A lot of people seem to think that this project violates church and state. It has nothing to do with church and state. The project is being financed via tax breaks. That means the entity building it is a tax-paying entity (or will be once the tax breaks run out). As such, they are a business like any other business. If they want to build a theme park with a big mouse in a costume or with a big boat as it's main attraction, it's not a religion. The fact that a religious group, non-profit even, is going to run it doesn't make it a religion either. They will be paying their property taxes, income taxes and whatever other taxes Kentucky has like any other entertainment business in the state.
Why do we think we are so much smarter than those scientists on Caprica. They were much further advanced than us. Shouldn't we be learning from their mistakes instead of trying to recreate them?
Actually, NASA didn't give specifications, at least not as you are implying. All of the submitted proposals included all liquid propellant vehicles. It was just the one that happened to be cheapest that had the solid boosters and NASA went with it to save money. So, evidently, given all of the problems they've had with the launch system, yes, in this case, the lowest bidder made the worst product.
Recognizing that what happens in the US and what US policy is impacts the rest of us is not a US centric view of things, but instead is a pragmatic view. Ignoring that relationship is exactly what allows the US to be so arrogant. At the same time, ignoring humanitarian aid that comes from the US, whether through their government, or corporations, or directly from their people does not allow for a meaningful discussion.
Does their vaccines justify their aggression in Iraq, no, of course not. But, neither does their aggression in Iraq negate the good that comes from their country. And, yes, I know there are strings attached, at least very often. But, when a mothers child is dying from something that could be easily treated in the West, those strings are a small price to pay.
If you really believe that trying to embarrass the US is the best way to effect change in policy, then that's fine. However, it has been my experience that embarrassment only leads to knee-jerk reactions that usually exacerbate the real or underlying problems.
A bully does not make long lasting changes to their behavior because they were embarrassed. Sure, it might be a small change immediately, but ultimately they result to their former, more comfortable behavior. Look at how the american people first changed their behavior after the WTC attacks and now ten years later, they are resisting increased security measures (that are still pretty mild as compared to the rest of the world). Their Obama was elected President on a platform of change, but now, the people don't want to put in the effort that such change will take.
These "leaks" will only cause embarrassment to the US, they won't cause change, at least not real change. In the meantime, they have the potential to cause change elsewhere in the world that can cause unrest and instability. These lead to real people suffering.
The US has a history of "leaks" that have caused change. There were the Washington Papers against the Vietnam War, there was their Watergate. But each of these was very specific about what the purpose was and what the change sought was. Wikileaks used to follow this pattern, but lately, has just released hoards of documents and letting the chips fall where they may. That is why I say it is irresponsible and am concerned about the negative consequences of their actions.
If Wikileaks wants to fight injustices in the world, that is great, but the way you do is not to throw 250,000 unrelated documents against the wall to see what sticks. Nor is it the way to report that you have new leaks which will destroy the banking system. The only purpose of that is to draw attention to one's self and not the real problems. Causing instability in various parts of the world is one way to bring about change. It's usually referred to as a revolution. It might even be justified, but the way Wikileaks is going about it is irresponsible. I am not saying that Wikileaks is always this way. Very often, they report on specific abuses or corruption. But in these two specific instances they have chosen to just throw the stuff at the wall approach. Even, internally,many of their own staff have reported unease with what is going on.
For all of us, actions have consequences and just because we can do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. There is a general opinion that the US should be held accountable for it's actions, why would that not be the same for Wikileaks?
I stopped reading after your accusation that I have such a US centric view of things. If you only knew the truth. Of course the whole notion of truth is problem different in my culture and yours.
Okay, I lied, I did read the end of your post, too. The problem with people like Julian Assange is that he is fixated on America, when most of the rest of us are more concerned with where our next meal will come from or whether a family member or loved one will be there tomorrow for standing up for those things that are truly important.
