We need more context. Can you post a photo?
... vitroil...
Not sure what this is, but can I have some for the car?
According to the article:
"I’ve written before about the implementation of tabbed documents in a word processor, and that’s only the beginning."
You've got to admit that Mozilla giving up on browsers is the only responsible course of action with such innovations awaiting.
The way you describe it, it sounds identical to theology. That's why you can study the subject, why there's more than one theologian in the world, various points of view, changes and trends. I'm not too sure where you can be getting your vision of theology from - although if yours is a widespread perception, it would go some way to explaining the reluctance of some scientists towards publicising their faith
If you are advocating that somehow this being is outside of our realm of existence / laws - well you've fallen back into the classical religious defense - it's magic and you just can't know. I'm at a loss at this point. I do have a teaport orbiting jupiter, though.
Yup, it's kind of annoying really. Thing is though, if you're talking about a creator, science just isn't a great tool for dissection. It'd be like analysing Slashdot developers based on the HTML and Javascript for this site - you might get out a bit of psychoanalysis, but you probably won't be able to determine the colour of their hair. If a god's the creator, then (s)he defined the rules. That's a bummer for finding an easy-kill argument for religious belief, but it's a sensible starting point for the discussion, rather than an argument-avoiding excuse.
One says "we tell you it is like this and you must not disagree" the other tells you "question it all and judge for yourself".
That's pretty different, as approaches go.
Having had a "religious" upbringing and been on the scene for a while, I'm not sure I've ever had anyone tell me to do the former. YMMV, but again, that's part of the point : it's not about a single "religion" or a single approach. Religions can be open and closed, questioning and scared. You can't lump them all together in this kind of a discussion
So, in other words, updating science to better correspond with reality is good science. Updating theology to better correspond with reality is bad theology.
Kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.
I'll tell you why - the magical mystical god of the various books is hugely inconsistent and fails the basic logical challenges a scientific analysis demands.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed in one specific thing - religion insists on telling us "it is so", while science will treat us like adults and tell us "we don't know - here is our best guess so far"....
Now here come the flame mods
You'll pretty much deserve the flame mods though. Pretending that there's one "god" portrayed differently by the various religions isn't helping your case. "Logical challenges a scientific analysis demands" suggesting that a divine being (perhaps the source of the universe), is somehow subject to science, is a curious argument at best. You don't appear to be in a good position to be saying "it is so" to all those with religious beliefs.
There's diversity out there, which is why the conversation is worth having : how do different beliefs interact with people's way of understanding science ? Scientists throughout history have had various beliefs which may have helped or hindered their quest for knowledge. They're part of the discussion
I don't like the secret/stealth update either.
That's fine - you're a geek. However, for my parents, I'm recommending they go for Chrome simply because of the update feature. Any kind of manual intervention in updating is going to throw them, but with Chrome, they're going to be up to date and relatively secure. Chrome's got it right for the vast majority of users and Mozilla would do well to go in the same direction.
In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them.
Kind of depends. If it's for a cleaner or a mechanic, then discrimination on sexual orientation is clearly an issue. However, if churches were unable to refuse employment for someone in, say, pastoral care, with a lifestyle or beliefs contrary to that church's teaching, then such a law would go beyond anti-discrimination and become intolerant dictature.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth