... That comparing Mac to PC prices on the basis that most computer buyers are not buying a specification. What most people use a computer for can be done on a netbook. Unless you will be using apps that require more horsepower, they're fine.
Many will choose between laptops on budget, screensize, appearance and intangibles.
Mac tend to win on appearance and intangibles, just like some car manufacturers do. If people can afford something the size they need they'll pay more for BMW than Ford; even if in someways the Ford is better.
Apple have built impressive brand values and get a higher margin for it.
Is that even news? Of something other than an acheivement?
Whaddaya want? Them to apologise for making more money selling essentially the samething?
... sorry, but kids circumvented parents attempts to control reading material. Kids can and will circumvent any techy attempts by a parent to control things unless they are dolts and their parents are geeks. And lets face it geeks breed true. The OP says they are not computer savvy so the idea they can win this arms race is silly.
To think parenting via proxy (ho ho) works is just kidding yourself.
Build responsiblity and trust, and take their computer away for a while if they break this by failing in reasonable responsibilities you set them... like getting bad grades.
Micromanagement just means they have to develop responsibility later. They will run a system off a CD, hack the server, hack a local WLAN, take photos of themselves on their phones and MMS them, etc. etc. etc..
"the main factual argument for God is that we are here therefore something must have created us"
That we are here is a supportable observation. Bolting god onto this is unsupported assertion. As it is unsupported, it is not a factual argumnt, QED.
Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.
"So are you saying that those feats are impossible? That a sufficiently advanced civilization could not have seeded the Earth with life, or created our solar system, heck possibly even our own Universe? Maybe they even implanted the idea of a deity into our genes."
I made no assertion of impossibility, so don't even try to put words in my mouth. And as god is, in normal ranges of definitions NOT a part of the material Universe but of a different order of nature altogether, aliens are aliens, god is god.
"Uncertainty is the reality of the situation because we simply do not know."
False uncertainty; we do know there is no evidence for god. This definately is not the same as proving there is no od, which is impossible, QED. But balance of probabilties?
"Just an FYI, I am not a religious person."
No? You seem determined to cling on to the same wooliness of thought that characterises many.
OK, first my bad. I got my parents and grandparents mixed up; I assumed you meant gp of what _I_ replied to, and at that point I was reading your reply on a ickle widy smart phone screen and didn't refer back to the post I replied to, I just relied on memory. I flipped you of to some extent, and got to look silly from it.
Now, are you seriously taking a report (Gallup) that lists ANY country as having 0% sucicide rate as a reliable report, or a sure indiator of a true causative link between religiosity and suicide? Or one where similary irreligious countries have rates of suicide that differ by a multiple of three? (Belgium and the UK, mark you, if I lived in Belgium I might top myself, and I can WALK to Belgium from my house).
And don't you even notice that the left hand column (religiosity 50+) are mostly unidustrialised and the right-hand colum (religiosity 50) are mostly industrialised. Pressures of modern day life as opposed to agarian/traditional? Extended family and support groups vs. nuclear families?
So many variables, playing the god card is just weak.
And a report on Ireland that concludes there WAS an inverse correlation also states "External, social dimensions of religiosity differed more than core beliefs.", which is to say the "actual you-will-burn-in-hell bit" was LESS important than "what will the O'Hara's think".
When you stop ROLFing at my error, can we compare standards of living, education, employment prospects, and the host of other pressures that could influence suidicide, rates rather than assume religion MUST be the only factor influencing suicide figures?
Philosophers can lick my balls, well, provided they are pretty red-heads, but you know what I mean.
There are factual arguments for and against the idea of a God. Philosophy be damned.
Factual arguements for god; none.
Factusl arguments against god; there is no evidence for it.
"However, can you really say with certainty that God does not exist? Can you say that Unicorns do not exist?"
I can say with certainty you did not read the comment you replied to. I covered that.
"Maybe they don't exist now, but do you know if in 200 years they won't be created by man?"
Which means they don't exist now, which is what I meant.
"What does God even mean?"
Try a dictionary.
"Whose version of God? Are you referring to the prime mover who created our Universe? Or the God who seeded our planet with life and created humanity? Or was there a "God" who created the existence of our Planets around our Sun? I don't know and we do not have sufficient knowledge in my opinion."
Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.
Carry on clinging to your presupposition. Enjoy! Your uncertainty is a canard.
