It's possible to be of more than one religion. It's fairly common in the East, but Western religions tend to be exclusive.
It is easy to prove that the majority of humans are seriously wrong about religion by dividing them up into Christian, Muslim, and Other, none of which have a majority.
So you're saying it's a matter of quantity, since the real difference is that a larger ratio of Muslims think gays should be killed than Christians who think that (assuming your unsourced claims are true). If more Muslims decided gays shouldn't be killed, would there be a substantive difference between the religions?
Why? I live in a country that has free speech. As long as I avoid libel and incitement, there are no laws against anything I might put on Facebook. If I were to go to Pakistan, I've probably got a big enough internet footprint already so they'll know I'm not real fond of Islam. I don't see that Facebook makes any of this worse.
You might want to find apps that take video and audio and automatically stream them to a secure location. The ACLU maintains some such apps for several states.
Of course hate is legal. We don't have thought crimes in the legal sense. Some people have observed that killing people because they're black or whatever has more effect on the other blacks or whatevers than shooting a random person has on people in general, and this does seem to be the case. Hate crimes, as generally defined, seem to do more harm than other crimes, theoretical arguments to the contrary.
It used to be that the local electric company provided and distributed electricity, and so they could bill pretty much as they pleased. If everybody and their little brother is generating most of their own electricity, the electric companies at least need to change their billing to reflect infrastructure maintenance and being the backup power when solar panels produce too little electricity and batteries run out of juice.
I don't think we'll ever be beyond electricity in this millennium (it's conceivable that we'll backtrack to not having it, which isn't the same thing), so what I'd expect is more local production. It will be a long time before the current infrastructure is obsolete; although it may be obsolescent fairly fast. New building and renovation of old building takes time. There's also advantages in more centralized energy storage and electrical generation, although some degree of decentralization is happening now.
Ever looked at the prospects of invading Britain in WWII? In 1940, which was their best chance, German planning treated the English Channel as a particularly wide river. While the British Army was seriously short on heavy equipment, it was pretty strong in manpower, so a successful invasion would have to be in force. It would need to be supplied, and the appropriate ports were rigged for demolition. German bombers were not good at attacking shipping in this period, so the RN was able to keep three or four destroyer flotillas and a battleship in Channel ports, and, particularly after the losses and damage in the invasion of Norway, the German Navy had nothing to match that force. Churchill would have welcomed an invasion attempt.
Later, some of this changed. The Stuka pilots became adept at hitting ships. Germany could have made real landing craft. Germany did get a couple more battleships. However, the Luftwaffe would not be able to get superiority again against the RAF in Britain, the British Army in Britain was strong and well-equipped, the RN had plenty of older battleships, and the ports were still rigged for demolition.
In WWI, the Russian government collapsed because of losses in territory and men that were relatively small compared to what Germany achieved in the summer of 1941. Stalin's government kept control of the Soviet Union, which few people expected at the time. The Red Army was unable to stop a major German strategic offensive except by outrunning it until 1943. There was no reason to think the Soviet Union could withstand such losses and come back. Conquering the Soviet Union wasn't going to happen. Defeating it and taking large amounts of territory looked, at the time, frighteningly likely.
US involvement in the war against Germany was minimal in 1942. The first Eighth Air Force raid was in July, with bombers borrowed from the RAF. The first clash of US and German troops was around the end of 1942. The opening of the US to U-boat raids cost the Allies a lot more than the USN contributed. In other words, the US was only nominally in the war for the first big raid on Hamburg.
"Clean coal" usually refers to scrubbing certain pollutants out of the output. In terms of CO2 emissions, there is no such thing as clean coal. (I've seen a few proposals, but nothing in production.) Maintaining the level of greenhouse gas produced is better than increasing it, which is what would happen if we let everything happen as it happens. Eventually reducing it is better than never reducing it.
That looks to me like a really poor analogy. Rape is a specific crime that causes serious harm to specific individuals, and it has little or no benefit to society. Burning fossil fuels is a general problem that can cause serious harm, but it has lots of benefits to society. A little CO2 emission by itself has pretty much no effect. A few rapes here and there leave people hurt. If we could forbid rape all over the world, that would be good. (Not that the West has ever seemed all that concerned about rape in non-Western countries.) If we could forbid fossil fuel burning all over the world, civilization would collapse.
Rape is not necessary for economic development. Fossil fuels currently are. Developing countries are going to do what they need to do to become developed (which is a moving target, of course), unless the developed world stops them forcibly. Under the circumstances, the best thing to do is to try to guide their development in ways that minimize CO2 emissions. One way to do that is to give them lots of money to help them bypass large-scale use of fossil fuels, but that's not going to happen. Getting them to agree to try to keep emissions down and providing money to help that is the best we're likely to get.
