Jesus might have claimed that, but that means nothing. There is no solid evidence Jesus existed, and if there was, there is no solid evidence Jesus was not just a lunatic, or in any way different to the dozens of other self-professed prophets running around the middle east at that time. Please, get a grip. Your attempts to explain Jesus as a real person is like someone using a comic book to show how Spiderman must exist.
They can subjectively point to their history, as there is no supporting evidence that these conversations ever took place. No evidence at all. Conviction is not evidence.
No, it's perfectly pertinent. There is no objective difference between someone talking to God and someone talking to voices in their head they think are God. None.
Clerics who also ate food, so I guess we can skip the clerics part and just say the medical advances were due to food/trousers/surviving a Wednesday/etc.. Unless you can demonstrate how their religious teachings are directly responsible for the discoveries, you don't really have a point.
Or you could look at the multitude of places where there is strong competition in such markets, and see what they've been doing. How it's done in the vast majority of the US is pathetic.
That's not entirely true. You can have a free ISP market, for example, where the last mile infrastructure is owned by a government-sanctioned monopoly which is required to lease to any ISP which applies. The infrastructure might be a (government-owned) monopoly, but a free market operates on top of it, providing much better competition and services for the customer than if the last mile was not a monopoly. That's how it's done in the UK where BT owns the phone infrastructure, but is required by law to lease it to ISPs, including leasing it to BT's own ISP at the same rates. That gives a shit-tonne of competition, as anyone can tap in to that market and become an ISP without having to dig trenches or wire up entire cities on their own.
Which matters not as there is more money to be spent in the US to cover the larger amount of people. The longer you keep saying "but the US is so biiiig!" the longer the US's infrastructure will be an abject joke.
If it's so obvious he wouldn't need to write a paper on the subject. When you use words like that you're showing your bias, which kind of makes people not want to listen to anything else you say, as there are plenty of more reliable sources to learn from. Just a hint.
Can you link to something, well, academic? A newspaper article is not where rational people go for their scientific information. I can see where you went wrong.
No, the NSA is supposed to be protecting the US. It can do that by spying, but not if the extent of their spying means many countries/people simply don't trust the US, and start spending their money elsewhere. At that moment they cease to be protecting the US, and are doing a very good impression of actively working against it.
But he's not going to China, so your entire nonsensical post is just that - more frothy-mouthed defence of the husband by the battered wife. You really need some help. Put down your bible and flag, and realise you are your own person. It's absolutely pathetic how easily your opinions seem to be bent by people you deem worthy to follow based on what uniform/outfit they wear, and just how little effort you put in to seeing if they are actually worthy of it. It explains so much of what you believe. You poor bastard. It must suck to be you sometimes.
Say what you want (even though their aims were never to conquer the US), but their tiny little attack scared the US into giving up freedom and entering a war (or two) which caused nothing but fertile ground for more terrorists to attack the US. I'm sure if the terrorists were able to fly a plane into a building which would directly achieve that, and did so, they would have been very happy with the outcome. So yeah - while the terrorists haven't won, they certainly have some excellent allies in the US government.
The American government's response to terror was a pathetic Thatcheresque knee-jerk, and guaranteed more terrorism would follow, all for the measly price of civil liberties. Bargain!
Very true, but as US oppression has many shapes, you can't really just make that statement and expect it to have any weight, unless you go into further depth to find a directly comparable situation where the only variant is the religion of those involved, and specifically their personal beliefs. We have plenty of cases of terrorism from non-Muslims, so this really is a moot point. No one religion has a monopoly on terrorism.
I knew you'd make a post like this. I simply knew it when I saw the headline. Does the plethora of intelligent Irish terrorists in the last few decades show that Catholicism causes terrorism? Of course not. You just have a handy excuse to blame Islam for things you don't like, which you seem to revel in every single time this discussion comes up.
You probably don't realise that your opinion is just as dangerous as the opinions held by the terrorists themselves - you are willing - no, actively trying - to paint nearly 2 billion people with the same hateful brush, and simply refuse to look at the actual evidence.
How about just paying artists to actually perform. Concert tickets, bookings for private gigs, etc. etc. That's plenty for a decent band. Albums were advertisements for live shows before, then the record companies monetized albums and made them the product, and the artists got shafted.
Slashdot Mirror
It's "Cue", not "queue", unless you expect him to stand in a line waiting for something.
Jesus might have claimed that, but that means nothing. There is no solid evidence Jesus existed, and if there was, there is no solid evidence Jesus was not just a lunatic, or in any way different to the dozens of other self-professed prophets running around the middle east at that time. Please, get a grip. Your attempts to explain Jesus as a real person is like someone using a comic book to show how Spiderman must exist.
