text:
Ending Capital Punishment: A Conservative Cause
Leon Neyfakh's article on "The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty" deserves a wider audience that that of the Boston Globe (or Commonweal for that matter, but we do what we can).
What Neyfakh describes as a "small but expanding group of conservatives" makes their case in conservative terms: the death penalty is a fiscally irresponsible, anti-life, ineffective, big government policy. A number of the conservatives actively opposing the death penalty are Catholics motivated partly or largely by their faith---people like direct mail fundraising pioneer Richard Viguerie, National Review columnist Ramesh Ponnuru, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
They're joined by conservatives of different faiths---such as Sen. John Cornyn (Church of Christ), former Attorney General Ed Meese (Lutherna), and Kentucky State Rep. David Floyd (Southern Baptist)---and of none (e.g., commentator and columnist S. E. Cupp).
Formed at last year's CPAC conference, Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty has compiled statements from a wide-ranging and impressive list of conservatives who've come to oppose the death penalty. Even with public support for the death penalty lower than it's been in decades, a majority of Americans polled still support the execution of convicted murders. But if the US is to abolish the death penalty in the next few decades, it will likely be due in no small part to the efforts of conservatives who work to make it happen.
About the Author
Luke Hill is a writer and community organizer in Boston. He blogs at dotCommonweal and MassCommons.
19 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
I would say that. yes, it is true that the death penalty does not deter murderers. Rather it is executions that deter murderers. There are precious few executions nowadays, and that has been true for many decades. In effect, the anti-death penalty folks have come very close to achieving their goals. Incidentally, I am sometimes amused that the anti's will noaw and again claim that life without possibility of parole is so much more harsh than the death penalty anyway, so why argue? Liberals are so full of love for humanity. Or full of something...
If the conservative case against the death penalty is that it costs too much, is anti-life, is ineffective and is a "big government policy," what is the liberal case against the death penalty?
I think liberals share the "ineffective" objection; they are quick to point out that the states with the most executions tend to be the ones with the most murders. When it comes to not trusting big government to get it right, liberals hace been doing that, in the case of the death penalty, for years. As the evidence piled up about death row mistakes, the liberals jumped on it while conservatives pooh-poohed it as bleeding-heart nonsense. Liberals echo Blackstone: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." (Once upon a time, but not lately, Blackstone seemed to be a conservative hero.
I was anti-death penalty before anti-death penalty was about to become cool, but I am not fond of the anti-tax argument, which goes away if you simply remove bases for appeal -- as some conservative legislatures have tried to do. Nor am I persuaded when a conservative objects to something as "anti-life" that he or she really means it. One of the great attractions of conservatism is that it allows a holder of the ideology to identify sinners and chortle when they get their comeuppance.
If anti-death penalty is about to become cool, there is that 80 percent approval of capital punishment in the conservative base to overcome. I wouldn't lay in champagne just yet for the day of abolition.
It is interesting, though, that conservatives need to fit opposition to capital punishment into an overarching ideology. Why can't they oppose it because it simply doesn't make sense to treat killing someone as such a bad thing that there is nothing society can do about it but to kill someone?
@Bob Schwartz (5/25, 10:16 pm) - Thanks for your comment. What's the basis for your assertion that executions deter murderers?
I ask because in Neyfakh's article there are links to two studies that cast profound doubt on that argument:
- Donohue & Wolfers' review of academic literature on the death penalty leads them to conclude "estimates suggest not just "reasonable doubt" about whether there is any deterrent effect of the death penalty, but profound uncertainty. We are confident that the effects are not large, but we remain unsure even of whether they are positive or
- Meanwhile Zimring, Fagan & Johnson's study of Hong Kong and Singapore in the years since 1973 yields this conclusion: "By comparing two closely matched places with huge contrasts in actual execution but no differences in homicide trends, we have generated a unique test of the exuberant claims of deterrence that have been produced over the past decade in the U.S."
I'm a liberal who sits firmly on the fence re the death penalty, at least in theory. I have a hard time arguing that execution is not justified when it comes to child murders, ethnically or religiously motivated murders, or murders that involve torture (and what murder wouldn't include some element of torture?).
