Probably because people actually can dig a well and a septic tank on their own and it works fine while internet is all or nothing unless you expect each individual to run a separate fiber to the nearest city.
The problem is that A doesn't believe B's rituals work. B doesn't believe A's rituals work. You don't believe either work. I'll readily agree that B's ritual is horrible, but your suggested metric won't work. Alas, I don't have a better one to offer.
The fanatic who claims all technology is evil but flies is certainly a hypocrite.
However, the homeopath may not be. There is no way I would see a doctor or go to a hospital for a common flu. Instead, I prefer an herbal tea (not a magic cure, just symptom relief). That's simply a belief that the tea and rest at home is more cost effective. That doesn't mean I believe western medicine isn't effective (most of the time) or that it has no place. I wouldn't try to treat a stroke with tea. In the other direction, I would be quite surprised if an oncologist chose to treat his own cold with chemotherapy.
As for the weatherman, he knows as well as the rest of us that his is not an exact science yet. Even when he's almost certain, it's still just a high probability. If it's bad news, why wouldn't he hope to be wrong?
When did Kansas become densely populated? And why haven't the other ISPs managed to deploy gig fiber in metro areas? Are you claiming NYC is too rural?
Most everyone leaves skin and hair wherever they go. Sometimes blood if they get even a minor injury (or get bitten by a mosquito). Scientific evidence CAN be used scientifically, but often isn't.
If they find your skin under several nails on the body, that's worth looking at. If it's your girlfriend and it's just dead skin, perhaps she scratched your back for you. Finding one flake of your skin next to the body means very little. Many in law enforcement don't know the difference. Prosecutors will happily mis-educate the jury.
It would be nice if it was all like in CSI where dedicated well trained and diligent people work with nearly perfect technology, but that's not generally the case.
If you get one, lock your doors or they'll come in and saw half of it off while you sleep. LG doesn't understand that they can't take things away after the sale.
In addition, they seem to think only criminals leave DNA. They don't seem to consider that your DNA can end up at the crime scene if you bumped into anyone who was at the scene later that day. Or you were there but hours before the crime. They call it scientific evidence but they don't treat it in a scientific manner.
During the OJ trial, an FBI crime lab tech spoke of voting on tests that came out indeterminate. There is no voting in science. Arguably, such a fundamental mis-understanding invalidates every result that lab has ever produced. Might as well throw the bones.
But at the same time, if you try to ban certain beliefs, who decides what is acceptable and who keeps them from becoming the horror they are supposed to prevent?
Sure, but it is odd for Google to happily show results for porn (with ads) but get bent out of shape if a site (other than google's search) has links to porn.
I know religion when I see it, and I see a lot of it in Atheists. Only a true born again fire and brimstone Atheist would feel a need to shit all over an expression of sympathy that isn't even directed at them just because it might involve something they don't believe in.
Personally, I believe that if the actual evidence is in opposition to a religious belief, that the basis of that belief needs to be better understood and the belief changed. The divine (not necessarily a personal god) is sufficiently beyond us that it is nearly impossible that any particular belief is exactly correct anyway.
I just hate when Atheists replace God with lack of God and then proceed to do all of the things they hate about some Christians. It is also more than a little destabilizing (even dangerous) to remove the primary constraint on harmful behavior and not replace it with a reasoned code of ethics.
Based on a look at history, things generally do go smoother when the prevailing attitude is live and let live. It seems to always go badly when one group or another starts demanding that others believe (or don't believe) as they do. Can you find a counterexample I missed?
I think someone who jumps up and rants when in a time of sorrow, one person says to another "I'll pray for you" is both militant, proselytizing, and obnoxious. Time to put the human back into humanism. It's not to the degree of those Westboro jackasses protesting at funerals, but it is of the kind.
It does NOW. During the revolution, they were knocking down all sorts of churches. I still wouldn't want to try Falun Gong in China. Nevertheless, smashing all those churches and banning the religions for a time didn't exactly lead to a utopia, or for that matter, any sort of place an American atheist was likely to want to live, now did it?
Getting rid of the church was so "beneficial" to the USSR that they brought it back. That from a government known for never admitting to a mistake, even internally.
Perhaps the fact that doctors won't participate and pharmaceutical companies will go so far as to exit the U.S. market if necessary to stop the use of their products in executions should give them a message or two?
I wouldn't put so much faith in DNA evidence. It is frequently interpreted in bizarre ways by detectives and prosecutors. Defendants often get a really crappy lawyer and no resources to hire independent experts witnesses.
Given the usual intense resistance to even checking in to new evidence and the contortions prosecutors will go through to claim that even absolute exhonoration shouldn't result in release, I'd guess the true figure is considerably higher.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because people actually can dig a well and a septic tank on their own and it works fine while internet is all or nothing unless you expect each individual to run a separate fiber to the nearest city.
So when everyone gives up farming and moves to the city where they can get internet, you'll be coll with that?
That would be so much better than an extra $2/year for internet.
