You are choosing to look only at the few conservative articles posted in a short period of time considering the life time of the site. You are ignoring the vast amount of OTHER articles that lean left. That is cherry-picking. Choosing a minority of facts to prove your point while ignoring the vast majority that counter it is cherry-picking. You can stop trying to deny and defend it, because it is out for all to see. You, like so many of your extreme leftist brethren, are resorting to fallacies to try to prove your point.
You want support for my claim. Simple, look at every single anti-corporate article posted in the last 2 years. Look at every single article about the government from 2000 to 2008. The proof is there.
Collins is either a liar or an idiot. My money is on a liar. Atheists do not believe without credible evidence for something. There is no credible evidence for a god, at all, period. In order for one to come to a scientific conclusion, one must consider scientific evidence. As there is not scientific evidence for a god and a mountain of failed experiments to obtain evidence of a god, his claiming to have "considered the evidence as a scientist to draw a conclusion" is an obvious lie.
Apparently YOU don't read the Slashdot front page very often because it can takes days and even weeks for a story to make it to the front page.
Ron Paul is a libertarian running as conservative. Perhaps you should learn the difference. It is funny how you complain about the last few months. Try going back 6 years and seeing what is written. Go back four and see how everyone was worshiping Obama. You can't see the forest for the trees. Seriously, when did you start reading Slashdot, 2009?
Also, you seem to be completely ignorant of the number of left leaning articles that appear on the front page from biased sources such as the Guardian along with the avalanche of extreme left comments.
Your mindset is the same as Rose's. You come to a site with a left of center bent and claim it to be extreme right wing. She would do the same.
You should take your own advice as you are obviously delusional and paranoid.
And, all scientific inquiry eats away at religion. You seem to forget that in those times, to deny god was to invite death at the hands of the church.
I am qualified to call them either idiots or hypocrites, because that is what they are. To cling to unsupported, self-contradictory, bronze age fairy tales the claims of which are directly contradicted by scientific research while claiming to be a professional scientist is the height of hypocrisy.
Cherry picking, argument from ignorance, and god of the gaps. Without the OT, there is no need for a messiah and thus no need for Jesus to begin with. You really don't have any clue how christianity is tied to the OT, do you?
Science is, at it's heart, logic. Everything that is truly scientific is based on evidence and logic. Religion, especially christianity, is based on blind, unreasoning faith and the denial of any evidence contrary to that faith. If one applies science to religion, religion falls apart. If one bases science religion and limits science to dogma, then science fails.
Christianity requires that the bible be literally true. For the bible to be literally true: Terra does not move Sol orbits Terra the entire universe and all life, in present forms, were created by a mystical being for whom there is no credible evidence, less than 10,000 years ago which makes evolution impossible less than 6,000 years ago, the entire planet was covered by 30,000 feet of water for one of several differing amounts of time but terrestrial life was not lost because a very old man and his three sons build a ship big enough to carry at least two of every kind of animal and all necessary provisions and then managed to gather said creatures from all points on the globe, some of which had no land connections. After the water receded, the land was scoured clean, yet somehow the herbivores had food. And, even though there were no more than 10 of each creature, and carnivores need to eat, no species was wiped out in the days after the flood by simple consumption.
Religion relies on ignorance and blind faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the dogma is right. Science requires one to follow the facts. Religion demands that facts be suppressed if they contradict the dogma because anything that contradicts dogma is a threat to the religion.
If one claims that the first part of the bible is allegory and there was no Adam and Eve, then the concept of original sin evaporates and thus there is literally no need for a messiah. To put it bluntly, if the Theory of Evolution is true, then there is no Adam and Eve, and there is no need for Jesus to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
And, if you really want to get into it, even if the entire OT is correct, not only is there no need for Jesus, it is impossible for Jesus to be the messiah because the bible states that anyone descended from Moab, which includes David and by extension Jesus, can enter the assembly of god. The reason Jesus is not necessary comes from the underlying definition of god as being omniscience and omnipotent. See, if god were, in fact, all powerful and created not only the universe but the rules upon which it operates, including the rules concerning sin, then if it wanted to forgive people their sins, it would just have to do so, no sacrifice required. As maker and keeper of the rules, it could simply change the rules. If god can't change the rules, then god is not all-powerful and thus is not god.