But I am against current execution methods, and I am concerned that the wrong people get executed (something the Innocence Project has highlighted). I think it's also pretty obvious that a disproportionate number of poor people (and ethnic minorities who are often among the poor) are executed because they can't afford adequate representation. I think our knowledge of mental illness is vexed; to what extent can the insane truly be held accountable? And I think God will hold us accountable for prematurely cutting off the possibility of redemption.
So, in practice, I tend to be anti-death penalty.
I wouldn't argue that life without parole is harsher than the death penalty unless a prisoner has (and many do) a death wish.
"Rather it is executions that deter murderers."
Perhaps but it seems unlikely. In a great number of instances of murder and likely in the majority of cases of "mass" murder the perpetrator was at the very least exceedingly self destructive and often enough suicidal. In the mind of a person so tragically consumed with guilt, revenge and rage it is more than reasonable to assume death seems less of a deterent and more a goal.
Agree with Tom Blackburn that "...it simply doesn't make sense to treat killing someone as such a bad thing that there is nothing society can do about it but to kill someone.."
As to the comment,
Why can't they oppose it because it simply doesn't make sense to treat killing someone as such a bad thing that there is nothing society can do about it but to kill someone?
the statement 'killing someone' is, in this little solopsist exercise, meant to take the place of murder, which is the unlawful and unjustified killing of an innocent human being. The writer, intentionally trivializing both the murder and the execution so as to appear clever, ends up appearing a pretentious ass.
@ Bob Schwartz. What part of "killing someone" don't you understand? If I had stuck "unlawfully" in front of the first use of the phrase and "lawfully" in front of the second, someone was still being killed before God's time. Yrs, P.A.
If the conservative case against the death penalty is that it costs too much, is anti-life, is ineffective and is a "big government policy," what is the liberal case against the death penalty?
Right - this is more like, "Prominent Conservatives Make Non-conservative Arguments Against the Death Penalty".
I'm glad to see Catholic social teaching influencing the views of Catholic conservative thinkers.
Regarding some of the specifics:
Costs too much: there are a couple of conservative replies to this one. One is that, in an era in which a billion dollars is government coffee money, it's not really that expensive. Another is that if it costs too much, it's because the cost is a function of trials and incarceration and these are what cost too much, whether or not the case under consideration is a death penalty case - it's not really an anti-death-penalty argument, it's an anti-expensive-incarceration-and-multiple-layers-of-appeals argument. Still another is that the multiple levels of appeal are themselves an anti-death-penalty safeguard, meant to ensure that we execute the right guy for the right reasons, that he had adequate legal counsel, etc. Many people, under the principle that Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied (and also less admirable principles like Fry The Bastard) want to streamline the process and execute the convict more quickly. Overall, I don't think cost is a compelling argument, and the implications aren't always that we should make the death penalty more rare, but rather cheaper and quicker.
Is anti-life - well, yeah. On the other hand, in the Catholic tradition, the death penalty hasn't always been seen to be an anti-life sin, but rather as the meting out of justice. It's not a hands-down no-brainer that the death penalty always and everywhere belongs on the same list as abortion, euthanasia, terrorist attacks and other modern examples of the Culture of Death.
Is ineffective - as a deterrent, yeah, pretty much
- Big government policy - this is one of those little intra-conservative policy differences that drive me batty. "Get the government out of the business of serving the interests of justice and meting out punishment to wrong-doers" is a slogan that may gain some traction with doctrinaire Libertarians but makes no sense to me. If the government isn't going to punish criminals, then who is - private citizens with guns? No thanks.
If the conservative case against the death penalty is that it costs too much, is anti-life, is ineffective and is a "big government policy," what is the liberal case against the death penalty?
Sorry, meant to also say this in my previous comment: all of the reasons named here to oppose the death penalty (or at least to be "Concerned About" the death penalty) are also reason to oppose such things as rendition/waterboarding of prisoners, and military forays into Iraq. In the spirit of consistency of principle, will these prominent conservatives organize to express concern about these things?