If the US is corrupt and hypocritical as you suggest, it is not because of their leaders but their culture is that way. Their leaders are just a reflection of their people and there fore all of the leaks by Julian Assange will not change that. Those leaks, on the other hand have the real potential to disrupt the lives of the rest of us.
Are you saying that the leaks regarding Iran and North Korea have a 50/50 chance of reducing the conflicts there vs escalating them? If so, then your argument is correct. However, most believe that is not the case and things will escalate, in which case, the leaks are more likely to produce harm and a negative "what if" is the more likely scenario.
These leaks aren't happening in a vacuum. They can and do effect world events and peoples attitudes. Therefore, it's not a simple heads or tails coin flip probability.
As much as we want things to be simple, they are not and it is naive to assume that actions do not have consequences. Good actions/deeds may bring about good, however, bad actions/deeds, most likely will bring about bad.
Outside the US, there is not a lot of trust of the US. These leaks flame that distrust. More distrust means more unrest and less cooperation. Now, not only is the US involved, but other countries are too. For instance, the people of Yemen are anti-US. The government of Yemen has secretly been helping the US in fighting terrorism.
Now, that the news is out, will people in Yemen be as supportive of their leaders? Will it fuel the opposition party? If it fuels it enough, will there be a change in leadership and will that change in leadership be as supportive of US policy in the area? You can hope that it would all be for the good, but you would most likely be wrong. The action of releasing the Yemen documents will have negative consequences. The same is true for most of the others.
He's hardly getting rich on this, and have you noticed that he continues to do this at rather significant personal risk?
If not altruism, what do you consider his motivation to be?
The fact that he is foolish about what and how he releases and therefore puts his life in jeopardy does not make his motives altruistic nor does the fact that he does not seem to be able to capitalise on the process for personal gain.
Since he, himself, states that his purpose is to rewrite history and usher in a new order of things, his motives seem no more altruistic than the governments and corporations he is reporting on.
At least when the Washington papers were released, it was to stop the coverup about the war. Likewise, the Watergate papers were about the coverup being conducted by then President Nixon's administration. But releasing the diplomatic cables and the proposed new banking and pharmaceutical documents don't compare. The purpose may be to expose a coverup (at least in the banking and pharmaceuticals), but for what end?
Plus in the Washington and Watergate papers, the only people put in harms way were the very people responsible for the coverup. That can't be said in these recent releases of the cables or promised releases of banking and pharmaceuticals. There purpose, again according to him, himself, is to disrupt peoples confidence in the banking system. What is the effect of that -- worldwide recession. Definitely not altruistic.
So are you saying that we should ignore what ifs? It seems we did that and some bad people flew some planes into the WTC. What ifs are very important in the real world.
Of course, there should be some probability to the what if. So, in the case of telling Iran that their neighbours don't like them, what is the more likely scenario, 1) they will act negatively towards them or 2), as you propose they will stand down? Same question regarding North Korea and the revelation about China?
Just because it may be "stupid" to use a what if argument for not doing something, doesn't mean that doing it isn't stupid, too.
You are welcome to your opinion as am I, however, you still have not shown anything to support your view of Mr. Assange's altruism in what he is doing.
Removing everybody's privacy may put everyone on equal ground, but it doesn't mean that's the way to solve the problem. On the otherhand, restoring the privacy of those who have had it taken away is a much better way to put everyone back on equal ground.
Why was this modded down as a troll? We have terrorists who blow things up. We have eco-terrorists who destroy the environment. And we have cyber-terrorists who use computers to do their work. All three have the same purpose, to get society to change. Some would argue that at least eco-terrorist want to better the environment, but the data doesn't support that. When the terrorists flew the planes into the WTC, the lives they took were incidental to their goal of collapsing the US economy. The people on the planes and in the towers were just collateral damage, at least to the terrorists. Likewise, when eco-terrorists put spikes in trees to destroy the saws, the lumberjack who loses an eye or a limb or even their live are collateral damage, not the intended target. So, Wikileaks is going to release more documents and likewise ignores the collateral damage they/he will inflict on a lot of innocent bystanders. Remember, he said he wants to rewrite history -- so that begs the questions how is his cyber-terrorism any different than any other form of terrorism?
