> Once again, why is The Guardian's app still
> in the store then?
Maybe because The Guardian's app wasn't breaking the Apple TOS with regards to donations? Because that is the reason that the Wikileaks app got pulled, not because of it's content.
I maintain servers with both Hetzner and ThePlanet. I must say that for the money, I am very happy with Hetzner. I simply love their Robot control panel, it has gotten me out of binds a few times. I am actually not the customer, I maintain the server for the customer, but I'm definetely happy with the service.
I have no complaints about ThePlanet, but nothing special about them either.
Why don't I ever get these malicious toolbars installed on my Ubuntu box?
It's always been obvious that Sony customers like getting touched in the rear, the company has been fucking them there for years and they keep coming back.
I see, thanks. I'm going through the cosmology primer now.
Trusting twitter? Turn on the TV or radio. Perhaps check the meteorological service's website.
Because it's so hard to broadcast a lie on public frequencies? I'd say it's easier: I myself with cheap consumer equipment have broadcast on FM, but I've never hacked a password.
No matter if the delivery medium is Twitter or radio, the communication originated from the office of Disaster Management. That is believable enough for me, thanks.
Hi Boris. Wouldn't A Brief History Of Time be the classical layman's book on the subject?
I just watched the first two parts. Absolute garbage. They try to compare synonyms, such as why do "regular explosions" produce chaos, but the "big bang explosion" produced order. It's not the same idea of explosion!?!
They even mention that the early exponential expansion of the universe was "unprecedented". Really? The universe was 10^-30 seconds old when it happened!
I'll not waste time on the remaining parts.
I think that the phenomenon of religious-haters look at the current state of "creationist" idiots who deny the obvious (science). That's not religion, that's idiocy, but they are a vocal bunch. Don't confuse "creationists" with religion!
Religion is science. Before the invention of the scientific method there was no way to quantify methods and test theories. Additionally, the smart few realised the need to tame humans. Religion was the answer to both things: it gave a reason why things happen and a reason to be tame (as opposed to barbaric).
As science (read: the scientific method, chemistry, astronomy, and the ICE) developed around 400 years ago almost every religion embraced it. The Catholics didn't, though, and that is where the schism stems from. But Catholics are not the only religion in the world.
Furthermore, there is no more problem of a duality between religion and science than there is in a duality between the particle theory of light and the wave theory of light. Each is used for specific situations when appropriate. Other that the "creationists", nobody is denying evolution, astronomy, or any other scientific facts.
As for belief in "some invisible guy in the sky" there is no more or less proof for his existence than there is for the top quark. You cannot summon either one at will, rather you must take someone's word for it. And for every scientist who has witnesses undeniable proof of the top quark, from where you and I read the books and learned about them, there will be 1000 people of all professions who will claim to have witnessed undeniable proof of "some invisible guy in the sky" (including scientists). The issue of "belief" reduces to which of the two is more convincing. Or, rather, finding no conflict between them.
Several of the human-human relationship commandments are basic ethical requirements for a successful civilization, so it makes sense that they would stand the test of time. Is it possible that the commandments were simply a way to codify these requirements and supplement the additional authority of an invisible parent figure?
Seems plausible to me. Whoever wrote them, human or divine, was certainly wise. That is the point I was trying to make.
But I found it funny how the religious extremists (yes, those who fervently hate religion are extremists) took it upon themselves to be offended, and retort, and weasel their own implications into what I (didn't) say. It's like they enjoy trolling themselves.
You're religious, that's fine. You're christian, that's fine too. But the point you start making factual errors and claim ownership of a universal concept? And then get modded up for it? That's the point I have to call bullshit. So as to not ruffle your feathers too much, let me put it this way: There are the Mandarin, Indian, and Summarion words for murder. None of those peoples had any interaction with Moses or the commandments, so how did these groups of people know how to define murder?
I am not religious, not have I any Christian ancestry.
As for Mandarin, Indian, and Summarion rules regarding murder, I know nothing. I merely stated that the document on which Western society based their no-murder ethic upon is an amazingly universal document which is relevant not only to the time it was written, but to all time. In fact, you further the universality of the document by pointing out that it's message is relevant not only across millennia, but also cultures.
No, it's actually quite possible to believe that "murder is bad" for better reasons than "because an all-powerful dude who lives in the sky said so, and is going to punish you if you don't obey."
I never said otherwise. I said only that it, like the rest of the document that pertains to human-human relations, is still relevant.
Are you so sensitive to positive aspects of religion that you just trolled yourself?
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain