56 posts • joined Friday 17th August 2007 13:15 GMT
Part of this is the republican exploitation of an emotional appeal
They seek to bring the religious on their side by painting them as moral crusaders under assault. Speaking out of both sides of their mouth by portraying these people as both the moral majority and persecuted minority. A mantle that many gladly take up when questioned on their irrational silliness. Their mission to civilize the heathen savages and defend themselves from attacks of reason from those heathen elitists.
I encourage one to explore "The Wedge Strategy" published by the discovery institute (which was involved in the whole Intelligent Design.) As well as the "Christian Exodus Project".
Bunch of prats
You people realize that when you show up on a google picture for their streetview dealy it is because effectively got in the way? Nobody cares that you're in the picture. Everyone would prefer your ugly mug wasn't in the streetview picture. Unless you're sporting whale-tail or something interesting.
Presumably by 'mouse' you don't mean...
The pan-dimensional variety.
Replicating the capacity of a cat brain is quite a tall order. They're on the upper end of the Brain to body size ratio and are the only animal to successfully domesticate large potions of humanity. (As opposed to dogs which are domesticated by humanity)
What an awful article.
I mean really? Counting pixels? As has been mentioned already several times, you couldn't conceive the the real world has more than 2 dimensions? Just terrible. Should be ashamed of yourself.
The comments section is a wonderful example of cognitive bias, though, bravo.
As England is already a US territory, simply petition to be elevated to State status so that you are afford the same protections. ;P
(Yes, yes, I know. Citizens of territories are already US citizens. Bloody Limey Septics ;) )
Normally I might agree with you, but explaining the complexities of such a discovery to King George seems like a waste of everyone's time.
I must confess...
...a certain amount of amusement to see advertisers bit by automatic opt-in. Delicious irony. I certainly don't agree with the method, however. But I suspect all this is way over blown.
Long live the memory of Bill Hicks.
"If you look at examples of Googles behaviour in china, I think you will easily stumble across the evidence that would contradict this statement."
Aside from them being the most open about the fact that they are censoring the point remains that Google cannot censor more than what is required by government and allowed by people.
If other searches exist that censor less of what people don't want censored, people will naturally move to include those searches because nothing binds them to use any one Search.
In the case of China, I don't think Google is dominant. I believe Baidu is. And they are all forced to censor results to the government's satisfactions. But Google actively tells you that results are censored. So in censoring it is one of the most open.
90% of what?
Market share of what? Ads distributed? Ads Purchased? Ad purchasers? I see the number floating around but not really defined. Market power is not just a function of how much market dominance you have, but the barriers to entry for other options. And there really isn't any barrier, as an advertiser, to setup affiliations for advertising and cross-linking with related websites.
Google Search doesn't exactly have a lock-in, either. If they are discovered to be censoring and we aren't happy about it, there isn't any need to keep using it to the exclusion of other search engines. And it is these eyes that Google ads depend on.
Even if Google is the only big player in town, there really is nothing explicitly requiring you to use the big player to get the job done that I can see. At least not yet. Sure the economies of scale work for Google in this case. But I find it difficult to believe that the only way to ever get your message out is to fork over cash to Google. No matter what narrowly defined marketshare they are said to possess. It isn't like legacy matters in this market, really. Divesting in Google doesn't mean you lose all the repeat customers you've already acquired.
"The historical person of Jesus existed, we know that much, since he's recorded in extra-biblical historical records from the era."
Incorrect. The closest I've ever heard anyone get to an extra-biblical source to an account of the historical source of the Jesus character even as a human advocating what the biblical Jesus advocated was some roman guy who was reporting on a cult's beliefs long after this Jesus character supposedly died/ascended.
It doesn't mean he didn't exist, but there are no historical grounds to claim he did.
Its a bit like saying that the FSM exists because someone wrote a report on Pastafarians for the Reg.
Jesus was no Socrates.
No, as an American I find the bigotry displayed by some of the Brits perfectly OK and acceptable. I certainly understand that the limeys need to vent some spleen so that they can deal with the fact that they aren't a state yet and still relegated to status as a U.S. Territory. It'll be denied of course, but that's more to keep one's ego intact.
This article is perfect fodder to stroke the English at the U.S.'s expense. But I support those southerners having guns. Because we live in a democracy and they out breed us and I'm not in shooting distance.
As a bumpersticker I saw while waiting for gas the other day said, "Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people."
Jury Trials are important. They let the public participate in their own administration of justice. They have their flaws and limitations, certainly. But there are reasons it is in place. And there are reasons we have an appeals system.
In this case I would say the course of law is being subverted by a prosecution that should have just let it go.
Makes me sick.
I heard this on the news last night and I howled in rage and wanted to break things. I'd like to know why the hell Obama caved.
I am so angry at my elective representatives right now but feel so helpless to affect any change for the utter ridiculous crap passed into legislation.
Flames for white hot anger.