It was Bill O'Reilly who, though he is oppossed to the death penalty on the grounds that he values human life and is oppossed to revenge killing, also said that he does not lose sleep if innocent people such as familiy or neighbors of targeted "terrorists" are killed in drone strikes.Just the fact that they're relatives and or neighbors and have not taken steps to remove themselves from such "evil terrorists" makes them -not such good people themselves,was the reasoning he expressed.So much for valuing human life even innocent human life,including children,that would mean!I know he can hide behind" we don't deliberatly kill these innocent people" but when he says he does not lose sleep over the killing of these innocent people but[pressusmably] does over the killing of convicted murderers, then he's gone beyond the" as long as it's not deliberate it's acceptable position" of supporters of targeted killings of those with the label terrorists!How could with good conscience you opposse the killing of one group of people[convicted murderers] but not oppose the killing of another group[innocent people who when we drop bombs on a home ,in order to get one terrorists, are aware that innocent people may be there too]?His statement that they're not so good themselves if they choose to be near a "evil terrorist" speaks for itself; he does not really value human life equally-even innocent human life is of less value to him then a convicted murderers when some people[people with a label 'terrorists} need killing!I myself defer to Church teaching when it comes to the death penalty;though more and more ,when i think about it, I oppose it with my heart ,if not my head.Perhaps it should remain on the books, but not be carried out -a last minute reprieve or commutation.
I wonder if we're right to assume that death penalty supporters/opposers fall along conservative/liberal lines. It seems to me that considering the death penalty requires less in the way of political thinking and more in the way of moral considerations that might transcend mere politics. (Unless you're Bob Schwartz, and then everything is clear as a bell, and if not, then you're a pretentious ass. Every time Bob posts here, I spend several enjoyable minutes imagining encounters between Bob and Jesus Christ, in which Bob, swirling the ice in his Old Fashioned and comfortably puffing a good cigar, good naturedly tells Jesus what he got entirely wrong.)
Anyhoo, maybe that's what Jim P is getting to when he's parsing the arguments above. I.e., it costs too much to execute people? If the death penalty is truly a just way to handle people who have committed heinous crimes, ought that to stand in our way?
I also think that the group of conservatives in the "concerned about the death penalty" group vary widely in their intellectual and moral acumen. For instance, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is on par with Ramesh Ponnuru. Or that an opportunist like Newt Gingrich carries the weight of a long-time, committed conservative activist like like Richard Viguerie.
Of course any given group of liberals opposed to the death penalty would also contain the same various assortment of high- and low-level thinkers.
Jean Raber: Your comment,
(Unless you're Bob Schwartz, and then everything is clear as a bell, and if not, then you're a pretentious ass. Every time Bob posts here, I spend several enjoyable minutes imagining encounters between Bob and Jesus Christ, in which Bob, swirling the ice in his Old Fashioned and comfortably puffing a good cigar, good naturedly tells Jesus what he got entirely wrong.)
was not as stinging a rebuke as it could have been because of your good humor and wordsmithing. And hey, I got mentioned by none other than the estimable Jean Raber! However, I don't smoke or drink whiskey. My downfall is a cold frosty beer, which I limit to roughly two or so a month. Incidentally, I'm not in the habit of correcting anything Our Lord has said, unless you are equating commonweal's liberal bloggers' maunderings with His words.
Well, dammit, Bob, I had you pegged for a Thurston Howell-type gated-community dweller. How dare you not live down to my stereotypes? I bet you don't even wear plaid pants to the Country Club on Saturday afternoons. Is it possible you don't even golf? Yeesh. Now I have to go revise all the images in my head. Are you by chance ex-military?
I'm a liberal, but I haven't smoked a doob since 1978 (it was not for a medical condition, and I did inhale at that particular time). I do knit my own socks with fair trade Uruguayan wool, and I wear them with my Birkenstocks on cold days. I have not used cosmetics for at least 10 years because a) I am 60 now and it won't make any difference and b) I feel sorry for the bunnies and mice who have to test this stuff. (I offer these details in case you want to imagine me maundering and singing "Kumbaya" with the other liberals.)
Country club? Wow, you definitely were aiming at the wrong target! But then I've aimed at a lot of wrong targets in my time. And yes, I'm ex military: enlisted Air Force radar technician.
