Agree. The only correlation the study found is that the more people think about religious or spiritual (what-ever that means) aspects of their lives have a thicker cortex. Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the issue is more that thinking and reading scripture that leads to a thicker cortex, as such you could read sci-fiction books (actually scripture are fantasy books) and spend time thinking about them that leads to the same thicker cortex. As such you could also draw the conclusion that reading and thinking leads to less depression. Which would not contradict the previous study that religion leads to more depression.
But of course people like Harold G. Koenig and Lisa Miller jumping to conclusions to push their agenda that religion and spirituality leads to a more healthier life. And then sites like creation.com or answersingenesis.org will use their article to say "Science proves spirituality and religion are more healthier for people then materialism".
Lisa Miller have a spiritual agenda. Here is her TEDx talk about love and stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Also this study is in contradiction with this study: Being Religious or Spiritual Is Linked With Getting More Depressed http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
From Lisa Miller: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.co... "We previously reported a 90% decreased risk in major depression, assessed prospectively, in adult offspring of depressed probands who reported that religion or spirituality was highly important to them."
From Being Religious or Spiritual Is Linked With Getting More Depressed "A key finding of the study, conducted in several different counties, is that a spiritual life view predisposed to major depression, especially significantly in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group."
Lisa Miller have first to explain this contradiction. Maybe some people get cortical thickness from religion, and some don't. I don't have access to Lisa's article.
Radical Math is just a private web site, and your link is showing a photo of some exercise, but there is no evidence that is from the government or from Common Core. The articles claims that that photo is related to Common Core, but no evidence is given. Would be nice to have a photo that shows the whole paper, with copyright and year.
That is true. For example Dolphins are quite intelligent and have a complicated language. But the simple fact that they life under water already limit their ability to become truly intelligent. For starters, like you said, they have fins and no fingers. To evolve fingers requite them to be put at a severe disadvantage for swimming and hunting fish. Also under water there is no chance ever to invent fire. So although dolphins maybe have the brains to be intelligent, they will probable never have an advance civilization.
That is assuming that intelligent life did evolve. We as human species were extremely lucky. There were at least 5 mass extinction in the pass, killing about 98% of all species every time. About 99% of all species existed went extinct on earth. Who knows how life would have evolve if the dinosaurs did not went extinct, giving way for small rodent-like mammals that evolved in primates and ultimately in us. Also if the land mass would be slightly different we couldn't have emigrated out of Africa, probably would went extinct in Africa. Even if we successful emigrate out of Africa the first time, maybe we wouldn't have the second time, thus the Neanderthals would probably still dominate Europe and Asia.
Evolution does not have a goal. Homo sapien is on the same evolutionary level then every other living species. We just took a different path on adapting for survival then the other species. Also this universe is not fine tuned for life, it is extremely hostile to life. I mean, alone the slim band of temperature from -20 to +40 degrees Celsius for life shows that.
There are more alternatives. For example Redmine http://www.redmine.org/ Redmine offers a full project management suite: bug track, wiki, forum, files and document, version control, GANT chart, and so on.
Since when it is an issue obeying the law on the basis of "religious beliefs"? If there were a religious organization that believes in human sacrifice do they get an exemption of obeying the law of homicide?
There are many laws that can be dismissed on the basis of "religious beliefs": sacrifice, torture, divorce, adoption, medical care, anti-racist laws, equality laws, holidays, and the list goes on. If the Little Sisters of the Poor have issues with the law of the land they are free to go to other countries that are more compatible with their."religious beliefs".
What hypocrites the Little Sisters of the Poor are. Birth control health coverage would firstly help those poor woman that the non-profit group says they care about. It would help to get those woman an education and some chances of escaping their status.
I'm an atheist and I'm seeing this universe as "a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child". I truly don't understand why you need god for that. As far as you described god is for you some magic fairies at quantum level or whatever. I find it funny how an adult can convince himself of fairy tale myths. In my opinion this fairies or god just diminish the wonders of the universe.
