"if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture,it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.'"
Reminds me of my favourite quote: "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Student programmers are crap! We hired 4 different student programmers from a pretty decent CS department over the last 9 years. 2 were undergraduates. Students' priorities are to pass their classes and not to work for you. Furthermore, CS programs, while teaching some useful skills, are not software engineering programs. Most of their projects are small toy projects monitored by graduate students who have neither the time, skill nor inclination to determine whether a program is readable and maintainable. Basically most students and recent graduates are terrible hack programmers. I have also worked with recent graduates. They may stay with you for 3 years and then it's "thanks for the great training" and they'll move on, applying what you taught them while paying them a decent salary and benefitting a new employer. So, just stay away from anybody without several years of full-time development work. I also suggest giving applicants a quiz. There are so many pretenders out there it's not funny! I found that about 9 out of 10 C++ programmers can't even implement strcmp and can't answer basic questions about how the language works. It's really sad but it appears that in the software development world there are more incompetent people being employed than in probably most other fields. According to the excellent "Code Complete" there is a 20:1 ratio in productivity of a good programmer to an average programmer. I can easily believe it. I have been a programmer for over 20 years and I read lots of programming related books but I still find many programmers that don't even read a single book about programming per year. Many so-called "programmers" have no real interest in programming.
Some people here have suggested that it makes no difference whether a programmer works on open-source vs. closed-source projects as long as they're being paid. Bullshit! You want a person that is excited about open-source work. Motivation makes a big difference in productivity, duh! I am getting paid to work on an open-source project and I love it! It certainly keeps me more motivated than just the need to eat.
I can't believe how many people here call it "Daylight Savings Time"? It's called "Daylight Saving Time"! From Wikipedia: In the normative form, daylight saving time uses the present participle... From the same article: It's like "labour saving device".
A few thoughts: 1) Why do many people assume that it is a single deity? (I guess maybe in Hinduism they assume multiple deities.)
2) Why do they assume that whatever some superstitious and, by today's standards, very uneducated people or person that lived a long time ago had some privileged connection or communication with such a deity?
3) Why do they assume that somehow mankind is in a special position and/or that the deity or deities somehow give a rat's ass about mankind?
4) Don't they notice that religious belief is almost entirely cultural and has therefore no justification of being absolute or universal. By that I mean that if your parents are Hindus there is a good chance you're also a Hindu, if on the other hand, your parents are Sikhs there is a good chance you're also a Sikh, etc.
5) Don't they know that many religious beliefs are in direct conflict with scientific insights?
6) We do not require one or more deities to explain the world we observe. According to Occam's Razor this would mean that we should choose a world view without such deities. This is something I figured out on my own when I was 10 years old. Without any adults or children around me expressing any criticism of religious beliefs. Before then I had been (mildly) indoctrinated in Christianity by my parents.
7) Sometimes people claim that we need a deity to explain where everything comes from. This makes little sense. In fact modern physics may well indicate that there is no need for a beginning. Furthermore the whole concept of linear time may well be meaningless before the Big Bang. It is also possible that the universe has existed forever. If not, then saying a deity created it only pushes this back one level and one would have to immediately ask what or who created the deity. Also the universe could have been a lab accident of a clumsy scientist or there may be any number of of other explanations that we have not yet conceived of.
I know this type of reasoning is utterly foreign to the majority of people that choose not to think for themselves but rather unquestioningly accept the ramblings of some superstitious fools from long ago.
>...the explanation is either ignorance, religious belief or a combination of both.
Care to explain what the difference is between "ignorance" and "religious belief"? And no, I'm *not* trolling? I am dead serious! I can't see how it is possible to hold a religious belief without ignorance.
> Mankind as a whole needs healthy and strong guys and girls no less than it needs geniuses.