They can subjectively point to their history, as there is no supporting evidence that these conversations ever took place. No evidence at all. Conviction is not evidence.
No, it's perfectly pertinent. There is no objective difference between someone talking to God and someone talking to voices in their head they think are God. None.
Clerics who also ate food, so I guess we can skip the clerics part and just say the medical advances were due to food/trousers/surviving a Wednesday/etc.. Unless you can demonstrate how their religious teachings are directly responsible for the discoveries, you don't really have a point.
The scary thing is you actually believe that nonsense. Wow.
Or you could look at the multitude of places where there is strong competition in such markets, and see what they've been doing. How it's done in the vast majority of the US is pathetic.
"Europe" did nothing of the sort, but don't let that get in the way of a good rant.
That might have been the original meaning, but the meaning of words changes over time.
"Connect" is not a noun, fyi.
That's not entirely true. You can have a free ISP market, for example, where the last mile infrastructure is owned by a government-sanctioned monopoly which is required to lease to any ISP which applies. The infrastructure might be a (government-owned) monopoly, but a free market operates on top of it, providing much better competition and services for the customer than if the last mile was not a monopoly. That's how it's done in the UK where BT owns the phone infrastructure, but is required by law to lease it to ISPs, including leasing it to BT's own ISP at the same rates. That gives a shit-tonne of competition, as anyone can tap in to that market and become an ISP without having to dig trenches or wire up entire cities on their own.
Which matters not as there is more money to be spent in the US to cover the larger amount of people. The longer you keep saying "but the US is so biiiig!" the longer the US's infrastructure will be an abject joke.
If it's so obvious he wouldn't need to write a paper on the subject. When you use words like that you're showing your bias, which kind of makes people not want to listen to anything else you say, as there are plenty of more reliable sources to learn from. Just a hint.
Burning trees for heat is as close to carbon neutral as you can get (hint: they're made from carbon removed from the atmosphere).
Can you link to something, well, academic? A newspaper article is not where rational people go for their scientific information. I can see where you went wrong.
The old appeal to authority. Nice. Well, Dyson is a physicist and mathematician, so his opinion on this matters exactly the same as yours - not a jot.
You're doing a great job of discrediting yourself - no one else needs to even bother.
So you are claiming that transparency is fascism. O...K...
No, the NSA is supposed to be protecting the US. It can do that by spying, but not if the extent of their spying means many countries/people simply don't trust the US, and start spending their money elsewhere. At that moment they cease to be protecting the US, and are doing a very good impression of actively working against it.
But he's not going to China, so your entire nonsensical post is just that - more frothy-mouthed defence of the husband by the battered wife. You really need some help. Put down your bible and flag, and realise you are your own person. It's absolutely pathetic how easily your opinions seem to be bent by people you deem worthy to follow based on what uniform/outfit they wear, and just how little effort you put in to seeing if they are actually worthy of it. It explains so much of what you believe. You poor bastard. It must suck to be you sometimes.
Say what you want (even though their aims were never to conquer the US), but their tiny little attack scared the US into giving up freedom and entering a war (or two) which caused nothing but fertile ground for more terrorists to attack the US. I'm sure if the terrorists were able to fly a plane into a building which would directly achieve that, and did so, they would have been very happy with the outcome. So yeah - while the terrorists haven't won, they certainly have some excellent allies in the US government.
The American government's response to terror was a pathetic Thatcheresque knee-jerk, and guaranteed more terrorism would follow, all for the measly price of civil liberties. Bargain!
Did the nasty man huwt your feewings?
You really should read more. This is staggeringly embarrassing. Wow. I don't even...
Very true, but as US oppression has many shapes, you can't really just make that statement and expect it to have any weight, unless you go into further depth to find a directly comparable situation where the only variant is the religion of those involved, and specifically their personal beliefs. We have plenty of cases of terrorism from non-Muslims, so this really is a moot point. No one religion has a monopoly on terrorism.
I knew you'd make a post like this. I simply knew it when I saw the headline. Does the plethora of intelligent Irish terrorists in the last few decades show that Catholicism causes terrorism? Of course not. You just have a handy excuse to blame Islam for things you don't like, which you seem to revel in every single time this discussion comes up.
You probably don't realise that your opinion is just as dangerous as the opinions held by the terrorists themselves - you are willing - no, actively trying - to paint nearly 2 billion people with the same hateful brush, and simply refuse to look at the actual evidence.
How about just paying artists to actually perform. Concert tickets, bookings for private gigs, etc. etc. That's plenty for a decent band. Albums were advertisements for live shows before, then the record companies monetized albums and made them the product, and the artists got shafted.