> Just that the universe is a vast unknoweable wonder beyond the grasp of anything so small as a human mind as anything but symbols and approximations.
Yes exactly that. But isn't it awesome that we small humans can understand the universe, even a small fraction of it? And make predictions that come true? We have evolved on the African savannah and evolved big brains through natural selection pressure. Today we are limitless in our possibilities. We can fly to the Mars and Jupiter and Neptune and beyond. Life has no purpose other then life but so what? That only means that we can forge our own purpose in this universe.
I see one outcomes of this: this will delayed or cancelled. I was about to write a second outcome, but now I though for 5 more seconds and I scratched that.
What I would find realistic is: send robots to Mars that can a) gather more data on cosmic radiation and ionized radiation that would kill any human and how to shield that kind of radiation effectively; and b) to actually build a base for humans on Mars. When the base is build then you can send some people to Mars.
What are those astronauts are going to do on Mars? Stand around and make pictures until water and oxygen is gone? A human crew needs a lot of baggage: oxygen, food, water, medicine, protection, heat, a gym, toilets, etc. That means you can't send machines or material to Mars. But if you send robots then all baggage is useful to create a base. AI and robot technology is very far so you can easily design robots that can build a whole base on Mars.
Then you can register your work and extend for another 7 years. That would be my proposal and would be just like the original copyright term of the USA, which was 14 years, plus 14 years per extension.
Copyright law was never about to offer a business model to authors. Copyright law was always about to ensure that works are produced and published, to enrich society. If it turns out that copyright laws actually reduce the amount of works produced and published, then copyright law should be abolished. Normally, copyright law should be at balance to offer authors enough protection that they can make a dime of their works, but also short so that society (the public domain) can be enriched.
That is why the original copyright term in the USA was just 14 years with the option to extend for another 14 years, and also only for registered works. With the Internet the copyright term should been shortened because the Internet offers a faster way for authors to make a dime of their work. You obviously bought into the Hollywood propaganda that copyright is a natural right of authors to have a business model. No it's not. It's an monopoly right that is granted to benefit at the end the public domain.
I think the original USPTO study was on purpose mixing all IP protection into one basked. Trademarks, patents and copyrights are vastly different laws. Anyone who just mix such different laws into one basked called "Intellectual Property" is just conflating them on purpose for their own agenda, in case of the USPTO to show how much important IP laws are.
As the article points out:
In 2010, 87.2% of businesses reported that trademarks were “not important” to them.
90.1% of businesses reported that copyrights were “not important” to them.
96.2% of businesses reported that patents were “not important” to them.
this makes sense that trademarks are more important as you pointed out with the case of Coca-Cola. The article is on the point that it doesn't make sense to compare I.P. and pointed out the ridiculousness by showing that groceries stores are the most one to have a benefit from I.P. laws.
> dna genealogy can trace human origins to a central "cradle of life"?
DNA shows that all living things are related. We can even exchange DNA and still retain the same function. This is very strong evidence that life arose on earth once and evolved to all currently and past living species. The fossil record shows a continuously progression from simple to complex species, we can trace our ancestors back to 500 million years ego in Pikaia gracilens*. So the answer is yes.
> where does it say global? if anything it was regional but large enough to cover a huge area...
All the creationist and literal bible believers.
> the earth and sun were not created in a big bang that arose out of nothing?
No. The big bang theory is that space and time was compressed in plank space and plank time. So space (matter and energy) and time was already there, just compressed. Then came the "bang" with was the inflation of space and time. Theory of relativity shows that space and time are not separated and quantum theory shows that at very small space gravity and all the other forces should be one. Supersymmetry and quantum gravitation. Still work in progress.
> actually it says god made two people from the minerals found on earth (dirt) which molecularly is 100% true, and the bible doesnt say all mankind evolved from those two, maybe you should read it again without the atheistic blinders on. .