How many? 6 billion, 20 billion, 50 billion? I also don't think I have a "job" to produce children. Where do you come up with this? Who makes it *my* job? You, some imaginary supernatural being or who else? Also, according to one statistic, a surviving child in the 1st world uses up 20 times the resources of a surviving child in the 3rd world. Furthermore, what you don't seem to realise is that it is conceivable that we will screw up the environment up to such a degree that there is a huge die back and maybe even to a point where our planet does not support human life any longer. Maybe *you* don't care about all the suffering this irresponsible behaviour is causing and will cause, but I do!
I think you're only thinking of things that have near-term benefits. This would probably exclude reducing your environmental impact, not having kids to benefit mankind etc. And don't laugh, the reason I chose not to have kids is because I decided that this would probably be the best thing anybody but a genius could do for mankind. I wanted 3 or 4 kids when I was 19 and then read a report about projected global population growth and the terrible environmental impact it would have and decided that truly caring about mankind meant not to add more people into the pool. That was 30 years ago and I feel just as strongly about the correctness of my decision now as I did then.
> er, I mean, "environmentalists" who need to watch the Penn & Teller episode "Recycling is Bullshit". The process of recycling costs three-to-four > times as much energy (mostly in collection and cleaning costs) than simply making new product.
And what does this have to do with not producing any waste to begin with? I think you're confused! I use 8 cotton bags that I have owned for years and that look as if they'll last many more years. This way I can buy a lot of things all at once and I avoid adding thousands of plastic bags to the garbage in my lifetime.
>...what was common knowledge and being taught at the time...
All too often, what is common "knowledge" is actually commonly held "belief."
> Mamy stories in the bible are historically accurate in two ways. First, they actually happened. Second, they were being reported as actually happening or happened.
Really! Where you there? Do you believe in ghosts or witches? If not, let me remind you that there are many first person reports of such observations. Why should I, or anyone else, give more credit to your bible stories involving the supernatural? There is a simple common sense (I guess that should really be "uncommon sense" because it's so rare) rule of thumb that says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that's how I view any claims of observations of supernatural events.
> It looks like my guess was right an you need to reassure yourself on a lot of things in order to justify your own internal views. I'm not an idiot, I have a Ph.D.
Actually I don't need to reassure myself. I am actually quite confident that all human beings are idiots to some degree, myself included. I am also keenly aware that there are many people vastly smarter than myself and it does not bother me in the least. For your information: the reason that I studied physics was simply because it was the most fun thing to do. I never had as much fun before or after even though it was also the hardest thing I ever did.
> Well, what was your offering to show that Physicists were logical.
I thought that it was common knowledge that mathematics and logic are foundations of the natural sciences. I stand corrected.
> I'm not sure I would base my entire world view off personal experiences with one or two people either.
I never implied nor meant to imply that I got my entire world view from experiences with one or two people. It was only an example to illustrate my point.
>...you don't even know what the beliefs are...
I don't know how you can possibly conclude that from what I have said?
> But that doesn't stop what is written from being written or happening.
I've always wanted to write a book myself. I was going to call it the "Book of Johannes." On the first page I'd state that everything in the book is the absolute truth and that anything written in any other book contradicting it would be wrong. I don't get this hangup about "it is written." How gullible are you? And which book are we talking anyway? The Koran, the Bible, Buddhist religious writings or some other religious writings? Are all of them the "absolute" truth?
> You could just be an idiot.
Yes, I could be and that would make me an idiot with a Ph.D. in physics. In fact that reminds me of an experience with my muslim friend (yes, I only have one AFAIK): after pointing out what seemed to be a logical inconsistency in a story relating to his religious beliefs he responded that "it is well known that physicists are not particularly logical." Obviously it is easier for him to believe that than to question "absolute truth."
> Until the second coming when heaven defeats the devil, your family and friends are given an opportunity to convince you otherwise.
