Ok, those papers are definately research, but how many of them were funded by Google? Many I see were written long before google was ever founded, they all have the date on them, go see for yourself.
You see this is a public relations gimmick.
Google wants to hire these brilliant AI researchers so that they can improve their search engine. I bet you *none* of the new research makes it to public science journals and the like, that would be like handing their trade secrets over to Microsoft. Only the junk research that google feels was a waste of time will be posted on that page.
I'm just giving you the businessman's perspective.
No, you look at labs.google.com tell me how any of that is research? They call it the lab for public relations reasons. Making an image search utility is not research, neither is buying picassa, or buying a mapping company, it simply isn't research, it's capital investment.
Bell spent billions on research, the "apple man" voice was invented at bell labs, they did a whole lot of voice synthesis research that I am familiar with. They did a lot of other stuff, I am not as familiar with, but voice synthesis, voice recognition, that is research. They were on the cutting edge as a matter of fact.
I think there is supporting evidence that Microsoft actually does do valuable research, I'm not one of these anti-MS zealots, they could do more though. Bill Gates donates a lot of money to charity which is noble of him also.
Google doesn't do any research. What does google do? They may facilitate research with their books.google.com and whatnot, but everything they do is money motivated. They make huge amounts of money. If your feelings were accurate google would be spending a lot more on research.
There is a lot of research that goes on you just never hear about it. How about http://www.stirlingengine.com/ or http://www.nanosolar.com/ ?? Those companies founders are risking it all, and if they fail, you'll never hear about it.
My ex had a geo. She got in an accident once where she was sandwiched between two cars, the car in front had a dented bumper, the car in back had a dented bumper and hood, her geo the dashboard was 6 inches closer to her face, the entire car was squashed. The car wasn't exactly sandwiched, it was hit from behind and then slammed into the car in front. She could have been killed if the accident was a bit worse.
Point I'm trying to make is how many MPG would the geo get if it were reinforced?
Yeah, where do you think that fossil fuel notion came from? I figure it was the tar pits on found on the surface. No real skeptical look has been taken at this, ever. That's a shame.
I think the reason people are reluctant to take a look now is simply because they think oil is harmful, while if oil were cheap enough (which it will be once alternative energy sources are widely competitive) then there would be no need to burn it, while we develop alternative energy sources we're also developing ways to make oil more eco-friendly.
I was wondering about that, it seems like edison would still need extra petrol generator capacity in case there were not enough sun for a few days (either that or a gigantic battery). I think there would be less demand for energy when there is not much sunlight, the temperature is cooler and people switch over to their furnace.
This is what I meant, the information was not available to the engineers. You could say the engineers should have understood the reactor design better, but I think a better solution would be a reactors that knows itself better, put more sensors over there, if any of the sensors fail, as is the case with the space shuttle, the thing has to be turned off and the sensors fixed, that way these accidents don't slip by unnoticed.
Besides that, I read a lot about Chernobyl and there were a lot of people in the surrounding area that weren't evacuated soon enough, many birth defects in the coming years, leukemia and all that, but the real sick part was how the soviets forced young men to go in there and clean it up, most of them died early. These days robots would be more effective, they would probably just encase the whole thing in concrete like they did with those islands in the south pacific where they tested the H-bombs.
Yeah I say we just use the cheapest designs. 30 years ago they had guys sitting at a station monitoring the reactor, Homer Simpson style. From what I've read, both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island could have been prevented with better sensors. Three mile island didn't coolant leak and nobody knew about it or something? Sounds like the reactor designs are perfectly fine, it's just a matter of using the latest technology to make it cheaper and safer at the same time, like Elon Musk is doing with his SpaceX company.
Iran may be more stable than other nations, but the fact that the foreignpolicy.com study ranked Iran much lower on the list doesn't really mean anything to me. It seems like an attempt to give credit to the UN for action in the Ivory Coast while ignoring other countries like Rwanda, by biased individuals. The study seems flawed in that it gives equal weight to all of their chosen indicators. I can think of a few things that aught to be added, countries with closed borders aught to all be bumped up a few points, countries with secret police, censorship agencies, poor public education, all that, but those are cloudy areas because they actually lend themselves to the aura of stability. If someone in Iran made it into the head of government position who wanted to reform everything, open the borders and join the international community, they would be assasinated and that could destroy any sense of stability overnight. There has been this debate in government since vietnam, some people prefer to go by the numbers and others prefer to go by intuition, and a consensus of opinions. In this case I think the numbers are misleading, and the numbers dodge the issue at hand of nuclear proliferation.