Dirt, mud, ashes, earth, dust, whatever. We all star dust. I do remember that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
> Faith is simply a conclusion one reaches about things which are beyond empirical proof. Because you can't see them and put them into a test tube and observe them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I wish it would be as simple as that. But what you call people who have faith in the biblical flood, or in Adam&Eve and genesis? That are things that are certainly not beyond empirical proof. In fact, cosmology and evolution have shown that those myths are not factual. There was never a global flood that killed all animals and humans and we are not descendants of just two animals and Noah's family. Also the earth and sun was not poofed out of nothing by god but was formed through natural laws (gravity and atomic fusion). Also humankind was not poofed out of nothing by god and we are not descendants of just two individuals.
I still don't agree that you are using the correct word. Faith is the believe in something or someone without evidence or sometimes contrary to evidence. As such poetry, love, romance and other non empirical (although those examples are all empirical) constructs, and philosophy and logic are not faith based.
From your quote: poetry, love, romance does not require faith because it is empirical. But the conclusion of the "picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond" does require faith because there is no evidence of a picture of the supernal beauty or glory beyond.
That's BS. I can agree that there is a revulsion against anything different, i.e. something that goes against the moral norm. In ancient Rome and ancient Greece homosexuality was openly and accepted until the Christian fundamentalist took over. You see the "revulsion to homosexuality" because Christianity took whole Europe over for over 2000 years with their dogma that homosexuality is "sin". But before that nobody cared about homosexuality and was even openly practices.
> For example, one of the most successful arguments has been homosexual rights are similar rights for black people, and civil rights for black people - indeed even the elimination of slavery - had deep religious roots and motivation.
Eh, no. Religion was always used to enforce and justify slavery and to suppress woman and black rights.
Historical records show that Islam and Christianity played an important role in enslavement in Africa. The Arab-controlled Trans-Saharan slave trade helped to institutionalise slave trading on the continent. And during the age of expedition, European Christians witnessed caravans loaded with Africans en-route to the Middle East.
For many of these early European explorers, the Bible was not only regarded as infallible, it was also their primary reference tool and those looking for answers to explain differences in ethnicity, culture, and slavery, found them in Genesis 9: 24-27, which appeared to suggest that it was all a result of sin.
In the Genesis passage, Africans were said to be the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, who was cursed by his father after looking at his naked form. Moreover, in Genesis 10, the Table of Nations describes the origins of the different races and reveals that one of the descendants of Ham is Cush - Cush and the Cushites were people associated with the Nile region of North Africa.
In time, the connection Europeans made between sin, slavery, skin colour and beliefs would condemn Africans. In the Bible, physical or spiritual slavery is often a consequence of sinful actions, while darkness is associated with evil. Moreover, the Africans were subsequently considered heathens bereft of Christianity
I think you are using the word "faith" wrong. Faith does not have anything do to with logic or philosophic arguments. Faith is the believe without any evidence, and in philosophy you are trying to prove your believes with arguments. Also logic is not faith. Logic is an invented system that is just played by their rules to their natural conclusion. You don't have to have faith in logic or believe in logic, you just have to accept the rules.
I personally find it very difficult to find anything worthwhile in ontological philosophy. Nature does not follow our primate instincts and even if you can show that something "must" exist (i.e. it is logical that is must exist) it does not follow that it really does exist. Maybe there is some law of nature that prevents that object to physically exist. So without empirical evidence an ontological argument is useless.
The last point is a good one. Sun actively promoted Java and competing JVMs. IBM and Apache have implemented their JVMs using Sun's API. The only restriction of Sun was the testing/compatibility framework Technology Compatibility Kit for the brand "Java". As far as I recall Sun only allowed JVMs to use the name "Java" only if they pass the TCK and to use the TCK you needed a license from Sun. That is why Google's and Apache's JVMs are not called Java.
An API is a collection of facts, those can't be changed, they are like axioms in mathematics or words in a language. In math it's 1+1=2 and in API it would read result = new One().add(new One())// result is Two. Like you can't change the meaning of "+" you can't change the meaning of "add". The copyright should not hold to the axioms but to the implementation, like copyright does not cover words but sentences.
