The point is that when a so called Christian murder, rape, put bombs, do terror, incest, child mishandling and so on, the usual excuse from other Christian is that he is "not a true Christian". Since apparently the same Christian don't apply the same rule to Islam, then it becomes quite rapidly an ad-hoc hypocrite explanation.
Inquisition. Witch Burning. Saint Bartholemy massacre. Many persecution on minority. justification of taking slave by attributing them "no soul". I could probably dig more with a few minutes.
As for the crusade being used as an excuse, that still does not absolve all Christian having participated to them dosn't it ? Or will you use the usual excuse of "those were not true Christian" ?
What authority decides who is a true Christian and who isn't? At what point do we start judging the tree by the fruit that it bear ? I never got a rational answer, except maybe the same as for porn ("I can't define it but recognize it when I see it")
Firstly, my observation is that there are different form of faith and non faith. it varies from 100 (completely utterly faithful without a single shred of doubt and living his faith 100% of the time) to zero (completely convinced there is no god whatsoever). Someone could argue that both extreme are not rational since there is no evidence whatsoever in either direction, but I tend to give a free pass to the 100% atheist, since even if without evidence you can't say if the easter bunny exists or don't exists, it sound more rational to suppose something don't exists until evidence are provided. The nature of the evidence might vary depending on what you are trying to demonstrate exists (it is way easier to demonstrate Mr Bush exists, than , say , the easter bunny).
Most of us will hover in between those extrem. YMMV but my experience is that toward the religious 100 side peopel tend to abandon rational and critical thinking for sympathic magic and faith.
And this is where rational thinking and negociation break down. How do you reason with somebody which think you are trying to put down the prophet of its deity ? Sure mosleim which are not enar the 100% scale above will not react like that. But the nearer to 100%, the more one will think showing an image of muhamad is blasphemy. But islam is not alone. I visited some web forum where a christian preacher was accusing anybody wanting to disccuss some religious point of "blasphemy". You see, since it is the bible , it should given a free pass and we should speak of it with utter respect. Well I see no difference whatsoever with the/. story. remember the cinema which were burned because they showed "the last temptation of Jesus Christi" ? I certainly do. Abortion clinic bombing ?
The bottom line is as soon as you start basing your decision on faith, you are NOT amenable to negociation because most probably your crop of deity will be possibly all powerful, all knowing, always right, or whatever by definition. You can only negociate when you are able to give in concession and get some in return. This is most of the time not really possible with what I would name theistic religion (mono or poly). To concede is to admit you position of faith was wrong.
But since it was my first buy, it utterly and completely turned me off from eBay. In other word they definitively lost a business opportunity due to their broken system allowing retaliation. As another poster pointed out the brazilian mercadlio system looks much sounder if described accurately
The OP would have been informative if he had provided checkable reference. He did not. And what I find on the web is the contrary to what the OP said (hinting that he was either spitting BS, or that he repeated somebody BS and it was modded informative) :
concord crash caused by burst tyre
There are also hint that BOTH airline decided at the same time to STOP concorde due to a significant increase onf maintenance cost by airbus :
BA and AF decision to stop concorde due to maintenance money increase and downward profit
QUOTE (italic emphasis mine)
Both airlines announced the decision Thursday immediately after Airbus, which makes Concordes, said the planes would need an "enhanced maintenance programme in the coming years."
"British Airways has decided that such an investment cannot be justified in the face of falling revenue caused by a global downturn in demand for all forms of premium travel in the airline industry," the company said.
"This is the end of a fantastic era in the world of aviation but bringing forward Concorde's retirement is a prudent business decision at a time when we are having to make difficult decisions right across the airline," said BA Chief Executive Rod Eddington.
The airline has been forced to cut more than 13,000 jobs since just before the September 11 attacks.
BA has been only flying half the service it used to following the Paris air crash. Concorde was out of service for more than a year after the crash.
Article information:
1) BA and AF decided to stop because of increased maintenance cost
2) Premimum travel global downturn made future profit less certain or even downright not happening
3) and if I read some paragraph correctly, BA was flying while AF was not
so apparently it is not "the french killed it" but "money (lack of prospective profit) killed it".
We will get used to the change to the worst when you get used to some fundamental truth as in : your war caused this and was based on fundamentally wrong premise.
But even if we get used to this, this does not change the premise of the op , that jihad terrorist blowing shit in america =3 or maybe 4 incidents. and NONE of them had anything to do with Irak. So showing the terrorist card to say that it would not be useful to have a maglev NY-LA if terrorist blow it up is downright misleading.
Evolution instilled fucking : a few hundred million years. Evolution instilled logic : a few hundred thousand to maybe 1 or 2 million. Modern human : a few ten thousand ? One hundred thousand ? So.... You really freaking think something as basic and instinctual will be overrided by a recent development ? Please demonstrate it. All I know is demonstrable is that the most basic emotion (fear etc...) and our basic instinct relatively easily override our logic thinking. Not the other way around. Last I heard sex is also part of this, even if some people refuse adamantly to see it that way.
Comparing Atheism to a faith is akin to think that "not collecting stamp" to be a hobby. Furthermore consider that ALL so called religious people do not believe in each other gods, and even less PAST gods which are not worshiped anymore. In a fashion they are all atheist : from the N gods that mankind made up, they don't believe in N-1 (monotheist) or N-x with x much less than N (polytheist). And final point : most of the atheist I know of say that since there is no evidence for gods or similar entity, then there is no reason to believe in such an entity. The same way we don't believe in Unicorn EITHER. Would you call a blind fanatic somebody disbelieving unicorn existence ? Gnome ? Santa Claus ? you may give religion a free pass thinking it is not comparable to the previous, but the error is on your side. You would first have to demonstrate gods are different than unicorns or dragon (or santa claus). Good luck on that to have non circular definition which demonstrate that belief in god existence is different to belief in unicorn existence...
Comparing Atheism to a faith is akin to think that "not collecting stamp" to be a hobby. Furthermore consider that ALL so called religious people do not believe in each other gods, and even less PAST gods which are not worshiped anymore. In a fashion they are all atheist : from the N gods that mankind made up, they don't believe in N-1 (monotheist) or N-x with xWould you call a blind fanatic somebody disbelieving unicorn existence ? Gnome ? Santa Claus ? you may give religion a free pass thinking it is not comparable to the previous, but the error is on your side. You would first have to demonstrate gods are different than unicorns or dragon (or santa claus). Good luck on that to have non circular definition which demonstrate that belief in god existence is different to belief in unicorn existence...
Atheist would not try to insert law saying you should be stoned to death by naming your teddy joseph or whatnot, or even try to introduce in school that earth is created and evolution is false. I am not saying they would be better and a corrupt atheist would be as bad as a corrupt religious, but at least the NON-corrupt one would be a step above because they would not in their decision introduce like a certain president "god". Freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion. There are bottom feeder everywhere so let us not try to compare who would do his worst, ok ?
Furthermore up to now a former president said in public that atheist should not be considered citizen or something in that fashion. I have yet to hear of ANY president saying the same on a Christian.
ZWD=Zimbabwe Dollar. Last time I checked 250.000ZWD=1=1.2$ so that would come to roughly 8$ fine per copied CD. Sound right. After all if you copy the CD once, it can only be argued you made them lose the sale once. And if somebody copy the copy then it is their fault and responsability, not yours, and they have to pay their own 8$ fine. Sorry, 1,500,000 ZWD.
Speed is not the obstacle, acceleration is. ICBM simply are going on ballistic mode on reentry. Whatever speed they get is terminal velocity of reentry in atmosphere (at least If I remember correctly which is not a given). It is more or less a slow acceleration like a stone falling. Raingun OTOH give a brutal acceleration and if you see other comments above, you will see it more or less utterly destroy any guidance system leaving only a guide-less kinetic projective (they are trying to solve this problem but it is not easy). Which is why I am asking honestly , without guidance system, as a simple projectile, how precise are those over 200 miles. Even something as low as 0.01 deviation would be more than 55 yards deviation. So imagine what deviation it would be in normal circumstance...
