Bingo. I refuse to buy games that require online activation for this very reason. The idiots who don't get why online activation is bad say "Oh, well they're a big company, they'll never go out of business and even if they did, they'd release a patch to remove it beforehand". Always stay away from letting a company control your property.
Go read a peer-reviewed paper. For once. Follow it with a few thousand more. Then come back here and talk.
Normally that would work - except we have proof that the peer reviewed journals were intentionally kept from publishing anything that disagreed with the idea that we're all going to die unless liberals are elected to save us all. That's what you're not acknowledging is that things were rigged to prevent any disagreement (well, any publicly acknowledged disagreement) among scientists.
Since you want to claim that by pointing out the lies and manipulation that I'm "a conspiracy theorist", here's a question for you - if we really are doomed unless we stop the boogeyman of global warming (sorry, "climate change"), what reason does any scientist have to lie and say that it's not happening? Do you think that they have some nefarious plan to kill off the human race?
I love how you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist because I point out actual evidence of your side committing fraud, then you use unproven claims of "anyone who disagrees with me is just paid off by the oil industry".
Remember college, when you had to write papers for idiot professors that were incapable of looking at anything objectively (probably not since you seem to have been brainwashed pretty well by them, but that's another point)? You wrote whatever you had to in order to get a good grade. It didn't matter if you believed it or if it was a blatant lie, you wrote what the professor wanted to see in order to get a good grade. Now we have governments offering billions to people who prove climate change - do you really think any of them are going to provide evidence to their masters that it's not real? They'll lose their jobs and pass up the opportunity to have more money than they'd ever dreamed of. So what do you think the typical person is going to put first - their principles or a large pile of cash? You can claim "principles" all you want, but history has shown that the vast majority will always choose the money....it's human nature.
As for your "poor citation" claim, I never claimed it was a citation - if you want proof (which you don't, which is why I never bother providing links on slashdot anymore - it's not worth the effort to look things up with the people like you won't read it anyways), you can look it up yourself.
Is your blind devotion to messianic leaders really so strong that you will unquestioningly follow them instead of saying "Hey wait, if some of these government funded groups have been horribly corrupt and we know that all governments are corrupt, shouldn't we really take a step back and check out all the others to make sure that they're not corrupt too"?
Here's the same thing put in simple terms. If it's real, what does any scientist have to gain from it? Killing us all? Sorry, but mad scientists bent on world destruction only exist in sci-fi. Then ask yourself, what does someone who knows it doesn't exist stand to gain from saying it does? Government research grants, get politicians they support elected, and when eventually if it's shown to be a bunch of crap, you can just say "well our information at the time pointed to it" just like Bush did.
If it was just a scientific issue, then I wouldn't give a rats ass if people are lying or not. However, since the way to "fix" it involved destroying the industrialized world and making cots of living go through the roof for everyone, it makes it pretty fucking important to be absolutely sure. Just like how we look back on ancient civilizations that did something stupid and damned themselves, people thousands of years from now could end up having classes about how the entire modern world in the 21st century destroyed itself trying to combat something that didn't exist.
Oh, and
As someone who (probably) "is just asking questions", why aren't you "asking questions" about who's spreading this climate change FUD?
, I did research on it a few years back and every non-government funded research institute (including many from private colleges) that I looked at all found the same thing.......that it's non-existent (or at least man-made global warming is non-existent). But yea, I guess they were all paid off by big oil......and you call me the conspiracy theorist.
And where did I present a conspiracy theory? I'm talking about documented facts, many (if not all) of which have even come across slashdot in recent weeks.
Also, isn't the vast majority of official temperatures all distributed by the same group in the UK that was proven to have manipulated the data? It kind of destroys any one else (regardless of their intentions) doing an accurate study if the only numbers they have to work with are the same falsified ones.
There's also documentation of the temperatures being collected in all sorts of places that don't fit the guidelines for where they should be placed - such as some that have been found placed directly under the vent from a buildings furnace.
But hey, why bother actually truly looking at the facts (and look at those who try to manipulate them) when we can just say "The debate is settled! Now lets pass some laws to damn our economy and knock us back to the stone age!" If this was any other type of science (physics, electrical engineering, whatever), everyone would be making a big deal about how you need to be completely accurate and ensure that the data is in fact legit. But when it comes to something that offers the promise of lots of money for saying what politicians want to hear or getting specific parties elected, all of the sudden no one cares much about being thorough.
Well seeing as how we have evidence of "OMGZ CO2 is teh EVIL!!!" scientists 1) oppressing scientists who disagree with them 2) ignoring data that doesn't suit their agenda (such as ignoring 75% of the temperature recording stations in Russia) 3) blatantly alter data to show the outcome they desire (such as the one scientist who's email showed that he added X amount to the recorded temperatures to show an upward trend), I think the burden lies with you to show that there actually IS real evidence and that not all pro-global warming scientists are lying scum with a political agenda.
