I didn't realize the US was somehow responsible for Europeans failing to reproduce, and voluntarily inundating themselves with those hostile to both the indigenous peoples, and their culture. Perhaps your mindset is telling of the self-emasculation that leads to such problems?
The US has shown itself to be amply capable of finding several other ways of self-destructing in a contagious way.
At least the US isn't willfully self-destructing like Europe...yet...
I'd say, rather, that the difference is the following: while Europe may be possibly self-destructing, the US is self-destructing and dragging everyone along in its path towards destruction.
Describing what happened as `denying the Pope his voice' is at least imaginative. He has a much louder voice that pretty much anyone else you can think of, and the mere thought of his having been shut up is laughable to anyone minimally familiar with, say, Italian politics. Moreover, he basically refused the invitation himself.
We are talking about the Pope here. Of course I am talking about the Roman Catholic Christian Church.
I do not content that it follows from everything else: they do.
I simply give no value to the fact that something follows from the big system that Christianity, but Catholic Christians do. I consider it simply an absurd , inconsistent system and, as history clearly shows, one can `derive' anything from its tenets, much as, in the context of logic, a inconsistent theory contains all propositions.
The argument of first cause is only supported on either (i) Aristotle's inability to imagine that an infinite chain of causation can exist or (ii) the unsubstantiated claim that everything has a cause. Your pick.
Hmm, so you are arguing against the statement that "religion is bad" by arguing against an incorrect justification of that statement?
Reading, for example, Bertrand Russel will show that while one can very ignorantly reject religion, one can do it also rationally. I can understand that it is much easier to debate with those that do ignorantly, of course.
While most (to be gentle) points of dogma are of course beyond rational discourse (for or against them, actually), there are lots of positions which are, according the the Church itself, essentially Christian, which can be very well be called irrational with a lot of logical, reasonable, scientific backing. Just to mention one, consider the Christian position with regards to the use of condoms.
You could retort that this is a side issue in the big systemthat Christianity is, but the position of the Church is that in fact its stance with respect to condoms follows from everything else. Just as a physical theory is rationally rejected when its consequences contradict observation, you can proceed in this case.
Actually, I feel that one should mock everything and everyone. People who are serious and things that `are to be taken seriously' are the only things and people that make me really scared.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Please, stop repeating that idiotic notion.
As for silencing the Pope. Come on, he was not silenced: the guy has more press than anyone. These people were merely trying not to have him invited to their university, at least under his terms.
If I do not invite you to my house to give me speeches, you do not get to compare me to Stalin, you know...
They did not deny the Pope any voice. He gets a lots of press without the need to go to their university.
What they objected to was having him come to their university and given a speech (without the possibility to take questions and so on). You do not deny someone his voice when you do not want to invite him to your house make speeches.
This site is not technology-specific: it deals with news which interest geeks. Geeks tend to be of a scientific outlook. Information about the political and sociological conditions which allow people to have a scientific outlook are clearly of interest, then, to at least the subset of those geeks.
After all, it's just Europe, no? How negligible do you think the European market is for MS? What's Europe relative size? Say... it must be something like... Kentucky?
In any case, maybe MS should have delayed a bit more the release of its recent products globally, from what I've heard...
I would increase punishments for non native americans who commit crimes. If they commit a crime, everything they got in the USA will be confiscated, they will be added to a criminals database and they would be deported to their countries (I do not want to make taxpayers fund their prison terms).
Wouldn't non-natives pay taxes? Will you do the same for their US-born children? So you intend to deprive non-natives of some of the rights natives have: have you thought out the caste system that well?
And: Are taxpayers more comfortable paying for prison terms of other natives?
You cannot prove that nature obeys the uncertainty principle, much as you cannot prove any physical statement: what you can prove is that in the model provided by quantum mechanics, it holds.
Slashdot Mirror
The US has shown itself to be amply capable of finding several other ways of self-destructing in a contagious way.
At least the US isn't willfully self-destructing like Europe...yet...
