I'd rather take a report that was presented to a house committee as a starting point over the reports from those who are looking to secure billions of dollars of investment and purchase orders for a product which is questionable to say the least.
Of course you would, which is why you fail. I'd rather take the facts, regardless of the source.
The Patriots success is highly understated, with accuracy and hit rate being heavily fudged after the first Gulf War by Teddy Postol.
Teddy still got a significant budget to produce further "reports" about the hopelessness of missile-defense, however...
FTFY.
It's not a perfect system for ballistic missile defense, by any means. I wouldn't expect it to be - it was designed primarily for shooting down aircraft, and only later given the role of missile interception. However, regardless of the actual shortcomings of the Patriot missile-system, taking Postol's report at face value is absurd.
I agree - I don't think the ability to post AC should be taken away, I just chose to ignore them, personally. I see no reason to wade through mountains of drek, searching for a pearl.
Shitty example. The Patriot system met the design requirements. If they had cared about continuous operation, they would have tested for it. Besides, it was, apparently, an easy patch.
I've never understood why people post links which refute the very point they're trying to make.
Proper breeding technology requires no trans species genes at all.
The phrase "trans species genes" is a modern boogyman; it's a fictional distinction used primarily to scare little kids and the ignorant. It's intended to evoke an emotional reaction through the visualization of mutated monstrosities and similar regressive nonsense. It appeals to the same instinct which has retarded innovation since the dawn of man.
If you looked at the beeding process of a seed company that deals in GMOs, a very large percentage of the process is still the same tried and true mechanisms that have been followed forever, just with more expensive methods of determining the best seeds.
If you look at the space shuttle, a very large percentage of the construction process is still the same tried and true mechanisms that have been followed when building toaster-ovens. Just more expensive.
You make a wonderful pigeon.Okay, so simpler: Your characterization of the supposed consistently-non-negative effects across theists: Directly, provably, and proven, wrong. Your lame attempts at recasting an issue of fact as a psychological issue and thus evading the matter at hand: Wholly invalid, though a reasonably competent mishmash of intelligent sounding phrases with no real meaning. You entire mechanism of relative evaluation of worldviews: Disingenuous in its relative comparison of an actual demographic to a non-demographic of no particular stance on anything beyond "not God". You handwaving and vague dismissal of what you can't, or won't, respond to while exiting: Transparent. The mechanism by which I would automatically win this argument by inevitable default on your part anyway: Entropy. Thanks for playing.
The intent of a system often has little to do with how it's used. While the ability to post "anonymous" comments certainly has a legitimate purpose, the fact of the matter is that it is most often used to post inflammatory comments free from any repercussion.
To use a car analogy - having the ability to drive at 200km/h can be very useful if you're bleeding to death and trying to get to a hospital, but the vast majority of people who drive at that speed are just irresponsible jackasses looking for a thrill.
you mean the real Scots regiments never shown you the "dance of the flaming arseholes"?
I guess they assumed we had a "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy;) Is that what you boys do after the sheep run away?
and yeah, even being Canadian , without the airborne head dress you re a crap hat:)
True 'nuff. I got offered the jump course several times, but somehow the idea of a 1-in-10 chance of broken limbs didn't really appeal to me. Now that we've finally gotten parachutes that don't date back to medieval times I'd definitely go for it, but at the time it seemed like a loose-loose proposition. I did my jumps civvie-side, where the success of a landing isn't measured in how well you can walk after.
the is a method to the madness of the Scots and the fact you don't get it speaks volumes LOL that twinned with the fact that, as a nation, Canada doesn't know what the fuck bacon actually is speaks more as well:P
Aw, nobody here calls that shit bacon. It's referred to as "peameal bacon" by a small subset, but most of us just call it ham. It's only the yanks that call it "Canadian bacon". Never did like the stuff myself - always use the real thing in my cooking.
at a guess you got yer ass kicked by real Scottish regiments and hence the bullshit about Scotland
On that point, I'll have to concede; while we always did very well against every other nation, you lot brawl like nobody else:)
btw yer response is in Irish not Scottish Gaelic:P
Yeah, realized that after I wrote it. Close enough!