As for CO2 and "greenhouse gasses", I recall reading research findings that there have been no changes in upper atmosphere temperatures -- which is exactly what "greenhouse gasses" would cause (heat is trapped and the upper atmosphere warms first, then things below get warmer)....thus showing that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" because the "greenhouse effect" only occurs in actual greenhouses, NOT with the entire planet.
Ok, can someone explain how it can display 720x480 resolution video on a screen that only has a resolution of 400x800? I'm not saying that the numbers are wrong, just that if they're right, I don't understand how it works.
Well damn, I was thinking this phone would be great, but only 190 MB for apps? That's extremely limiting. Since it has a MicroSD slot, why not let the users decide how much space they want to use for apps and how much they want to use for files?
Maybe someone can find a way to mod the OS to get around this limitation....
Pray tell who or what is this store or manufacturer that will include actual Windows install discs on a new PC purchase? That has become a deciding factor for me personally on a future laptop purchase.
Bittorrent, that's who! I'm actually being serious. I've had to fix a few systems for relatives and didn't have discs for the OS (such as my sisters desktop running XP Media Center 2005), so I downloaded a torrent of the version of Windows that came with the system, used the cd-key that's on the sticker for the case, and BAM, clean install and it's legit since it's using the same key that the original crippled OS used.
Yes, I realize that technically it's illegal, but since you've already paid for the Windows license for that system, I don't think any rational person would try to claim that what you're doing is wrong or should be illegal.
Nope, I haven't seen it either, nor do I plan on it. Yes, I love Sci-fi / fantasy, but I'm not paying money to see another Phantom Menace - which is pretty much what this looks like. The first trailer alone did a good job of making sure I'd never see the movie since the original trailer didn't mention one bit about a story. All of my friends who've seen it talk about "it looks so cool" yet can't really say much about a story to go along with the flashy special effects.
Wow, you must not know how to read! I said "6 months ago they only had a few square miles for the country" and I said "now there are two cities in my state that are covered". Six months ago, there are NO cities in my state (or most states) with 3G coverage from T-Mobile. Now there's actually quite a few, but it's still horrible compared to the competition. When there's a city (where I'm originally from) with over 2 million people in my state and it has NO 3G coverage at all (according to T-Mobile's own coverage map), there's a big problem with their 3G coverage. The city I'm in now is only about 15 miles north and has about 850,000 people and it's one of the two in the state that has 3G coverage. So yes, where I currently live it would be fine to go with T-Mobile as long as I never left the city. However, since I frequently drive back to visit friends and family, my phone would become useless for anything but making phone calls if I went with T-Mobile.
But of course, I'm lying because I really wanted to pay more money per month to go with another carrier. Yup, that's what happened. I did my research on each companies site comparing rates, was getting ready to go with T-Mobile, then looked at their 3G coverage and said "Wow, the coverage is so great and the prices are so low, I think I'll go with another company instead and pay a few hundred dollars more a year". Why are you so determined to pretend like their own coverage maps don't exist which, even now that they've added a tons of towers, STILL show that their 3G coverage is horrible?
No, "everyone" is look at the CURRENT 3G coverage map. NOT the ones from 6 months ago. Hell, there's a whole TWO cities in my state (one being the one I live in, but not the even bigger one just 10 miles away, where I often work) that is on their 3G coverage map. If you don't believe me, check their site. Don't look at the green map - the one that does have a lot of coverage, that's just voice. You have to click "data" and look at the purple map - THAT is the data coverage map and the dark purple (which is in the minority by far, even now) is the 3G coverage. Compare that to Verizon or AT&T's 3G coverage maps. T-Mobile has done a lot to improve 3G coverage in the last 6 months, but they're still a LONG way behind the competition.
Maybe T-Mobile has 3G coverage not shown on their coverage maps - if they do, great! But if that's the case, then they need to update their maps or they'll keep having people go to Verizon or AT&T due to their own coverage maps showing them to not have much in the way of 3G.
Then they didn't update their coverage map. I'm not going to go with a company because you tell me that they have good coverage and the companies own coverage map says they have extremely bad coverage. That's extremely poor marketing on their part, if that's the case. I'm starting to think you're just a fanboy making shit up because I called T-Mobile out for having the worst 3G coverage in the nation. It's a shame, because they have the best prices in the nation.
You must have looked at the "call" coverage map - which is just fine. The 3G was downright laughable. It's still bad, but much better than it was. Either you're confused or you're just lying because you want to bash other networks. I don't give a crap what network I have - I just want one with good coverage and a phone worth having. I wanted to go with T-Mobile and get a G1 instead of an iPhone, but their lack of 3G coverage just made it not worth the money - why would I get a smartphone if I can't use it due to a lack of coverage?
