Presumably they would offer a rat a choice of drinking a control liquid with a standard amount of sugar in it or the subject liquid, which would have a an amount of the sweetener in it. Then they would dilute the subject liquid until the lab rat chooses the control liquid. Obviously they needed to dilute it by a factor of 13000...its almost homeopathy.
I went from QWERTY to Dvorak, and yes I did have problems with QWERTY. It wasn't forgetting it was confusing the two different layouts.
But now I'm keyboard bilingual, having had to use other people's computers and work computers, so it's just a matter of getting started on the correct layout, and my hands do the work.
Anyhow, for all you DVORAK sceptics out there, just conside that for a software engineer typing ability is a key skill. If you use QWERTY and strain yourself (much more likely with QWERTY), it may cost you big. So play it safe, use Dvorak.
Forget manned missions. They are expensive and pointless. Sending a human being into outer space requires so much life support it is not economical. And there is always the possiblity of a PR disaster if there is a mission failure (e.g. Challenger). Is the PR bonus that you get from having humans on Mars worth the risk and the expense?
Instead create lots of smart robots that can handle exploring Mars automatically without human intervention (because Mars can get up to 16 light minutes away from Earth, and unless we put satellites in place when they are on the dark side of mars they will be unreachable), that are solar powered (and so can run indefinitely (barring accidents, and cosmic rays, and maybe meteors)), and capable of traversing any sort of terrain (spider-like legs) and can conduct any sort of scientific experiment humans can. They will need powerful AI, but I believe that is within the reach of current technologies.
If we want to be really ambitious, we should aim, one day, to create an industrial robotic settlement on mars which can create new robots by mining ore, smelting, etc. (perhaps just the chassis, etcetera, we could send them the more difficult to make (but light, and so cheaper to send) components like the ICs). But this is approaching science fiction.
I just can't understand the fascination people have with manned missions. Humans are just too expensive to sustain in extraterrestrial environments.
..as compared to "entertainment industry officials" who forced the IEEE to take this position by threatening an IEEE member who was giving a lecture on copy protection technologies. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
I suppose the entertainment industry must want to use the tried and trusted tehnique of security through obscurity...after all, it worked so well for the Germans in WWII!
I didn't understand 90% of the maths, and I suspect it would be impossible to do so without a maths or physics degree...but I found this section in plain english explains quite clearly what exactly is meant by particles leaving before they arrive:
At low k values, we observe that t becomes negative over a rather wide range. For wavepackets with momentum components mainly in this range, a peak in the transmitted wavepacket can appear before the peak of the incident wavepacket has reached the condensate. This is confirmrmed by wavepacket simulations.
So it's about the peaks of waves rather than actual particles, which makes more sense.
ONE RP month does seem extremely slow, but then if you can get power from slow (daily) oscillations like tides, I suppose a monthly oscillation would be the next logical step.
As the moon got slower it would get closer and closer and it would have a stronger pull and so the device would be unique: an energy source which actually grew stronger as you used it. Until the Moon plunges into the Earth, that is. You'd probably have massive tides, too, so island nations (and Holland) would probably not be too impressed.
What about carving off chunks of the moon itself and sending them down to earth in a precise trajectory (there is only a low escape velocity on the moon, you could presumably use nukes to break them off and launch them).
You could either use them as satellite platforms in a low earth orbit on which you can build solar panels/stations close to earth (less energy requirement than sending things to the moon) or...
Let them fall to earth at a specific isolated location and then have lots of wind/heat/tide generators in the location to get energy from the resulting shock/heat waves. You would just need to be very specific (and not bring them down on New York by accident), probably too specific given the vagaries of atmospheric conditions and micro-gravity.
Yeah, the microwaves from the moon idea does seem much better..but the initial cost of setting up such a solar station would be enormous, so it probably wont be attempted for a while. (BTW No nukes in article?).
Anyway, NASA should using the taxpayers dollar to work on this stuff, none of this "scientific exploration" nonsense;)
The moon must have vast amounts of gravitational potential energy (just think how much energy would be needed to raise a moon sized chunk of the earth into orbit). If we could move the moon is a couple of thousand kilometers, nobody would mind (except for people who want to keep the lunar month the same). But does anyone know of a way to actually convert this GPE into useful energy?
