My joke was more about the general attempts to "modernize less-developed countries"
There are people around who would make a statement like your joke in complete seriousness. They've never put the words "macro" and "economics" together.
Now, I'd agree there's some asymmetry in the use of "radical Christian" vs. "radical Muslim"
The term "radical" means that you and your group are in the practice of killing people who don't follow your beliefs. The only "radical Christians" that I can think of are abortion-doctor murders. There hasn't been a whole lot of this; they target individuals; and they don't target random people in the general public. OTOH, radical Muslims murder about 50,000 people a year and are actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Radical Christians are common criminals, whereas radical Muslims are a significant threat to civilization.
I'd say there's quite an asymmetry the dangers these groups present.
If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.
To clarify, are you saying that Rev. Falwell would be denouncing the bombers or the non-Christians?
They could make a show called Patent busters where they could test patents and mark them as Plausible, Prior Art or Laughable.
There is a show like that on the Canadian Discovery Channel called Patent Bending. They take patents for silly mechanical things and try to build them. Turns out that these kinds of patents aren't of much better quality than software patents.
If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.
Well I can 100% guarantee that it won't be Jerry Falwell.
"Don't watch pirated films - you'll lose the big screen image quality, and the incredible sound, and your view won't be spoiled by the person that goes to the toilet in front"
"... and you can't enjoy irritating commercials like this one."
I doubt it. However, it seems pretty clear that Microsoft is engaged in illegal activity. You can't say disparaging things about your competitors or their products and not offer any evidence. That's unfair competition. Tortious interference, anti-trust violations, false advertising. And Microsoft is stupid/desperate enough to do this to the mainstream media.
Reflecting a pragmatic approach to the continuing consideration of OOXML by ISO/IEC JTC 1, the recommendation calls for Norway to 'promote the convergence of the ODF and OOXML, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage.'
Reflecting a pragmatic approach to the continuing consideration of FORTRAN by ISO/IEC JTC 1, the recommendation calls for Norway to 'promote the convergence of the C and FORTRAN starting-array-subscript issue, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage.' Norway concludes, 'the only solution is to start array subscripts from 0.5.'
I realize that when you're a young "atheist", head all full of newfound rhetorical and "logical" techniques, it seems cool to paint organized religion as a blight upon the world using the broadest strokes
I can attest that it is still cool when you are a middle-aged genius scientist.
There are really only two good things you can say about religion: (1) churches act as social clubs for a community, and (2) religion helps to keep dumb people's minds from imploding.
Anyone else notice that their sample display shows 129 MPH? Apparently, you get poor fuel efficiency at this speed.
Re:Tag this article deathofcreationism
on
The Human Mutation
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Science won't ever disprove religion because religion begins a priori from the premise of [insert faith-based foundation of religion here].
Religious people and organizations can and do make predictions about reality based on their faith. Time and again, science has proven these religious predictions to be false. The religious people make a big fuss, end up looking like fools, and ultimately, dozens or hundreds of years later, change their beliefs, all the while pretending that their creed is unchanging, eternal, and infallible. Even if you could ever find two "Christians" who believe the exact same things, their beliefs would be very different from Christians from the 1st Century. Religion evolves much more quickly than complex organisms do.
War is caused by a society feeling threatened (a) Economically or (b) Philosophically. In response to that fear a society will grant power to extremists who have the "solution," typically a scapegoat (Jews, Terrorists, Drugs, Canada, etc.)
So, you're saying that terrorists are as benign as Jews and Canada? Was 9/11 carried out by the CIA?
Don't forget militaristic Keynesianism - large employment and economic pumping through investment in the military.
Hitler was the first world leader to implement Keynesianism of any kind and saw rapid economic growth as a consequence. A government should moderate the economy by spending during recessions and saving during prosperity. The western powers didn't believe this way back in the 1930s and this is a significant causative factor of WWII. The western powers figured that Hitler's spending spree would result in bankruptcy and that German militancy would disappear is a flood of red ink—a self-correcting problem. They were wrong.
