Give me a date when Windows will be stable and usable. Give me a date when Linux will be ready for the desktop. Give me a date when MySQL will have a storage engine that is both fast AND reliable.
Quite easily done. Windows is stable and usable for a lot of people. Linux is ready for the desktop now, for a lot of people, and MySQL has a storage engine that is both fast and reliable for many kinds of applications.
So my answer is NOW.
Now, seriously, though, you are the closest to figuring out what this is really all about. There is a conceit in our scientific establishment that they are entitled to be immune from the normal course of deadlines because they alone must confront the unknown. The fact is, everyone must confront the unknown and everyone must adhere to some sort of a deliverable or a deadline. I could say that I should pay off my truck at the end of the year, but I don't know, because I could lose my job. It's a risk management thing. Yet, we all have bills to pay, jobs to do, and despite the seemingly impossible nature of life, and all the risk that's out there, we humans actually manage it pretty well.
Thus, with that in mind, when a scientist says, "hey, if you fund this I'll have cures for all these diseases", then, its perfectly acceptable to hold them to a date, and its ok to ask the approach they took got you closer or farther to the cure you seek. So, when people get defensive about my asking for a date for success of embryonic stem cells, they know the truth. The supposed cures are hype, meant to sell the public on doing something.
The whole debate is politicized and frankly there's more to it than the mere potential of a cure for any disease. It's not like embryonic stem cells are the -only- technology that could enable the blind to see or the lame to walk.
But the fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells are being sold to the public based on miracles that frankly -cannot- happen in the sense that they are not even on the list of deliverables for this research. I doubt very highly that there is a single embryonic stem cell grant being written that says, "I will cure parkinsons." There isn't. So why are these people selling the public on something that they aren't even trying to do. It's just a big lie.
So, I'd bet the reason we don't have nuclear fusion is because the people in government don't ever actually want to build a working reactor because they will lose their grant money.
See how stupid that sounded?.... any practical results.
Actually, your history is completely wrong and so is your emphasis on his equations as a foundation. This is -one- of the egoisms of science that frankly do not mesh with historical fact.
Everyone says that Maxwell came up with electromagnetism, but the thing is, the electromagnet had been invented decades before Maxwell was -even born-. Indeed, products that relied on electromagnetism were already evident. The telegraph was invented quite long before.
All Maxwell did was put an elegant wrapper around something that everyone had been working on already. Had Maxwell not been born, it is very likely that pieces of his equation would have been deduced empirically as needed to fit the market needs of the time.
Thus, WITHOUT maxwell, we still wind up getting public lighting, electric cars, computers, etc, just that, the needs of improving each of those things come about through empirical research.
You are clueless, and hopeless. The scientific method doesn't work like you believe it does
Yes it does. Any problem can be solved, given a course of research and risk management and probability to factor in the unknowns. We could and should take the whole of science research in the USA and build out giant project plans to keep attacking diseases and technical issues until they are cured. We can have incremental steps, identify answers, have accountability among researchers to the taxpayer, all of it.
First of all, it's really pretty obvious the benefit for stem cells: Nerves don't regenerate. That means that there is a real potential to fix anything caused by damaged nerves (paralysis, etc) with stem cells, by making them into nerve cells.
Then let's have a date then. But it isn't a date. All you have is -potential-. There's helium 3 on the moon too, and so there's -potential- to have loads of unlimited fuel for nuclear fusion.
It's hard enough to get a drug that does what we want when we know what we're doing. With stem cells, the cures are too far away (but not a lifetime!) that there's no reason to invest in it.
That's essentially my point. The cures ARE far away, and in terms of complexity, are probably a lot farther away than nuclear fusion is. Nuclear fusion is a very simple problem made difficulty by the scale of what needs to be done. Understanding a cell completely and being able to custom grow stuff..
I mean, let's say they do learn how to manipulate embryonic cells into doing what they want. There's still the whole spotty set of problems of how do you solve tissue rejection. I mean, last time I checked, if you go and shove tissue from one organism into another, it's bad news. So, before stem cells can even accomplish anything, you have to solve our entire immune system. In the case of paralysis, what are they hoping, that sticking a bunch of stem cells in a body will cause them to connect? What if stem cells in a spine, after you solve the rejection problem, don't connect to the new ones. What if you have to do something to the existing cells to make them want to connect. What if all you get when you connect is an entirely scrambled set of signals. I mean, if I cut an old copper phone trunk cable in half and just solder the wires back together randomly, all the people are going to be talking to the wrong people. Why would it be any different?
