That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists
Doesn't follow. In typical fundamentalist religious societies, religious persecution happens for all religions except the state religion. Religious persecution happens as a result of the leaders being psychopaths. Atheist psychopaths simply believe in one less God than religious psychopaths, and therefore persecute one more religion.
Evidence is not on your side. Recent research indicates that kids with a religious upbringing are less altruistic than kids with an a-religious upbringing. Also, religious kids are more likely to condemn other people's shortcomings more harshly (big surprise).
If, as you state, religion is the prison to keep sociopaths in check, it might turn out that, analogously with criminals in prison, religion is the place where sociopaths become more experienced.
Absolutely! Due to the fact that we don't have the DMCA and no software patents we were able to design a drug to circumvent the 'common sense' software protection that used to govern the EU Commisioner's brain and replace it with something we call the 'Fox-mind'.
Awesome shift of burden. So now every person would need to test himself against every known and unknown compound in the universe to see if he can accept it in his body? Yeah, that's going to work.
Well, OP made a blanket statement seemingly implying that the government is fully at fault that it is expensive to put medicine on the market, completely ignoring the fact that companies are unable to safely put something on the market when left to their own devices. So the two comments nicely balance out. The true answer is of course to make sure that the regulations make sense, not damn them. I'm also sure that very few of the posters in this thread have detailed information about the type of regulations we are talking about and the reason they were put in place. I'm sure that some of them are stupid, I'm equally sure that many of them are actually very appropriate.
I think the point is exactly what the OP was stating. Government should indeed operate on a loss, and use taxes to fund it. Your assumption is that the OP considers taxes evil. I'm pretty sure he doesn't. Do you?
Why don't you get your head out of your ass and understand that the days of being a Windows-only-shop are over and you will have to support a stable infrastructure without having full control of the clients that are there. You still need to provide services, yet you do not have airtight control over your clients. Maybe you should educate yourself and look at some real solutions instead of the Windows lock-in you're so used to? My organization has the exact same problem. We have moved on and use Apple/Linux all over the place. IT has no clue how to support it, as all they know is point-and-click Windows that won't work with anything else. This is the same IT that nearly killed an acquired development office by refusing to support the linux development boxes on their precious network, forcing a great workforce to ditch their linux machines and run Windows. We lost half of the developers before we found out about this idiocy and put a stop to it.
I think cars have enormous problems with being taking over by hackers, erm, joy-riders. Just slide a wire through the window, hot-wire the car and you're good to go. That's all it took. It has taken car manufacturers decades to get decent grip on it, and still, hackers, erm, thieves, have a good chance to take over your car. Your 50 year old car is not at all safe from being taken over. Any hacker worth its salt can take possession.
I think the difference about a scientist and a religious person about the origin of anything is essentially similar. The scientist will say: "it just happened", the religious person will say "God". They mean the same thing.
Apparently, civilization is part of the chicken's environment now. To compare: ants have selectively bred greenfly to the point where the greenfly cannot poop unless an ant milks them. Have the greenfly not evolved? Have the ants?
I think you've got your emphasis wrong. Darwinian evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. Given that life exists, Darwin explains that adaptation, speciation and the diversity of life we witness on Earth will necessarily happen. From a Darwinian perspective it truly doesn't matter whether there is "conscious" control or not, species interacting with each-other lead to differential survival rates in these species, and therefore evolution of traits that help with survival.
Humans and chickens are in a symbiotic relationship. We use them for food, they use us for getting more chicks. So chickens will evolve to be more tasty (because we select them that way), while we evolve to digest chickens more effectively and become less sensitive to the diseases they carry (because they select us this way). That we perceive to be in charge and are doing this "consciously" (whatever that means) is irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective.
Actually, it is. First past the post practically guarantees this. There is no chance of getting represented if your opinion collides with a minority party that nationwide has 10% popular support, but no majority in any spot location. Even though there are 435 'Representatives' in congress, none of them will represent you. They each represent the majority in the district, but nobody represents this sizable minority. A clear fault in the system.