You obviously never looked at their 3G coverage map back in the summer. I wanted to go with T-Mobile because they had lower prices and an Android phone. But after looking at their 3G coverage map (or more accurately called, lack of 3G coverage map), there was no way in hell I'd go with them. Hopefully they keep working to get 3G covered all over and in a year or two they'll be as good as the other networks.
T-Mobile's map was downright laughable back in the summer. Now it's just "poor", but at least you don't burst out laughing saying "How can they claim to offer 3G when their coverage is essentially non-existent?!". They have improved a lot in the last 6 months though. Maybe in a year and a half with my contract with my iPhone 3GS is up, it'll be good enough that I can switch to T-Mobile and get the latest Android phone. I would've preferred to get an Android phone to an iPhone, but especially where I live, T-Mobile just doesn't have the network right now. I hope they get there soon so we have more competition.
Bingo. The other use for WiFi on a phone is to turn off 3G and use WiFi for internet (say when you're at work or at home) and it drastically extends the battery life of the phone. I've started doing that with my iPhone - if I'm home or at a friend / family members house, I turn off the 3G and use their wireless and my battery life about doubles.
I looked at T-Mobile's coverage about 6 months ago when I got a new phone. Their 3G covered a few square miles...TOTAL for the entire country. Unless you lived in just the right spot in a couple of cities, you wouldn't get 3G. I just checked their 3G coverage, and while it's infinitely better than it was 6 months ago, it still doesn't even come close to covering all major cities in the country, let alone if you go outside of a major city. They now cover the city I live in, yet the city just a few miles way (which is even bigger than mine) doesn't have any 3G coverage - seeing as how I'm a consultant and bounce back and forth between the cities a lot, that's crap that my phone will only work in one of those cities. With my iPhone I have 3G coverage even when I visit relatives out in the middle of nowhere in little towns with a population of under 1,000. I'd love to pay less and have an Android phone, but T-Mobile's network still has a long way to go to be competitive. That's the real reason their prices are so low - because they have to lower monthly payments to get people to use their substandard network (for 3G that is).
I'm sorry, but WHY for the love of Farley do Android phones always go to T-Mobile? Their 3G coverage is essentially non-existent, which defeats the purpose of a smartphone. I'd love to buy this phone, but if it's T-Mobile only, then there's no point because you'll only be able to use programs requiring the internet when you're on a wireless network (if it supports that).
But by your standards, that means there are no Christians, because if you sin, you are no longer a true Christian.
Nope, not what I said at all and you know it. I'm saying that those who want to add in extra rules (or remove rules) from Christianity are not Christians. It's always the weirdos who add in extra rules and claim to be Christian that do crazy things.
So, that means there are, what, maybe two or three "true Christians" in the world, if that? Nobody follows those books to the letter today.
Actually there are quite a few perfectly normal people who do. That's exactly why you think they don't exist because you're looking for some weirdo wearing a burlap sack - you don't realize that you can lead a normal life and follow it.
In any case, this is a different claim than you made previously. Before you claimed not that people who used religiously motivated violence "weren't true Christians" but that their actions had nothing to do with religion at all. This is clearly an absurd statement.
How? Christianity does not promote violence of any sort, so therefore people committing violence in the name of Christianity are not Christians and it has nothing to do with the religion.
You think the church preaching that abortion is murder and a wicked act had absolutely nothing to do with that? Regardless of whether you think someone or some church is a true Christian or not, it's still religion! It's still based on Christianity, and everybody else in the world apart from you, considers those Christian churches.
First off, abortion IS murder, there's no debating that. When you intentionally cause a creature that is alive to stop being alive, you are killing it. When this is done to human beings out of a combat zone, it is known as "murder". Just because some groups want to claim that somehow a baby isn't human doesn't change the fact that it is human....but that's a separate discussion. Secondly, you're ignoring the point. If a non-Christian says to go do xyz, it doesn't f-ing matter if they claim to be Christian, they're NOT Christian. You have no argument other than your own desire to perceive religious people as the enemy, so you will label non-Christians as Christian to suit your agenda.
Again, you clearly don't understand what it is to be a Christian. It's not about knowing the Bible inside out, it's about accepting Jesus into your heart as your savior. That's all that is required! Are you saying that the illiterate can't be Christians? Or the mentally retarded, or children? I think most Christians would disagree with you there.
Wrong. It's about believing in Jesus's teachings (which were all in the New Testament) AND accepting Jesus as your savior. You can't claim Jesus as your savior if you do not believe and follow what he taught and stands for.
Criticizing religion is not the same as hatred.
