That was exactly my point. It's a trojan that relies on social engineering to defeat system security, and that's not unique to any one operating system, Windows, Mac or even your favourite flavour of Linux if you're in the market of using dodgy packages.
Perhaps, but then they will get what's coming to them - they take the risk by getting their software from shady sites.
There's a much higher percentage of Mac users who *do* pay for their software though, so this just won't affect them.
It's only $80 or something for iWork. If you really need it, you can afford to buy it (and don;t give me that "some people are so poor" crap - if you can buy a computer, you can budget for the software to run on it).
This is social engineering at its finest - an untrusted source, launching executable code (via user action) and gaining elevated privileges (via user input of password).
Welcome to any operating system's severe vulnerability to attack.
Still no viruses on OS X though, beyond that proof of concept thing a while back. Still, 1 versus.... how many on Windows? So many you *require* a dedicated third party app to bog down your system and act as doctor, surgeon and nurse to keep the machine clean?
I'll take OS X thanks.
Also, don't steal software. You're just asking for trouble. This isn't the first time that OS X has been targeted with dodgy copies of software from download sites - I seem to remember an app that claimed to be the MS Office for Mac installer that did nothing except delete the contents of your home folder.
Moral of the story again: Untrusted code could do anything. Don't download copied software.
The post below me makes a succinct point. No one (or at least, not enough people for it to be significant) look at the power consumption as a primary attribute for a TV set.
They're not going let the power consumption be the deciding factor between two competing screens. Maybe it's starting to be in the back of people's minds, but in the vast majority of cases, a TV draws so little power in the grand scheme of things (regardless of what the true value actually is) that they don't even consider the cost of electricity to run it, thus manufacturers don't have to worry about it, unless they have some mandatory figures to aim for.
It's not difficult to engineer the panels to be low power (within sensible limits), it just might cost a little more, that either adds to the retail price, or is eaten as a cost by the manufacturer. Either way, it's more beneficial in the grand scheme of energy saving on a national/global scale.
If you don't agree with Apple's business model for the iPhone, you are free to not purchase one, or use the apps on the app store.
This is slightly different to the usual "well if Microsoft did this, everyone would moan!" and you're right - they have tried, and very few people bought smartphones (compared to the prevalence of the iPhone).
If you don;t like it, don't buy one. Don;t buy one, knowing full well ahead of time the way Apple handles software on the iPhone and then complain bitterly after the fact that it's not they way you *think* they should do things.
If you want to do it yourself, you can jailbreak your phone and carry on as normal.
The iPhone is a specialised device, with a specific distribution model for its features and applications. It is not a computer (in the sense of a tiny PC - I know that it literally is a small OS X box), it is a phone, with pds-style functions. Apple can choose to lock it down as much as they like - either people will buy it or they won't. So far, it is selling almost faster than they can make it, so buying and installing apps via the store obviously is not a hindrance to the people who are buying it.
Bear in mind that the airbags introduced in the US in the early 90s were designed for unbelted passengers, and that originally, the legislation in the US was "some passive safety device either a seatbelt OR an airbag".
Seatbelt use in Europe is almost second nature to all people, yet in the US, it is not - if you need signs that have to tell you state-by-state if it's even a state law to require a seatbelt (I think it is in all states now), you know you need to make up for it by fitting huge, overpowererful airbags. Euro airbags are not as aggressive, since they were *always* a supplementary safety feature to work alongside seatbelts.
My 1995 shape 306 XN has no airbags, and is one of the last cars in that line to be built without a mandatory airbag - the next model in the class did feature driver airbags. The 1996 Renault I used to drive also featured a driver airbag, although it was never used, despite a head on collision I had with an inexperienced driver who pulled out in front of me. I loved that little car.
Ah there we are, I thought that was the case - the US law you're talking about was that the US required that all cars built after 1995 had *either* a driver's side airbag *or* an automatic seatbelt. It wasn't until 1998 that airbags were mandatory in all new cars despite the seatbelt. So, if my 1995 306 had been available for sale in the US, it would have passed with an auto-seatbelt and no airbag.
