mysteriously disappearing honey bees? Here's the argument from the highly biased source you linked to: Test 1: Spring-sown oilseed rape, October 2003
Nationwide tests found that biotech oilseed rape sown in the spring could be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalent. There were fewer butterflies among modified crops, due to there being less weeds. Verdict: GM fails.
I'm sorry, but reducing weeds means GM passes, that was it's goal. There's nothing mysterious in observing that a product designed to reduce weeds does in fact reduce weeds. That the "researchers" declare a reduction in weeds an assault on wildlife is their issue. Gimme a break and stop the crying.
People who hear about the use of lead and arsenic in paint and wallpaper often wonder how people could be so stupid as to have that kind of thing in their homes. The answer is that printers and painters overstepped their knowledge and embraced new toys that made them money.
Sorry, the above is technophobia defended by anecdote. In the 40's DDT powder was used directly on people's skin to get rid of lice and other nasties. Yes, turns out DDT was harmful, but it saved a lot of lives in the use they applied it to. It was the best option available with what we knew at the time. Waiting until we know everything means waiting forever since we never can know everything. When we've studied a new technology closely and find the known benefits outweigh the costs then we go ahead. That's called technological progress. Oh, and "don't eat paint", seems to be just good old fashioned common sense.
If the universe is "infinite", then there's plenty of room for lots of strange anomalies out there. A region which has nothing in it is just a blerp in the standard distribution of matter.
The size of the universe isn't really relevant. Our existing dataset of the universe is very much finite. Even in an infinite universe, the subset visible to us is not. Invoking infinity and probability only means something when our dataset is infinite, which it plainly is not.
Something as mathematically basic as such probabilities is not likely to be missed by the entire physics community. Remember that as a rule many of them are better at math than us computer scientists.
But why speak hypothetically? This already happened two years ago in Vanuatu
And this is were we need to step back and look at the forest again. The argument was that Global Warming is going to be responsible for putting the Maldive's under the ocean in 50 years. The clear implication being that without any sea level rise, the Maldive's won't be under the ocean in 50 years. That 19cm is the difference between status quo and being under the ocean is a joke and a deceptive argument. The truth is that if 19cm is going to put you under the ocean, you've already got massive problems. The next Tsunami or Hurricane to come through could just as easily put you under.
A 2.1m wave now will likely crash on the beach. LOL, unless the tide is in. Or it is a 2.3m wave, then you've got a problem right now. Basically, the conditions that have existed on the island since people first started living on it. If it's not considered under the ocean right now, why should 20cm make a difference?
The IPCC's results have always seen a HUGE outcry, from both sides. On the whole though, they are overly pessimistic not sugar coating things. The particular issue you link to is only in regards to the differences between the 3rd and 4th reports the IPCC has presented. The only people arguing for a significant correction(up to 100cm) are from the fringes and even that 1m won't see entire Islands under water in 50 years as per parent post. I guess my point is, if we want to debate the accuracy of IPCC findings we're at least talking science. Pulling out blatantly false hyperbole like 50 years seeing islands disappear is just fear mongering. Better still, fear mongering running contrary to scientific evidence.
The Maldive islands will disappear under the sea in less than 50 years. Why? Because icebergs melt, slowly but most surely. Why? I'll let you try and answer this last question.
Thanks for the laugh. With luck I'll still be around in 50 years to see that your wrong. The IPCC, which is cited by Global Warming alarmists as the symbol of scientific consensus suggests that by 2100 sea levels will rise between 9-37cm from 1990 to 2100. Check the report yourself here if you don't believe me. The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean. It's ridiculous claims like yours that causes people to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, since arguments like yours have as much scientific basis as the notion that global climate is actually cooling.
Forbes, being one of the 'premier' business 'rags, the real story isn't what Google's actions. It's the spin that Forbes is trying to create. The real thing to learn from this is that Google is still unpopular in the Forbes reading circle. Forbes is just trying to put some negative publicity onto Google any way they can. As many have already pointed out, no sane business model relies entirely on the search results from another business that has no vested interest. Anybody working at Forbes knows as much, and yet we have an article talking about "Google's gulag". The real information here is from in between the lines. A power struggle behind the scenes, currently Google is the target of some negative image campaigning. What I'm interested in is, where that pushing originates. Who 'owns' Forbes and is pushing for bad press for Google?
if you take this to mean these guys think they can get away with nuking Tel Aviv, you're guilty of looking at their words instead of their actions--and quite naïvely at that.