Except you're not criticizing religion. You're taking people and views that have nothing to do with religions and penalizing the religion for those things because you want to make religion the enemy. If you said "I disagree with X teaching" then you could be criticizing the religion. What you are instead doing is "I disagree with a person doing X, when X is not approved of or promoted by Y religion, but I'm going to blame Y religion for their actions so that I can hold someone other than the individual accountable for bad things". Blame the person, don't project their actions onto a group that did not condone their actions. Just like you respect a person based on their character, not their job title or family name.
But their actions ARE condoned by their particular church or interpretation of Christianity.
It doesn't matter what a particular group wants to "interpret" (meaning add in, which liberals are quite fond of with the Constitution, but that's another matter). If it's not in the Bible, then it's not Christianity.
So, you're not a true Christian if you wear mixed fabric or eat shellfish? if you ever have a lustful thought about your neighbor's wife.
Show me where it says, in the New Testament, that you cannot wear that or eat that. Also, while "having lustful thoughts" is a sin, everyone sins and therefore it's a "try your best not to do it" deal because no one can completely control their thoughts.
You're also incorrect, in that it's not that simple. not all religions are based on ancient writing (see Scientology, Mormonism) and even the ones that are, are based on modern interpretations - the ancient texts are so ambiguous that there isn't a clear meaning anyway.
The religions we're talking about are. As for the "modern interpretations" bullshit, the Bible hasn't changed for at least a thousand years. Just because people may try to say "Oh, well xyz doesn't apply anymore" doesn't mean that the Bible has changed. It just means that people want to alter the Bible to suit their desires.
And once again, you are incorrect because a religion is also defined by the actions of its followers.
Wrong. Societies view of the religion may be affected by people's actions, but the religion is what it is in the writings defining the religion.
If a person believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, then that person is a Christian, no matter what sins or evil acts they might commit.
Wrong. If a person blatantly ignores the teachings of Christianity, then it doesn't matter what they believe, they are not a Christian. It's just an excuse that people like you created to hate religions instead of blaming the individual who uses religion as a cover for their evil deeds done out of their own desires.
As for your claims on Islam, there are plenty of Islamic churches who do not agree with the idea of killing non-believers
Just because some people choose not to follow all of the teachings of Islam, it doesn't change what Islam is. It's like the people that never pray and only go to church on Easter and Christmas Eve - they don't actually believe in any of it, it's more habit due to how they were raised - that's how it is with the non-violent Muslim groups. They don't really believe in Islam, it's just that they're forced to go through the motions do to their society and family structure.
Religion just whitewashes its dirty past, in an attempt to believe it never happens.
Again, learn something about Christianity before you blindly bash it, you're just making yourself look foolish. The New Testament was written after Jesus was born and changed the old laws (you've heard or used the phrase "let he who has no sin throw the first stone", right? Yea, that was Jesus).
what about all those Christian preachers who are preaching death in the modern age? I guess you'll just use the "not true Christians" excuse again, huh?
Well according to you, if I proclaim to have a PhD is Physics, it must be true despite me not knowing much about physics! You take self-proclamations at face value. If you do not follow the Bible (including the New Testament), you are not a Christian. It's THAT simple. You'll just bitch and moan because you want to hate anyone who thinks differently from you (gotta love irony), but you have no ground to stand on.
Read my response to your other comment (where I point out that your quotes are from the Old Testament and no longer apply to Christians because of the New Testament). The Bible clearly lays out what is wrong and things that Christians should do - if you do not follow those, then you are not following Christianity and whatever evil actions you do are solely of your own choosing - Christianity had nothing to do with it. Again, would you blame a black person for committing a crime when nothing about being black says that they must do that? No, you wouldn't. Why would you blame a "christian" person then for doing something that is never condoned by Christianity? Well, that was a rhetorical question, I know why you're blaming Christians for it (you hate religion, or at least Christian ones anyways).
Aren't you conceding my point?
Only in the circumstances of Islam. I wasn't thinking of Islam when I wrote that, but your point is void when talking of any other religion (that I can think of).
As for your "No True Scotsman" fallacy, it doesn't apply here. Religions (or at least the ones we're discussing here) are based on writings that are very old. If you do not follow those writings, then you do not follow the religion. It's THAT simple. If we applied your view to science, someone could not follow the basics of chemistry at all but claim to be a Chemist (and we all know that without knowing how to do chemistry, you can't be a Chemist).
Actually, if you bothered to learn anything about Christianity instead of just blindly bashing it, you'd see that all of the quotes about killing non-believers are from the Old Testament....and the New Testament voids all of those old laws. Therefore, since the New Testament voided those teachings, they are no longer part of Christianity and as such, Christianity does not promote violence. Your point is void. It was a good try, but try researching a bit next time!
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. I refuse to buy games that require online activation for this very reason. The idiots who don't get why online activation is bad say "Oh, well they're a big company, they'll never go out of business and even if they did, they'd release a patch to remove it beforehand". Always stay away from letting a company control your property.
personally, after being bound to AT&T's crappy service for almost 2 years now i will never buy a subsidized phone again.
