Comment Re:Power required to charge? (Score 1) 603
I know the feeling... :-(
You're telling me you have seriously never met one of the 'lunatic atheists' who legitimately believe that anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy of any kind should be summarily executed for the good of mankind?
I never said anything about there being a lot of them. I also specifically said they were certainly not well organized. Most atheists are atheist due to rational analysis of the question and drawing a logical conclusion based on the non-disprovability of the existence of G-d. Some small few however are atheist because it's a socially acceptable way to hate someone else. I think it would be foolish to assume that they could not start forming groups and trying to get publicity for their mission to 'cleanse the opiate of the masses from the world'. Every ideology has it's lunatic fringe. Every ideology, no exceptions.
Oh, the atheist extremists are out there, and they are just as obnoxious as the religious extremists. They tend to lack the organization of the religious extremists, but if they ever remedy that they very well may end up as dangerous as the religious nutjobs.
I've never really considered myself an atheist. I'm old enough to remember a time when there was a time when we had more than just f(p) xor f(!p), my personal stance has always been !(f(p) or f(!p)) (where f(x) is belief in x and p is any religion). We used to call ourselves agnostic, but I've been informed we are now referred to as 'soft atheists'. I guess anything more than a binary opposition was just too complicated for some people.
I am intrigued however about the inclusion of texture as an adjective for ones beliefs (or lack thereof). Does this mean I can refer to people as squishy Buddhists or fizzy Christians (crispy Wiccans just seems kind of poor taste)?
Last Mac-head I asked about dual booting gave me some shtick about "corrupting the sanctity of his hardware" when I asked him if he dual-booted. There is likely a small but significant niche of Mac 'gamers' who would be willing to give this a whirl. I'm with the GP on this one though, dump the Windows client and build a Linux version. The Windows version is just redundant in most cases.
Hell, if they made a Linux client where the performance wasn't too bad (In the neighborhood of competitive with running under Wine, with broader compatibility) I might even consider dumping my Windows partition... maybe.
There was another new idea that came out a couple of years ago involving applying an electric current to gasoline just prior to injection, reducing surface tension and greatly increasing atomization.
That was for diesel. Gasoline has no polar molecules so unleaded gas has nothing that interacts with the electric field. Diesel on the other hand has plenty of polar molecules that interact with the electric field, agitating the mixture and lowering the surface tension pre-injection.
If somebody cares enough to spends tens of millions to attack me verbally, then I must be an important person (like a president or other leaders). Which means I'll have approximately equivalent resources at my disposal to fight back, and demand the idiot provide evidence, or else shut up.
Tell that to Jammie Thomas.
But without written and verified documentation on history, Science can not find out the facts of what did happen, it can only guess based on evidence.
Your alternative is? Random pontificating based on one persons interpretation of religious texts that someone claims are inspired by a 'creator' of some kind
That really the only problem I have with Science people is they assume it is fact when it isn't.
Last time I checked the whole point of the scientific method is to not assume anything. I'm not entirely certain what you mean 'it' (this pronoun seems to point to the noun Science, but that would make the statement absurd since science is a method, not something that can be a fact) so I'm going to assume you meant scientific theories. Theories can be assumed to be correct as far as they have been tested. Theories get revised/replaced for fringe cases that don't follow the rules of the last theory. The theory still holds for all cases tested and repeatably shown to be an accurate predictor of the test outcome. Anyone who told you otherwise didn't understand science.
It is the best guess based on the recently collected evidence. However guessing on recently collected evidence can have its own flaws based on assumptions. How can we say that 1000 years of evidence can accurately predict billions of years before?
and again your alternative is? When you come up with a time machine to let us all observe first hand what actually happened please let us know, until then I'll take my testable proxy data over your non-disprovable claims thank you.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
