[......] they fail to achieve the other 10% which is the most important part!
It's the most imprtant part for Microsoft, too - it's their marketing strategy. That other 10% keeps the suckers coming back for more - always hoping for the missing 10% and never getting it.
Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?
Yes, you do. The point you're trying to make is not clear. You seem to be offering this as evidence that "atheists flock to science" - but it's not evidence of that at all. It says nothing about atheists. However, it may say something about scientists. It may be evidence that scientists "flock" to atheism - but that's a totally different thing altogether, and has nothing to do with atheists flocking to science.
It has nothing to do with atheism, but atheists flock to it because it gives them the proof and rationality they crave.
Was that your attempt to illustrate what a straw man is?
I've never noticed atheists having any more interest in science than christians. Atheists, however, tend to question things - and that's what science is all about, therefore some atheists may tend to have an affinity with science for that reason.
The lesson from the recent bout of frantic backpedaling on Neanderthals is not to take the slightest bit of notice of the extrapolations of archaeologists. The raw data of their findings is interesting, but it's always open to interpretation. However, archaeology as a science seem to be largely incapable of objective interpretation. Maybe it's time they stuck to digging things up and stopped trying to interpret what they find. That interpretation really requires quite a different discipline.
Considering all the revelations that have emerged about surveillance in those ten years, the possibility that it's not true seems barely worth considering.
I don't have any figures on hand, but it seems that people do still read them. And they certainly appear to have a huge influence on election outcomes.
News Ltd owns the only national daily paper, as well as the only daily paper in four state capitals, one territory capital, and a number of large regional centres - of the capitals, only Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra have competing daily papers. Admittedly, that covers nearly half the population - but that leaves a massive proportion of Australia dominated by Murdoch.
I don't think Murdoch's got much cause to be angry - he gets his way in pretty much everything. He's just a cynical, manipulative, evil scumbag. And i'm quite sure he's more than happy to be that way.
It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.
Yeah, i do that quite a lot. Not echo usually, just cat. And not usually to add things (it's too easy to miss out an angle bracket and overwrite what's already there), but frequently to insert text in a new file.
Octal? Surely you mean binary. Or did it have 8-way switches? The machines i used to patch via the front panel toggle switches had 16 bit words, so we thought in hex.
Oh the idea has merit. It is why it keeps coming up. However, who eats the cost? We do. We as end consumers eat it.
Who do you think will eat the cost of rising sea levels and dried up water supplies? It certainly won't be the companies that caused the problems in the first place. It will be us again. But those costs will be astronomically higher than a tiny little carbon tax.
We over and over do exactly the wrong thing to save the world. Which ends up doing the opposite.
I'm not sure who the "we" is that you're referring to, but you sound like you know what you're talking about. How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
Unfortunately, the Australian federal government is a 100% owned subsidiary of the mining companies. Although the prime minister is a moron in his own right, he's only doing what his bosses tell him to do.
A vast amount of this plastic is breaking up into tiny pieces, which then form a new class of plankton plastic plankton - and this plastic plankton is being eating by sea creatures along with the phytoplankton and zooplankton which make up their normal diet. Nobody knows what the effects of this will be.
Water is not the "ultimate" solvent. There are plenty of substances that do not dissolve in water - and plastic's one of them. What's happening is that sunlight and possibly wave action is breaking the plastic into microscopic particles, which are then being ingested by marine animals, just as larger pieces of plastic are. Nobody knows what effect this will have on the organisms themselves - or the organisms that prey on those organisms (which includes humans).
Slashdot Mirror
[......] they fail to achieve the other 10% which is the most important part!
It's the most imprtant part for Microsoft, too - it's their marketing strategy. That other 10% keeps the suckers coming back for more - always hoping for the missing 10% and never getting it.
Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?