You make the common creationist mistake of stating that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not "doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place", a statement with several flaws. First, the ToE doesn't explain any of that because it is a theory on the development of species and the variety of life and not a cosmological theory about origin of the universe. Second, it is argument from ignorance "We don't know 'what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place', so it must be god." Well, that is false reasoning. Thirdly, while we don't have any definitive evidence, there are several competing hypotheses and conjectures about what happened before the beginning time and form where all the mass came.
You also fail to apply the same standard to religion, specifically the bible. We don't know who wrote the first books of the bible or from where the information contained there in came. If the source of the information is unknown, why should one believe it? Especially when it has glaring issues such as the dual creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, the existence of Cain's wife, etc.
You have absolutely no idea how your comments shows you to be not just extreme left, but idiotically extreme left, do you?
You remind me of a girl I knew who thought that GWB was going to declare martial law to prevent his leaving office and had nightmares that she was going to be taken aside in an airport, tortured, and sexually assaulted because she wrote a blog post.
FWIW, you are an idiot. The bible and christianity are not compatible with evolution and science. In fact, you are a deliberate idiot as you choose to believe in an untenable proposition.
Hey, look, it is another asshole who doesn't understand business period. Why don't you come back and talk to me when you get out of school, shithead. And, that is assuming you graduate.
No, he has it right. If they can't get it full and for free, they won't use it. And, I can tell from your post that you are one of that kind of person. I have little doubt you wouldn't pay $5.00 for Photoshop and would STILL use an unlicensed copy because of the justifications you spew.
No, dumbass. Your analogy implies that the people who are using his software by downloading it from PirateBay are not doing anything wrong. In fact, they are doing something illegal in the U.S. But, you obviously don't give a shit about that right? Fuck the real victim, the submitter, and protect the those that are breaking the law.
You are claiming the victim is doing something wrong. You know, like saying a woman in a short skirt deserved to be raped.
Interesting idea, go to the thief and ask why they didn't pay for what they took.
you ARE doing something wrong.
Yes, he is doing something wrong for wanting fair compensation for his specialized software. The people who are violating his rights are doing anything wrong. And, rape victims deserve it, right?
Most slashdotters don't give a damn if you make money or are profitable. As far as they are concerned, you should be giving your software away. Most of the answer you will get, whether they say it or not, will be from people who don't think you deserve anything and that you would never have sold to those who are now using your software without authorization because it is too expensive (read: not free).
No, dumbass, that was not his argument. His argument is that the drone would be in use in a criminal manner and would be a valid target. You would be within your rights to demand the person leave your property or to call law enforcement and have the person arrested.
Tell me, why do you assholes like to use spotlighting and false dichotomies? Are you really so stupid?
I don't care if they were trespassing. The activists were in the wrong. They were attempting to invade other people's privacy. I guarantee you would want to shoot down a drone that was operated by someone you KNEW was trying to invade your privacy
He has no clue about the security involved because he is an anti-nuclear activist and thus not privy to the full security measures being taken. An anti-nuclear activist, by definition, does not have access to the full security procedures used to secure nuclear material and most especially nuclear weapons as such information is classified and provided on a "need to know" basis, and he does not have a "need to know".
You would want to know about their dangers, but you would not be able to get any information that is classified. And, even knowing their dangers, you would not necessarily know about the safety and security procedures. And, as you would be an anti-nuclear activist, you would be guaranteed to be playing up the dangers while downplaying or out-right ignoring the safety and security protocols and procedures.
You have been watching too many movies and too much TV, specifically Under Siege 2.
