So the other side of that argument is, if you want to lower your taxes, you should just earn less money. Go ahead and be poor, then you don't have to pay (federal income) tax.
Same argument as telling Buffett "Just write a check!"
He doesn't have to write a check. He is advocating changing the rules so that he (and other wealthy people) have to write a check, because he thinks that's the right thing to do. Him writing a check solves NOTHING.
"The optimal price of the iPad hardware is less than what Apple is asking for it."
On what do you base this assumption, considering they sold out months of production on each iPad launch?
"compare the price of name-brand and generic soda" Generic soda tastes nasty. If you like it, great. Doesn't mean that other people don't value things differently than you do. Doesn't mean those people are stupid. They just don't agree with you.
The point is, cracks in aluminum aerostructures are a pretty well-understood phenomenon. There are cracks the system can tolerate (even cracks the system is designed to tolerate) and cracks that the system can not tolerate.
Airbus has determined that, with appropriate structural maintenance, these cracks are in the first set. I hope they are correct. I don't have any a priori reasons to assume that they are wrong.
On all commercial aircraft (and, I think, most of the military aircraft, not sure about the two-seat fighters) Boeing control yokes (not side sticks) are mechanically connected to one another, and move simultaneously for all three axes of control input. The newer jets then transcode those inputs through the flight control computer system. Fun fact: The autopilot control inputs are back-driven into the yokes. You can see the plane flying itself (although the inputs are usually subtle).
"Against gay people, against Muslims, against 'illegal aliens', against women's rights, against birth control.. And they all want to pressure the government to back their belief."
So if I were a member of a church that didn't advocate any of those positions, your argument would be rendered invalid, right?
So, either it's "the stuff that burns your house down if you pour it on the floor" or "the stuff that enables me to go visit my grandma in the next state pretty much whenever I want"? And I, by my action as a moral being, choose which thing happens, and I am responsible for the consequences of that choice?
Your argument by analogy isn't much of an argument.
Seems like the right way would be to speak up about the danger of doing evil, not the "danger" of people gathering together to worship what they wish as they see fit.
Yes, if only there were no religion, then people would not take nasty actions. That's a consistent and logical assumption.
Just because you can come up with religious extremists doesn't mean that the absence of religion will lead to the absence of people who behave like those extremists (based on whatever philosophical, non-theist worldview they care to invent for themselves).
It is stupid and short-sighted to imply that religion is the source of suffering and badness. Being alive in a world is the source of suffering and badness and joy and goodness and all other things.
So, as long as you get to decide who counts as "zealous" or "moderate", you can make your argument work. Those of us who actually believe the way we wish to believe don't count.
Sure, that's internally consistent...with your preconceived notions...
I'm a Christian and I agree completely. It's surprising to me how many skeptics are willing to tar all people of faith with the same brush. I don't agree with "religious nut-jobs" any more than you do, and there are a lot of believers like me.
Or, even more like, "Both Branson and Allen contracted the same designer and aircraft factory to build airplanes for different missions". Wouldn't want to, you know, say true things or anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I can certainly tell the difference between that joke and something funny...
So the other side of that argument is, if you want to lower your taxes, you should just earn less money. Go ahead and be poor, then you don't have to pay (federal income) tax.
Same argument as telling Buffett "Just write a check!"
He doesn't have to write a check. He is advocating changing the rules so that he (and other wealthy people) have to write a check, because he thinks that's the right thing to do. Him writing a check solves NOTHING.
"The optimal price of the iPad hardware is less than what Apple is asking for it."
On what do you base this assumption, considering they sold out months of production on each iPad launch?
"compare the price of name-brand and generic soda" Generic soda tastes nasty. If you like it, great. Doesn't mean that other people don't value things differently than you do. Doesn't mean those people are stupid. They just don't agree with you.
The problem will be when folks take up arms to make sure it's not them doing the dying.
Yes, a global die-off of humans will be a Bad Thing. For humans.
The point is, cracks in aluminum aerostructures are a pretty well-understood phenomenon. There are cracks the system can tolerate (even cracks the system is designed to tolerate) and cracks that the system can not tolerate.
Airbus has determined that, with appropriate structural maintenance, these cracks are in the first set. I hope they are correct. I don't have any a priori reasons to assume that they are wrong.
Anybody got an airliner that carries 1000 souls on board? No? Well, we got that going for us.
As a composite technician, you're also familiar with the challenges presented by detecting and arresting delaminations, right?
Please tell me I'm right...
"and do Boeing do too perhaps?"
On all commercial aircraft (and, I think, most of the military aircraft, not sure about the two-seat fighters) Boeing control yokes (not side sticks) are mechanically connected to one another, and move simultaneously for all three axes of control input. The newer jets then transcode those inputs through the flight control computer system. Fun fact: The autopilot control inputs are back-driven into the yokes. You can see the plane flying itself (although the inputs are usually subtle).
Huh. Slashdot ate my "less than" sign. One hundred twenty is less than one hundred forty.
80 + 60 = 140
60 x 2 = 120
120 140
Math wizardry. You are now smarter.
Why on earth not? It's actually kinda hilarious...
I don't understand your first sentence at all.
"Against gay people, against Muslims, against 'illegal aliens', against women's rights, against birth control.. And they all want to pressure the government to back their belief."
So if I were a member of a church that didn't advocate any of those positions, your argument would be rendered invalid, right?
Guess what?
So, either it's "the stuff that burns your house down if you pour it on the floor" or "the stuff that enables me to go visit my grandma in the next state pretty much whenever I want"? And I, by my action as a moral being, choose which thing happens, and I am responsible for the consequences of that choice?
Your argument by analogy isn't much of an argument.
Seems like the right way would be to speak up about the danger of doing evil, not the "danger" of people gathering together to worship what they wish as they see fit.
"Why would they be included? There's no dogma in atheism."
There sure is in Hitchens' interpretation. If you purport to be a religious adherent, you are either stupid or evil or both. That's his dogma.
Yes, if only there were no religion, then people would not take nasty actions. That's a consistent and logical assumption.
Just because you can come up with religious extremists doesn't mean that the absence of religion will lead to the absence of people who behave like those extremists (based on whatever philosophical, non-theist worldview they care to invent for themselves).
It is stupid and short-sighted to imply that religion is the source of suffering and badness. Being alive in a world is the source of suffering and badness and joy and goodness and all other things.
Albeit a very noisy and obnoxious minority.
People don't point cameras and microphones at reasonable people.
So, as long as you get to decide who counts as "zealous" or "moderate", you can make your argument work. Those of us who actually believe the way we wish to believe don't count.
Sure, that's internally consistent...with your preconceived notions...
Because you have a worldview that makes it comfortable for you to think they're the same?
So, as long as you get to define what a religion is, you can make your argument work. Are you familiar with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
I'm a Christian and I agree completely. It's surprising to me how many skeptics are willing to tar all people of faith with the same brush. I don't agree with "religious nut-jobs" any more than you do, and there are a lot of believers like me.
Care to make a wager as to which one will fly first? Ideas are one thing. Engineering is hard.
You understand that this is a launch platform, not a cargo operation, right?
Or, even more like, "Both Branson and Allen contracted the same designer and aircraft factory to build airplanes for different missions". Wouldn't want to, you know, say true things or anything.
Just for my edification, what are the species that CAN plan for shit?