OMG! That's the nirvana of multitasking that i've been robbed of with my iPhone?
Yep. And background services are TRUE background services, and don't get terminated unless the system is under serious resource constraint. Unlike the iPhone 4 where "background service" means either "you get a wake-up call at a pre-set time" or "let me finish some stuff for x seconds after I leave the foreground". Both are nice, I guess, but being able to launch an actual background service with no forced waits or time constraint still blows it out of the water.
The actual lifecycle model is pretty badass even for foreground tasks, too.
With the magic "we'll close it when it hits 6", that doesn't work. Nor is it appropriate for phones that can handle more than 6 or less.
Good thing that's nothing like what the Android system actually does. The full description of the application lifecycle is available in the SDK if you're interested, but the general idea is that any app which leaves the foreground is given a chance to save some of it's state as it is hidden, and may be terminated at any point after that if the active application needs more resources. Your claim that the visible application is "running out of memory" because the Android system is keeping 5 other apps in active RAM is simply completely false.
You can test this yourself by installing TaskKiller or some other utility that DOES let you view and terminate the active applications. Depending which phone you have, how many background services you have running, and the size of the apps you launch sequentially, the number of "most recently used" apps that are kept active WILL change to optimize the experience. For example, flipping through some random apps on my Hero and then opening it, I see that only the last 3 from my particular sequence are still active, even though 6 are displayed in the "latest apps" switcher that comes up when you press and hold the Home button.
It turns out that the number of apps in that view is just a convenience function, and represents absolutely nothing about the actual operating conditions of the Android system, nor anything meaningful about how the system prioritizes resource allocation. Which is pretty damn obvious if you would stop to think about it for a minute before insulting it based on your own broken assumptions.
even though most phones get starved on memory specifically because google doesn't understand that you need to give people by default a way to force closed a process.
That's simply not true. Yes, the lack of a quit button may be personally annoying to you, but it's not going to cause active applications to run out of memory. The Android system WILL close less recently used apps to free up memory as needed.
it is misleading people to make out that paper is some kind of baby seal killing product though...
I don't think anybody's saying that. It's just ridiculous that this guy is complaining about companies putting "think before you print" messages at the bottom of emails to discourage people from transferring information to a (typically) LESS useful medium and wasting resources in the process. Also, reaching out through Facebook and Youtube to "resonate with youth" about paper-based printing is beyond stupid.
I suppose the alternative - announcing the names of the victims with a trumpet - would be more compassionate? Perhaps in the effort for justice we should likewise publicize the names of rape victims, too? I mean, information wants to be free, right?
That's not the alternative. The alternative is 1) kicking them out of the church so they won't have a position of authority, presumed goodness, and unsupervised access to young children, and 2) not allowing them to be shipped off to South America when one of the victims DOES want their day in court. The idea that you'd have to force public attention on victims who do not want it is a total strawman.
I actually prefer the size of the Hero to the iPhone. The Apple hardware is just a little too big, so it feels slightly clumsy to me. And I have relatively large hands, so this is not from a "little person" perspective.
Unfortunately the Nexus One is just on the other side of the "clumsy" line as well, but I'm hoping the EVO will stay small enough to feel right.
The interface on the Android is VERY similar to the iPhone. The only thing the Android base experience is missing is a bit of polish on the interface widgets, and if you get an HTC phone they've replaced those as well. There's certainly no difference in the way they "hide" the filesystem, or any other major paradigm differences from the iPhone. The difference is, if you're a geek and WANT to mess with those, you're able to.
There are also several 3rd party launcher replacements available on the app store that let you swap out the home screen if you want a different experience. Try doing THAT on an iPhone. Or replacing the dialer, or the photo picker. Apple is fine if you want to do things exactly the way they've accounted for. Thing is, that's not necessary to get a consistent out-of-the-box experience. The same is true of any Android phone right when you open it, but there you aren't prevented from replacing things if you want to.
Finally, you said the Android has a slow time getting traction. Everything I've seen indicates that they're picking up market share (and developer activity in their app space) faster than the iPhone. Yeah, they're a bit new to the party, and the first couple versions of the OS were more like a beta than a full release. The recent pace and quality is starting to pay off, though.
That being around those with other values will somehow "rub off" on them?