However, suggesting that you get the most Keynesian bang for the buck with military spending may be an example of the broken-window fallacy. The US might get more bang out of investing in technology and education (if the world wasn't full of psychopathic dictators).
Slashdot Mirror
Read the AC post above this one.
There are people around who would make a statement like your joke in complete seriousness. They've never put the words "macro" and "economics" together.
condone (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
-verb (used with object), -doned, -doning.
It seems to me that this would be a sensational headline, especially if these are Western Muslims:
20% OF WESTERN MUSLIMS CONDONE SUICIDE BOMBING!
What are the numbers when you point out that the overwhelming majority of those killed by suicide bombers are Muslim civilians?
The term "radical" means that you and your group are in the practice of killing people who don't follow your beliefs. The only "radical Christians" that I can think of are abortion-doctor murders. There hasn't been a whole lot of this; they target individuals; and they don't target random people in the general public. OTOH, radical Muslims murder about 50,000 people a year and are actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Radical Christians are common criminals, whereas radical Muslims are a significant threat to civilization.
I'd say there's quite an asymmetry the dangers these groups present.
To clarify, are you saying that Rev. Falwell would be denouncing the bombers or the non-Christians?
There is a show like that on the Canadian Discovery Channel called Patent Bending. They take patents for silly mechanical things and try to build them. Turns out that these kinds of patents aren't of much better quality than software patents.
Well I can 100% guarantee that it won't be Jerry Falwell.
"... and you can't enjoy irritating commercials like this one."
I dunno. A fairly moderate Linux server here at the office that cost about $5K several months ago is 16,000 bogomips.
Indeed, nobody used linked lists or quicksort 20 years after they were invented.
Apology accepted, Captain Needa.
Well there's the problem—they sailed a building out to sea.
I doubt it. However, it seems pretty clear that Microsoft is engaged in illegal activity. You can't say disparaging things about your competitors or their products and not offer any evidence. That's unfair competition. Tortious interference, anti-trust violations, false advertising. And Microsoft is stupid/desperate enough to do this to the mainstream media.
Yeah, we need more Evolution vs. Creationism stories.
Reflecting a pragmatic approach to the continuing consideration of FORTRAN by ISO/IEC JTC 1, the recommendation calls for Norway to 'promote the convergence of the C and FORTRAN starting-array-subscript issue, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage.' Norway concludes, 'the only solution is to start array subscripts from 0.5.'
Charismatic cult leader with a messiah complex. His cult members to exaggerate their stories about him after his death.
It means that you need to be popular, same as ever.
I can attest that it is still cool when you are a middle-aged genius scientist.
There are really only two good things you can say about religion: (1) churches act as social clubs for a community, and (2) religion helps to keep dumb people's minds from imploding.
Anyone else notice that their sample display shows 129 MPH? Apparently, you get poor fuel efficiency at this speed.
Religious people and organizations can and do make predictions about reality based on their faith. Time and again, science has proven these religious predictions to be false. The religious people make a big fuss, end up looking like fools, and ultimately, dozens or hundreds of years later, change their beliefs, all the while pretending that their creed is unchanging, eternal, and infallible. Even if you could ever find two "Christians" who believe the exact same things, their beliefs would be very different from Christians from the 1st Century. Religion evolves much more quickly than complex organisms do.
"I can do that. Therefore, I am your God. Therefore, you will do what I say."
So, you're saying that terrorists are as benign as Jews and Canada? Was 9/11 carried out by the CIA?
I think you'd enjoy watching The Power Of Nightmares.
Hitler was the first world leader to implement Keynesianism of any kind and saw rapid economic growth as a consequence. A government should moderate the economy by spending during recessions and saving during prosperity. The western powers didn't believe this way back in the 1930s and this is a significant causative factor of WWII. The western powers figured that Hitler's spending spree would result in bankruptcy and that German militancy would disappear is a flood of red ink—a self-correcting problem. They were wrong.
However, suggesting that you get the most Keynesian bang for the buck with military spending may be an example of the broken-window fallacy. The US might get more bang out of investing in technology and education (if the world wasn't full of psychopathic dictators).
Um, you mean that country where a psychopath managed to become dictator?