Hey, it was also the only thing to make Shuttle look useful (plus there's training with Mir, and I suspect prices for "Mir 2" part and "Alpha" part aren't exactly comparable)
Note I didn't say this means it never happens - I wrote that the risk is there. Just probably overblown, especially with semi-modern power installations. Which, hey, might just as well include protections you mention, I wouldn't know (I do know that between the outside and the outlet by which I am there are certainly 4 stages of fuses/etc., perhaps 5). Would certainly seem well-grounded - I imaagine it's an easy and nice bonus when it's very hard to find any overhead cables at my place by now.
Plus, from what I see, people have often weird habits in regards to unplugging, if they do it (proper unplugging itself would also explain failures being extremelly rare, of course). Not only caring mostly about the TV (plus PC if it's there; while for example the kitchen stuff, by now with similarly delicate electronics, is typically forgotten) - a bit too often simply turning it off; with the "more physical" switch, yeah...but this still isn't complete of course. Yet everything seems to be working fine afterwards, typically.
I don't really buy it; companies generally don't plan to "fail as a learning experience" (and only failures are, post-factum, branded as such "experiments" or "hobbies", BTW)
If Nintendo had released the DS Lite first - nothing would be really different, it's virtually identical to DS Fat.
Again, bigger screens of XL are claimed to be in a response to such usage already happening.
Anyway, disagreeing with the notion that it's a contradiction is also...again, agreeing with my initial objection (to the one which very clearly presented handhelds as purely one-person)
Yet, for some reason, I don't know anybody who had any kind of failure due to storm. Several people with whom I talked about it - also can't remember anything (as in, nobody of the people they know). For quite some time I pretty much ignore storms, as far as this factor goes - no failures, despite several very close hits & few power outages apparently due to lightning (and buzz of FM radio when it hits)
Yeah, "personal anegdote"; but I stronly suspect the risk, despite being there of course, is way overblown. At least with semi-modern power installations.
Of course you couldn't argue against it - you wouldn't be susceptible otherwise (for whatever reason; sure, rarely not strictly via youth indoctrination - but if that was the rule, your religion would very quickly cease to exist). Your susceptibility also doesn't say much about validity of what those societal constructs claim (plus in fact aren't really about...)
Legal (etc.) changes you describe might as well be (to some degree at least) an unintended side-effects of religions trying to protect themselves in more and more connected world. Helps keep the boundaries between them (which were in the past provided by even small geographical dispersion). Those are put there for that reason, as an overall effort to preserve, not as a reaction for "atheistic vendettas" Plus generally, it's following of laws which are already there for a long time, and ignoring them would look more and more bad.
Now - what would make the above interpretation less valikd from yours?
Theologians, gotta love them - you really think people who invest so much into this stuff are able to come to any really doubting conclusions?
The "great religions" are simply one of many versions of some old ones; those versions which were best adapted for survival. And their evolution didn't end there - you would be considered a very serious heretic by somebody of "your" faith living only few centuries ago; you would be most likely killed by those people. So far for any "truths" supposedly carried.
You country was "a lot better at turning out real, productive science back" then because it imported a lot of talent, was an isolated land of stability and had a boogeyman.
Don't kid yourself that your inherited, barren state of spirituality, part of which is convincing you it is the best state of mind possible, can give you any real insight about alternatives; about the world.
And I can only hope the way religions propagade itself would be actually in a way of those "numerous" people that you mention, not almost exclusively via molding kids since earliest years - in such case, there wouldn't much religion to speak of.
The only thing I'm sorry about in this context is that one can't exactly destroy gods, something which doesn't exist in the first place. Toying with social constructs keeping them "alive" can be still fun, but...
"Solution" mentioned by you and promoted by Catholic Church of course totally disregards human nature, reality. Nvm that fact shows nicely how valid other claims can be - it's also directly responsible for great amount of suffering which has an easy and proven solution. But that's really only convenient, as far as continuing survival of given faith in places kept backward goes...
You make another typical idiocy BTW - "we're responsible for what's good, we're inseperable part of that; bad things...uhm, why are you looking at us, it's just satan / human nature! We didn't mean those things with talk about how inseparable..."
Generally, attaching to religions any authority in regards to what's moral, etc. demonstrably can't be justified. Look at countries which are best in "nice" societal factors, crime, etc.; look also at their level of secularism. Now check how the most religious places end up.
Let's be clear here - you might wave the official PR, but it's BS; I can know perfectly well, being from a country which is officially 90+% Catholic. Also writers of that PR, before working on it, were hammered (they the most, actually) with dogmas for many years, since their earliest years.
There are dogmas beyond which you (or "we" actually, at least a bit, if some Orthodox have their say) won't go, don't pretend otherwise. At least not without some qualitative shift happening regarding what given individual thinks.
Work of theologians focuses on trying to bypass doubts about things which...are the self imposed essence of existence for those people; don't ever forget about that.
