And yet there you are, stuck with the contrasting levels of religous belief between scientists in the UK and India. It's almost as if atheism is irrelevent to pursuing a career in science. Of course that's correct.
Very widely indeed, because it would be a major faux pas for one Hindu to ask a another "Do you really believe in all this? Say you do!" Instead, people are not asked about what they feel deep inside, so they are free to believe whatever they wish. This is what makes Hinduism so inclusive and, over time, so syncretic.
Not asking isn't the same as not making an evaluation. I'm also somewhat amused by the intimation that Hindus don't discuss religion. They certainly do evangelize.
What makes Hinduism so "inclusive" and syncretic is incorporating external religious figures or practices into Hinduism. Unfortunately this tends to distort the incorporated figure beyond recognition. The "Jesus" that is incorporated by many into Hinduism is not the same Jesus of Christianity. They are incompatible.
I think you are overstating the prominence of atheists as a component of the Hindu faith community.
Neither a plane ticket to India nor speaking with educated Indian atheists is necessary to understand social religion, or state religion. It's something that has been around a while.
"They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power." - 2 Timothy 3:5
How widely do you think that Hindus accept their ritual without belief as Hinduism? I doubt it is universal. All they really are is atheists performing socially accepted rituals.
...interviews with scientists revealed that while 65 percent of U.K. scientists identify as nonreligious, only 6 percent of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious. In addition, while only 12 percent of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services on a regular basis — once a month or more — 32 percent of scientists in India do.
Science and atheism - correlation is not causation.
Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)
Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time.
The US affordable care act was a mere 2,000 pages long and is spawning tens or hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations governing, regulating, taxing, and reshaping American healthcare. Next to that the development of regulation to govern all aspects of the internet, world wide web, and its many manifestations is peanuts. It will probably be about as successful as the "Affordable" Care Act, AKA Obamacare, but it can be done none the less. That should suggest to you that nobody should give them the idea of actually do it if we want to avoid a fiasco.
No, this is all about some pretend thing in their heads that they're special enough to kill and yet smart enough to be hidden. The truth is most people are aware of how unimportant they are as a target and don't even attempt to hide themselves.
Do you think that journalists and aid workers are so unimportant as to not be targets? It seems that ISIS disagrees with you.
The CIA/NSA/FBI all take advantage of this, have a certain level of loathing of the "sheep", and don't want to be placed into the same category because it fundamentally goes against their feelings of superiority of not being so "stupid".
Maybe what it actually goes against is their attachment to their head?
Honestly, "operational security", "ongoing investigation", and "national security" are the words of cowards more often than a real and meaningful thing used to actual protect the populace at large. And I should know as an Anonymous Coward, right?
Even though they can be and have been abused at times, what they are in fact are genuine issues that have to be dealt with by people in responsible positions in government. The fact that you don't deal with that demonstrate your post is disingenuous nonsense.
You do realize that many predicted dates for "peak oil" are in the past, many are in the future, and that it hasn't happened yet? No, I guess you don't.
If you think that Artic or deep ocean oil is expensive, try going completely without and let us know how expensive that is. Which economy will you ruin, who will you starve, to do without?
Every tree planted reduced CO2. Are you advocating the planting trees, or just cutting off oil?
Alternative energy sources and new technology can decrease our dependency on oil, do you back them?
The Soviets were enormous liars, far more than the US. It is practically night and day. If you aren't clear on that point it seems likely that you don't know enough of the history. I don't think that being high on pot would be enough to blur the distinction.
You don't have to feel sorry for agreeing with me that the date for "peak oil" pushed out.
But if you want a proper date for "peak oil" you need to incorporate the other recent finds and reclamations made possible by improving technology. Of course where it gets really interesting is if one of the projects pursuing various forms of hydrocarbon synthesis pays off.
Why didn't they just ask Federico Faggin? According to Wikipedia, he's still alive.
Maybe its time for:
Interviews: Federico Faggin Answers Your Questions Last week you had the chance to pose questions to Federico Faggin.... father of Intel's 4004 43 years ago...
The man is very accomplished and has an amazing history.
