"Experts" like psychologist John Cooke? or journalist David Appell? or the disgraced 'Hockey Stick' fraud Michael Mann? or "Climategate" falsifier Phil Jones? or politicians like Al Gore? instead of actual climate scientists like Dr Judith Curry and Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Murray Salby (who literally wrote the graduate-level textbook on atmospheric physics). Your argument is an appeal to authority as much as the Freeman Dyson proponents are (with the difference that Freeman Dyson was not found to be a conspirator to fraud as the series of "Climategate" releases were).
The pro-CAGW "experts" you appeal to have things to say like this:
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
Where "justice and equality" are based on the involuntary (and thus, immoral) wealth-redistribution on the Marxist model (but re-branded as "Saving the Planet"). There are many, many more disgusting anti-democratic and anti-scientific quotes here: http://green-agenda.com/
Also, the computer modelling is not "observation", according to the Scientific Method it is "hypothesis". The actual data, from the RSS and UAH satellites and well-sited surface stations (not those subject to the Urban Heat Island effect, or unexplained adjustments from NOAA) all agree that the computer simulations do not match what is observed. The simulations predict catastrophe but observational reality shows very little warming for the last 19 years (despite CO2 concentration steadily increasing to 0.4% of the atmosphere). Furthermore, the Transient and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities have been empirically determined with most probably values around 1.1 C per doubling of CO2, which is comparable to the 1.2 C from CO2 alone - which means water vapor does not create a positive feedback and the CAGW hypothesis is unsustainable based on the observational evidence. This is the position Scientific Method requires us to take - unless we get radically different observations. The CAGW hypothesis must be modified or discarded.
Are these people anti-progress or what ?! don't they want more resources to help the poor and lift the Third World out of poverty? doesn't sound like it - all because they don't want to "pollute" space. Ijits !
Thanks for the comment. However, Koran 9:29 requires Muslims to seek to implement Sharia, sooner or later. That means the Tatars are takfiris (apostates) from the point-of-view of most Muslims in the World (which a 2012 Pew Survey places as having over 800 million people agreeing in one or more aspects of Sharia).
My understanding is that the Tatars have formed a battalion that the Ukranian Government is using. It seems every Government of the World is so corrupt it is prepared to arm and train self-styled jihadis to do their dirty work. This just proves that while Governments are a necessary evil, they are still evil.
Crimean Tartars are Sunni Hanafi Muslims. They probably want to practice Sharia in the Crimea and the Russians are preventing them. The Ukrainians appear to have formed a Muslim battalion. While the Ukrainians deserve territorial integrity this looks like a bad move by them (think of Jimmy Carter getting Zbigniew Bzezinksi to create the Afghan mjuahideen in Afghanistan to lure the Russians into 'their own Vietnam' which directly lead to the 9/11 attacks (2001)).
Firstly, the opinions of a gazillian Muslims and Imams mean diddly squat. Only two opinions matter: Allah and Mohammed. And they say kill all the infidels (you will understand this once you understand that critically-important Doctrine of Abrogation) and realize Sura 9:29 replaces everything else and is a FUTURE commandment.
Your second massive mistake is you don't understand that Islam is intended to be interpreted LITERALLY. It says so right there in the Koran. Furthermore, the Koran is considered unchangeable and universal in application - which means ISLAM CANNOT BE CHANGED - at least not until Al Mahdi (an Islamic figure, whose actions match the Anti-Christ of Christianity) comes to enslave the all the World under Sharia and bring total victory to Islam.
Thirdly, while religions may change over time Islam has not since the time of Al Ghazali. Like a typical Westerner you are extrapolating rather than actually researching the claims and doctrines of Islam. Stop doing that - and stop doing that and then making posts where you have ZERO clue about what you are talking about.
You seem to think Islam is a religion.This is a common mistake by Westerners who are told a deliberate deception. Islam claims universality and claims to appliy to believers and infidels alike - that means it is not a religion, but a totalitarian political ideology. The fact you are unaware of this shows just how little you actually know about Islam.