And, during my jazz hipster days I smoked a few joints (that's what we called them at the time), even did a little of the old injectables when I wasn't in some sleazy dive playing my tenor sax.
But that was another time and another life. Trouble with you Jean is that you're going to give liberals a good name. Can't have that. Say something mean.
Geez, Bob, now you sound like a good friend who died a couple years ago. Also ex Air Force (20 years, captain). Wrote for "Stars and Stripes," Apparently had his own hipster days. Always talking about Urbie Green, Maynard Ferguson, Dave Brubeck. I used to go to Mass occasionally at his little Melkite parish, which was interesting. Died of a stroke a few years back. Maybe talking politics with me didn't help.
My kid has been studying trombone since 6th grade (jazz mostly, but check out Mnozil Brass and Maniacal 4). Won the Louis Armstrong Jazz Award this year and will be taking up performance, composition and arranging in college. I tried to steer him into the Coast Guard, which has a good band plus also teaches skills that can be used in real life. He does well with regimentation and structure, so still might end up there.
Congratulations to your son! As far as jazz goes, it's all about the II-V-I chords, but not a particularly rewarding career path unless he gets a doctorate in music, in which case he can pusue a tenured position teaching jazz. An old bandmate, JoAnne Brackeen, is a professor of jazz piano at Berklee, in Boston, but Berklee is, well, Berklee.
Your son sounds like a fine young man, and I hope he does choose to join the Coast Guard.
Hey, Bob, if it's any consolation, I've pictured you all along as a beer-swilling, enlisted-man crankypants :-)
I consider myself consoled. God Bless.


text:
I was wondering who owns the copyright of the sourcecode if you port an opensource project from one language to another. Is there a clear answer, or does it 'depend'?
edit: I'm aware that a license choice is bound to the license the original sourcecode is released under, but I'm strictly wondering about the IP/copyright. As in, could I change copyright (c) 2011 original author to copyright (c) 2011 my name in all source files.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
"Ichigo" can be the pronunciation of a person's name (as in the cartoon "Bleach"), or words meaning "strawberry", "one and five", or a part of the word "一期一会". Are there any additional meanings of "ichigo"? Are these words homonyms or do they have different tones?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
closed as not a real question by atlantiza, sawa, Dono, cypher, Flaw♦ Jun 20 '12 at 2:08
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
We have three words in everyday vocabulary according to dictionaries.
Also we have:
It's mainly down to the myriad readings of the kanji that are available. For instance Ichigo (the name you reference) may not use the same kanji as 一五 (one, five)
Note: I'm not a fan of Bleach, so I wouldn't know if Ichigo was spelt in kanji or kana.
Using my dictionary, I'll pull out 5 random kanji that can be read as Ichi or Go
Ichi can be any of these kanji (took the first 5 kanji only):
Go can be any of these kanji (took the first 5 kanji only):
Obviously, the combinations of Ichi and Go will be quite small, but since you didn't specify whether you wanted a list of the possible combinations or just all of the different readings for these characters.
Obviously the list of combinations of these characters that make up meaningful names will be even shorter. But you have to remember that not every Japanese person's name is made with kanji only. Some people (I've met several like this) have kana only given names. Again, you didn't specify whether you wanted just names (either given or family) that could be spelt, in romaji, with the characters "ichigo"
The thing with asking these types of questions, in my opinion, is that there are hundreds of ways to convert a romaji word into something from a Japanese dictionary.
These, obviously don't include the kana readings of ichi (いち and イチ) and go (ご and ゴ)
Someone with a higher level of knowledge will be able to provide you with a better and more detailed answer. I don't wish for this post/answer to come across as pedantic, so I apologise if that is how it came across.