What if my family and friends are not a bunch of superstitious morons that believe in a random ancient mythology? The strongest attempts to convince me to believe in some supernatural bull actually came from a muslim friend of mine. Since I was about 12 I have always wondered how I, as an outsider to religion, could objectively pick one belief over another. I did read the New Testament from front to back when I was 15 because I acknowledge it's influence on Western culture. Not that it in any way affected my views on Christianity or any other mythology. -- "I have more confidence in the methods of science, based on the amazing record
of science and its ability over the centuries to answer unanswerable questions,
than I do in the methods of faith (what are they?)."
-- David J. Gross "Physics Nobel Laureate"
Do you remember that the Marshall plan was intended to fortify Western Europe against communism? IOW, it wasn't purely a humanitarian gesture. And I would say it paid off handsomely. If ony the West would have done something similar after the fall of communism in Russia.
Our "lax gun laws" might come in handy one day should a truly tyrannical government appear in this nation
I believe Germany did not have lax gun control while the nazis rose to power. Also, do you really think that your pop guns are going to stop a professional army or stop a determined tyrannical government? I think that is very optimistic.
It's the sacrifice of being in a liberal democracy and open society, versus an attempt to make it appear sterile and safe.
No, it obviously isn't. It's not exactly that the US is any more liberal and open than various European coutries, in fact given the strong influence of a large contingent of religious nuts I would say that several major European countries are more liberal and open. I've lived in both for many years. And it's not only the appearance of safety when the US has more than an order of magnitude of gun-related murders than most (all?) European countries. As far as your claim of "sterile" is concerned, I have have no idea what you mean. I currently live in the US but still visit Europe every year and have no idea what you could mean by that. I can tell you that I still feel far safer in most European cities than any American city and we have much lower incarceration rates by a huge margin. If that's what you mean by "sterile" I guess it's a huge improvement.
Even though Europeans have strict gun laws and do not have, sadly, a constitutional right to keep and bear arms,
I do not think that most Europeans think that it is sad that we do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. I'm not even sure Americans have that right. In fact I've often wondered whether every individual nut in the U.S. with a gun is considered to be a member of a well-regulated militia. Maybe language usage has changed, but that is not the way I understand the terminology. Of course English is not my first language.
I also don't think that opposition to individual gun ownership beyond the right to own hunting rifles is because we're pacifist. I think we're opposed, because we think that the right to bear arms for the general public would make us less safe as individuals. As you correctly point out, several European countries have a large arms industry. All I can say there is that that is a personal embarrassement for me.:(
Correct, our -Western- countries! (Did you even read the post that I replied to?)
why on earth are Europeans doing something that they so clearly believe is wrong
You are clearly confused! Just because a few irresonsible European companies are doing something, clearly does not imply that the majority of Europeans agrees with it. Do you really think there are not at least some U.S. companies that exhibit behaviour that the majority of American citizens disagrees with?
There's no individual right to keep and bear arms in China like there is in the west.
What do you mean by "west"? Is this U.S. American arrogance or ignorance? I am from Western Europe. Last time I checked we were part of the "West." European countries tend to have much tighter gun laws than the United States. When I was in graduate school in physics in the U.S. I had friends from all over the world, including Europe and all of them agreed with me on thinking that Americans are crazy to tolerate their lax gun ownership laws. In fact all agreed that guns do not belong in the hands of civilians with the possible exception of hunting rifles. So be careful when you say "we", you Americans do not automatically speak for all Westerners. (A good example would have been the initiation of the Iraq invasion.) Of course I agree on your other point about the extent of censorship in the West vs. China even though I had my doubts about the U.S. in this area just prior to the Iraq invasion.
Re:Wirklich Deutscher? (Really German?)
on
The DIY Tank
·
· Score: 1
> For all non-German speakers: Parent is wrong, his parent is right.
You're both wrong! "Panzer" means both "armour" and "tank" in German. And yes, I am a native speaker of German.
Try using http://woerterbuch.info, should you not believe me.
Only half-right! In German "panzer" can mean both, "armour" and (generic) "tank." I am German, so please believe me. And I have never heard another German say "Panzerkampfwagen" or seen it in writing in a German book. Maybe the German army uses the term but it is not in common use.