The point I was making about Iran is that it is that we can fix the problem with precision weapons, unlike WW2 when we would go in there with an army, or a sky full of B-52's. There would be hardly any loss of life, compared to decades ago when we would have to obliterate the entire area, during daylight hours when the facility was crowded with people. That is the point I was making. Apparently you give the Iranian government a lot of credit, while we hear reports that one of those hostage crisis kidnappers is now running Iran, it makes me uneasy. They may want to use a nuke as bargaining power, they may be taking advantage of the United States poor public approval ratings, they may want to destroy israel. Any of those could be true. Germany during WW2 doesn't even compare to this. Germany was a war machine, their entire infrastructure was dedicated to making war. Besides, you can't rebuild a uranium enrichment facility as easily as a chemical depot. You make it sound like Iran will destroy us all if that scenario plays out. If you look closer, you will find that Iran would have very few options, any military backlash would most likely result in massive public unrest, which is their number one enemy. Their strategy is most likely profit off of the resulting negative worldview and flurry of terrorism and what not. It's truly a win-win situation for them, but you have to consider how dangerous a nuclear Iran is, you just think they will become a civil nation with accountability in their government once they go nuclear?
I am familiar with foreignpolicy.com, too bad they don't update more often.
Warmaking is wasteful from a microeconomic perspective, but given your reasoning police are also an economic waste. Without police, we would be paying higher prices, the mafia would rise up as the most powerful force in the country. The same applies to the world economy, we actually have a lot to gain from these countries we've taken over in the middle east, aside from the obvious oil, there is the residual cost of babysitting all of them out there, they would take their toll eventually, so it's an investment in the future like you say, perhaps someday we won't have any need for manned airbases in the middle east, hell, we may not even need so many aircraft carriers, don't those each cost over a billion every year to operate? One thing I'd like to add is that from an economic perspective, OPEC keeps prices high enough for their own interests, but if they were to charge $100+ per barrel of oil, you would start to see the energy industry transform around renewable sources, and in general I think it's good for things to take their natural course, but in this case I think oil should be forced obsolete, it's obvious now that there are potentially cheaper alternatives, wind and solar power, I'm still waiting for geothermal power to be advanced, solar is on the verge of a revolution (www.nanosolar.com), so this investment in the future is definately not in mother earth's future, and hence oil shouldn't even be taken into consideration, only world peace. I'm undecidied personally, only time will tell whether it was a good choice.
The pain and death is a valid point to consider also, that usually is not given enough consideration, but we have gotten a lot better at war over the years, that aught to make it more justifiable in certain instances, for instance I don't think there is any question of what to do with Iran but destroy their nuclear reactor with cruise missiles, a little pain and suffering for big returns later on, unless of course you trust Iran, heh.;)
I have read theories that life started on other planets and got transported here but it still needed to start on that planet some how. The truth is I don't care where it started I care how it started. If life first showed up as some sort of energy being with god like powers then fine but how did that happen. If life started as some sort of living computer made out of silicon then cool but how did that happen.
I'm not so concerned with the origin of life in general, it would be interesting to know everything about the universe, but I think a much more interesting topic would be the how, when and why of human life, earth-based DNA, or whatever roots we can trace human existence back to. Wouldn't it be interesting to find the notebook of some interstellar Johnny Appleseed?
Throwing the ketchup directly onto the chips works best when you're driving with one hand, squirting all the ketchup into a pile to be dipped is dangerous, it usually ends up all over the floor. I wish they would start putting ketchup in those little BBQ sauce containers. Damn it!
10 years ago listening to rap music and heavy metal would get you into jail because you'd go kill people. Crime rates drop.
Your reasoning is a bit flawed here. Crack was running rampant all through the 80s, which probably caused a lot of crime, the economy did quite well during the 90s. Rap music encourages people to carry guns and stuff, it's definately doing harm, ask Bill Cosby, the most notable critic.
Reading comic books would turn you into a criminal, since it was the preferred activity of juvenile delinquents. (Or, at least the three that were studied.)
Heh, I don't know about you, but I read the punisher comic books. Now I've got this unhealthy obsession with guns (well some would consider it unhealthy, I think they're fun, and I probably had the obsession long before reading punisher comic books). I certainly wouldn't want my kids to see the sort of perverted comics coming out of Japan, with graphic depictions of women being raped. I can't tell you how many anime I've seen with some intrusive tentacle scene.