So if you want to compare an API to a book, then the API are the words of the language the book uses. API is then the words the application is using. You can't copyright words.
In Germany we have no free bags for at least 5 or 10 years (feels like forever) and there is no difficulties in bringing your own bags. Mostly it's a concious decision to go and buy groceries. Then you can just bring 2 bags from your home. And since when you have to wash every time a fabric bag? Everything you buy is packaged. If you not put like raw fruits in your bag the bag will not get dirty.
I find it really funny if people say: I'm both theistic and scientific. How is that that for things that really matters and that you have to trust with (literally) your life you put your trust in science but if it's the more important question of salvation, your soul and afterlife you leave the trusted method of science and put your trust in blind faith?
Things that matters and what you trust with your life: * clean water; * food; * air planes; * car; * hearth surgery; * medicine like paracetamol; * vaccination; * trains; * ships; * refrigerator;
Would you ride an air plane that was not tested by science but was proclaimed to be save by the pope or bishop? Would you ride your car if you need your faith to be save? Would you trust to have your hearth surgery by your local priest instead of your atheistic doctor?
But for matters that for you are more important then your life you trust some ancient text and some proclamations of priests with no evidence and no method of testing. I suppose you are Christian? How do you know that the canonical gospels are correct and that the priests 2000 years ego not make a mistake by adding or removing the wrong gospel? For example, we have now the gospel of Judas. How do you know that the gospel of Judas is not canonical? Will you trust with your soul some bronze age priests?
The biggest problem with the bible is that it's not original. Jesus himself did not wrote anything, no author is known of any of the gospels, dates are guesses, and the bible was composed by committee with gospels removed and declared heretical.
One example for the latter is the gospel of Judas. Declared as betrayer of Jesus in the canonical gospels, but in the found gospel of Judas he is loyal and played the most important role in Jesus crucifixion and the resulting resurrection.
Those who are furnished with the immortal soul, like Judas, can come to know the God within and enter the imperishable realm when they die. Those who belong to the same generation of the other eleven disciples cannot enter the realm of God and will die both spiritually and physically at the end of their lives. As practices that are intertwined with the physical world, animal sacrifice and a communion ceremony centered around cannibalism (the symbolic consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood) are condemned as abhorrent.
Of crucial importance is the author's understanding of Jesus' death. The other Gospels argue that Jesus had to die in order to atone for the sins of humanity. The author of Judas claims this sort of substitutionary justice pleases the lower gods and angels. The true God is gracious and thus does not demand any sacrifice. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus's death is simply a final way for him to leave the realm of the flesh and return to the luminous cloud.
So the majority of Christians are doing symbolic cannibalism and everyone except Judas and Jesus are going to die no matter what. No wonder the early Christians banned the gospel of Judas.
Because you have no clue how anatomy works? We have thousands of fossils and skeletons of dinosaurs so we do know how the skeletons of those animals looks like. And it's not like every species is different, all Tetrapods following the same basic skeleton plan. Palaeontologist have enough knowledge and expertise to identify the species of a single bone correctly and if you can find some teeth you already know if it's a carnivore or herbivore.
If the W3C would make a byte code standard to access the DOM then nobody would use JavaScript and rather port any other language to use the byte code. Much like for the JavaVM there are numerous languages available (about 25 languages), for example C, Python, Ruby, and new languages like Scala, Groovy, (and about 30 other languages). The JavaScript code is compiled and re-arranged for faster execution to a byte code language that is run under a Virtual Machine anyway.
The question of whether I know a better client side web language is moot because there ain't no choice. Other then of course plug-ins or add-ons to the browser. It's like asking is there any better gaming operation system then Windows... (at least I can install Linux and run some Linux games that are better then Windows games).
