testing their code on the most popular anti-virus software before release.
Now that's good quality assurance. Many programmers have much to learn in this regard, though I suppose virus writers are motivated by doing what they love and not having to put up with PHBs, which are two amenities a lot of programmers have to do without.:)
Why not give that money to science teachers so that we don't need to import engineers from India, China, Russia?
Because the reason you have to import engineers from India, China, and Russia is lack of founding to American teachers... After all, just look at all those bags of money Indian, Chinese, and Russian teachers seem to have lying around... The causes of your lack of native grown engineers are many, and teachers' salaries are probably not anywhere near the most important problem. Until you are willing to take a hard look at what your society and education system have become, instead of throwing even more money at the problem, I fear you shall continue to fail.
"A planned terrorist attack on New York City was reportedly foiled by FBI agents who monitored chat rooms frequented by extremists.
Extremists? Wow. I sure am glad they caught those extremists. Just one quick question: what sort of extremists are we talking about here? Extremist Buddhists? Confucianists? Taoists? Shintoists? Zoroastrians? Hellenic Polytheists? Liberals? Classical Liberals? Neoliberals? Libertarians? Inquiring minds want to know...
P.S. I am always intrigued by the sort of information that is omitted and the sort of nomenclature selected and used to frame issues.
Isn't a "scul" the bony structure inside one's head?
You're probably thinking of a "scal."*:P
* I may have now deviated sufficiently from the English way of writing, resulting in some people no longer being able to decipher the original word; however, allow me to assure you that if read aloud in the most phonetic European language that I maintain a sufficient level of fluidity in, "scal" produces a sound similar to the sound produced by the English word "skull" under most pronunciations.
That's hardly an ideal phonetic representation. For one thing, you've tacked on a silent "e" at the end of the word. Your usage of the letter "k" instead of "c" is also highly dubious.:P
Due to the way that written was English developed, it is one of the few Indo-European languages to not be written in a phonetic manner (if you only know English, you may not completely comprehend what this means). That being said, now that English is an international language, and a huge portion of the world's population is already familiar with the way it is written, fragmenting and reforming it at this point is an asinine idea. Furthermore, there exist languages which are even less phonetic than English (e.g. Mandarin ("Chinese"), the Kanji portion of Japanese) and those people manage to do fine.
P.S. Implementing this idea would also mean that people would soon lose the ability to read the vast body of works already written in English; a huge translation effort would have to be undertaken, and a lot of works would still remain untranslated. Such a loss is not acceptable (unless you have Orwellian intentions in mind).
Many people actually believe that Singapore is the model 21st century state. There exists within Western Europe and Canada a very strong movement to shift those countries toward the Singapore model. Many Western European states, Canada and Australia already have state operated media monopolies, and many of the aforementioned states also have ruling parties which have a tendency to hold on to power for the majority of the time (e.g. Canada). Furthermore, in many states such as Belgium, the judiciary (appointed by the the ruling party, more often than not) has the ability to (and does) declare parties (e.g. the most popular party in the Dutch portion of Belgium -- Flanders) illegal. In addition, Free Speech is not considered absolute in any of these countries, with the majority of the population accepting that "limits" exist to "free speech," and the ruling parties having recently introduced legislation further cementing this stance (e.g. in the UK); these limits are indeed often enforced by the judiciary in many of these countries.
Incidentally, Singapore has undergone a very rapid demographic shift. The once majority population has, within less than three generation, been replaced primarily by Chinese immigrants who now make up 76.8% of Singapore's population. Aside from this, Singapore is considered one of the most diverse and multi-cultural places on Earth (supporting link). To enforce this utopian vision, and ensure harmony, freedom of speech has been restricted, in a manner similar to that of Western European states and Canada; from Wikipedia: "Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they are intended to prohibit speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious society. For example, in September 2005, three bloggers were convicted of sedition for posting racist remarks targeting minorities.[5]." Once people accept that freedom of speech has "limits," perhaps the remaining portions of the Singaporean model flow naturally.
Actually, "power to the mob" may be a better description. Mob based power has existed throughout history, and it usually has not been pretty. Furthermore, if you're an individual (in the true sense of the term) who does not enjoy associating with the mob, you tend to be screwed over by those who do. Food for thought.