I guess that moderator didn't want us to know why the US relied so heavily on nuclear arms. Either that or it was an offended fan of communism, the bloodiest ideology of the modern age.
Back during Cold War I, one of the big TV networks made a movie about nuclear war (and aftermath) called The Day After. Every sane and rational person should watch it every 5 or 10 years to remind themselves of the horrific nature of nuclear war.
That's fine, but those same people should also watch The Soviet Story so they know what we were defending against. The Soviet Union was far more dangerous than Nazi Germany, and it killed far more people. At the end the Soviet Union wasn't as bloody or oppressive as it had been, but the system was the same and only lacked a new leader to go back to the old ways.
Anyone watching that movie should also be aware that is was made while the nuclear freeze and disarmament movement as part of the "peace movement" in the West was in full swing, and of the Soviet Union's funding, influence, and control over various parts of the "peace movement" and nuclear freeze campaigns. The Soviets did this as an act of political warfare to hinder NATO in matching previous Soviet build ups of its nuclear forces in Europe, and US nuclear force modernization.
A parallel effort of political warfare against the US was the Soviet propaganda that the US created the AIDs virus. There are still people that believe that, some even have posted it on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
The interesting question is whether the UK would give the islands to Argentina over the objection of the colonists.
And yet there you are, stuck with the contrasting levels of religous belief between scientists in the UK and India. It's almost as if atheism is irrelevent to pursuing a career in science. Of course that's correct.
Trademen were paid in pounds, gentlement in guineas.
Are you announcing that the UK is giving the Falklands to Argentina?
The line holds.
Indian scientists significantly more religious than UK scientists
Very widely indeed, because it would be a major faux pas for one Hindu to ask a another "Do you really believe in all this? Say you do!" Instead, people are not asked about what they feel deep inside, so they are free to believe whatever they wish. This is what makes Hinduism so inclusive and, over time, so syncretic.
Not asking isn't the same as not making an evaluation. I'm also somewhat amused by the intimation that Hindus don't discuss religion. They certainly do evangelize.
What makes Hinduism so "inclusive" and syncretic is incorporating external religious figures or practices into Hinduism. Unfortunately this tends to distort the incorporated figure beyond recognition. The "Jesus" that is incorporated by many into Hinduism is not the same Jesus of Christianity. They are incompatible.
I think you are overstating the prominence of atheists as a component of the Hindu faith community.
Neither a plane ticket to India nor speaking with educated Indian atheists is necessary to understand social religion, or state religion. It's something that has been around a while.
"They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power." - 2 Timothy 3:5
How widely do you think that Hindus accept their ritual without belief as Hinduism? I doubt it is universal. All they really are is atheists performing socially accepted rituals.
Hindu fundamentalists vs. Hinduism: Column
One thing to keep in mind when looking at those statistics is that Hinduism and atheism are compatible.
Much like bicycles and fish.
An alien lands on Earth and finds it odd that all the scientists of our planet are trending towards atheism....
Maybe in the West, but not necessarily in the rest of the world.
Indian scientists significantly more religious than UK scientists
...interviews with scientists revealed that while 65 percent of U.K. scientists identify as nonreligious, only 6 percent of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious. In addition, while only 12 percent of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services on a regular basis — once a month or more — 32 percent of scientists in India do.
Science and atheism - correlation is not causation.
If "peak oil" was in 2008 you better tell the Lefties at The Nation, they apparently didn't get the memo
Peak Oil Is Dead. Long Live Peak Oil!
A note to the Guardian might be helpful as well.
We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all
Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)
Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time.
The US affordable care act was a mere 2,000 pages long and is spawning tens or hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations governing, regulating, taxing, and reshaping American healthcare. Next to that the development of regulation to govern all aspects of the internet, world wide web, and its many manifestations is peanuts. It will probably be about as successful as the "Affordable" Care Act, AKA Obamacare, but it can be done none the less. That should suggest to you that nobody should give them the idea of actually do it if we want to avoid a fiasco.
How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?
Applause >
No, this is all about some pretend thing in their heads that they're special enough to kill and yet smart enough to be hidden. The truth is most people are aware of how unimportant they are as a target and don't even attempt to hide themselves.