Slashdot Mirror
Agree. The only correlation the study found is that the more people think about religious or spiritual (what-ever that means) aspects of their lives have a thicker cortex. Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the issue is more that thinking and reading scripture that leads to a thicker cortex, as such you could read sci-fiction books (actually scripture are fantasy books) and spend time thinking about them that leads to the same thicker cortex. As such you could also draw the conclusion that reading and thinking leads to less depression. Which would not contradict the previous study that religion leads to more depression.
But of course people like Harold G. Koenig and Lisa Miller jumping to conclusions to push their agenda that religion and spirituality leads to a more healthier life. And then sites like creation.com or answersingenesis.org will use their article to say "Science proves spirituality and religion are more healthier for people then materialism".
I guess putting "God hates fags" signs and hate is a good stress release, for which the study from Lisa Miller agrees which.
Lisa Miller have a spiritual agenda.
Here is her TEDx talk about love and stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Also this study is in contradiction with this study:
Being Religious or Spiritual Is Linked With Getting More Depressed
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
From Lisa Miller:
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.co...
"We previously reported a 90% decreased risk in major depression, assessed prospectively, in adult offspring of depressed probands who reported that religion or spirituality was highly important to them."
From Being Religious or Spiritual Is Linked With Getting More Depressed
"A key finding of the study, conducted in several different counties, is that a spiritual life view predisposed to major depression, especially significantly in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group."
Lisa Miller have first to explain this contradiction. Maybe some people get cortical thickness from religion, and some don't. I don't have access to Lisa's article.
Radical Math is just a private web site, and your link is showing a photo of some exercise, but there is no evidence that is from the government or from Common Core. The articles claims that that photo is related to Common Core, but no evidence is given. Would be nice to have a photo that shows the whole paper, with copyright and year.
That is true. For example Dolphins are quite intelligent and have a complicated language. But the simple fact that they life under water already limit their ability to become truly intelligent. For starters, like you said, they have fins and no fingers. To evolve fingers requite them to be put at a severe disadvantage for swimming and hunting fish. Also under water there is no chance ever to invent fire. So although dolphins maybe have the brains to be intelligent, they will probable never have an advance civilization.
That is assuming that intelligent life did evolve. We as human species were extremely lucky. There were at least 5 mass extinction in the pass, killing about 98% of all species every time. About 99% of all species existed went extinct on earth. Who knows how life would have evolve if the dinosaurs did not went extinct, giving way for small rodent-like mammals that evolved in primates and ultimately in us. Also if the land mass would be slightly different we couldn't have emigrated out of Africa, probably would went extinct in Africa. Even if we successful emigrate out of Africa the first time, maybe we wouldn't have the second time, thus the Neanderthals would probably still dominate Europe and Asia.
Evolution does not have a goal. Homo sapien is on the same evolutionary level then every other living species. We just took a different path on adapting for survival then the other species. Also this universe is not fine tuned for life, it is extremely hostile to life. I mean, alone the slim band of temperature from -20 to +40 degrees Celsius for life shows that.
There are more alternatives. For example Redmine http://www.redmine.org/
Redmine offers a full project management suite: bug track, wiki, forum, files and document, version control, GANT chart, and so on.
Since when it is an issue obeying the law on the basis of "religious beliefs"? If there were a religious organization that believes in human sacrifice do they get an exemption of obeying the law of homicide?
There are many laws that can be dismissed on the basis of "religious beliefs": sacrifice, torture, divorce, adoption, medical care, anti-racist laws, equality laws, holidays, and the list goes on. If the Little Sisters of the Poor have issues with the law of the land they are free to go to other countries that are more compatible with their."religious beliefs".
What hypocrites the Little Sisters of the Poor are. Birth control health coverage would firstly help those poor woman that the non-profit group says they care about. It would help to get those woman an education and some chances of escaping their status.
I'm an atheist and I'm seeing this universe as "a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child". I truly don't understand why you need god for that. As far as you described god is for you some magic fairies at quantum level or whatever. I find it funny how an adult can convince himself of fairy tale myths. In my opinion this fairies or god just diminish the wonders of the universe.