The automatic seatbelt was never fitted to any cars (that I know of) in the UK - and I have been in a lot of 90s cars and have never seen one, so the UK went right from no airbags to mandatory driver airbags.
Don;t get me wrong, I don;t want to get into a huge pissing contest - airbag legislation can only help, and I would love to be driving a car fitted out with ABS, airbags and pretensioners etc (my 306 lacks those too) but like I said, my nice car that did have all that was totalled by a noob who drove out in front of a live lane of moving traffic and was lucky it was only me that slammed into him and not the bus in the next lane over to me, and I can't afford to replace it with anything more than the trusty 306. It passes the MOT, can be taxed cheaply and is as safe as I can make it for what it is. I'd love to replace it with another Clio or a Scenic or something with airbags, ABS and even some AC and power steering.
My own car cost me £185, and has done over 100,000 miles and still passes the British MOT every year - all I've had to do is change the oil really.
I am poor, I drive a cheap car. A really cheap car, but still one that passes an MOT.
I also love in an area of the UK with extremely limited mass transit. It's better than the US probably, but you can only use it to travel between places on the routes - you can't relay on it to be able to take you almost anywhere you need to go like the London Underground or say, the New York Subway.
Well, anecdotal evidence of my own - my ex's brother's car had a missing front wing (an MOT fail for pedestrian harm reasons), and extremely poor steering. It pulled very heavily to one side, and would not free roll in a straight line unless the wheel was held (quite forcefully).
Despite this, he would not get it fixed because he had to incentive to do so - it drove "well enough" to get him too and from work. If he had to safety test it every year, eventually he'd have to fix it.
How many cars like that are on US roads - it's anecdotal (and the plural of anecdote is not data) but there are a lot of cars out there on American roads.
Maybe you can get away with things like bodywork that could severely injure a pedestrian in a low speed crash that would otherwise be relatively minor because we all know Americans get a cab from their front door to their car parked 10 yards away, and the courtesy shuttle bus from the parking lot, 200 yards to the store entrance. But, things like knackered (and unsafe) steering and brakes do cause (or contribute) to serious crashes.
Someone mentioned that to me before - that it doesn't really promote safety because there are no claims due to defective ot unsafe vehicles, but I think this is much like the old adage of using garlic to keep vampires away. No vampire attacks? It must work!
I think the test breeds a particular culture - that there are some things that you know you can't get away with in the face of the MOT and either have repaired, or face being illegal, and that ultimately it does save lives, even if it;s indirect.
The MOT in the UK isn't only about emissions - it's part of the test, but only a small part. The rest of the test deals with the safety of the car itself - so things that can fail the test are too much rust on the body in structural areas, non-working lights (signals, break lights, headlights, fog lights, reversing lights), poor brake performance, damaged or excessively worn components in the suspension and steering system, tyre condition, damage to body panels that could cause a hazard to pedestrians (so a dent is fine, but a gash with sharp edges is a fail), seat belts wipers etc.
While the car may be safe when sold (since you cannot sell a new car that is unsafe) beyond 3 years of age the car is safety tested and emissions tested and must pass to be road worthy.
If you don;t have a valid MOT in the UK you cannot tax your vehicle, and cannot drive it on the road.
Give me a break. I live in the UK (a quarter the size of Texas) and do 12k a year, and I don't commute long distances. Talk to sales reps who roll up and down Britain's motorways week in, week out in their American designed, European built Fords, Vauxhalls, and Japanese and other Euro makes (Hondas, VW, BMW, Toyota etc)
There is a *world* of difference between the quality of supposedly identical models of cars in Europe, Japan and America, and let me tell you, the cars on the US market suck huge donkey balls.
I'm talking side by side comparisons with same-manufacturer models. The US Toyota Corolla is a heap of junk compared to the European version. The Ford Focus in the US is a joke compared to the UK version.
There's no way you can stand there (or sit there and type I guess) and say that Japanese cars (built for the Japanese and European markets) don;t have "durability" compared to US models. There's just no comparison.