They predict different temperature outcomes every report.
This is science. We observe more. We figure out more stuff. Also, global temperatures do depend on things like how much fossil fuel we burn.
However, the reports do show that temperatures will go up, and that bad things will happen. In fact, temperatures are going up, and there are bad things happening that are likely related to climate change.
This is a phenomenon that's been discussed: scientific papers (in any field) with dramatic results get published and noticed, papers with boring results don't, despite the fact that the boring results are less likely to be proven wrong.
You may be confusing science journalism with science. In science, if a paper is published with dramatic results, it attracts attention, and therefore if it's wrong it's likely to be debunked faster than if it were boring. Remember the reaction to the LHC experiment clocking neutrinos as faster than light? Large numbers of physicists looked at it and it wasn't long before we knew what really happened.
Historically, the dominant language has usually been one that can fill all roles above assembly language. At one point, Unix programmers pretty much had to be competent in C, and that created a network effect, in that people would program in C because they knew almost everyone else could read and understand it.
Since we've pretty much freed most developers from having to write in the system's language, it's questionable whether we'll ever get another dominant language. There will be popular ones, but none will be dominant.
I tend to think of specifying lengths of integer and floating-point types as premature optimization, but there's advantages to static type checking. You mentioned a parameter that can be an int or a list of ints (which is something C++ handles well), but if somehow the parameter winds up being something else in Python something unexpected could happen, whereas in C++ if it winds up being something else that's a compile error.
Braces also stand out more. "begin" and "end" look like any other reserved word or variable name. I prefer to have the program structure easier to see.
Gas and maintenance are proportional to the amount driven. Insurance is going to be more expensive for someone who's driving commercially. Cars are fairly expensive to operate.
Sounds like the casino failed through underpaying its employees. If employees are willing to trash their own jobs rather than continue working under the current conditions, that says something about the employer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible to be of more than one religion. It's fairly common in the East, but Western religions tend to be exclusive.
It is easy to prove that the majority of humans are seriously wrong about religion by dividing them up into Christian, Muslim, and Other, none of which have a majority.
I haven't seen any religious document that can't be disregarded by its believers.
Another way to put that is that the Vatican has six popes per square mile.
So you're saying it's a matter of quantity, since the real difference is that a larger ratio of Muslims think gays should be killed than Christians who think that (assuming your unsourced claims are true). If more Muslims decided gays shouldn't be killed, would there be a substantive difference between the religions?
No, actually, the NT says two different things about OT law. That isn't clarity.
I can find some very disturbing things if I read what is actually written in the Bible.
The guy was sentenced to death for not letting certain imaginary friends rule his life, actually.
FTFY.
Why? I live in a country that has free speech. As long as I avoid libel and incitement, there are no laws against anything I might put on Facebook. If I were to go to Pakistan, I've probably got a big enough internet footprint already so they'll know I'm not real fond of Islam. I don't see that Facebook makes any of this worse.
Has there been any court test of canary warnings, such as "This site has never received a NSL" that is removed when it becomes false?
You might want to find apps that take video and audio and automatically stream them to a secure location. The ACLU maintains some such apps for several states.
Of course hate is legal. We don't have thought crimes in the legal sense. Some people have observed that killing people because they're black or whatever has more effect on the other blacks or whatevers than shooting a random person has on people in general, and this does seem to be the case. Hate crimes, as generally defined, seem to do more harm than other crimes, theoretical arguments to the contrary.
It used to be that the local electric company provided and distributed electricity, and so they could bill pretty much as they pleased. If everybody and their little brother is generating most of their own electricity, the electric companies at least need to change their billing to reflect infrastructure maintenance and being the backup power when solar panels produce too little electricity and batteries run out of juice.
I don't think we'll ever be beyond electricity in this millennium (it's conceivable that we'll backtrack to not having it, which isn't the same thing), so what I'd expect is more local production. It will be a long time before the current infrastructure is obsolete; although it may be obsolescent fairly fast. New building and renovation of old building takes time. There's also advantages in more centralized energy storage and electrical generation, although some degree of decentralization is happening now.
That's what my crystal ball tells me, anyway.