I don't have an objection to violent video games, its the parents job to watch out for their kids, and kids shouldn't be allowed to buy MA video games behind parents backs, but I do definately agree that video games hardly do any good for society. Kids should be out breaking their legs and stuff, lighting things on fire, heh heh.
QM is an interesting theory, sure. But if you take this on faith, that it is impossible for you to teleport 1 inch to the left, certainly impossible without directly manipulating the universe, it may lead you to a better, more detailed conclusion.
As far as primordial goo goes, if we were created and planted here, that doesn't just shift the problem of spontaneous self-replicators somewhere else, since the conditions for life were thought out relative to this planet. It could be that life came with the universe. There are a number of other possibilities you haven't considered. I just wish more people were open to these possibilities. I haven't made up my mind about ID, I am certainly leaning toward it, but as far as I'm concerned QM does little if anything to refute other people's religious beliefs, I think I agree with Einstein, "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -March 24, 1954
I'm sure Einstein would be the biggest skeptic of QM if he were alive today.
These kids that play video games all day might as well be locked up in a dark cellar and have no contact with the outside world. My parents never liked me playing video games and I didn't understand why, I would still go out and play, video games weren't all that great back then (Nintendo 8bit), these days all my little brother ever does is play video games, Halo 2 and all those advanced games can really suck you in to an alternate universe. Now my Mom wants me to get him to do other stuff, I hooked him up with a bunch of D&D geeks, he meets a girl who plays D&D, this weekend I'm helping him replace the alternator on his car. I agree now that video games must be taken in moderation. I have friends, 24 year old friends, who play MMORPG's every day, they want me to play with them. Those MMORPG's are like crack!
Nobody mentioned JC or the good book, Retric. You're putting those words in my mouth, we're talking about ID here which doesn't really have so much to do with Christianity.
I'm saying QM is a new theory, sure it makes a lot of sense, but there may very well be a good reason why I won't instantly teleport across the galaxy. You need to accept science for what it is, it is not the antithesis of the bible. You sound like you're promoting QM as the end all of end all's.
I am one who can't accept that self assemblers just spontaneously blipped into existence from a primordial soup. There are enough complex parts that it is the same situation with the random possibility that I might teleport across the galaxy. The chances are so slim that common sense will tell me it's impossible. At some point you can draw the line and say it'll never happen, especially in the relatively small lifetime of the planet earth. The chances that a meteor will land on my head right now are astronomical in comparison. So how life ended up on planet earth is anybody's guess, you sound convinced of the primordial goo hypothesis. CPU's were built by man, you're not supporting your argument very well with that example. I'm not argueing against QM here, get that straight.
Bill Gates has always been the one at the wheel, all the really good ideas either came from him, or met his approval. You should give the guy credit, he will go down in history, first and foremost, as the richest guy in the world from 199x - 20xx, but second, he was the CEO of Microsoft and shaped the modern day OS as we know it.
Actually, according to the Mormons, I'm still going to heaven:) I imagine you'll end up in heaven too, probably in a lower kingdom than me, along with the rest of the lesser mortals.
though you are very anxious to portray me as "liberal", though the only "ideology" I have described is the Christian one, which abhors violence.
You went off on right wing radio talk show hosts a few posts ago. That means you're a liberal.
Point I made, long time ago, is that Christians don't "abhor" violence like you think, there is violence all over the Bible, some are evil some are not.
Now you still can't get past the fact that I'm not a Christian. This is wierd, I am starting to feel like a Christian, "Oh God, the liberals are coming after me!"
...about whether people go to church to be told not to murder or beat people.
Can't you see it? That was the answer to your simple question. I can't speak for all Christians, but I'll tell you what I remember from Mormon church, the last time I was there was about 10 years ago, people go up and talk about God, they talk about doing community service and stuff, they give their "testimony", which is basically their experiences when they had a good feeling and they thought it was God. I can't imagine someone getting up and saying some liberal bullshit like "War is bad! There are Christians over there who think they're fighting the crusades! They're evil!" what kind of fucking church is that, man!?
You just don't know anything about Christianity, just drop it. You're an idiot. You remind me of this episode of Seinfeld, where Jerry is at a party with this girl he never called back, and she goes off on him, "Liar! Liar!" then starts ranting like a psychopath. You need help. What is that inflatable clown shit? I think I'll stop talking now, lets see if you can beat me to it.