I'd like to ask this guy how much money he makes. I am quite happy with my salary and "simple 10 euros a day" seems like a total ripoff to me. If it were maybe 1 euro a day I think it might be fair.
Utter poppycock! Consider the following example: lets say we increase the density such that we now get twice as many chips on a wafer. That implies that the are of each chip is half of that of the orginal size. So, for example if we doubled the number of defective chips we still have twice as many good chips as before. In other words, the improvement is exactly linear! As an equation, if we previouslay had G good chips and D defective chips we now have 2(G + D) chips with 2D defective chips and therefore also 2G good chips!
While I recognize that the parent poster was obviously joking..
Recently I was walking to my sunday brunch and I was thinking what, in my mind, makes a religion and I came up with the following list in about 5 minutes:
belief in the supernatural
belief in a soul (a sort of "ghost" that inhabits a living human body)
a priesthood (a privileged class that extracts money or status in their respective communities)
a belief in your personality existing beyond your physical death
some kind of absolutist moral system
existence of a god or gods
Now, I realize that not all of these attributes may apply to all religions but, I think typically several seem to apply to all or most world religions. And no, I never studied comparative religions or had any interest in studying them even though as a child I greatly enjoyed Greek, Roman and Norse mythology and I did enjoy DC/Vertigo's Lucifer and Preacher series.
--
"Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
-- seen on Slashdot.org
Last month I bought a PS3 primarily to run Linux and to watch blu-ray movies. I currently have no plans to buy any games for it preferring to play games on my PSP instead. I like the PS3 as an excellent blu-ray player that is future proof due to its software upgradability.
Slashdot Mirror
"if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture,it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.'"
Reminds me of my favourite quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Student programmers are crap! We hired 4 different student programmers from a pretty decent CS department over the last 9 years. 2 were undergraduates. Students' priorities are to pass their classes and not to work for you. Furthermore, CS programs, while teaching some useful skills, are not software engineering programs. Most of their projects are small toy projects monitored by graduate students who have neither the time, skill nor inclination to determine whether a program is readable and maintainable. Basically most students and recent graduates are terrible hack programmers. I have also worked with recent graduates. They may stay with you for 3 years and then it's "thanks for the great training" and they'll move on, applying what you taught them while paying them a decent salary and benefitting a new employer. So, just stay away from anybody without several years of full-time development work. I also suggest giving applicants a quiz. There are so many pretenders out there it's not funny! I found that about 9 out of 10 C++ programmers can't even implement strcmp and can't answer basic questions about how the language works. It's really sad but it appears that in the software development world there are more incompetent people being employed than in probably most other fields. According to the excellent "Code Complete" there is a 20:1 ratio in productivity of a good programmer to an average programmer. I can easily believe it. I have been a programmer for over 20 years and I read lots of programming related books but I still find many programmers that don't even read a single book about programming per year. Many so-called "programmers" have no real interest in programming.
Some people here have suggested that it makes no difference whether a programmer works on open-source vs. closed-source projects as long as they're being paid. Bullshit! You want a person that is excited about open-source work. Motivation makes a big difference in productivity, duh! I am getting paid to work on an open-source project and I love it! It certainly keeps me more motivated than just the need to eat.
Personally I'd be very happy if I got two oranges rather than just one!
I can't believe how many people here call it "Daylight Savings Time"? It's called "Daylight Saving Time"!
From Wikipedia: In the normative form, daylight saving time uses the present participle...
From the same article: It's like "labour saving device".
A few thoughts:
1) Why do many people assume that it is a single deity? (I guess maybe in Hinduism they assume multiple deities.)
2) Why do they assume that whatever some superstitious and, by today's standards, very uneducated people or person that lived a long time ago had some privileged connection or communication with such a deity?
3) Why do they assume that somehow mankind is in a special position and/or that the deity or deities somehow give a rat's ass about mankind?