The creatures (tetrapods) which made it to land lived in mangroves and swamps, and were walking in the water before they walked on land. This kind of wallowing behaviour you see in many fish is not a precursor to walking on land, more a way of dealing with a temporary drought situation (when, for example, the pond they were in dries out).
Well, I have to say I fully expected to get modded down as a troll for some of my comments on America here, but instead I got modded down as a troll for pointing out a fact about Microsoft somewhere else. Seems like there's more prejudice about linux vs Msoft...
It's funny if American still think Europeans are stuck up...I thought that was just in Henry James novels set 100 years ago. I'm Australian...so I really have very little insight into the US vs Europe thing.
Anyhow, maybe both sides should lay off on the patriotism a bit ("the refuge of scondrels"). I really don't feel patriotic... if someone started insulting Australia(ns) I'd probably join in.
Why is this more meaningful?
The GNP is dependent on currency rates, so doing exactly the same amount of work (energy wise) in different countries will lead to a different GNP.
I read the table wrong...I was reading the total BTU output (quads) when I should have been reading the per/capita BTU output. Anyway US is still no.1 but not by such a huge margin...
Your theory that the US's size causes the increased energy consumption is interesting and probably half-true... but we have a much, much lower population density (6 ppl per sqm compared with 77 ppl per sqmile in the US) here in Australia, yet our per capita energy use is still only 2/3 that of the US...and we are a first tier industrialised developed nation.
Now as for comparing the US to Europe it depends on what you mean by "Europe". Europe overall has a population density just slightly higher than the US (82 vs 77 ppl pr sq mile), but I get the feeling that you are actually referring to Western Europe. I suppose it's like people call the US America, people call Western Europe Europe, or something. In which case you are correct, as Western Europe has a density of 429 people per square mile.
So points taken. But perhaps as America + Australia grow more urbanised and denser we could take a few pages out of Europe's book. For example, people who live and work in the city 99% of their time, here in Australia, buy 4WDs despite the fact that they are very inefficient (they don't care, they are rich). When you have an accident with a 4WD if you are in a smaller car you will more likely be crushed than the 4WD driver, so they are kind of an urban weapon. In Europe on the other hand, small, fuel-efficient cars are the rule. So maybe both of us (Americans + Australians) have something to learn from Europe: smaller cars and more public transport.
Can someone explain to me how this is a troll?
I'm merely stating a fact...I mean maybe a bit offtopic...but a troll?
Anyhow...I think/. moderation should be transparent like Kuro5hin
DLL hell is not caused by general dynamic linking but rather Microsoft's specific (bogus) implementation of it (COM). Apparently.NET will solve this, the DLL version info is just going to be in one place...
I hate the pro-American bias in Slashdot...but maybe it's just because many, many more Americans post on this than other countries, and so the blindly patriotic are more represented. It's not the ACs that piss me off (easily blocked) but the people with karma (how can they be so misinformed?)...
But I also suspect it is part of the American psyche to be insecure about the status of your nation (why else would they be so defensive?).
When it gets to the point where you can't state simple facts about America without getting attacked off-forum... that's sad and disturbing.
Are there "international" slashdot-like sites? Maybe there should be an option on slashdot preferences to automatically block out posts from people from national domains for certain topics which are "sensitive" to people from those countries.
So let me get this straight...England isn't a part of Europe and the US *should* be called America (rather than the US).
I hate stereotypes, but you are certainly living up to the "Americans are know nothing of the world beyond their borders" one. If you want to change people's views of Americans why don't you act the part?
It is a simple, indisputable fact that Americans (meaning residents of the US, not all North/South Americans) use MUCH, MUCH MORE ENERGY PER CAPITA (that is per human being) than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE GLOBE . In fact, more than twice as much as the nearest contender, China.
Now what I want to know is, why do Americans take themselves so seriously? Is it genetic or cultural?
Re:Whats wrong with calling it gridiron?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
More like people from other countries are smart enough, yet humble enough, to know that if someone from Australia says soccer they probably mean football.
Re:My community service for the day.