Actually, I also pointed out that Iran's leadership likely isn't so foolish as to use nukes against Israel. I stated that Iran with nukes would continue supporting attacks on Israel more aggressively with nukes than without.
as for words vs. actions: "At a government-sanctioned, anti-Israel demonstration in Tehran, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, Iran's speaker of Parliament, warned that "Israel's northern cities are within the range of Hezbollah's missiles and no part of Israel will be safe."
Point being, the fact is Iran's leadership has continually stated a desire to destroy Israel and provides support and training to groups that directly attack Israel. It's pretty clear that once Iran possesses nukes they will only get more bold in that support. Whether you agree or not, most people deem that to be a bad thing.
I'm still not seeing how this makes a nuclear-armed Iran a credible threat to Israel, or more generally stability in the Middle East. Our own politicians make threats against America's enemies all the time, but--and here's the important part
Here's the important part: "The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing" Maybe you can take the time to go find some equivalent threats from American politicians? You have to go back quite a ways to find American politicians rallying in favor of racial genocide. Contrary to whatever you may think, there is a significant difference.
Supplying arms and training for Hezbollah forces, who then use that training and weaponry to attack Israel is an action.
And before you go trying to bury your head in the sand and deny the above connection. Explain to me how the following quote from the International Herald Tribune doesn't confirm exactly that:
At a government-sanctioned, anti-Israel demonstration in Tehran, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, Iran's speaker of Parliament, warned that "Israel's northern cities are within the range of Hezbollah's missiles and no part of Israel will be safe."
The crowd of nearly 2,000 demonstrators replied with chants of "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!"
As part of the theater of the day, demonstrators also read a statement asking the Iranian government to help them join Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, Iran's state-run television reported.
Which of Iran's actions over the past thirtysome years indicate its intent to remove Israel from the map? None.
None is the wrong answer. Supplying arms and training for Hezbollah forces, who then use that training and weaponry to attack Israel is an action. Of course, you seem intent on ignoring all evidence that is inconvenient to your position.
You have to separate rhetoric from hard-nosed pragmatic reality...mistake the populist bluster of Islamist politicians for real intent to obliterate Israel. This is rubbish. Iran is not suicidal.
For reference, rubbish is dismissing as rhetoric:"The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing". That silly Ahmadinejad, what kind of rhetoric will he come up with next. When groups like Hezbollah use Iranian training and weapons to attack Israel sane people consider that a clue that maybe Ahmadinejad's 'rhetoric' has some teeth to it. But go ahead and keep laughing at his hijinx if you like, just don't be surprised when people are offended by you. They SHOULD be.
You are right on the not being suicidal part though. Ahmadinejad appears far smarter than Bush and knows full well that removing Israel from the map is easier when you have nukes than when you don't. That doesn't mean he's foolish enough to use them, but he's also smart enough to know that if he wants to start something, better he have nukes too.
If you are gonna claim he doesn't want to remove Israel you are not only ignoring his public statements, your ignoring Iran's actions as well.
This is an excellent example of why we as a society need fiction (especially science fiction).
This is an excellent example of why we need HISTORY!
I mean, common people, +5 informative?
Surely someone realizes that fiction authors are no more magically ethical than any other human being. What precisely qualifies their vision of the future as a valuable morale compass? Let's take our lessons from the way things have actually happened in the past, rather than just taking our favorite authors version of the future!
I did not say religious people cause genocide. I do however emphatically state that religion is often THE essential ingredient for genocide.
Yes you did: with regards to your Hitler/Aryan... Nazi Germany was COMPLETELY a religious thing as well... Clearly these guys were Christian god-nuts, just like the bible belt of the US today
You declare that Nazi Germany was a religous thing, that the nazis where clearly Christian god-nuts, just like the bible belt of the US today. You are saying the nazis were first and foremost religous people. You are blaming religous people for the ww2 holocaust/genocide. More over you clearly do not limit the blame to this one example.