Based on the liberal minority who were terrorized by the fundamentalists after the Iranian revolution in 1980, and the westernization of Islamic youth in European countries, yes. At least some of the time, I expect democratic values to rub off on some of the more hard line elements. Not the core of that group, but at the edges. It happened with Christianity, remember.
Do you HONESTLY think that with that level of indoctrination that normal assimilation will happen?
No, but I also don't think that level of indoctrination is anywhere near a majority, ESPECIALLY outside of fundamentalist regime countries.
As far as they are concerned you are an infidel. They are well within their rights according to their beliefs to kill you because you are nothing in the eyes of their God, full stop.
Yeah, and Ronald Reagan said that Atheists shouldn't be allowed to testify in court. Without any Muslim infiltration, the PotUS in the last couple decades was ready to dismiss basic my civil liberties because I don't believe in his god. As far as I'm concerned you're all fuckheads, and it's just a matter of degrees.
which if you actually watched the video I linked to instead of hiding and mocking you have seen this happens EVERY SINGLE TIME the Muslims get over 25%, every. single. time.
I did watch the video. I noticed those numbers. I also noticed that every single example that "proved" what happens when Muslims reach a majority were countries that have been Muslim for a long damn time. I also noticed a distinct lack of any example of a country that was democratic and non-Muslim "falling" to the Muslim invasion. So yes, there are several countries out there, which have been Muslim for a long time, and haven't made the jump to a peaceful democratic society. Yes, Iran fell from a democratic Muslim society to a fundamentalist theocracy. Getting from there to "European democracies will fall" is a pretty big logical leap. The simple fact is we don't really know WHAT will happen yet.
It is a war they intend to win, by using your own beliefs against you. Do they give YOU the same courtesies when you are in THEIR countries? FUCK NO!
Well, fuck it. Let's dismantle our system of democracy, respect, and freedom because some people are assholes. I guess we just can't have nice things.
If you offer me freedom of speech, and I use it to take away your right to speak against me, is that really freedom?
Yes. A thousand times, yes. If you really believe in freedom of speech, you don't get to censor what you dislike. You don't even get to censor the ones who speak out against it, although you should probably speak up in rebuttal. The entire concept of democracy is self-governance, not governance-by-those-you-agree-with. It may prove not to work against a pervasive cult such as you seem convinced exists within Islam, but I'd prefer to give it a bit more of a chance before we discard it in order to "save" it.
I notice you didn't even attempt to refute the numbers in the video. Why? Because you can't. If the majority in the west is only having one baby, if any, and the Islamists have 4 to 8, what happens in 50 years?
They said the exact same thing about China and India 30 years ago. You'll notice that as technology increased, though, the population started to level off on its own.
Simple-follow our laws or GTFO. This forming "Sharia Ghettos" shit needs to have a screeching halt put to it. If you want to live under Sharia, go to Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries that live under that crap, don't bring it here. No more burkas, or making your women live like indentured servants, no more selling your kids to pedo "marriages", you keep that shit at home or you don't come here, simple as that.
As far as I know, most of what you're ranting about is not against the law. And again I'd point out that there are already Gypsy clans in the US, as well as large areas of Utah and Wyoming where Mormon fringe groups do the same kind of arranged child marriage shit. None of this is new, and your fantasy that we've been free of this kind of thing in the past is completely false.
I'm not saying it's impossible. Hell, maybe Islam is a virus, and they're popping out babies just so they can come murder your kids in their sleep. Anything is possible, however improbable. What really gets me is, on one hand you claim that freedom and democracy is sacrosanct, and on the other you propose that we take away large swaths of freedom of behavior and association because you don't like them. You can't have it both ways. If you really support freedom and democracy, you don't get to legislate against the freedoms of minorities who scare you.
You can speak out against them, and I'll be the first to speak out against anyone who is against free expression, or supports violence. But right now, that happens to be both Muslim extremists and jackasses like you. Honestly, I'd rather I could ship all of you to Mongolia and have done with it, except because I actually support a free society I would never seriously suggest censoring your idiocy. Doesn't mean I won't make fun of it, though.
That's addressing the core of the rational difference from religion to religion, of course in practice different religions do break into different categories across the spectrum. But this has more to do with the affluence of the average adherent at any one moment, I think, than anything to do with the core values of the particular faith.
