but my understanding is that it's a ridiculous collection of easily debunked internet arguments, with paper thin non-believer characters written simply to deliver the trite message of the movie's climax with no regard for actual human behaviour or logic.
When you say "understanding" I think you mean "expectation based on my own preconceived predjudices".
Of course you might be right - but you don't know and you should allow the possibility of a good film with a positive Christian message - eg The Scarlet and the Black
"It has been said that Christianity started in Israel, then was taken to Greece and turned into a philosophy. Then it was taken to Rome where it was made into an institution. Later, it was taken to Europe where it became a culture, and then it was brought to America where it was made into a business enterprise".
I find the term homophobia to be offensive for the following reason.
A phobia is an irrational fear, not under the control of who has it.
Using the word homophobia as a term of abuse - which is what it effectively has become is offensive to people who suffer from phobias in the same way that use of the word "spastic" in a derogatory way (which was common in the 60's and 70's) is abusive of people with cerebal palsy.
I very much doubt however that that was what was in the head of the facebook censor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
last para should read
Light (unpressurised) aircraft are limited to lower altitudes than airliners (10000ft vs 30000ft) and hence are unable to take advantage of the greater fuel economy and/or higher speed that is possible at greater altitudes.
No - the real obstacle to flyign cars is simply this:
What on earth id the point?
Suppose you have an aircraft that can take off from a footprint roughly the same as its own size (eg a helicopter). In that case the "car" part of the equation is redundant.
OK - so now suppose that you have an aircraft that requires an airfield to take off - in that case you might think that the ability to drive on the road has some point BUT the relative inefficiency of the device as an aircraft AND as a car would nmean that it would always be beaten by the combination of an aircraft and a car (or even two cars) - which is always likely to be cheaper and better.
Now if what you mean is not a single device that can do both functions - but rather an aircraft that has a cost of ownership (including operator training) comparable to a car then that is a much more sensible goal - but I suspect that is also a difficult proposition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
Hmm - I don't think you are exactly right either.
Firstly higher altitudes DO reduce fuel burn at a given speed - although engine performance is adversely affected.
Otherwise commercial flights would stick to low level - whereas in fact the longer your flight the higher it is likely to be. There is a trade off between fuel used to reach a high altitude and fuel burn whilst cruising.
Breathing (for humans) occurs just fine and requires no special oxygen in FAA certificated flights at altitudes of 12,000ft and below. That's for all aircraft, "light"[sic] and otherwise. Define light aircraft as "unpressurised" and - yes light aircraft ARE limited.
Flying at 12000 ft without pressurisation is possible but not comfortable. Commercial flights maintain the pressure at the equivalent of 8000ft or lower.
The sweet spot for efficiency seems to be in the region of 30000ft (air density has more than halved at that height).
So what I think he was trying to say is this:
Light (unpressurised) aircraft are limited to lower altitudes than airliners (30000ft) and hence are unable to take advantage of the greater fuel economy and/or higher speed that is possible at greater altitudes.
Re: The victims are what matter. You? You're just Some Asshole
I can't help but think that if the news adopted that change then there would be notably less events like this, People have been saying that for years - but in this case it doesn't apply.
1. The argument assumes an obscure cause that needs to be highlighted. Islam hasn't been that for nearly 1400 years
2.These particular terrorists don't care about publicity in Western media - they care about the 72 virgins and following the orders of their prophet.
3.Even if we don't publicise this there are others who will.
4. Terrorism in the west isn't the problem - it is a pinprick. The real problem is thesituation of the minority religious communities in muslim countries (mostly but not exclusively indigenous, Eastern Christians who are quite unrelated to western colonialism). These are facing annihilation and we are standing by and watching - and in some cases we are actually arming the people that are persecuting them!