By the way those projectile destroy with more than kinetic energy AFAIR, since they completely destroy themselves on impact, the splinter have a blast radius themselves where they destroy stuff.
What is the precision in meter (or yard if you prefer) of such a projectile launched in normal atmospheric condition (wind up to 10 mph) at the maximum range of 200 miles ? And compared to the blast radius ?
Quote: "Item 2 is where oil becomes relevant. Oil sitting in the ground belongs to nobody, because it isn't even remotely usable until it has been discovered and recovered. (No, you don't own it just because you were born nearby!) In the ground it's a wasted resource, wasted life, a missed opportunity. If a country is sitting atop an oil deposit, we can develop it, which profits everyone -- most importantly us."
Correct me if I am wrong, but usually resource in the ground are considered belonging to the country above the ground and if tehy choose to be poor but preserve environment, well that is THEIR choice and it is THEIR country after all. What instead you are telling is that if nobody exploit it it is UP FOR THE GRAB. Even AGAINST the will of the locals. And if I read it correctly between the line, if needed we can bomb them out and then grab their resource to exploit them.
I wonder what you would say if suddenly the world decided that a resource not exploited currently be the US (let us say, something nasty like arsenic or whatnot) need to be exploited against the will of the locals.
A stereotype of the downright annoying geek explaining what is wrong in the film DURING the film. Mind you the same stereotype exists for the physic / chem. / bio / math geek explaining why what you are watching is impossible (bullet ricochet with sparks anyone ?). Although I had a friend like that, she never did it in the cinema itself , always afterward or while watching tv.
The prejudice the world has got is not "american can't learn a second langugae" as in "are not able to", but the real prejudice (which i sadly also have) is "american are not WILLING to involve themselves into the world as equals, and also are UNWILLING to learn any second language".
Something terrible happened 60+ years ago. I am not telling anybody to forget (we should never forget the holocaust), but this means that the scientist of today , may they be 30 , 40 or 60 years old WERE NOT BORN when it happened. Heck for some of them their GP were not even born ! Will we hold against german FOREVER the holocaust ? Will we forbid them certain study because their parents, GP, GGP participated in the holocaust ? Do you realize how stupid this is ?
If this is the case, please then point the finger on any genetic discovery toward russia (various wave of pogrom) and the US (ku klux klan, slavery, although not involving jew, it certainly had a citizen and non-citizen population UP TO THE 60).
Parent is correct, in the aforementioned experiment, when you move the stick, the "movement" wave will not even go at the speed of light in the vacuum, it will only go at the speed of sound of the material of the stick.
I am French I lived in Germany, russia, a few month in the US. By now , nearly more than I lived in France.
People COMPLAIN and WHINE every-freaking-where. Fenchmen are not more or less complaining than anywhere else.
This is the same type of prejudice than "american are lazy fat ass jerk, ignorant on any other country culture" I sometimes hear. It as bad, as stupid, and certainly not INSIGHTFUL +3.
Science as we know it today was brought into existence by religious people who
Contrary to what your statement could be interpreted, it is not BECAUSE they were religious that they were great scientist, and searched for more than "god did it". Science (or at least the premise of science, one could argue that only with popper and scientific method real science came to) was done IN SPITE of them being religious. Actually you would be hard pressed to find openly non-religious people in such period of time, so naturally anybody doing anything at that time would have to be from a religion. So IMHO it is a non-info to say they were religious.
Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true.
WHAT ???? That coming from a culture which ENSLAVED black african people and said they were NOT people and had no soul ? Sorry ? Show me where in history for example have religion said that those NOT belonging to their religion had equal rights. I can't see that from christianty, or islam. I dunno for any other religion but we already cut down the 2 bigggest middle age culture source of science with that.
And for your information most of the US founding father (which cited something similar) were either DEIST or atheist.
cloned beef #123 could simply produce a protein generating heavy allergic reaction. For example suddenly produce an analogue of what is in peanut and make people ill.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that when a so called Christian murder, rape, put bombs, do terror, incest, child mishandling and so on, the usual excuse from other Christian is that he is "not a true Christian". Since apparently the same Christian don't apply the same rule to Islam, then it becomes quite rapidly an ad-hoc hypocrite explanation.
