Mohammed promoted killing anyone who didn't submit to his new religion, so he could take over the world.
The subsequent revisions of his teachings by Muslims mostly dropped that priority. During which era Muslims produced most of what we'd call science until the 1800s.
When religious teachings are limited to only the workings of the soul, and don't tell other people without the faith what to think and do, we'll all be a lot better off.
Clearly thinking isn't your strong suit. You're fixated on only what we can guess about an afterlife, not about how we use what we know to live in this life.
You're wallowing in Pascal's Flaw, where betting on faith because it's better to be wrong about a nonexistent god than an existent god excludes how much better you can live without the baggage that a nonexistent god comes with.
Yes, you're wrong. The Urey-Miller Experimenttested a theory that organic compounds evolved from inorganic compounds over time, in hypothetical ancient Earth conditions. That's nothing like the blind belief that god created the universe with a word.
It's anti-intellectual posers who are afraid of science who look at the ongoing philosophical debates on the definition of "life" and flee into useless blind beliefs like Creationism. People who use the words of logic to pretend to dissect science. You know, the kind of people who post badly hidden Creationist propaganda on Slashdot, using their stupidity and disrespect for learning as a cover for their theocrat agenda.
The people we're discussing in disgust while reading this story, because so many Americans are so ignorant.
We're testing for the dark matter. We can't test for god.
That's the difference between faith: knowledge not proveable (or disproveable); belief: knowledge dis/proveable, but not actually dis/proven; and fact: knowledge dis/proven.
The difference results in fact more reliable than faith, but faith more important than fact. The difference also means the two are compatible, even when apparently contradictory, but that faith must yield to fact when faith can still exist without being dis/proven as fact.
"There are still a few changes yet to happen, but let's call this Slackware 11.0 release candidate 1."
Why not just call it "Slackware 20.0 RC1", and make everyone think it's really advanced? It's not a release candidate when you know it is certain not to be released. It's a beta, tested by people who didn't design or implement it.
No, I do not think I'm being "pro-Jewish". I'm just being reasonable: is supporting the "equal protection under the laws" part of the Constitution "pro-Black"?
Of course Bush's fundamentalist Christianity gives him a conflict of interest. But I don't see you harping on Bush. Just on Wolfowitz, precisely because he's a Jew. Just like you harp on Israeli astroturf, when it's far from the only country with that kind of Slashdot representation.
As I said, you don't get it. I've made it as clear as possible. In response, you insist on ignoring the actual issue of your bias against Israel, and instead bring up offtopic issues like US government corruption on any pretext. Which then give you the chance to say something bad about Israel again. So I'm through trying to show you your own bias. You're either so bought into it htat you cannot see it plainly at work in front of you, or you like it and willfully ignore the evidence. You use your chances to learn to instead indulge your bias. You can't count on me to play the straight man in your one ring circus anymore.
"Every time someone says something negative about Jews or Israel, he is attacked because he is anti-Jewish. Are you trying to say Jews are perfect?"
Of course not. Let's dignify that ridiculous statement with a dissection. Of course not every negative statement about Jews or Israel gets attacked. And of course I'm not saying that Jews are perfect. I have said nothing about Jews - only about your unusual sensitivity. Your statement is perfectly Rumsfeld.
Speaking of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, or rather their staff, the president is a Born-Again-Christian fundamentalist. Doesn't that give him a "conflict of interest" in Israeli policy, and battling the actual Muslim Jihad? The rest of the people designing and prosecuting the Iraq War are also mostly Christians, usually the fundamentalist and even apocalyptic kind. Which actually influences US policy, like when they ask fundamentalist sects for advice on "biblical" Israeli borders and how to act within "prophecy". But you don't seem to think that these Christians fighting their own Crusade is remarkable. Just Wolfowitz.
Which has nothing to do with Slashdot, or a possible Israeli tech corp astroturf. I could go on about how Israel is obviously being used by the US to draw Syria and maybe Iran into a war according to publicly stated US policy and strategy. But why bother? You have now stated your bias against Israel, with your reasons. Your own biased opposition to Israel makes you see Israeli companies mention on Slashdot as "political", and your Israeli politics are opposition. Even down to opposing Americans because they're Jews.
So finally your own bias is revealed. I said nothing about the merits of Jews or Israel. All I did was point out that Israel is overrepresented in your defensiveness about Slashdot astroturf stories. You responded with ridiculous defensive hyperbole about Israel and Jews and singling out Wolfowitz because he's a Jew. All totally disproportionate to the actual facts. Demonstrating your bias.