4) Don't they notice that religious belief is almost entirely cultural and has therefore no justification of being absolute or universal. By that I mean that if your parents are Hindus there is a good chance you're also a Hindu, if on the other hand, your parents are Sikhs there is a good chance you're also a Sikh, etc.
5) Don't they know that many religious beliefs are in direct conflict with scientific insights?
6) We do not require one or more deities to explain the world we observe. According to Occam's Razor this would mean that we should choose a world view without such deities. This is something I figured out on my own when I was 10 years old. Without any adults or children around me expressing any criticism of religious beliefs. Before then I had been (mildly) indoctrinated in Christianity by my parents.
7) Sometimes people claim that we need a deity to explain where everything comes from. This makes little sense. In fact modern physics may well indicate that there is no need for a beginning. Furthermore the whole concept of linear time may well be meaningless before the Big Bang. It is also possible that the universe has existed forever. If not, then saying a deity created it only pushes this back one level and one would have to immediately ask what or who created the deity. Also the universe could have been a lab accident of a clumsy scientist or there may be any number of of other explanations that we have not yet conceived of.
I know this type of reasoning is utterly foreign to the majority of people that choose not to think for themselves but rather unquestioningly accept the ramblings of some superstitious fools from long ago.
> ...the explanation is either ignorance, religious belief or a combination of both.
Care to explain what the difference is between "ignorance" and "religious belief"? And no, I'm *not* trolling? I am dead serious! I can't see how it is possible to hold a religious belief without ignorance.
> Mankind as a whole needs healthy and strong guys and girls no less than it needs geniuses.
How many? 6 billion, 20 billion, 50 billion? I also don't think I have a "job" to produce children. Where do you come up with this? Who makes it *my* job? You, some imaginary supernatural being or who else? Also, according to one statistic, a surviving child in the 1st world uses up 20 times the resources of a surviving child in the 3rd world. Furthermore, what you don't seem to realise is that it is conceivable that we will screw up the environment up to such a degree that there is a huge die back and maybe even to a point where our planet does not support human life any longer. Maybe *you* don't care about all the suffering this irresponsible behaviour is causing and will cause, but I do!
Assuming the "not not" was a typo:
I think you're only thinking of things that have near-term benefits. This would probably exclude reducing your environmental impact, not having kids to benefit mankind etc. And don't laugh, the reason I chose not to have kids is because I decided that this would probably be the best thing anybody but a genius could do for mankind. I wanted 3 or 4 kids when I was 19 and then read a report about projected global population growth and the terrible environmental impact it would have and decided that truly caring about mankind meant not to add more people into the pool. That was 30 years ago and I feel just as strongly about the correctness of my decision now as I did then.
> By definition nothing under idol should make it to the font page.
Yeah, because we don't want to read about Britney Spears or other idols amongst articles about Times Roman, Helvetica etc.
> There are a lot of religious folks.....
> er, I mean, "environmentalists" who need to watch the Penn & Teller episode "Recycling is Bullshit". The process of recycling costs three-to-four > times as much energy (mostly in collection and cleaning costs) than simply making new product.
And what does this have to do with not producing any waste to begin with? I think you're confused! I use 8 cotton bags that I have owned for years and that look as if they'll last many more years. This way I can buy a lot of things all at once and I avoid adding thousands of plastic bags to the garbage in my lifetime.
> ...what was common knowledge and being taught at the time...
All too often, what is common "knowledge" is actually commonly held "belief."
> Mamy stories in the bible are historically accurate in two ways. First, they actually happened. Second, they were being reported as actually happening or happened.
Really! Where you there? Do you believe in ghosts or witches? If not, let me remind you that there are many first person reports of such observations. Why should I, or anyone else, give more credit to your bible stories involving the supernatural? There is a simple common sense (I guess that should really be "uncommon sense" because it's so rare) rule of thumb that says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that's how I view any claims of observations of supernatural events.