You also seem to think Islam is contained in the Koran. This is not so. Islam is contained in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. By studying the hadith you will understand what Islam is - and the hadith show that Mohammed would have been the most evil and depraved man that ever lived - if he had actually lived (modern scholarship show that Islam in its current form is mostly the work of Caliph Abd al-Malik in order to advance Arab Imperialism). See:
"An Historic Critique of Islam's Beginnings - Jay Smith" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why do Westerners always talk so stridently about things they know nothing about?
You don't know anything about Islam (the arab word for "Submission") do you? Islam has NEVER been peaceful. Go and learn about the life of Mohammed from the ahadith - he was a mass murderer, pedophile, slaver, bandit, genocidal anti-Semite with ambitions to conquer the globe for the chief god of his Quyresh tribe (the god is called "Dushara" if Koran 53:19-20 is properly understood, and has the *title* of "Allah").
The Islamic State does EVERYTHING according to Sharia (Islamic Law). Every beheading, every rape, all the slaevs - they are all halal (permitted) in Sharia, because Mohammed did these things.
But like most Westerners you *presume* to know what Islam is, without actually studying it and the all-important doctrine of abrogation. Islam closely resembles a Mafia protection racket, with National Socialist supremacism, global conquest and Jew- and non-Muslim hatred thrown in. There is a reason why the Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent World War II with Hitler - because Islam is closer in aims and ideology than Westerners are lead to believe.
Fortunately, we now know that Islam's claims are refuted by archeology, which means it will die eventually, once enough Westerners understand the evidence that destroys it. Meanwhile, I'd suggest not making comments about Islam based on what you assume it is, rather than what Al Azhar says Islam is.
Judeo-Christianity is a personal faith that has now be separated from the State, and these claim only to apply to believers (due to "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord").
Islam is a totalitarian political system with some superstition sprinkled on top and asserts universality and eternal unchangeability. This means Islam applies to Muslims AND (here's the critical bit) non-Muslims alike - and Islam assigns the duty of *all* Muslims to work to advance Sharia over the whole globe and to cover all non-Muslims. This is what Koran 9:29 is all about.
This is what makes Islam and Christianity so radically different from the perspective of non-believers.
There are two kinds of "liberals" in US politics:
Classic Liberals - who are Individualists against Big Government, and these are called "Conservatves" in US media. This forms the US political Right.
Modern Liberals - who are Statist Collectivists who are for Big Government, and these are called "Progressives" in US media. This forms the US political Left.
I would say that the Left is based on ideas from classical philosophy - start with some axioms and work from there. Ignore evidence as unreliable, This leads to dogmatism despite evidence, and because many Leftists are well-meaning they then assume the Right must be mean.
In contrast the Right is based more on science. Start with a hypothesis and modify it on the basis of evidence. If something is a wonderful idea (unicorns for all, 'free' unlimited heath care for all, universal unlimited entitlements for all) but cannot work in reality then the Right ends up eschewing it. To the Left it seems that the Right is mean-spirited, despite the true reason being pragmatism based on evidence.
So you could say the Left are idealists and Collectivists and the Right are pragmatists/realists and Individualists - and everyone is on a spectrum between these two (and their exact position on the spectrum varies on a topic-by-topic basis).
Because of this idealism it means that the those on the Left are prepared to reject all evidence that shows that they can never reach their "Rainbow and Unicorns" visions of multi-cultural complete egalitarianism. Hence, they end up defending barbaric Sharia and opposing those who want to preserve Enlightenment civilization against 7th Century Islamist Imperialism.
I have butted your post. It is you that does not understand Islam. You know a little, but miss more. I hope you will actually be a "nerd" and read and understand my post. You will then understand that you know far less about Islam that you suppose, and are in-fact providing cover for Islamic Supremacism (although unwittingly, it would seem). Remember, some people on the web know a lot more than you do - and humility and an open mind is the path to wisdom.