All depends on where you live. I live in Cincinnati / Dayton, Ohio and my service is great and my 3G speeds average around 130Kb/sec.
Go read a peer-reviewed paper. For once. Follow it with a few thousand more. Then come back here and talk.
Normally that would work - except we have proof that the peer reviewed journals were intentionally kept from publishing anything that disagreed with the idea that we're all going to die unless liberals are elected to save us all. That's what you're not acknowledging is that things were rigged to prevent any disagreement (well, any publicly acknowledged disagreement) among scientists.
Since you want to claim that by pointing out the lies and manipulation that I'm "a conspiracy theorist", here's a question for you - if we really are doomed unless we stop the boogeyman of global warming (sorry, "climate change"), what reason does any scientist have to lie and say that it's not happening? Do you think that they have some nefarious plan to kill off the human race?
I love how you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist because I point out actual evidence of your side committing fraud, then you use unproven claims of "anyone who disagrees with me is just paid off by the oil industry".
Remember college, when you had to write papers for idiot professors that were incapable of looking at anything objectively (probably not since you seem to have been brainwashed pretty well by them, but that's another point)? You wrote whatever you had to in order to get a good grade. It didn't matter if you believed it or if it was a blatant lie, you wrote what the professor wanted to see in order to get a good grade. Now we have governments offering billions to people who prove climate change - do you really think any of them are going to provide evidence to their masters that it's not real? They'll lose their jobs and pass up the opportunity to have more money than they'd ever dreamed of. So what do you think the typical person is going to put first - their principles or a large pile of cash? You can claim "principles" all you want, but history has shown that the vast majority will always choose the money....it's human nature.
As for your "poor citation" claim, I never claimed it was a citation - if you want proof (which you don't, which is why I never bother providing links on slashdot anymore - it's not worth the effort to look things up with the people like you won't read it anyways), you can look it up yourself.
Is your blind devotion to messianic leaders really so strong that you will unquestioningly follow them instead of saying "Hey wait, if some of these government funded groups have been horribly corrupt and we know that all governments are corrupt, shouldn't we really take a step back and check out all the others to make sure that they're not corrupt too"?
Here's the same thing put in simple terms. If it's real, what does any scientist have to gain from it? Killing us all? Sorry, but mad scientists bent on world destruction only exist in sci-fi. Then ask yourself, what does someone who knows it doesn't exist stand to gain from saying it does? Government research grants, get politicians they support elected, and when eventually if it's shown to be a bunch of crap, you can just say "well our information at the time pointed to it" just like Bush did.
If it was just a scientific issue, then I wouldn't give a rats ass if people are lying or not. However, since the way to "fix" it involved destroying the industrialized world and making cots of living go through the roof for everyone, it makes it pretty fucking important to be absolutely sure. Just like how we look back on ancient civilizations that did something stupid and damned themselves, people thousands of years from now could end up having classes about how the entire modern world in the 21st century destroyed itself trying to combat something that didn't exist.
Oh, and
As someone who (probably) "is just asking questions", why aren't you "asking questions" about who's spreading this climate change FUD?
, I did research on it a few years back and every non-government funded research institute (including many from private colleges) that I looked at all found the same thing.......that it's non-existent (or at least man-made global warming is non-existent). But yea, I guess they were all paid off by big oil......and you call me the conspiracy theorist.
And where did I present a conspiracy theory? I'm talking about documented facts, many (if not all) of which have even come across slashdot in recent weeks.
Also, isn't the vast majority of official temperatures all distributed by the same group in the UK that was proven to have manipulated the data? It kind of destroys any one else (regardless of their intentions) doing an accurate study if the only numbers they have to work with are the same falsified ones.
There's also documentation of the temperatures being collected in all sorts of places that don't fit the guidelines for where they should be placed - such as some that have been found placed directly under the vent from a buildings furnace.
But hey, why bother actually truly looking at the facts (and look at those who try to manipulate them) when we can just say "The debate is settled! Now lets pass some laws to damn our economy and knock us back to the stone age!" If this was any other type of science (physics, electrical engineering, whatever), everyone would be making a big deal about how you need to be completely accurate and ensure that the data is in fact legit. But when it comes to something that offers the promise of lots of money for saying what politicians want to hear or getting specific parties elected, all of the sudden no one cares much about being thorough.
Well seeing as how we have evidence of "OMGZ CO2 is teh EVIL!!!" scientists 1) oppressing scientists who disagree with them 2) ignoring data that doesn't suit their agenda (such as ignoring 75% of the temperature recording stations in Russia) 3) blatantly alter data to show the outcome they desire (such as the one scientist who's email showed that he added X amount to the recorded temperatures to show an upward trend), I think the burden lies with you to show that there actually IS real evidence and that not all pro-global warming scientists are lying scum with a political agenda.