Inquisition. Witch Burning. Saint Bartholemy massacre. Many persecution on minority. justification of taking slave by attributing them "no soul". I could probably dig more with a few minutes.
As for the crusade being used as an excuse, that still does not absolve all Christian having participated to them dosn't it ? Or will you use the usual excuse of "those were not true Christian" ?
What authority decides who is a true Christian and who isn't? At what point do we start judging the tree by the fruit that it bear ? I never got a rational answer, except maybe the same as for porn ("I can't define it but recognize it when I see it")
Firstly, my observation is that there are different form of faith and non faith. it varies from 100 (completely utterly faithful without a single shred of doubt and living his faith 100% of the time) to zero (completely convinced there is no god whatsoever). Someone could argue that both extreme are not rational since there is no evidence whatsoever in either direction, but I tend to give a free pass to the 100% atheist, since even if without evidence you can't say if the easter bunny exists or don't exists, it sound more rational to suppose something don't exists until evidence are provided. The nature of the evidence might vary depending on what you are trying to demonstrate exists (it is way easier to demonstrate Mr Bush exists, than , say , the easter bunny). Most of us will hover in between those extrem. YMMV but my experience is that toward the religious 100 side peopel tend to abandon rational and critical thinking for sympathic magic and faith.
/. story. remember the cinema which were burned because they showed "the last temptation of Jesus Christi" ? I certainly do. Abortion clinic bombing ?
And this is where rational thinking and negociation break down. How do you reason with somebody which think you are trying to put down the prophet of its deity ? Sure mosleim which are not enar the 100% scale above will not react like that. But the nearer to 100%, the more one will think showing an image of muhamad is blasphemy. But islam is not alone. I visited some web forum where a christian preacher was accusing anybody wanting to disccuss some religious point of "blasphemy". You see, since it is the bible , it should given a free pass and we should speak of it with utter respect. Well I see no difference whatsoever with the
The bottom line is as soon as you start basing your decision on faith, you are NOT amenable to negociation because most probably your crop of deity will be possibly all powerful, all knowing, always right, or whatever by definition. You can only negociate when you are able to give in concession and get some in return. This is most of the time not really possible with what I would name theistic religion (mono or poly). To concede is to admit you position of faith was wrong.
But since it was my first buy, it utterly and completely turned me off from eBay. In other word they definitively lost a business opportunity due to their broken system allowing retaliation. As another poster pointed out the brazilian mercadlio system looks much sounder if described accurately
The OP would have been informative if he had provided checkable reference. He did not. And what I find on the web is the contrary to what the OP said (hinting that he was either spitting BS, or that he repeated somebody BS and it was modded informative) : concord crash caused by burst tyre
:
There are also hint that BOTH airline decided at the same time to STOP concorde due to a significant increase onf maintenance cost by airbus : BA and AF decision to stop concorde due to maintenance money increase and downward profit
QUOTE (italic emphasis mine)
Both airlines announced the decision Thursday immediately after Airbus, which makes Concordes, said the planes would need an "enhanced maintenance programme in the coming years."
"British Airways has decided that such an investment cannot be justified in the face of falling revenue caused by a global downturn in demand for all forms of premium travel in the airline industry," the company said.
"This is the end of a fantastic era in the world of aviation but bringing forward Concorde's retirement is a prudent business decision at a time when we are having to make difficult decisions right across the airline," said BA Chief Executive Rod Eddington.
The airline has been forced to cut more than 13,000 jobs since just before the September 11 attacks.
BA has been only flying half the service it used to following the Paris air crash. Concorde was out of service for more than a year after the crash.
Article information
1) BA and AF decided to stop because of increased maintenance cost
2) Premimum travel global downturn made future profit less certain or even downright not happening
3) and if I read some paragraph correctly, BA was flying while AF was not
so apparently it is not "the french killed it" but "money (lack of prospective profit) killed it".
We will get used to the change to the worst when you get used to some fundamental truth as in : your war caused this and was based on fundamentally wrong premise.