Religion has caused more genocide on this planet than any other single force
religion has been a HUGE driver of genocide for as long as we can reasonably study
there are so many GREAT examples of genocide going on RIGHT NOW based on religion
You have repeatedly stated both directly and indirectly that religous people are responsible for genocide, in fact most of it through human history. For the record, ask any historian and he will tell you your ideas simply aren't born out by the historical evidence.
focus on the issues itself, which in the end, is really the issue isn't it?
Which would be your belief that religion should either be removed from history classes, or limited to examples of where it has caused genocide. The issue is you are trying to push your own biased idea that religion is the cause of genocide. It is your insistence that history bears this out, contrary to the evidence and accepted historical consensus. You're ideas are the historical equivalent of the worst ideas creationists have put forth.
If we had scientific leadership in charge of our nuclear arms, at the very least they would have knowledge concerning radioactive fallout and other global effects of nuclear war, and that knowledge alone might help prevent nuclear war.
This is an OT idea you seem determined to push so I'll address it too. Stating scientific understanding should reduce the likely someone has for using nukes is reasonable, and I'd agree. The problem is that your previous posts make it clear that you consider scientific leadership to exclude anyone you consider religous. That is simply false.
My "malice" involves saving human lives by not allowing irrational religious people to run our nuclear programs. Now "aggressive", I'll take fully. I think human life is an issue to be aggressive about. I'm not being arrogant either, I hardly would state that *i* am the type of person to be in charge of nuclear weaponry, either. I do think though that rational humanists would be a better pick than religious types, and I do fit in that category.
And for those just joinning us now, you believe the term irrational religious people is redundant. You are making a strong case for the sad state of history instruction in public education, though perhaps not in the way you intend. Allow me to explain.
You plainly consider religious people(here forth referred to as 'them') to be the single biggest cause of genocide in human history. You've repeatedly declared it to be a self evident fact. You frequently state that rational humanists like yourself are inherently better than 'them'. You frequently declare that any position of power held by one of them is a grave threat to humanity.
To deny any of the above is to go back on everything you have said. The posts are public record and I think my previous post should be more than adequate to show I'm not putting words in your mouth here. You are declaring they are evil because you believe people like them are responsible for most of the genocide in human history. The tragic part is that every accusation you use and plea you make against them is precisely the kind of social environment that history teaches us is the cause of war and genocide. The hypocritical part is your fanatical fervor which easily matches or surpasses that of the irrational religous types you blame for causing genocide.
For someone so strongly anti-religion you are well on your way to starting your own(well the destructive parts anyways).
My propaganda is not malignant. I'm encouraging thought and study. That is hardly a malignant message, and I think history will back me up on that claim...
I mentioned that very socio-economic connection in my earlier flame/troll! I didn't feel a need to go in depth, as it was OT, but I did mention it.
You statement here is precisely what I'm getting at. For reference, my replies are regarding your original statement as follows:
Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
You can not provide an informed opinion on teaching history while considering socio-economic factors to be OT.
As for Dawkins, I never said a word about him. I'm guessing your referring to someone elses reply I saw elsewhere in the thread. I'd say it's safe to call that OT.
I think our government's current use of depleted uranium is yet another example of WHAT is WRONG with not only our political power structure, but the blind-faith idiots who currently reign in it as well.
Spraying nuclear waste all over a country you already shock and awed..... How are we the good guys on this one again?
Where you talking about OT stuff again? Or do you somehow think that America's relgionus beliefs where the basis for their choice in weaponary?
Mark my words: If the bible-belt republicans, jihad Muslims, and invasion-happy jews retain nuclear power, as they currently seem to be doing, one of them will nuke one of the other ones, and it will be a VERY BAD THING for everybody on the planet. Particularly those of us who LIKE having just two eyes for us, and our children.
Mark my words, regardless of any religous affiliation at all, all those same nations with nukes are powder kegs. It's socio-economic,geographic and cultural differences(and others) that make the world a mass of violent chaos. Religion is just a piece in that jumble.
Lastly, I'm not inclined to debate your idea of rational/irrational people. You apparently believe that anyone who has any religous belief is irrational. That's your bias, I've met plenty of people who are both rational and have religous beliefs. Moreover, I'm hard pressed to name anyone that isn't irrational on some topic or another. I've learned the futility of arguing with them on said topics and strongly suspect this is one of yours.