I know there's a lot of alarmism in the media, and I also know how to read scientific publications. I haven't been an active scientist for about 5 years, but in the 10 years before that I have done my share in writing papers and peer-reviewing the dribble that generally passes for science. However. Are you for real? Everything is normal? Arctic ice recovering? We've just been seeing the lowest extent on record. Greenland had its shortest warm season in a decade as proof that there's nothing going on? A sub under the East Antartic Ice? You know that the East-Antarctic Ice sheet rest on land, with the sea ice disappearing each summer, and that we haven't found a way to run a sub under land just yet? Glaciers melting, yes, but after a lull between 1950-1980 in the Northern hemisphere, we're seeing a rapid global decline.
Yes, we are coming out of the 1850 ice age, but that does not refute the fact that we're pouring tremendous amounts of a known climate forcing term in the atmosphere. Both can be going on at the same time. Why is it you're ignoring this?
I agree that credit trading is probably not the best way to tackle this. Unfortunately, a rational debate about more effective measures is continuously derailed by people not accepting there is an issue at all. How can you make rational policy when the political elite shows up in their house with a snowball, thinking to conclusively prove that global warming is a hoax. The first step to remediation is acceptance of a problem. We're not even there yet, but we're passing the point of no return.
Temperatures have not been steady for 18+ years, but given that it is hard to put a number on the average global temperature in a year over the globe, it might be wise to stay away from such synthetic numbers and look at some facts. Glaciers are disappearing over the globe, North Pole ice is at its lowest in a long time, Greenland ice-loss is increasing, and the Western Antartic has become unstable. All measured, all pointing directly to the same thing. It is getting warmer, and we're not in control.
This is not about theory, this is not about models, this is about data, gathered all over the globe. After being warned about this happening for 4 decades, we're seeing measurable results. No, they're not perfectly predicted by theory, but who cares. The data is there, it's warming up, and the fact that our models are not 100% predictive is not something that should make you complacent, it should scare the shit out of you. It means that we're fucked, but don't yet know how badly exactly.
Care to enlighten us how you think we should arrive at the truth? If it is a completely new and rational method, we will probably incorporate that into scientific inquiry. But I'm not holding my breath.
Let's update your comment with a similar 'dialogue' that was hot a decade ago (and is still going on).
I see this as a blatant heresy law. The Church of Evolution Theory wants to make it illegal to publically disagree with the Received Doctrine. Humanity has been there before, with state-mandated religions, and parts of there world are there now, and it's a dark and ugly place we should never again go.
Think the above is trolling, because evolution theory is so obviously correct? Remember, almost every religion in history has declared that it is obviously correct, and anyone disagreeing is obviously a political troublemaker out to subvert the legitimate authority of the church, or worse, to do the devil's work. Clearly no one intelligent could actually disagree with the Received Doctrine, right?
Even if you agree fully with the hypothesis of common descent, that's not the question here. The question is not who's right, the question is: do you respect the humanity of people who disagree with you on something you believe (and believe to be important)? Are you willing to compete in the marketplace of ideas to convince the non-believers? Or are you really willing to use force to squash all dissent? We know just how ugly that road gets, how it leads through some of humanity's most appalling history, and that road was walked by people who were also utterly convinced they were right!
Like with Evolution Theory vs. Creationism, the dialogue on climate change has been poisoned by fabrications, debunked stories, outright lies and political machinations. It is yet another front in the war against science that has been raging for quite some time now.
Prices will go up because that's what the market will bear? What are you, a communist? A competitive market will make sure that the prices will be at the level that will sustain the business. If the business asks more than it needs, another business will come in and undercut it. I know that in the so-called 'capitalist' United States the notion of a competitive market has been replaced by cartels and barriers to entry, but I wasn't aware that even ideologically the notion of competition was abandoned.
So we're going into a situation were machines can make everything, but no-one will create machines because there will be no-one to buy the products. Hence we will all starve, the rich last. Or we will have basic income and keep the economy going.
