Your source does not actually support your claim.

The Bible was written to be taken literally (to be understood by its literary genre). In other words, poetry is to be understood as poetry, historical narrative is to be understood as historical narrative, etc.

If you don't take it literally, then you're free to treat the psalms as historical narrative or the laws as poetry, etc. In other words, you could make it mean whatever you want it to.

That actually comes close to the arguments used by creationists: http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers#starlight

No, because Theistic-Evolution is self-refuting. If God said he created in 6 days, but actually took billions of years, then that would make him a liar. If he's lying about how he created, then there's a good chance he's not telling the truth about being God either (basically the inverse of John 3:12). It also ignores the premise for Evolution; a way to explain origins without God. Something is very wrong with Evolution if you have to invoke God to get it to work.

The correct url to the interview is: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1883592 not http://queuedev.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1883592

Wow. I actually saw your comment get down moded in real time! Kind of proves your point about moderator abuse...

When people say they're against "embryonic stem cell research" everyone else just hears "stem cell research" because they're too dumb to know the difference (and that's on both sides!).

APC will be included in PHP6. Bytecode caching has not really been a huge issue in PHP until more recently with larger MVC frameworks being used.

In principle, I agree, but that doesn't excuse the blanket covering of anyone who doesn't agree with AWG as a denier. And even if they are "deniers", calling them so, certainly won't win them over to your cause. Most of the anti-AGW stuff I've seen has dealt with the science, while most of the pro-AGW stuff I've seen has been fingers-in-the-ears name calling. Maybe we've just been visiting different sites?

Totally agree. I like how they've started calling people who don't believe in AGW "deniers" now instead of "sceptics". Is their "science" so flaky that they have to resort to character assassination? And BTW, it's called Climate Change now. Kind of hard to call it Global Warming when past decade has seen a downward trend. Luckily they chose a term that is sufficiently vague that any variation in weather would classify as proof of Climate Change.

Just un-munge on a mouseover.

I think you miss the point. In Git (and Bazaar), you're working with your own branches locally. You don't have to tell anyone that you've made them. Once you're happy with your experimentations in one branch and want to merge it into the "trunk", you can then either tell your team leader, "Hey, I've finished this new feature, pull from me", or depending on your rights, push it straight into the main repository. That's the beauty of distributed SCM's. You're the only one who has to juggle those balls. If you're able to juggle 10, then fine. If you're like me and can only deal with 1 or 2, that's fine too. The point is, it's your own repository. You can make as many or few branches as you like and nobody has to know.