually work to give them only a representative number of seats to their 37% vote, rather than the 100% they'd have had in Britain.
So, the point is that it would be nice to have a political system that gives a single political party that represents 37% of the electorate only 37% of the power in running the country. A political system where 37% translates to 100% of the power, completely ignoring the desires of the other 63%, is a bit odd. Unfortunately, people tend to only arrive at this point of view when their favoured party loses.
Small communities need a voice... at least they won't get ignored as they would in a proportional representation system.
That may be true for geographic communities, but what about all of the other small communities that aren't bound by geography? If someone wants to go ahead and create a party for World of Warcraft players, why should they have less power at the national level because they are geographically distributed, rather than residing in a single region? Regions should obviously have some degree of ability to self manage, and that is what local councils are for. But when dividing power at a national level, why should a citizen of a small village in the highlands have more power than a citizen living in one of the UK's cities? Why is their point of view on national topics - national defence, global politics, the EU etc. - given more weight , and hence more importance, than a citizen who chooses to live in a city? Are people living in the country wiser? More experienced in worldly matters? Why is their view more important?
In a FPTP (first past the post system, an MP is accountable to their electorate.
Hypothetically, this may be the case. In reality, it is not really true. There are many MPs sitting in safe seats, where they know that nothing short of serious crime will stop people voting for them. The truth is that most people already vote for a party - they look for the Conservative or Labour candidate, then check the box.
I feel inclined to point out that it was the FPTP system that brought us the expenses scandal. How well did that work out? Apart from Jacqui Smith, I can't think of a single MP that was voted out in the way you suggest.
MPs need to take into account the interests of their electorate. Of the people they represent
MPs in a FPTP system do not need to take account of the interests of their electorate - they only need to take notice of the interests of the ~30% of people who voted for them. The rest have no representation.
In a proportional representation system, MPs will not be representing the people.
In a proportional representation system, MPs will be representing everyone equally, and not just the largest single voting block.
it encourages those who would try to run the country to consider problems for the country as a whole
It depends on what exactly you mean by "country". Are you referring to the people, or to the land? If you mean that power should be divided by land area, and that 10 people living on an island should have the same power as 1000 living in a town, then that is fine. But if you think that power should be divided equally amongst the citizens, so that 1000 people have more power than 10 regardless of where they reside, then the existing system is not fine...
So, sinking one loaded oil tanker dumped about as much oil into the ocean as this is expected to dump per month.
148 oil tankers were sunk during WW2.
Your logic assumes that all of the oil tankers sunk in WWII were fully loaded. This is not true. The oil tankers that were sunk were in various states between being fully loaded and completely empty.
sinking one loaded oil tanker dumped about as much oil into the ocean
Another bad logic assumption. Most oil tankers had their cargo burnt when torpedoed. A number sank but remained intact - not releasing oil. As the steel has corroded over the last 60 years they have begun to leak the oil, which is a problem. Case in point: the USS Mississinewa lay on the ocean floor for 57 years before being discovered, and was found to have 2 million gallons of recoverable oil still onboard. Only a smaller number of tankers would have released oil when under attack, not had this oil ignite and burn, and go on to be released into the ocean.
The claim that every WWII oil tanker was fully loaded at the time of being sunk, and upon being sunk immediately released all of that oil into the ocean, is clearly invalid.
your hands are just as dirty as BP.
Good to see a Tu quoque fallacy still warrants a +5 Insightful
You are wrong, he is not saying we are as much responsible as BP
Yes he is. "your hands are just as dirty as BP". There really is no other way to interpret that.
The problem with this is that many good applications won't support the release for the same amount of time.
True if by "support" you mean "no newer versions". That is frustrating when new versions get bug fixes. On the other hand, the old versions that have already been released will still work. And you do still get back-ported security updates, which is essential for corporate deployment.
Now, if sexuality is environmental, wouldn't you expect identical twins (who, to a good approximation, will have a very similar first five years) to have the same sexuality?