The bottom line is, I've put a few problems, each of which is a monster that could take decades to solve in its own right. What do we have in tissue rejection? I mean, we can't even get BLOOD to be compatible, and you're going to suddenly fire up random material from other humans.
Come on people, this whole stem thing is just a bunch of hype. If stem cells were so ready to apply, we'd have no bacteriological illness, no viral infections, because we'd understand our immune system perfectly. But we're losing THAT war... and you are going to hold up the hope of curing every other disease magically on top of all of that.
My god, every time someone comes up with a solution in IT, we have this built in expectation that everyone should fall on board. Cloud computing is just the latest. Are we to now upgrade every system to use the "cloud". Are we to do web applications for everything? This isn't an engineering profession, its a fashion one. We're not like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. We're like the guy on America's Next Fashion Designer.
Do you, now? Precisely how much are you willing to bet? Put your money where your mouth is.
I'll put up $5.
Your shouting is about ideology, not science, and you know full well that reality only cares about the latter.
No, the point is that all of your shouting about stem cell research is about ideology and not science. You just hide behind miracle cures to get money. Well then, if you can deliver these cures, that's great. But let's have a date. Give us a date. If we publicly fund stem cells, we will have these results, on some date. What's the date?
The fact of the matter is, if stem cells and science were going to be so great for the American taxpayer, then why cannot they just sell the products produced by it?
Bottom line is, there's no hope in stem cells. There's no cures in sight for any disease. If there was, then, there would be a private investor making stuff with stem cells, and Bush never blocked that. But you see, there's no hope in stem cell research, which is why, the government is stepping into to pay for it.
You want to know what made this country great? It's scientists and inventors making USEFUL discoveries, and USEFUL products. Pile stem cell researchers onto the other pool of scientists doing nothing economically useful, sucking at the federal tit. Some crackhead on government cheese is as much economically useful as a scientist taking federal money. It's all just welfare for people that don't want to produce.
But I'll ask you this. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me how. Tell the date when stem cell research will cure ANY of the diseases it has been claimed to cure. Tell me when stem cell research will cure alzheimers, or paralysis, or parkinsons, or cancer. What's the date that's going to happen by? Just give me a date that you can guarantee success by.
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes. All of this talk about the immediate need to fund stem cell research is just so much hype.
After all, if stem cells are so great, and the cures so close, then why cannot the private sector have funded this research? If there were real products in stem cells, I would think somebody would have invested in them, as the benefits are so self evident to the potential consumer that they could recover nearly any cost of development. Stem cell research might be interesting basic science, that's all it is. The hype is ridiculous.
The reason that stem cell research needs federal funding is because THERE ARE NO CURES IN SIGHT FOR ANYTHING FROM THEM.
Nixon was too liberal for the current GOP, although they appreciate his theories on executive power.
He was too liberal economically. Yes he was. Price controls, national health care, feed the pets... I mean, poor. Make me sick. But, at least he knew how to handle a bunch of unruly students.
The vast majority of people already have it in their minds that there are either aliens, or angels, or both. So, if they find a planet that might have life on it, its not going to be a shocker to anyone but the scientists who trumpet this discovery. For the rest of us, its no big deal at all.
How about testing your web app with different browsers, before foisting it on the world?
Sure, if you are willing to pay for that! Bottom line is, everything costs money, and sometimes, you just gotta drop a browser to keep the whole thing under budget. I have many clients that are only willing to pay for IE compatibility. I do what I can to support Firefox and Chrome largely because I use them more, but at the end of the day, if push comes to shove, its dopey IE's way or the highway.
It's just a joke... I was just thinking of the one Republican President that would pretty much piss off everyone if something was named after him was the joke. I picked Nixon because if I said Bush it would be too fresh in the minds of my liberal friends and the humor would overridden by the immediacy of it. Wanted to make people laugh at something over the top, not start a flamewar.
Now that I know that there a bunch of "liberals" pushing Colbert... I'm going to set out and build a script for my right buddies to get it named after one of America's greatest Presidents....
In fact, we should even introduce legislation to rename the WHOLE space stations...
The Richard Nixon Space Station.
Man, that WOULD be the most expensive troll in the history of the world.
I think its great. IT's a harmless resolution that takes a subtle dig back at what is perceived an internationalist body that some argue robbed an American of credit for a scientific discovery. Pluto is a planet in Illinois, by a non-binding resolution. Good for them!
Can somebody tell me why programmers of open source browsers decide not to code to standards? Why?