text:
Murky Metaphysics
At the conclusion of his three sessions with Pope Francis, the editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, Father Antonio Spadaro, commented: "In truth ours has been a conversation more than an interview." I suspect that Eugenio Scalfari, the founder of La Repubblica and the Cardinal-dean of Italian "laicità," would say the same of his encounter with the irrepressible Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Aside from the particular ecclesiastical issues that have so absorbed the Press, both secular and religious, I find intriguing the more personal exchanges that made the session a real conversation. Thus, at a certain point, the Jesuit professor turns the tables and addresses the professional journalist:
But now let me ask you a question: you, a secular non-believer in God, what do you believe in? You are a writer and a man of thought. You believe in something, you must have a dominant value. Don't answer me with words like honesty, seeking, the vision of the common good, all important principles and values but that is not what I am asking. I am asking what you think is the essence of the world, indeed the universe. You must ask yourself, of course, like everyone else, who we are, where we come from, where we are going. Even children ask themselves these questions. And you?
And Scalfari replies:
I am grateful for this question. The answer is this: I believe in Being, that is in the fabric from which forms, bodies arise.
The Pope-Professor does not let him off the hook that easily and presses the issue: "But can you define what you call Being?"
The Italian rationalist (remember his professed devotion to Descartes) leaps blithely into the murky metaphysical ocean:
Being is a fabric of energy. Chaotic but indestructible energy and eternal chaos. Forms emerge from that energy when it reaches the point of exploding. The forms have their own laws, their magnetic fields, their chemical elements, which combine randomly, evolve, and are eventually extinguished but their energy is not destroyed. Man is probably the only animal endowed with thought, at least in our planet and solar system. I said that he is driven by instincts and desires but I would add that he also contains within himself a resonance, an echo, a vocation of chaos.
And the Pope, eying the smartest student in the class, responds drily:
All right. I did not want you to give me a summary of your philosophy and what you have told me is enough for me.
perhaps thinking to himself: it's a beginning; now I know my dialogue is with a disciple of Lucretius.
In the conversation with Father Spadaro, Pope Francis uttered the self-identification that echoed throughout the world: "I am a sinner." But perhaps more self-revealing than that piece of heart-felt piety was his admission: "I am a little astute, a little naive" -- "un po furbo, un po ingenuo."
The very competent translators for America render "furbo" as "astute." But it seems to me that in ordinary usage "furbo" denotes something more. Perhaps "slyly clever" – dare one say: "Jesuitical." In any case there is more going on in the conversation than the misleading headline in La Repubblica (Pope to Scalfari: "I Will Change the Church") begins to suggest. Perhaps, proselytizing aside, the Pope may want to challenge and change the self-professed atheist – at least "un po."
About the Author
Rev. Robert P. Imbelli, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, is Associate Professor of Theology Emeritus at Boston College.
44 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
As I was reading Scalfari's response to the Pope's question as to what he means by "Being" I found myself thinking, "Here is someone profoundly shaped in his metaphysical views by Star Wars." I am sure he is a very intelligent person, but his answer is the murkiest bunch of hooey I've read since... well, the last time I made the mistake of asking a first-year undergraduate to engage in metaphysical speculation.
Give me Aristotle... or Kant... or even Whitehead anyday.
Scalfari is politically "furbo" (I always appreciate reading his Sunday commentary on the Italian political scene – talk about "murky!"); but philosophically "ingenuo."
Those who understand Italian may enjoy this video in which he recounts the context of his "dialogue" (he keeps using the word) with Francis:
Two revelations:
In the telephone conversation Scalfari told the Pope he had read the interview in Civiltà Cattolica. Francis asked him: "did it put you to sleep?"
Secondly, the Pope's telephone call was in response to a private letter from Scalfari saying that he would love to meet the Pope, never expecting it would be responded to so soon and that the meeting would be so substantive a dialogue and at such length (an hour and fifteen minutes).
Fritz - I agree!
I think this comment is pertinent to this discussion - [when it comes to metaphysics, I'm never really sure what people are talking about]:
Francesco saying "Remember that the Church is feminine" ... Reminds me of a wise old Holy Cross Brother at ND long ago who once announced to our class: "Gentlemen, always be a spiritual Semite. Always, remain metaphysically feminine."
When is metaphysics not murky? It's not as if no one has ever made objections to scholastic philosophy and its talk of form, essence, accidents, act, potential and on and on.
I can't work up much fervor for a fabric of energy. Maybe it depends on who's wearing it.