Maybe I did not deal with the grandparents stats as I was replying you the parent?
Or is there a new rule you have to deal with ALL arguments above you in the thread?
Nuur...
"First, let's look at the extremes of suicide numbers. The lowest is Haiti, with 0. The highest is Russia with 36.15 per 100,000. Most of the 'low suicide, high religiosity' countries have suicide rates around 0-10, while the opposite extreme is closer to 10-30 (there isn't a direct correlation, so there's a lot more overlap in the source data). So we're talking about a difference between around 0.01% and 0.03% of the population committing suicide. Hardly a massive difference."
Well, as you are assuming I am talking about something in the grandparent rather than the parent... eh? But for the sake of it; correlation is not equal to causation. Can we compare standards of living, education, employment prospects and develop a balanced view rather than a shallow assinine assumption suicide MUST be the only factor effecting suicide figures?
Can you also please show trends from the Communist years and compare them to now, so further demonstrate you have a point? IF you have one?
"The country that they pick to highlight the high suicide rates in non-religious countries is Japan. This is a mistake, because the high suicide rate in Japan has been studied by psychologists for a long time, and is thought to be due to a number of contributory factors, including the high social pressure to conform (which also applies in South Korea, which has a similar suicide rate)."
Hahahaha. You think Japan isn't religious. Tell them, they'll be surprised.
Attendance at church in Europe is the lowest ever, historically speaking, a mere fraction of what it was even twenty years ago.
The US, being founded by religious nut-jobs, is still more religious, and the extremely religious are very vocal. But still the attendance at church is at a all-time low. To quote from the links below;
"From 1992 to 2003, average attendance at a typical church service has dropped by 13% whereas the population of America has increased by 9%!"
For well over half of the world, religion is less relevent and belief vauger and more general than evet before. In the remainder (for example, India) it is the same as it ever was, outside of small pockets.
And globally the 150 million extremely religious people in the US are a pocket, albeit one with deep pockets and nuclear weapons.
You are mistaking the volume of panicked squeaks from reactionary religionists fighting a rear-guard action for a real volume of belief that could over-turn secularism.
And don't forget that popular religions in developing countries (Islam, Hinduism) will hit the self-sanme wall as religons did in the West as those countries reach similar levels of development.
The National Church Life Survey showed that in 1960 41% of the Australian population attended church at least monthly, but by 1980 this figure had declined to 25% and was heading down to 20% by 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, p.22)
The decline for attendance forecasts a 55% fall from the 1980 level by 2020. From 1990 the decline in Church attendance is significantly higher than membership, and that for ministers is about the same that for Churches. This tells us that even amongst the membership the Church in general struggles to attract people to services. The rate of decline in buildings is significantly less than that for membership, suggesting that congregations are on average getting much smaller with many more nearing the point when they will cease to be financially viable.
It's an idea off the back of Maxwell's Demon (all those M's, confusing:-P)
Instead of (as in Maxwell's demon) letting molecules past depending on their energy/room they are in (as part of a thought-experiment that tried to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics), Morton's demon;
"... was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data."
If you regard arguing with Creationists as a stress-relieving hobby (like some people treat squash - they ARE similar; hitting dense objects hard so they bounce around... ), it is a term you will eventually run accross.
Outside of that arena it has gained some recognition;
Never observed under controlled circumstances, no known mechanism for it to happen.
Doesn't mean it is impossible, but the possibility has yet to be satisfacorily demonstrated.
That is, outside of getting your brain to fire the required muscles to shift your lazy ass to the fridge, open the door, and return to couch with beer.
"Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved"
Will this be at gun point oh master? And wither human rights great overlord?
When you vacate your ivory tower can I use it for weddings?
I think religion is really quite harmful, but I live in the real world. Religion will wither, very slowly. It cannot be abolihed without the abolishers becoming as bad as the worst of religionists.
Wow, you mean people don't like ideas that threaten them?
Hoo wud hav thunk it...:-P
Look, I grew up in a religious cult. Got ut, but do know shit a lot about the mechanics of belief. This is not news, although it may be verification of something caled "Milton's Demon", which is like an osmotic filter for thoughts and facts that do not fit your own world view.
This pattern of behaviour and associated topics like cognotive dissonance are as old as 'we' are.
Have you even heard of Google? Magical thinking is "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation".
First time I've ever seen someone cite a videogame to define a word; or was it the cultural and intellectual heights of a movie based on a video game. Maybe I should Google it, LOL.