Ya know, the world's turned upside down when China is sued by a "free world" organisation for having too much liberty on something...
Fair enough, but consider this: any issue can be framed in terms of liberty. For example, you could say that white Americans no longer have the "liberty" to own other Americans (black), or that Germans no longer have the "liberty" to kill Jews with impunity; however, it is not entirely intellectually honest to do so. China will eventually enforce I.P. laws; the only question is whether they will be enforced after China has worthwhile I.P. to protect, or before. Also consider this: the U.S. does not export much beside I.P.; if you have any sense of self preservation and desire to reduce the grotesque trade deficit, you might see some merit to nudging China to enforce I.P. laws sooner rather than later. This would also have the added benefit of reducing the contamination of Chinese culture with "Britney Spears" culture.
I really didn't expect we'll live until the days when an evil totalitarian regime will be in some regards better than the US.
People have been making excuses for evil totalitarian regimes (attempting to prove that they are better in at least some respects) since time immemorial. Stop me if you've heard some of these before: "at least they make the trains run on time," "at least they provide free health-care," "at least they provide free education," "there is no famine over there," "the people seem to enjoy it; the leader got 99.9% in the last election." So now I guess we can add "at least it is easier to infringe on copyrights over there" to that list (assuming I'm grokking your post correctly).
On the other hand, it may be a good idea to attach a generator to G. Washington's, T. Jefferson's and co coffins. Just think of the free energy!
This joke is getting rather lame; new material is definitely needed (preferably some that follows the law of conservation of energy). Besides, if "G. Washington" was alive today, he'd certainly be called a warmonger for his involvement in the French and Indian War, as well as the American Revolutionary War. As for "T. Jefferson," he was personally responsible for the First Barbary War, in which the warmongering US went to war against the peace-loving Muslim states of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, so I don't think he'd be much liked by the contemporary American establishment either.
If I could kindly direct your attention to the quotations marks and the reference at the end of the quotation, you'll find that I am not the author of that mistake.
P.S. I grew up using the metric system, and through formal education am well versed in the SI system, so I hardly need lecturing on the matter.:)
Ever heard of the Korean DMZ. The US probably plans to use these things to prevent Kim Jung-Il from invading South Korea (incidentally, both the Koreas are on your list, I wonder why...). I'm not aware of any other part of the world where the US uses landmines (care to enlighten me?). So yeah, damn the "military-industrial complex" for helping keep the South Koreans from ending up impoverished, starving, and oppressed like their brethren in the north.
reads like a whos who of third world countries and banana republics, what good company USA keeps
Actually, a huge portion of those countries are second-world or former second-world countries (communist countries that sided against the US during the Cold War). You'll also notice that China, Vietnam, India, a whole bunch of Muslim Countries (Iran, Pakistan, etc.) are on your list, so if we go by population (not number of countries), the majority of the world (or very close to it) has not joined the treaty.
i wonder if this one is standing start or flying start.
"The world's fastest bicycles, known as "Speedbikes" will converge at the Nissan Technical Center North America outside Casa Grande, Arizona June 30 and July 1-2, 2006 to compete for the $25,000 Dempsey-MacCready Prize, for the first Speedbike to travel 56 miles (90 K) in one hour from a standing start." from http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/dempsey 2006.htm:)
"Fred Markham set a new World Hour Record by cranking 85,4 km in a fully faired recumbent bicycle."
My amazing math and reasoning skills lead me to believe that he therefore had an average speed of 85.4 km/h (~53 mph for those using the imperial system). Rather impressive for a human powered vehicle (and for a one hour time interval).
"Vic Gundotra... has left the company to join Google. Gundotra worked at Microsoft as general manager for platform evangelism to get software developers to use Microsoft's software and online offerings."
Hehe. I wonder how devoted he was to the job of "platform evangelism" given his willingness to defect / commit apostasy.
Oy vey! I accidentally pressed submit instead of preview, and forgot to change HTLM Formatted to Plain Text. My post, presented in a more readable format, follows:
We were referring to business models, not markets. It is possible to use the same business model to service different markets. For example, the markets for computer programming books, popular psychology books, fashion magazines, and soft-core pornography is quite different, yet all these can be delivered to the consumer using the same business model (from the perspective of a book store), and in fact, you will find book stores stocking all these items. Similarly, in the US, Wal-Mart sells all sorts of different products that appeal to different markets using the same business model. Furthermore, I understand that whereas in the US, Wal-Mart primarily sells non-perishable products manufactured in China, in China, Wal-Mart sells primarily perishable products; however, their business model is more or less the same in both countries. To further illustrate my point, the market for desktop computers may be different from the market for laptops, yet Dell et al. sell both using the same business model.