Yes, you do. The point you're trying to make is not clear. You seem to be offering this as evidence that "atheists flock to science" - but it's not evidence of that at all. It says nothing about atheists. However, it may say something about scientists. It may be evidence that scientists "flock" to atheism - but that's a totally different thing altogether, and has nothing to do with atheists flocking to science.
It has nothing to do with atheism, but atheists flock to it because it gives them the proof and rationality they crave.
Was that your attempt to illustrate what a straw man is?
I've never noticed atheists having any more interest in science than christians. Atheists, however, tend to question things - and that's what science is all about, therefore some atheists may tend to have an affinity with science for that reason.
"Objective interpretation" is an oxymoron, moron.
Yeah? Explain.
The lesson from the recent bout of frantic backpedaling on Neanderthals is not to take the slightest bit of notice of the extrapolations of archaeologists. The raw data of their findings is interesting, but it's always open to interpretation. However, archaeology as a science seem to be largely incapable of objective interpretation. Maybe it's time they stuck to digging things up and stopped trying to interpret what they find. That interpretation really requires quite a different discipline.
Even if it's not true [......]
Considering all the revelations that have emerged about surveillance in those ten years, the possibility that it's not true seems barely worth considering.
I don't have any figures on hand, but it seems that people do still read them. And they certainly appear to have a huge influence on election outcomes.
News Ltd owns the only national daily paper, as well as the only daily paper in four state capitals, one territory capital, and a number of large regional centres - of the capitals, only Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra have competing daily papers. Admittedly, that covers nearly half the population - but that leaves a massive proportion of Australia dominated by Murdoch.
I don't think Murdoch's got much cause to be angry - he gets his way in pretty much everything. He's just a cynical, manipulative, evil scumbag. And i'm quite sure he's more than happy to be that way.
I'm waiting for that arsehole Murdoch to die - but given that his mum lived to over 100, i'm not holding my breath!
It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.
No way! There are things on Facebook that aren't satire?
Skype's peer to peer - not server based.
Who owns skype now?
If i have to use Windows, i install Geany - which is what i use on Linux in gui mode anyway. I only install Cygwin if i need more than just an editor.
Yeah, i do that quite a lot. Not echo usually, just cat. And not usually to add things (it's too easy to miss out an angle bracket and overwrite what's already there), but frequently to insert text in a new file.
Octal? Surely you mean binary. Or did it have 8-way switches? The machines i used to patch via the front panel toggle switches had 16 bit words, so we thought in hex.
Pollution occurs wherever there is life.
True. Earth was populated for millions of years by organisms that polluted the atmosphere with oxygen.
Oh the idea has merit. It is why it keeps coming up. However, who eats the cost? We do. We as end consumers eat it.
Who do you think will eat the cost of rising sea levels and dried up water supplies? It certainly won't be the companies that caused the problems in the first place. It will be us again. But those costs will be astronomically higher than a tiny little carbon tax.
We over and over do exactly the wrong thing to save the world. Which ends up doing the opposite.
I'm not sure who the "we" is that you're referring to, but you sound like you know what you're talking about. How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
Unfortunately, the Australian federal government is a 100% owned subsidiary of the mining companies. Although the prime minister is a moron in his own right, he's only doing what his bosses tell him to do.
Here's one: Plastic plankton.
Nah, dispersants don't dissolve plastic - otherwise your dishwashing detergent would dissolve the plastic bottle it comes in.
A vast amount of this plastic is breaking up into tiny pieces, which then form a new class of plankton plastic plankton - and this plastic plankton is being eating by sea creatures along with the phytoplankton and zooplankton which make up their normal diet. Nobody knows what the effects of this will be.
Water is not the "ultimate" solvent. There are plenty of substances that do not dissolve in water - and plastic's one of them. What's happening is that sunlight and possibly wave action is breaking the plastic into microscopic particles, which are then being ingested by marine animals, just as larger pieces of plastic are. Nobody knows what effect this will have on the organisms themselves - or the organisms that prey on those organisms (which includes humans).