And of course, don't forget Hitler who was rebelling against religions.
However, I agree with you that it is facile to call Hitler a Christian. A better point can be made that he was definitely not an Atheist, because he often expressed supernatural beliefs.
Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science.
I can't believe this ridiculous white-washing of history. It's on par with the previous pope's remarks that the Galileo affair was just something like healthy "scientific skepticism" on the side of the church. He was tried by the Papal Inquisition for breaking the church edict that forbade promoting heliocentric model as more than a hypothesis, or heresy. Insulting Pope Urban VIII was not the crime his book was ultimately banned (until the 19th century!) for, or the crime why he was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. The crime he was charged with was "heresy". Just read the recantation he was forced to read. The Church didn't even apologize until the 20th century, and even then they were apologetic.
Then there is also Giordano Bruno, who was burned on a stake for the heresy of going against the Catholic dogma. His works were banned by the Church for hundreds of years too. I wonder how you would construe that to not be a conflict of science and religion.
Try telling them that Christianity and science don't mix.
The statistics speak for themselves: science, especially the natural sciences, is corrosive for religious faith, and religion is corrosive for education. If you don't believe it fuels indoctrination of ignorance, just look at how Ken Ham teaches children, the exhibits in his "museum", or the Trojan horse of the religionists -- the ID creationism. It's almost amusing how you claim that there is no conflict between science and religion, and base it on the fact that there are many scientists with religious beliefs, as if that meant anything after thousands of years of religious, in this case Christian, hegemony. Duh!
Sure, if we go along with your false dichotomy that anything you think is a contradiction must be a contradiction and the explanations of those who know the Bible better, have studied it considerably more and arrive at a different conclusion are clearly wrong.
No one who has actually studied the Bible can honestly say that there are no contradictions. If they do, they really are wrong (most don't). Also, your usage of "false dichotomy" is nonsensical. If I think that 2 + 2 is not 5, is it also a "false dichotomy" just because someone might interpret that expression with his own arithetic in which there are different rules?
Why else would the Geneva Convention need to be so concerned about outlawing "weapons of mass injury" designed to blind or otherwise incapacitate soldiers without actually killing them?
I wonder if you're serious. The Geneva Conventions aren't there to make war more efficient, but to define war crimes. It's true that an injured soldier strains the enemy's resources, though.
However, it's important to note that Firefox does not allow updates from untrusted sources by default. It comes configured with updates allowed only from addons.mozilla.org and updates.mozilla.org.
No, this is not true. If you've installed an add-on from a non-default site, it can still update in exactly the same way as an AMO approved add-on. I know this because I make Fx extensions.
Those were fun pranks, and Google themselves admitted that it doesn't really affect the quality of search results. I can't say I feel like thanking them for this improvement.
The learning curve effect and the closely related experience curve effect express the relationship between experience and efficiency. As individuals and/or organizations get more experienced at a task, they usually become more efficient at them. Both concepts originate in the adage, "practice makes perfect", and both concepts are opposite to the popular misapprehension that a "steep" learning curve means that something is hard to learn. In fact, a "steep" learning curve implies that something gets easier quickly.
What is it that is so wrong and criminal about increasing the supply without decreasing the demand, and why does someone always feel the need to preach about it, using old cliches?
Try thinking about it this way: a bigger audience is the authors gain too, and while it does not directly increase their monetary income, those getting a free ride would still tell their friends about it, post on the internet, make fanart etc. It's free promotion.
"Communist" in this case is a factual descriptor, and your interpretation of its use is based on an incorrect premise that China is not a communist state (to which the ruling Communist Party of China would probably strongly object). I guess I'm new here, because your comment being modded up surprises me.
Because using ANY word as a magical talisman, Communist, atheist, free, liberal, democratic, Republican, stands in the way of reasoned debate and careful consideration of the issues at hand.
No, using words is convenient, and does not stand in way of anything unless you're using them in a context where they become disparaging. In this case, the ruling party of China is called "Communist Party of China", and China is by any definition a communist state, so this entire discussion is silly and a waste of mod points that go to Offtopic.
Slashdot Mirror
And Pol Pot was an atheist. What's your point?
He was responding to this:
And of course, don't forget Hitler who was rebelling against religions.
However, I agree with you that it is facile to call Hitler a Christian. A better point can be made that he was definitely not an Atheist, because he often expressed supernatural beliefs.
Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science.
I can't believe this ridiculous white-washing of history. It's on par with the previous pope's remarks that the Galileo affair was just something like healthy "scientific skepticism" on the side of the church. He was tried by the Papal Inquisition for breaking the church edict that forbade promoting heliocentric model as more than a hypothesis, or heresy. Insulting Pope Urban VIII was not the crime his book was ultimately banned (until the 19th century!) for, or the crime why he was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. The crime he was charged with was "heresy". Just read the recantation he was forced to read. The Church didn't even apologize until the 20th century, and even then they were apologetic.
Then there is also Giordano Bruno, who was burned on a stake for the heresy of going against the Catholic dogma. His works were banned by the Church for hundreds of years too. I wonder how you would construe that to not be a conflict of science and religion.
Try telling them that Christianity and science don't mix.
The statistics speak for themselves: science, especially the natural sciences, is corrosive for religious faith, and religion is corrosive for education. If you don't believe it fuels indoctrination of ignorance, just look at how Ken Ham teaches children, the exhibits in his "museum", or the Trojan horse of the religionists -- the ID creationism. It's almost amusing how you claim that there is no conflict between science and religion, and base it on the fact that there are many scientists with religious beliefs, as if that meant anything after thousands of years of religious, in this case Christian, hegemony. Duh!
Sure, if we go along with your false dichotomy that anything you think is a contradiction must be a contradiction and the explanations of those who know the Bible better, have studied it considerably more and arrive at a different conclusion are clearly wrong.
No one who has actually studied the Bible can honestly say that there are no contradictions. If they do, they really are wrong (most don't). Also, your usage of "false dichotomy" is nonsensical. If I think that 2 + 2 is not 5, is it also a "false dichotomy" just because someone might interpret that expression with his own arithetic in which there are different rules?
Right, and they do it for humanitarian reasons.
How is fighting the symptoms and not the cause more effective?
History, ethics, and a pig killing Jew magician that was nailed to a tree and then came back as a zombie and flew up into the heaven.
Why else would the Geneva Convention need to be so concerned about outlawing "weapons of mass injury" designed to blind or otherwise incapacitate soldiers without actually killing them?
I wonder if you're serious. The Geneva Conventions aren't there to make war more efficient, but to define war crimes. It's true that an injured soldier strains the enemy's resources, though.
Beyond the patient's needs, there is the very real likely possibility that a "friendly" looking robot is less likely to be attacked by the enemy.
Maybe it should be applied to soldiers too? I think a military helmet with cat ears would look really cute.
No, this is not true. If you've installed an add-on from a non-default site, it can still update in exactly the same way as an AMO approved add-on. I know this because I make Fx extensions.
Then don't read it.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
You mean wake up with a penguin head.
Requesting cache.
They're talking about Vista.
.. the fact that it is dangerous and hard has never stopped anyone from using it.
You think so?
Uh, that's DMCA.
Those were fun pranks, and Google themselves admitted that it doesn't really affect the quality of search results. I can't say I feel like thanking them for this improvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Criticisms
It's not just a matter of won't, but I can't.
No, it takes 2 minutes to get something like RockXP and make Windows genuine.
s/Slashdot/the internets
Why euphemize? Idiotic would be a more appropriate term.
Downloading a HD DVD through Tor would be the epitome of bandwidth hogging...
What is it that is so wrong and criminal about increasing the supply without decreasing the demand, and why does someone always feel the need to preach about it, using old cliches?
Try thinking about it this way: a bigger audience is the authors gain too, and while it does not directly increase their monetary income, those getting a free ride would still tell their friends about it, post on the internet, make fanart etc. It's free promotion.
"Communist" in this case is a factual descriptor, and your interpretation of its use is based on an incorrect premise that China is not a communist state (to which the ruling Communist Party of China would probably strongly object). I guess I'm new here, because your comment being modded up surprises me.