Do you think that journalists and aid workers are so unimportant as to not be targets? It seems that ISIS disagrees with you.
Jihadi John: FBI 'identifies' Isis militant who 'beheaded' British aid worker David Haines and US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff
If they can be targets, why not CIA/NSA/FBI officers?
And it isn't just an overseas threat.
Oklahoma Beheading Suspect Shared Photos of Himself Giving ISIS Salute
The CIA/NSA/FBI all take advantage of this, have a certain level of loathing of the "sheep", and don't want to be placed into the same category because it fundamentally goes against their feelings of superiority of not being so "stupid".
Maybe what it actually goes against is their attachment to their head?
Honestly, "operational security", "ongoing investigation", and "national security" are the words of cowards more often than a real and meaningful thing used to actual protect the populace at large. And I should know as an Anonymous Coward, right?
Even though they can be and have been abused at times, what they are in fact are genuine issues that have to be dealt with by people in responsible positions in government. The fact that you don't deal with that demonstrate your post is disingenuous nonsense.
You do realize that many predicted dates for "peak oil" are in the past, many are in the future, and that it hasn't happened yet? No, I guess you don't.
If you think that Artic or deep ocean oil is expensive, try going completely without and let us know how expensive that is. Which economy will you ruin, who will you starve, to do without?
Every tree planted reduced CO2. Are you advocating the planting trees, or just cutting off oil?
Alternative energy sources and new technology can decrease our dependency on oil, do you back them?
What is your concern?
At the moment I would say you seem pretty normal.
"/. kook"?? In other words, a normal person.
I see the word "pipe" in your handle. Does that refer to a crack pipe?
Yet the government (FBI) objects to our desires for privacy (Apple & Google on-phone encryption).
No, they don't object to the desire for privacy. What they object to is not being able to get the unencrypted data with a warrant.
Your post misstates the matter.
The Soviets were enormous liars, far more than the US. It is practically night and day. If you aren't clear on that point it seems likely that you don't know enough of the history. I don't think that being high on pot would be enough to blur the distinction.
You don't have to feel sorry for agreeing with me that the date for "peak oil" pushed out.
But if you want a proper date for "peak oil" you need to incorporate the other recent finds and reclamations made possible by improving technology. Of course where it gets really interesting is if one of the projects pursuing various forms of hydrocarbon synthesis pays off.
It looks like the date for "peak oil" just pushed out awhile, again.
Why didn't they just ask Federico Faggin? According to Wikipedia, he's still alive.
Maybe its time for:
Interviews: Federico Faggin Answers Your Questions .... father of Intel's 4004 43 years ago...
Last week you had the chance to pose questions to Federico Faggin
The man is very accomplished and has an amazing history.
I guess that moderator didn't want us to know why the US relied so heavily on nuclear arms. Either that or it was an offended fan of communism, the bloodiest ideology of the modern age.
Back during Cold War I, one of the big TV networks made a movie about nuclear war (and aftermath) called The Day After. Every sane and rational person should watch it every 5 or 10 years to remind themselves of the horrific nature of nuclear war.
That's fine, but those same people should also watch The Soviet Story so they know what we were defending against. The Soviet Union was far more dangerous than Nazi Germany, and it killed far more people. At the end the Soviet Union wasn't as bloody or oppressive as it had been, but the system was the same and only lacked a new leader to go back to the old ways.
Anyone watching that movie should also be aware that is was made while the nuclear freeze and disarmament movement as part of the "peace movement" in the West was in full swing, and of the Soviet Union's funding, influence, and control over various parts of the "peace movement" and nuclear freeze campaigns. The Soviets did this as an act of political warfare to hinder NATO in matching previous Soviet build ups of its nuclear forces in Europe, and US nuclear force modernization.
Soviet influence on the peace movement
"Moscow and the Peace, Offensive"
A parallel effort of political warfare against the US was the Soviet propaganda that the US created the AIDs virus. There are still people that believe that, some even have posted it on Slashdot.
Soviets Sponsor Spread of AIDS Disinformation
The Soviets were dangerous liars.
Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press