As for CO2 and "greenhouse gasses", I recall reading research findings that there have been no changes in upper atmosphere temperatures -- which is exactly what "greenhouse gasses" would cause (heat is trapped and the upper atmosphere warms first, then things below get warmer)....thus showing that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" because the "greenhouse effect" only occurs in actual greenhouses, NOT with the entire planet.
Ok, can someone explain how it can display 720x480 resolution video on a screen that only has a resolution of 400x800? I'm not saying that the numbers are wrong, just that if they're right, I don't understand how it works.
Well damn, I was thinking this phone would be great, but only 190 MB for apps? That's extremely limiting. Since it has a MicroSD slot, why not let the users decide how much space they want to use for apps and how much they want to use for files?
Maybe someone can find a way to mod the OS to get around this limitation....
Pray tell who or what is this store or manufacturer that will include actual Windows install discs on a new PC purchase? That has become a deciding factor for me personally on a future laptop purchase.
Bittorrent, that's who! I'm actually being serious. I've had to fix a few systems for relatives and didn't have discs for the OS (such as my sisters desktop running XP Media Center 2005), so I downloaded a torrent of the version of Windows that came with the system, used the cd-key that's on the sticker for the case, and BAM, clean install and it's legit since it's using the same key that the original crippled OS used.
Yes, I realize that technically it's illegal, but since you've already paid for the Windows license for that system, I don't think any rational person would try to claim that what you're doing is wrong or should be illegal.
Probably should dump her, not because she made you see it, but because she wanted to see it herself in the first place.
Son of a bitch - after posting I scroll farther down and find this gem. Now I kinda wish I hadn't posted so I could mod you up.
Nope, I haven't seen it either, nor do I plan on it. Yes, I love Sci-fi / fantasy, but I'm not paying money to see another Phantom Menace - which is pretty much what this looks like. The first trailer alone did a good job of making sure I'd never see the movie since the original trailer didn't mention one bit about a story. All of my friends who've seen it talk about "it looks so cool" yet can't really say much about a story to go along with the flashy special effects.
Wow, you must not know how to read! I said "6 months ago they only had a few square miles for the country" and I said "now there are two cities in my state that are covered". Six months ago, there are NO cities in my state (or most states) with 3G coverage from T-Mobile. Now there's actually quite a few, but it's still horrible compared to the competition. When there's a city (where I'm originally from) with over 2 million people in my state and it has NO 3G coverage at all (according to T-Mobile's own coverage map), there's a big problem with their 3G coverage. The city I'm in now is only about 15 miles north and has about 850,000 people and it's one of the two in the state that has 3G coverage. So yes, where I currently live it would be fine to go with T-Mobile as long as I never left the city. However, since I frequently drive back to visit friends and family, my phone would become useless for anything but making phone calls if I went with T-Mobile.
But of course, I'm lying because I really wanted to pay more money per month to go with another carrier. Yup, that's what happened. I did my research on each companies site comparing rates, was getting ready to go with T-Mobile, then looked at their 3G coverage and said "Wow, the coverage is so great and the prices are so low, I think I'll go with another company instead and pay a few hundred dollars more a year". Why are you so determined to pretend like their own coverage maps don't exist which, even now that they've added a tons of towers, STILL show that their 3G coverage is horrible?
No, "everyone" is look at the CURRENT 3G coverage map. NOT the ones from 6 months ago. Hell, there's a whole TWO cities in my state (one being the one I live in, but not the even bigger one just 10 miles away, where I often work) that is on their 3G coverage map. If you don't believe me, check their site. Don't look at the green map - the one that does have a lot of coverage, that's just voice. You have to click "data" and look at the purple map - THAT is the data coverage map and the dark purple (which is in the minority by far, even now) is the 3G coverage. Compare that to Verizon or AT&T's 3G coverage maps. T-Mobile has done a lot to improve 3G coverage in the last 6 months, but they're still a LONG way behind the competition.
Maybe T-Mobile has 3G coverage not shown on their coverage maps - if they do, great! But if that's the case, then they need to update their maps or they'll keep having people go to Verizon or AT&T due to their own coverage maps showing them to not have much in the way of 3G.
Then they didn't update their coverage map. I'm not going to go with a company because you tell me that they have good coverage and the companies own coverage map says they have extremely bad coverage. That's extremely poor marketing on their part, if that's the case. I'm starting to think you're just a fanboy making shit up because I called T-Mobile out for having the worst 3G coverage in the nation. It's a shame, because they have the best prices in the nation.