The standards can be a bitch. Not just a bitch, but a major bitch. Standards at their best are forward looking and interesting because they are stated without much thought as to how they would actually be implemented and part of the problem is figuring out how too implement them.
In a perfect world, yes, you could go and code something completely to a standard, but a turn of a phrase could blow a design. Then you have to backtrack, re-implement, and repeat the process. You could go for years without a release and one thing that the world shows is that someone who implements most of the standards and delivers on time is better than the guy who is perfect with them. Indeed, quite often, shipping "enough" of a standard is quite often cause for a midcourse correction in the standard itself.
HTML isn't the only culprit here, but it stands out to end users because it is as prevalent as it is comparatively complex. C++ itself relies very heavily on standards and even with numerous holes to allow for vendor implementations, it took years to get good implementations of C++.
Why then should we expect Microsoft to code to standards?
The basic simplistic explanation is that Microsoft recruits what it feels are the best programmers from the best universities and has in the past been willing to invent some rather complicated products and forward looking designs. One asks Microsoft to comply with standards, because, if anyone could be able to, they would, and that, in some circles, is sort of thing a responsible leader of the computing community should do. They are members of these standards bodies, after all, and as such, -agreed- to them.
But, Microsoft is just as prey to the backtrack problem as anyone else, and having all those brains can sometimes mean that when they do have to backtrack, they have to do it spectacularly. That is, the degree to which you have to backtrack in a design tends to raise the costs of modifying your product significantly, and its likely that even they cannot resolve some issues in a timely fashion.
Of course, in the case of IE, they damn well could, but have chosen not to. For them IE is a problem. If they spend money on IE, they might well lose it all because the EU and other anti-trust bodies might well make them give it away or discontinue it or, something. And, until recently, IE has been "good enough for government work". But, with Firefox really coming on, and Google Chrome showing so much promise, now IE8 looks like Microsoft is to re-engage.
Just remember, under Islamic law, taxes to aid the poor are VOLUNTARY. There are no "entitlements" in Shariah.
Let's see, 14% tax rates in the UAE, versus 40% in the USA... yeah, I know that Islam's got some tough pills to swallow, but contemplate what you would do with 2/3 less in taxes. Unlike in America, where liberals bitch until you will pay the poor -everything- you make, under the law set down by the Prophet, paying the poor is VOLUNTARY and at most 1/40th of your income. El Propheto was many things, but he was, after all, a businessman first.
If not, you need to educate yourself. This is simple, just Google the words "Jizya" and "Dhimmi"....we need to fight these people.
Before my fellow Republicans get too wrapped up in the Holy War, check this out... the total tax bill on corporate profits in the UAE, or United Arab Emirates, is 14%. This is compared to 40% for the USA.
Notice too, that the USA only has a 2% lower tax rate than Iran, and that's before Obama / Pelosi tax increases kick in.
So... I mean, I guess you have to decide... are you a Republican, or not? If you are a genuine anti-tax Republican, Shariah is a lot more appealing than liberalism, for sure.
I mean, for a tax cut of 1/3 of what I'm paying now, I don't necessarily want to rule out growing a beard and facing Mecca. Beats the shit out of worshipping every damned cricket and insect that the liberals would have us do.
But handing people a complete package of religion, culture, and government that doesn't demand any advancement and doesn't allow dissent against anything dictated by that package will certainly impede progress
Yes, it certainly does. But you don't need a God to achieve that level of stupidity.
Hello? It was a compliment... Seriously... Can't even compliment muslims anymore without some christian screaming "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Please take your irrational key-stabbing somewhere else.
How could I be oppressed by Islam? In fact, how could any man EVER be oppressed by Islam?
Islam is a much better deal for men than Christianity is, particularly American christianity. Hell, in Islam, men get to have all the money, don't have to share the road with women, get all the power, dominate the home completely, and have women like they are interchangable parts.
Christ, why are we fighting these people!
Point is: Me thinks you, as a woman, would have an interest in seeing Americans not wanting to adopt muslim culture so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a date when Windows will be stable and usable. Give me a date when Linux will be ready for the desktop. Give me a date when MySQL will have a storage engine that is both fast AND reliable.
Quite easily done. Windows is stable and usable for a lot of people. Linux is ready for the desktop now, for a lot of people, and MySQL has a storage engine that is both fast and reliable for many kinds of applications.
So my answer is NOW.
