There is one thing that makes the case in article not so clear. The mandatory 2 year EU warranty is not provided by the maker of a product but by a vendor.

Producer warranty can be "whatever" and is not regulated. Vendor warranty is regulated and is 2 years mandatory.

Now in case when Apple is selling through their own Apple store the law applies, but if it's sold through 3rd party Apple does not have to offer any warranty - the reseller does.

At Columbus' times it was common knowledge that the world is round and size of the Earth was calculated by Erastothenes with 2% error 1500 years earlier.

Columbus didn't get rejected because he believed the world is round - he believed that it's 2/3 smaller and Asia spans much farther to the east - he believed the distance to Asia is about the actual distance to Americas.

He only got lucky when he encountered an unknown continent just as the supplies were running out and he never accepted that the lands he sailed to are not Asia.

There's one important caveat: no "new" gold enters the system. When someone buys the pet for real money and someone else buys it for gold, that gold was already present in the game, it was not "created" by the real money transaction.

I wouldn't go as far as that. Ignoring the things like psalms or rules the law, I'd say that some biblical events can be compared to the Illiad - events could be historical (at least in part), but wrapped in mystical narrative. AFAIR according to our current knowledge most of early books (e.g. Exodus) are not actual historical events, but some can be (e.g. king David existence or events from book of Esther).

I don't know. I'm just saying that not all religions see the Bible and evolution as mutually exclusive.

Literal interpretation of Genesis is mostly a thing of few Evangelical churches in USA. Most other denominations see it as allegory.

Only because he was attacked by Hitler. Before that they cooperated very closely and attacked Poland together.

To clarify what I mean as "non-procreation sex": contraceptives are sin, oral sex is a sin, anything that wouldn't result in fertilization during ovulation is a sin.

Some doctrines see this differently (e.g. in Eastern Orthodox contraceptives are allowed, not sure about Protestant/Evangelism etc) but in general - most things related to sexuality are sin.

Not the way I interpret it. OP is using Pascal's wager trying to present the choice of faith as a logical outcome the following options: "you win eternal prize and lose nothing", "you are damned and gain nothing during your life" and "there is nothing afterwards and you lose nothing"

This ignores
- there are other deity options, so "eternal prize" is not guaranteed if you follow Christian religion
- you do give up quite a lot if you follow Christian religion - some might feel that the option of having sex in other purpose than having children is quite important. Non-procreation sex is a sin in Catholic doctrine (yes, even in marriage), possibly in other Christian doctrines too
- will God accept your "I believe just in case" belief as genuine if he exists?

Just like Christians stake their eternal future on the presumption that if God exists, it's the God from the bible (or rather their interpretation of it). They live their whole lives doing what their interpretation of the bible supports, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything different. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day ruled by different deity they will spend eternity burning in other version of hell.

Yeah, and these are all in the same language. We probably have no way to interpret it the way the authors intended.

Ah, the endless capacity of apologists to BS themselves by postulating what's not actually in the text. How cute.

Why don't you follow your own advice and look what's actually in the text?

A few examples from http://bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm :

New International Version (©1984)
Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel."

New Living Translation (©2007)
Prepare and eat this food as you would barley cakes. While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread."

English Standard Version (©2001)
And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Eat the bread as you would eat barley loaves. Bake the bread in front of people, using human excrement for fuel."

King James Bible
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

You mean the false one?

He missed one crucial combination - does drunk Nico, drunk player cancel each other out?

Assuming that 100$ and 1000$ wine have some other differences apart from price. But I know a few people who, given the exactly same liquid and being told that one is 10 times more expensive, would find out many differences between them and genuinely believe in it.