> Just that the universe is a vast unknoweable wonder beyond the grasp of anything so small as a human mind as anything but symbols and approximations.
Yes exactly that. But isn't it awesome that we small humans can understand the universe, even a small fraction of it? And make predictions that come true? We have evolved on the African savannah and evolved big brains through natural selection pressure. Today we are limitless in our possibilities. We can fly to the Mars and Jupiter and Neptune and beyond. Life has no purpose other then life but so what? That only means that we can forge our own purpose in this universe.
I see one outcomes of this: this will delayed or cancelled. I was about to write a second outcome, but now I though for 5 more seconds and I scratched that.
What I would find realistic is: send robots to Mars that can a) gather more data on cosmic radiation and ionized radiation that would kill any human and how to shield that kind of radiation effectively; and b) to actually build a base for humans on Mars. When the base is build then you can send some people to Mars.
What are those astronauts are going to do on Mars? Stand around and make pictures until water and oxygen is gone? A human crew needs a lot of baggage: oxygen, food, water, medicine, protection, heat, a gym, toilets, etc. That means you can't send machines or material to Mars. But if you send robots then all baggage is useful to create a base. AI and robot technology is very far so you can easily design robots that can build a whole base on Mars.
Then you can register your work and extend for another 7 years. That would be my proposal and would be just like the original copyright term of the USA, which was 14 years, plus 14 years per extension.
Copyright law was never about to offer a business model to authors. Copyright law was always about to ensure that works are produced and published, to enrich society. If it turns out that copyright laws actually reduce the amount of works produced and published, then copyright law should be abolished. Normally, copyright law should be at balance to offer authors enough protection that they can make a dime of their works, but also short so that society (the public domain) can be enriched.
That is why the original copyright term in the USA was just 14 years with the option to extend for another 14 years, and also only for registered works. With the Internet the copyright term should been shortened because the Internet offers a faster way for authors to make a dime of their work. You obviously bought into the Hollywood propaganda that copyright is a natural right of authors to have a business model. No it's not. It's an monopoly right that is granted to benefit at the end the public domain.
I think the original USPTO study was on purpose mixing all IP protection into one basked. Trademarks, patents and copyrights are vastly different laws. Anyone who just mix such different laws into one basked called "Intellectual Property" is just conflating them on purpose for their own agenda, in case of the USPTO to show how much important IP laws are.
As the article points out:
In 2010, 87.2% of businesses reported that trademarks were “not important” to them.
90.1% of businesses reported that copyrights were “not important” to them.
96.2% of businesses reported that patents were “not important” to them.
this makes sense that trademarks are more important as you pointed out with the case of Coca-Cola. The article is on the point that it doesn't make sense to compare I.P. and pointed out the ridiculousness by showing that groceries stores are the most one to have a benefit from I.P. laws.
> dna genealogy can trace human origins to a central "cradle of life"?
DNA shows that all living things are related. We can even exchange DNA and still retain the same function. This is very strong evidence that life arose on earth once and evolved to all currently and past living species. The fossil record shows a continuously progression from simple to complex species, we can trace our ancestors back to 500 million years ego in Pikaia gracilens*. So the answer is yes.
> where does it say global? if anything it was regional but large enough to cover a huge area. ..
All the creationist and literal bible believers.
> the earth and sun were not created in a big bang that arose out of nothing?
No. The big bang theory is that space and time was compressed in plank space and plank time. So space (matter and energy) and time was already there, just compressed. Then came the "bang" with was the inflation of space and time. Theory of relativity shows that space and time are not separated and quantum theory shows that at very small space gravity and all the other forces should be one. Supersymmetry and quantum gravitation. Still work in progress.
> actually it says god made two people from the minerals found on earth (dirt) which molecularly is 100% true, and the bible doesnt say all mankind evolved from those two, maybe you should read it again without the atheistic blinders on. .