Theres only two ways someone looks at history and comes to a single and simple answer to why any war or genocide occurred. They are either ignorant of the details of history, or a simpleton who sees primarily through their own biases.
Historic issues have depth to them, you can blame the american civil war on slavery to use a single sentence, but it's hardly accurate to say that it was the single driving cause. That's wishfull thinking, history played out differently. The crusades are much the same, you can use a single sentence to describe the crusades as a religous war. Last time I checked the wikipedia article on the crusades they gave a much deeper set of socio-economic reasons for the conflict. Perphaps you need to go update it though, or if you already have try checking a more constant source on the matter. Or better yet a history text on the era or better yet a history proffessor at the local U(I've done both).
The biggest single force behind religious involvment in political affairs on the scale of war and genocide are socio-economic. It is ignorant to claim religion as the cause of such things, when it is socio-economic forces driving the use of religion as a tool. I'm not denying religion having a role in wars, I'm saying you are biased or ignorant if you think it is the sole or even primary cause behind even most of them.
Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
Okay, the teacher in the article was plainly wrong. Nobody's arguing that. But don't go giving anyone who would defend the guy amunition about the 'other' side with comments like the above. You can't go pushing your own ignorant biases as the solution to someone else pushing theirs.
For the record, there is no 'maybe' about the place religion has in history. It's of vital importance that history be taught unedited, that obviously includes a very large role for religion throughout human history. More importantly suggesting genocide is religion's biggest historical signficance is as ignorant as it is malicious. As well teach student's that evolution was the driving ideal behind ww2's holocaust and the pursuit of the master race.
Everytime an extremist from the right jumps up and down why is it that the extremists on the left are deteremined not to be out done? Bah!
If you're going to get into a philosophical discussion on the meaning and existence of god(s) it's important to define all the terms accurately.
Which is precisely why I object to your redefining a word. If accuracy in our definitions is important, then stick to the definitions in the dictionary. If they are insufficient then use a different term. If you want to say Gates is a non-theist, that's much more accurate than saying that Gates is an atheist. Then redefining atheist as someone who is a non-theist. You see the point here?
The common definition of atheism being the denial of the existence of gods is inadequate for most people who call themselves atheists. Basically "atheist" should mean the person is a non-theist.
From websters: "one who believes that there is no deity"
We are debating whether Mr. Gates is atheist or agnostic based on the english language. By the webster's definition and the referenced interview, agnostic more accurately describes him. I feel people who redefine words to suit their needs/perspective to be dishonest. This kind of thing really aught to get modded -1 misinformative(since we are inventing words anyways).
This makes it more of a fascist system (though the word has become 'dirty' from its association with certain European governments of the 20th century).
Mussolini wrote "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism". He is to Fascism as Karl Marx is to communism. He also led the first of the fascist European government of the 20th century that made the word 'dirty' in your words. Fascism is a dirty word not because of the Governments who've abused it, but for the governments and people who founded it. There's a big difference there and your trying to imply that fascism has somehow gotten a bad rap. One could as easily say the word 'nazi' has become 'dirty' from its association with a certain European government of the 20th century. Fascism as defined by the dictionary or layed out by Mussolini fully deserves to be considered a 'dirty' word. To use it any other connotation is to missuse it.
What this says to me is that the Bush administration is fscking terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists
I think it's more likely intended to make sure the general public is terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists. There's a commie, er I mean terrorist, behind every Bush. Every good patriot knows that giving our government extra powers is better than the terrifying alternatives.
Tim Sweeney presented a paper recently on the topic of game engine design for multi core systems. Basically it amounts to changing from c/c++ to a functional language like Haskell for engine development so the language takes care of the task divisions needed. Code complexity is already a problem for engine development, managing threads is just gonna make that worse. When engine development time is as long as it currently is, taking a performance hit in code execution can be offset by a faster time to market.
Slashdot Mirror
mysteriously disappearing honey bees?
Here's the argument from the highly biased source you linked to:
Test 1: Spring-sown oilseed rape, October 2003
Nationwide tests found that biotech oilseed rape sown in the spring could be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalent. There were fewer butterflies among modified crops, due to there being less weeds. Verdict: GM fails.
