Not to mention it's a lesser offense. Just vandalism as opposed to murder unless they make a special new category of crime to protect them. I can imagine the fun gangs would have disabling these things in inventive and expensive-to-repair ways.
My opinion is a value judgment and value judgments are, by definition, correct insofar as they accurately reflect one's thoughts, but neither mine nore the authors of the OED are universally applicable.
Except for yours, of course. You appear to be able to judge the rightness of everybody's values.
The bible also does not preclude the existence of other gods, or even supernatural beings which simply are not enumerated there. It says thou shalt have no other god before me, which hardly seems necessary if people didn't believe in other gods. Indeed, it seems largely to legitimize the existence of other gods by reference. The bible rather says you won't worship any other gods... they must be out there;)
In other parts, other gods are called false and their worship vain. This is because there was an evolution of beliefs. The Jews did not wake up one morning as monotheists. In earlier books, it's clear that the writers believed there were multiple gods and the duty to worship YHWH was because of loyalty. One of the major words referring to their God in the modern Torah is "Elohim", which based on ancient Hebrew grammar looks plural in form. Use of that word may be a carryover from the early days when they were just one of many closely related Canaanite peoples who had more or less common religious beliefs. Or it's possible that tribes that converted to Jewish monotheism brought along their own writings and some of them got adapted into the scripture of the united peoples.
Later books record the suppression of worship of various "Ba'als" and Asherah (or Astaroth), a goddess who was often identified as the wife or "El" who was the chief god and presumably whom the central priesthood worshipped and therefore was probably the same YHWH that the Jews ended up identifying as their God.
Obviously, since there's a recorded transition period, there must have been a period of time when Jews still believed in the other gods but due to the suppression didn't worship them, or didn't openly do so. It's pretty clear that by the 2nd or 3rd century BC, they had stopped thinking of foreign gods as real, or at least that was the official position of their priesthood.
There are those that believe there is God, and the spirit and son were instruments of God.
There are those that only believe in God, and the son was just a dude, prophet, whatever
There are those that believe The father son and ghost are all the same thing.
There are those that believe that The Father Son and Ghost were 3 separate Gods all equal.
I suspect that there are people that believe in just about anything you can think of.
There are those who believe that life here started out there.
It's not our fault it was written by a hundred different people (conservatively) with varying ideas of what God is up to. If they'd stuck to a clear and consistent story, people wouldn't argue about what it says. But they'd still argue about whether it's true.
You mean the part about God creating me unable to do good without divine intervention while at the same time saying it's my fault I did wrong? Yeah, basic problems with the philosophy. But that has nothing to do with wearing a collander on your head -- unless you're hinting that they're both full of holes?
Incorrect. Agnostics are not aware of any evidence that there are gods but opine that there might be some gods somewhere that they don't know about. Atheists are pretty sure there's no such thing and would regard any suggested evidence with great skepticism. That's the difference. Atheists may or may not be interested in telling you what they think of your gods.
One to four, depending on how you count. Triple gods are notoriously hard to enumerate and the devil has so many alleged supernatural powers that he would be counted as a god in many interpretations.
A phrase doesn't deserve its own entry. Imagine if you tried to include every PHRASE in English. You go from on the order of 170,000 words to practically damn uncountable. It's a mistake to even start down that road.
That's not entirely true. Measles vaccinations are mostly effective, not 100% effective. No vaccination is 100% effective in protecting the vaccinated. There is no way to tell if you, having had your vaccinations, are still vulnerable to one or more of the diseases against which you have been vaccinated.
Not everybody who got measles is still here. It's been thinning the herd for thousands of years.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm
from which I quote here: "Of the 118 cases, 47 (40%) resulted in hospitalization. Nine patients had pneumonia, but none had encephalitis and none died."
None dying is not all that typical. Here's what the WHO has to say: " Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.