Dirt, mud, ashes, earth, dust, whatever. We all star dust. I do remember that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia
> Faith is simply a conclusion one reaches about things which are beyond empirical proof. Because you can't see them and put them into a test tube and observe them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I wish it would be as simple as that. But what you call people who have faith in the biblical flood, or in Adam&Eve and genesis? That are things that are certainly not beyond empirical proof. In fact, cosmology and evolution have shown that those myths are not factual. There was never a global flood that killed all animals and humans and we are not descendants of just two animals and Noah's family. Also the earth and sun was not poofed out of nothing by god but was formed through natural laws (gravity and atomic fusion). Also humankind was not poofed out of nothing by god and we are not descendants of just two individuals.
I still don't agree that you are using the correct word. Faith is the believe in something or someone without evidence or sometimes contrary to evidence. As such poetry, love, romance and other non empirical (although those examples are all empirical) constructs, and philosophy and logic are not faith based.
From your quote: poetry, love, romance does not require faith because it is empirical. But the conclusion of the "picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond" does require faith because there is no evidence of a picture of the supernal beauty or glory beyond.
That's BS. I can agree that there is a revulsion against anything different, i.e. something that goes against the moral norm. In ancient Rome and ancient Greece homosexuality was openly and accepted until the Christian fundamentalist took over. You see the "revulsion to homosexuality" because Christianity took whole Europe over for over 2000 years with their dogma that homosexuality is "sin". But before that nobody cared about homosexuality and was even openly practices.
> For example, one of the most successful arguments has been homosexual rights are similar rights for black people, and civil rights for black people - indeed even the elimination of slavery - had deep religious roots and motivation.
Eh, no. Religion was always used to enforce and justify slavery and to suppress woman and black rights.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/slavery_1.shtml
Historical records show that Islam and Christianity played an important role in enslavement in Africa. The Arab-controlled Trans-Saharan slave trade helped to institutionalise slave trading on the continent. And during the age of expedition, European Christians witnessed caravans loaded with Africans en-route to the Middle East.
For many of these early European explorers, the Bible was not only regarded as infallible, it was also their primary reference tool and those looking for answers to explain differences in ethnicity, culture, and slavery, found them in Genesis 9: 24-27, which appeared to suggest that it was all a result of sin.
In the Genesis passage, Africans were said to be the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, who was cursed by his father after looking at his naked form. Moreover, in Genesis 10, the Table of Nations describes the origins of the different races and reveals that one of the descendants of Ham is Cush - Cush and the Cushites were people associated with the Nile region of North Africa.
In time, the connection Europeans made between sin, slavery, skin colour and beliefs would condemn Africans. In the Bible, physical or spiritual slavery is often a consequence of sinful actions, while darkness is associated with evil. Moreover, the Africans were subsequently considered heathens bereft of Christianity
I think you are using the word "faith" wrong. Faith does not have anything do to with logic or philosophic arguments. Faith is the believe without any evidence, and in philosophy you are trying to prove your believes with arguments. Also logic is not faith. Logic is an invented system that is just played by their rules to their natural conclusion. You don't have to have faith in logic or believe in logic, you just have to accept the rules.
I personally find it very difficult to find anything worthwhile in ontological philosophy. Nature does not follow our primate instincts and even if you can show that something "must" exist (i.e. it is logical that is must exist) it does not follow that it really does exist. Maybe there is some law of nature that prevents that object to physically exist. So without empirical evidence an ontological argument is useless.
The last point is a good one. Sun actively promoted Java and competing JVMs. IBM and Apache have implemented their JVMs using Sun's API. The only restriction of Sun was the testing/compatibility framework Technology Compatibility Kit for the brand "Java". As far as I recall Sun only allowed JVMs to use the name "Java" only if they pass the TCK and to use the TCK you needed a license from Sun. That is why Google's and Apache's JVMs are not called Java.
An API is a collection of facts, those can't be changed, they are like axioms in mathematics or words in a language. In math it's 1+1=2 and in API it would read result = new One().add(new One()) // result is Two. Like you can't change the meaning of "+" you can't change the meaning of "add". The copyright should not hold to the axioms but to the implementation, like copyright does not cover words but sentences.