I'm sorry, but reducing weeds means GM passes, that was it's goal. There's nothing mysterious in observing that a product designed to reduce weeds does in fact reduce weeds. That the "researchers" declare a reduction in weeds an assault on wildlife is their issue. Gimme a break and stop the crying.
People who hear about the use of lead and arsenic in paint and wallpaper often wonder how people could be so stupid as to have that kind of thing in their homes. The answer is that printers and painters overstepped their knowledge and embraced new toys that made them money.
Sorry, the above is technophobia defended by anecdote. In the 40's DDT powder was used directly on people's skin to get rid of lice and other nasties. Yes, turns out DDT was harmful, but it saved a lot of lives in the use they applied it to. It was the best option available with what we knew at the time. Waiting until we know everything means waiting forever since we never can know everything. When we've studied a new technology closely and find the known benefits outweigh the costs then we go ahead. That's called technological progress. Oh, and "don't eat paint", seems to be just good old fashioned common sense.
If the universe is "infinite", then there's plenty of room for lots of strange anomalies out there. A region which has nothing in it is just a blerp in the standard distribution of matter.
The size of the universe isn't really relevant. Our existing dataset of the universe is very much finite. Even in an infinite universe, the subset visible to us is not. Invoking infinity and probability only means something when our dataset is infinite, which it plainly is not.
Something as mathematically basic as such probabilities is not likely to be missed by the entire physics community. Remember that as a rule many of them are better at math than us computer scientists.
But why speak hypothetically? This already happened two years ago in Vanuatu
And this is were we need to step back and look at the forest again. The argument was that Global Warming is going to be responsible for putting the Maldive's under the ocean in 50 years. The clear implication being that without any sea level rise, the Maldive's won't be under the ocean in 50 years. That 19cm is the difference between status quo and being under the ocean is a joke and a deceptive argument. The truth is that if 19cm is going to put you under the ocean, you've already got massive problems. The next Tsunami or Hurricane to come through could just as easily put you under.
A 2.1m wave now will likely crash on the beach.
LOL, unless the tide is in. Or it is a 2.3m wave, then you've got a problem right now. Basically, the conditions that have existed on the island since people first started living on it. If it's not considered under the ocean right now, why should 20cm make a difference?
The IPCC's results have always seen a HUGE outcry, from both sides. On the whole though, they are overly pessimistic not sugar coating things. The particular issue you link to is only in regards to the differences between the 3rd and 4th reports the IPCC has presented. The only people arguing for a significant correction(up to 100cm) are from the fringes and even that 1m won't see entire Islands under water in 50 years as per parent post.
I guess my point is, if we want to debate the accuracy of IPCC findings we're at least talking science. Pulling out blatantly false hyperbole like 50 years seeing islands disappear is just fear mongering. Better still, fear mongering running contrary to scientific evidence.
The Maldive islands will disappear under the sea in less than 50 years. Why? Because icebergs melt, slowly but most surely. Why? I'll let you try and answer this last question.
Thanks for the laugh. With luck I'll still be around in 50 years to see that your wrong. The IPCC, which is cited by Global Warming alarmists as the symbol of scientific consensus suggests that by 2100 sea levels will rise between 9-37cm from 1990 to 2100. Check the report yourself here if you don't believe me. The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean.
It's ridiculous claims like yours that causes people to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, since arguments like yours have as much scientific basis as the notion that global climate is actually cooling.
Forbes, being one of the 'premier' business 'rags, the real story isn't what Google's actions. It's the spin that Forbes is trying to create. The real thing to learn from this is that Google is still unpopular in the Forbes reading circle.
Forbes is just trying to put some negative publicity onto Google any way they can. As many have already pointed out, no sane business model relies entirely on the search results from another business that has no vested interest. Anybody working at Forbes knows as much, and yet we have an article talking about "Google's gulag".
The real information here is from in between the lines. A power struggle behind the scenes, currently Google is the target of some negative image campaigning. What I'm interested in is, where that pushing originates. Who 'owns' Forbes and is pushing for bad press for Google?
if you take this to mean these guys think they can get away with nuking Tel Aviv, you're guilty of looking at their words instead of their actions--and quite naïvely at that.