But even if we get used to this, this does not change the premise of the op , that jihad terrorist blowing shit in america =3 or maybe 4 incidents. and NONE of them had anything to do with Irak. So showing the terrorist card to say that it would not be useful to have a maglev NY-LA if terrorist blow it up is downright misleading.
Evolution instilled fucking : a few hundred million years. Evolution instilled logic : a few hundred thousand to maybe 1 or 2 million. Modern human : a few ten thousand ? One hundred thousand ? So.... You really freaking think something as basic and instinctual will be overrided by a recent development ? Please demonstrate it. All I know is demonstrable is that the most basic emotion (fear etc...) and our basic instinct relatively easily override our logic thinking. Not the other way around. Last I heard sex is also part of this, even if some people refuse adamantly to see it that way.
Comparing Atheism to a faith is akin to think that "not collecting stamp" to be a hobby. Furthermore consider that ALL so called religious people do not believe in each other gods, and even less PAST gods which are not worshiped anymore. In a fashion they are all atheist : from the N gods that mankind made up, they don't believe in N-1 (monotheist) or N-x with x much less than N (polytheist). And final point : most of the atheist I know of say that since there is no evidence for gods or similar entity, then there is no reason to believe in such an entity. The same way we don't believe in Unicorn EITHER. Would you call a blind fanatic somebody disbelieving unicorn existence ? Gnome ? Santa Claus ? you may give religion a free pass thinking it is not comparable to the previous, but the error is on your side. You would first have to demonstrate gods are different than unicorns or dragon (or santa claus). Good luck on that to have non circular definition which demonstrate that belief in god existence is different to belief in unicorn existence...
Comparing Atheism to a faith is akin to think that "not collecting stamp" to be a hobby. Furthermore consider that ALL so called religious people do not believe in each other gods, and even less PAST gods which are not worshiped anymore. In a fashion they are all atheist : from the N gods that mankind made up, they don't believe in N-1 (monotheist) or N-x with xWould you call a blind fanatic somebody disbelieving unicorn existence ? Gnome ? Santa Claus ? you may give religion a free pass thinking it is not comparable to the previous, but the error is on your side. You would first have to demonstrate gods are different than unicorns or dragon (or santa claus). Good luck on that to have non circular definition which demonstrate that belief in god existence is different to belief in unicorn existence...
Atheist would not try to insert law saying you should be stoned to death by naming your teddy joseph or whatnot, or even try to introduce in school that earth is created and evolution is false. I am not saying they would be better and a corrupt atheist would be as bad as a corrupt religious, but at least the NON-corrupt one would be a step above because they would not in their decision introduce like a certain president "god". Freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion. There are bottom feeder everywhere so let us not try to compare who would do his worst, ok ?
Furthermore up to now a former president said in public that atheist should not be considered citizen or something in that fashion. I have yet to hear of ANY president saying the same on a Christian.
ZWD=Zimbabwe Dollar. Last time I checked 250.000ZWD=1=1.2$ so that would come to roughly 8$ fine per copied CD. Sound right. After all if you copy the CD once, it can only be argued you made them lose the sale once. And if somebody copy the copy then it is their fault and responsability, not yours, and they have to pay their own 8$ fine. Sorry, 1,500,000 ZWD.
Speed is not the obstacle, acceleration is. ICBM simply are going on ballistic mode on reentry. Whatever speed they get is terminal velocity of reentry in atmosphere (at least If I remember correctly which is not a given). It is more or less a slow acceleration like a stone falling. Raingun OTOH give a brutal acceleration and if you see other comments above, you will see it more or less utterly destroy any guidance system leaving only a guide-less kinetic projective (they are trying to solve this problem but it is not easy). Which is why I am asking honestly , without guidance system, as a simple projectile, how precise are those over 200 miles. Even something as low as 0.01 deviation would be more than 55 yards deviation. So imagine what deviation it would be in normal circumstance...
By the way those projectile destroy with more than kinetic energy AFAIR, since they completely destroy themselves on impact, the splinter have a blast radius themselves where they destroy stuff.