Yes, Scalfari is a latter-day Lucretius. The sum of the cosmos-reality-Being that he describes is the world of the materialists in Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos", i.e., atomism with a modern substrate of energy with the whole ending in pointless evolution,
Although the Pope states in the interview with Scalfari that he's not seeking to convert his interlocutor, I think the Pope is up to the challenge if opportunities arise, though time is of some essence if the Pope hopes to move Scalfari off his philosophical materialism and back to his Christian grounding...Scalfari is 89. ;)
Depends on what you mean by challenge. It's clear that Francis is not interested in proselytizing. He has repeatedly denounced it.
an example of "challenge:"
Do you feel touched by grace? asks Scalfari.
"No one can know that. Grace is not part of consciousness, it is the amount of light in our souls, not knowledge nor reason. Even you, without knowing it, could be touched by grace."
Without faith? A non-believer?
"Grace regards the soul."
I do not believe in the soul.
"You do not believe in it but you have one."
Your Holiness, you said that you have no intention of trying to convert me and I do not think you would succeed.
"We cannot know that, but I don't have any such intention."
Indeed, he has "denounced" proselytism – often quoting Benedict XVI to that effect.
A lucid account of the difference between "proselytism," which Francis and, apparenlty, Benedict have both eschewed, and "evangelization" (new or old) would be very useful.
I have never understood why proselytizing is supposed to be bad. If you truly believe that your faith is a great gift, wouldn't it be selfish of you not to want ot share it? Yes, some proselytizers can be bothersome when they demand our attention and we have indicated we're not interested, but so what?
I can understand Jews' objections to Christian proselytizing -- in the past if a Jew didn't convert he/she at best was ostracized into ghettos. But there aren't ghettos anymore.
since I have great regard for the lucidness of your thought and prose, why not offer an initial reflection on the issue you broached?
I agree with M.B. that it would be useful to have an authoritive statement of the difference between prolelytism and evangelism, especially if we are going to shun one but do the other.
It seems to me that both of those men, once they were comfortable, started to feel out the other's position as a prelude to whatever you call it, even though both had earlier denied the thought. They remind me of the old guys in Little Havana (Scalfari is 89) bantering as they set up the checkers under a palm tree. "Nice, nice. But I'll win."
I also agree with Matthew Boudway.
And are we out to prove that the Pope bested the muddled Scalfari? More hosannas?
John Page, I scored it a draw from my side of the ring. No real punches thrown or intended. No blood. But that's just Round One. As I said earlier, there doesn't seem to be any punch in "fabric of energy," but Scalfari is a cagey veteran. He'll have more than he showed so far. Ditto Pope Francis. I love it.
"Furbo" is one of those Italian words I've had great difficulty in understanding. Sometimes it's used with quite a pejorative intent, at others with at least partial admiration. "Astute" and "sly" seem to get in sometimes.
Now if only someone could tell me how to use (and understand) the phrase "meno male," which also seems to be used in all sorts of situations and contexts.
I am still trying to take in the style of this new pope of ours. The theological content of those conversations will not go down in history, so what are they really about? His morning homilies are sometimes wonderful and sometimes less so. Is the pope out to demystify the papcy, showing himself as a regular guy? Showing that he is not someone to whose every word we ought to be suspended as though they were directly divinely inspired words from an infallible oracle? He's cheapening his words by speaking so easily, at such length, with so much improvisation, but maybe it's all right that way. His words are not timeless but for the present, in the current context. Maybe it's on purpose, to make it a real dialogue: this way, we won't take him quite so seriously. He is more free to say what goes through his mind at the moment, being imprecise on occasion, and we will be more free to contradict him, which I suspect he might enjoy.
Proselytizing is what "they" do; evangelizing is what "we" do.
One can always count on Abe to get to the heart of the matter. Matthew, you're relieved of your assignment – and no doubt relieved to be relieved!
Maybe what Pope Francis means by "proselytizing" is the sort of accusatory preaching that some preachers and proselytizers do which sends everyone to Hell who doesn't join thier church. There was also the sort of "religious" program that gave food to starving Chinese if they converted. The latter were called "rice Christians". I don't know if there actually were any such programs or any rich Christians, but the phrase was used in the 30's when China was still open to Christian missionaries.
Those sorts of things are truly awful.