The problem is that A doesn't believe B's rituals work. B doesn't believe A's rituals work. You don't believe either work. I'll readily agree that B's ritual is horrible, but your suggested metric won't work. Alas, I don't have a better one to offer.
The fanatic who claims all technology is evil but flies is certainly a hypocrite.
However, the homeopath may not be. There is no way I would see a doctor or go to a hospital for a common flu. Instead, I prefer an herbal tea (not a magic cure, just symptom relief). That's simply a belief that the tea and rest at home is more cost effective. That doesn't mean I believe western medicine isn't effective (most of the time) or that it has no place. I wouldn't try to treat a stroke with tea. In the other direction, I would be quite surprised if an oncologist chose to treat his own cold with chemotherapy.
As for the weatherman, he knows as well as the rest of us that his is not an exact science yet. Even when he's almost certain, it's still just a high probability. If it's bad news, why wouldn't he hope to be wrong?
When did Kansas become densely populated? And why haven't the other ISPs managed to deploy gig fiber in metro areas? Are you claiming NYC is too rural?
Except logic and an understanding of statistics. What makes you so anxious to kill innocents?
Most everyone leaves skin and hair wherever they go. Sometimes blood if they get even a minor injury (or get bitten by a mosquito). Scientific evidence CAN be used scientifically, but often isn't.
If they find your skin under several nails on the body, that's worth looking at. If it's your girlfriend and it's just dead skin, perhaps she scratched your back for you. Finding one flake of your skin next to the body means very little. Many in law enforcement don't know the difference. Prosecutors will happily mis-educate the jury.
It would be nice if it was all like in CSI where dedicated well trained and diligent people work with nearly perfect technology, but that's not generally the case.
But it's almost certainly somewhat higher. It's just a matter of the magnitude.
If you get one, lock your doors or they'll come in and saw half of it off while you sleep. LG doesn't understand that they can't take things away after the sale.
It is along those lines.
In addition, they seem to think only criminals leave DNA. They don't seem to consider that your DNA can end up at the crime scene if you bumped into anyone who was at the scene later that day. Or you were there but hours before the crime. They call it scientific evidence but they don't treat it in a scientific manner.
During the OJ trial, an FBI crime lab tech spoke of voting on tests that came out indeterminate. There is no voting in science. Arguably, such a fundamental mis-understanding invalidates every result that lab has ever produced. Might as well throw the bones.
But at the same time, if you try to ban certain beliefs, who decides what is acceptable and who keeps them from becoming the horror they are supposed to prevent?
It was an ad account that was pulled, not a search result.
I didn't say the Volt was a best seller or anything, just that others managed.
Sure, but it is odd for Google to happily show results for porn (with ads) but get bent out of shape if a site (other than google's search) has links to porn.
Funny how everyone but Chrysler has managed.
So you figure it's OK to treat others like shit in retaliation?
I know religion when I see it, and I see a lot of it in Atheists. Only a true born again fire and brimstone Atheist would feel a need to shit all over an expression of sympathy that isn't even directed at them just because it might involve something they don't believe in.
It's a little like being a dry drunk.
Personally, I believe that if the actual evidence is in opposition to a religious belief, that the basis of that belief needs to be better understood and the belief changed. The divine (not necessarily a personal god) is sufficiently beyond us that it is nearly impossible that any particular belief is exactly correct anyway.
I just hate when Atheists replace God with lack of God and then proceed to do all of the things they hate about some Christians. It is also more than a little destabilizing (even dangerous) to remove the primary constraint on harmful behavior and not replace it with a reasoned code of ethics.
Based on a look at history, things generally do go smoother when the prevailing attitude is live and let live. It seems to always go badly when one group or another starts demanding that others believe (or don't believe) as they do. Can you find a counterexample I missed?
And what made you think I hate religious fervor?
I think someone who jumps up and rants when in a time of sorrow, one person says to another "I'll pray for you" is both militant, proselytizing, and obnoxious. Time to put the human back into humanism. It's not to the degree of those Westboro jackasses protesting at funerals, but it is of the kind.
It does NOW. During the revolution, they were knocking down all sorts of churches. I still wouldn't want to try Falun Gong in China. Nevertheless, smashing all those churches and banning the religions for a time didn't exactly lead to a utopia, or for that matter, any sort of place an American atheist was likely to want to live, now did it?
Getting rid of the church was so "beneficial" to the USSR that they brought it back. That from a government known for never admitting to a mistake, even internally.
You need to check your facts.
Perhaps the fact that doctors won't participate and pharmaceutical companies will go so far as to exit the U.S. market if necessary to stop the use of their products in executions should give them a message or two?
I wouldn't put so much faith in DNA evidence. It is frequently interpreted in bizarre ways by detectives and prosecutors. Defendants often get a really crappy lawyer and no resources to hire independent experts witnesses.
Given the usual intense resistance to even checking in to new evidence and the contortions prosecutors will go through to claim that even absolute exhonoration shouldn't result in release, I'd guess the true figure is considerably higher.
Because it's one of the few legal outlets remaining for psychopathic serial killers?