That's what I'm saying. The extent to which religion discourages rational thought makes it easy for a leader to twist it toward whatever end they want, be it encouraging good behavior or bad behavior in their followers. Some religions discourage rational thought to a greater degree than others, but I don't see anything inherent in them that makes it easier to turn toward evil than toward good (or the other way around) once you've got those followers indoctrinated.
I agree, but I still think that quality is inherent in ALL religions, not just certain ones. Or at least, some religions may encourage individual interpretation and rational thought more than others, but that's completely orthogonal to whether they "encourage" violence or peace.
The message in the founding book of Christianity is pretty consistent: Love thy enemy [bible.cc]. Jesus didn't kill anybody, argued against his disciples when they raised the sword, and didn't protest when sentenced to death unjustly. Where is the violence in that? Christians may have killed, sinned, even harmed children:-(, but they'd be hard-pressed to point out the part of the gospel justifying such actions.
Christians found justification for the Crusades, witch burning, and the spanish inquisition, all in the Bible. I don't think they were right, but they did.
Yes, the Quran is being used to justify these death threats. There are plenty of Muslims out there who would argue that the people doing so are wrong in their interpretation.
And how many quotes are there in the bible about violence? "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Stone adulterers. Put people who eat shellfish on Fridays to death, for they are abomination.
You can also find peaceful quotes in both. Across language barriers and ignoring context you can find quotes in any religion to support the message you want.
I'm not saying that the quotes you provided aren't in the Koran. I'm saying that the people are peaceful or violent and twist the religion to support them, not the other way around.
I'm saying the presence or absence of violence is a factor of the society and people that promote the religion, rather than something inherent in the religion itself.
Muslim extremists have tens of billions of dollars to spend on jyhad, tens of thousands of active members, the passive and sometimes active support of several governments, a complicated communication regime, and are capable of doing hundreds of billions of dollars in damages via 9/11 style attacks and millions in plane and building bombings.
I call shenanigans. If they have 10% of the US defense budget, squadrons of members, and tacit government support, why is their best effort in the past 8 years a guy with a bomb in his jockstrap?
Seriously, it's not difficult. You get a guy here over one of our incredibly porous borders, give him a gun, and with a little creativity he could take out a major bridge or a city block. It takes a special brand of crazy, of course, but they should be able to find a couple hundred people out of the tens of thousands, and if even a quarter of those succeed they could shut our entire economy down for months.
The fact that they haven't would seem to indicate that they're not as batshit insane, and the conflict isn't so black and white as you try to paint it. Or at least that they're not nearly as well funded and organized as that.
Honestly, even the Militias you're so quick to dismiss could shut down our economy if they really wanted to. They're already here, they've already got the guns and grenades. Want to guess what would happen if five of them hijack gasoline trucks, stop in a major bridge or tunnel, and drop a grenade in? McVeigh already proved how much damage one asshole sociopath can do, and the latest Militia had a couple dozen at least.
Has anyone checked whether they just did it for comedic effect? It seems quite unlike them to censor long, preachy speeches. I mean hell, they air the rest of South Park...
It's not pointless... we just haven't gotten enough of a string of consistent foreign policy out of our elected leaders to get the full benefit in a while.
It's in a 3rd world country, but hey... Christians are Christians, right? It doesn't seem to matter to your argument what part of the world the Muslims are from when you're generalizing...
As for Islam, the problem with Islam is it really is an "us VS them" war, and we are losing badly [youtube.com] even if they don't fire another shot! At the current rate pretty much all of Europe will be "Islamaland" in less than 60 years, simply because they treat their women like cattle, and keep them breeding.
So instead of education, supporting civil liberties for ALL (even those you consider oppressed by Sharia), and finding a peaceful way to integrate new people into our democratic society, you support... what, exactly? Pre-emptive racial cleansing? Excluding Muslims from being able to vote? Exactly what part of the free, democratic society that you claim to love do you want to destroy in order to save it?
As far as your nutty Youtube video, I can put together a slide show of equally scary Christian people with signs. There are crazies everywhere, especially in poorer sections.
A large part of the fear-mongering that's going on around Islam is based on this nonsensical idea that we've had a safe, happy country, and the evil outsiders are coming to take it away. Bullshit. Every poor immigrant population in this country has clustered together at one time or another before integrating over several generations. We've got the Mormons holed up in Utah popping out kids, the Southern Baptists preaching brimstone, Mexican and Central American illegals setting up ghettos in the southwest. The Scientologists infiltrated the CIA in the 50s, and to this day are growing in numbers, and won't hesitate to ruin anyone who opposes them socially and financially. We've got Latino gangs in California, Black gangs on the east coast. Before that we had the Yakuza, the Italians had the Mafia, and the Irish had street gangs.