You're done, because you're repeating exactly the same fallacies I've been calling you on since you floated to the surface here. You're in denial of Christians committing acts of violence, like the people in Iraq who talk like they're on a Christian crusade, or the people who beat gay Matthew Sheperd to death, or the people who shoot abortion doctors, or the Christian militias across America, or the Christians threatening to kill people who publicly demonstrate art, politics or anything else that draws the ire of the right-wing radio hosts they worship.
... and the Christians that robbed those people in New York last night, and the Christian that abducted that little girl, raped and killer her, and the Christian who killed himself at church, and the Christian who blew up the Oklahoma City building.
You see how you've lost touch with reality, Doc? If anybody went to church to hear someone tell them not to murder people, or to beat gays, there would be something wrong!
I'm pointing out that you are WAY off to the left, you've lost touch with reality, you're living in your own little universe where Christianity is to blame for all of society's problems. You got defensive real quick because I present such a simple argument, you're WAY off track man. Go get some sleep.
Shows how much you know, I'm not even a Christian, let alone a "modern" Christian. Now all of a sudden you know everything about Christians, and you can spot a Christian from 1000 miles away.
One thing I can safely say is that you're an Atheist, nobody but at Atheist could be so presumptive. As far as I'm concerned Atheists accept the same fallacious reasoning that creationists do, that they know everything about everything.
Now, I don't know what violent acts you're talking about, that were committed in the name of God, other than the radical extremists bombing and shooting at American soldiers in Iraq, or innocent people in London, apparently that is done in the name of God, but it is not the Christian god.
Listen to this. There is a lot of justification in the Bible for violence, God destroyed entire cities, in fact, he destroyed the entire world by drowning everybody but Noah, because they were all sinners. You're mixing politics and religion, or at least you're trying to. I'm not even sensing you know much about current events. I'm done here.
Slashdot Mirror
You see this is a public relations gimmick.
Google wants to hire these brilliant AI researchers so that they can improve their search engine. I bet you *none* of the new research makes it to public science journals and the like, that would be like handing their trade secrets over to Microsoft. Only the junk research that google feels was a waste of time will be posted on that page.
I'm just giving you the businessman's perspective.
Bell spent billions on research, the "apple man" voice was invented at bell labs, they did a whole lot of voice synthesis research that I am familiar with. They did a lot of other stuff, I am not as familiar with, but voice synthesis, voice recognition, that is research. They were on the cutting edge as a matter of fact.
I think there is supporting evidence that Microsoft actually does do valuable research, I'm not one of these anti-MS zealots, they could do more though. Bill Gates donates a lot of money to charity which is noble of him also.
There is a lot of research that goes on you just never hear about it. How about http://www.stirlingengine.com/ or http://www.nanosolar.com/ ?? Those companies founders are risking it all, and if they fail, you'll never hear about it.
Point I'm trying to make is how many MPG would the geo get if it were reinforced?
I think the reason people are reluctant to take a look now is simply because they think oil is harmful, while if oil were cheap enough (which it will be once alternative energy sources are widely competitive) then there would be no need to burn it, while we develop alternative energy sources we're also developing ways to make oil more eco-friendly.
I was wondering about that, it seems like edison would still need extra petrol generator capacity in case there were not enough sun for a few days (either that or a gigantic battery). I think there would be less demand for energy when there is not much sunlight, the temperature is cooler and people switch over to their furnace.
This is what I meant, the information was not available to the engineers. You could say the engineers should have understood the reactor design better, but I think a better solution would be a reactors that knows itself better, put more sensors over there, if any of the sensors fail, as is the case with the space shuttle, the thing has to be turned off and the sensors fixed, that way these accidents don't slip by unnoticed.
Besides that, I read a lot about Chernobyl and there were a lot of people in the surrounding area that weren't evacuated soon enough, many birth defects in the coming years, leukemia and all that, but the real sick part was how the soviets forced young men to go in there and clean it up, most of them died early. These days robots would be more effective, they would probably just encase the whole thing in concrete like they did with those islands in the south pacific where they tested the H-bombs.
Yeah I say we just use the cheapest designs. 30 years ago they had guys sitting at a station monitoring the reactor, Homer Simpson style. From what I've read, both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island could have been prevented with better sensors. Three mile island didn't coolant leak and nobody knew about it or something? Sounds like the reactor designs are perfectly fine, it's just a matter of using the latest technology to make it cheaper and safer at the same time, like Elon Musk is doing with his SpaceX company.