Whilst the term can be used as an insult (like idiot) it also has a function definiton (idiot used to be the term for someone with an IQ below 30).
Reasoning may be fallible; the term you take issue with is actually an example of fallible reasoning. It is not about differing opinions on a situation whre there is clear evidence and someone's opinion is wiorthy of respect even if you disagree with it.
There is no recorded instance of anyone "disappearing" when they became an atheist. Most of Europe is effectively atheist and has been for a couple of decades. When I look out my window, I see people - quite what they are doing in my backgarden I don't know:-P
Some unbalanced individuals may commit suicide if they believe their life has no meaning, but the change in paradigm between theism and atheism is such that people realise the meaning given by religion is illusory and that a good life has plenty of meaning even if there is no sky man wizard thing.
I suggest you look up the term before discussing it. Magical thinking is "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation".
It has nothing to do with imagination in the sense of creativity or the ability to fantasize or appreciate humour.
Magical thinking is when someone insists their grandpa got well because they had a dream wherin he got well. It is not Neil Gaiman, J.R.R. Tolkein, Monty Python or Stevie Hawkins.
I do not get how people think a system which gives a profit to health insurance companies AND to health providers can match the cost of providing health care of a system where health insurance and health care are run by the government. DoO they not know that procedure for procedure health care is the most expensive. My holdiay insurance has to cover me for TWICE the amount for healthcare if I am in the US than in any other country in the world.
Yeah, you guys are so free... to pay massively dispoportionate profits. Isn't that racketeering? I imagine government would do something about it, but then they'd take a big hit in contributions from the beneficiaries of that profit...
Cutting out corporate profit means Universal Health care is quite easily acheivable. Only those most determined at maintaining their 'social healthcare is evil' viewpoint can maintain the level of cogntive dissonance required to ignore the fact that most of Europe runs such systems. And people are not dying in droves on waiting lists, and provisison of full health is far wider.
Not all of it is fully public sector (like the UK). I live in Holland. I pay 130 Euros a month for a policy that provides free Doctors appointments and Dental check-ups, 50 - 100% of 'normal' expenses, and 100% of any major medical incident or illness. I can choose one of a dozen or so Health companies to pay this money to. THere's an equal amount of money paid by my employer to the government.
It works, really well.
AND what the blinded ignore is that in the UK (and most countries with 'free at point of provison' health care), you can also pay for private Health Insurance if you want special service.
But when is this neccesary? I know of no one in my family or English friends who has unreasonable delays for procedures. Yes, if it is not life threatening or majorly debilitating you may have to wait. But you beak a leg it all gets sorted out straight away. You have a heart attack, they sort you out straight away. Life-saving cancer treatment? Pretty damn quick. Need a replacement hip? You might have to wait a while, but not long. So what, you will get it. For free. Outside of a few new drugs that are still extremely expensive and do not offer enough 'value-for-money' (in terms of life extension/quality) almost everything is available.
Every time I read a thread that highlight how many American companies can treat their employees, I'm glad I live in Europe.
In most European countries (NL & UK for example), if an employee is dismisse without reasonable cause (after working for certain period, say 2 years (UK)), then the employer will normally be liable to pay compensation.
Thus documenting your boss is noncompliant and uncoperative is important.
I can use SD cards, it works with Flash, I can get apps out of the Nokia/Ovi framework, can Bluetooth files, the external speakers are surprisingly good, not that they are used much, and the battery life is quite a lot better, but still needs a daily re-charge (and if I use it a lot on my 2 hours each way commute and don't charge at work it may not get me home before dying). I can run a couple of apps at the same time.
The iPhone interface is FAR better than the Nokia, day and night, a pleasure to use. In comparison the Nokia is clunky, and yes I have the latest firmware. The iPhone is more stable (she hasn't had one crash or reset, I have had three resets required and maybe a crash per month). The iPhone camera, on paper identical, works far better (LED flash on 5800 gives poor pictures, although is a handy flashlight). Her phone is out-of-the-box apart from some tethering goodness I set up for her (unlocking not required) so she can only use iTune store apps, but ALL the software is 'nicer' than on the 5800, even fricking solitare. She can only run one non Apple app at a time BUT the most frequent pairing I would use (browser + music) IS possible.
The only stand-out things for the 5800 are the SD Card issue and the fact I can stream BBC Radio 4 on RealPlayer (I live in Holland so can't use iPlayer) and the streaming radio app on the iPhone doesn't work nearly as well as this... but BBC are killing their RealAudio streaming in weeks from now...
All-in-all, having got the 5800 as it is half the price, I have half the phone. When my 5800 phone contract (12 months) is up this summer, the next iPhone is a racing certainty, and the Vodafone SIM (which will still have 12 months Internet to go on) will go and live in a laptop (probably an Apple although I have been using PC's solidly for a decade now (used to use Macs for DTP)).
They are just nice to use, and as 'using' is what they are for, this is a pretty good sales point.
At 30ft unless the mini gun user had it aimed at the guy with the sword the guy with the sword would likely win. Even without a lunge or a fleche. Actually in that scenario I'd rather have a proper sword than a fencing weapon as a good cut with a bastard sword will maim, incapacitate or kill. Skewering them might be the last thing you do, even if they bleed out later.
Flipping the nose 'up' using vectired thrust is valuable in a turning fight as it means you can bring your weapons to bear. This is hard to show in an airshow display, thus the actual stunt used.
As you're from Washington Sates the weather will make you feel at home.
Ignore ill-informed babble about crime; you're safer in London than any major metropolitan area in the USA, and if you are a victim of crime it is very unlikely to involve a firearm. Obviously act like a rube and flash expensive gear on the street in dodgy area and you only have yourself to blame if something gets snatched.
Going to London for geeky high-tech is a bit like going to Mountain View for its long and rich history... dumb. London is London, Paris is Paris, don't expect them to not be what they are and you will have more fun than otherwise.
Musts would be;
1/ the complex of three museums (Natural History, Science, V&A) round Exhibition Road (South Kensington tube (tube = metro). All free.
2/ the British Museum (Tottenham Court Road tube); not geeky but truely wonderful. We stole bits from every country and culture and have them on show in London. Only reason the pyramids aren't there is they were too big to ship back. Travel the Middle East and you will encounter labels in museums saying "this is a copy, the original is in the British museum".
3/ Camden Lock (Camden Town tube); fantastic and sprawling market catering for every fashion and tribe, from ethnic hippy dippy through Gothic-Lolita-Punk through Rawk en Rowl to Cyber Punk. Good Monday - Saturday but best on Saturday (although busy the people who go are half the fun).
4/ Portobello (Notting Hill or Ladbroke Grove tube); street market on Saturday; ranging from tatty "London" gifts to antiques, and again, big on the street scene.
5/ The cluster of stuff you can see if you go to Parliament Square tube; Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben (yes, that's the bells name, the tower is called St. Stephen's); over the river you have the London Eye and a half-hour walk (you're from Washington State so can probably still walk) to the Tate Modern art gallery (in re-puposed old power station), back over the river on the Millenium Bridge (the one that got it in the neck in the opening sequence of the latest Harry Potter) to St. Paul's Cathedral. You can also walk 15 mionutes from Parliament Square to Trafalgar Square (Nelson's Column) seeing Downing Street (Prime Minister's house) on the way.
6/ Covent Garden, tube of the same name. Lots of shops and street theatre.
7/ The parks; when you need to chill, enjoy Hyde Park, Green Park, St. James's or Regent's Park.
8/ Boat trip to Hampton Court (Henry VIII country pad), or by tube if you don't have an entire day to sit on the boat there and back. Other than the London Eye this is the only place on this list you have to pay for.
9/ Tower of London. Again, you pay for it (£20 or so) but you come from somewhere where a bulding earlier than 1900 is OLD; this place was started shortly after 1066, and there are Roman ruins nearby over 2,000 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
And what would MS marketshare of smartphones be if they had one choice of hardware in a handful of options?
Less than Apples, as day to day experience of iPhone and OS beats Win M unles you are a Windowtard geek.
Nur...
He was talking % of revenue, not total spend in $, so number of product is not relevent.
Try responding to a comment you understand next time, and who could mod you as interesting?
... That comparing Mac to PC prices on the basis that most computer buyers are not buying a specification. What most people use a computer for can be done on a netbook. Unless you will be using apps that require more horsepower, they're fine.
Many will choose between laptops on budget, screensize, appearance and intangibles.
Mac tend to win on appearance and intangibles, just like some car manufacturers do. If people can afford something the size they need they'll pay more for BMW than Ford; even if in someways the Ford is better.