Society is always on the verge of collapse according to some people. Living in a free society means you have to put up with people you disagree with, and find a way to coexist. You can't just wipe out people who scare you. Hell, if I can learn to live in a country run by moralizing, religion-imposing Christians, I'm sure you can eventually come to grips with Islam bumping up over 1%.
You could play it earlier today. I rewatched it this morning. By this afternoon, it was gone.
It'll be back up in about 2 weeks. They do this with all their new episodes (available right away, blocked for a couple weeks, then available again indefinitely).
The nice thing about Christianity though is that for the most part, with the exception of a few kooks, they're all content to leave it to God to handle unbelievers in the next life.
NOW they are. Try that attitude out against any time in the majority of the last 2000 years and see how far it would have gotten you.
Christianity is no more or less violent than any other religion. It's just the core of the faith has been supported by societies that have moved toward more progressive values in recent years. I suspect this is largely by chance, and nothing to do with Christianity itself.
It's much easier to find evidence to support whatever you want to believe in any religion than it is to find one definitive meaning in any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. And background services are TRUE background services, and don't get terminated unless the system is under serious resource constraint. Unlike the iPhone 4 where "background service" means either "you get a wake-up call at a pre-set time" or "let me finish some stuff for x seconds after I leave the foreground". Both are nice, I guess, but being able to launch an actual background service with no forced waits or time constraint still blows it out of the water.
The actual lifecycle model is pretty badass even for foreground tasks, too.
Good thing that's nothing like what the Android system actually does. The full description of the application lifecycle is available in the SDK if you're interested, but the general idea is that any app which leaves the foreground is given a chance to save some of it's state as it is hidden, and may be terminated at any point after that if the active application needs more resources. Your claim that the visible application is "running out of memory" because the Android system is keeping 5 other apps in active RAM is simply completely false.
You can test this yourself by installing TaskKiller or some other utility that DOES let you view and terminate the active applications. Depending which phone you have, how many background services you have running, and the size of the apps you launch sequentially, the number of "most recently used" apps that are kept active WILL change to optimize the experience. For example, flipping through some random apps on my Hero and then opening it, I see that only the last 3 from my particular sequence are still active, even though 6 are displayed in the "latest apps" switcher that comes up when you press and hold the Home button.
It turns out that the number of apps in that view is just a convenience function, and represents absolutely nothing about the actual operating conditions of the Android system, nor anything meaningful about how the system prioritizes resource allocation. Which is pretty damn obvious if you would stop to think about it for a minute before insulting it based on your own broken assumptions.
That's simply not true. Yes, the lack of a quit button may be personally annoying to you, but it's not going to cause active applications to run out of memory. The Android system WILL close less recently used apps to free up memory as needed.
I don't think anybody's saying that. It's just ridiculous that this guy is complaining about companies putting "think before you print" messages at the bottom of emails to discourage people from transferring information to a (typically) LESS useful medium and wasting resources in the process. Also, reaching out through Facebook and Youtube to "resonate with youth" about paper-based printing is beyond stupid.
May be... still uses a fuckton of bleach and other processing chemicals to get that nice shiny white color.
That's not the alternative. The alternative is 1) kicking them out of the church so they won't have a position of authority, presumed goodness, and unsupervised access to young children, and 2) not allowing them to be shipped off to South America when one of the victims DOES want their day in court. The idea that you'd have to force public attention on victims who do not want it is a total strawman.
I actually prefer the size of the Hero to the iPhone. The Apple hardware is just a little too big, so it feels slightly clumsy to me. And I have relatively large hands, so this is not from a "little person" perspective.
Unfortunately the Nexus One is just on the other side of the "clumsy" line as well, but I'm hoping the EVO will stay small enough to feel right.
The interface on the Android is VERY similar to the iPhone. The only thing the Android base experience is missing is a bit of polish on the interface widgets, and if you get an HTC phone they've replaced those as well. There's certainly no difference in the way they "hide" the filesystem, or any other major paradigm differences from the iPhone. The difference is, if you're a geek and WANT to mess with those, you're able to.