"It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 158 000 people died from measles in 2011 – mostly children under the age of five." -- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
Among other kinds of permanent damage, measles causes blindness in some patients. It is not OK to get measles. It's life and long-term health threatening.
Pretext no, reason yes. The vaccine produces protection within a few days. Parents of infants who have not yet been vaccinated are strongly advised by their pediatricians to keep their babies away from unvaccinated people because those people put their babies at risk of getting sick and because babies aren't as robust as older children, they're at greater risk of dying or permanent damage from these diseased.
But is the negative correlation cause or effect? Religion teaches people to accept things that are plainly unsupported by facts and often contrary to reasonable thought processes on faith and in many cases to reject logical thinking when it conflicts with what you are taught. I can't help but think that negatively impacts the development of reasoning skills.
Except some of the US population, i.e. the innocent children of fools like those who run Kenneth Copeland Ministries, are vulnerable. Because we can't make vaccines mandatory for everybody, we have to cope with the harm these idiots do. If folks like them had been around 40 years ago, we'd never have eradicated smallpox.
And here's the proof of their hubris: the wronger they are proven to be, the surer they are that they are right.
Well, there are humanoid robots, but they kind of suck at being humanoid. Robots build for a purpose aren't humanoid. The human form is an animal form. A humanoid form would work fine if you were making a robot out of meat.
I didn't see a cost estimate in the article. Lot of handwaving about this will be cheaper than what was proposed in the past, but no numbers because, despite the fact they're calling it a design, there's no design.
They do teardown reports all the time. The site is oriented to people who want to repair gadgets. So what they're showing here is largely how to take the phone apart. It's also interesting to those of us who want to know how things are made and what components are in our stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
.
Not to mention capture and repurposing! Imagine the havoc you could create with repurposed robocops.
Is that the rule now in the UK? Do y'all have an impeachment process for high court judges?
Could their project eventually replace security guards with robots?
When you put it like that yes, By definition of could and eventually.
Just like everything else.
There are hardcore predeterminists whose claims logically imply that God created our beliefs, both true and false.
My opinion is a value judgment and value judgments are, by definition, correct insofar as they accurately reflect one's thoughts, but neither mine nore the authors of the OED are universally applicable.
Except for yours, of course. You appear to be able to judge the rightness of everybody's values.
Which is about 580000 too many, IMO. Of course, they can do whatever they want. It's not like anybody's going to read their book.
The bible also does not preclude the existence of other gods, or even supernatural beings which simply are not enumerated there. It says thou shalt have no other god before me, which hardly seems necessary if people didn't believe in other gods. Indeed, it seems largely to legitimize the existence of other gods by reference. The bible rather says you won't worship any other gods... they must be out there ;)
In other parts, other gods are called false and their worship vain. This is because there was an evolution of beliefs. The Jews did not wake up one morning as monotheists. In earlier books, it's clear that the writers believed there were multiple gods and the duty to worship YHWH was because of loyalty. One of the major words referring to their God in the modern Torah is "Elohim", which based on ancient Hebrew grammar looks plural in form. Use of that word may be a carryover from the early days when they were just one of many closely related Canaanite peoples who had more or less common religious beliefs. Or it's possible that tribes that converted to Jewish monotheism brought along their own writings and some of them got adapted into the scripture of the united peoples.
Later books record the suppression of worship of various "Ba'als" and Asherah (or Astaroth), a goddess who was often identified as the wife or "El" who was the chief god and presumably whom the central priesthood worshipped and therefore was probably the same YHWH that the Jews ended up identifying as their God.
Obviously, since there's a recorded transition period, there must have been a period of time when Jews still believed in the other gods but due to the suppression didn't worship them, or didn't openly do so. It's pretty clear that by the 2nd or 3rd century BC, they had stopped thinking of foreign gods as real, or at least that was the official position of their priesthood.
You're completely wrong. There are plenty of christian religions that do not believe in the trinity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism apt name eh?