If you really do want to get up to speed with actual Islamic doctrine and how it pertains to the World today then I strongly recommend the following for you:
"Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the face of jihad" http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...
Or you can watch any of Stephen Coughlin's, or the Center for Security Policy's videos - they are condensed from briefings that he used to give to Flag Officers at the Pentagon. You cannot get a better source than that.
Sorry to be so abrasive, but you make the mistake of so many Slashdotters in that because you are smart in one area you think that any point of view that is different from your own is "inaccurate", and use the snarky "please don't let facts or logic guide you. They are just minor inconveniences.". It never occurs to you that your own position might be based on correct but partial information and your interlocutor could know more than you do. If you use the Scientific Method you will stop making these errors and become a geek (skilled) rather than a nerd (wannabe).
Islam is the greatest totalitarian threat to Free Society that were have ever faced. It mixes the racism and supremacism of National Socialism with the totalitarianism of Soviet Socialism. And now that Islamism is allied with increasingly totalitarian Cultural Marxism of Progressive Socialism the Free People of the World are in for a hell of rough ride.
Fortunately Islam will be completely defeated because it is false and man-made (just like Scientology and Christianity - although Islam is far more deceptive and dangerous than either of those). To understand some of the evidence of how Islam's narrative is completely defeated by satellite imagery you can look at videos such as these (the Christians seem to be the only ones paying attention to this stuff - we atheists are too busy patting ourselves on the back to actually listen to Islamists or understand what is going on):
"An Historical Critique of Islams Beginnings - Jay Smith" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Stop defending Sharia until you actually understand ALL the Islamic doctrines, please.
Why would you defend Islam by making out that Mafia-like "jizya" is somehow acceptable?
Furthermore, it is clear you don't understand Islam at all. Jizya can only be paid unitl Al Mahdi (who Christians call, The Anti-Christ) comes, When Al Mahdi comes the choices of "convert to Islam, pay jizya, or die" changes to "convert to Islam, or die". The Iranians think that this point is very close (they are developing nuclear weapons to *initate* a final war to bring Al Mahdi), and the Sunnis think this is close too (which is why they decided to go for broke with the Islamic State).
Note also that anywhere that Muslims reside becomes "Muslim territory". The Sharia then requires Muslims to overthrow all non-Islamic forms of Government and replace it with an Islamic government. It is you that is ignorant of further aspects of Islam so that your accusation of "don't let logic or facts guide you" should be an admonition to yourself.
My question to you must become: why are you defending Islamic Supremacism by talking about some parts of Islam while suppressing others? hopefully it is just ignorance on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to aid Sharia-compliance on the globe (which Koran 9:29 is all about).
Actually you are wrong because you fail to account for the fourth-dimension, time.
Judei-Christianity has been trending from barbarity (OT) to tolerance (NT).
Islam, on the other hand, has been trending in the complete opposite direction. When Islam was weak it preached tolerance. As it become political and stronger the tolerant verses were "abrogated" for violence, intolerance and the commandment to conquer the World. Hence, ISIS, is 100% pure Islam once the doctrine of abrogation is taken into account.
Again, so many Slashdotters comment on Islam (and draw false moral equivalences with Christianity), when it is clear they understand the actual doctrines nd historical development of neither.
Koran 9:29 is one of the last non-abrogated verses of the Koran and states:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
This aya replaces pretty much everything else in Islam. It is amazing that so many Slashdotters have so many opinions on Islam without understanding some of the fundamental doctrines of Islam (which Islamists try to keep hidden from you).
Wealth is *created*. What is the incentive to create wealth if one can loaf in a hammock all day and receive a guaranteed income? As the Russians used to say about the Soviets "We pretended to work, and they pretended to pay us". If your very, very basic livelihood is guaranteed then why would *anyone* bother to get out of bed to work? This is a staggeringly silly idea that is contrary to the fundamental principle of economics that "wealth is **created**".
It is is good that this progress has been made while the number of hurricanes that have made landfall in the US has plummeted since the bad year of 2005, Hopefully, path prediction should be better if they do start hitting land again - assuming the number of hurricanes doesn't decrease with the solar slowdown:
When will people learn that the elites see you as mere 'tax slaves' ?
The political class tell you that you must do with less while they fly to the Davos circlejerk in ten thousand private jets.
The Government is the problem, and globally is greatest statistical hazard to your health (last century various flavors of Collectivists killed 100 million and oppressed hundreds of millions more; and with the new Energy Poverty agendas it looks like they might kill a Billion poor this century).
The Government is not your friend. It is a necessary evil, but it must be on a leash. And Government should be a small as required, and no bigger.
In the Internet Age citizens can (and do) organize themselves to solve many problems through voluntary charity. You don't need a bloated bureaucracy in the modern age - and increasing Sttate power necessarily decreases Individual Liberty.
The scene graph is not the rendering engine. For example, what happens when you want to change from an affine matrix representation to use quaternions, or to some other representation (eg. something better for hardware) ? Because USD mixes scene description with rendering functionality you are then constrained. That's why Software Engineering often thinks in terms of 'separation of concerns'.
True. But the content of the file can be a scene, and can use URIs to reference any external resource (which the importing program must work out how to deal with - the same with any 'file format').
I would say that the ability to use URIs to point to any arbitrary resources is a fairly powerful capability, IMHO https://www.khronos.org/collad...
It is up to the program interpreting the COLLADA to determine how to use the URI. At least, that's how I use it.
I state this again for readers, a COLLADA file can be used to contain a scene, not just a single 'object'. The reason I say this is I like XML (because it has some advantages and is pretty ubiquitous in computing) and I like well-defined standards (as big projects require standards as assets are created over time). I know many other Slashdotters do to.
There is already an open standard for asset exchange, COLLADA. This is an XML description of an asset which is designed for exchange between all sorts of tools. A scene is simply an asset. It will be interesting to see whether Pixar has many features that can't be represented with COLLADA. http://collada.org/
The nice think about COLLADA's XML is there is a vast array of tools that Slashdotters (and others) already know how to use in order to manipulate XML object graphs.
Sorry, but you are plain wrong. Al Azhar University in Cairo (the highest authority on Sunni jurisprudence) has repeatedly stated that ISIS is an authentic Islamic entity. This is because ISIS is following the commandments of Sharia to the letter.
ISIS also follow the example of Mohammed exactly. Mohammed raped, slaughtered, lied, assassinated, looted, tortured, beheaded, molested children, etc etc and this is all well-attested in the hadith and commanded in the Koran. ISIS are doing *exactly* what Mohammed did, can commanded all Muslims to do. Fortunately, most Muslims are good human beings (which makes them bad Muslims, 'Takfiris' or apostates - note the Submission ideology [called "Islam" in Arabic] requires apostates to be killed).
To claim that ISIS are carrying out "cultural" practices and not the Submission ideology (aka "Islam") is a classic deception (known as "taqiyya" to Shia, and "idtirar" to Sunni) designed to pacify you so you don't resist Submission until it is too late. The Submission ideology (Islam) is completely alien to Westerners (who incorrectly assume that lying is prohibited, and that there is a Golden Rule producing equality between believers and unbelievers - when there is none, "kaffir"/infidels are considered subhuman that must be exterminated if Islam is to victorious): http://www.islam-watch.org/aut...
So why you defend the evil Submission ideology rather than stand up for Global Enlightenment Civilization is beyond me. Perhaps you think that it is somehow noble to show tolerance to a deceptive, barbaric and totalitarian ideology that works to destroy Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Sexual Equality, Equal Rights for Homosexuals, Science (which Islam considers blasphemy ever since the time of Al Ghazali), etc etc
I would suggest that you learn about the true nature of Islam, David - rather than defending an evil you know nothing about (hence, you are easily mislead into repeating the propaganda produced by its adherents). Here's a place you can start looking: http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/...