I find it amusing that several of those commenting seem to accept the article authors adjective out of hand in regards to the quote, “natural skepticism and debates embedded in the scientific process". As the quote itself seems to demonstrate at least some insight and appreciation of the nature of science. Perhaps more to the point he was bemoaning the exploitation of good faith inherent in the functioning of proper science by propagandists on doll to the lobbyists. Such exploitation is well known to occur in the Evolution vs ID and the issue of Tobacco. Both being rather close politically with the oil industry. Perhaps some natural skepticism should be applied to examining the context of such quotes.
Oh, did I say I find it amusing? I meant I find it depression and indicative of the intellectual shortcomings of this whole farce of taking on the mantle of rationality when it is anything but.
RE: Various Can't disprove God comments
Many have made the claim that one cannot disprove God. This is untrue. God is certainly examinable once one has am interpretation to explore. The Christian God is manifestly provable or disprovable by examining the traits 'He' is supposed to possess and whether they A) necessary in operate the universe or B) evidenced in its operation. As this has generally not been the case since we're still arguing about it, and since Epicurus logically dismantled the primary omni-benevolent/omnipotent/omniscient God we can satisfactorily say that the Christian God is highly unlikely to exist.
What Christians turn to when they claim you cannot disprove God is a bait and switch approach, you cannot disprove a God is inherently vague and without definition, thus their God exists. False. That God has no more meaning than saying, "Prove that I do not possess Hooglesnacks in my pocket." As Hooglesnacks doesn't have a real definition, that is, of course, an impossible task. But it is a meaningless request as well.
While I consider myself a agnostic on the grounds that the liberal use of the word god is without adequate definition and is thus, unknowable, I take offense at the fact that some people who are without intellectual integrity claim some superiority because they call themselves similarly. Giving agnosticism a bad name by essentially being the fence sitters as others accuse. Even the religious recognize that some interpretations of God are plain silly.
In the end it is all for naught I realize. But it makes me feel a little better. People will continue to contribute their cribbed half truths in defense ridiculous stances. Like the IDers who, when confronted with the falsity of their particular argument, do not end the use of broken conjecture, but instead save it for a time when it may persuade with less sophisticated understanding.
Like trotting out Einstein believed in God, when at most, before you could have said he was a deist and now he was obviously significantly less religious than even that.
Many a dubious thing has been said in these comments.
Which I suppose goes further to illustrate the point of the original research.
But several have asked what Einstein would have said. Well... here's the link to what he did say. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
I would imagine he would have sympathized quite strongly with the conclusion of the paper. I wonder if in a hundred years from now there won't be people 'of faith' speaking about Dawkins trying to demonstrate to the heathen fellows what a believer he was.
@how to raise an idiot
As much as it pains me to say this, Bush isn't from Texas. He's yanky northeasterner from Connecticut, I believe. Bush Sir. took his family to Texas, apparently to get away from his father.
As I am also a northeasterner, I consider the fact that the Bush family hails from this region of the States a deep and lingering shame.
Is the same as discrimination. As the first commenter said, legalize it or ban it. And if you ban it, ban smoking an alcohol too. And possibly caffeine. It's the only consistent thing to do.
The UK and US government(s) need to get over this fixation.
Well, I understand the need to take some liberties but it is really pointless to do something so completely impossible. They don't really need a 'dwarf star' unless they're just trying to up the ante beyond other various potential space faring objects. Just blatantly ignorant crap, though, really ruins the suspension of disbelief for me.
Maybe just start with a dwarf planet?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the gravitational sheer of an object to achieve a 'star' classification, no matter how dwarf, prevent a proper 'hit' because both the moon and earth would be torn apart before even getting close?
A earthquakes and a bit of tsunami activity seems to be the least of your issues when whole landmasses are flying into the sky.
I think a movie like this sucks because it actually down plays the scale of such a calamity to make it human manageable when it won't be.
Australia is a really good example of why such censorship ultimately fails. As you confess, it doesn't stop kids from getting the games. It also has the tendency of restricting access to some games from adults who should otherwise be allowed to make their own minds up about the matter. Similar to the Manhunt 2 mess in the UK.
Worst of all it encourages the sort of crap games Manhunt 2 apparently is because it is free publicity for such a poorly made game.
Additionally singling out games is rather myopic. There really shouldn't be any distinction between media. If violence is damaging then it is damaging is all forms. The same mirror neurons are firing when you do a task as when you watch someone else do it.
I would really like to see some evidence that children are buying all these mature games on their own, anyway. I would wager by in large, these games are almost universally already purchased by adults for children to begin with. Any such law would clearly not impact this much if so.
What a disgusting waste of time and a dangerous thing to do. There should be some sort of criminal consequence from knowingly legislating unconstitutional laws. Regardless of if it is just to 'call attention to' some issue. Should be hanged for treason or something.
Dead vulture to represent the state of our constitution.
"What is the poor end marketer to do?"
Might I suggest following the advise of the venerable Bill Hicks?
Author fails US knowledge test on censorship.
All 'obscene material' (pornography) is already covered by law regardless of media. This includes video games as welll as magazines and movies. There is no distinction, as far as I'm aware, to the source of the sexually explicit content.
However, all other ratings schemes are voluntary. By making a law targeting video game violence, you are singling out video games for special enforcement, which is hypocritical. Most retailers and theaters already impose their own voluntary age restriction base on ratings. Which is why many retailers refuse to stock AO games like Leisure Suit Larry.
If you are going to censor video games in such a manner, then it is only prudent to censor all material similarly, like movies and books. Which means no more Bible and Shakespeare for the kiddies.
At the end of the day kids require quite an financial backing to purchase video games. An child young enough to be 'damaged' by such 'immoral material', really shouldn't be able to acquire such a game without at least some level of parental awareness. But all too often parents and grandparents are the ones acquiring "Mature" rated games like GTA and Halo for their 13 year old boys. So a faux problem, really.
"Because it's irrelevant. One set of shills keeps another set of shills out of a room? Well, boo-hoo."
Not quite. It is relevant to the extent that Comcast literally bribed people to support their cause as opposed to genuinely interested parties. It is an attempt to subvert the process and it reflects poorly on the over all integrity of the company.
It is deceitful and rather shameful and when held up with their past behavior of denial and cover-up (that even Bennett admits Comcast has engaged in), then it becomes hard to take them seriously at all.
Where is Apologist Bennet with his comment about Comcast's current behavior?
@AC 12:17GMT - While the U.S. has much to answer for, to claim it is the best at being the worse, or the "Gold Star" as you say, is quite off the mark. The history of humanity has never been a clean affair. Or if we want to rake up all the evils of our respective nation (and you want to not be a coward and divulge yours), we can do that. If anything the U.S. merely continues the legacy that the British originally started.
I can play the Ignorant Generalizations game too!
Well I suppose tasering him isn't quite as humane as shooting him in the back of the head as he ran away.
Maybe our guys to take some lessons from the Canadians, they seem more up on tasering techniques.
Our approach isn't Hands-off
It is just a hands in the pants approach. That, my friends, is the Corporate American Way.
As a citizen of the U.S. of A. I object to your bootnote. To think that we would find terrorism more of a threat than the incidental exposure of naughty bits is beyond belief!
Seeing the human body in its natural form is the greatest of all terrorist acts. Have you see how big some of my fellow citizens are? That's just inhumane.
Once again you do your argument little good with your Bill O'Reilly-esque emotive rhetoric. After reading your first one and now this I am amazed you have the audacity to accuse the other side of some sort of religious fervor. You would say those of a rational bend much more readily if you stopped with your various ad-hominem statements.
Additionally the real issue seems to have flown over your head. While there may or may not be reasonable technical considerations for its' activity, it is the marketing and games they play that Comcast most finds itself at fault. There is no reason for Comcast to play word games to try and cover up the fact that they throttle/manage/shape traffic. But they did. And it isn't the customer's fault that they over sell their network.
If you can't handle a customer taking advantage of all you can eat, don't sell your service publicly as all you can eat.
"Green solution = does not work very well = cost much more than an optimal solution would = scam."
It is the duty of a the people/properly functioning government to make sure business are unable to externalize their true costs. Of course businesses get peeved when they actually have to pay for the cleanup of their own mess. So it often fails. But what is an optimal solution for one business can fail to be an appropriate optimal Nash Equilibrium with competing global interests. Like survival.
My DNA is not my own!
"What happens when something goes wrong and chimera tissue or DNA gets mixed up with human and mutates? It may never happen - I'm no scientist - but what if it does? Sorry - but this is just plain wrong!"
Oh no! What if they create some pathogen that mixes its' DNA with ours and then makes our cells explode one by one!
You're right, you aren't a scientist. But, more importantly, you're painfully ignorant of the even the slimmest of shreds of the science before condemning it. How quaint.
If I copyright my DNA. Can I sue my clone for mitosis?
...seem pretty smug in your disgust for what lack of common sense demonstrated by America/Americans. As if the U.S. is the only nationality that frequents these El Reg that has a government participating on massive over-reach and a general disregard of personal liberties.
There are some born and raised in the U.S. that actually comprehend that other countries exist and lament greatly the prestige and integrity our government as squandered.
It seems a shame that we've decided to follow in the footsteps of the English. You'd think they'd be proud like an old father. The old colonies have grown up and taken over the family business.
Extra capacity won't help,..
...If they haven't been taking advantage of their capability already.
There are a lot of people in my country who have failed to apply reason to their decisions. I doubt improved cognition will help with what they lack is education and curiosity to begin with.
I never really reply to the DRM/music/RIAA sort of topics but I have noticed the Orlowski shows tremendous cowardice whenever I glance at his articles. I glance down from the inflammatory posts of his without ever seeing the author and see comment not enabled and realize it is the Ball-less Wonder again.