There are also several 3rd party launcher replacements available on the app store that let you swap out the home screen if you want a different experience. Try doing THAT on an iPhone. Or replacing the dialer, or the photo picker. Apple is fine if you want to do things exactly the way they've accounted for. Thing is, that's not necessary to get a consistent out-of-the-box experience. The same is true of any Android phone right when you open it, but there you aren't prevented from replacing things if you want to.
Finally, you said the Android has a slow time getting traction. Everything I've seen indicates that they're picking up market share (and developer activity in their app space) faster than the iPhone. Yeah, they're a bit new to the party, and the first couple versions of the OS were more like a beta than a full release. The recent pace and quality is starting to pay off, though.
I misunderstood. That's pretty fucked up.
Based on the liberal minority who were terrorized by the fundamentalists after the Iranian revolution in 1980, and the westernization of Islamic youth in European countries, yes. At least some of the time, I expect democratic values to rub off on some of the more hard line elements. Not the core of that group, but at the edges. It happened with Christianity, remember.
No, but I also don't think that level of indoctrination is anywhere near a majority, ESPECIALLY outside of fundamentalist regime countries.
Yeah, and Ronald Reagan said that Atheists shouldn't be allowed to testify in court. Without any Muslim infiltration, the PotUS in the last couple decades was ready to dismiss basic my civil liberties because I don't believe in his god. As far as I'm concerned you're all fuckheads, and it's just a matter of degrees.
I did watch the video. I noticed those numbers. I also noticed that every single example that "proved" what happens when Muslims reach a majority were countries that have been Muslim for a long damn time. I also noticed a distinct lack of any example of a country that was democratic and non-Muslim "falling" to the Muslim invasion. So yes, there are several countries out there, which have been Muslim for a long time, and haven't made the jump to a peaceful democratic society. Yes, Iran fell from a democratic Muslim society to a fundamentalist theocracy. Getting from there to "European democracies will fall" is a pretty big logical leap. The simple fact is we don't really know WHAT will happen yet.
Well, fuck it. Let's dismantle our system of democracy, respect, and freedom because some people are assholes. I guess we just can't have nice things.
Yes. A thousand times, yes. If you really believe in freedom of speech, you don't get to censor what you dislike. You don't even get to censor the ones who speak out against it, although you should probably speak up in rebuttal. The entire concept of democracy is self-governance, not governance-by-those-you-agree-with. It may prove not to work against a pervasive cult such as you seem convinced exists within Islam, but I'd prefer to give it a bit more of a chance before we discard it in order to "save" it.
They said the exact same thing about China and India 30 years ago. You'll notice that as technology increased, though, the population started to level off on its own.
As far as I know, most of what you're ranting about is not against the law. And again I'd point out that there are already Gypsy clans in the US, as well as large areas of Utah and Wyoming where Mormon fringe groups do the same kind of arranged child marriage shit. None of this is new, and your fantasy that we've been free of this kind of thing in the past is completely false.
I'm not saying it's impossible. Hell, maybe Islam is a virus, and they're popping out babies just so they can come murder your kids in their sleep. Anything is possible, however improbable. What really gets me is, on one hand you claim that freedom and democracy is sacrosanct, and on the other you propose that we take away large swaths of freedom of behavior and association because you don't like them. You can't have it both ways. If you really support freedom and democracy, you don't get to legislate against the freedoms of minorities who scare you.
You can speak out against them, and I'll be the first to speak out against anyone who is against free expression, or supports violence. But right now, that happens to be both Muslim extremists and jackasses like you. Honestly, I'd rather I could ship all of you to Mongolia and have done with it, except because I actually support a free society I would never seriously suggest censoring your idiocy. Doesn't mean I won't make fun of it, though.
That's what I'm saying. The extent to which religion discourages rational thought makes it easy for a leader to twist it toward whatever end they want, be it encouraging good behavior or bad behavior in their followers. Some religions discourage rational thought to a greater degree than others, but I don't see anything inherent in them that makes it easier to turn toward evil than toward good (or the other way around) once you've got those followers indoctrinated.
I agree, but I still think that quality is inherent in ALL religions, not just certain ones. Or at least, some religions may encourage individual interpretation and rational thought more than others, but that's completely orthogonal to whether they "encourage" violence or peace.