Stop repeating the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC - who work as a 57-country voting block in the United Nations). Stand up for Individual Liberty and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than the Sharia deception of the "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights". Because making excuses for evil will make you complicit in the evil.
Speaking of which, here are the ISIS prices for slaves including boys and girls from 1 to 9 years old (which is permitted in Islam because Mohammed 'married' a child of 6 years, Aisha bint Abu Bakr): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Do you really want to be providing apologia for these perfectly 'halal' (legal) Islamic practices of sex slavery and especially child sex-slavery (which Mohammed indulged in, so it is permitted always in Islamic ideology).
Slashdot Mirror
"Experts" like psychologist John Cooke? or journalist David Appell? or the disgraced 'Hockey Stick' fraud Michael Mann? or "Climategate" falsifier Phil Jones? or politicians like Al Gore? instead of actual climate scientists like Dr Judith Curry and Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Murray Salby (who literally wrote the graduate-level textbook on atmospheric physics). Your argument is an appeal to authority as much as the Freeman Dyson proponents are (with the difference that Freeman Dyson was not found to be a conspirator to fraud as the series of "Climategate" releases were).
The pro-CAGW "experts" you appeal to have things to say like this:
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Where "justice and equality" are based on the involuntary (and thus, immoral) wealth-redistribution on the Marxist model (but re-branded as "Saving the Planet"). There are many, many more disgusting anti-democratic and anti-scientific quotes here:
http://green-agenda.com/
Also, the computer modelling is not "observation", according to the Scientific Method it is "hypothesis". The actual data, from the RSS and UAH satellites and well-sited surface stations (not those subject to the Urban Heat Island effect, or unexplained adjustments from NOAA) all agree that the computer simulations do not match what is observed. The simulations predict catastrophe but observational reality shows very little warming for the last 19 years (despite CO2 concentration steadily increasing to 0.4% of the atmosphere). Furthermore, the Transient and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities have been empirically determined with most probably values around 1.1 C per doubling of CO2, which is comparable to the 1.2 C from CO2 alone - which means water vapor does not create a positive feedback and the CAGW hypothesis is unsustainable based on the observational evidence. This is the position Scientific Method requires us to take - unless we get radically different observations. The CAGW hypothesis must be modified or discarded.
Are these people anti-progress or what ?! don't they want more resources to help the poor and lift the Third World out of poverty? doesn't sound like it - all because they don't want to "pollute" space. Ijits !
Thanks for the comment. However, Koran 9:29 requires Muslims to seek to implement Sharia, sooner or later. That means the Tatars are takfiris (apostates) from the point-of-view of most Muslims in the World (which a 2012 Pew Survey places as having over 800 million people agreeing in one or more aspects of Sharia).
My understanding is that the Tatars have formed a battalion that the Ukranian Government is using. It seems every Government of the World is so corrupt it is prepared to arm and train self-styled jihadis to do their dirty work. This just proves that while Governments are a necessary evil, they are still evil.
Crimean Tartars are Sunni Hanafi Muslims. They probably want to practice Sharia in the Crimea and the Russians are preventing them. The Ukrainians appear to have formed a Muslim battalion. While the Ukrainians deserve territorial integrity this looks like a bad move by them (think of Jimmy Carter getting Zbigniew Bzezinksi to create the Afghan mjuahideen in Afghanistan to lure the Russians into 'their own Vietnam' which directly lead to the 9/11 attacks (2001)).
You don't know anything about Islam (the arab word for "Submission") do you? Islam has NEVER been peaceful. Go and learn about the life of Mohammed from the ahadith - he was a mass murderer, pedophile, slaver, bandit, genocidal anti-Semite with ambitions to conquer the globe for the chief god of his Quyresh tribe (the god is called "Dushara" if Koran 53:19-20 is properly understood, and has the *title* of "Allah").
The Islamic State does EVERYTHING according to Sharia (Islamic Law). Every beheading, every rape, all the slaevs - they are all halal (permitted) in Sharia, because Mohammed did these things.