Try telling that to the manufactuers selling cars in Europe that consistently get five star Euro NCAP safety ratings - the same tests that were performed on a ford F150(or 250, 350) extended cab pickup that scored an abysmal 1 star. The guy who tested it said he wouldn't even let his daughter's rapist drive such a deadly vehicle.
Yet the extended cab F150 meets "today's safety standards" in the US without a problem.
I used to own a 1999 Renault Laguna - 5 star safety rating, 1.8 litre petrol - 40 mpg. I swapped it for a 1995 306 diesel - 55mpg.
Obviously there are some shockers out there in the Euro NCAP tests - I remember a terrible rating for a SsanYong something-or-other, and the early version of the Kia Sedona. The majority of cars that have taken the test have been excellent - even the American manufacturers. The Ford Mondeo, Focus and Fiesta are three of Britain's favourite cars, and all have superb safety ratings and get consistently high reviews, all three are class leaders and set the benchmark that others have to live up to (especially the Mondeo and Focus hatchback). Why Ford's cars in the US are so abysmal, I have no idea.
I was stunned that there's no national mandatory MOT for cars in the US.
Although, as a British motorist, I hear the daily moans from newspapers about how "britain's motorists are being milked for every penny!" - but a £50 test every year to meet a minimum safety and emissions standard can only be a good thing.
Some of the deathtraps I've seen clanking through car parks in the US made me wonder just how insane you have to be to drive them, even if you're poor, there are other options for cheap, low-maintenance cars that would be much safer to drive.
Although the iPhone app store still has some outrageously stupid reviews of people who either can't possibly have used the app in question, or downloaded it but couldn't figure out they had to touch it on the home screen to make it load, then yelled that it didn't work.
It's only marginally better than trying to read youtube comments in a sensible voice, out loud.
I've seen something similar when I did some car insurance research for my sister.
I used a price comparison website (moneysupermarket.co.uk) and the cheapest quote on there was suspiciously cheap compared to the other more well known brands.
I checked out the reviews, and they were all overwhelmingly negative, with 1 star ratings - you get what you pay for it seems. However, there were a bunch of what I can only assume were padding reviews - all osted on the same day, about an hour apart in total, all with 5 stars, but no review text.
I am assuming that the company was padding the reviews out so the average rating on the main page shows as 3.5 stars.
I will also say that "What is it about the anti-religionists that retards their ability for rational thinking?" is possibly the most hilarious statement to level at someone who doesn't believe in God.
Let's not have the "believing in God is perfectly rational, but believing in evolution is not! God put dinosaur bones on the earth to test our faith!" debate. You will lose.
I was just continuing the term since it was used by the OP.
And how am I blinded by my own prejudice? That I say he's an incorporeal sky daddy? Religious people do say hes the Father (and son, and incorporeal holy ghost) and he is (allegedly) in heaven, which is depicted by religious people as being in the sky.
And you'll note that I'm not ant religious, merely anti-restriction-of-my-own-freedoms by religious people. It's not the same.
It does indeed. It also says that bunnies are evil.
But on a serious point, if you're going to use that defence, where was the almighty "thou shall not kill" during the Crusades? Or in Timothy McVeigh's head when he built that bomb.
You could simply categorise this kid's killing of his parents as a religious mission from God because he was wronged by the heathens that gave birth to him. Plenty of religious people have hidden behind that one before.
"This Crusade will not stop until Osama Bin Laden is brought to justice. Now watch this drive..."
Except that religious people have, historically and to this day, attempted to curtail the rights of those that "don't fit" their narrow view of the world - either by out right extermination and conquest, or by categorising them as sub-human (by passing laws that restrict their freedom), or curtail their entertainment (by forcing publishers or TV creators to curtail their content because it mortally offends the religious and must be banned - going back to the very invention of the printing press.)
Atheists do not mind religious people. I have a few religious friends myself, and I'm quite happy to let them be, as long as they are not trying to prevent me from living life the way I want to. I have nothing against the general principle of some religious doctrine - be kind to others, be humble etc, but it seems that some religious people believe tat those are exclusive traits to the religious, and that if you're an atheist (or shock, horror, belong to a *different* religion) that you're automatically a nasty, evil, persecuting-of-good-values person.
While I am well aware that many churches (and their members) do good work (helping the less fortunate, helping each other, helping their communities) I would wager that it's the nature of the people, not that they necessarily have a belief structure.
It is only when that belief structure threatens the security and freedom of those who don;t share it that I become hostile towards them, more in self defence than anything - because if you *don;t* defend yourself, you end up with a gay marriage ban, or the over reaction to Janet Jackson's nipple, or the burning of books, or the picketing and harassment of women going to planned parenthood clinics, or the removal of real science in classrooms and the teaching of religion in its place (that might affect my child also attending the school), or a severe curtailing of the sex education programs in schools that only allows for the teaching of abstinence, backed up with deliberately false data about the effectiveness of birth controls and the way STDs work (what was it about Jesus saying to be truthful at all times? ha!).
I was about to post a rebuttal to that featuring the age-old problem that you cannot prove the existence of an invisible, incorporeal sky daddy.
However, the AC posting Carl Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage" has out it far more succinctly than I can.
To be short, the starw man arguments from creationists are totalt bullshit. You can scientifically prove (and infer by fossil records) evolution.
On the other hand, you cannot prove that God exists. Nor can you prove that he doesn't exist. That does not make it hypocrisy. That just makes for the proper application of the scientific method.
If some day we invent a magical Jesus detector, I may revise that statement (depending on who invented it, what it does, and how it works), but for now there is no hypocrisy in calling something I do not believe in "the invisible, imaginary sky fairy" just because a large proportion of the population has been fooled by a book written circa 2000 years ago because they didn't understand science and nature and assumed that the sun was some sort of god.
Slashdot Mirror
That was exactly my point. It's a trojan that relies on social engineering to defeat system security, and that's not unique to any one operating system, Windows, Mac or even your favourite flavour of Linux if you're in the market of using dodgy packages.
I didn't mention anything about porn or music.
Perhaps, but then they will get what's coming to them - they take the risk by getting their software from shady sites.
There's a much higher percentage of Mac users who *do* pay for their software though, so this just won't affect them.
It's only $80 or something for iWork. If you really need it, you can afford to buy it (and don;t give me that "some people are so poor" crap - if you can buy a computer, you can budget for the software to run on it).
Is this a virus?
Didn't think so.
This is social engineering at its finest - an untrusted source, launching executable code (via user action) and gaining elevated privileges (via user input of password).
Welcome to any operating system's severe vulnerability to attack.
Still no viruses on OS X though, beyond that proof of concept thing a while back. Still, 1 versus.... how many on Windows? So many you *require* a dedicated third party app to bog down your system and act as doctor, surgeon and nurse to keep the machine clean?
I'll take OS X thanks.
Also, don't steal software. You're just asking for trouble. This isn't the first time that OS X has been targeted with dodgy copies of software from download sites - I seem to remember an app that claimed to be the MS Office for Mac installer that did nothing except delete the contents of your home folder.
Moral of the story again: Untrusted code could do anything. Don't download copied software.
The post below me makes a succinct point. No one (or at least, not enough people for it to be significant) look at the power consumption as a primary attribute for a TV set.
They're not going let the power consumption be the deciding factor between two competing screens. Maybe it's starting to be in the back of people's minds, but in the vast majority of cases, a TV draws so little power in the grand scheme of things (regardless of what the true value actually is) that they don't even consider the cost of electricity to run it, thus manufacturers don't have to worry about it, unless they have some mandatory figures to aim for.
It's not difficult to engineer the panels to be low power (within sensible limits), it just might cost a little more, that either adds to the retail price, or is eaten as a cost by the manufacturer. Either way, it's more beneficial in the grand scheme of energy saving on a national/global scale.
That phone platform exists - it's called Android.
If you don't agree with Apple's business model for the iPhone, you are free to not purchase one, or use the apps on the app store.
This is slightly different to the usual "well if Microsoft did this, everyone would moan!" and you're right - they have tried, and very few people bought smartphones (compared to the prevalence of the iPhone).
If you don;t like it, don't buy one. Don;t buy one, knowing full well ahead of time the way Apple handles software on the iPhone and then complain bitterly after the fact that it's not they way you *think* they should do things.
If you want to do it yourself, you can jailbreak your phone and carry on as normal.
The iPhone is a specialised device, with a specific distribution model for its features and applications. It is not a computer (in the sense of a tiny PC - I know that it literally is a small OS X box), it is a phone, with pds-style functions. Apple can choose to lock it down as much as they like - either people will buy it or they won't. So far, it is selling almost faster than they can make it, so buying and installing apps via the store obviously is not a hindrance to the people who are buying it.
Edit*
I meant to write "all cars after 1989 in the US must be fitted with driver airbag or automatic seatbelt" not 1995 as I wrote in my main reply.
Bear in mind that the airbags introduced in the US in the early 90s were designed for unbelted passengers, and that originally, the legislation in the US was "some passive safety device either a seatbelt OR an airbag".
Seatbelt use in Europe is almost second nature to all people, yet in the US, it is not - if you need signs that have to tell you state-by-state if it's even a state law to require a seatbelt (I think it is in all states now), you know you need to make up for it by fitting huge, overpowererful airbags. Euro airbags are not as aggressive, since they were *always* a supplementary safety feature to work alongside seatbelts.
My 1995 shape 306 XN has no airbags, and is one of the last cars in that line to be built without a mandatory airbag - the next model in the class did feature driver airbags. The 1996 Renault I used to drive also featured a driver airbag, although it was never used, despite a head on collision I had with an inexperienced driver who pulled out in front of me. I loved that little car.
Ah there we are, I thought that was the case - the US law you're talking about was that the US required that all cars built after 1995 had *either* a driver's side airbag *or* an automatic seatbelt. It wasn't until 1998 that airbags were mandatory in all new cars despite the seatbelt. So, if my 1995 306 had been available for sale in the US, it would have passed with an auto-seatbelt and no airbag.
The automatic seatbelt was never fitted to any cars (that I know of) in the UK - and I have been in a lot of 90s cars and have never seen one, so the UK went right from no airbags to mandatory driver airbags.
Don;t get me wrong, I don;t want to get into a huge pissing contest - airbag legislation can only help, and I would love to be driving a car fitted out with ABS, airbags and pretensioners etc (my 306 lacks those too) but like I said, my nice car that did have all that was totalled by a noob who drove out in front of a live lane of moving traffic and was lucky it was only me that slammed into him and not the bus in the next lane over to me, and I can't afford to replace it with anything more than the trusty 306. It passes the MOT, can be taxed cheaply and is as safe as I can make it for what it is. I'd love to replace it with another Clio or a Scenic or something with airbags, ABS and even some AC and power steering.
My own car cost me £185, and has done over 100,000 miles and still passes the British MOT every year - all I've had to do is change the oil really.
I am poor, I drive a cheap car. A really cheap car, but still one that passes an MOT.
I also love in an area of the UK with extremely limited mass transit. It's better than the US probably, but you can only use it to travel between places on the routes - you can't relay on it to be able to take you almost anywhere you need to go like the London Underground or say, the New York Subway.
My own personal car at the moment cost me £300 ($600 ish), but I paid for the road tax on it (£115) so the car itself was £185.
It's a 1995 Peugeot 306 XN.
It passed its MOT with flying colours on Jan 16th, with 107,000 miles on the clock and still going. Gets 41mpg.
Well, anecdotal evidence of my own - my ex's brother's car had a missing front wing (an MOT fail for pedestrian harm reasons), and extremely poor steering. It pulled very heavily to one side, and would not free roll in a straight line unless the wheel was held (quite forcefully).
Despite this, he would not get it fixed because he had to incentive to do so - it drove "well enough" to get him too and from work. If he had to safety test it every year, eventually he'd have to fix it.
How many cars like that are on US roads - it's anecdotal (and the plural of anecdote is not data) but there are a lot of cars out there on American roads.
Maybe you can get away with things like bodywork that could severely injure a pedestrian in a low speed crash that would otherwise be relatively minor because we all know Americans get a cab from their front door to their car parked 10 yards away, and the courtesy shuttle bus from the parking lot, 200 yards to the store entrance. But, things like knackered (and unsafe) steering and brakes do cause (or contribute) to serious crashes.