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to
God that which is God's" is universally misunderstood as Jesus emphasising the separation of authority between the ethereal Kingdom of Heaven from the corporeal world of man (and the empire of Rome).
However, much like the fundamentalists today who believe in the Rapture, many Jews believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was NOT the Afterlife but a real epoch whose time was about to come. The Kingdom of Heaven would be an earthly one as a direct replacement to the Roman Empire. Jesus's statement was actually a fiery refutation of Caesar's authority and a direct reference to taxes. Jesus is encouraging the people not to pay the Romans taxes.
As for what St Paul said, Paul was a Greek Jew who never met Jesus (except in a vision). The Christian Church must have been very submissive and obedient to the Roman authorities, merely to survive, but this has little bearing on Christ's actions when he was alive, as Christ had been dead for decades before they even wrote the Bible.
Which brings us to the whole point of this conspiracy. After Christ died, the Church of Christ faced a dilemma. To survive it could NOT go on with a military Messianic message of rebellion against Rome. If it did it would have been mercilessly quashed by the authorities, even more than it was already. And so it had to change it's central dogma from war and hatred to peace and love for pragmatic reasons.
And, as an anonymous c. pointed out, Matthew 10:34 has Jesus saying "I did not come to bring you peace but a sword." That seems hard to justify as statement by a peace lover.
If you want insight into Christ's times, although it is a dense read (classical phraseology), check out Flavius Josephus' War of the Jews. It will give you an idea of the chaotic, militant, incendiary and bloody situation Jesus stumbled into. My biggest problem with Christian teaching is that Jesus is portrayed as existing in a socio-cultural-historical vacuum, when he lived in a very interesting time. Context is everything.
PS - This is not as off-topic as some might imagine... football is a religious subject after all.
Re:My community service for the day.
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
The point is not just that they had swords...but that Jesus was urging them to sell their own clothes to purchase one. And no a sword is not really the equivalent of a hand gun...for starters you need much more skill to use a sword than a gun effectively, which suggests some level of militancy amongst the disciples at least. Sure, they may have been just used for self-defence, but 12 men armed with swords and led does not, in my mind, constitute a group of men all concerned for their own protection but an armed force or militia.
You may say that merely owning a weapon does not constitute a crime...but at the time Jewish fanatical dagger men, zeloti, were roaming the streets of Jerusalem. Israel was a war zone, and in a war someone with a weapon is not a bystander, but a combatant. Incidentally, one of Jesus' disciples was named Simon Zeloti...
Anyway the main point (which you can take or leave) is that Jesus lived in a historical context and had tangible material goals (i.e. the overthrow of the Roman occupation), like many, many other Jewish messiahs of the time (as well as before and after him, until the diaspora). The idea of Jesus being a peaceful martyr who espoused love not war rather than a militant rebel was very probably created posthumously by his disciples. Many, many details from the new Testament (which is the only real source of information about Jesus) concur with this.
BTW all this is from two books Marvin Harris "Cows Pigs Wars + Witches" and "The Messianic Legacy" (forget the authors, same as "Holy Blood"), which argue convincingly for a historical Jesus.
My community service for the day.
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
This is exactly what i'm talking about!
The only reason I'm bothering to reply is that I believe fighting ignorance is important and worthwhile (although it does often seem a waste of time).
Israel was being occupied, militarily, by the Roman Empire. The situation was remarkably similar to the situation in the west bank today, except today the Jews are the opressors, not the opressed as they were 2000 years ago.
Explain this quote from the "prince of peace:"
Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Yes, Jesus was probably a terrorist.
Millions of people (Jews + Muslims)do...
Anyway, most christians I meet are pretty ignorant of the real history of Christ...and the fact that he was actually a guerilla (one would nowadays say terrorist) leader in an intensely militant, warlike time/place.
Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
When sports people (or actors/musicians/anybody accepting awards) start thanking god...they're really trying to say that they won not just because of skill/luck/hard work but because God chose them over the opposition (They're god's chosen people). And we all know that kind of thinking leads to religious strife...
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably they would offer a rat a choice of drinking a control liquid with a standard amount of sugar in it or the subject liquid, which would have a an amount of the sweetener in it. Then they would dilute the subject liquid until the lab rat chooses the control liquid. Obviously they needed to dilute it by a factor of 13000...its almost homeopathy.