Now, seriously, though, you are the closest to figuring out what this is really all about. There is a conceit in our scientific establishment that they are entitled to be immune from the normal course of deadlines because they alone must confront the unknown. The fact is, everyone must confront the unknown and everyone must adhere to some sort of a deliverable or a deadline. I could say that I should pay off my truck at the end of the year, but I don't know, because I could lose my job. It's a risk management thing. Yet, we all have bills to pay, jobs to do, and despite the seemingly impossible nature of life, and all the risk that's out there, we humans actually manage it pretty well.
Thus, with that in mind, when a scientist says, "hey, if you fund this I'll have cures for all these diseases", then, its perfectly acceptable to hold them to a date, and its ok to ask the approach they took got you closer or farther to the cure you seek. So, when people get defensive about my asking for a date for success of embryonic stem cells, they know the truth. The supposed cures are hype, meant to sell the public on doing something.
The whole debate is politicized and frankly there's more to it than the mere potential of a cure for any disease. It's not like embryonic stem cells are the -only- technology that could enable the blind to see or the lame to walk.
But the fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells are being sold to the public based on miracles that frankly -cannot- happen in the sense that they are not even on the list of deliverables for this research. I doubt very highly that there is a single embryonic stem cell grant being written that says, "I will cure parkinsons." There isn't. So why are these people selling the public on something that they aren't even trying to do. It's just a big lie.
Troll / insightful...I honestly have no idea what category to put you in. Congratulations
I am a writer, is what I am. Thank you.
Probably because the people in the private sector
So, I'd bet the reason we don't have nuclear fusion is because the people in government don't ever actually want to build a working reactor because they will lose their grant money.
See how easy conspiracies go?
Skip the solar. You can't anticipate weather in the field like they get. Or even, where in the field. Go for the better battery.
http://www.sfc.com/en/man-portable-technology-jenny.html
See how stupid that sounded? .... any practical results.
Actually, your history is completely wrong and so is your emphasis on his equations as a foundation. This is -one- of the egoisms of science that frankly do not mesh with historical fact.
Everyone says that Maxwell came up with electromagnetism, but the thing is, the electromagnet had been invented decades before Maxwell was -even born-. Indeed, products that relied on electromagnetism were already evident. The telegraph was invented quite long before.
All Maxwell did was put an elegant wrapper around something that everyone had been working on already. Had Maxwell not been born, it is very likely that pieces of his equation would have been deduced empirically as needed to fit the market needs of the time.
Thus, WITHOUT maxwell, we still wind up getting public lighting, electric cars, computers, etc, just that, the needs of improving each of those things come about through empirical research.
By the way, the study that you gave was for a company that did it WITHOUT public funding.
All stem cell research is at, best, a corporate subsidy.
You are clueless, and hopeless. The scientific method doesn't work like you believe it does
Yes it does. Any problem can be solved, given a course of research and risk management and probability to factor in the unknowns. We could and should take the whole of science research in the USA and build out giant project plans to keep attacking diseases and technical issues until they are cured. We can have incremental steps, identify answers, have accountability among researchers to the taxpayer, all of it.
First of all, it's really pretty obvious the benefit for stem cells: Nerves don't regenerate. That means that there is a real potential to fix anything caused by damaged nerves (paralysis, etc) with stem cells, by making them into nerve cells.
Then let's have a date then. But it isn't a date. All you have is -potential-. There's helium 3 on the moon too, and so there's -potential- to have loads of unlimited fuel for nuclear fusion.
It's hard enough to get a drug that does what we want when we know what we're doing. With stem cells, the cures are too far away (but not a lifetime!) that there's no reason to invest in it.
That's essentially my point. The cures ARE far away, and in terms of complexity, are probably a lot farther away than nuclear fusion is. Nuclear fusion is a very simple problem made difficulty by the scale of what needs to be done. Understanding a cell completely and being able to custom grow stuff..
I mean, let's say they do learn how to manipulate embryonic cells into doing what they want. There's still the whole spotty set of problems of how do you solve tissue rejection. I mean, last time I checked, if you go and shove tissue from one organism into another, it's bad news. So, before stem cells can even accomplish anything, you have to solve our entire immune system. In the case of paralysis, what are they hoping, that sticking a bunch of stem cells in a body will cause them to connect? What if stem cells in a spine, after you solve the rejection problem, don't connect to the new ones. What if you have to do something to the existing cells to make them want to connect. What if all you get when you connect is an entirely scrambled set of signals. I mean, if I cut an old copper phone trunk cable in half and just solder the wires back together randomly, all the people are going to be talking to the wrong people. Why would it be any different?