Apple have built impressive brand values and get a higher margin for it.
Is that even news? Of something other than an acheivement?
Whaddaya want? Them to apologise for making more money selling essentially the samething?
... sorry, but kids circumvented parents attempts to control reading material. Kids can and will circumvent any techy attempts by a parent to control things unless they are dolts and their parents are geeks. And lets face it geeks breed true. The OP says they are not computer savvy so the idea they can win this arms race is silly.
To think parenting via proxy (ho ho) works is just kidding yourself.
Build responsiblity and trust, and take their computer away for a while if they break this by failing in reasonable responsibilities you set them... like getting bad grades.
Micromanagement just means they have to develop responsibility later. They will run a system off a CD, hack the server, hack a local WLAN, take photos of themselves on their phones and MMS them, etc. etc. etc..
"the main factual argument for God is that we are here therefore something must have created us"
That we are here is a supportable observation. Bolting god onto this is unsupported assertion. As it is unsupported, it is not a factual argumnt, QED.
Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.
"So are you saying that those feats are impossible? That a sufficiently advanced civilization could not have seeded the Earth with life, or created our solar system, heck possibly even our own Universe? Maybe they even implanted the idea of a deity into our genes."
I made no assertion of impossibility, so don't even try to put words in my mouth. And as god is, in normal ranges of definitions NOT a part of the material Universe but of a different order of nature altogether, aliens are aliens, god is god.
"Uncertainty is the reality of the situation because we simply do not know."
False uncertainty; we do know there is no evidence for god. This definately is not the same as proving there is no od, which is impossible, QED. But balance of probabilties?
"Just an FYI, I am not a religious person."
No? You seem determined to cling on to the same wooliness of thought that characterises many.
OK, first my bad. I got my parents and grandparents mixed up; I assumed you meant gp of what _I_ replied to, and at that point I was reading your reply on a ickle widy smart phone screen and didn't refer back to the post I replied to, I just relied on memory. I flipped you of to some extent, and got to look silly from it.
Now, are you seriously taking a report (Gallup) that lists ANY country as having 0% sucicide rate as a reliable report, or a sure indiator of a true causative link between religiosity and suicide? Or one where similary irreligious countries have rates of suicide that differ by a multiple of three? (Belgium and the UK, mark you, if I lived in Belgium I might top myself, and I can WALK to Belgium from my house).
And don't you even notice that the left hand column (religiosity 50+) are mostly unidustrialised and the right-hand colum (religiosity 50) are mostly industrialised. Pressures of modern day life as opposed to agarian/traditional? Extended family and support groups vs. nuclear families?
So many variables, playing the god card is just weak.
And a report on Ireland that concludes there WAS an inverse correlation also states "External, social dimensions of religiosity differed more than core beliefs.", which is to say the "actual you-will-burn-in-hell bit" was LESS important than "what will the O'Hara's think".
When you stop ROLFing at my error, can we compare standards of living, education, employment prospects, and the host of other pressures that could influence suidicide, rates rather than assume religion MUST be the only factor influencing suicide figures?
Philosophers can lick my balls, well, provided they are pretty red-heads, but you know what I mean.
There are factual arguments for and against the idea of a God. Philosophy be damned.
Factual arguements for god; none.
Factusl arguments against god; there is no evidence for it.
"However, can you really say with certainty that God does not exist? Can you say that Unicorns do not exist?"
I can say with certainty you did not read the comment you replied to. I covered that.
"Maybe they don't exist now, but do you know if in 200 years they won't be created by man?"
Which means they don't exist now, which is what I meant.
"What does God even mean?"
Try a dictionary.
"Whose version of God? Are you referring to the prime mover who created our Universe? Or the God who seeded our planet with life and created humanity? Or was there a "God" who created the existence of our Planets around our Sun? I don't know and we do not have sufficient knowledge in my opinion."
Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.
Carry on clinging to your presupposition. Enjoy! Your uncertainty is a canard.
Yes, this wonderful insight/statement of the bleeding obvious was actually made a few comments above.
Ha ha, Ho ho. Hee hee.
How I laugh...
Does not not exist?
Wow, elegant English.
Obvious answer; you cannot disprove something that doesn't exist.
What ya gonna do, hold up a Unicorn and say "See, it doesn't exist!"?
All you can do is point out the lack of evidence of it's existance. Like there is no evidence for Unicorns.
