You saw the word "God"
What? That's the classic, repeated here a million times, "If you're willing to "believe" in [string theory/black hole evaporation/dark matter/whatever], that's the same as invoking God" meme. It's a meta-rant, all wrapped up in a succinct little code phrase. THAT was the off-topic bit. Pointing out that it's BS isn't off-topic, it's calling it what it is.
I am not a theologian
Obviously. Otherwise you'd be trotting out the much more polished responses that trained theologians use to try to explain the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, but unspeakably mean and petty God scenario. Professional theologians and similar shamans have a lot more practice and selling that concept than you do. Clearly:
Man creates fancy cancer causing agent, lets call it
Are you sticking with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god model? Well, since you're sticking with pure invented fantasy, that's actually a trick question, isn't it? But since that god is involved in every aspect of creation, then: yes. And even if you don't like that answer, there's the fact that despite is apparently boundless mercy and his ability to make otherwise physically impossible things happen (including bringing people back from the dead during publicity stunts), he really doesn't are if pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent infants (and millions of other people) die in agony after months of suffering. Who cares if man is capable of inducing cancer. Are you proposing that ALL such horrible fates, including every way in which a toddler can be made ill and prematurely die in misery is the result of human action? No? I see.
Or put it in another way, "God allows evil, because without a choice, there is no chance to choose"
I see. So, things like childhood bone cancer, or being born with a major heart defect, etc., is just people choosing. OK.
ON the other hand, you being human and being your own god have to answer for the evil you allow to exist. Oh wait, being an atheist, you cannot even say evil exists.
You really are new at this, aren't you? Are you actually saying that the only measuring stick for evil is that which a particular bronze-age desert tribe or two jotted down, and had re-hashed by people centuries later for political reasons? That only people who follow that recipe are allowed to objectively weigh someone's actions as evil? Hint: it's possible to objectively define a value system (which then allows you to separate things into good and evil) without even once having to invoke magical invisible all-powerful but part-time and petty gods. In fact, it's a lot EASIER to define a rational code of ethics/morals if you're NOT using made of fairly tales as the basis for them, philosophically. Why? Because that way you don't have to paint over all of the BS mixed premises, loopholes, and please-don't-look-behind-the-curtain nonsense that comes with basing your value system on imaginary magic.
And don't lie to me saying you don't allow evil, even by your own standards, you allow it. Which makes you pretty hypocritical.
Have you poured your nice strawman a cup of coffee yet this morning? He's probably getting tired.
I see somebody has a topic they want to rant about.
Nope, just laying down the counter-meme for the toxic "If you believe in Hawking radiation it's just like believing in the Jude-Christian God" meme.
I've lost count of the number of times I've gone back to an old game and been shocked at how much worse it looks compared to the game from my memories. So making some improvements to enable people to go back to the game without that sense of disconnect is no bad thing.
I ran into this this weekend. Plugged in my 360 (which I haven't played in about 2-3 years at least) and fired up Halo 2 (which is admittedly an Xbox game) and was like "holy crap, the graphics were that bad?". Of course, I suspect this is a compounded effect between an increase in graphic quality and also display technology: watching a replay of a football game from even 10 years ago on a modern TV almost seems so blurry you can't even read the names on the back of the jersey. I wonder if we also unconsciously "upgrade" our memories of things we've watched/played years ago to something approximating a level of quality we are experiencing now, because at that time it was top of the line and as clear/realistic as we could get.
On the other hand, maybe you're a satirist, making fun of the GP, who has put forth a commonly proposed explanation for the non-apocalyptic nature of putative mini-black-holes. His embrace of that explanation isn't the least bit like assigning a personality to a fabricated, omniscient, all-powerful (and therefore unspeakably cruel) imaginary friend/god and then making up reports of what that imaginary being thinks and wants. So regardless of how serious or satirical you're being, bad show.
Apart from manners you mean?
Exactly. Apart from manners. If one of your neighbors turns out to not rise to the same level of manners that you do, are feeling the right, then, to take out a shotgun and destroy some of their property? No? Because that's what this is about.
I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!
The problem is, and I think CollegeBoard is saying this, that anyone who has the ability to take AP CS and then take the test should already have significantly developed reading, comprehension, and logical thinking skills. From my experience (I did go to a school with a magnet program but AP classes were open to all students) most students who took an AP class took several; it was very rare to have someone take just one class. So it was a bad idea to have CollegeBoard do a study anyway because there is no way to isolate any potential benefit with AP CS from the student's general ability/interest. Unless Code.org was counting on this so that they could obfuscate the results to show whatever they wanted (a distinct possibility).
Get your fucking military out of half the world's countries.
it's a continuation of the rot and decay that started in 25 years ago with the collapse of the USSR
No, that rot and decay started 93 years ago with the formation of the USSR.
Wrong, in a fire-fight civilians don't have to stick around - they have a chance to get away without getting killed. Not so with drones.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're just continuing to make shit up. Well, at least you're consistent.
But it would be good for you to look some people in the eye and tell them that the thousands of their innocent, non-combatant fellow villagers and countrymen who've died during ground fights between various parties are only dead because they never heard your wise words about they should have just left. I'm sure now they're thinking, "Doh! We had no idea that we could have just left, and instead we were killed in the thousands by ISIS, by the Syrian government, by Iranian special forces, by sectarian IEDs, by Taliban fighters who don't care who's in the crossfire
Instead they're thinking things like, "Well, it's nice that fight is over, because that caravan of Taliban killers just got hit in an airstrike before they even made it into our town, and none of us had to die."
Yeah, I can see how you'd prefer the fake scenario you're preaching instead of reality. People who live around fighting insurgents
Drones are the weapon of cowards without morals.
Just like rifles, right? You much prefer hand-to-hand combat with clubs and knives? Then it's brave and moral? Or is it possible that the tool has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings of why it's a good idea to stop a row of ISIS or Taliban trucks from rolling into the next village they're going to decapitate?