Actually, I also pointed out that Iran's leadership likely isn't so foolish as to use nukes against Israel. I stated that Iran with nukes would continue supporting attacks on Israel more aggressively with nukes than without.
as for words vs. actions:
"At a government-sanctioned, anti-Israel demonstration in Tehran, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, Iran's speaker of Parliament, warned that "Israel's northern cities are within the range of Hezbollah's missiles and no part of Israel will be safe."
Point being, the fact is Iran's leadership has continually stated a desire to destroy Israel and provides support and training to groups that directly attack Israel. It's pretty clear that once Iran possesses nukes they will only get more bold in that support. Whether you agree or not, most people deem that to be a bad thing.
I'm still not seeing how this makes a nuclear-armed Iran a credible threat to Israel, or more generally stability in the Middle East. Our own politicians make threats against America's enemies all the time, but--and here's the important part
Here's the important part:
"The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing"
Maybe you can take the time to go find some equivalent threats from American politicians? You have to go back quite a ways to find American politicians rallying in favor of racial genocide. Contrary to whatever you may think, there is a significant difference.
Supplying arms and training for Hezbollah forces, who then use that training and weaponry to attack Israel is an action.
And before you go trying to bury your head in the sand and deny the above connection. Explain to me how the following quote from the International Herald Tribune doesn't confirm exactly that:
At a government-sanctioned, anti-Israel demonstration in Tehran, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, Iran's speaker of Parliament, warned that "Israel's northern cities are within the range of Hezbollah's missiles and no part of Israel will be safe."
The crowd of nearly 2,000 demonstrators replied with chants of "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!"
As part of the theater of the day, demonstrators also read a statement asking the Iranian government to help them join Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, Iran's state-run television reported.
Which of Iran's actions over the past thirtysome years indicate its intent to remove Israel from the map? None.
None is the wrong answer. Supplying arms and training for Hezbollah forces, who then use that training and weaponry to attack Israel is an action. Of course, you seem intent on ignoring all evidence that is inconvenient to your position.
You have to separate rhetoric from hard-nosed pragmatic reality...mistake the populist bluster of Islamist politicians for real intent to obliterate Israel. This is rubbish. Iran is not suicidal.
For reference, rubbish is dismissing as rhetoric:"The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing". That silly Ahmadinejad, what kind of rhetoric will he come up with next.
When groups like Hezbollah use Iranian training and weapons to attack Israel sane people consider that a clue that maybe Ahmadinejad's 'rhetoric' has some teeth to it. But go ahead and keep laughing at his hijinx if you like, just don't be surprised when people are offended by you. They SHOULD be.
You are right on the not being suicidal part though. Ahmadinejad appears far smarter than Bush and knows full well that removing Israel from the map is easier when you have nukes than when you don't. That doesn't mean he's foolish enough to use them, but he's also smart enough to know that if he wants to start something, better he have nukes too.
If you are gonna claim he doesn't want to remove Israel you are not only ignoring his public statements, your ignoring Iran's actions as well.
This is an excellent example of why we as a society need fiction (especially science fiction).
This is an excellent example of why we need HISTORY!
I mean, common people, +5 informative?
Surely someone realizes that fiction authors are no more magically ethical than any other human being. What precisely qualifies their vision of the future as a valuable morale compass? Let's take our lessons from the way things have actually happened in the past, rather than just taking our favorite authors version of the future!
Apple is an artistic company, and until recently they were largely a "we don't play dirty like Redmond" company
It is the sort of petulant "but we're so much cooler than Cisco" that I might expect from Microsoft, but never from Apple.
I think your view of Apple's company history is being distorted by Jobs' reality-distortion field.
I did not say religious people cause genocide. I do however emphatically state that religion is often THE essential ingredient for genocide.
Yes you did:
with regards to your Hitler/Aryan... Nazi Germany was COMPLETELY a religious thing as well... Clearly these guys were Christian god-nuts, just like the bible belt of the US today
You declare that Nazi Germany was a religous thing, that the nazis where clearly Christian god-nuts, just like the bible belt of the US today. You are saying the nazis were first and foremost religous people. You are blaming religous people for the ww2 holocaust/genocide. More over you clearly do not limit the blame to this one example.