Nowhere does Mr. Assange say he is trying to prevent the impovershment of the world's middle-class population. His actions will have the exact opposite effect, because the wealthy will be able to wish stand the economic fallout caused by Mr. Assange's antics. How many millionaires were laid off when the world wide recession occurred? Not, too many, I bet. However, the middle class sure lost their jobs. Mr. Assange has his own agenda and wants to push it. How is that different than governments who want to push theirs or corporations who want to push theirs? Mr. Assange is not releasing news, he is releasing information, which not placed into it's proper context can be quite harmful. Reputable news organizations do not trickle out stories, they research and validate the information and if it appears news worthy, they publish it. Wikileaks normal operation seems to be to acquire some documents (lots of documents), whether legally or not, and to release them regardless of the whether they are news worthy or not.
So you are saying that because our privacy has been violated so should theirs? How does that help us? Wouldn't it be better to restore our privacy instead of violating others privacy? What about the economic fallout from all of this, warranted or not? What about those retirees who stand to loose even more of their fixed income because of the additional scandals? What about those who might loose jobs? Wikileaks states they want to rewrite history. In any revolution (as you put it), a lot of innocent people are hurt, far more than those actually fighting the revolution itself.
What is the difference between a bunch of terrorists who fly planes into building to cripple the US economy and Wikileaks releasing documents with the same intent? Both are using the tools at hand to cause the disruption of as many lives as possible with the goal of bringing in a new world order.
Wikileaks should be protected by The USA Constitution as a great source of truth, because the US and global press/news is totally pwned by dogmatic irrational plutocrats.
Wikileaks is not a US citizen or even a US corporation, so why should it/they be protected under the US Constitution?
You say that Wikileaks isn't putting anyone at risk, but actions have consequences. If tensions in the Middle East escalate because the views of the Saudi Government (and others) has been made public with regards to Iran, isn't that putting people at risk? Sure the Iranian government may have already been aware, but what about the people on the street? What if some extremest uses this to say that the Saudis are in bed with the West and plan attacks against the Saudis? What about Yemen? The government was quietly helping the US, even though the people are definitely anti-US. Now that the information is leaked, how much support will the US get from the Yemen government? Will the government still continue to help or will it follow the will of its people? China though North Korea was getting to big for its britches. However, given that being made public and now the tension between North and South Korea, will China reinforce its ties with the North to safe face?
Actions have consequences and those consequences affect the lives of people abroad and in the US.
Strange, since the University of Bologna was actually the Cathedral school before it was called the University of Bologna (as was Oxford and Cambridge). As for my sources:
Charles Home Haskins, in "The Rise of Universities (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957). According to him the university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome.
Lowrie Daly, who held the Church developed the university system because it was "the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge." Source: Lowerie J. Daly, The Medieval University, 1200-1400 (New York:Sheed and Ward, 1961), 213-14.
With regards to people not reading the bible in their own language, that's not true, either. There are surviving translations of the Vulgate (the official Latin Bible) in numerous languages, particularly German, predating the Reformation. Of course only the very wealthy could afford to have a hand copied manuscript made, but they did exist. Once the printing press was developed, these were then printed, however, the for the most part the public was illiterate, and had to rely on hearing it explained, because even if they could afford one of these mass produced bibles (for the time anyway), they couldn't read it. So please, don't confuse what the churches (it wasn't just the catholic church that had illiterates) did to accommodate the educational reality of the time with trying to suppress knowledge.
As for Galileo, the church never said he was wrong and actually agreed with his findings, however, what was really going on was a political battle. His arrest had nothing to do with the science.
It's interesting to note that while Galileo was living comfortably in his house arrest, it was the church who was paying him to do more and more scientific inquiry.