But like most Westerners you *presume* to know what Islam is, without actually studying it and the all-important doctrine of abrogation. Islam closely resembles a Mafia protection racket, with National Socialist supremacism, global conquest and Jew- and non-Muslim hatred thrown in. There is a reason why the Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent World War II with Hitler - because Islam is closer in aims and ideology than Westerners are lead to believe.
Fortunately, we now know that Islam's claims are refuted by archeology, which means it will die eventually, once enough Westerners understand the evidence that destroys it. Meanwhile, I'd suggest not making comments about Islam based on what you assume it is, rather than what Al Azhar says Islam is.
Not at all.
Judeo-Christianity is a personal faith that has now be separated from the State, and these claim only to apply to believers (due to "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord").
Islam is a totalitarian political system with some superstition sprinkled on top and asserts universality and eternal unchangeability. This means Islam applies to Muslims AND (here's the critical bit) non-Muslims alike - and Islam assigns the duty of *all* Muslims to work to advance Sharia over the whole globe and to cover all non-Muslims. This is what Koran 9:29 is all about.
This is what makes Islam and Christianity so radically different from the perspective of non-believers.
There are two kinds of "liberals" in US politics:
Classic Liberals - who are Individualists against Big Government, and these are called "Conservatves" in US media. This forms the US political Right.
Modern Liberals - who are Statist Collectivists who are for Big Government, and these are called "Progressives" in US media. This forms the US political Left.
Very well put, Bruce.
I would say that the Left is based on ideas from classical philosophy - start with some axioms and work from there. Ignore evidence as unreliable, This leads to dogmatism despite evidence, and because many Leftists are well-meaning they then assume the Right must be mean.
In contrast the Right is based more on science. Start with a hypothesis and modify it on the basis of evidence. If something is a wonderful idea (unicorns for all, 'free' unlimited heath care for all, universal unlimited entitlements for all) but cannot work in reality then the Right ends up eschewing it. To the Left it seems that the Right is mean-spirited, despite the true reason being pragmatism based on evidence.
So you could say the Left are idealists and Collectivists and the Right are pragmatists/realists and Individualists - and everyone is on a spectrum between these two (and their exact position on the spectrum varies on a topic-by-topic basis).
Because of this idealism it means that the those on the Left are prepared to reject all evidence that shows that they can never reach their "Rainbow and Unicorns" visions of multi-cultural complete egalitarianism. Hence, they end up defending barbaric Sharia and opposing those who want to preserve Enlightenment civilization against 7th Century Islamist Imperialism.
I have butted your post. It is you that does not understand Islam. You know a little, but miss more. I hope you will actually be a "nerd" and read and understand my post. You will then understand that you know far less about Islam that you suppose, and are in-fact providing cover for Islamic Supremacism (although unwittingly, it would seem). Remember, some people on the web know a lot more than you do - and humility and an open mind is the path to wisdom.
If you really do want to get up to speed with actual Islamic doctrine and how it pertains to the World today then I strongly recommend the following for you:
"Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the face of jihad"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...
Or you can watch any of Stephen Coughlin's, or the Center for Security Policy's videos - they are condensed from briefings that he used to give to Flag Officers at the Pentagon. You cannot get a better source than that.
Sorry to be so abrasive, but you make the mistake of so many Slashdotters in that because you are smart in one area you think that any point of view that is different from your own is "inaccurate", and use the snarky "please don't let facts or logic guide you. They are just minor inconveniences.". It never occurs to you that your own position might be based on correct but partial information and your interlocutor could know more than you do. If you use the Scientific Method you will stop making these errors and become a geek (skilled) rather than a nerd (wannabe).
Islam is the greatest totalitarian threat to Free Society that were have ever faced. It mixes the racism and supremacism of National Socialism with the totalitarianism of Soviet Socialism. And now that Islamism is allied with increasingly totalitarian Cultural Marxism of Progressive Socialism the Free People of the World are in for a hell of rough ride.