Religion has caused more genocide on this planet than any other single force
religion has been a HUGE driver of genocide for as long as we can reasonably study
there are so many GREAT examples of genocide going on RIGHT NOW based on religion
You have repeatedly stated both directly and indirectly that religous people are responsible for genocide, in fact most of it through human history. For the record, ask any historian and he will tell you your ideas simply aren't born out by the historical evidence.
focus on the issues itself, which in the end, is really the issue isn't it?
Which would be your belief that religion should either be removed from history classes, or limited to examples of where it has caused genocide. The issue is you are trying to push your own biased idea that religion is the cause of genocide. It is your insistence that history bears this out, contrary to the evidence and accepted historical consensus. You're ideas are the historical equivalent of the worst ideas creationists have put forth.
If we had scientific leadership in charge of our nuclear arms, at the very least they would have knowledge concerning radioactive fallout and other global effects of nuclear war, and that knowledge alone might help prevent nuclear war.
This is an OT idea you seem determined to push so I'll address it too. Stating scientific understanding should reduce the likely someone has for using nukes is reasonable, and I'd agree. The problem is that your previous posts make it clear that you consider scientific leadership to exclude anyone you consider religous. That is simply false.
My "malice" involves saving human lives by not allowing irrational religious people to run our nuclear programs.
Now "aggressive", I'll take fully. I think human life is an issue to be aggressive about.
I'm not being arrogant either, I hardly would state that *i* am the type of person to be in charge of nuclear weaponry, either. I do think though that rational humanists would be a better pick than religious types, and I do fit in that category.
And for those just joinning us now, you believe the term irrational religious people is redundant. You are making a strong case for the sad state of history instruction in public education, though perhaps not in the way you intend. Allow me to explain.
You plainly consider religious people(here forth referred to as 'them') to be the single biggest cause of genocide in human history. You've repeatedly declared it to be a self evident fact. You frequently state that rational humanists like yourself are inherently better than 'them'. You frequently declare that any position of power held by one of them is a grave threat to humanity.
To deny any of the above is to go back on everything you have said. The posts are public record and I think my previous post should be more than adequate to show I'm not putting words in your mouth here. You are declaring they are evil because you believe people like them are responsible for most of the genocide in human history. The tragic part is that every accusation you use and plea you make against them is precisely the kind of social environment that history teaches us is the cause of war and genocide. The hypocritical part is your fanatical fervor which easily matches or surpasses that of the irrational religous types you blame for causing genocide.
For someone so strongly anti-religion you are well on your way to starting your own(well the destructive parts anyways).
My propaganda is not malignant. I'm encouraging thought and study. That is hardly a malignant message, and I think history will back me up on that claim...
Malignant(from websters here):aggressively malicious
Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
Religion has caused more genocide on this planet than any other single force
religion has been a HUGE driver of genocide for as long as we can reasonably study
with regards to your Hitler/Aryan
Regardless of whether you are a carpet muncher (as signified by prayer) or not
the bible-belt republicans, jihad Muslims, and invasion-happy jews
I think your posts speak for themselves.
I mentioned that very socio-economic connection in my earlier flame/troll! I didn't feel a need to go in depth, as it was OT, but I did mention it.
You statement here is precisely what I'm getting at. For reference, my replies are regarding your original statement as follows:
Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
You can not provide an informed opinion on teaching history while considering socio-economic factors to be OT.
As for Dawkins, I never said a word about him. I'm guessing your referring to someone elses reply I saw elsewhere in the thread. I'd say it's safe to call that OT.
I think our government's current use of depleted uranium is yet another example of WHAT is WRONG with not only our political power structure, but the blind-faith idiots who currently reign in it as well.
Spraying nuclear waste all over a country you already shock and awed..... How are we the good guys on this one again?
Where you talking about OT stuff again? Or do you somehow think that America's relgionus beliefs where the basis for their choice in weaponary?
Mark my words: If the bible-belt republicans, jihad Muslims, and invasion-happy jews retain nuclear power, as they currently seem to be doing, one of them will nuke one of the other ones, and it will be a VERY BAD THING for everybody on the planet. Particularly those of us who LIKE having just two eyes for us, and our children.
Mark my words, regardless of any religous affiliation at all, all those same nations with nukes are powder kegs. It's socio-economic,geographic and cultural differences(and others) that make the world a mass of violent chaos. Religion is just a piece in that jumble.