The bottom line is, I've put a few problems, each of which is a monster that could take decades to solve in its own right. What do we have in tissue rejection? I mean, we can't even get BLOOD to be compatible, and you're going to suddenly fire up random material from other humans.
Come on people, this whole stem thing is just a bunch of hype. If stem cells were so ready to apply, we'd have no bacteriological illness, no viral infections, because we'd understand our immune system perfectly. But we're losing THAT war... and you are going to hold up the hope of curing every other disease magically on top of all of that.
It could take a -century- to get there.
My god, every time someone comes up with a solution in IT, we have this built in expectation that everyone should fall on board. Cloud computing is just the latest. Are we to now upgrade every system to use the "cloud". Are we to do web applications for everything? This isn't an engineering profession, its a fashion one. We're not like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. We're like the guy on America's Next Fashion Designer.
Do you, now? Precisely how much are you willing to bet? Put your money where your mouth is.
I'll put up $5.
Your shouting is about ideology, not science, and you know full well that reality only cares about the latter.
No, the point is that all of your shouting about stem cell research is about ideology and not science. You just hide behind miracle cures to get money. Well then, if you can deliver these cures, that's great. But let's have a date. Give us a date. If we publicly fund stem cells, we will have these results, on some date. What's the date?
light in mainstream medicine in very few years.
Then, let's have a date. When cured? Give me a deadline that you think it will happen.
Dude, if you have no idea what you are talking about, it's better to moderate your own opinions.
If you know what you are talking about so much, then let's have a date. It's such a simple thing, three numbers, two slashes. Out with it.
The fact of the matter is, if stem cells and science were going to be so great for the American taxpayer, then why cannot they just sell the products produced by it?
Bottom line is, there's no hope in stem cells. There's no cures in sight for any disease. If there was, then, there would be a private investor making stuff with stem cells, and Bush never blocked that. But you see, there's no hope in stem cell research, which is why, the government is stepping into to pay for it.
You want to know what made this country great? It's scientists and inventors making USEFUL discoveries, and USEFUL products. Pile stem cell researchers onto the other pool of scientists doing nothing economically useful, sucking at the federal tit. Some crackhead on government cheese is as much economically useful as a scientist taking federal money. It's all just welfare for people that don't want to produce.
But I'll ask you this. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me how. Tell the date when stem cell research will cure ANY of the diseases it has been claimed to cure. Tell me when stem cell research will cure alzheimers, or paralysis, or parkinsons, or cancer. What's the date that's going to happen by? Just give me a date that you can guarantee success by.
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes. All of this talk about the immediate need to fund stem cell research is just so much hype.
After all, if stem cells are so great, and the cures so close, then why cannot the private sector have funded this research? If there were real products in stem cells, I would think somebody would have invested in them, as the benefits are so self evident to the potential consumer that they could recover nearly any cost of development. Stem cell research might be interesting basic science, that's all it is. The hype is ridiculous.
The reason that stem cell research needs federal funding is because THERE ARE NO CURES IN SIGHT FOR ANYTHING FROM THEM.
Nixon was too liberal for the current GOP, although they appreciate his theories on executive power.
He was too liberal economically. Yes he was. Price controls, national health care, feed the pets... I mean, poor. Make me sick. But, at least he knew how to handle a bunch of unruly students.
The vast majority of people already have it in their minds that there are either aliens, or angels, or both. So, if they find a planet that might have life on it, its not going to be a shocker to anyone but the scientists who trumpet this discovery. For the rest of us, its no big deal at all.
How about testing your web app with different browsers, before foisting it on the world?
Sure, if you are willing to pay for that! Bottom line is, everything costs money, and sometimes, you just gotta drop a browser to keep the whole thing under budget. I have many clients that are only willing to pay for IE compatibility. I do what I can to support Firefox and Chrome largely because I use them more, but at the end of the day, if push comes to shove, its dopey IE's way or the highway.
Troll or whoosh? I'm confused on this one.
It's just a joke... I was just thinking of the one Republican President that would pretty much piss off everyone if something was named after him was the joke. I picked Nixon because if I said Bush it would be too fresh in the minds of my liberal friends and the humor would overridden by the immediacy of it. Wanted to make people laugh at something over the top, not start a flamewar.
Now that I know that there a bunch of "liberals" pushing Colbert... I'm going to set out and build a script for my right buddies to get it named after one of America's greatest Presidents....
In fact, we should even introduce legislation to rename the WHOLE space stations...
The Richard Nixon Space Station.