Oooo, get you.
Maybe I did not deal with the grandparents stats as I was replying you the parent?
Or is there a new rule you have to deal with ALL arguments above you in the thread?
Nuur...
"First, let's look at the extremes of suicide numbers. The lowest is Haiti, with 0. The highest is Russia with 36.15 per 100,000. Most of the 'low suicide, high religiosity' countries have suicide rates around 0-10, while the opposite extreme is closer to 10-30 (there isn't a direct correlation, so there's a lot more overlap in the source data). So we're talking about a difference between around 0.01% and 0.03% of the population committing suicide. Hardly a massive difference."
Well, as you are assuming I am talking about something in the grandparent rather than the parent... eh? But for the sake of it; correlation is not equal to causation. Can we compare standards of living, education, employment prospects and develop a balanced view rather than a shallow assinine assumption suicide MUST be the only factor effecting suicide figures?
Can you also please show trends from the Communist years and compare them to now, so further demonstrate you have a point? IF you have one?
"The country that they pick to highlight the high suicide rates in non-religious countries is Japan. This is a mistake, because the high suicide rate in Japan has been studied by psychologists for a long time, and is thought to be due to a number of contributory factors, including the high social pressure to conform (which also applies in South Korea, which has a similar suicide rate)."
Hahahaha. You think Japan isn't religious. Tell them, they'll be surprised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan
Rubbish.
Attendance at church in Europe is the lowest ever, historically speaking, a mere fraction of what it was even twenty years ago.
The US, being founded by religious nut-jobs, is still more religious, and the extremely religious are very vocal. But still the attendance at church is at a all-time low. To quote from the links below;
"From 1992 to 2003, average attendance at a typical church service has dropped by 13% whereas the population of America has increased by 9%!"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm
And at current trends the majority of people in the US will not be religious in 2035;
Amusingly, a lot of religious people lie when asked about church attendence;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm
For well over half of the world, religion is less relevent and belief vauger and more general than evet before. In the remainder (for example, India) it is the same as it ever was, outside of small pockets.
And globally the 150 million extremely religious people in the US are a pocket, albeit one with deep pockets and nuclear weapons.
You are mistaking the volume of panicked squeaks from reactionary religionists fighting a rear-guard action for a real volume of belief that could over-turn secularism.
And don't forget that popular religions in developing countries (Islam, Hinduism) will hit the self-sanme wall as religons did in the West as those countries reach similar levels of development.
You want evidence? Open your eyes;
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17164.htm
The National Church Life Survey showed that in 1960 41% of the Australian population attended church at least monthly, but by 1980 this figure had declined to 25% and was heading down to 20% by 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, p.22)
http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php
The decline for attendance forecasts a 55% fall from the 1980 level by 2020. From 1990 the decline in Church attendance is significantly higher than membership, and that for ministers is about the same that for Churches. This tells us that even amongst the membership the Church in general struggles to attract people to services. The rate of decline in buildings is significantly less than that for membership, suggesting that congregations are on average getting much smaller with many more nearing the point when they will cease to be financially viable.
My apologies for inordinate craptitude.
I mean Morton's Demon.
See here; http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
It's an idea off the back of Maxwell's Demon (all those M's, confusing :-P)
Instead of (as in Maxwell's demon) letting molecules past depending on their energy/room they are in (as part of a thought-experiment that tried to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics), Morton's demon;
" ... was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data."
If you regard arguing with Creationists as a stress-relieving hobby (like some people treat squash - they ARE similar; hitting dense objects hard so they bounce around... ), it is a term you will eventually run accross.
Outside of that arena it has gained some recognition;
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200811/truth-lies-and-self-deception
Yah, well good luck with that.
Never observed under controlled circumstances, no known mechanism for it to happen.
Doesn't mean it is impossible, but the possibility has yet to be satisfacorily demonstrated.
That is, outside of getting your brain to fire the required muscles to shift your lazy ass to the fridge, open the door, and return to couch with beer.
Ah, the power of the mind!
"Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved"
Will this be at gun point oh master? And wither human rights great overlord?
When you vacate your ivory tower can I use it for weddings?
I think religion is really quite harmful, but I live in the real world. Religion will wither, very slowly. It cannot be abolihed without the abolishers becoming as bad as the worst of religionists.
Wow, you mean people don't like ideas that threaten them?