> It looks like my guess was right an you need to reassure yourself on a lot of things in order to justify your own internal views. I'm not an idiot, I have a Ph.D.
Actually I don't need to reassure myself. I am actually quite confident that all human beings are idiots to some degree, myself included. I am also keenly aware that there are many people vastly smarter than myself and it does not bother me in the least. For your information: the reason that I studied physics was simply because it was the most fun thing to do. I never had as much fun before or after even though it was also the hardest thing I ever did.
> Well, what was your offering to show that Physicists were logical.
I thought that it was common knowledge that mathematics and logic are foundations of the natural sciences. I stand corrected.
> I'm not sure I would base my entire world view off personal experiences with one or two people either.
I never implied nor meant to imply that I got my entire world view from experiences with one or two people. It was only an example to illustrate my point.
> ...you don't even know what the beliefs are...
I don't know how you can possibly conclude that from what I have said?
> But that doesn't stop what is written from being written or happening.
I've always wanted to write a book myself. I was going to call it the "Book of Johannes." On the first page I'd state that everything in the book is the absolute truth and that anything written in any other book contradicting it would be wrong. I don't get this hangup about "it is written." How gullible are you? And which book are we talking anyway? The Koran, the Bible, Buddhist religious writings or some other religious writings? Are all of them the "absolute" truth?
> You could just be an idiot.
Yes, I could be and that would make me an idiot with a Ph.D. in physics. In fact that reminds me of an experience with my muslim friend (yes, I only have one AFAIK): after pointing out what seemed to be a logical inconsistency in a story relating to his religious beliefs he responded that "it is well known that physicists are not particularly logical." Obviously it is easier for him to believe that than to question "absolute truth."
> ...when you were 12 or whatever age you are now.
I am 49 now.
> Until the second coming when heaven defeats the devil, your family and friends are given an opportunity to convince you otherwise.
What if my family and friends are not a bunch of superstitious morons that believe in a random ancient mythology? The strongest attempts to convince me to believe in some supernatural bull actually came from a muslim friend of mine. Since I was about 12 I have always wondered how I, as an outsider to religion, could objectively pick one belief over another. I did read the New Testament from front to back when I was 15 because I acknowledge it's influence on Western culture. Not that it in any way affected my views on Christianity or any other mythology.
--
"I have more confidence in the methods of science, based on the amazing record
of science and its ability over the centuries to answer unanswerable questions,
than I do in the methods of faith (what are they?)."
-- David J. Gross "Physics Nobel Laureate"
> Your not really well with grammar, much less anything.
"Your"??? What was that about grammar again?
> I would hardly call 100 years archival. In some exceptional cases its within the memory span of a single human individual.
The article said "potential lifetime of hundreds of years." "Hundreds" being plural is different from "hundred" being singular!
...remember the Marshall Plan
Do you remember that the Marshall plan was intended to fortify Western Europe against communism? IOW, it wasn't purely a humanitarian gesture. And I would say it paid off handsomely. If ony the West would have done something similar after the fall of communism in Russia.
Our "lax gun laws" might come in handy one day should a truly tyrannical government appear in this nation
I believe Germany did not have lax gun control while the nazis rose to power. Also, do you really think that your pop guns are going to stop a professional army or stop a determined tyrannical government? I think that is very optimistic.
It's the sacrifice of being in a liberal democracy and open society, versus an attempt to make it appear sterile and safe.
No, it obviously isn't. It's not exactly that the US is any more liberal and open than various European coutries, in fact given the strong influence of a large contingent of religious nuts I would say that several major European countries are more liberal and open. I've lived in both for many years. And it's not only the appearance of safety when the US has more than an order of magnitude of gun-related murders than most (all?) European countries. As far as your claim of "sterile" is concerned, I have have no idea what you mean. I currently live in the US but still visit Europe every year and have no idea what you could mean by that. I can tell you that I still feel far safer in most European cities than any American city and we have much lower incarceration rates by a huge margin. If that's what you mean by "sterile" I guess it's a huge improvement.