Returning to Apple, all the products they sell (PC software, desktop PCs, portable PCs, ultra-portable PCs (iPods)) are either computer hardware (marketed as consumer electronics) running computer software, or stand-alone computer software for those product. From a business model standpoint, there is little difference between producing an iMac or an iPod. In fact, if Apple's business model is to be decomposed and bisected, we would find that the greatest difference in business models employed probably lies between their hardware production division and their software production division, and not in fact their Mac division and their iPod division.
Furthermore, as portable music player users are a perfect subset of computer users, it behooves Apple to attempt to synthesize the two markets. This is in the same vein of Apple providing both PC hardware and PC software as PC software users are a perfect subset of PC hardware users (though in this case perhaps not a strict subset). Similarly, Microsoft employs a similar business model in both their PC operating system division and their office suite division (the office suite market being a perfect subset of the PC operating system market), and this has allowed them to dominate both of those markets and maintain that dominance through a feedback mechanism.
We were referring to business models, not markets. It is possible to use the same business model to service different markets. For example, the markets for computer programming books, popular psychology books, fashion magazines, and soft-core pornography is quite different, yet all these can be delivered to the consumer using the same business model (from the perspective of a book store), and in fact, you will find book stores stocking all these items. Similarly, in the US, Wal-Mart sells all sorts of different products that appeal to different markets using the same business model. Furthermore, I understand that whereas in the US, Wal-Mart primarily sells non-perishable products manufactured in China, in China, Wal-Mart sells primarily perishable products; however, their business model is more or less the same in both countries. To further illustrate my point, the market for desktop computers may be different from the market for laptops, yet Dell et al. sell both using the same business model.
Returning to Apple, all the products they sell (PC software, desktop PCs, portable PCs, ultra-portable PCs (iPods)) are either computer hardware (marketed as consumer electronics) running computer software, or stand-alone computer software for those product. From a business model standpoint, there is little difference between producing an iMac or an iPod. In fact, if Apple's business model is to be decomposed and bisected, we would find that the greatest difference in business models employed probably lies between their hardware production division and their software production division, and not in fact their Mac division and their iPod division.
Furthermore, as portable music player users are a perfect subset of computer users, it behooves Apple to attempt to synthesize the two markets. This is in the same vein of Apple providing both PC hardware and PC software as PC software users are a perfect subset of PC hardware users (though in this case perhaps not a strict subset). Similarly, Microsoft employs a similar business model in both their PC operating system division and their office suite division (the office suite market being a perfect subset of the PC operating system market), and this has allowed them to dominate both of those markets and maintain that dominance through a feedback mechanism.
Two Business Models: One for the rich and one ...
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
'Apple clearly has its feet in two separate and distinct business models, namely computer manufacturing and software creation, and the consumer electronics industry,' Mr. Renck said."
Yeah, it's not like iPods ("consumer electronics") would ever interact with computer hardware or software in any way. It's also not like iPods themselves are computer hardware that run computer software...
I don't think they realised the 'small details' they would be impacting. For instance, before the 'upgrade' if the network went down, we could write some letters, work on some spreadsheets etc... Now with the new 'upgrade', if the network goes down, we can't do anything. Not even write a letter, send an email, none of that stuff....
Yes, gone are the wonderful days of yore when one used to be able to pass the time while the network was down by "sending an email.":P
How is it any different than trying to get people to join a religion? If it is not, then you are certainly no better than those people (who I assume you do not view in a positive light).
Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it. If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement? It certainly has one thing in common with theological statements: evidence collected in the real world does not necessarily agree with it. Consider this: how many people were killed as a result of the Nazi, Soviet, and Maoist regimes in the last 100 years? How many people were killed by "religion" in the last 100 years? Does this not suggest that in a contemporary setting, "political ideology" is far more dangerous than "religion"?