Fortunately Islam will be completely defeated because it is false and man-made (just like Scientology and Christianity - although Islam is far more deceptive and dangerous than either of those). To understand some of the evidence of how Islam's narrative is completely defeated by satellite imagery you can look at videos such as these (the Christians seem to be the only ones paying attention to this stuff - we atheists are too busy patting ourselves on the back to actually listen to Islamists or understand what is going on):
"An Historical Critique of Islams Beginnings - Jay Smith"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Stop defending Sharia until you actually understand ALL the Islamic doctrines, please.
Why would you defend Islam by making out that Mafia-like "jizya" is somehow acceptable?
Furthermore, it is clear you don't understand Islam at all. Jizya can only be paid unitl Al Mahdi (who Christians call, The Anti-Christ) comes, When Al Mahdi comes the choices of "convert to Islam, pay jizya, or die" changes to "convert to Islam, or die". The Iranians think that this point is very close (they are developing nuclear weapons to *initate* a final war to bring Al Mahdi), and the Sunnis think this is close too (which is why they decided to go for broke with the Islamic State).
Note also that anywhere that Muslims reside becomes "Muslim territory". The Sharia then requires Muslims to overthrow all non-Islamic forms of Government and replace it with an Islamic government. It is you that is ignorant of further aspects of Islam so that your accusation of "don't let logic or facts guide you" should be an admonition to yourself.
My question to you must become: why are you defending Islamic Supremacism by talking about some parts of Islam while suppressing others? hopefully it is just ignorance on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to aid Sharia-compliance on the globe (which Koran 9:29 is all about).
Data
http://www.thereligionofpeace....
Actually you are wrong because you fail to account for the fourth-dimension, time.
Judei-Christianity has been trending from barbarity (OT) to tolerance (NT).
Islam, on the other hand, has been trending in the complete opposite direction. When Islam was weak it preached tolerance. As it become political and stronger the tolerant verses were "abrogated" for violence, intolerance and the commandment to conquer the World. Hence, ISIS, is 100% pure Islam once the doctrine of abrogation is taken into account.
Again, so many Slashdotters comment on Islam (and draw false moral equivalences with Christianity), when it is clear they understand the actual doctrines nd historical development of neither.
Koran 9:29 is one of the last non-abrogated verses of the Koran and states:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
This aya replaces pretty much everything else in Islam. It is amazing that so many Slashdotters have so many opinions on Islam without understanding some of the fundamental doctrines of Islam (which Islamists try to keep hidden from you).
Wealth is *created*. What is the incentive to create wealth if one can loaf in a hammock all day and receive a guaranteed income? As the Russians used to say about the Soviets "We pretended to work, and they pretended to pay us". If your very, very basic livelihood is guaranteed then why would *anyone* bother to get out of bed to work? This is a staggeringly silly idea that is contrary to the fundamental principle of economics that "wealth is **created**".
It is is good that this progress has been made while the number of hurricanes that have made landfall in the US has plummeted since the bad year of 2005, Hopefully, path prediction should be better if they do start hitting land again - assuming the number of hurricanes doesn't decrease with the solar slowdown:
Data plotted: http://www.weatherstreet.com/h...
From:
http://www.weatherstreet.com/h...
Solar is cheaper? where ?
When will people learn that the elites see you as mere 'tax slaves' ?
The political class tell you that you must do with less while they fly to the Davos circlejerk in ten thousand private jets.
The Government is the problem, and globally is greatest statistical hazard to your health (last century various flavors of Collectivists killed 100 million and oppressed hundreds of millions more; and with the new Energy Poverty agendas it looks like they might kill a Billion poor this century).
The Government is not your friend. It is a necessary evil, but it must be on a leash. And Government should be a small as required, and no bigger.
In the Internet Age citizens can (and do) organize themselves to solve many problems through voluntary charity. You don't need a bloated bureaucracy in the modern age - and increasing Sttate power necessarily decreases Individual Liberty.