Even though Europeans have strict gun laws and do not have, sadly, a constitutional right to keep and bear arms,
:(
I do not think that most Europeans think that it is sad that we do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. I'm not even sure Americans have that right. In fact I've often wondered whether every individual nut in the U.S. with a gun is considered to be a member of a well-regulated militia. Maybe language usage has changed, but that is not the way I understand the terminology. Of course English is not my first language.
I also don't think that opposition to individual gun ownership beyond the right to own hunting rifles is because we're pacifist. I think we're opposed, because we think that the right to bear arms for the general public would make us less safe as individuals. As you correctly point out, several European countries have a large arms industry. All I can say there is that that is a personal embarrassement for me.
You only believe that in -your- countries.
Correct, our -Western- countries! (Did you even read the post that I replied to?)
why on earth are Europeans doing something that they so clearly believe is wrong
You are clearly confused! Just because a few irresonsible European companies are doing something, clearly does not imply that the majority of Europeans agrees with it. Do you really think there are not at least some U.S. companies that exhibit behaviour that the majority of American citizens disagrees with?
There's no individual right to keep and bear arms in China like there is in the west.
What do you mean by "west"? Is this U.S. American arrogance or ignorance? I am from Western Europe. Last time I checked we were part of the "West." European countries tend to have much tighter gun laws than the United States. When I was in graduate school in physics in the U.S. I had friends from all over the world, including Europe and all of them agreed with me on thinking that Americans are crazy to tolerate their lax gun ownership laws. In fact all agreed that guns do not belong in the hands of civilians with the possible exception of hunting rifles. So be careful when you say "we", you Americans do not automatically speak for all Westerners. (A good example would have been the initiation of the Iraq invasion.) Of course I agree on your other point about the extent of censorship in the West vs. China even though I had my doubts about the U.S. in this area just prior to the Iraq invasion.
> For all non-German speakers: Parent is wrong, his parent is right.
You're both wrong! "Panzer" means both "armour" and "tank" in German. And yes, I am a native speaker of German. Try using http://woerterbuch.info, should you not believe me.
> panzer != tank
> panzer == armor
Only half-right! In German "panzer" can mean both, "armour" and (generic) "tank." I am German, so please believe me. And I have never heard another German say "Panzerkampfwagen" or seen it in writing in a German book. Maybe the German army uses the term but it is not in common use.
I'd like to ask this guy how much money he makes. I am quite happy with my salary and "simple 10 euros a day" seems like a total ripoff to me. If it were maybe 1 euro a day I think it might be fair.
Utter poppycock! Consider the following example: lets say we increase the density such that we now get twice as many chips on a wafer. That implies that the are of each chip is half of that of the orginal size. So, for example if we doubled the number of defective chips we still have twice as many good chips as before. In other words, the improvement is exactly linear! As an equation, if we previouslay had G good chips and D defective chips we now have 2(G + D) chips with 2D defective chips and therefore also 2G good chips!
- belief in the supernatural
- belief in a soul (a sort of "ghost" that inhabits a living human body)
- a priesthood (a privileged class that extracts money or status in their respective communities)
- a belief in your personality existing beyond your physical death
- some kind of absolutist moral system
- existence of a god or gods
Now, I realize that not all of these attributes may apply to all religions but, I think typically several seem to apply to all or most world religions. And no, I never studied comparative religions or had any interest in studying them even though as a child I greatly enjoyed Greek, Roman and Norse mythology and I did enjoy DC/Vertigo's Lucifer and Preacher series. -- "Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby." -- seen on Slashdot.orgLast month I bought a PS3 primarily to run Linux and to watch blu-ray movies. I currently have no plans to buy any games for it preferring to play games on my PSP instead. I like the PS3 as an excellent blu-ray player that is future proof due to its software upgradability.