Furthermore, referring to "religion" as some sort of unitary entity that cannot be further decomposed reeks of dogma and either intellectual dishonesty or blatant lack of nuance. Is it not true that Buddhists have killed far fewer people than members of other religions? Yet if we view the world through your ideologically derived model, we miss this distinction. Hence, your model is inadequate at best.
It certianly (sic) is no more extreme than, say, believing in a virgin birth and reserrection (sic) of the dead. There is a difference between (crazy) personal beliefs, and attempting to impose your (crazy) personal beliefs upon others. Someone believing that magical fairies are responsible for making the Earth go round affects me far less than evangelicals (including atheist evangelicals) running around attempting to coerce others to join their belief system.
P.S. If you have poor reading comprehension and want to reflexively mod me down, consider this: I am not a Christian.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what will happen to DarwinPorts.
Because the reason you have to import engineers from India, China, and Russia is lack of founding to American teachers... After all, just look at all those bags of money Indian, Chinese, and Russian teachers seem to have lying around... The causes of your lack of native grown engineers are many, and teachers' salaries are probably not anywhere near the most important problem. Until you are willing to take a hard look at what your society and education system have become, instead of throwing even more money at the problem, I fear you shall continue to fail.
Extremists? Wow. I sure am glad they caught those extremists. Just one quick question: what sort of extremists are we talking about here? Extremist Buddhists? Confucianists? Taoists? Shintoists? Zoroastrians? Hellenic Polytheists? Liberals? Classical Liberals? Neoliberals? Libertarians? Inquiring minds want to know...
P.S. I am always intrigued by the sort of information that is omitted and the sort of nomenclature selected and used to frame issues.
You're probably thinking of a "scal."*
* I may have now deviated sufficiently from the English way of writing, resulting in some people no longer being able to decipher the original word; however, allow me to assure you that if read aloud in the most phonetic European language that I maintain a sufficient level of fluidity in, "scal" produces a sound similar to the sound produced by the English word "skull" under most pronunciations.
Actually, after the spelling reform, it shall be a four letter word: "scul."
Due to the way that written was English developed, it is one of the few Indo-European languages to not be written in a phonetic manner (if you only know English, you may not completely comprehend what this means). That being said, now that English is an international language, and a huge portion of the world's population is already familiar with the way it is written, fragmenting and reforming it at this point is an asinine idea. Furthermore, there exist languages which are even less phonetic than English (e.g. Mandarin ("Chinese"), the Kanji portion of Japanese) and those people manage to do fine.
P.S. Implementing this idea would also mean that people would soon lose the ability to read the vast body of works already written in English; a huge translation effort would have to be undertaken, and a lot of works would still remain untranslated. Such a loss is not acceptable (unless you have Orwellian intentions in mind).
Many people actually believe that Singapore is the model 21st century state. There exists within Western Europe and Canada a very strong movement to shift those countries toward the Singapore model. Many Western European states, Canada and Australia already have state operated media monopolies, and many of the aforementioned states also have ruling parties which have a tendency to hold on to power for the majority of the time (e.g. Canada). Furthermore, in many states such as Belgium, the judiciary (appointed by the the ruling party, more often than not) has the ability to (and does) declare parties (e.g. the most popular party in the Dutch portion of Belgium -- Flanders) illegal. In addition, Free Speech is not considered absolute in any of these countries, with the majority of the population accepting that "limits" exist to "free speech," and the ruling parties having recently introduced legislation further cementing this stance (e.g. in the UK); these limits are indeed often enforced by the judiciary in many of these countries.
Incidentally, Singapore has undergone a very rapid demographic shift. The once majority population has, within less than three generation, been replaced primarily by Chinese immigrants who now make up 76.8% of Singapore's population. Aside from this, Singapore is considered one of the most diverse and multi-cultural places on Earth (supporting link). To enforce this utopian vision, and ensure harmony, freedom of speech has been restricted, in a manner similar to that of Western European states and Canada; from Wikipedia: "Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they are intended to prohibit speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious society. For example, in September 2005, three bloggers were convicted of sedition for posting racist remarks targeting minorities.[5]." Once people accept that freedom of speech has "limits," perhaps the remaining portions of the Singaporean model flow naturally.