Indeed; the article I linked to (Twin studies of homosexuality) covers this point in the second paragraph:
"If index cases for a particular trait (e.g. homosexuality) are selected from twins in a given population, then the rate of concordance for that trait between the index case and his or her cotwin can be compared for monozygotic and dizygotic twins. It is assumed that the environment in which each member of a twin pair is reared is virtually identical, as twins are identical in age, and tend to have very similar experiences during childhood (e.g. they get similar attention from their parents, attend the same schools, etc.). Therefore, any difference in the concordance rates for the trait between monozygotic and dizygotic twins must be due to the former sharing all of their genes and the latter only sharing half of their genes."
However, also note:
"One of the fundamental assumptions of the twin study method is that closer resemblance in monozygotic twins is due to closer genetic similarity rather than more shared environment, i.e. that monozygotic and dizygotic twins share environment to the same extent. However, there is considerable evidence that the common environment is not the same for the two types of twins; the 'twinning reaction', or mutual dependence between twins, is greater between identical twins than between fraternal twins"
And also:
"The studies summarised are of inconsistent quality, with biased and limited samples."
it has been interesting to watch the spin doctors morph AGW into what I think is a more likely and accurate way to put it - "climate change". Something Earth has experienced for its entire existence.
"Global warming" is an accurate term - it was meant to refer to the global mean temperature increasing. The problem was that many non-scientists don't understand how mean values are calculated, and hence didn't understand that the mean could increase even though some regions might cool. The myth that Any Cooling Disproves Global Warming became widespread, and so scientists began to talk about "climate change" instead.
There is a good summary of separated homosexual twin studies here. The conclusion is that, if one twin is gay, then the probability of the other being gay is around 55%. Many people misunderstand genetics and statistics, and think that this implies being gay is not genetic, since they expect there to be a 100% probability "because it's genetic and twins have the same genes". This is a incorrect view. Quote from a more detailed explanation of why:
"Assume that 5% of males have a homosexual orientation as adults. Consider two identical newborn twin boys who were separated at birth and raised in different homes without any contact with each other. If homosexuality were caused by something in the environment, then, if twin #1 turned out to be gay, the chances of the other twin becoming a gay adults would only be about 5%. That is because the second twin would have been exposed to a totally different environment during his upbringing. So his chances of being gay would be the same as for any other male -- about 5%. But, studies have reliably shown that if one twin is gay, there is about a 55% chance that the other twin will be gay."
and about 50% of studies find that genetics is a significant factor in homosexuality and 50% do not
If one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has "only" a 48% chance of also developing the disorder. This does not mean that genetics is not a significant factor.
You are of course aware that here in England we burned orders of magnitudes more Catholics at the stake, than the inquisition ever had people done away
Doubtful. In the Albigensian Crusade alone, which was arguably the start of the Inquisition, the Catholic Church killed over 1 million heretics. ("Kill them all, God will recognize his own!")
It should be noted that both Catholics and Protestants were burned at the stake in Britain:
"During the reign of Queen Mary in England ( 1553- 1558), some two hundred and seventy seven people were burnt at the stake for heresy against the Catholic church and conspiracy against the Queen, including Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley. Between 1555- 57 seventeen Protestants were burnt at the stake outside of the Star Inn in the town of Lewes in Sussex. The traditional bonfire celebrations held annually in the town on 5 November commemorate the burnings as well as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605."
The worst kind of evil is having the power to stop evil, but doing nothing about it.
... Therefore if God did exist, he would be the worst kind of evil.
It is the kind of logical reasoning that religious people dislike. If a good, compassionate and moral being would try to prevent a child being raped by a priest, but God has that power and yet does nothing, then is God a moral being? And if you, as a human, would show greater compassion and morality than God in this situation, does that make you better than God in at least one way?
If that's the case, couldn't you now sue Levi directly for Price Fixing?
Price fixing is only illegal within a legal jurisdiction that makes it illegal. It is legal for companies to charge varying amounts to customers in different nations of the EU (there may be varying distribution costs etc.). However, that doesn't apply to the Levi case, since Tesco were apparently buying from outside the EU, and there is no law that stops a company charging different prices in, say, the US, the EU, or the rest of the world.