Lastly, I'm not inclined to debate your idea of rational/irrational people. You apparently believe that anyone who has any religous belief is irrational. That's your bias, I've met plenty of people who are both rational and have religous beliefs. Moreover, I'm hard pressed to name anyone that isn't irrational on some topic or another. I've learned the futility of arguing with them on said topics and strongly suspect this is one of yours.
Theres only two ways someone looks at history and comes to a single and simple answer to why any war or genocide occurred. They are either ignorant of the details of history, or a simpleton who sees primarily through their own biases.
Historic issues have depth to them, you can blame the american civil war on slavery to use a single sentence, but it's hardly accurate to say that it was the single driving cause. That's wishfull thinking, history played out differently. The crusades are much the same, you can use a single sentence to describe the crusades as a religous war. Last time I checked the wikipedia article on the crusades they gave a much deeper set of socio-economic reasons for the conflict. Perphaps you need to go update it though, or if you already have try checking a more constant source on the matter. Or better yet a history text on the era or better yet a history proffessor at the local U(I've done both).
The biggest single force behind religious involvment in political affairs on the scale of war and genocide are socio-economic. It is ignorant to claim religion as the cause of such things, when it is socio-economic forces driving the use of religion as a tool. I'm not denying religion having a role in wars, I'm saying you are biased or ignorant if you think it is the sole or even primary cause behind even most of them.
Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
Okay, the teacher in the article was plainly wrong. Nobody's arguing that. But don't go giving anyone who would defend the guy amunition about the 'other' side with comments like the above. You can't go pushing your own ignorant biases as the solution to someone else pushing theirs.
For the record, there is no 'maybe' about the place religion has in history. It's of vital importance that history be taught unedited, that obviously includes a very large role for religion throughout human history. More importantly suggesting genocide is religion's biggest historical signficance is as ignorant as it is malicious. As well teach student's that evolution was the driving ideal behind ww2's holocaust and the pursuit of the master race.
Everytime an extremist from the right jumps up and down why is it that the extremists on the left are deteremined not to be out done? Bah!
If you're going to get into a philosophical discussion on the meaning and existence of god(s) it's important to define all the terms accurately.
Which is precisely why I object to your redefining a word. If accuracy in our definitions is important, then stick to the definitions in the dictionary. If they are insufficient then use a different term. If you want to say Gates is a non-theist, that's much more accurate than saying that Gates is an atheist. Then redefining atheist as someone who is a non-theist. You see the point here?
The common definition of atheism being the denial of the existence of gods is inadequate for most people who call themselves atheists. Basically "atheist" should mean the person is a non-theist.
From websters: "one who believes that there is no deity"
We are debating whether Mr. Gates is atheist or agnostic based on the english language. By the webster's definition and the referenced interview, agnostic more accurately describes him. I feel people who redefine words to suit their needs/perspective to be dishonest. This kind of thing really aught to get modded -1 misinformative(since we are inventing words anyways).
This makes it more of a fascist system (though the word has become 'dirty' from its association with certain European governments of the 20th century).
Mussolini wrote "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism". He is to Fascism as Karl Marx is to communism. He also led the first of the fascist European government of the 20th century that made the word 'dirty' in your words. Fascism is a dirty word not because of the Governments who've abused it, but for the governments and people who founded it. There's a big difference there and your trying to imply that fascism has somehow gotten a bad rap. One could as easily say the word 'nazi' has become 'dirty' from its association with a certain European government of the 20th century. Fascism as defined by the dictionary or layed out by Mussolini fully deserves to be considered a 'dirty' word. To use it any other connotation is to missuse it.
What this says to me is that the Bush administration is fscking terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists I think it's more likely intended to make sure the general public is terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists. There's a commie, er I mean terrorist, behind every Bush. Every good patriot knows that giving our government extra powers is better than the terrifying alternatives.
Tim Sweeney presented a paper recently on the topic of game engine design for multi core systems. Basically it amounts to changing from c/c++ to a functional language like Haskell for engine development so the language takes care of the task divisions needed. Code complexity is already a problem for engine development, managing threads is just gonna make that worse. When engine development time is as long as it currently is, taking a performance hit in code execution can be offset by a faster time to market.