Actually, "power to the mob" may be a better description. Mob based power has existed throughout history, and it usually has not been pretty. Furthermore, if you're an individual (in the true sense of the term) who does not enjoy associating with the mob, you tend to be screwed over by those who do. Food for thought.
Fair enough, but consider this: any issue can be framed in terms of liberty. For example, you could say that white Americans no longer have the "liberty" to own other Americans (black), or that Germans no longer have the "liberty" to kill Jews with impunity; however, it is not entirely intellectually honest to do so. China will eventually enforce I.P. laws; the only question is whether they will be enforced after China has worthwhile I.P. to protect, or before. Also consider this: the U.S. does not export much beside I.P.; if you have any sense of self preservation and desire to reduce the grotesque trade deficit, you might see some merit to nudging China to enforce I.P. laws sooner rather than later. This would also have the added benefit of reducing the contamination of Chinese culture with "Britney Spears" culture.
People have been making excuses for evil totalitarian regimes (attempting to prove that they are better in at least some respects) since time immemorial. Stop me if you've heard some of these before: "at least they make the trains run on time," "at least they provide free health-care," "at least they provide free education," "there is no famine over there," "the people seem to enjoy it; the leader got 99.9% in the last election." So now I guess we can add "at least it is easier to infringe on copyrights over there" to that list (assuming I'm grokking your post correctly).
This joke is getting rather lame; new material is definitely needed (preferably some that follows the law of conservation of energy). Besides, if "G. Washington" was alive today, he'd certainly be called a warmonger for his involvement in the French and Indian War, as well as the American Revolutionary War. As for "T. Jefferson," he was personally responsible for the First Barbary War, in which the warmongering US went to war against the peace-loving Muslim states of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, so I don't think he'd be much liked by the contemporary American establishment either.
If I could kindly direct your attention to the quotations marks and the reference at the end of the quotation, you'll find that I am not the author of that mistake.
:)
P.S. I grew up using the metric system, and through formal education am well versed in the SI system, so I hardly need lecturing on the matter.
Actually, a huge portion of those countries are second-world or former second-world countries (communist countries that sided against the US during the Cold War). You'll also notice that China, Vietnam, India, a whole bunch of Muslim Countries (Iran, Pakistan, etc.) are on your list, so if we go by population (not number of countries), the majority of the world (or very close to it) has not joined the treaty.
"The world's fastest bicycles, known as "Speedbikes" will converge at the Nissan Technical Center North America outside Casa Grande, Arizona June 30 and July 1-2, 2006 to compete for the $25,000 Dempsey-MacCready Prize, for the first Speedbike to travel 56 miles (90 K) in one hour from a standing start." from http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/dempse
"Fred Markham set a new World Hour Record by cranking 85,4 km in a fully faired recumbent bicycle."
My amazing math and reasoning skills lead me to believe that he therefore had an average speed of 85.4 km/h (~53 mph for those using the imperial system). Rather impressive for a human powered vehicle (and for a one hour time interval).
"Vic Gundotra ... has left the company to join Google. Gundotra worked at Microsoft as general manager for platform evangelism to get software developers to use Microsoft's software and online offerings."
Hehe. I wonder how devoted he was to the job of "platform evangelism" given his willingness to defect / commit apostasy.
Oy vey! I accidentally pressed submit instead of preview, and forgot to change HTLM Formatted to Plain Text. My post, presented in a more readable format, follows:
We were referring to business models, not markets. It is possible to use the same business model to service different markets. For example, the markets for computer programming books, popular psychology books, fashion magazines, and soft-core pornography is quite different, yet all these can be delivered to the consumer using the same business model (from the perspective of a book store), and in fact, you will find book stores stocking all these items. Similarly, in the US, Wal-Mart sells all sorts of different products that appeal to different markets using the same business model. Furthermore, I understand that whereas in the US, Wal-Mart primarily sells non-perishable products manufactured in China, in China, Wal-Mart sells primarily perishable products; however, their business model is more or less the same in both countries. To further illustrate my point, the market for desktop computers may be different from the market for laptops, yet Dell et al. sell both using the same business model.
Returning to Apple, all the products they sell (PC software, desktop PCs, portable PCs, ultra-portable PCs (iPods)) are either computer hardware (marketed as consumer electronics) running computer software, or stand-alone computer software for those product. From a business model standpoint, there is little difference between producing an iMac or an iPod. In fact, if Apple's business model is to be decomposed and bisected, we would find that the greatest difference in business models employed probably lies between their hardware production division and their software production division, and not in fact their Mac division and their iPod division.
