Ok now I see the distinction you are making and agree. But I think its reasonable in a discussion such as this to infer religion here to mean a specific religion (mine/yours/someone elses), not technically in the name of religion as a concept.
I am not going to say nobody has killed in the name of atheism because, how would we know? But.....
He's a pretentious prick. So what? His opponents should respond to his arguments, not his personality. It boils down to hating the guy because he's rude. Is it the message or the messenger?
Who would you consider as alternate leading voices on the topic of religion in the scientific community? Or should they all just shut their cakeholes?
I don't see much difference in the two statements. I think if someone keeps a cool head they can rebutt either one if that is what one truly believes. I think it is just his style that rubs people the wrong way. The best way to answer this is to confront it directly just as you lined it out and make him answer to it. Problem is, the guy is pretty well spoken and intelligent, so your average person debating with him gets flustered because they feel they cannot defend their view intelligently. I am no huge fan of Dawkins, just my observation. He rarely, if ever that I noticed, spews the same vitriol he gets in return. He says what he believes without much emotion. Hitchens was aggressive as hell.
That's right there isn't. But they are fair game to be called out for their bias.
disagreeing with somebody does not make them a douche. Dawkins is not in the same league as Hitchens when it comes to this. I think Dawkins rubs people the wrong way because he does stay so cool under fire. He comes across as an intellectual (an eeeeleeeet). Hitchens just crucified (sorry for the pun) people of faith.
I don't get this from Krauss. Hitchens maybe, did not like his approach. Krauss and Dawkins are not as aggressive, they only say they need proof and they challenge absurd assumptions based on faith alone. They even say it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. What we know about the universe today leads us to believe that there isn't but in the end it is impossible to know for sure.
I know many non-technical people that are bypassing the restrictions. I think you will see a clamp down on any method that has a critical mass of people using it. Safe to say using your own VPS as a socks5 proxy will never be blocked. But if you are using goober's "geobypass4netflix.com" then it may get blocked.
They didn't print an opposing and well written view by one of the leading voices in the scientific community on this issue. So the claim here is that the WSJ are biased. But you are right about the yawn. That WSJ article was preaching to the choir and there are plenty of other places to get the counter view.
Ya no shit. Store all your settings and access all these devices from the cloud. No thank you. Now the "Intranet of Things" interests me somewhat and most of the interesting stuff is happening in the do-it-yourself space. People are doing incredible things with RaspberryPi's and Arduino's and other variants and they are posting their code publicly so anyone can hack around.
Ya every goober out there is going to do this or send money to some shady guy in another country.
Lame reply to myself......
Netflix could just tie your account to a geographic region. No matter where you login from you get your country's content. I just think they don't really care and will not do this until they are motivated to. Want a US account then you need a US address. I don't know what the issue is. Seems easier than playing IP Range Wack a Mole.
And how will they do that? It is not an issue of price. The idea is that you would need to be using a US IP that is not through a VPN. There will still be ways but its not a matter of getting people to pony up cash, they already are.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