The church built its learning institutions on the model of others, and there were secular learning institutions alongside them.
The church is in conflict with the forces of reality. It has a long history of oppressing the free spread of knowledge, and of couching its tyrannies in the language of benevolence. And of coopting institutions and traditions and pretending they were the province of their religion all along. It's only typical that they would pretend to have invented higher education, and would call it open and free exchange of ideas.
They are not the ones pretending. It is the European Scholarly Community who make the claim, not the church itself. But, if you want to say that the historians are wrong and your opinion is the correct one, then go for it.
Obviously, you have some deep seated resentment towards organized religion, which is your perogrative. But in trying to justify your position, don't claim things that simply are untrue.
Don't get me wrong, the church, and I assume we are talking about the Roman Catholic Church in all of this, has done plenty of bad things, but they, as many institution have also brought about much good.
If the church is so against the spread of knowledge as you purport, then why are all of those craters on the moon named after Jesuit priests? Why is the father of geology a catholic priest? Why was the first person to extrapolate Einstein's theory of relativity into what we now call the big bang also a priest?
You have the right to believe whatever you want about the church (Catholic or otherwise), however, just because you believe it does not make it true.
The real problem is not the occasional copying of a CD for ones personal use, heck, it might not be the same quality, but you can record it off the radio. The real problem is the wholesale mass production of reproducing copyrighted material. Most of this occurs in South East Asia. So, exactly how will passage of ACTA stop it?
It's interesting that you bring the church up as an obstacle to new ideas, research and technology when it was the church that created the very university system that is used to spread new ideas, research and technology (along with the modern court system, hospitals, etc.). Not that I am an apologist for the church (big C or little c), but I do think that if one is to spout off, they should at least get their facts straight.
This might work for part of the year, but what about the time from November through April when most trees have lost their leaves? Also, how much energy will be needed to collect all of those fallen leaves since gold, like oil, is not a limitless resource.
I wasn't specifically referring to the energy created by the big bang, but more the child hood notion of twice of infinity being greater infinity or 1/2 of infinity being less than infinity.
Since 1/2 of infinity is still infinity, my point I was trying to unsuccessfully make was that 1/2 of a big bang is still a big bang and therefore there is no such thing as a mini-big bang.
Anything else is absurd. Otherwise, a head on collision between two motor vehicles is also a big bang (in the cosmological sense). It just produced less energy than the LHC or the actual big bang.
Yet no reasonable person or physicist would assert that a head on collision recreated the big bang, so why is the head on collision of two sub-atomic particles any different?
From what we know, at the moment of the big bang, the universe, time, matter, etc. came into existence. Did the experiment at the LHC create new matter or energy? Did it create a new dimension of time? No, none of these things occurred and thus it is not a "big bang."
Or put differently, if the big bang is likened to infinity, there is no such thing as a fraction of infinity. Either they created a big bang or they did not.
I hate this constant need for science journalists to oversell and over-hype an outstanding achievement with misleading hyperbole. They didn't create mini big bangs. They smashed lead ions to try to recreate the conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. It's already an impressive enough achievement without cheapening it with sensationalist BS.
I agree 100%. Now, if their efforts caused a new ever expanding universe to come into existence, then the title would be correct. But since it didn't, they they didn't create a mini-big bang, unless they are trying to say that the big bang didn't create the universe. Even if they succeeded to create a mini-universe that collapsed in on itself, they still wouldn't have created a mini-big bang, because The universe (with a capital T) created by the big bang didn't collapse in on itself.
Either you recreated the big bang or you didn't. There is no such thing as a mini big bang. It's like asking what is 1/2 of infinity? That's not to say they didn't do something pretty darn impressive. But if they truly did create the equivalent of the big bang, then we wouldn't be here reading about it since it would have already expanded well beyond our region of space.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people seem to think that this project violates church and state. It has nothing to do with church and state. The project is being financed via tax breaks. That means the entity building it is a tax-paying entity (or will be once the tax breaks run out). As such, they are a business like any other business. If they want to build a theme park with a big mouse in a costume or with a big boat as it's main attraction, it's not a religion. The fact that a religious group, non-profit even, is going to run it doesn't make it a religion either. They will be paying their property taxes, income taxes and whatever other taxes Kentucky has like any other entertainment business in the state.