You must have looked at the "call" coverage map - which is just fine. The 3G was downright laughable. It's still bad, but much better than it was. Either you're confused or you're just lying because you want to bash other networks. I don't give a crap what network I have - I just want one with good coverage and a phone worth having. I wanted to go with T-Mobile and get a G1 instead of an iPhone, but their lack of 3G coverage just made it not worth the money - why would I get a smartphone if I can't use it due to a lack of coverage?
You obviously never looked at their 3G coverage map back in the summer. I wanted to go with T-Mobile because they had lower prices and an Android phone. But after looking at their 3G coverage map (or more accurately called, lack of 3G coverage map), there was no way in hell I'd go with them. Hopefully they keep working to get 3G covered all over and in a year or two they'll be as good as the other networks.
T-Mobile's map was downright laughable back in the summer. Now it's just "poor", but at least you don't burst out laughing saying "How can they claim to offer 3G when their coverage is essentially non-existent?!". They have improved a lot in the last 6 months though. Maybe in a year and a half with my contract with my iPhone 3GS is up, it'll be good enough that I can switch to T-Mobile and get the latest Android phone. I would've preferred to get an Android phone to an iPhone, but especially where I live, T-Mobile just doesn't have the network right now. I hope they get there soon so we have more competition.
Bingo. The other use for WiFi on a phone is to turn off 3G and use WiFi for internet (say when you're at work or at home) and it drastically extends the battery life of the phone. I've started doing that with my iPhone - if I'm home or at a friend / family members house, I turn off the 3G and use their wireless and my battery life about doubles.
I looked at T-Mobile's coverage about 6 months ago when I got a new phone. Their 3G covered a few square miles...TOTAL for the entire country. Unless you lived in just the right spot in a couple of cities, you wouldn't get 3G. I just checked their 3G coverage, and while it's infinitely better than it was 6 months ago, it still doesn't even come close to covering all major cities in the country, let alone if you go outside of a major city. They now cover the city I live in, yet the city just a few miles way (which is even bigger than mine) doesn't have any 3G coverage - seeing as how I'm a consultant and bounce back and forth between the cities a lot, that's crap that my phone will only work in one of those cities. With my iPhone I have 3G coverage even when I visit relatives out in the middle of nowhere in little towns with a population of under 1,000. I'd love to pay less and have an Android phone, but T-Mobile's network still has a long way to go to be competitive. That's the real reason their prices are so low - because they have to lower monthly payments to get people to use their substandard network (for 3G that is).
I'm sorry, but WHY for the love of Farley do Android phones always go to T-Mobile? Their 3G coverage is essentially non-existent, which defeats the purpose of a smartphone. I'd love to buy this phone, but if it's T-Mobile only, then there's no point because you'll only be able to use programs requiring the internet when you're on a wireless network (if it supports that).
But by your standards, that means there are no Christians, because if you sin, you are no longer a true Christian.
Nope, not what I said at all and you know it. I'm saying that those who want to add in extra rules (or remove rules) from Christianity are not Christians. It's always the weirdos who add in extra rules and claim to be Christian that do crazy things.
So, that means there are, what, maybe two or three "true Christians" in the world, if that? Nobody follows those books to the letter today.
Actually there are quite a few perfectly normal people who do. That's exactly why you think they don't exist because you're looking for some weirdo wearing a burlap sack - you don't realize that you can lead a normal life and follow it.
In any case, this is a different claim than you made previously. Before you claimed not that people who used religiously motivated violence "weren't true Christians" but that their actions had nothing to do with religion at all. This is clearly an absurd statement.
How? Christianity does not promote violence of any sort, so therefore people committing violence in the name of Christianity are not Christians and it has nothing to do with the religion.
You think the church preaching that abortion is murder and a wicked act had absolutely nothing to do with that? Regardless of whether you think someone or some church is a true Christian or not, it's still religion! It's still based on Christianity, and everybody else in the world apart from you, considers those Christian churches.
First off, abortion IS murder, there's no debating that. When you intentionally cause a creature that is alive to stop being alive, you are killing it. When this is done to human beings out of a combat zone, it is known as "murder". Just because some groups want to claim that somehow a baby isn't human doesn't change the fact that it is human....but that's a separate discussion. Secondly, you're ignoring the point. If a non-Christian says to go do xyz, it doesn't f-ing matter if they claim to be Christian, they're NOT Christian. You have no argument other than your own desire to perceive religious people as the enemy, so you will label non-Christians as Christian to suit your agenda.
Again, you clearly don't understand what it is to be a Christian. It's not about knowing the Bible inside out, it's about accepting Jesus into your heart as your savior. That's all that is required! Are you saying that the illiterate can't be Christians? Or the mentally retarded, or children? I think most Christians would disagree with you there.
Wrong. It's about believing in Jesus's teachings (which were all in the New Testament) AND accepting Jesus as your savior. You can't claim Jesus as your savior if you do not believe and follow what he taught and stands for.