Furthermore, as portable music player users are a perfect subset of computer users, it behooves Apple to attempt to synthesize the two markets. This is in the same vein of Apple providing both PC hardware and PC software as PC software users are a perfect subset of PC hardware users (though in this case perhaps not a strict subset). Similarly, Microsoft employs a similar business model in both their PC operating system division and their office suite division (the office suite market being a perfect subset of the PC operating system market), and this has allowed them to dominate both of those markets and maintain that dominance through a feedback mechanism.
We were referring to business models, not markets. It is possible to use the same business model to service different markets. For example, the markets for computer programming books, popular psychology books, fashion magazines, and soft-core pornography is quite different, yet all these can be delivered to the consumer using the same business model (from the perspective of a book store), and in fact, you will find book stores stocking all these items. Similarly, in the US, Wal-Mart sells all sorts of different products that appeal to different markets using the same business model. Furthermore, I understand that whereas in the US, Wal-Mart primarily sells non-perishable products manufactured in China, in China, Wal-Mart sells primarily perishable products; however, their business model is more or less the same in both countries. To further illustrate my point, the market for desktop computers may be different from the market for laptops, yet Dell et al. sell both using the same business model. Returning to Apple, all the products they sell (PC software, desktop PCs, portable PCs, ultra-portable PCs (iPods)) are either computer hardware (marketed as consumer electronics) running computer software, or stand-alone computer software for those product. From a business model standpoint, there is little difference between producing an iMac or an iPod. In fact, if Apple's business model is to be decomposed and bisected, we would find that the greatest difference in business models employed probably lies between their hardware production division and their software production division, and not in fact their Mac division and their iPod division. Furthermore, as portable music player users are a perfect subset of computer users, it behooves Apple to attempt to synthesize the two markets. This is in the same vein of Apple providing both PC hardware and PC software as PC software users are a perfect subset of PC hardware users (though in this case perhaps not a strict subset). Similarly, Microsoft employs a similar business model in both their PC operating system division and their office suite division (the office suite market being a perfect subset of the PC operating system market), and this has allowed them to dominate both of those markets and maintain that dominance through a feedback mechanism.
'Apple clearly has its feet in two separate and distinct business models, namely computer manufacturing and software creation, and the consumer electronics industry,' Mr. Renck said."
Yeah, it's not like iPods ("consumer electronics") would ever interact with computer hardware or software in any way. It's also not like iPods themselves are computer hardware that run computer software...
I don't think they realised the 'small details' they would be impacting. For instance, before the 'upgrade' if the network went down, we could write some letters, work on some spreadsheets etc... Now with the new 'upgrade', if the network goes down, we can't do anything. Not even write a letter, send an email, none of that stuff....
:P
Yes, gone are the wonderful days of yore when one used to be able to pass the time while the network was down by "sending an email."
How is it any different than trying to get people to join a religion?
If it is not, then you are certainly no better than those people (who I assume you do not view in a positive light).
Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it.
If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement? It certainly has one thing in common with theological statements: evidence collected in the real world does not necessarily agree with it. Consider this: how many people were killed as a result of the Nazi, Soviet, and Maoist regimes in the last 100 years? How many people were killed by "religion" in the last 100 years? Does this not suggest that in a contemporary setting, "political ideology" is far more dangerous than "religion"?
Furthermore, referring to "religion" as some sort of unitary entity that cannot be further decomposed reeks of dogma and either intellectual dishonesty or blatant lack of nuance. Is it not true that Buddhists have killed far fewer people than members of other religions? Yet if we view the world through your ideologically derived model, we miss this distinction. Hence, your model is inadequate at best.
It certianly (sic) is no more extreme than, say, believing in a virgin birth and reserrection (sic) of the dead.
There is a difference between (crazy) personal beliefs, and attempting to impose your (crazy) personal beliefs upon others. Someone believing that magical fairies are responsible for making the Earth go round affects me far less than evangelicals (including atheist evangelicals) running around attempting to coerce others to join their belief system.
P.S. If you have poor reading comprehension and want to reflexively mod me down, consider this: I am not a Christian.