Computer entertainment programming skills, advanced design techniques and project management will be covered. And John Romero will make you his bitch.
I went from QWERTY to Dvorak, and yes I did have problems with QWERTY. It wasn't forgetting it was confusing the two different layouts.
But now I'm keyboard bilingual, having had to use other people's computers and work computers, so it's just a matter of getting started on the correct layout, and my hands do the work.
Anyhow, for all you DVORAK sceptics out there, just conside that for a software engineer typing ability is a key skill. If you use QWERTY and strain yourself (much more likely with QWERTY), it may cost you big. So play it safe, use Dvorak.
Who said aything about human-level intelligence? All the robots would need is ant-like intelligence.
Forget manned missions. They are expensive and pointless. Sending a human being into outer space requires so much life support it is not economical. And there is always the possiblity of a PR disaster if there is a mission failure (e.g. Challenger). Is the PR bonus that you get from having humans on Mars worth the risk and the expense? Instead create lots of smart robots that can handle exploring Mars automatically without human intervention (because Mars can get up to 16 light minutes away from Earth, and unless we put satellites in place when they are on the dark side of mars they will be unreachable), that are solar powered (and so can run indefinitely (barring accidents, and cosmic rays, and maybe meteors)), and capable of traversing any sort of terrain (spider-like legs) and can conduct any sort of scientific experiment humans can. They will need powerful AI, but I believe that is within the reach of current technologies. If we want to be really ambitious, we should aim, one day, to create an industrial robotic settlement on mars which can create new robots by mining ore, smelting, etc. (perhaps just the chassis, etcetera, we could send them the more difficult to make (but light, and so cheaper to send) components like the ICs). But this is approaching science fiction. I just can't understand the fascination people have with manned missions. Humans are just too expensive to sustain in extraterrestrial environments.
..as compared to "entertainment industry officials" who forced the IEEE to take this position by threatening an IEEE member who was giving a lecture on copy protection technologies. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
I suppose the entertainment industry must want to use the tried and trusted tehnique of security through obscurity...after all, it worked so well for the Germans in WWII!
I didn't understand 90% of the maths, and I suspect it would be impossible to do so without a maths or physics degree...but I found this section in plain english explains quite clearly what exactly is meant by particles leaving before they arrive:
At low k values, we observe that t becomes negative over a rather wide range. For wavepackets with momentum components mainly in this range, a peak in the transmitted wavepacket can appear before the peak of the incident wavepacket has reached the condensate. This is confirmrmed by wavepacket simulations.
So it's about the peaks of waves rather than actual particles, which makes more sense.
Yeah well you obviously know so much about the pros and cons of dynamic linking vs static linking ...
You think that parroting "everything in linux is good and everything msoft does is bad" makes people believe you are a real hacker...
Grow up, slashdot weenie...
Informative reply, thanx.
..but the initial cost of setting up such a solar station would be enormous, so it probably wont be attempted for a while. (BTW No nukes in article?).
;)
ONE RP month does seem extremely slow, but then if you can get power from slow (daily) oscillations like tides, I suppose a monthly oscillation would be the next logical step.
As the moon got slower it would get closer and closer and it would have a stronger pull and so the device would be unique: an energy source which actually grew stronger as you used it. Until the Moon plunges into the Earth, that is. You'd probably have massive tides, too, so island nations (and Holland) would probably not be too impressed.
What about carving off chunks of the moon itself and sending them down to earth in a precise trajectory (there is only a low escape velocity on the moon, you could presumably use nukes to break them off and launch them).
You could either use them as satellite platforms in a low earth orbit on which you can build solar panels/stations close to earth (less energy requirement than sending things to the moon) or...
Let them fall to earth at a specific isolated location and then have lots of wind/heat/tide generators in the location to get energy from the resulting shock/heat waves. You would just need to be very specific (and not bring them down on New York by accident), probably too specific given the vagaries of atmospheric conditions and micro-gravity.