Why do we think we are so much smarter than those scientists on Caprica. They were much further advanced than us. Shouldn't we be learning from their mistakes instead of trying to recreate them?
Actually, NASA didn't give specifications, at least not as you are implying. All of the submitted proposals included all liquid propellant vehicles. It was just the one that happened to be cheapest that had the solid boosters and NASA went with it to save money. So, evidently, given all of the problems they've had with the launch system, yes, in this case, the lowest bidder made the worst product.
I heard the real reason was that the crew refused to let the TSA agents do the new pat down procedure.
Recognizing that what happens in the US and what US policy is impacts the rest of us is not a US centric view of things, but instead is a pragmatic view. Ignoring that relationship is exactly what allows the US to be so arrogant. At the same time, ignoring humanitarian aid that comes from the US, whether through their government, or corporations, or directly from their people does not allow for a meaningful discussion.
Does their vaccines justify their aggression in Iraq, no, of course not. But, neither does their aggression in Iraq negate the good that comes from their country. And, yes, I know there are strings attached, at least very often. But, when a mothers child is dying from something that could be easily treated in the West, those strings are a small price to pay.
If you really believe that trying to embarrass the US is the best way to effect change in policy, then that's fine. However, it has been my experience that embarrassment only leads to knee-jerk reactions that usually exacerbate the real or underlying problems.
A bully does not make long lasting changes to their behavior because they were embarrassed. Sure, it might be a small change immediately, but ultimately they result to their former, more comfortable behavior. Look at how the american people first changed their behavior after the WTC attacks and now ten years later, they are resisting increased security measures (that are still pretty mild as compared to the rest of the world). Their Obama was elected President on a platform of change, but now, the people don't want to put in the effort that such change will take.
These "leaks" will only cause embarrassment to the US, they won't cause change, at least not real change. In the meantime, they have the potential to cause change elsewhere in the world that can cause unrest and instability. These lead to real people suffering.
The US has a history of "leaks" that have caused change. There were the Washington Papers against the Vietnam War, there was their Watergate. But each of these was very specific about what the purpose was and what the change sought was. Wikileaks used to follow this pattern, but lately, has just released hoards of documents and letting the chips fall where they may. That is why I say it is irresponsible and am concerned about the negative consequences of their actions.
If Wikileaks wants to fight injustices in the world, that is great, but the way you do is not to throw 250,000 unrelated documents against the wall to see what sticks. Nor is it the way to report that you have new leaks which will destroy the banking system. The only purpose of that is to draw attention to one's self and not the real problems. Causing instability in various parts of the world is one way to bring about change. It's usually referred to as a revolution. It might even be justified, but the way Wikileaks is going about it is irresponsible. I am not saying that Wikileaks is always this way. Very often, they report on specific abuses or corruption. But in these two specific instances they have chosen to just throw the stuff at the wall approach. Even, internally,many of their own staff have reported unease with what is going on.
For all of us, actions have consequences and just because we can do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. There is a general opinion that the US should be held accountable for it's actions, why would that not be the same for Wikileaks?
I stopped reading after your accusation that I have such a US centric view of things. If you only knew the truth. Of course the whole notion of truth is problem different in my culture and yours.
Okay, I lied, I did read the end of your post, too. The problem with people like Julian Assange is that he is fixated on America, when most of the rest of us are more concerned with where our next meal will come from or whether a family member or loved one will be there tomorrow for standing up for those things that are truly important.
If the US is corrupt and hypocritical as you suggest, it is not because of their leaders but their culture is that way. Their leaders are just a reflection of their people and there fore all of the leaks by Julian Assange will not change that. Those leaks, on the other hand have the real potential to disrupt the lives of the rest of us.
Are you saying that the leaks regarding Iran and North Korea have a 50/50 chance of reducing the conflicts there vs escalating them? If so, then your argument is correct. However, most believe that is not the case and things will escalate, in which case, the leaks are more likely to produce harm and a negative "what if" is the more likely scenario.
These leaks aren't happening in a vacuum. They can and do effect world events and peoples attitudes. Therefore, it's not a simple heads or tails coin flip probability.
As much as we want things to be simple, they are not and it is naive to assume that actions do not have consequences. Good actions/deeds may bring about good, however, bad actions/deeds, most likely will bring about bad.
Outside the US, there is not a lot of trust of the US. These leaks flame that distrust. More distrust means more unrest and less cooperation. Now, not only is the US involved, but other countries are too. For instance, the people of Yemen are anti-US. The government of Yemen has secretly been helping the US in fighting terrorism.
Now, that the news is out, will people in Yemen be as supportive of their leaders? Will it fuel the opposition party? If it fuels it enough, will there be a change in leadership and will that change in leadership be as supportive of US policy in the area? You can hope that it would all be for the good, but you would most likely be wrong. The action of releasing the Yemen documents will have negative consequences. The same is true for most of the others.
As I said, actions have consequences.
He's hardly getting rich on this, and have you noticed that he continues to do this at rather significant personal risk?
If not altruism, what do you consider his motivation to be?
The fact that he is foolish about what and how he releases and therefore puts his life in jeopardy does not make his motives altruistic nor does the fact that he does not seem to be able to capitalise on the process for personal gain.
Since he, himself, states that his purpose is to rewrite history and usher in a new order of things, his motives seem no more altruistic than the governments and corporations he is reporting on.
At least when the Washington papers were released, it was to stop the coverup about the war. Likewise, the Watergate papers were about the coverup being conducted by then President Nixon's administration. But releasing the diplomatic cables and the proposed new banking and pharmaceutical documents don't compare. The purpose may be to expose a coverup (at least in the banking and pharmaceuticals), but for what end?
Plus in the Washington and Watergate papers, the only people put in harms way were the very people responsible for the coverup. That can't be said in these recent releases of the cables or promised releases of banking and pharmaceuticals. There purpose, again according to him, himself, is to disrupt peoples confidence in the banking system. What is the effect of that -- worldwide recession. Definitely not altruistic.
So are you saying that we should ignore what ifs? It seems we did that and some bad people flew some planes into the WTC. What ifs are very important in the real world.
Of course, there should be some probability to the what if. So, in the case of telling Iran that their neighbours don't like them, what is the more likely scenario, 1) they will act negatively towards them or 2), as you propose they will stand down? Same question regarding North Korea and the revelation about China?
Just because it may be "stupid" to use a what if argument for not doing something, doesn't mean that doing it isn't stupid, too.
You are welcome to your opinion as am I, however, you still have not shown anything to support your view of Mr. Assange's altruism in what he is doing.
Removing everybody's privacy may put everyone on equal ground, but it doesn't mean that's the way to solve the problem. On the otherhand, restoring the privacy of those who have had it taken away is a much better way to put everyone back on equal ground.
Why was this modded down as a troll? We have terrorists who blow things up. We have eco-terrorists who destroy the environment. And we have cyber-terrorists who use computers to do their work. All three have the same purpose, to get society to change. Some would argue that at least eco-terrorist want to better the environment, but the data doesn't support that. When the terrorists flew the planes into the WTC, the lives they took were incidental to their goal of collapsing the US economy. The people on the planes and in the towers were just collateral damage, at least to the terrorists. Likewise, when eco-terrorists put spikes in trees to destroy the saws, the lumberjack who loses an eye or a limb or even their live are collateral damage, not the intended target. So, Wikileaks is going to release more documents and likewise ignores the collateral damage they/he will inflict on a lot of innocent bystanders. Remember, he said he wants to rewrite history -- so that begs the questions how is his cyber-terrorism any different than any other form of terrorism?