I'd say, rather, that the difference is the following: while Europe may be possibly self-destructing, the US is self-destructing and dragging everyone along in its path towards destruction.
Hmm, I am not a gringo, for any sensible definition of gringo you can come up...
Are they included in `everything and everyone'?
So, the Church's actions at the time are justified because Galileo's statements were wrong?
He's a charismatic leader... of who, exactly?
I probably missed the memo informing me of my due obedience...
Describing what happened as `denying the Pope his voice' is at least imaginative. He has a much louder voice that pretty much anyone else you can think of, and the mere thought of his having been shut up is laughable to anyone minimally familiar with, say, Italian politics. Moreover, he basically refused the invitation himself.
We are talking about the Pope here. Of course I am talking about the Roman Catholic Christian Church.
I do not content that it follows from everything else: they do.
I simply give no value to the fact that something follows from the big system that Christianity, but Catholic Christians do. I consider it simply an absurd , inconsistent system and, as history clearly shows, one can `derive' anything from its tenets, much as, in the context of logic, a inconsistent theory contains all propositions.
The argument of first cause is only supported on either (i) Aristotle's inability to imagine that an infinite chain of causation can exist or (ii) the unsubstantiated claim that everything has a cause. Your pick.
Hmm, so you are arguing against the statement that "religion is bad" by arguing against an incorrect justification of that statement?
Reading, for example, Bertrand Russel will show that while one can very ignorantly reject religion, one can do it also rationally. I can understand that it is much easier to debate with those that do ignorantly, of course.
While most (to be gentle) points of dogma are of course beyond rational discourse (for or against them, actually), there are lots of positions which are, according the the Church itself, essentially Christian, which can be very well be called irrational with a lot of logical, reasonable, scientific backing. Just to mention one, consider the Christian position with regards to the use of condoms.
You could retort that this is a side issue in the big systemthat Christianity is, but the position of the Church is that in fact its stance with respect to condoms follows from everything else. Just as a physical theory is rationally rejected when its consequences contradict observation, you can proceed in this case.
Do you understand that that was a just comparison?
(What passes for Insghtful these days...)
Actually, I feel that one should mock everything and everyone. People who are serious and things that `are to be taken seriously' are the only things and people that make me really scared.
That is, at the very least, open to judgment, don't you think?
A while ago I read on someone on /. say:
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Please, stop repeating that idiotic notion.
As for silencing the Pope. Come on, he was not silenced: the guy has more press than anyone. These people were merely trying not to have him invited to their university, at least under his terms.
If I do not invite you to my house to give me speeches, you do not get to compare me to Stalin, you know...
They did not deny the Pope any voice. He gets a lots of press without the need to go to their university.
What they objected to was having him come to their university and given a speech (without the possibility to take questions and so on). You do not deny someone his voice when you do not want to invite him to your house make speeches.
This site is not technology-specific: it deals with news which interest geeks. Geeks tend to be of a scientific outlook. Information about the political and sociological conditions which allow people to have a scientific outlook are clearly of interest, then, to at least the subset of those geeks.
Hmm. I do not think your sarcasm detector is working...
Wow. I cannot believe 3 people can miss such absurd sarcasm. Wow.
After all, it's just Europe, no? How negligible do you think the European market is for MS? What's Europe relative size? Say... it must be something like... Kentucky?
In any case, maybe MS should have delayed a bit more the release of its recent products globally, from what I've heard...
RH and Ubuntu do not sell OSs (they can't: they own neither the OS itself nor the apps). They sell a service.
Debian does not sell anything.
Wouldn't non-natives pay taxes? Will you do the same for their US-born children? So you intend to deprive non-natives of some of the rights natives have: have you thought out the caste system that well?
And: Are taxpayers more comfortable paying for prison terms of other natives?
Well, there are precendents of presidents who do not know any history (or geography, or...)
You cannot prove that nature obeys the uncertainty principle, much as you cannot prove any physical statement: what you can prove is that in the model provided by quantum mechanics, it holds.
Be more unique with your queries, then.