Technically, fitness is defined as "the expected number of offspring that reach reproductive age". Survival of the fittest thus means that the individuals that create most offspring that can reproduce, tend to survive. This is almost tautological, so not believing in that is, how shall I say it, a bit weird. It's not about having some objective measure of being on top of something, or being 'better'. It's solely about the ability to reproduce more efficiently than others.
Evolution as mere change, although a valid use in the English language, has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution that governs biological life. Not stars, not planets.
Why do you think climate scientists predict the price of milk or gas? You're confusing disciplines here. (Or, more likely, you listen to the news for your predictions. Here's a hint: only the crazies make the news. The guys doing the real work seldom do.)
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't follow. In typical fundamentalist religious societies, religious persecution happens for all religions except the state religion. Religious persecution happens as a result of the leaders being psychopaths. Atheist psychopaths simply believe in one less God than religious psychopaths, and therefore persecute one more religion.
Evidence is not on your side. Recent research indicates that kids with a religious upbringing are less altruistic than kids with an a-religious upbringing. Also, religious kids are more likely to condemn other people's shortcomings more harshly (big surprise).
If, as you state, religion is the prison to keep sociopaths in check, it might turn out that, analogously with criminals in prison, religion is the place where sociopaths become more experienced.
Absolutely! Due to the fact that we don't have the DMCA and no software patents we were able to design a drug to circumvent the 'common sense' software protection that used to govern the EU Commisioner's brain and replace it with something we call the 'Fox-mind'.
Awesome shift of burden. So now every person would need to test himself against every known and unknown compound in the universe to see if he can accept it in his body? Yeah, that's going to work.
Nah, you're subsidizing the 0.01%. That's the American way!
Well, OP made a blanket statement seemingly implying that the government is fully at fault that it is expensive to put medicine on the market, completely ignoring the fact that companies are unable to safely put something on the market when left to their own devices. So the two comments nicely balance out. The true answer is of course to make sure that the regulations make sense, not damn them. I'm also sure that very few of the posters in this thread have detailed information about the type of regulations we are talking about and the reason they were put in place. I'm sure that some of them are stupid, I'm equally sure that many of them are actually very appropriate.
I think the point is exactly what the OP was stating. Government should indeed operate on a loss, and use taxes to fund it. Your assumption is that the OP considers taxes evil. I'm pretty sure he doesn't. Do you?
Why don't you get your head out of your ass and understand that the days of being a Windows-only-shop are over and you will have to support a stable infrastructure without having full control of the clients that are there. You still need to provide services, yet you do not have airtight control over your clients. Maybe you should educate yourself and look at some real solutions instead of the Windows lock-in you're so used to? My organization has the exact same problem. We have moved on and use Apple/Linux all over the place. IT has no clue how to support it, as all they know is point-and-click Windows that won't work with anything else. This is the same IT that nearly killed an acquired development office by refusing to support the linux development boxes on their precious network, forcing a great workforce to ditch their linux machines and run Windows. We lost half of the developers before we found out about this idiocy and put a stop to it.
You're a service. You serve, not command.
Why is installing without admin privs in the user folder something to be damned? What rules are broken here?
I think cars have enormous problems with being taking over by hackers, erm, joy-riders. Just slide a wire through the window, hot-wire the car and you're good to go. That's all it took. It has taken car manufacturers decades to get decent grip on it, and still, hackers, erm, thieves, have a good chance to take over your car. Your 50 year old car is not at all safe from being taken over. Any hacker worth its salt can take possession.
So, what's your point?
I think the difference about a scientist and a religious person about the origin of anything is essentially similar. The scientist will say: "it just happened", the religious person will say "God". They mean the same thing.
Apparently, civilization is part of the chicken's environment now. To compare: ants have selectively bred greenfly to the point where the greenfly cannot poop unless an ant milks them. Have the greenfly not evolved? Have the ants?