Ever looked at the prospects of invading Britain in WWII? In 1940, which was their best chance, German planning treated the English Channel as a particularly wide river. While the British Army was seriously short on heavy equipment, it was pretty strong in manpower, so a successful invasion would have to be in force. It would need to be supplied, and the appropriate ports were rigged for demolition. German bombers were not good at attacking shipping in this period, so the RN was able to keep three or four destroyer flotillas and a battleship in Channel ports, and, particularly after the losses and damage in the invasion of Norway, the German Navy had nothing to match that force. Churchill would have welcomed an invasion attempt.
Later, some of this changed. The Stuka pilots became adept at hitting ships. Germany could have made real landing craft. Germany did get a couple more battleships. However, the Luftwaffe would not be able to get superiority again against the RAF in Britain, the British Army in Britain was strong and well-equipped, the RN had plenty of older battleships, and the ports were still rigged for demolition.
In WWI, the Russian government collapsed because of losses in territory and men that were relatively small compared to what Germany achieved in the summer of 1941. Stalin's government kept control of the Soviet Union, which few people expected at the time. The Red Army was unable to stop a major German strategic offensive except by outrunning it until 1943. There was no reason to think the Soviet Union could withstand such losses and come back. Conquering the Soviet Union wasn't going to happen. Defeating it and taking large amounts of territory looked, at the time, frighteningly likely.
US involvement in the war against Germany was minimal in 1942. The first Eighth Air Force raid was in July, with bombers borrowed from the RAF. The first clash of US and German troops was around the end of 1942. The opening of the US to U-boat raids cost the Allies a lot more than the USN contributed. In other words, the US was only nominally in the war for the first big raid on Hamburg.
"Clean coal" usually refers to scrubbing certain pollutants out of the output. In terms of CO2 emissions, there is no such thing as clean coal. (I've seen a few proposals, but nothing in production.) Maintaining the level of greenhouse gas produced is better than increasing it, which is what would happen if we let everything happen as it happens. Eventually reducing it is better than never reducing it.
That looks to me like a really poor analogy. Rape is a specific crime that causes serious harm to specific individuals, and it has little or no benefit to society. Burning fossil fuels is a general problem that can cause serious harm, but it has lots of benefits to society. A little CO2 emission by itself has pretty much no effect. A few rapes here and there leave people hurt. If we could forbid rape all over the world, that would be good. (Not that the West has ever seemed all that concerned about rape in non-Western countries.) If we could forbid fossil fuel burning all over the world, civilization would collapse.
Rape is not necessary for economic development. Fossil fuels currently are. Developing countries are going to do what they need to do to become developed (which is a moving target, of course), unless the developed world stops them forcibly. Under the circumstances, the best thing to do is to try to guide their development in ways that minimize CO2 emissions. One way to do that is to give them lots of money to help them bypass large-scale use of fossil fuels, but that's not going to happen. Getting them to agree to try to keep emissions down and providing money to help that is the best we're likely to get.
This is science. We observe more. We figure out more stuff. Also, global temperatures do depend on things like how much fossil fuel we burn.
However, the reports do show that temperatures will go up, and that bad things will happen. In fact, temperatures are going up, and there are bad things happening that are likely related to climate change.
You may be confusing science journalism with science. In science, if a paper is published with dramatic results, it attracts attention, and therefore if it's wrong it's likely to be debunked faster than if it were boring. Remember the reaction to the LHC experiment clocking neutrinos as faster than light? Large numbers of physicists looked at it and it wasn't long before we knew what really happened.
Historically, the dominant language has usually been one that can fill all roles above assembly language. At one point, Unix programmers pretty much had to be competent in C, and that created a network effect, in that people would program in C because they knew almost everyone else could read and understand it.
Since we've pretty much freed most developers from having to write in the system's language, it's questionable whether we'll ever get another dominant language. There will be popular ones, but none will be dominant.
I tend to think of specifying lengths of integer and floating-point types as premature optimization, but there's advantages to static type checking. You mentioned a parameter that can be an int or a list of ints (which is something C++ handles well), but if somehow the parameter winds up being something else in Python something unexpected could happen, whereas in C++ if it winds up being something else that's a compile error.
Braces also stand out more. "begin" and "end" look like any other reserved word or variable name. I prefer to have the program structure easier to see.
Bu-but doesn't everyone love makefile syntax?
Don't forget the additional reserved words. "class" sounds like a good C variable name in a University class registration system.
Gas and maintenance are proportional to the amount driven. Insurance is going to be more expensive for someone who's driving commercially. Cars are fairly expensive to operate.
Sounds like the casino failed through underpaying its employees. If employees are willing to trash their own jobs rather than continue working under the current conditions, that says something about the employer.
To paraphrase both those quotes:
The newspapers are against me! Wah!