Well, since I was a developer at Coldwell Banker a few years back, whose worldwide real estate search and "tour" sites were running handily on .NET and SQL Server, I happen to know directly that it was a relatively-small percentage that were built on sand and swamp. But you could filter those out by price range. ;)

It isn't terribly surprising that Mono is abandoning Silverlight, since Microsoft seems to be doing much the same in favor of HTML 5.

The .NET Framework and tools in totality are a different story, though.

By the way, for those who haven't looked at it recently, MonoDevelop has come a -long- way. It's feature-comparable to Visual Studio, nowadays.

"There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."


Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

--Gospel of Thomas


There you go.

The metaphor-challenged may not "see it", and if not, that's how it should be, and Darwin will take care of you just fine.

Once again, though, the majority of theistic stances have no problem with "evolution occurs", and this False Dichotomy is getting old.

I'm waiting for things to calm down before ordering. Though i do believe they will change the world.

I eat heavy metal
Gargle premium gas
I drink heavy water
Nitro-demitasse

Well, sorry you don't understand how logical fallacies work. About all I can say at this point.

I addressed this further in the above response.

No, my characterization is the -required inference- from their stance on religion, which -contradicts- their own stance, as well as evolutionary theory. My restatement is not what their position on evolution -is-, but rather what it -must be- for consistency with their other stances. As I said, it's a Reductio which also, conveniently, points out the self-contradiction as well.

Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens has ever said any such thing, nothing even remotely like it, nothing that could be reduced to that.

"God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"

Really? How about something -precisely like that- as the very -title- of one of his books?

So, back to the point, when/where was this idyllic "everything" that then became "poisoned" by religion? If he's going to argue the relative preference for his made-up void of the never-existed, he should be more specific.

Your argument is that if a fallacious argument is presented, -demonstrating it's self-contradictory nature- is itself a Straw Man, because that by definition alters it. There is no way to maintain both the premise -and- the conclusion unchanged, even when the argument is entirely erroneous, without rendering it differently. You're essentially claiming that if I claim "I can fly because of my magic ring", and you then systematically refute my conclusion that I can fly as derived from the premise of my ring, that -you- have the problem because you changing "can fly" to "demonstrably can't fly" is straw manning my argument, because you changed "can" to "can't".

No.

I suggest taking a look at the warning at the bottom here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I think you're confusing "weakened restatement of an opposing position" with "noting the absurd (also being self-contradictory is just a bonus here) conclusions required by the opposing position".

The first is a Straw Man. The second is a Reductio Ad Absurdum. The first is a fallacy, the second is a refutation.

Wait, wait... you're messing with Slashdot's standard Dawkins-Hitchens understanding that evolution works by the mechanisms of rainbows and lollypops, and all evil started with the creation of religion.

Self-refuting arguments aren't as amusing as self-eliminating arguments, though, I find.