Humans and chickens are in a symbiotic relationship. We use them for food, they use us for getting more chicks. So chickens will evolve to be more tasty (because we select them that way), while we evolve to digest chickens more effectively and become less sensitive to the diseases they carry (because they select us this way). That we perceive to be in charge and are doing this "consciously" (whatever that means) is irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective.
Actually, it is. First past the post practically guarantees this. There is no chance of getting represented if your opinion collides with a minority party that nationwide has 10% popular support, but no majority in any spot location. Even though there are 435 'Representatives' in congress, none of them will represent you. They each represent the majority in the district, but nobody represents this sizable minority. A clear fault in the system.
Why not unionize? Then you can actually enforce this.
I know there's a lot of alarmism in the media, and I also know how to read scientific publications. I haven't been an active scientist for about 5 years, but in the 10 years before that I have done my share in writing papers and peer-reviewing the dribble that generally passes for science. However. Are you for real? Everything is normal? Arctic ice recovering? We've just been seeing the lowest extent on record. Greenland had its shortest warm season in a decade as proof that there's nothing going on? A sub under the East Antartic Ice? You know that the East-Antarctic Ice sheet rest on land, with the sea ice disappearing each summer, and that we haven't found a way to run a sub under land just yet? Glaciers melting, yes, but after a lull between 1950-1980 in the Northern hemisphere, we're seeing a rapid global decline.
Yes, we are coming out of the 1850 ice age, but that does not refute the fact that we're pouring tremendous amounts of a known climate forcing term in the atmosphere. Both can be going on at the same time. Why is it you're ignoring this?
I agree that credit trading is probably not the best way to tackle this. Unfortunately, a rational debate about more effective measures is continuously derailed by people not accepting there is an issue at all. How can you make rational policy when the political elite shows up in their house with a snowball, thinking to conclusively prove that global warming is a hoax. The first step to remediation is acceptance of a problem. We're not even there yet, but we're passing the point of no return.
Temperatures have not been steady for 18+ years, but given that it is hard to put a number on the average global temperature in a year over the globe, it might be wise to stay away from such synthetic numbers and look at some facts. Glaciers are disappearing over the globe, North Pole ice is at its lowest in a long time, Greenland ice-loss is increasing, and the Western Antartic has become unstable. All measured, all pointing directly to the same thing. It is getting warmer, and we're not in control.
This is not about theory, this is not about models, this is about data, gathered all over the globe. After being warned about this happening for 4 decades, we're seeing measurable results. No, they're not perfectly predicted by theory, but who cares. The data is there, it's warming up, and the fact that our models are not 100% predictive is not something that should make you complacent, it should scare the shit out of you. It means that we're fucked, but don't yet know how badly exactly.
Care to enlighten us how you think we should arrive at the truth? If it is a completely new and rational method, we will probably incorporate that into scientific inquiry. But I'm not holding my breath.
Like with Evolution Theory vs. Creationism, the dialogue on climate change has been poisoned by fabrications, debunked stories, outright lies and political machinations. It is yet another front in the war against science that has been raging for quite some time now.
Prices will go up because that's what the market will bear? What are you, a communist? A competitive market will make sure that the prices will be at the level that will sustain the business. If the business asks more than it needs, another business will come in and undercut it. I know that in the so-called 'capitalist' United States the notion of a competitive market has been replaced by cartels and barriers to entry, but I wasn't aware that even ideologically the notion of competition was abandoned.
So we're going into a situation were machines can make everything, but no-one will create machines because there will be no-one to buy the products. Hence we will all starve, the rich last. Or we will have basic income and keep the economy going.
Evolution as mere change, although a valid use in the English language, has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution that governs biological life. Not stars, not planets.
Why do you think climate scientists predict the price of milk or gas? You're confusing disciplines here. (Or, more likely, you listen to the news for your predictions. Here's a hint: only the crazies make the news. The guys doing the real work seldom do.)
Yes. Holocaust denial is absolutely insane. They're saying: "Hitler didn't kill these Jews like he should have". Really weird.