As soon as the truck stops, the command center is notified. Fire on the truck will have the driver calling for help, which is much closer than you think. Jamming the radio will get the cavalry moving just that much faster because if the truck makes an unscheduled stop, command will be calling. And, you have completely ignored the fact that there will be lead vehicles out ahead of the convoy as well as the escort vehicles with the truck.
Using shaped charges to get into the truck is almost guaranteed to bounce shrapnel around the inside which has a high probability of damaging the war head. Using a "cargo lift" to get the warhead out you say? Define "cargo lift". Are you talking a fork truck, which needs to be transported to and from the scene, won't be able to reach the warhead from the end and would require removing a large chunk of the side of the truck to get the warhead from the side? Are you talking telescoping forklift, which would be able to reach the cargo, but probably wouldn't be able to lift it at extension? Are you talking a helicopter, which would need overhead accesses which hasn't been provided?
You also have the truck in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses on a minor road. These vehicles are on major interstates most of the their trip so staging an accident in the right place at the right time with all the side people with no witnesses is impossible. Oh, and how do you expect to hide the small force that has to be on foot to assault the trailer?
We know that U.S. nukes have many, many security features to make them unable to detonate unless a large number of conditions are met.
No, "we" don't know that. You just assume that because you have been watching too many movies.
There is no need to drop a large bomb on a nuclear warhead. As long as the warhead is not armed, one can hit it with a grenade, or even a large caliber armor piercing round and prevent high yield detonation. There might be some scattered nuclear material at the end, but there won't be a mushroom cloud or even a moderately large explosion.
Really, stop getting your tactics and information from video games and movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Aww look, the christian bitches have modded me down because they can't take the truth.
You are choosing to look only at the few conservative articles posted in a short period of time considering the life time of the site. You are ignoring the vast amount of OTHER articles that lean left. That is cherry-picking. Choosing a minority of facts to prove your point while ignoring the vast majority that counter it is cherry-picking. You can stop trying to deny and defend it, because it is out for all to see. You, like so many of your extreme leftist brethren, are resorting to fallacies to try to prove your point.
You want support for my claim. Simple, look at every single anti-corporate article posted in the last 2 years. Look at every single article about the government from 2000 to 2008. The proof is there.
Collins is either a liar or an idiot. My money is on a liar. Atheists do not believe without credible evidence for something. There is no credible evidence for a god, at all, period. In order for one to come to a scientific conclusion, one must consider scientific evidence. As there is not scientific evidence for a god and a mountain of failed experiments to obtain evidence of a god, his claiming to have "considered the evidence as a scientist to draw a conclusion" is an obvious lie.
You are that kind of person, shithead. You just don't want to admit it.
Where, in reality, nothing of the sort happened. Ever. Thanks for lying out-right and showing your true colors.
Not in the case of the stories I have been discussing, it doesn't
There's your problem. You cherry-pick. Thanks for admitting it.
Apparently YOU don't read the Slashdot front page very often because it can takes days and even weeks for a story to make it to the front page.
Ron Paul is a libertarian running as conservative. Perhaps you should learn the difference. It is funny how you complain about the last few months. Try going back 6 years and seeing what is written. Go back four and see how everyone was worshiping Obama. You can't see the forest for the trees. Seriously, when did you start reading Slashdot, 2009?
Also, you seem to be completely ignorant of the number of left leaning articles that appear on the front page from biased sources such as the Guardian along with the avalanche of extreme left comments.
Your mindset is the same as Rose's. You come to a site with a left of center bent and claim it to be extreme right wing. She would do the same.
You should take your own advice as you are obviously delusional and paranoid.
And, all scientific inquiry eats away at religion. You seem to forget that in those times, to deny god was to invite death at the hands of the church.
I am qualified to call them either idiots or hypocrites, because that is what they are. To cling to unsupported, self-contradictory, bronze age fairy tales the claims of which are directly contradicted by scientific research while claiming to be a professional scientist is the height of hypocrisy.