Someone mentioned that to me before - that it doesn't really promote safety because there are no claims due to defective ot unsafe vehicles, but I think this is much like the old adage of using garlic to keep vampires away. No vampire attacks? It must work!
I think the test breeds a particular culture - that there are some things that you know you can't get away with in the face of the MOT and either have repaired, or face being illegal, and that ultimately it does save lives, even if it;s indirect.
That's all very well, but how "dancey" are cables made from graphene?
The MOT in the UK isn't only about emissions - it's part of the test, but only a small part. The rest of the test deals with the safety of the car itself - so things that can fail the test are too much rust on the body in structural areas, non-working lights (signals, break lights, headlights, fog lights, reversing lights), poor brake performance, damaged or excessively worn components in the suspension and steering system, tyre condition, damage to body panels that could cause a hazard to pedestrians (so a dent is fine, but a gash with sharp edges is a fail), seat belts wipers etc.
While the car may be safe when sold (since you cannot sell a new car that is unsafe) beyond 3 years of age the car is safety tested and emissions tested and must pass to be road worthy.
If you don;t have a valid MOT in the UK you cannot tax your vehicle, and cannot drive it on the road.
Thing is, in Europe, a 9 year old car is still pretty saleable.
In the US, after 9 years, the duct tape on the bumpers is worth more than the rusting hulk it holds together.
Are you kidding me? 15k a year is "a lot?".
Give me a break. I live in the UK (a quarter the size of Texas) and do 12k a year, and I don't commute long distances. Talk to sales reps who roll up and down Britain's motorways week in, week out in their American designed, European built Fords, Vauxhalls, and Japanese and other Euro makes (Hondas, VW, BMW, Toyota etc)
There is a *world* of difference between the quality of supposedly identical models of cars in Europe, Japan and America, and let me tell you, the cars on the US market suck huge donkey balls.
I'm talking side by side comparisons with same-manufacturer models. The US Toyota Corolla is a heap of junk compared to the European version. The Ford Focus in the US is a joke compared to the UK version.
There's no way you can stand there (or sit there and type I guess) and say that Japanese cars (built for the Japanese and European markets) don;t have "durability" compared to US models. There's just no comparison.
Try telling that to the manufactuers selling cars in Europe that consistently get five star Euro NCAP safety ratings - the same tests that were performed on a ford F150(or 250, 350) extended cab pickup that scored an abysmal 1 star. The guy who tested it said he wouldn't even let his daughter's rapist drive such a deadly vehicle.
Yet the extended cab F150 meets "today's safety standards" in the US without a problem.
I used to own a 1999 Renault Laguna - 5 star safety rating, 1.8 litre petrol - 40 mpg. I swapped it for a 1995 306 diesel - 55mpg.
Obviously there are some shockers out there in the Euro NCAP tests - I remember a terrible rating for a SsanYong something-or-other, and the early version of the Kia Sedona. The majority of cars that have taken the test have been excellent - even the American manufacturers. The Ford Mondeo, Focus and Fiesta are three of Britain's favourite cars, and all have superb safety ratings and get consistently high reviews, all three are class leaders and set the benchmark that others have to live up to (especially the Mondeo and Focus hatchback). Why Ford's cars in the US are so abysmal, I have no idea.
I was stunned that there's no national mandatory MOT for cars in the US.
Although, as a British motorist, I hear the daily moans from newspapers about how "britain's motorists are being milked for every penny!" - but a £50 test every year to meet a minimum safety and emissions standard can only be a good thing.
Some of the deathtraps I've seen clanking through car parks in the US made me wonder just how insane you have to be to drive them, even if you're poor, there are other options for cheap, low-maintenance cars that would be much safer to drive.
Although the iPhone app store still has some outrageously stupid reviews of people who either can't possibly have used the app in question, or downloaded it but couldn't figure out they had to touch it on the home screen to make it load, then yelled that it didn't work.
It's only marginally better than trying to read youtube comments in a sensible voice, out loud.
