Sorry for being off-topic, but I wanted to briefly answer another comment you made as a reply to this:
Well actually Opera *does* have google shoveling them money for every search made from the browser, which was their stated reason for going free-without-ads a few years ago.
Again you are assuming that this was viable at an earlier stage. That Opera is making money from the free version now doesn't mean that it was possible for them to do so at that point.
So you're now willing to introduce a certain amount of faith into your science?
No, not at all. I'm not the one making statements of faith. You, on the other hand, make a claim about some myserious evil guy we can't detect, but who controls everything.
Feels like blasphemy to you, does it?
No, it doesn't "feel like" anything. It just isn't a scientific position.
I'd love to know how you feel that God and science don't mix, aside from faith issues, and limited merely to scientific data and processes.
"God did it" is the Appeal to Ignorance/God of the Gaps fallacy. "God did it" doesn't explain anything, makes no useful predictions, has no practical applications, and can't even be falsified.
Fact is, you explain it within those limitations. It is all about your belief vs someone else's.
No, it is all about a method we use to explain the world vs. blind faith.
That being said, this is merely yet another discussion of how your religion (science) is somehow better than any religion that teaches creationism.
Science is not a religion. It is a method. It has no rules for how you should behave, no laws to govern your life, no infallible god, no nothing of the things that make up religions.
Is that the computer viruses EVOLVING in the same way as the biological ones do?
Ah, I get it. Viruses (biological) are specifically designed by an intelligent creator. The adaptions are not natural. They are all done manually by some evil bastard who loves to make us ill!
You CANNOT WITNESS either of the mechanisms involved in the evolution of these types viruses in every single case.
Huh?
In other words, science essentially measures and records the tools that God used to create the universe.
It's really sad that those wanting us to break our chains of religious dogma won't even listen to their own words and allow folks the freedom to think and analyze. They want us all trapped in their scientific dogma where once a theory takes hold, scientist be damned, can't be questioned.
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Scientists question Evolution all the time. It's their job! They keep looking for facts, and see if Evolution holds up. 150 years of constant questioning Evolution, and the theory is stronger than ever. It is supported by all known facts, and contradicted by none.
You are either ignorant or dishonest if you claim that Evolution can't be questioned. It can, should, and is questioned. It is questioned scientifically, while religious nuts make up lies about it. Their "questions" are dishonest at best.
Oh, and just to emphasize this: Mozilla started receiving donations from Google long before they could start a business relationship through the search field. So they were free to be free. They didn't have to worry about financial viability due to donations from Google, IBM, Nokia, Sun, etc.
That may well be the case. In which case it proves my point: Opera would not have been able to make the desktop version free at an earlier stage because they needed to make their own money, whereas Mozilla gots lots of cash for free from Google and other major corporations. Opera had to stand on its own two feet and didn't have the freedom to ignore revenues.
You are assuming that it was "realistic" for Opera to release a free version at that stage. Opera doesn't have companies like Google to donate developers and money, but has to make money. If releasing a free version would mean going bankrupt... Well, you know where I'm going with this;)
I never claimed that Opera has the extensibility of Firefox. I pointed out that Opera can actually be extended in many different ways. You can't just arbitrarily change the definition of addons to "what Firefox does and nothing else":) Someone even created an inline spell checker using User JS.
Interesting that you should mention ad blocking, since you can download third party ad blockers for Opera, too, and some of them even have automatically updated block lists. Something like AdMuncher, for example, might not be part of Opera, but it does what you describe.
maybe because it comes preinstalled with the operating system?
And maybe Firefox has a lot of users because Google is pushing it heavily and paying people to get people to install it. So it looks like both IE and Firefox have their respective positions due to huge corporations pushing them through their own products. No such luck for Opera, which has forever had to remain independent.
That's odd. Capcom said that they were pleased with the Zack&Wiki sales. There's even rumors of a sequel. Also, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, etc. are selling like crazy. Wii is insanely popular.
Hmm, I saw a test on TV the other day. They measured the heart rate while being tasered. The heart rate was not disrupted, but remained normal throughout. What gives?
Your analysis fall flat on its face because it is not only hardcore atheist terrorist like Dawkins who have renounced this film. Huge numbers of christians, including biologist Ken Miller, have met the film with nothing but contempt, just like Dawkins and his fellow atheist terrorists have.
OT, but your signature is interesting, considering that all candidates want to take away stuff for the commong good. Maybe Ron Paul is (nearly) an exception, but even Bush is a Marxist according to your signature. Oh, and how did the name tag magically change?:o
Obama is better at negative campaigning? Er, not quite. It's Hillary who has been attacking Obama relentlessly while Obama has mostly been focusing on his own campaign.
You cannot discard of such a large Philosophical problem so easily.
I can if it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
For one, believe it or not we all assume that we have free moral agency -- our entire judicial system is based upon the presumption that someone can be morally blameworthy.
The illusion of free will doesn't mean that free will actually exists. Furthermore, free will is not required to have one's choices affected. For example, the prospect of punishment can/will affect the choices you make in life. Thus, having a judicial system helps because it affects the way we behave.