The police should have rebuilt their house to a better standard than before and taken them on an all expenses paid holiday whilst the job was done. In the meantime they should have paid the man's employer to hire a temporary worker to keep his job "warm" while he was away. Since he was absolutely not at faiult here and they were totally responsible and have the resources to do this it would only have been fair. His insurer should not have been involved.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...the US military is deeply involved in this practice
Many people who met Saddam Hussain found him charming and affable.
Saddam set up his own murderous regime - Assad inherited it (reluctantly) from his father because his elder brother died. But for that he would probably now be working as an eye doctor in London. He is not the driving force behind the repressive regime he fronts. However any regime holding power in Syria pretty much has to be murderous to survive. Assad's regime has its power base in the Alawite minority. If the regime falls then it is pretty much certain that they will be wiped out. When you are fighting for your life you do desperate things.
Oh, and in Russia there are still people who think Joseph Stalin was a lovely Guy!
Yep - and I met one of them last time I visited in 2013. He seemed so out of place there now.
I also saw a group of them protesting in a shopping centre in St Petersburg. They looked pathetic! There were about a dozen of them at best. By contrast a queue of people waiting to get into the Kazan Cathedral where Patriarch Kyril was visiting with the cross of St Andrew stretched around the block and about another mile down the road.
Re: Re: Re: ...the US military is deeply involved in this practice
Assad is indeed a murdering tyrant.
No he isn't. He is a "front man" entrapped by the organisation of murdering tyrants that his father set up. (I know someone who actually met him before he was president!)
The trouble is the opposition are also murderous people
Not entirely - but then again they might as well be because if the opposition wins the endgame will inevitably be a takeover by people worse tha Assad's government. The non-murderous parts of the opposition are tolerated by the murderous parts because they attract western support. However once that western support is no longer needed they will be liquidated.
The practice was recently exposed by journalist, activist and mother Lyuda Savchuk, who spent three months employed as such a troll -- before successfully suing the Russian government for a single ruble on principle.
Note that this was a Russian court.
SO those who run Putin's "troll army" are not above the rule of law in Russia.
Compare and contrast with the way related issues are handled in the US. (Manning, Snowden, Assange etc).
I agree with his post and would have posted something similar and I can assure you that I not paid, neither have I been threatened.
The problem is this. Before 1917 Russia had an empire roughly equivalent to what later became the Soviet Union. Within that empire and on its immediate borders were peoples of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Many of these were hangovers from previous empires in the region (the Mongols , Poles and Lithuanians) and hence not truly indigenous. These peoples resented the Russians and looked back to earlier eras when they had been in charge.
The revolution (and some of the stupidity that followed it) temporarily weakened Russia and, between the wars some of these peoples gained independence. The war forced the communists to be a bit more pragmatic and restored Russian power.
After the war the Soviet Union expanded back to cover most of the old Russian Empire - and also gained control of a chunk of central europe (Poland, Hungary, East Germany etc ).
In our attempts to undermine communism we enlisted the help of disaffected nationalist groups in Central Europe and the old Russian Empire. This may have been a natural thing - since these groups were the best organised opponents of communism BUT their agenda was never purely anti-communist. It was always partly anti-Russian. We made the mistake of continuing to support them uncritically after communism fell. At that point we should have taken a deep breath and resolved not to take sides in any dispute that did not concern us directly. Instead we have simply continued to back any individual, group or government that opposes Russia no matter how bad they are. It is no surprise that the Russians are fed up with us and back Putin's hard line. They see a west that is determined to rub Russia's nose in the failure of the Soviet Union forever. I'm really quite surprised that Putin needs to bribe them to put his point of view on the net,
A little magnanimity in victory at the end of the cold war might have been a good idea.
t is important to note that the lost sales estimated in this report represent hypothetical additional revenue that the recorded music sector would have earned, had infringement not taken place.
I can give an accurate figure for that!
A big fat ZERO.
If the infringement had not taken place then the infringement would not have taken place - but that does not mean that anything else would necessarily have happened at all - and speially not anything that would have generated revenue.