Hoo wud hav thunk it... :-P
Look, I grew up in a religious cult. Got ut, but do know shit a lot about the mechanics of belief. This is not news, although it may be verification of something caled "Milton's Demon", which is like an osmotic filter for thoughts and facts that do not fit your own world view.
This pattern of behaviour and associated topics like cognotive dissonance are as old as 'we' are.
Have you even heard of Google? Magical thinking is "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation".
First time I've ever seen someone cite a videogame to define a word; or was it the cultural and intellectual heights of a movie based on a video game. Maybe I should Google it, LOL.
Whilst the term can be used as an insult (like idiot) it also has a function definiton (idiot used to be the term for someone with an IQ below 30).
Reasoning may be fallible; the term you take issue with is actually an example of fallible reasoning. It is not about differing opinions on a situation whre there is clear evidence and someone's opinion is wiorthy of respect even if you disagree with it.
Poppycock.
There is no recorded instance of anyone "disappearing" when they became an atheist. Most of Europe is effectively atheist and has been for a couple of decades. When I look out my window, I see people - quite what they are doing in my backgarden I don't know :-P
Some unbalanced individuals may commit suicide if they believe their life has no meaning, but the change in paradigm between theism and atheism is such that people realise the meaning given by religion is illusory and that a good life has plenty of meaning even if there is no sky man wizard thing.
I suggest you look up the term before discussing it. Magical thinking is "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation".
It has nothing to do with imagination in the sense of creativity or the ability to fantasize or appreciate humour.
Magical thinking is when someone insists their grandpa got well because they had a dream wherin he got well. It is not Neil Gaiman, J.R.R. Tolkein, Monty Python or Stevie Hawkins.
It is really funny.
I do not get how people think a system which gives a profit to health insurance companies AND to health providers can match the cost of providing health care of a system where health insurance and health care are run by the government. DoO they not know that procedure for procedure health care is the most expensive. My holdiay insurance has to cover me for TWICE the amount for healthcare if I am in the US than in any other country in the world.
Yeah, you guys are so free... to pay massively dispoportionate profits. Isn't that racketeering? I imagine government would do something about it, but then they'd take a big hit in contributions from the beneficiaries of that profit...
Cutting out corporate profit means Universal Health care is quite easily acheivable. Only those most determined at maintaining their 'social healthcare is evil' viewpoint can maintain the level of cogntive dissonance required to ignore the fact that most of Europe runs such systems. And people are not dying in droves on waiting lists, and provisison of full health is far wider.
Not all of it is fully public sector (like the UK). I live in Holland. I pay 130 Euros a month for a policy that provides free Doctors appointments and Dental check-ups, 50 - 100% of 'normal' expenses, and 100% of any major medical incident or illness. I can choose one of a dozen or so Health companies to pay this money to. THere's an equal amount of money paid by my employer to the government.
It works, really well.
AND what the blinded ignore is that in the UK (and most countries with 'free at point of provison' health care), you can also pay for private Health Insurance if you want special service.
But when is this neccesary? I know of no one in my family or English friends who has unreasonable delays for procedures. Yes, if it is not life threatening or majorly debilitating you may have to wait. But you beak a leg it all gets sorted out straight away. You have a heart attack, they sort you out straight away. Life-saving cancer treatment? Pretty damn quick. Need a replacement hip? You might have to wait a while, but not long. So what, you will get it. For free. Outside of a few new drugs that are still extremely expensive and do not offer enough 'value-for-money' (in terms of life extension/quality) almost everything is available.
And some companies are not even IN the 'state!
Every time I read a thread that highlight how many American companies can treat their employees, I'm glad I live in Europe.
In most European countries (NL & UK for example), if an employee is dismisse without reasonable cause (after working for certain period, say 2 years (UK)), then the employer will normally be liable to pay compensation.
Thus documenting your boss is noncompliant and uncoperative is important.
GF has iPhone. I have 5800.
I can use SD cards, it works with Flash, I can get apps out of the Nokia/Ovi framework, can Bluetooth files, the external speakers are surprisingly good, not that they are used much, and the battery life is quite a lot better, but still needs a daily re-charge (and if I use it a lot on my 2 hours each way commute and don't charge at work it may not get me home before dying). I can run a couple of apps at the same time.
