Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1) 981

by otopico (#47932861) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Actually, ISIL hasn't flown planes into anything, that was Al Qaeda (not Iraq). They haven't beheaded children.That story goes to a single source, not in the area ISIL currently controls, is the single person claiming this. The only photo of a beheaded child is from 2013, and was killed by bombs dropped by the Syrian government.

14 of the guys in the planes were Saudis. Why not go hate on them?

But please go on and spread propaganda to lead the US into yet another war in a place we never should have been in the first place. These wars of choice always work out so well in the end.

Comment: Re:Not all religions are bad (Score 3, Insightful) 910

by otopico (#38403140) Attached to: Christopher Hitchens Dies At 62

Not a condemnation? Are you high?

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

You can argue as to what 'lie with mankind' means, but to suggest that ' to’evah ' translated to abomination isn't a condemnation is just dishonest.

Comment: Re:Christianity offers a wide range of opinions (Score 4, Insightful) 943

by otopico (#37917292) Attached to: Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Public Debate

The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide? At whom's whim does the decision rest?

That people need to create new explanations for why the Bible says something that they decided it doesn't mean to say anymore makes me think that the book wasn't right in the first place and people are desperate to keep it relevant. If 'god' didn't want people to think the world was 6,000 years old, why say it was in the book? Seems like 'a long long time ago' would have conveyed the same idea, but prevented people that believe the book to be true from running around with obviously flawed information. Even George Lucas figured out it was easier to be vague, one would think the creator of all things would at least be at that level. That some are 'quite comfortable' with their ever changing assumptions regarding the content of their book doesn't make them enlightened, it makes them look like they would rather change the entire meaning of the book rather than admit it might not be true.

Making one's faith fit science seems to be a lesser evil that forcing the science to the faith, but in the end you are still forcing something to be 'true' when an entirely different conclusion could reached by throwing away the requirement that the answer hold to a bronze age religion.

Comment: Re:Speaking as an Creationist and Evolutionist (Score 1) 943

by otopico (#37917200) Attached to: Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Public Debate

Why would the creator of all things need to worry about his 'spiritual enemies'? We are talking about something that, according to some, existed before the universe. Beings so far removed from the physical plane wouldn't need to worry about humanity moving into the stars or trying to trick the bad guys into wasting their time so the good guys could convert more people. Unless you are suggesting that the same beings that supposedly go before the throne of 'god' to tattle on believers need to concern themselves with something as mundane as distance between stars? That 'god' even has enemies seems to undermine his claim to being a god. He can create all existence, but he needs to worry about the evil schemes of his creations? That doesn't sound much like a god. Sounds like a bad science fiction novel in which an entire armada is powerless to stop the enemy until a lone pilot flies in and saves the day...

More power to you I guess.

Comment: Re:Special situations (Score 1) 1049

by otopico (#35320078) Attached to: Activists Seek Repeal of Ban On Incandescent Bulbs

So rather than design a child's oven with a heat element, someone stumbled across the gimmick to use a light bulb. I imagine an actual heating element would have been just as efficient (or inefficient depending on how you look at it) as the light bulb, plus you could get longer life out of the element, and be able to reduce the area of the oven since you didn't need the room for a bulb.

Just saying: Easy Bake oven exploit the waste heat of a lighting device. That is clever, but clever doesn't mean ideal.

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 1352

by otopico (#34580502) Attached to: Survey Shows That Fox News Makes You Less Informed

And so you are a birther? Honestly. If anytime you don't agree with something you pull out the 'we can't be sure' card, how do you ever make it through a day. You claim an education, but as an engineer, when someone presents to you something with which you do not agree, do you hound them to prove their point and when they do, you shout 'But I could fake that!', and then ignore their point?

Just because 'you' can think of a way it could be faked, that doesn't mean it was faked. I can think of how 9/11 was an inside job, but that doesn't mean I have any delusion as to if it was or not. Imagination is not evidence of anything aside from your biases.

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 1352

by otopico (#34580430) Attached to: Survey Shows That Fox News Makes You Less Informed

Can you post something that isn't a paste of you last 5 posts? Not arguing with you, just asking you to take a little more effort. "Whatever. My research shows ..." makes you sound like an ass.

And as for 'more people watching FOX so it must be better/is what most people think'; at one point in this country, most people thought blacks weren't 'really' people, or at the very least, they thought they were not as worthy as whites. Doesn't mean it was good or right, just popular.

Comment: Welcome to the future. (Score 1) 794

by otopico (#34027512) Attached to: Voting Machines Selecting Default Candidates

We sent people to the moon with magnetic core memory, but we cannot build a secure system they doesn't screw up something as simple as putting a check next to someone's name. Here is an idea. If you build electronic vote machines and a bug this big comes out after voting begins, you have to close your business and stop working on electronic voting forever. How low is the bar set on electronic voting? Are they trying to be this pathetic and useless?

Google has a car that can drive itself. Arizona has voting machines that can't set a default vote state that doesn't check a candidate's name. How are we as a species still alive with this level of stupidity?

As a previous poster has said, this has to be deliberate failure. Maybe the paper ballot lobby is funding all of the electronic voting companies and paying them to screw up so badly that the public will demand dead tree ballots for the rest of human history. Meanwhile, robots and computers will drive cars, perform surgeries, and pilot our space craft, but never will we trust them to record our vote. No, that is far too complex.

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...