I know it's a popular bias. You probably don't even realize that's what's working in you. But that's no excuse now that you've been confronted with it.
When I Google (TM) for a song, why doesn't it show me links to MP3s of those songs on the Web? Or links to pages which link to MP3s of those songs? Google has always (or for a long time) censored its links to that content. I guess they're scared of the Napster caselaw. But that's a pretty big stick they've got to hit "media companies" with when they want to haggle.
You're really not getting it. We do not know much, if anything, about how the sparse upper atmosphere's cycles will react to our dumping significantly more/faster amounts of material into it. Dynamic and sensitive systems have tipping points, beyond which new stable cycles can emerge with very different characteristics, once bumped. We don't know how a changed upper atmosphere will affect the rest of our ecosystem, even though far away and much more massive.
I pointed out that contrary to your claim, knowing a lot about about hydraulics and chemistry doesn't mean we know a lot about cytology - as an example of how knowledge of a few aspects of the upper atmosphere doesn't substitute for actual knowledge of its role in our larger ecosystem. But you are insisting on ignoring how ignorant we are, because you are hot for some new tinkering with the upper atmosphere. That kind of conceit is exactly what's driving the people deciding to take these unknown risks.
If you paid attention, you'd realize that you're locked in a cycle of your own that you don't really understand.
"If this research truly were remarkable, then they wouldn't have trouble getting the money."
You're one of those poser "independents" whose really a Republican. You've decided that the research was "unremarkable", even though the article documents otherwise, because you "believe in the system". All kinds of important stuff has trouble getting the money: last week, the Air Traffic Controllers told us Bush hadn't hired enough controllers for us to be safe, the minimum expense to keep our air travel safe.
Your attitude that "whoever is getting the money had a good PR strategy" is the acceptance of the Bush selloff of America to their cronies. Don't tell me about real opposition to the Bush administration, when you're part of the problem.
When I start with the GPL and revise it to make my own license with modified terms, do I have to send my changes to the FSF or Lawrence Lessig? Do I have to include minutes from my meetings with my lawyers when I redistribute my version of the GPL?
No, because you have something against Israel. There are plenty of apparent ads for American and other international companies, but I don't see you complaining about their nationality.
You found a 3-month old post from an Anonymous Coward complaining about a Roland Piquepaille post, claiming that company was a fraud. That company was Israeli. This company was Israeli, three months later. So you decided that this company was remarkably "Israeli". Even though Slashdot promotes all kinds of questionable products from companies all over the globe, but you don't complain about their nationality when they're not Israeli.
You're just searching for companies to complain about, and picking the Israeli ones because they're Israeli. That's a nationalist agenda at work. These posts might or might not be advertising, but your posts are obviously anti-Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if you were the AC who posted that story back in May.
You're probably right. Like a fish doesn't notice the water they're in, I don't really notice my own "abrasive" personality, or even the community of stalkers. Except when I swim thru a sweet spot, and enjoy it, or some turbulence, and really enjoy it.
Show me the research that demonstrates that those detonations have not had, will not have, ill effects on the ecosystem. Now you're practicing science, not sciencyism.
My sincerest scorn on your using this thread to bash the whales and worship Bush, when we're talking about screwing with the upper atmosphere. Go fuck yourself.
I know you didn't read the article, but it does show how many people who reviewed the program know it's worth the money. How do you like that $300B we spent in Iraq?
You're a Republican pedophile. Stop pretending your opinion has any value. If you want to spout it, go to Iraq and get a fat job training Iraqis, who will run away to join forces to attack our occupying army.
I could see how it was moderated "Flamebait" because it confronted the delusions in many readers' minds that "Bush is a good guy" or "Bush doesn't really know what his government is doing". I get every kind of negative mod when I post facts about Bush's damage to our country. I don't think the people who mod that way really care much about actually justifying the reasons for "counterattacking". They're fans of anyone who games the system for their hero.
Tell me how we know all about that sensitive, dynanmic system. You know, like what doubling the tiny amounts of materials will do to the feedback systems in one metastable state. Show me the research that shows there's no consequences in the rest of the atmosphere from interfering with the process.
Despite your bland assertion to the contrary, we know just a little more about that system than we did when we knew nothing. And we know practically nothing of how it interacts with the rest of the ecosystems of the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Mohammed promoted killing anyone who didn't submit to his new religion, so he could take over the world.
The subsequent revisions of his teachings by Muslims mostly dropped that priority. During which era Muslims produced most of what we'd call science until the 1800s.
When religious teachings are limited to only the workings of the soul, and don't tell other people without the faith what to think and do, we'll all be a lot better off.