The iPhone interface is FAR better than the Nokia, day and night, a pleasure to use. In comparison the Nokia is clunky, and yes I have the latest firmware. The iPhone is more stable (she hasn't had one crash or reset, I have had three resets required and maybe a crash per month). The iPhone camera, on paper identical, works far better (LED flash on 5800 gives poor pictures, although is a handy flashlight). Her phone is out-of-the-box apart from some tethering goodness I set up for her (unlocking not required) so she can only use iTune store apps, but ALL the software is 'nicer' than on the 5800, even fricking solitare. She can only run one non Apple app at a time BUT the most frequent pairing I would use (browser + music) IS possible.
The only stand-out things for the 5800 are the SD Card issue and the fact I can stream BBC Radio 4 on RealPlayer (I live in Holland so can't use iPlayer) and the streaming radio app on the iPhone doesn't work nearly as well as this... but BBC are killing their RealAudio streaming in weeks from now...
All-in-all, having got the 5800 as it is half the price, I have half the phone. When my 5800 phone contract (12 months) is up this summer, the next iPhone is a racing certainty, and the Vodafone SIM (which will still have 12 months Internet to go on) will go and live in a laptop (probably an Apple although I have been using PC's solidly for a decade now (used to use Macs for DTP)).
They are just nice to use, and as 'using' is what they are for, this is a pretty good sales point.
At 30ft unless the mini gun user had it aimed at the guy with the sword the guy with the sword would likely win. Even without a lunge or a fleche. Actually in that scenario I'd rather have a proper sword than a fencing weapon as a good cut with a bastard sword will maim, incapacitate or kill. Skewering them might be the last thing you do, even if they bleed out later.
Flipping the nose 'up' using vectired thrust is valuable in a turning fight as it means you can bring your weapons to bear. This is hard to show in an airshow display, thus the actual stunt used.
As you're from Washington Sates the weather will make you feel at home.
Ignore ill-informed babble about crime; you're safer in London than any major metropolitan area in the USA, and if you are a victim of crime it is very unlikely to involve a firearm. Obviously act like a rube and flash expensive gear on the street in dodgy area and you only have yourself to blame if something gets snatched.
Going to London for geeky high-tech is a bit like going to Mountain View for its long and rich history... dumb. London is London, Paris is Paris, don't expect them to not be what they are and you will have more fun than otherwise.
Musts would be;
1/ the complex of three museums (Natural History, Science, V&A) round Exhibition Road (South Kensington tube (tube = metro). All free.
2/ the British Museum (Tottenham Court Road tube); not geeky but truely wonderful. We stole bits from every country and culture and have them on show in London. Only reason the pyramids aren't there is they were too big to ship back. Travel the Middle East and you will encounter labels in museums saying "this is a copy, the original is in the British museum".
3/ Camden Lock (Camden Town tube); fantastic and sprawling market catering for every fashion and tribe, from ethnic hippy dippy through Gothic-Lolita-Punk through Rawk en Rowl to Cyber Punk. Good Monday - Saturday but best on Saturday (although busy the people who go are half the fun).
4/ Portobello (Notting Hill or Ladbroke Grove tube); street market on Saturday; ranging from tatty "London" gifts to antiques, and again, big on the street scene.
5/ The cluster of stuff you can see if you go to Parliament Square tube; Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben (yes, that's the bells name, the tower is called St. Stephen's); over the river you have the London Eye and a half-hour walk (you're from Washington State so can probably still walk) to the Tate Modern art gallery (in re-puposed old power station), back over the river on the Millenium Bridge (the one that got it in the neck in the opening sequence of the latest Harry Potter) to St. Paul's Cathedral. You can also walk 15 mionutes from Parliament Square to Trafalgar Square (Nelson's Column) seeing Downing Street (Prime Minister's house) on the way.
6/ Covent Garden, tube of the same name. Lots of shops and street theatre.
7/ The parks; when you need to chill, enjoy Hyde Park, Green Park, St. James's or Regent's Park.
8/ Boat trip to Hampton Court (Henry VIII country pad), or by tube if you don't have an entire day to sit on the boat there and back. Other than the London Eye this is the only place on this list you have to pay for.
9/ Tower of London. Again, you pay for it (£20 or so) but you come from somewhere where a bulding earlier than 1900 is OLD; this place was started shortly after 1066, and there are Roman ruins nearby over 2,000 years old.
Enjoy it, it's a great city.
Er . . I think if you spent a moment thinking about it you'd realise the 40 seconds was the rough round trip delay.