Nowhere does Mr. Assange say he is trying to prevent the impovershment of the world's middle-class population. His actions will have the exact opposite effect, because the wealthy will be able to wish stand the economic fallout caused by Mr. Assange's antics. How many millionaires were laid off when the world wide recession occurred? Not, too many, I bet. However, the middle class sure lost their jobs. Mr. Assange has his own agenda and wants to push it. How is that different than governments who want to push theirs or corporations who want to push theirs? Mr. Assange is not releasing news, he is releasing information, which not placed into it's proper context can be quite harmful. Reputable news organizations do not trickle out stories, they research and validate the information and if it appears news worthy, they publish it. Wikileaks normal operation seems to be to acquire some documents (lots of documents), whether legally or not, and to release them regardless of the whether they are news worthy or not.
So you are saying that because our privacy has been violated so should theirs? How does that help us? Wouldn't it be better to restore our privacy instead of violating others privacy? What about the economic fallout from all of this, warranted or not? What about those retirees who stand to loose even more of their fixed income because of the additional scandals? What about those who might loose jobs? Wikileaks states they want to rewrite history. In any revolution (as you put it), a lot of innocent people are hurt, far more than those actually fighting the revolution itself.
What is the difference between a bunch of terrorists who fly planes into building to cripple the US economy and Wikileaks releasing documents with the same intent? Both are using the tools at hand to cause the disruption of as many lives as possible with the goal of bringing in a new world order.
Wikileaks should be protected by The USA Constitution as a great source of truth, because the US and global press/news is totally pwned by dogmatic irrational plutocrats.
Wikileaks is not a US citizen or even a US corporation, so why should it/they be protected under the US Constitution?
You say that Wikileaks isn't putting anyone at risk, but actions have consequences. If tensions in the Middle East escalate because the views of the Saudi Government (and others) has been made public with regards to Iran, isn't that putting people at risk? Sure the Iranian government may have already been aware, but what about the people on the street? What if some extremest uses this to say that the Saudis are in bed with the West and plan attacks against the Saudis? What about Yemen? The government was quietly helping the US, even though the people are definitely anti-US. Now that the information is leaked, how much support will the US get from the Yemen government? Will the government still continue to help or will it follow the will of its people? China though North Korea was getting to big for its britches. However, given that being made public and now the tension between North and South Korea, will China reinforce its ties with the North to safe face?
Actions have consequences and those consequences affect the lives of people abroad and in the US.
Strange, since the University of Bologna was actually the Cathedral school before it was called the University of Bologna (as was Oxford and Cambridge). As for my sources:
Charles Home Haskins, in "The Rise of Universities (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957). According to him the university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome.
Lowrie Daly, who held the Church developed the university system because it was "the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge." Source: Lowerie J. Daly, The Medieval University, 1200-1400 (New York:Sheed and Ward, 1961), 213-14.
With regards to people not reading the bible in their own language, that's not true, either. There are surviving translations of the Vulgate (the official Latin Bible) in numerous languages, particularly German, predating the Reformation. Of course only the very wealthy could afford to have a hand copied manuscript made, but they did exist. Once the printing press was developed, these were then printed, however, the for the most part the public was illiterate, and had to rely on hearing it explained, because even if they could afford one of these mass produced bibles (for the time anyway), they couldn't read it. So please, don't confuse what the churches (it wasn't just the catholic church that had illiterates) did to accommodate the educational reality of the time with trying to suppress knowledge.
As for Galileo, the church never said he was wrong and actually agreed with his findings, however, what was really going on was a political battle. His arrest had nothing to do with the science.
It's interesting to note that while Galileo was living comfortably in his house arrest, it was the church who was paying him to do more and more scientific inquiry.
No it didn't.