If we find such metaphysics "murky", just consider what they might think of an otherwise astute person claiming to really believe that 2000 years ago a man was God, that he came back to life 3 days after death, and that his body had disappeared from the tomb. That is where dialogue ends: when I claim to litterally believe something that they find patently absurd. In their minds it puts me in the same category of those who think that the universe was created 5000 years ago and that God planted dinosaur bones in the ground to test us. I'd be careful before calling someone's beliefs naive...
A couple of initial thoughts on evangelization vs proselytism:
* To evangelize is, in its essence, to proclaim - in this case, to proclaim the Good News of the kingdom of God. The goal of the proclamation is that the Good News be heard, so that it may transform those who hear it. Note that it is what is proclaimed - the Good News - that bears the power to transform lives. This helps us understand why it is that people who are not particularly gifted orators nor particularly attractive people nonetheless can be extremely effective evangelizers. It is not the messenger; it is the message.
* Those who already are disciples also continually need to be evangelized - we need to have the Good News proclaimed to us, too. For example, a parent needs to help her children understand the Good News, even though the children may be initiated into the community of disciples already.
* To proselytize, in my view, is to recruit - to recruit *away* from something *to* something else. Proselytizers seek to get someone to join "our group" or "our side", which presupposes another side who is not in the club. Thus, those who proselyize frequently are those who are particularly persuasive. Young, attractive, articulate people often are chosen to proselytize, whether it is in the world of organized religion, or politics, or corporate sales and promotion.
"That is where dialogue ends: when I claim to litterally believe something that they find patently absurd."
Why does dialogue end there? Why not go on to ask a reason for their belief? a possible clarification of what initiatlly seems murky, even naive to me? Does dialogue demand agreement?
Because they shake their head and give up.
Then were they "in dialogue" to begin with? or trading jabs? like on comboxes.
Well, I distinctly remember a conversation with a colleague about kids. Kids (and even students, as you might know) always have the wrong kind of religious faith: too much or too little, too indifferent or too involved, too disconnected or too credulous, too attached to rules or too detached from rules... There's always something for parents to worry about, so we can have a dialogue about our worries about our children, comforting one another for our respective worries. Then suddenly my colleague turned to me, as if he had a revelation, and asked with real concern: "You don't actually believe that the man named Jesus literally resurrected from the dead after 3 days, and that the tomb was literally empty, do you? It's all symbolic language, it's a fine symbol. But you don't really believe that it happened literally like that, do you?" I hesitated, then I answered that yes, I did. He, who had known me for many years and knew me well, was so surprised! He shook his head, mumbled something about how he could never understand the people who denied the existence of dinosaurs, that it was just impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with them, and we left it at that.
But that moment struck me. We thought we were close, but we were really so far apart. What a distance we are from those who cannot even conceive of our faith! The chasm seems impossible to cross. At least not with mere talk. Maybe with actions, life, prayer, grace... but not with talk, at least, I don't see it.
Dialogue starts when both sides agree on something. Two people agree that Caravaggio is a heck of a good painter. Or they agree that the county desperately needs an ordinance that criminalizes cheating employees out of their pay. They talk about Caravaggio and other painters they really like. Or they lobby a county commissioner together. Then one turns to the other and says, "What do you really see in his religious art?" Or, "Why are you doing this?" So they talk about their views. Which lead (usually sometime) to their childhoods. Which leads back to how they view the state of the Union. Which leads, maybe, to why they care. Which leads, finally, maybe, to a God who dies and comes back to life. Which leads to, "Do you really? Why?"
By the way, I don't think that is prosteltyzing. I remember a Unitarian looking at a summary sheet on Catholic social teaching and saying, "Hey, my Unitarian friends would love this. May I have a copy?" That is not where the conversation started. (It started with a wage theft ordinance.) If we start with, "In the beginning, God...," yes, we'll get: "You mean that guy with the gray beard giving the finger to Adam? Ho ho ho."
Claire, I'm sorry. Your story came up while I was writing my story, so I didn't see it. But I don't see that your colleague has said his final word. You do believe the dinosaurs walked this world, don't you? If he respects your views on other things, he has to deal with the fact that someone he usually agrees with doesn:t believe in dinosaurs, You can disabuse him of that notion and go on from there.