What is the precision in meter (or yard if you prefer) of such a projectile launched in normal atmospheric condition (wind up to 10 mph) at the maximum range of 200 miles ? And compared to the blast radius ?
Quote: "Item 2 is where oil becomes relevant. Oil sitting in the ground belongs to nobody, because it isn't even remotely usable until it has been discovered and recovered. (No, you don't own it just because you were born nearby!) In the ground it's a wasted resource, wasted life, a missed opportunity. If a country is sitting atop an oil deposit, we can develop it, which profits everyone -- most importantly us."
Correct me if I am wrong, but usually resource in the ground are considered belonging to the country above the ground and if tehy choose to be poor but preserve environment, well that is THEIR choice and it is THEIR country after all. What instead you are telling is that if nobody exploit it it is UP FOR THE GRAB. Even AGAINST the will of the locals. And if I read it correctly between the line, if needed we can bomb them out and then grab their resource to exploit them.
I wonder what you would say if suddenly the world decided that a resource not exploited currently be the US (let us say, something nasty like arsenic or whatnot) need to be exploited against the will of the locals.
A stereotype of the downright annoying geek explaining what is wrong in the film DURING the film. Mind you the same stereotype exists for the physic / chem. / bio / math geek explaining why what you are watching is impossible (bullet ricochet with sparks anyone ?). Although I had a friend like that, she never did it in the cinema itself , always afterward or while watching tv.
The rest of the world call it adrenaline. Which was all the point of the wiki article you missed.
The prejudice the world has got is not "american can't learn a second langugae" as in "are not able to", but the real prejudice (which i sadly also have) is "american are not WILLING to involve themselves into the world as equals, and also are UNWILLING to learn any second language".
Something terrible happened 60+ years ago. I am not telling anybody to forget (we should never forget the holocaust), but this means that the scientist of today , may they be 30 , 40 or 60 years old WERE NOT BORN when it happened. Heck for some of them their GP were not even born ! Will we hold against german FOREVER the holocaust ? Will we forbid them certain study because their parents, GP, GGP participated in the holocaust ? Do you realize how stupid this is ?
If this is the case, please then point the finger on any genetic discovery toward russia (various wave of pogrom) and the US (ku klux klan, slavery, although not involving jew, it certainly had a citizen and non-citizen population UP TO THE 60).
Parent is correct, in the aforementioned experiment, when you move the stick, the "movement" wave will not even go at the speed of light in the vacuum, it will only go at the speed of sound of the material of the stick.
I am French I lived in Germany, russia, a few month in the US. By now , nearly more than I lived in France.
People COMPLAIN and WHINE every-freaking-where. Fenchmen are not more or less complaining than anywhere else.
This is the same type of prejudice than "american are lazy fat ass jerk, ignorant on any other country culture" I sometimes hear. It as bad, as stupid, and certainly not INSIGHTFUL +3.
the first surrender joke are ALREADY flying
How does one know one is on a US web site. Response :
It's France; whining is what they do best. is modded insightful +3
I expect that soon the "surrender" joke will be numerous for this article.
I guess it is easier to insult than to try to understand.
Science as we know it today was brought into existence by religious people who
Contrary to what your statement could be interpreted, it is not BECAUSE they were religious that they were great scientist, and searched for more than "god did it". Science (or at least the premise of science, one could argue that only with popper and scientific method real science came to) was done IN SPITE of them being religious. Actually you would be hard pressed to find openly non-religious people in such period of time, so naturally anybody doing anything at that time would have to be from a religion. So IMHO it is a non-info to say they were religious.
Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true.
WHAT ???? That coming from a culture which ENSLAVED black african people and said they were NOT people and had no soul ? Sorry ? Show me where in history for example have religion said that those NOT belonging to their religion had equal rights. I can't see that from christianty, or islam. I dunno for any other religion but we already cut down the 2 bigggest middle age culture source of science with that.
And for your information most of the US founding father (which cited something similar) were either DEIST or atheist.
cloned beef #123 could simply produce a protein generating heavy allergic reaction. For example suddenly produce an analogue of what is in peanut and make people ill.