Christians found justification for the Crusades, witch burning, and the spanish inquisition, all in the Bible. I don't think they were right, but they did.
Yes, the Quran is being used to justify these death threats. There are plenty of Muslims out there who would argue that the people doing so are wrong in their interpretation.
And how many quotes are there in the bible about violence? "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Stone adulterers. Put people who eat shellfish on Fridays to death, for they are abomination.
You can also find peaceful quotes in both. Across language barriers and ignoring context you can find quotes in any religion to support the message you want.
I'm not saying that the quotes you provided aren't in the Koran. I'm saying that the people are peaceful or violent and twist the religion to support them, not the other way around.
I'm saying the presence or absence of violence is a factor of the society and people that promote the religion, rather than something inherent in the religion itself.
I call shenanigans. If they have 10% of the US defense budget, squadrons of members, and tacit government support, why is their best effort in the past 8 years a guy with a bomb in his jockstrap?
Seriously, it's not difficult. You get a guy here over one of our incredibly porous borders, give him a gun, and with a little creativity he could take out a major bridge or a city block. It takes a special brand of crazy, of course, but they should be able to find a couple hundred people out of the tens of thousands, and if even a quarter of those succeed they could shut our entire economy down for months.
The fact that they haven't would seem to indicate that they're not as batshit insane, and the conflict isn't so black and white as you try to paint it. Or at least that they're not nearly as well funded and organized as that.
Honestly, even the Militias you're so quick to dismiss could shut down our economy if they really wanted to. They're already here, they've already got the guns and grenades. Want to guess what would happen if five of them hijack gasoline trucks, stop in a major bridge or tunnel, and drop a grenade in? McVeigh already proved how much damage one asshole sociopath can do, and the latest Militia had a couple dozen at least.
I haven't seen any reports of attempts on their lives by Islamic assassins either, for whatever that's worth...
The Pope is Muslim now? O_O
Has anyone checked whether they just did it for comedic effect? It seems quite unlike them to censor long, preachy speeches. I mean hell, they air the rest of South Park...
It's not pointless... we just haven't gotten enough of a string of consistent foreign policy out of our elected leaders to get the full benefit in a while.
It's in a 3rd world country, but hey... Christians are Christians, right? It doesn't seem to matter to your argument what part of the world the Muslims are from when you're generalizing...
So instead of education, supporting civil liberties for ALL (even those you consider oppressed by Sharia), and finding a peaceful way to integrate new people into our democratic society, you support... what, exactly? Pre-emptive racial cleansing? Excluding Muslims from being able to vote? Exactly what part of the free, democratic society that you claim to love do you want to destroy in order to save it?
As far as your nutty Youtube video, I can put together a slide show of equally scary Christian people with signs. There are crazies everywhere, especially in poorer sections.
A large part of the fear-mongering that's going on around Islam is based on this nonsensical idea that we've had a safe, happy country, and the evil outsiders are coming to take it away. Bullshit. Every poor immigrant population in this country has clustered together at one time or another before integrating over several generations. We've got the Mormons holed up in Utah popping out kids, the Southern Baptists preaching brimstone, Mexican and Central American illegals setting up ghettos in the southwest. The Scientologists infiltrated the CIA in the 50s, and to this day are growing in numbers, and won't hesitate to ruin anyone who opposes them socially and financially. We've got Latino gangs in California, Black gangs on the east coast. Before that we had the Yakuza, the Italians had the Mafia, and the Irish had street gangs.
Society is always on the verge of collapse according to some people. Living in a free society means you have to put up with people you disagree with, and find a way to coexist. You can't just wipe out people who scare you. Hell, if I can learn to live in a country run by moralizing, religion-imposing Christians, I'm sure you can eventually come to grips with Islam bumping up over 1%.
It'll be back up in about 2 weeks. They do this with all their new episodes (available right away, blocked for a couple weeks, then available again indefinitely).
NOW they are. Try that attitude out against any time in the majority of the last 2000 years and see how far it would have gotten you.
Christianity is no more or less violent than any other religion. It's just the core of the faith has been supported by societies that have moved toward more progressive values in recent years. I suspect this is largely by chance, and nothing to do with Christianity itself.
It's much easier to find evidence to support whatever you want to believe in any religion than it is to find one definitive meaning in any of them.