Cherry picking, argument from ignorance, and god of the gaps. Without the OT, there is no need for a messiah and thus no need for Jesus to begin with. You really don't have any clue how christianity is tied to the OT, do you?
Science is, at it's heart, logic. Everything that is truly scientific is based on evidence and logic. Religion, especially christianity, is based on blind, unreasoning faith and the denial of any evidence contrary to that faith. If one applies science to religion, religion falls apart. If one bases science religion and limits science to dogma, then science fails.
Christianity requires that the bible be literally true. For the bible to be literally true:
Terra does not move
Sol orbits Terra
the entire universe and all life, in present forms, were created by a mystical being for whom there is no credible evidence, less than 10,000 years ago which makes evolution impossible
less than 6,000 years ago, the entire planet was covered by 30,000 feet of water for one of several differing amounts of time but terrestrial life was not lost because a very old man and his three sons build a ship big enough to carry at least two of every kind of animal and all necessary provisions and then managed to gather said creatures from all points on the globe, some of which had no land connections. After the water receded, the land was scoured clean, yet somehow the herbivores had food. And, even though there were no more than 10 of each creature, and carnivores need to eat, no species was wiped out in the days after the flood by simple consumption.
Religion relies on ignorance and blind faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the dogma is right. Science requires one to follow the facts. Religion demands that facts be suppressed if they contradict the dogma because anything that contradicts dogma is a threat to the religion.
If one claims that the first part of the bible is allegory and there was no Adam and Eve, then the concept of original sin evaporates and thus there is literally no need for a messiah. To put it bluntly, if the Theory of Evolution is true, then there is no Adam and Eve, and there is no need for Jesus to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
And, if you really want to get into it, even if the entire OT is correct, not only is there no need for Jesus, it is impossible for Jesus to be the messiah because the bible states that anyone descended from Moab, which includes David and by extension Jesus, can enter the assembly of god. The reason Jesus is not necessary comes from the underlying definition of god as being omniscience and omnipotent. See, if god were, in fact, all powerful and created not only the universe but the rules upon which it operates, including the rules concerning sin, then if it wanted to forgive people their sins, it would just have to do so, no sacrifice required. As maker and keeper of the rules, it could simply change the rules. If god can't change the rules, then god is not all-powerful and thus is not god.
You make the common creationist mistake of stating that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not "doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place", a statement with several flaws. First, the ToE doesn't explain any of that because it is a theory on the development of species and the variety of life and not a cosmological theory about origin of the universe. Second, it is argument from ignorance "We don't know 'what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place', so it must be god." Well, that is false reasoning. Thirdly, while we don't have any definitive evidence, there are several competing hypotheses and conjectures about what happened before the beginning time and form where all the mass came.
You also fail to apply the same standard to religion, specifically the bible. We don't know who wrote the first books of the bible or from where the information contained there in came. If the source of the information is unknown, why should one believe it? Especially when it has glaring issues such as the dual creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, the existence of Cain's wife, etc.
You have absolutely no idea how your comments shows you to be not just extreme left, but idiotically extreme left, do you?
You remind me of a girl I knew who thought that GWB was going to declare martial law to prevent his leaving office and had nightmares that she was going to be taken aside in an airport, tortured, and sexually assaulted because she wrote a blog post.
No, it is not art. It is stupidity.
FWIW, you are an idiot. The bible and christianity are not compatible with evolution and science. In fact, you are a deliberate idiot as you choose to believe in an untenable proposition.
Hey, look, it is another asshole who doesn't understand business period. Why don't you come back and talk to me when you get out of school, shithead. And, that is assuming you graduate.
No, he has it right. If they can't get it full and for free, they won't use it. And, I can tell from your post that you are one of that kind of person. I have little doubt you wouldn't pay $5.00 for Photoshop and would STILL use an unlicensed copy because of the justifications you spew.