Man, that WOULD be the most expensive troll in the history of the world.
I think its great. IT's a harmless resolution that takes a subtle dig back at what is perceived an internationalist body that some argue robbed an American of credit for a scientific discovery. Pluto is a planet in Illinois, by a non-binding resolution. Good for them!
Can somebody tell me why programmers of open source browsers decide not to code to standards? Why?
The standards can be a bitch. Not just a bitch, but a major bitch. Standards at their best are forward looking and interesting because they are stated without much thought as to how they would actually be implemented and part of the problem is figuring out how too implement them.
In a perfect world, yes, you could go and code something completely to a standard, but a turn of a phrase could blow a design. Then you have to backtrack, re-implement, and repeat the process. You could go for years without a release and one thing that the world shows is that someone who implements most of the standards and delivers on time is better than the guy who is perfect with them. Indeed, quite often, shipping "enough" of a standard is quite often cause for a midcourse correction in the standard itself.
HTML isn't the only culprit here, but it stands out to end users because it is as prevalent as it is comparatively complex. C++ itself relies very heavily on standards and even with numerous holes to allow for vendor implementations, it took years to get good implementations of C++.
Why then should we expect Microsoft to code to standards?
The basic simplistic explanation is that Microsoft recruits what it feels are the best programmers from the best universities and has in the past been willing to invent some rather complicated products and forward looking designs. One asks Microsoft to comply with standards, because, if anyone could be able to, they would, and that, in some circles, is sort of thing a responsible leader of the computing community should do. They are members of these standards bodies, after all, and as such, -agreed- to them.
But, Microsoft is just as prey to the backtrack problem as anyone else, and having all those brains can sometimes mean that when they do have to backtrack, they have to do it spectacularly. That is, the degree to which you have to backtrack in a design tends to raise the costs of modifying your product significantly, and its likely that even they cannot resolve some issues in a timely fashion.
Of course, in the case of IE, they damn well could, but have chosen not to. For them IE is a problem. If they spend money on IE, they might well lose it all because the EU and other anti-trust bodies might well make them give it away or discontinue it or, something. And, until recently, IE has been "good enough for government work". But, with Firefox really coming on, and Google Chrome showing so much promise, now IE8 looks like Microsoft is to re-engage.
Just remember, under Islamic law, taxes to aid the poor are VOLUNTARY. There are no "entitlements" in Shariah.
Let's see, 14% tax rates in the UAE, versus 40% in the USA... yeah, I know that Islam's got some tough pills to swallow, but contemplate what you would do with 2/3 less in taxes. Unlike in America, where liberals bitch until you will pay the poor -everything- you make, under the law set down by the Prophet, paying the poor is VOLUNTARY and at most 1/40th of your income. El Propheto was many things, but he was, after all, a businessman first.
If not, you need to educate yourself. This is simple, just Google the words "Jizya" and "Dhimmi"....we need to fight these people.
Before my fellow Republicans get too wrapped up in the Holy War, check this out... the total tax bill on corporate profits in the UAE, or United Arab Emirates, is 14%. This is compared to 40% for the USA.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/PayingTaxes/?direction=Asc&sort=7
Notice too, that the USA only has a 2% lower tax rate than Iran, and that's before Obama / Pelosi tax increases kick in.
So... I mean, I guess you have to decide... are you a Republican, or not? If you are a genuine anti-tax Republican, Shariah is a lot more appealing than liberalism, for sure.
I mean, for a tax cut of 1/3 of what I'm paying now, I don't necessarily want to rule out growing a beard and facing Mecca. Beats the shit out of worshipping every damned cricket and insect that the liberals would have us do.
Very true. How far would computing have gotten with 1's but no 0's?
Seems to work ok in Washington DC these days!
But handing people a complete package of religion, culture, and government that doesn't demand any advancement and doesn't allow dissent against anything dictated by that package will certainly impede progress
Yes, it certainly does. But you don't need a God to achieve that level of stupidity.
Hello? It was a compliment... Seriously... Can't even compliment muslims anymore without some christian screaming "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Please take your irrational key-stabbing somewhere else.
How could I be oppressed by Islam? In fact, how could any man EVER be oppressed by Islam?
Islam is a much better deal for men than Christianity is, particularly American christianity. Hell, in Islam, men get to have all the money, don't have to share the road with women, get all the power, dominate the home completely, and have women like they are interchangable parts.
Christ, why are we fighting these people!
Point is: Me thinks you, as a woman, would have an interest in seeing Americans not wanting to adopt muslim culture so much.