Also, they're a functional democracy.
Also, they're a functional democracy.
Not really - Christianity is evolving. It basically loses edge as time is passing, becoming 'lukewarm' religion. Look at Church of England as extreme case of that, but same route can be seen in most subsects. On the other hand, Islam is frozen in time, actively fighting any kinds of changes (given what happened over very trivial differences between Shia and Sunni, you should not expect any bigger changes for next few thousand years).
First of all, let's not kid ourselves into thinking there are no sharp-edged (a.k.a. dim-witted) Christians out there.
But I kinda take your point. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that most (all?) Muslims read their sacred text in the original language, whereas the overwhelming majority of Christians don't.
Actually I think she's mocking just that. Perhaps my quote here loses context in that sense, I recommend reading the whole thing. It's kind of funny.
It's a paradox that to get a reliable cluster, you want your individual parts to be quite twitchy and explody., which node.js is.
I think I get what you're saying, but somehow I don't expect this argument to convert any nonbelievers
My personal favourite JS verdict is from Verity Stob, over at The Register,
CON: The most dysfunctional functional language. On top of all its well-known flaws that disrupt ordinary primitive programming, it lacks many allegedly must-have functional gewgaws. Its variables are mutable, its type holes are indubitable, its 'eagerness' unsuitable, its modules are inscrutable, tail recursion disputable, scoping inexcusable, and I'll stop there, with 'refutable' (to name but one) still in the bank, just because you were kind enough to beg me.
PRO: It's what you'll end up using.
Well, I think there's middle ground between those extremes. Closing borders to the whole religion is just as impossible as 100% preventing damage by lone wolf jihadis.
I don't have all the answers, obviously. Just wanted to point out that broad brush demagoguery is less than helpful.
Going forward it would be a good idea to stop interfering in their countries, it seems to me. That would not deter the fanatic leaders but definitely make it a lot harder for them to recruit foot soldiers. Things like the Paris and Brussels attacks, and London and Madrid before, might happen less often.
Absolutely, no argument there. But overreacting by demonizing the whole group for the actions of a few will have innocent victims too.
Yes, there is undoubtedly some of that.
On the other hand, many people (not you per se) grossly overestimate the fraction of Muslims that are Islamists, in this sense. Partly this is because they are a disproportionately loud fraction, but there is also the deliberate exaggeration on the part of Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, and so on, i.e. far-right nationalists who need "others" for us to fear.
Also, let's not forget that this colonialist mentality you are describing here used to be par for the course for us Europeans for a very, very long time -- and people on the receiving end of it were routinely labelled "savages" for not welcoming and adopting our superior ways.
Arrgh, typo. Should be Simon Kochen.
If you are so sure it exists, just prove it
It's hard to prove that free will exists [...]
John Conway and Simon Conway, at Princeton IAS, did some work on this: Free Will Theorem. Depending on who you ask, their result is fairly obvious or quite deep.
Conway did a series of video lectures on the subject, see here here.
Exactly. By pushing this Theresa May is ignoring three (!) parliamentary committees.
It has been developed in response to the disclosure of state mass surveillance programmes by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.
So their answer to state mass surveillance programmes is more state mass surveillance programmes?
Of course! Their answer to needle-in-haystack problems is always to add hay.
Funny also how she wants to rush this through, right when everyone is distracted by the Brexit farce. Coincidence? I think not.
Yeah, that's when they were still a "search giant". I am unsure why they are still labeled that in the media. Certainly
They're an advertising giant, and have been for years.
Please read the article before posting:
You must be new here
I'm not sure European unions operate the same way American ones do. For one thing much of Europe doesn't have a political system where influence is correlated to forking over cash to politicians. Not nearly to the same extent anyway. Meaning they get to spend contributions toward collective bargaining.
Having said that, I guess some of the above posts are just reflexive "unions baad" bleats.
A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson