So by your logic, communism could work in Scandinavia? ;-)

They didn't actually. For example, Soyuz-U still has analog control computers. So you didn't get advanced computers as spin-offs of the space program, because the space program didn't have advanced computers in the first place.

Academic leftists, unlike you, know that it was socialism that collapsed. Communism couldn't have collapsed because nobody got that far yet.

Those "last 11 years" or so that you cherry-picked so carefully start seven years after the first Ariane 5 fireworks in 1996 and just after another Ariane 5 fireworks in 2002. The partial failure of F9 - an engine loss from which the vehicle successfully recovered (!), a total impossibility for Ariane 5 - took place two years after the introduction of F9. Biased much?

My argument is that theism increases the chance of a person turning violent where there wouldn't have been a reason otherwise. So your logic is that if we remove theism, the murders the list I quoted would have happened anyway, for a different, non-religious reason? As to the IRA, those bombings could have been either religiously or politically motivated. In the former case, it supports my argument, although I'm sort of dubious that this is the case for the majority of the bombings.

And where are all the other Breiviks? Can't you find any other? At least one per week, please.

Please explain the argument to me, then.

I'd argue that one religion specifically actually makes me unsafe, but all religions make me feel unsafe - we know how much damage even non-murderous theists cause. Just look at the widespread US notions of natural history.

Oh, by the way, the Breivik argument is just hilarious. He's the one guy who tripled Norway's homicide statistics for one year. That alone should tell you something about Norway. And the fact that Breivik is even newsworthy after three years when something like six acts of Muslim religious violence on average end up with death daily really drives my point home. The same week that Breivik killed 77 people, Muslims around the world killed at least another 95 (just for religious reasons, mind you - that's what we're counting here). But one Breivik is newsworthy only because it's such a rare occurrence. Norway doesn't have low homicide rate because it's Christian - it really isn't, it has a low homicide rate because it's not chock-full of crazy brainwashed wackos.

I'm still talking about the list of attacks. That is a summary of facts. I've randomly sampled some of the attacks some time ago and none of them was made up; all of them happened. It's not a "soundbite" or a "pre-baked conclusion" "made to look factual" that a policeman was beheaded by Muslims for religious reasons on this December's first day, BBC reports on it. And if the authors of that web site indeed only "cherry-picked" some of them, as you insinuate, I'm not sure I want to see the rest.

At this point in history, arguing that perhaps religion doesn't make people utterly stupid really sounds almost like arguing that perhaps the Earth is hollow.

Well, technically, you only need to use a C interface, not C as a language.

Wait, how could "ch" be in any remote way a diphthong if there's no vowel involved?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "bottom line", but the list itself is backed by evidence; it's not an opinion piece, just a summary of facts. Comparing it to terrorist events motivated by other ideologies or religious traditions seems like a good idea, although the conclusion could easily be that pretty much any ideology or religious tradition is undesirable. I'd like to see a list like that for other religions, really.

Some people consider it a "hate site" for some reason, but so far, nobody explained away the list.

As far as I'm concerned, this is completely unheard-of in my country. Standards are generally pre-set, and if half of the class fails where the previous year's students had few problems, well, that's their problem, nobody's going to lower the standards for this year's class.

I don't know but that still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Surely these intro courses have many more classes/groups in order to accommodate all the people who need them? You can't admit a thousand freshmen and then open classes for a required course for only eight hundred of them.

Or, one could have a structured editor with appropriate graphical presentations. This could be awesome at least for the occasional cell phone or tablet programmer who wouldn't have to hunt for proper cursor positions if editing worked with larger meaningful units.