Clearly thinking isn't your strong suit. You're fixated on only what we can guess about an afterlife, not about how we use what we know to live in this life.
You're wallowing in Pascal's Flaw, where betting on faith because it's better to be wrong about a nonexistent god than an existent god excludes how much better you can live without the baggage that a nonexistent god comes with.
Yes, you're wrong. The Urey-Miller Experiment tested a theory that organic compounds evolved from inorganic compounds over time, in hypothetical ancient Earth conditions. That's nothing like the blind belief that god created the universe with a word.
It's anti-intellectual posers who are afraid of science who look at the ongoing philosophical debates on the definition of "life" and flee into useless blind beliefs like Creationism. People who use the words of logic to pretend to dissect science. You know, the kind of people who post badly hidden Creationist propaganda on Slashdot, using their stupidity and disrespect for learning as a cover for their theocrat agenda.
The people we're discussing in disgust while reading this story, because so many Americans are so ignorant.
You know those jocks that beat up nerds in highschool for being "too smart"? Those jocks are running America. And you are still the nerds.
We're testing for the dark matter. We can't test for god.
That's the difference between faith: knowledge not proveable (or disproveable); belief: knowledge dis/proveable, but not actually dis/proven; and fact: knowledge dis/proven.
The difference results in fact more reliable than faith, but faith more important than fact. The difference also means the two are compatible, even when apparently contradictory, but that faith must yield to fact when faith can still exist without being dis/proven as fact.
"If this research truly were remarkable, then they wouldn't have trouble getting the money."
I guess funding the TSA isn't truly remarkable, because we're not doing that, either.
"There are still a few changes yet to happen, but let's call this Slackware 11.0 release candidate 1."
Why not just call it "Slackware 20.0 RC1", and make everyone think it's really advanced? It's not a release candidate when you know it is certain not to be released. It's a beta, tested by people who didn't design or implement it.
No, I do not think I'm being "pro-Jewish". I'm just being reasonable: is supporting the "equal protection under the laws" part of the Constitution "pro-Black"?
Of course Bush's fundamentalist Christianity gives him a conflict of interest. But I don't see you harping on Bush. Just on Wolfowitz, precisely because he's a Jew. Just like you harp on Israeli astroturf, when it's far from the only country with that kind of Slashdot representation.
As I said, you don't get it. I've made it as clear as possible. In response, you insist on ignoring the actual issue of your bias against Israel, and instead bring up offtopic issues like US government corruption on any pretext. Which then give you the chance to say something bad about Israel again. So I'm through trying to show you your own bias. You're either so bought into it htat you cannot see it plainly at work in front of you, or you like it and willfully ignore the evidence. You use your chances to learn to instead indulge your bias. You can't count on me to play the straight man in your one ring circus anymore.
Most cold dark "matter" is dark energy, which in turn is dark information. The stuff that nemories are made of.
If this Chandra experiment is successful, we should hook it up to Google to search all the info we don't know about what didn't happen.
TEST:
"Every time someone says something negative about Jews or Israel, he is attacked because he is anti-Jewish. Are you trying to say Jews are perfect?"
Of course not. Let's dignify that ridiculous statement with a dissection. Of course not every negative statement about Jews or Israel gets attacked. And of course I'm not saying that Jews are perfect. I have said nothing about Jews - only about your unusual sensitivity. Your statement is perfectly Rumsfeld.
Speaking of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, or rather their staff, the president is a Born-Again-Christian fundamentalist. Doesn't that give him a "conflict of interest" in Israeli policy, and battling the actual Muslim Jihad? The rest of the people designing and prosecuting the Iraq War are also mostly Christians, usually the fundamentalist and even apocalyptic kind. Which actually influences US policy, like when they ask fundamentalist sects for advice on "biblical" Israeli borders and how to act within "prophecy". But you don't seem to think that these Christians fighting their own Crusade is remarkable. Just Wolfowitz.
Which has nothing to do with Slashdot, or a possible Israeli tech corp astroturf. I could go on about how Israel is obviously being used by the US to draw Syria and maybe Iran into a war according to publicly stated US policy and strategy. But why bother? You have now stated your bias against Israel, with your reasons. Your own biased opposition to Israel makes you see Israeli companies mention on Slashdot as "political", and your Israeli politics are opposition. Even down to opposing Americans because they're Jews.
So finally your own bias is revealed. I said nothing about the merits of Jews or Israel. All I did was point out that Israel is overrepresented in your defensiveness about Slashdot astroturf stories. You responded with ridiculous defensive hyperbole about Israel and Jews and singling out Wolfowitz because he's a Jew. All totally disproportionate to the actual facts. Demonstrating your bias.