Criticizing religion is not the same as hatred.
Except you're not criticizing religion. You're taking people and views that have nothing to do with religions and penalizing the religion for those things because you want to make religion the enemy. If you said "I disagree with X teaching" then you could be criticizing the religion. What you are instead doing is "I disagree with a person doing X, when X is not approved of or promoted by Y religion, but I'm going to blame Y religion for their actions so that I can hold someone other than the individual accountable for bad things". Blame the person, don't project their actions onto a group that did not condone their actions. Just like you respect a person based on their character, not their job title or family name.
But their actions ARE condoned by their particular church or interpretation of Christianity.
It doesn't matter what a particular group wants to "interpret" (meaning add in, which liberals are quite fond of with the Constitution, but that's another matter). If it's not in the Bible, then it's not Christianity.
So, you're not a true Christian if you wear mixed fabric or eat shellfish? if you ever have a lustful thought about your neighbor's wife.
Show me where it says, in the New Testament, that you cannot wear that or eat that. Also, while "having lustful thoughts" is a sin, everyone sins and therefore it's a "try your best not to do it" deal because no one can completely control their thoughts.
You're also incorrect, in that it's not that simple. not all religions are based on ancient writing (see Scientology, Mormonism) and even the ones that are, are based on modern interpretations - the ancient texts are so ambiguous that there isn't a clear meaning anyway.
The religions we're talking about are. As for the "modern interpretations" bullshit, the Bible hasn't changed for at least a thousand years. Just because people may try to say "Oh, well xyz doesn't apply anymore" doesn't mean that the Bible has changed. It just means that people want to alter the Bible to suit their desires.
And once again, you are incorrect because a religion is also defined by the actions of its followers.
Wrong. Societies view of the religion may be affected by people's actions, but the religion is what it is in the writings defining the religion.
If a person believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, then that person is a Christian, no matter what sins or evil acts they might commit.
Wrong. If a person blatantly ignores the teachings of Christianity, then it doesn't matter what they believe, they are not a Christian. It's just an excuse that people like you created to hate religions instead of blaming the individual who uses religion as a cover for their evil deeds done out of their own desires.
As for your claims on Islam, there are plenty of Islamic churches who do not agree with the idea of killing non-believers
Just because some people choose not to follow all of the teachings of Islam, it doesn't change what Islam is. It's like the people that never pray and only go to church on Easter and Christmas Eve - they don't actually believe in any of it, it's more habit due to how they were raised - that's how it is with the non-violent Muslim groups. They don't really believe in Islam, it's just that they're forced to go through the motions do to their society and family structure.
Religion just whitewashes its dirty past, in an attempt to believe it never happens.
Again, learn something about Christianity before you blindly bash it, you're just making yourself look foolish. The New Testament was written after Jesus was born and changed the old laws (you've heard or used the phrase "let he who has no sin throw the first stone", right? Yea, that was Jesus).
what about all those Christian preachers who are preaching death in the modern age? I guess you'll just use the "not true Christians" excuse again, huh?
Well according to you, if I proclaim to have a PhD is Physics, it must be true despite me not knowing much about physics! You take self-proclamations at face value. If you do not follow the Bible (including the New Testament), you are not a Christian. It's THAT simple. You'll just bitch and moan because you want to hate anyone who thinks differently from you (gotta love irony), but you have no ground to stand on.
Read my response to your other comment (where I point out that your quotes are from the Old Testament and no longer apply to Christians because of the New Testament). The Bible clearly lays out what is wrong and things that Christians should do - if you do not follow those, then you are not following Christianity and whatever evil actions you do are solely of your own choosing - Christianity had nothing to do with it. Again, would you blame a black person for committing a crime when nothing about being black says that they must do that? No, you wouldn't. Why would you blame a "christian" person then for doing something that is never condoned by Christianity? Well, that was a rhetorical question, I know why you're blaming Christians for it (you hate religion, or at least Christian ones anyways).
Aren't you conceding my point?
Only in the circumstances of Islam. I wasn't thinking of Islam when I wrote that, but your point is void when talking of any other religion (that I can think of).
As for your "No True Scotsman" fallacy, it doesn't apply here. Religions (or at least the ones we're discussing here) are based on writings that are very old. If you do not follow those writings, then you do not follow the religion. It's THAT simple. If we applied your view to science, someone could not follow the basics of chemistry at all but claim to be a Chemist (and we all know that without knowing how to do chemistry, you can't be a Chemist).
Actually, if you bothered to learn anything about Christianity instead of just blindly bashing it, you'd see that all of the quotes about killing non-believers are from the Old Testament....and the New Testament voids all of those old laws. Therefore, since the New Testament voided those teachings, they are no longer part of Christianity and as such, Christianity does not promote violence. Your point is void. It was a good try, but try researching a bit next time!