Iran may be more stable than other nations, but the fact that the foreignpolicy.com study ranked Iran much lower on the list doesn't really mean anything to me. It seems like an attempt to give credit to the UN for action in the Ivory Coast while ignoring other countries like Rwanda, by biased individuals. The study seems flawed in that it gives equal weight to all of their chosen indicators. I can think of a few things that aught to be added, countries with closed borders aught to all be bumped up a few points, countries with secret police, censorship agencies, poor public education, all that, but those are cloudy areas because they actually lend themselves to the aura of stability. If someone in Iran made it into the head of government position who wanted to reform everything, open the borders and join the international community, they would be assasinated and that could destroy any sense of stability overnight. There has been this debate in government since vietnam, some people prefer to go by the numbers and others prefer to go by intuition, and a consensus of opinions. In this case I think the numbers are misleading, and the numbers dodge the issue at hand of nuclear proliferation.
The point I was making about Iran is that it is that we can fix the problem with precision weapons, unlike WW2 when we would go in there with an army, or a sky full of B-52's. There would be hardly any loss of life, compared to decades ago when we would have to obliterate the entire area, during daylight hours when the facility was crowded with people. That is the point I was making. Apparently you give the Iranian government a lot of credit, while we hear reports that one of those hostage crisis kidnappers is now running Iran, it makes me uneasy. They may want to use a nuke as bargaining power, they may be taking advantage of the United States poor public approval ratings, they may want to destroy israel. Any of those could be true. Germany during WW2 doesn't even compare to this. Germany was a war machine, their entire infrastructure was dedicated to making war. Besides, you can't rebuild a uranium enrichment facility as easily as a chemical depot. You make it sound like Iran will destroy us all if that scenario plays out. If you look closer, you will find that Iran would have very few options, any military backlash would most likely result in massive public unrest, which is their number one enemy. Their strategy is most likely profit off of the resulting negative worldview and flurry of terrorism and what not. It's truly a win-win situation for them, but you have to consider how dangerous a nuclear Iran is, you just think they will become a civil nation with accountability in their government once they go nuclear?
I am familiar with foreignpolicy.com, too bad they don't update more often.
Oh great, now I don't have to read the book to know how it ends :)
The pain and death is a valid point to consider also, that usually is not given enough consideration, but we have gotten a lot better at war over the years, that aught to make it more justifiable in certain instances, for instance I don't think there is any question of what to do with Iran but destroy their nuclear reactor with cruise missiles, a little pain and suffering for big returns later on, unless of course you trust Iran, heh. ;)
I have read theories that life started on other planets and got transported here but it still needed to start on that planet some how. The truth is I don't care where it started I care how it started. If life first showed up as some sort of energy being with god like powers then fine but how did that happen. If life started as some sort of living computer made out of silicon then cool but how did that happen.
I'm not so concerned with the origin of life in general, it would be interesting to know everything about the universe, but I think a much more interesting topic would be the how, when and why of human life, earth-based DNA, or whatever roots we can trace human existence back to. Wouldn't it be interesting to find the notebook of some interstellar Johnny Appleseed?
Throwing the ketchup directly onto the chips works best when you're driving with one hand, squirting all the ketchup into a pile to be dipped is dangerous, it usually ends up all over the floor. I wish they would start putting ketchup in those little BBQ sauce containers. Damn it!
Your reasoning is a bit flawed here. Crack was running rampant all through the 80s, which probably caused a lot of crime, the economy did quite well during the 90s. Rap music encourages people to carry guns and stuff, it's definately doing harm, ask Bill Cosby, the most notable critic.
Reading comic books would turn you into a criminal, since it was the preferred activity of juvenile delinquents. (Or, at least the three that were studied.)
Heh, I don't know about you, but I read the punisher comic books. Now I've got this unhealthy obsession with guns (well some would consider it unhealthy, I think they're fun, and I probably had the obsession long before reading punisher comic books). I certainly wouldn't want my kids to see the sort of perverted comics coming out of Japan, with graphic depictions of women being raped. I can't tell you how many anime I've seen with some intrusive tentacle scene.
I don't have an objection to violent video games, its the parents job to watch out for their kids, and kids shouldn't be allowed to buy MA video games behind parents backs, but I do definately agree that video games hardly do any good for society. Kids should be out breaking their legs and stuff, lighting things on fire, heh heh.