Though they do a bit better work than yours "Your other statements are silly and don't warrant a response."...which, to be fair, can't be held much against you; a fairly standard reaction when faithfull get too insecure. Or your constant tries to show the validity of scriptures by pointing out the passages which boil down to "this is evidence, because we say it is" - who are you trying to kid? "Folk faith doesn't matter" is also one of the more ridiculous things people say in support of the social systems in which they were caught.
"Just because 'all' religions claim something and discredit other religions which also claim the same thing does not disprove any religion." ^If you reallt think so, that also must mean you think claims of your religion are basically worthless; given countless religions (not only present, also those which died out) which often weren't merely wrong, also strictly evil
Sure, go into "definitions" of gods which dismiss the possibility of gaining insight about them - but while doing so be aware that those are quite modern concepts, made to dodge progress happening around. For most of human history, gods were very much more palpable.
Your example with Ptolemy is quite funny btw - our understanding, in the case of cosmology, improved with more data available; it hasn't become more complicated at all - it strives to explain new observations in the simplest way possible. In contrast, the concept of gods took the other direction - more and more transitory the more we know.
Just because you were led to think its impossible to wrap one's head around those ideas, well...don't kid yourself you made any effort in answering "teh ultimate question" in any way - it's almost a certainty that you simply went with something because your legal guardians in your formative years told you so.
Actually, this leads to one interesting conclusion - the only reason why anybody would be even exposed (in notable amounts; studying countless extinct old religions is quite a niche...) to the first sentence is because it's a part of one religious construct, which ended up more adapted for survival than its competition. Various social constructs; with various properties; sometimes allowing progress, sometimes not.
None of those effects are their goal (indeed there is no goal). That doesn't stop efforts at expansion, efforts at forcing what is perceived as values driving those constructs; which can be a problem.
And you might take your feeling or emotions on faith; but they are just decently well understood (and easily manipulated) biochemical processes in our brains. To be simply accepted (or not, self-manipulating more basic mechanisms of our mind often has quite impressive results)
"The" defenders of science, btw? Plus by now it should be clear at least some consider this "other" adaptation, discussed here, can be also fine per se; as long as it doesn't get too...needy. The experiment must first have an opportunity to be performed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, it was also the only thing to make Shuttle look useful (plus there's training with Mir, and I suspect prices for "Mir 2" part and "Alpha" part aren't exactly comparable)
Note I didn't say this means it never happens - I wrote that the risk is there. Just probably overblown, especially with semi-modern power installations. Which, hey, might just as well include protections you mention, I wouldn't know (I do know that between the outside and the outlet by which I am there are certainly 4 stages of fuses/etc., perhaps 5). Would certainly seem well-grounded - I imaagine it's an easy and nice bonus when it's very hard to find any overhead cables at my place by now.
Plus, from what I see, people have often weird habits in regards to unplugging, if they do it (proper unplugging itself would also explain failures being extremelly rare, of course). Not only caring mostly about the TV (plus PC if it's there; while for example the kitchen stuff, by now with similarly delicate electronics, is typically forgotten) - a bit too often simply turning it off; with the "more physical" switch, yeah...but this still isn't complete of course. Yet everything seems to be working fine afterwards, typically.
I don't really buy it; companies generally don't plan to "fail as a learning experience" (and only failures are, post-factum, branded as such "experiments" or "hobbies", BTW)
If Nintendo had released the DS Lite first - nothing would be really different, it's virtually identical to DS Fat.
Notice how only failures are "experiments" / "hobbies" according to their parent companies?
Again, bigger screens of XL are claimed to be in a response to such usage already happening.
Anyway, disagreeing with the notion that it's a contradiction is also...again, agreeing with my initial objection (to the one which very clearly presented handhelds as purely one-person)
Yet, for some reason, I don't know anybody who had any kind of failure due to storm. Several people with whom I talked about it - also can't remember anything (as in, nobody of the people they know). For quite some time I pretty much ignore storms, as far as this factor goes - no failures, despite several very close hits & few power outages apparently due to lightning (and buzz of FM radio when it hits)
Yeah, "personal anegdote"; but I stronly suspect the risk, despite being there of course, is way overblown. At least with semi-modern power installations.
I can imagine recent hatchlings chasing what was quite similar to a mouse, and in fact its distant ancestor.
WOuldn't chicken vs. field mouse sort of count anyway?
Of course you couldn't argue against it - you wouldn't be susceptible otherwise (for whatever reason; sure, rarely not strictly via youth indoctrination - but if that was the rule, your religion would very quickly cease to exist). Your susceptibility also doesn't say much about validity of what those societal constructs claim (plus in fact aren't really about...)
Even if, by some mechanism, there would be interference, there's a very long way from that to exploding consoles...
Legal (etc.) changes you describe might as well be (to some degree at least) an unintended side-effects of religions trying to protect themselves in more and more connected world. Helps keep the boundaries between them (which were in the past provided by even small geographical dispersion). Those are put there for that reason, as an overall effort to preserve, not as a reaction for "atheistic vendettas"
Plus generally, it's following of laws which are already there for a long time, and ignoring them would look more and more bad.