There are those that believe there is God, and the spirit and son were instruments of God. There are those that only believe in God, and the son was just a dude, prophet, whatever There are those that believe The father son and ghost are all the same thing. There are those that believe that The Father Son and Ghost were 3 separate Gods all equal.
I suspect that there are people that believe in just about anything you can think of.
There are those who believe that life here started out there.
Which three? If you think the Christ and the Paraklete (Holy Spirit) are subordinate to the Father you are a Subordinationist, perhaps an Arian.
It's not our fault it was written by a hundred different people (conservatively) with varying ideas of what God is up to. If they'd stuck to a clear and consistent story, people wouldn't argue about what it says. But they'd still argue about whether it's true.
You mean the part about God creating me unable to do good without divine intervention while at the same time saying it's my fault I did wrong? Yeah, basic problems with the philosophy. But that has nothing to do with wearing a collander on your head -- unless you're hinting that they're both full of holes?
Incorrect. Agnostics are not aware of any evidence that there are gods but opine that there might be some gods somewhere that they don't know about. Atheists are pretty sure there's no such thing and would regard any suggested evidence with great skepticism. That's the difference. Atheists may or may not be interested in telling you what they think of your gods.
One to four, depending on how you count. Triple gods are notoriously hard to enumerate and the devil has so many alleged supernatural powers that he would be counted as a god in many interpretations.
I was responding to the flippant tone of the remark. Flippancy is not at all appropriate regarding a disease as serious as measles.
A phrase doesn't deserve its own entry. Imagine if you tried to include every PHRASE in English. You go from on the order of 170,000 words to practically damn uncountable. It's a mistake to even start down that road.
That's not entirely true. Measles vaccinations are mostly effective, not 100% effective. No vaccination is 100% effective in protecting the vaccinated. There is no way to tell if you, having had your vaccinations, are still vulnerable to one or more of the diseases against which you have been vaccinated.
Not everybody who got measles is still here. It's been thinning the herd for thousands of years. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm from which I quote here: "Of the 118 cases, 47 (40%) resulted in hospitalization. Nine patients had pneumonia, but none had encephalitis and none died." None dying is not all that typical. Here's what the WHO has to say: " Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year. "It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 158 000 people died from measles in 2011 – mostly children under the age of five." -- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ Among other kinds of permanent damage, measles causes blindness in some patients. It is not OK to get measles. It's life and long-term health threatening.
Pretext no, reason yes. The vaccine produces protection within a few days. Parents of infants who have not yet been vaccinated are strongly advised by their pediatricians to keep their babies away from unvaccinated people because those people put their babies at risk of getting sick and because babies aren't as robust as older children, they're at greater risk of dying or permanent damage from these diseased.
Yep, often caused by inheriting poverty. In fact, wealth or the lack of it was the first thing known to be inherited.
But is the negative correlation cause or effect? Religion teaches people to accept things that are plainly unsupported by facts and often contrary to reasonable thought processes on faith and in many cases to reject logical thinking when it conflicts with what you are taught. I can't help but think that negatively impacts the development of reasoning skills.
Except some of the US population, i.e. the innocent children of fools like those who run Kenneth Copeland Ministries, are vulnerable. Because we can't make vaccines mandatory for everybody, we have to cope with the harm these idiots do. If folks like them had been around 40 years ago, we'd never have eradicated smallpox. And here's the proof of their hubris: the wronger they are proven to be, the surer they are that they are right.
Well, there are humanoid robots, but they kind of suck at being humanoid. Robots build for a purpose aren't humanoid. The human form is an animal form. A humanoid form would work fine if you were making a robot out of meat.
I didn't see a cost estimate in the article. Lot of handwaving about this will be cheaper than what was proposed in the past, but no numbers because, despite the fact they're calling it a design, there's no design.
They do teardown reports all the time. The site is oriented to people who want to repair gadgets. So what they're showing here is largely how to take the phone apart. It's also interesting to those of us who want to know how things are made and what components are in our stuff.