I know it's a popular bias. You probably don't even realize that's what's working in you. But that's no excuse now that you've been confronted with it.
When I Google (TM) for a song, why doesn't it show me links to MP3s of those songs on the Web? Or links to pages which link to MP3s of those songs? Google has always (or for a long time) censored its links to that content. I guess they're scared of the Napster caselaw. But that's a pretty big stick they've got to hit "media companies" with when they want to haggle.
You're really not getting it. We do not know much, if anything, about how the sparse upper atmosphere's cycles will react to our dumping significantly more/faster amounts of material into it. Dynamic and sensitive systems have tipping points, beyond which new stable cycles can emerge with very different characteristics, once bumped. We don't know how a changed upper atmosphere will affect the rest of our ecosystem, even though far away and much more massive.
I pointed out that contrary to your claim, knowing a lot about about hydraulics and chemistry doesn't mean we know a lot about cytology - as an example of how knowledge of a few aspects of the upper atmosphere doesn't substitute for actual knowledge of its role in our larger ecosystem. But you are insisting on ignoring how ignorant we are, because you are hot for some new tinkering with the upper atmosphere. That kind of conceit is exactly what's driving the people deciding to take these unknown risks.
If you paid attention, you'd realize that you're locked in a cycle of your own that you don't really understand.
"If this research truly were remarkable, then they wouldn't have trouble getting the money."
You're one of those poser "independents" whose really a Republican. You've decided that the research was "unremarkable", even though the article documents otherwise, because you "believe in the system". All kinds of important stuff has trouble getting the money: last week, the Air Traffic Controllers told us Bush hadn't hired enough controllers for us to be safe, the minimum expense to keep our air travel safe.
Your attitude that "whoever is getting the money had a good PR strategy" is the acceptance of the Bush selloff of America to their cronies. Don't tell me about real opposition to the Bush administration, when you're part of the problem.
We know the physics of hydraulics and valence chemistry, but that doesn't mean we know ecology or even cytology.
When I start with the GPL and revise it to make my own license with modified terms, do I have to send my changes to the FSF or Lawrence Lessig? Do I have to include minutes from my meetings with my lawyers when I redistribute my version of the GPL?
No, because you have something against Israel. There are plenty of apparent ads for American and other international companies, but I don't see you complaining about their nationality.
You found a 3-month old post from an Anonymous Coward complaining about a Roland Piquepaille post, claiming that company was a fraud. That company was Israeli. This company was Israeli, three months later. So you decided that this company was remarkably "Israeli". Even though Slashdot promotes all kinds of questionable products from companies all over the globe, but you don't complain about their nationality when they're not Israeli.
You're just searching for companies to complain about, and picking the Israeli ones because they're Israeli. That's a nationalist agenda at work. These posts might or might not be advertising, but your posts are obviously anti-Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if you were the AC who posted that story back in May.
You're probably right. Like a fish doesn't notice the water they're in, I don't really notice my own "abrasive" personality, or even the community of stalkers. Except when I swim thru a sweet spot, and enjoy it, or some turbulence, and really enjoy it.
:).
Thanks for some company along on the ride
Show me the research that demonstrates that those detonations have not had, will not have, ill effects on the ecosystem. Now you're practicing science, not sciencyism.
My sincerest scorn on your using this thread to bash the whales and worship Bush, when we're talking about screwing with the upper atmosphere. Go fuck yourself.
And it's remarkable that the company is Israeli because...?
I know you didn't read the article, but it does show how many people who reviewed the program know it's worth the money. How do you like that $300B we spent in Iraq?
An 8% false positive rate "isn't so bad"? America doesn't send random people to Guantanamo?
You're a Republican pedophile. Stop pretending your opinion has any value. If you want to spout it, go to Iraq and get a fat job training Iraqis, who will run away to join forces to attack our occupying army.
I could see how it was moderated "Flamebait" because it confronted the delusions in many readers' minds that "Bush is a good guy" or "Bush doesn't really know what his government is doing". I get every kind of negative mod when I post facts about Bush's damage to our country. I don't think the people who mod that way really care much about actually justifying the reasons for "counterattacking". They're fans of anyone who games the system for their hero.
Tell me how we know all about that sensitive, dynanmic system. You know, like what doubling the tiny amounts of materials will do to the feedback systems in one metastable state. Show me the research that shows there's no consequences in the rest of the atmosphere from interfering with the process.
Despite your bland assertion to the contrary, we know just a little more about that system than we did when we knew nothing. And we know practically nothing of how it interacts with the rest of the ecosystems of the planet.