So if you want to compare an API to a book, then the API are the words of the language the book uses. API is then the words the application is using. You can't copyright words.
In Germany we have no free bags for at least 5 or 10 years (feels like forever) and there is no difficulties in bringing your own bags. Mostly it's a concious decision to go and buy groceries. Then you can just bring 2 bags from your home. And since when you have to wash every time a fabric bag? Everything you buy is packaged. If you not put like raw fruits in your bag the bag will not get dirty.
I find it really funny if people say: I'm both theistic and scientific. How is that that for things that really matters and that you have to trust with (literally) your life you put your trust in science but if it's the more important question of salvation, your soul and afterlife you leave the trusted method of science and put your trust in blind faith?
Things that matters and what you trust with your life:
* clean water; * food; * air planes; * car; * hearth surgery; * medicine like paracetamol; * vaccination; * trains; * ships; * refrigerator;
Would you ride an air plane that was not tested by science but was proclaimed to be save by the pope or bishop? Would you ride your car if you need your faith to be save? Would you trust to have your hearth surgery by your local priest instead of your atheistic doctor?
But for matters that for you are more important then your life you trust some ancient text and some proclamations of priests with no evidence and no method of testing. I suppose you are Christian? How do you know that the canonical gospels are correct and that the priests 2000 years ego not make a mistake by adding or removing the wrong gospel? For example, we have now the gospel of Judas. How do you know that the gospel of Judas is not canonical? Will you trust with your soul some bronze age priests?
The biggest problem with the bible is that it's not original. Jesus himself did not wrote anything, no author is known of any of the gospels, dates are guesses, and the bible was composed by committee with gospels removed and declared heretical.
One example for the latter is the gospel of Judas. Declared as betrayer of Jesus in the canonical gospels, but in the found gospel of Judas he is loyal and played the most important role in Jesus crucifixion and the resulting resurrection.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
Those who are furnished with the immortal soul, like Judas, can come to know the God within and enter the imperishable realm when they die. Those who belong to the same generation of the other eleven disciples cannot enter the realm of God and will die both spiritually and physically at the end of their lives. As practices that are intertwined with the physical world, animal sacrifice and a communion ceremony centered around cannibalism (the symbolic consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood) are condemned as abhorrent.
Of crucial importance is the author's understanding of Jesus' death. The other Gospels argue that Jesus had to die in order to atone for the sins of humanity. The author of Judas claims this sort of substitutionary justice pleases the lower gods and angels. The true God is gracious and thus does not demand any sacrifice. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus's death is simply a final way for him to leave the realm of the flesh and return to the luminous cloud.
So the majority of Christians are doing symbolic cannibalism and everyone except Judas and Jesus are going to die no matter what. No wonder the early Christians banned the gospel of Judas.
Because you have no clue how anatomy works?
We have thousands of fossils and skeletons of dinosaurs so we do know how the skeletons of those animals looks like. And it's not like every species is different, all Tetrapods following the same basic skeleton plan. Palaeontologist have enough knowledge and expertise to identify the species of a single bone correctly and if you can find some teeth you already know if it's a carnivore or herbivore.
It's basically Tetrapods>Reptiliomorpha>Amniota>Diapsida>Archosauromorpha>Archosauria>Dinosauria
http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883
If the W3C would make a byte code standard to access the DOM then nobody would use JavaScript and rather port any other language to use the byte code. Much like for the JavaVM there are numerous languages available (about 25 languages), for example C, Python, Ruby, and new languages like Scala, Groovy, (and about 30 other languages). The JavaScript code is compiled and re-arranged for faster execution to a byte code language that is run under a Virtual Machine anyway.
The question of whether I know a better client side web language is moot because there ain't no choice. Other then of course plug-ins or add-ons to the browser. It's like asking is there any better gaming operation system then Windows... (at least I can install Linux and run some Linux games that are better then Windows games).