Yeah, the microwaves from the moon idea does seem much better
Anyway, NASA should using the taxpayers dollar to work on this stuff, none of this "scientific exploration" nonsense
The moon must have vast amounts of gravitational potential energy (just think how much energy would be needed to raise a moon sized chunk of the earth into orbit). If we could move the moon is a couple of thousand kilometers, nobody would mind (except for people who want to keep the lunar month the same). But does anyone know of a way to actually convert this GPE into useful energy?
The creatures (tetrapods) which made it to land lived in mangroves and swamps, and were walking in the water before they walked on land. This kind of wallowing behaviour you see in many fish is not a precursor to walking on land, more a way of dealing with a temporary drought situation (when, for example, the pond they were in dries out).
Well, I have to say I fully expected to get modded down as a troll for some of my comments on America here, but instead I got modded down as a troll for pointing out a fact about Microsoft somewhere else. Seems like there's more prejudice about linux vs Msoft...
... if someone started insulting Australia(ns) I'd probably join in.
It's funny if American still think Europeans are stuck up...I thought that was just in Henry James novels set 100 years ago. I'm Australian...so I really have very little insight into the US vs Europe thing.
Anyhow, maybe both sides should lay off on the patriotism a bit ("the refuge of scondrels"). I really don't feel patriotic
Why is this more meaningful? The GNP is dependent on currency rates, so doing exactly the same amount of work (energy wise) in different countries will lead to a different GNP.
OOps...I made a mistake...I'm a dumb Australian ;)
I read the table wrong...I was reading the total BTU output (quads) when I should have been reading the per/capita BTU output. Anyway US is still no.1 but not by such a huge margin...
Anyhow I got some population density data here.
Your theory that the US's size causes the increased energy consumption is interesting and probably half-true... but we have a much, much lower population density (6 ppl per sqm compared with 77 ppl per sqmile in the US) here in Australia, yet our per capita energy use is still only 2/3 that of the US...and we are a first tier industrialised developed nation.
Now as for comparing the US to Europe it depends on what you mean by "Europe". Europe overall has a population density just slightly higher than the US (82 vs 77 ppl pr sq mile), but I get the feeling that you are actually referring to Western Europe. I suppose it's like people call the US America, people call Western Europe Europe, or something. In which case you are correct, as Western Europe has a density of 429 people per square mile.
So points taken. But perhaps as America + Australia grow more urbanised and denser we could take a few pages out of Europe's book. For example, people who live and work in the city 99% of their time, here in Australia, buy 4WDs despite the fact that they are very inefficient (they don't care, they are rich). When you have an accident with a 4WD if you are in a smaller car you will more likely be crushed than the 4WD driver, so they are kind of an urban weapon. In Europe on the other hand, small, fuel-efficient cars are the rule. So maybe both of us (Americans + Australians) have something to learn from Europe: smaller cars and more public transport.
Can someone explain to me how this is a troll? I'm merely stating a fact...I mean maybe a bit offtopic...but a troll? Anyhow...I think /. moderation should be transparent like Kuro5hin
DLL hell is not caused by general dynamic linking but rather Microsoft's specific (bogus) implementation of it (COM). Apparently .NET will solve this, the DLL version info is just going to be in one place...
Word.
I hate the pro-American bias in Slashdot...but maybe it's just because many, many more Americans post on this than other countries, and so the blindly patriotic are more represented. It's not the ACs that piss me off (easily blocked) but the people with karma (how can they be so misinformed?)...
But I also suspect it is part of the American psyche to be insecure about the status of your nation (why else would they be so defensive?).
When it gets to the point where you can't state simple facts about America without getting attacked off-forum... that's sad and disturbing.
Are there "international" slashdot-like sites?
Maybe there should be an option on slashdot preferences to automatically block out posts from people from national domains for certain topics which are "sensitive" to people from those countries.
Anyhow, awaiting the onslaught...
So let me get this straight...England isn't a part of Europe and the US *should* be called America (rather than the US). I hate stereotypes, but you are certainly living up to the "Americans are know nothing of the world beyond their borders" one. If you want to change people's views of Americans why don't you act the part?
It is a simple, indisputable fact that Americans (meaning residents of the US, not all North/South Americans) use MUCH, MUCH MORE ENERGY PER CAPITA (that is per human being) than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE GLOBE . In fact, more than twice as much as the nearest contender, China.