Now - what would make the above interpretation less valikd from yours?
It's not so simple when you consider what, and on what (also those claimed!) grounds, passes as "evidence"...
Theologians, gotta love them - you really think people who invest so much into this stuff are able to come to any really doubting conclusions?
The "great religions" are simply one of many versions of some old ones; those versions which were best adapted for survival. And their evolution didn't end there - you would be considered a very serious heretic by somebody of "your" faith living only few centuries ago; you would be most likely killed by those people.
So far for any "truths" supposedly carried.
You country was "a lot better at turning out real, productive science back" then because it imported a lot of talent, was an isolated land of stability and had a boogeyman.
Don't kid yourself that your inherited, barren state of spirituality, part of which is convincing you it is the best state of mind possible, can give you any real insight about alternatives; about the world.
And I can only hope the way religions propagade itself would be actually in a way of those "numerous" people that you mention, not almost exclusively via molding kids since earliest years - in such case, there wouldn't much religion to speak of.
The only thing I'm sorry about in this context is that one can't exactly destroy gods, something which doesn't exist in the first place. Toying with social constructs keeping them "alive" can be still fun, but...
And religion told us to worship notable trees on hills. Why don't you do it, how can you justify it?
"Solution" mentioned by you and promoted by Catholic Church of course totally disregards human nature, reality. Nvm that fact shows nicely how valid other claims can be - it's also directly responsible for great amount of suffering which has an easy and proven solution. But that's really only convenient, as far as continuing survival of given faith in places kept backward goes...
You make another typical idiocy BTW - "we're responsible for what's good, we're inseperable part of that; bad things...uhm, why are you looking at us, it's just satan / human nature! We didn't mean those things with talk about how inseparable..."
Generally, attaching to religions any authority in regards to what's moral, etc. demonstrably can't be justified. Look at countries which are best in "nice" societal factors, crime, etc.; look also at their level of secularism. Now check how the most religious places end up.
Let's be clear here - you might wave the official PR, but it's BS; I can know perfectly well, being from a country which is officially 90+% Catholic.
Also writers of that PR, before working on it, were hammered (they the most, actually) with dogmas for many years, since their earliest years.
More precisely, the second B should be "It says it was written by none other than God himself!"; even more full of it.
And you can't remember any bounds beyonds which they wouldn't venture without the risk of suddenly becoming, essentially, "confused"?...
There are dogmas beyond which you (or "we" actually, at least a bit, if some Orthodox have their say) won't go, don't pretend otherwise. At least not without some qualitative shift happening regarding what given individual thinks.
Work of theologians focuses on trying to bypass doubts about things which...are the self imposed essence of existence for those people; don't ever forget about that.
Though they do a bit better work than yours "Your other statements are silly and don't warrant a response."...which, to be fair, can't be held much against you; a fairly standard reaction when faithfull get too insecure. Or your constant tries to show the validity of scriptures by pointing out the passages which boil down to "this is evidence, because we say it is" - who are you trying to kid? "Folk faith doesn't matter" is also one of the more ridiculous things people say in support of the social systems in which they were caught.
"Just because 'all' religions claim something and discredit other religions which also claim the same thing does not disprove any religion."
^If you reallt think so, that also must mean you think claims of your religion are basically worthless; given countless religions (not only present, also those which died out) which often weren't merely wrong, also strictly evil
Sure, go into "definitions" of gods which dismiss the possibility of gaining insight about them - but while doing so be aware that those are quite modern concepts, made to dodge progress happening around. For most of human history, gods were very much more palpable.
Your example with Ptolemy is quite funny btw - our understanding, in the case of cosmology, improved with more data available; it hasn't become more complicated at all - it strives to explain new observations in the simplest way possible.
In contrast, the concept of gods took the other direction - more and more transitory the more we know.
Just because you were led to think its impossible to wrap one's head around those ideas, well...don't kid yourself you made any effort in answering "teh ultimate question" in any way - it's almost a certainty that you simply went with something because your legal guardians in your formative years told you so.
Actually, this leads to one interesting conclusion - the only reason why anybody would be even exposed (in notable amounts; studying countless extinct old religions is quite a niche...) to the first sentence is because it's a part of one religious construct, which ended up more adapted for survival than its competition. Various social constructs; with various properties; sometimes allowing progress, sometimes not.
None of those effects are their goal (indeed there is no goal). That doesn't stop efforts at expansion, efforts at forcing what is perceived as values driving those constructs; which can be a problem.
And you might take your feeling or emotions on faith; but they are just decently well understood (and easily manipulated) biochemical processes in our brains. To be simply accepted (or not, self-manipulating more basic mechanisms of our mind often has quite impressive results)
"The" defenders of science, btw? Plus by now it should be clear at least some consider this "other" adaptation, discussed here, can be also fine per se; as long as it doesn't get too...needy. The experiment must first have an opportunity to be performed.
Though what's the deal with deflector dish in that case?
One would hope they could leave it mostly blank for a few days, to maintain some balance...
"Forward mass neutralizers"?...