I've seen something similar when I did some car insurance research for my sister.
I used a price comparison website (moneysupermarket.co.uk) and the cheapest quote on there was suspiciously cheap compared to the other more well known brands.
I checked out the reviews, and they were all overwhelmingly negative, with 1 star ratings - you get what you pay for it seems. However, there were a bunch of what I can only assume were padding reviews - all osted on the same day, about an hour apart in total, all with 5 stars, but no review text.
I am assuming that the company was padding the reviews out so the average rating on the main page shows as 3.5 stars.
But it sure as shit can't hurt. :)
I will also say that "What is it about the anti-religionists that retards their ability for rational thinking?" is possibly the most hilarious statement to level at someone who doesn't believe in God.
Let's not have the "believing in God is perfectly rational, but believing in evolution is not! God put dinosaur bones on the earth to test our faith!" debate. You will lose.
I was just continuing the term since it was used by the OP.
And how am I blinded by my own prejudice? That I say he's an incorporeal sky daddy? Religious people do say hes the Father (and son, and incorporeal holy ghost) and he is (allegedly) in heaven, which is depicted by religious people as being in the sky.
And you'll note that I'm not ant religious, merely anti-restriction-of-my-own-freedoms by religious people. It's not the same.
It does indeed. It also says that bunnies are evil.
But on a serious point, if you're going to use that defence, where was the almighty "thou shall not kill" during the Crusades? Or in Timothy McVeigh's head when he built that bomb.
You could simply categorise this kid's killing of his parents as a religious mission from God because he was wronged by the heathens that gave birth to him. Plenty of religious people have hidden behind that one before.
"This Crusade will not stop until Osama Bin Laden is brought to justice. Now watch this drive..."
Paraphrasing, but, you get the gist.
Except that religious people have, historically and to this day, attempted to curtail the rights of those that "don't fit" their narrow view of the world - either by out right extermination and conquest, or by categorising them as sub-human (by passing laws that restrict their freedom), or curtail their entertainment (by forcing publishers or TV creators to curtail their content because it mortally offends the religious and must be banned - going back to the very invention of the printing press.)
Atheists do not mind religious people. I have a few religious friends myself, and I'm quite happy to let them be, as long as they are not trying to prevent me from living life the way I want to. I have nothing against the general principle of some religious doctrine - be kind to others, be humble etc, but it seems that some religious people believe tat those are exclusive traits to the religious, and that if you're an atheist (or shock, horror, belong to a *different* religion) that you're automatically a nasty, evil, persecuting-of-good-values person.
While I am well aware that many churches (and their members) do good work (helping the less fortunate, helping each other, helping their communities) I would wager that it's the nature of the people, not that they necessarily have a belief structure.
It is only when that belief structure threatens the security and freedom of those who don;t share it that I become hostile towards them, more in self defence than anything - because if you *don;t* defend yourself, you end up with a gay marriage ban, or the over reaction to Janet Jackson's nipple, or the burning of books, or the picketing and harassment of women going to planned parenthood clinics, or the removal of real science in classrooms and the teaching of religion in its place (that might affect my child also attending the school), or a severe curtailing of the sex education programs in schools that only allows for the teaching of abstinence, backed up with deliberately false data about the effectiveness of birth controls and the way STDs work (what was it about Jesus saying to be truthful at all times? ha!).
I was about to post a rebuttal to that featuring the age-old problem that you cannot prove the existence of an invisible, incorporeal sky daddy.
However, the AC posting Carl Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage" has out it far more succinctly than I can.
To be short, the starw man arguments from creationists are totalt bullshit. You can scientifically prove (and infer by fossil records) evolution.
On the other hand, you cannot prove that God exists. Nor can you prove that he doesn't exist. That does not make it hypocrisy. That just makes for the proper application of the scientific method.
If some day we invent a magical Jesus detector, I may revise that statement (depending on who invented it, what it does, and how it works), but for now there is no hypocrisy in calling something I do not believe in "the invisible, imaginary sky fairy" just because a large proportion of the population has been fooled by a book written circa 2000 years ago because they didn't understand science and nature and assumed that the sun was some sort of god.