Other arguments suggest that denying ethics is self-contradictory.
Ethics = rules that have "evolved" for years and years and changes with time and society.
Secondly, Dawkins never suggests that he denies the existence of free will at all
That depends on what you mean by "free will". If you are in a room with two doors, you do not have "free will" in that you can choose a door or an exit which does not exist. You only have those two choices.
Atheism requires stronger faith than I can muster.
How? Atheism is the lack of faith, not a faith in itself.
Does God care about us? Non sequitor. Caring is a human concept.
Nope. Animals care too.
Does God influence people's lives? Non sequitor. Influencing lives is a human concept. Hell, LIFE is a human concept.
Nonsense again. There is lots of life which is not human on this planet. And even a falling rock can influence people's lives. Influencing lives is not a human concept.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that God is undefinable.
Your argument seems to be: "I don't understand God, therefore God must exist."
You have demonstrated an amazing ability to make up shit out of thin air. You have yet to provide us with a single example of atheists requiring stronger faith than you.
Slashdot Mirror
Your complaint about Opera is that it's being blocked by some sites? Huh?
Again you are assuming that this was viable at an earlier stage. That Opera is making money from the free version now doesn't mean that it was possible for them to do so at that point.
No, not at all. I'm not the one making statements of faith. You, on the other hand, make a claim about some myserious evil guy we can't detect, but who controls everything.
No, it doesn't "feel like" anything. It just isn't a scientific position.
"God did it" is the Appeal to Ignorance/God of the Gaps fallacy. "God did it" doesn't explain anything, makes no useful predictions, has no practical applications, and can't even be falsified.
No, it is all about a method we use to explain the world vs. blind faith.
Science is not a religion. It is a method. It has no rules for how you should behave, no laws to govern your life, no infallible god, no nothing of the things that make up religions.
A discussion between a creationist and a scientist can never be genuine. Creationists always lie.
Ah, I get it. Viruses (biological) are specifically designed by an intelligent creator. The adaptions are not natural. They are all done manually by some evil bastard who loves to make us ill!
Huh?
An extremely unscientific position.
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Scientists question Evolution all the time. It's their job! They keep looking for facts, and see if Evolution holds up. 150 years of constant questioning Evolution, and the theory is stronger than ever. It is supported by all known facts, and contradicted by none.
You are either ignorant or dishonest if you claim that Evolution can't be questioned. It can, should, and is questioned. It is questioned scientifically, while religious nuts make up lies about it. Their "questions" are dishonest at best.
Oh, and just to emphasize this: Mozilla started receiving donations from Google long before they could start a business relationship through the search field. So they were free to be free. They didn't have to worry about financial viability due to donations from Google, IBM, Nokia, Sun, etc.
That may well be the case. In which case it proves my point: Opera would not have been able to make the desktop version free at an earlier stage because they needed to make their own money, whereas Mozilla gots lots of cash for free from Google and other major corporations. Opera had to stand on its own two feet and didn't have the freedom to ignore revenues.
You are assuming that it was "realistic" for Opera to release a free version at that stage. Opera doesn't have companies like Google to donate developers and money, but has to make money. If releasing a free version would mean going bankrupt... Well, you know where I'm going with this ;)
Interesting that you should mention ad blocking, since you can download third party ad blockers for Opera, too, and some of them even have automatically updated block lists. Something like AdMuncher, for example, might not be part of Opera, but it does what you describe.
That's part of the reason, at least.
Then you obviously haven't tried Opera Mini 4 or Opera Mobile 9.5...
#3 is wrong, though. There are many ways to add functionality to Opera, including custom menus, (toolbar) buttons, toolbars, commands, User JS, etc.
That's odd. Capcom said that they were pleased with the Zack&Wiki sales. There's even rumors of a sequel. Also, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, etc. are selling like crazy. Wii is insanely popular.
The heart rate wasn't the primary test. It was just mentioned in passing because they noticed it.
Hmm, I saw a test on TV the other day. They measured the heart rate while being tasered. The heart rate was not disrupted, but remained normal throughout. What gives?
How's the pay over at RIAA? I hear things aren't going so well...
Your analysis fall flat on its face because it is not only hardcore atheist terrorist like Dawkins who have renounced this film. Huge numbers of christians, including biologist Ken Miller, have met the film with nothing but contempt, just like Dawkins and his fellow atheist terrorists have.
OT, but your signature is interesting, considering that all candidates want to take away stuff for the commong good. Maybe Ron Paul is (nearly) an exception, but even Bush is a Marxist according to your signature. Oh, and how did the name tag magically change? :o
Obama is better at negative campaigning? Er, not quite. It's Hillary who has been attacking Obama relentlessly while Obama has mostly been focusing on his own campaign.
Got a link showing where he changes his story on this one? Are you sure he didn't actually reconsider his stance on this?
This idea Obama has here might be stupid, but it pales in comparison with the sheer stupidity of the Clinton campaign.
You have demonstrated an amazing ability to make up shit out of thin air. You have yet to provide us with a single example of atheists requiring stronger faith than you.