No, dumbass. Your analogy implies that the people who are using his software by downloading it from PirateBay are not doing anything wrong. In fact, they are doing something illegal in the U.S. But, you obviously don't give a shit about that right? Fuck the real victim, the submitter, and protect the those that are breaking the law.
You are claiming the victim is doing something wrong. You know, like saying a woman in a short skirt deserved to be raped.
Interesting idea, go to the thief and ask why they didn't pay for what they took.
you ARE doing something wrong.
Yes, he is doing something wrong for wanting fair compensation for his specialized software. The people who are violating his rights are doing anything wrong. And, rape victims deserve it, right?
You truly live up to your screen name.
Most slashdotters don't give a damn if you make money or are profitable. As far as they are concerned, you should be giving your software away. Most of the answer you will get, whether they say it or not, will be from people who don't think you deserve anything and that you would never have sold to those who are now using your software without authorization because it is too expensive (read: not free).
No, dumbass, that was not his argument. His argument is that the drone would be in use in a criminal manner and would be a valid target. You would be within your rights to demand the person leave your property or to call law enforcement and have the person arrested.
Tell me, why do you assholes like to use spotlighting and false dichotomies? Are you really so stupid?
I don't care if they were trespassing. The activists were in the wrong. They were attempting to invade other people's privacy. I guarantee you would want to shoot down a drone that was operated by someone you KNEW was trying to invade your privacy
Yeah. I spent 8 years in the military and have experience and knowledge you don't. Thanks for playing.
He has no clue about the security involved because he is an anti-nuclear activist and thus not privy to the full security measures being taken. An anti-nuclear activist, by definition, does not have access to the full security procedures used to secure nuclear material and most especially nuclear weapons as such information is classified and provided on a "need to know" basis, and he does not have a "need to know".
You would want to know about their dangers, but you would not be able to get any information that is classified. And, even knowing their dangers, you would not necessarily know about the safety and security procedures. And, as you would be an anti-nuclear activist, you would be guaranteed to be playing up the dangers while downplaying or out-right ignoring the safety and security protocols and procedures.
No, actually, they are not. What they are doing is spreading FUD. It is just FUD you like and buy into.
You have been watching too many movies and too much TV, specifically Under Siege 2.
As soon as the truck stops, the command center is notified. Fire on the truck will have the driver calling for help, which is much closer than you think. Jamming the radio will get the cavalry moving just that much faster because if the truck makes an unscheduled stop, command will be calling. And, you have completely ignored the fact that there will be lead vehicles out ahead of the convoy as well as the escort vehicles with the truck.
Using shaped charges to get into the truck is almost guaranteed to bounce shrapnel around the inside which has a high probability of damaging the war head. Using a "cargo lift" to get the warhead out you say? Define "cargo lift". Are you talking a fork truck, which needs to be transported to and from the scene, won't be able to reach the warhead from the end and would require removing a large chunk of the side of the truck to get the warhead from the side? Are you talking telescoping forklift, which would be able to reach the cargo, but probably wouldn't be able to lift it at extension? Are you talking a helicopter, which would need overhead accesses which hasn't been provided?
You also have the truck in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses on a minor road. These vehicles are on major interstates most of the their trip so staging an accident in the right place at the right time with all the side people with no witnesses is impossible. Oh, and how do you expect to hide the small force that has to be on foot to assault the trailer?
We know that U.S. nukes have many, many security features to make them unable to detonate unless a large number of conditions are met.
No, "we" don't know that. You just assume that because you have been watching too many movies.
There is no need to drop a large bomb on a nuclear warhead. As long as the warhead is not armed, one can hit it with a grenade, or even a large caliber armor piercing round and prevent high yield detonation. There might be some scattered nuclear material at the end, but there won't be a mushroom cloud or even a moderately large explosion.
Really, stop getting your tactics and information from video games and movies.
A bunch of ignorant fucks spreading FUD against something they fear and don't understand.