As far as primordial goo goes, if we were created and planted here, that doesn't just shift the problem of spontaneous self-replicators somewhere else, since the conditions for life were thought out relative to this planet. It could be that life came with the universe. There are a number of other possibilities you haven't considered. I just wish more people were open to these possibilities. I haven't made up my mind about ID, I am certainly leaning toward it, but as far as I'm concerned QM does little if anything to refute other people's religious beliefs, I think I agree with Einstein, "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -March 24, 1954
I'm sure Einstein would be the biggest skeptic of QM if he were alive today.
Who's gonna coach them on having sex, you? You must have forgotten what it's like to be a kid. Let kids be kids.
These kids that play video games all day might as well be locked up in a dark cellar and have no contact with the outside world. My parents never liked me playing video games and I didn't understand why, I would still go out and play, video games weren't all that great back then (Nintendo 8bit), these days all my little brother ever does is play video games, Halo 2 and all those advanced games can really suck you in to an alternate universe. Now my Mom wants me to get him to do other stuff, I hooked him up with a bunch of D&D geeks, he meets a girl who plays D&D, this weekend I'm helping him replace the alternator on his car. I agree now that video games must be taken in moderation. I have friends, 24 year old friends, who play MMORPG's every day, they want me to play with them. Those MMORPG's are like crack!
I'm saying QM is a new theory, sure it makes a lot of sense, but there may very well be a good reason why I won't instantly teleport across the galaxy. You need to accept science for what it is, it is not the antithesis of the bible. You sound like you're promoting QM as the end all of end all's.
I am one who can't accept that self assemblers just spontaneously blipped into existence from a primordial soup. There are enough complex parts that it is the same situation with the random possibility that I might teleport across the galaxy. The chances are so slim that common sense will tell me it's impossible. At some point you can draw the line and say it'll never happen, especially in the relatively small lifetime of the planet earth. The chances that a meteor will land on my head right now are astronomical in comparison. So how life ended up on planet earth is anybody's guess, you sound convinced of the primordial goo hypothesis. CPU's were built by man, you're not supporting your argument very well with that example. I'm not argueing against QM here, get that straight.
Bill Gates has always been the one at the wheel, all the really good ideas either came from him, or met his approval. You should give the guy credit, he will go down in history, first and foremost, as the richest guy in the world from 199x - 20xx, but second, he was the CEO of Microsoft and shaped the modern day OS as we know it.
Now you still can't get past the fact that I'm not a Christian. This is wierd, I am starting to feel like a Christian, "Oh God, the liberals are coming after me!"
Can't you see it? That was the answer to your simple question. I can't speak for all Christians, but I'll tell you what I remember from Mormon church, the last time I was there was about 10 years ago, people go up and talk about God, they talk about doing community service and stuff, they give their "testimony", which is basically their experiences when they had a good feeling and they thought it was God. I can't imagine someone getting up and saying some liberal bullshit like "War is bad! There are Christians over there who think they're fighting the crusades! They're evil!" what kind of fucking church is that, man!?
You just don't know anything about Christianity, just drop it. You're an idiot. You remind me of this episode of Seinfeld, where Jerry is at a party with this girl he never called back, and she goes off on him, "Liar! Liar!" then starts ranting like a psychopath. You need help. What is that inflatable clown shit? I think I'll stop talking now, lets see if you can beat me to it.
You see how you've lost touch with reality, Doc? If anybody went to church to hear someone tell them not to murder people, or to beat gays, there would be something wrong!
I'm pointing out that you are WAY off to the left, you've lost touch with reality, you're living in your own little universe where Christianity is to blame for all of society's problems. You got defensive real quick because I present such a simple argument, you're WAY off track man. Go get some sleep.
One thing I can safely say is that you're an Atheist, nobody but at Atheist could be so presumptive. As far as I'm concerned Atheists accept the same fallacious reasoning that creationists do, that they know everything about everything.
Now, I don't know what violent acts you're talking about, that were committed in the name of God, other than the radical extremists bombing and shooting at American soldiers in Iraq, or innocent people in London, apparently that is done in the name of God, but it is not the Christian god.
Listen to this. There is a lot of justification in the Bible for violence, God destroyed entire cities, in fact, he destroyed the entire world by drowning everybody but Noah, because they were all sinners. You're mixing politics and religion, or at least you're trying to. I'm not even sensing you know much about current events. I'm done here.