What's the logic behind making that illegal?
The actual act of importing goods isn't illegal - there are thousands of EU companies that make a living from importing goods from outside the EU. The logic in the Tesco vs Levi case was that trademark law enables a manufacturer to dictate how that trademark is used in commercial retail environments. Each item of clothing contains a distinctive trademarked logo - hence the trademark owner can dictate how each item of clothing is sold within a commercial retail environment. The finding may be annoying for the general public, but I can see how the judges came to that conclusion given current laws.
New Scientist [wikipedia.org] says it, it must be true?
Do two "controversies" (in reality, minor criticisms) in 54 years prove that New Scientist is an untrustworthy source?
the leaked emails did reveal a conspiracy
did not.. sheesh..
Anyone that's done a little research knows the scientists there really did some questionable stuff. They would also know that they've (CRU/IPCC) been taken to task by others in the scientific community for doing so.
There was a small amount of criticism from the scientific community regarding small details, but the consensus was that the leaked emails did reveal a conspiracy, and did not alter any of the science. See: Nature, Scientific American New Scientist, the Royal Society.
I don't know what else to say other than you are wrong. You're just wrong. If you demonstrate that a theory is not viable, you are not obligated to keep trying to tweak the broken theory in absence of a competing one.
Actually the GP is correct. In order to replace a theory, you need to present a better theory - one that accounts for the observed data, and that does so with a lower error than the current theory. You can point out all the little problems that the current theory has, and that is useful work, but you will not invalidate the theory by doing this. Pointing out problems with Newtonian physics did not invalidate the theory. It was only succeeded as a theory when Einstein came up with a better theory - relativity - that matched the observed data with a lower error. Right now, there are known problems with relativity - the theory does not match the data in certain situations - but relativity does not become invalidated as a theory until someone comes up with a better theory.
If you find a sufficiently serious methodological flaw in a theory after it is presented (such as bad data for instance,) it is no longer a valid theory.
No theory is perfect. How serious must a flaw be to invalidate a theory? It is a debatable question. Newtonian physics has some "serious" flaws - is it not a theory? If a theory is the best theory you have - it explains the data with a lower error than any other existing model - but there are known errors, it does not suddenly become a non-theory when someone points out a problem with the theory.
How do you explain the Early Medieval Warm Period, then?
Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
how do you explain the Little Ice Age?
Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
Do you think people were putting enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then to cause it?
Do you think that for AGW to be the cause of the increase in global temperature over the last century, it must also be the cause of every temperature variation ever?
Finally, someone who understands the scientific methodology. Yes, to "disprove" global warming, sceptics would need to come up with a model for the observed data that has a lower error than the existing models. It is amazing how many sceptics justify their "science" by talking about Al Gore and conspiracy theories. That is not how science works. Make a new model. Show that your model fits the data better than the existing model. If you think the observed data is wrong, then construct and verify your own data set. Show that your new dataset has a lower error than the existing dataset. Repeat ad infinitum. That is how science works.
You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?/You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?
Maybe that is what you want it to mean. The reality is that Christian theologians have argued for a long time about the exact meaning of the phrase "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.". See Wikipedia : Turn the other cheeck
Note the rest of the quote: "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.". That philosophy is about as far from the American firearm lobby and their ideals of "protecting your property with lethal force" as it is possible to be.
But we don't live in 1200 AD, we live in the present.
And in the present, the National Liberation Front of Tripura is one of the most active terrorist groups in the world, and has used gunpoint conversions to convert entire towns to Christianity. The Lord's Resistance Army have been fighting for decades for the establishment of a Christian state in Uganda. The face that there are Christians in the military shows that Christianity itself does not exclude the possibility of engaging in violent activity.
Yes, Christianity did terrible things in the past but currently similar things are being done by Muslims
Currently similar things are being done by people of all religions. Christianity does not get a free pass. See Wikipedia Christian Violence. (link to random old version of article since any article on religious violence is an editwar and most of the content appears to be missing atm).
Implanting a back door in any one (if not all) of the Apache products
It would be very difficult to hide such a backdoor effectively in a high-profile open source product like Apache.