Laughed my ass of when I got the translation of your original barb. Truly, only the Scots could come up with that kind of insult.
The exception is the Canadian Scottish regiments where Canadians join even at that many of them learn the guide of Gaidheal tongue.
Well seeing as how I'm Canadian, I suppose I'd fall into that category, no?:) I did learn a couple dozen phrases, but nowhere near enough to actually understand your jabber.
Did some cross-training with the authentic Scot regiments, too - 'bout the only thing more insane than the language was the ol' "fork in the gut, thumb in the eye" game. I never could quite figure out if you were a nation of lunatics, or just really determined to put on a good act in order to confuse the fuck out of every other nation.
Oh, and google informs me that my response to your earlier statement should be: Agus tu fein, a stoirin â" go ngearrtar an bod diot le spunog mhaol!
Okay, so your response is just going to be the directly absurd, then.
If you think it's absurd to say that irrational beliefs negatively impact anyone who holds them, then yeah, I suppose my response is absurd by your standards.
Ockham, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Newton, Bayes, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, Lemaitre, Knuth... all demented fools compared, no doubt, to the awesome intellectual prowess of... let me guess... you.
I'm touched that you hold me in such esteem, but I must disagree. Certainly Netwon was demented to a large extent, and the same might be said of a few others on that list, but it would be quite unfair to say that it applies to the list as a whole. Nor was that the point being made by "lightknight" or myself.
As for Taoism, I was thinking of the simplified Western notion from which Zen is derived, but thanks for demonstrating yet again that with sufficient insistence on denigrating it, one can play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon (not the Roger Bacon duly listed) with anything.
I'm not psychic, so you can't blame me for not divining your intended question. Regardless, you've done a wonderful job of demonstrating exactly how unnecessary religion is. Like all modern theists, you cling to interpretations which minimize the original beliefs and, instead, offer a more secularized version. Your own words - and the words of other religious moderates - are the most damning condemnation of religion which exist; even you admit that the fewer irrational, superstitious, faith-based views we have, the better off we are. You're one step removed from an atheist.
Yah, because the best people to explain finances and nutrition to poor people are other poor people. Also, we need more creationists teaching biology, and alchemists teaching chemistry.
Oh. lol. I see. You're one of those guys who thinks there's a difference between the Sun and the Star. My bad - I thought you were actually talking about credibility issues.
In this case the means 'shooting a person' are not required to achieve the end... an alternative end is available: hand over a vehicle and a pile of money.
Of the two, caving in to the demands is the less moral solution.
No, it means you have successfully applied the double standard that men cannot be sluts.
WHAT double standard?
For a man to be a "slut", he has to be one or more of the following:
1. Extremely good looking. 2. Have a great job or a lot of money. 3. Be well groomed and well dressed. 4. Be charming/funny/witty and outgoing. 5. Be willing to spend time and money in pursuit of sex.
For a woman to be a slut, she just has to show up and yell "HEY, WHO WANTS TO FUCK?".
You'll see short, fat, ugly female sluts all the time. You never see a short, fat, ugly male slut (unless he's paying for it). Ergo, there is no double standard; men and women both get congratulated for achieving something difficult - it's just that "something difficult" happens to be different for the two sexes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you didn't "FTFY"
Well, yeah, when YOU say it, it should be "FTFM".
I'd rather take a report that was presented to a house committee as a starting point over the reports from those who are looking to secure billions of dollars of investment and purchase orders for a product which is questionable to say the least.
Of course you would, which is why you fail. I'd rather take the facts, regardless of the source.
Poor people ARE poor, not fucking stupid.
Of course not. I'm sure they're all ex Mensa members with multiple degrees in physics, engineering, and economics.
The Patriots success is highly understated, with accuracy and hit rate being heavily fudged after the first Gulf War by Teddy Postol.
Teddy still got a significant budget to produce further "reports" about the hopelessness of missile-defense, however...
FTFY.
It's not a perfect system for ballistic missile defense, by any means. I wouldn't expect it to be - it was designed primarily for shooting down aircraft, and only later given the role of missile interception. However, regardless of the actual shortcomings of the Patriot missile-system, taking Postol's report at face value is absurd.
Well, yes, gun ownership is generally positive :p
I agree - I don't think the ability to post AC should be taken away, I just chose to ignore them, personally. I see no reason to wade through mountains of drek, searching for a pearl.
Yep, that's usually how technology works. Did you have a point to make?
Shitty example. The Patriot system met the design requirements. If they had cared about continuous operation, they would have tested for it. Besides, it was, apparently, an easy patch.
I've never understood why people post links which refute the very point they're trying to make.
Proper breeding technology requires no trans species genes at all.
The phrase "trans species genes" is a modern boogyman; it's a fictional distinction used primarily to scare little kids and the ignorant. It's intended to evoke an emotional reaction through the visualization of mutated monstrosities and similar regressive nonsense. It appeals to the same instinct which has retarded innovation since the dawn of man.
If you looked at the beeding process of a seed company that deals in GMOs, a very large percentage of the process is still the same tried and true mechanisms that have been followed forever, just with more expensive methods of determining the best seeds.
If you look at the space shuttle, a very large percentage of the construction process is still the same tried and true mechanisms that have been followed when building toaster-ovens. Just more expensive.
Who said anything about random mutations?
Who said anything about artificial selection?
You make a wonderful pigeon.Okay, so simpler: Your characterization of the supposed consistently-non-negative effects across theists: Directly, provably, and proven, wrong. Your lame attempts at recasting an issue of fact as a psychological issue and thus evading the matter at hand: Wholly invalid, though a reasonably competent mishmash of intelligent sounding phrases with no real meaning. You entire mechanism of relative evaluation of worldviews: Disingenuous in its relative comparison of an actual demographic to a non-demographic of no particular stance on anything beyond "not God". You handwaving and vague dismissal of what you can't, or won't, respond to while exiting: Transparent. The mechanism by which I would automatically win this argument by inevitable default on your part anyway: Entropy. Thanks for playing.
I'm sorry, but as long as you insist on picking up the goalposts and running in zigzags and circles, I have no desire to play.
You have fun, though.
those random mutations have happened over millions of years of time, evolving to be not in conflict with the entire biosphere it inhabits.
As the laughing-AC has already pointed out, this is sheer, unadulterated bullshit.
Yes, I agree - the fact that most of the world would rather depend on random mutations over scientifically tested modifications is quite scary.
The similarity is completely superficial (and you have to squint to even see the superficial similarities).
The intent of a system often has little to do with how it's used. While the ability to post "anonymous" comments certainly has a legitimate purpose, the fact of the matter is that it is most often used to post inflammatory comments free from any repercussion.
To use a car analogy - having the ability to drive at 200km/h can be very useful if you're bleeding to death and trying to get to a hospital, but the vast majority of people who drive at that speed are just irresponsible jackasses looking for a thrill.
you mean the real Scots regiments never shown you the "dance of the flaming arseholes"?
I guess they assumed we had a "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy ;) Is that what you boys do after the sheep run away?
and yeah, even being Canadian , without the airborne head dress you re a crap hat :)
True 'nuff. I got offered the jump course several times, but somehow the idea of a 1-in-10 chance of broken limbs didn't really appeal to me. Now that we've finally gotten parachutes that don't date back to medieval times I'd definitely go for it, but at the time it seemed like a loose-loose proposition. I did my jumps civvie-side, where the success of a landing isn't measured in how well you can walk after.
the is a method to the madness of the Scots and the fact you don't get it speaks volumes LOL :P
that twinned with the fact that, as a nation, Canada doesn't know what the fuck bacon actually is speaks more as well
Aw, nobody here calls that shit bacon. It's referred to as "peameal bacon" by a small subset, but most of us just call it ham. It's only the yanks that call it "Canadian bacon". Never did like the stuff myself - always use the real thing in my cooking.
at a guess you got yer ass kicked by real Scottish regiments and hence the bullshit about Scotland
On that point, I'll have to concede; while we always did very well against every other nation, you lot brawl like nobody else :)
btw yer response is in Irish not Scottish Gaelic :P
Yeah, realized that after I wrote it. Close enough!
Laughed my ass of when I got the translation of your original barb. Truly, only the Scots could come up with that kind of insult.
The exception is the Canadian Scottish regiments where Canadians join even at that many of them learn the guide of Gaidheal tongue.
Well seeing as how I'm Canadian, I suppose I'd fall into that category, no? :) I did learn a couple dozen phrases, but nowhere near enough to actually understand your jabber.
Did some cross-training with the authentic Scot regiments, too - 'bout the only thing more insane than the language was the ol' "fork in the gut, thumb in the eye" game. I never could quite figure out if you were a nation of lunatics, or just really determined to put on a good act in order to confuse the fuck out of every other nation.
Oh, and google informs me that my response to your earlier statement should be: Agus tu fein, a stoirin â" go ngearrtar an bod diot le spunog mhaol!
Cheers! :D
Yeah ... I may have worn a skirt and marched around to the sound of bagpipes, but I never did get the lingo :p
Okay, so your response is just going to be the directly absurd, then.
If you think it's absurd to say that irrational beliefs negatively impact anyone who holds them, then yeah, I suppose my response is absurd by your standards.
Ockham, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Newton, Bayes, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, Lemaitre, Knuth... all demented fools compared, no doubt, to the awesome intellectual prowess of... let me guess... you.
I'm touched that you hold me in such esteem, but I must disagree. Certainly Netwon was demented to a large extent, and the same might be said of a few others on that list, but it would be quite unfair to say that it applies to the list as a whole. Nor was that the point being made by "lightknight" or myself.
As for Taoism, I was thinking of the simplified Western notion from which Zen is derived, but thanks for demonstrating yet again that with sufficient insistence on denigrating it, one can play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon (not the Roger Bacon duly listed) with anything.
I'm not psychic, so you can't blame me for not divining your intended question. Regardless, you've done a wonderful job of demonstrating exactly how unnecessary religion is. Like all modern theists, you cling to interpretations which minimize the original beliefs and, instead, offer a more secularized version. Your own words - and the words of other religious moderates - are the most damning condemnation of religion which exist; even you admit that the fewer irrational, superstitious, faith-based views we have, the better off we are. You're one step removed from an atheist.
You need help. Seriously. Anyone who spews this much shit from their auditory orifice cannot possibly be healthy.
There are no Scotsmen; the whole country is a myth.
Neat. Could you specify which of these have suffered your vaguely dire suggested outcome
All of the above.
--or name, say, even a single theoretical cognitive downside to, say, Taoism?
A religion which includes animal sacrifices, shamen, demonic possession and fortune telling? Naw. I can't think of any downsides.
Yah, because the best people to explain finances and nutrition to poor people are other poor people. Also, we need more creationists teaching biology, and alchemists teaching chemistry.
Oh. lol. I see. You're one of those guys who thinks there's a difference between the Sun and the Star. My bad - I thought you were actually talking about credibility issues.
In this case the means 'shooting a person' are not required to achieve the end... an alternative end is available: hand over a vehicle and a pile of money.
Of the two, caving in to the demands is the less moral solution.
No, it means you have successfully applied the double standard that men cannot be sluts.
WHAT double standard?
For a man to be a "slut", he has to be one or more of the following:
1. Extremely good looking.
2. Have a great job or a lot of money.
3. Be well groomed and well dressed.
4. Be charming/funny/witty and outgoing.
5. Be willing to spend time and money in pursuit of sex.
For a woman to be a slut, she just has to show up and yell "HEY, WHO WANTS TO FUCK?".
You'll see short, fat, ugly female sluts all the time. You never see a short, fat, ugly male slut (unless he's paying for it). Ergo, there is no double standard; men and women both get congratulated for achieving something difficult - it's just that "something difficult" happens to be different for the two sexes.