There is no substitute for Liberty !
The scene graph is not the rendering engine. For example, what happens when you want to change from an affine matrix representation to use quaternions, or to some other representation (eg. something better for hardware) ? Because USD mixes scene description with rendering functionality you are then constrained. That's why Software Engineering often thinks in terms of 'separation of concerns'.
No, no methods in the portable asset format. The is the province of the rendering engine. Separation of concerns is a good thing, IMHO.
True. But the content of the file can be a scene, and can use URIs to reference any external resource (which the importing program must work out how to deal with - the same with any 'file format').
I would say that the ability to use URIs to point to any arbitrary resources is a fairly powerful capability, IMHO
https://www.khronos.org/collad...
COLLADA use URIs to reference external ressources, including other COLLDA files. Pretty neat, eh? https://www.khronos.org/collad...
It is up to the program interpreting the COLLADA to determine how to use the URI. At least, that's how I use it.
I state this again for readers, a COLLADA file can be used to contain a scene, not just a single 'object'. The reason I say this is I like XML (because it has some advantages and is pretty ubiquitous in computing) and I like well-defined standards (as big projects require standards as assets are created over time). I know many other Slashdotters do to.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
There is already an open standard for asset exchange, COLLADA. This is an XML description of an asset which is designed for exchange between all sorts of tools. A scene is simply an asset. It will be interesting to see whether Pixar has many features that can't be represented with COLLADA.
http://collada.org/
The nice think about COLLADA's XML is there is a vast array of tools that Slashdotters (and others) already know how to use in order to manipulate XML object graphs.
Sorry, but you are plain wrong. Al Azhar University in Cairo (the highest authority on Sunni jurisprudence) has repeatedly stated that ISIS is an authentic Islamic entity. This is because ISIS is following the commandments of Sharia to the letter.
ISIS also follow the example of Mohammed exactly. Mohammed raped, slaughtered, lied, assassinated, looted, tortured, beheaded, molested children, etc etc and this is all well-attested in the hadith and commanded in the Koran. ISIS are doing *exactly* what Mohammed did, can commanded all Muslims to do. Fortunately, most Muslims are good human beings (which makes them bad Muslims, 'Takfiris' or apostates - note the Submission ideology [called "Islam" in Arabic] requires apostates to be killed).
To claim that ISIS are carrying out "cultural" practices and not the Submission ideology (aka "Islam") is a classic deception (known as "taqiyya" to Shia, and "idtirar" to Sunni) designed to pacify you so you don't resist Submission until it is too late. The Submission ideology (Islam) is completely alien to Westerners (who incorrectly assume that lying is prohibited, and that there is a Golden Rule producing equality between believers and unbelievers - when there is none, "kaffir"/infidels are considered subhuman that must be exterminated if Islam is to victorious):
http://www.islam-watch.org/aut...
So why you defend the evil Submission ideology rather than stand up for Global Enlightenment Civilization is beyond me. Perhaps you think that it is somehow noble to show tolerance to a deceptive, barbaric and totalitarian ideology that works to destroy Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Sexual Equality, Equal Rights for Homosexuals, Science (which Islam considers blasphemy ever since the time of Al Ghazali), etc etc
I would suggest that you learn about the true nature of Islam, David - rather than defending an evil you know nothing about (hence, you are easily mislead into repeating the propaganda produced by its adherents). Here's a place you can start looking:
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/...
Stop repeating the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC - who work as a 57-country voting block in the United Nations). Stand up for Individual Liberty and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than the Sharia deception of the "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights". Because making excuses for evil will make you complicit in the evil.
Speaking of which, here are the ISIS prices for slaves including boys and girls from 1 to 9 years old (which is permitted in Islam because Mohammed 'married' a child of 6 years, Aisha bint Abu Bakr):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Do you really want to be providing apologia for these perfectly 'halal' (legal) Islamic practices of sex slavery and especially child sex-slavery (which Mohammed indulged in, so it is permitted always in Islamic ideology).