Now what I want to know is, why do Americans take themselves so seriously? Is it genetic or cultural?
More like people from other countries are smart enough, yet humble enough, to know that if someone from Australia says soccer they probably mean football.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's" is universally misunderstood as Jesus emphasising the separation of authority between the ethereal Kingdom of Heaven from the corporeal world of man (and the empire of Rome).
However, much like the fundamentalists today who believe in the Rapture, many Jews believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was NOT the Afterlife but a real epoch whose time was about to come. The Kingdom of Heaven would be an earthly one as a direct replacement to the Roman Empire. Jesus's statement was actually a fiery refutation of Caesar's authority and a direct reference to taxes. Jesus is encouraging the people not to pay the Romans taxes.
As for what St Paul said, Paul was a Greek Jew who never met Jesus (except in a vision). The Christian Church must have been very submissive and obedient to the Roman authorities, merely to survive, but this has little bearing on Christ's actions when he was alive, as Christ had been dead for decades before they even wrote the Bible.
Which brings us to the whole point of this conspiracy. After Christ died, the Church of Christ faced a dilemma. To survive it could NOT go on with a military Messianic message of rebellion against Rome. If it did it would have been mercilessly quashed by the authorities, even more than it was already. And so it had to change it's central dogma from war and hatred to peace and love for pragmatic reasons.
And, as an anonymous c. pointed out, Matthew 10:34 has Jesus saying "I did not come to bring you peace but a sword." That seems hard to justify as statement by a peace lover.
If you want insight into Christ's times, although it is a dense read (classical phraseology), check out Flavius Josephus' War of the Jews . It will give you an idea of the chaotic, militant, incendiary and bloody situation Jesus stumbled into. My biggest problem with Christian teaching is that Jesus is portrayed as existing in a socio-cultural-historical vacuum, when he lived in a very interesting time. Context is everything.
PS - This is not as off-topic as some might imagine... football is a religious subject after all.
The point is not just that they had swords...but that Jesus was urging them to sell their own clothes to purchase one. And no a sword is not really the equivalent of a hand gun...for starters you need much more skill to use a sword than a gun effectively, which suggests some level of militancy amongst the disciples at least. Sure, they may have been just used for self-defence, but 12 men armed with swords and led does not, in my mind, constitute a group of men all concerned for their own protection but an armed force or militia.
You may say that merely owning a weapon does not constitute a crime...but at the time Jewish fanatical dagger men, zeloti, were roaming the streets of Jerusalem. Israel was a war zone, and in a war someone with a weapon is not a bystander, but a combatant. Incidentally, one of Jesus' disciples was named Simon Zeloti...
Anyway the main point (which you can take or leave) is that Jesus lived in a historical context and had tangible material goals (i.e. the overthrow of the Roman occupation), like many, many other Jewish messiahs of the time (as well as before and after him, until the diaspora). The idea of Jesus being a peaceful martyr who espoused love not war rather than a militant rebel was very probably created posthumously by his disciples. Many, many details from the new Testament (which is the only real source of information about Jesus) concur with this.
BTW all this is from two books Marvin Harris "Cows Pigs Wars + Witches" and "The Messianic Legacy" (forget the authors, same as "Holy Blood"), which argue convincingly for a historical Jesus.
This is exactly what i'm talking about! The only reason I'm bothering to reply is that I believe fighting ignorance is important and worthwhile (although it does often seem a waste of time). Israel was being occupied, militarily, by the Roman Empire. The situation was remarkably similar to the situation in the west bank today, except today the Jews are the opressors, not the opressed as they were 2000 years ago. Explain this quote from the "prince of peace:" Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Yes, Jesus was probably a terrorist.
Millions of people (Jews + Muslims)do... Anyway, most christians I meet are pretty ignorant of the real history of Christ...and the fact that he was actually a guerilla (one would nowadays say terrorist) leader in an intensely militant, warlike time/place.
When sports people (or actors/musicians/anybody accepting awards) start thanking god...they're really trying to say that they won not just because of skill/luck/hard work but because God chose them over the opposition (They're god's chosen people). And we all know that kind of thinking leads to religious strife...