The church built its learning institutions on the model of others, and there were secular learning institutions alongside them.
The church is in conflict with the forces of reality. It has a long history of oppressing the free spread of knowledge, and of couching its tyrannies in the language of benevolence. And of coopting institutions and traditions and pretending they were the province of their religion all along. It's only typical that they would pretend to have invented higher education, and would call it open and free exchange of ideas.
They are not the ones pretending. It is the European Scholarly Community who make the claim, not the church itself. But, if you want to say that the historians are wrong and your opinion is the correct one, then go for it.
Obviously, you have some deep seated resentment towards organized religion, which is your perogrative. But in trying to justify your position, don't claim things that simply are untrue.
Don't get me wrong, the church, and I assume we are talking about the Roman Catholic Church in all of this, has done plenty of bad things, but they, as many institution have also brought about much good.
If the church is so against the spread of knowledge as you purport, then why are all of those craters on the moon named after Jesuit priests? Why is the father of geology a catholic priest? Why was the first person to extrapolate Einstein's theory of relativity into what we now call the big bang also a priest?
You have the right to believe whatever you want about the church (Catholic or otherwise), however, just because you believe it does not make it true.
Isn't there already an international "Face" trademark for the cosmetic company Face of Stockholm?
The real problem is not the occasional copying of a CD for ones personal use, heck, it might not be the same quality, but you can record it off the radio. The real problem is the wholesale mass production of reproducing copyrighted material. Most of this occurs in South East Asia. So, exactly how will passage of ACTA stop it?
It's interesting that you bring the church up as an obstacle to new ideas, research and technology when it was the church that created the very university system that is used to spread new ideas, research and technology (along with the modern court system, hospitals, etc.). Not that I am an apologist for the church (big C or little c), but I do think that if one is to spout off, they should at least get their facts straight.
This might work for part of the year, but what about the time from November through April when most trees have lost their leaves? Also, how much energy will be needed to collect all of those fallen leaves since gold, like oil, is not a limitless resource.
I wasn't specifically referring to the energy created by the big bang, but more the child hood notion of twice of infinity being greater infinity or 1/2 of infinity being less than infinity.
Since 1/2 of infinity is still infinity, my point I was trying to unsuccessfully make was that 1/2 of a big bang is still a big bang and therefore there is no such thing as a mini-big bang.
Anything else is absurd. Otherwise, a head on collision between two motor vehicles is also a big bang (in the cosmological sense). It just produced less energy than the LHC or the actual big bang.
Yet no reasonable person or physicist would assert that a head on collision recreated the big bang, so why is the head on collision of two sub-atomic particles any different?
From what we know, at the moment of the big bang, the universe, time, matter, etc. came into existence. Did the experiment at the LHC create new matter or energy? Did it create a new dimension of time? No, none of these things occurred and thus it is not a "big bang."
Or put differently, if the big bang is likened to infinity, there is no such thing as a fraction of infinity. Either they created a big bang or they did not.
I'd opt for not.
So, is a mini-big bang just a bang, then?
I hate this constant need for science journalists to oversell and over-hype an outstanding achievement with misleading hyperbole. They didn't create mini big bangs. They smashed lead ions to try to recreate the conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. It's already an impressive enough achievement without cheapening it with sensationalist BS.
I agree 100%. Now, if their efforts caused a new ever expanding universe to come into existence, then the title would be correct. But since it didn't, they they didn't create a mini-big bang, unless they are trying to say that the big bang didn't create the universe. Even if they succeeded to create a mini-universe that collapsed in on itself, they still wouldn't have created a mini-big bang, because The universe (with a capital T) created by the big bang didn't collapse in on itself.
Either you recreated the big bang or you didn't. There is no such thing as a mini big bang. It's like asking what is 1/2 of infinity? That's not to say they didn't do something pretty darn impressive. But if they truly did create the equivalent of the big bang, then we wouldn't be here reading about it since it would have already expanded well beyond our region of space.