But I'm interested in suggestions about how to bridge the chasm. Pope Francis and Scalfari's conversation is not enlightening for me in that respect.
Yes, of course I believe that dinosaurs walked this world. (Although maybe "belief" is not the right word since there is no leap of faith). But for many people the Christian faith is as incomprehensible as beliefs that dinosaurs never existed, only dinosaur bones created by a whimsical God.
Matthew Boudway: The WCC has made this distinction between evangelism and prostelyzism:
Proselytism is "the corruption of witness". On the surface, proselytism may appear as genuine and enthusiastic missionary activity; and some people involved in it are genuinely committed Christians who believe that they are doing mission in Christ's way. It is the aim, spirit and methodology of this activity which make it proselytism.
Some of the characteristics which clearly distinguish proselytism from authentic Christian witness are:
- Unfair criticism or caricaturing of the doctrines, beliefs and practices of another church without attempting to understand or enter into dialogue on those issues. Some who venerate icons are accused of worshipping idols; others are ridiculed for alleged idolatry towards Mary and the saints or denounced for praying for the dead.
- Presenting one's church or confession as "the true church" and its teachings as "the right faith" and the only way to salvation, rejecting baptism in other churches as invalid and persuading people to be rebaptized.
Portraying one's own church as having high moral and spiritual status over against the perceived weaknesses and problems of other churches.
d) Taking advantage of and using unfaithfully the problems which may arise in another church for winning new members for one's own church.
- Offering humanitarian aid or educational opportunities as an inducement to join another church.
- Using political, economic, cultural and ethnic pressure or historical arguments to win others to one's own church.
- Taking advantage of lack of education or Christian instruction which makes people vulnerable to changing their church allegiance.
- Using physical violence or moral and psychological pressure to induce people to change their church affiliation. This includes the use of media techniques profiling a particular church in a way that excludes, disparages or stigmatizes its adherents, harassment through repeated house calls, material and spiritual threats, and insistence on the "superior" way to salvation offered by a particular church.
- Exploiting people's loneliness, illness, distress or even disillusionment with their own church in order to "convert" them.
thank you for the reference and excerpt. Here, from the same document, the evangelical imperative:
Christian mission is primarily and ultimately God's mission - the missio Dei. It is centred in the loving and eternal purpose of the triune God for humankind and all of creation, revealed in Jesus Christ. Central to God's mission is the life-giving presence of the Holy Spirit, who continues the mission of Christ through the church and remains the source of its missionary dynamism. The WCC Canberra assembly (1991) described a vision of mission in unity: "A reconciled humanity and renewed creation (cf. Eph. 1:9-10) is the goal of the mission of the church. The vision of God uniting all things in Christ is the driving force of its life and sharing."3
As the body of Christ, constituted, sustained and energized by the life-giving presence of the Holy Spirit, the church is missionary by nature. It proclaims that in Jesus Christ the incarnate Word, who died and rose from the dead, salvation is offered to all as God's gift of love, mercy and liberation.
Participating in God's mission is an imperative for all Christians and all churches, not only for particular individuals or specialized groups. It is an inner compulsion, rooted in the profound demands of Christ's love, to invite others to share in the fullness of life Jesus came to bring (cf. John 10:10).
Mission in Christ's way is holistic, for the whole person and the totality of life are inseparable in God's plan of salvation accomplished in Jesus Christ. It is local - "the primary responsibility for mission, where there is a local church, is with that church in its own place". 4 It is also universal, that is, to all peoples, beyond all frontiers of race, caste, gender, culture, nation to "the ends of the earth" in every sense (cf. Acts 1:8; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47).
How do these recent discussions between Francis and a liberal/non-religious person differ significantly from those of Martini and Eco? I am, of course, choosing to ignore the significant fact Francis is the Pope.
Being is a fabric of energy.
Fine, and the energy came from...Whom, exactly?
It seems to me that the basic issue here is absurdity. Is it truly absurd to believe there is a God/man who rose from the dead and won Heaven for sinners? Or is it absurd to believe that there is only one sort of basic reality (matter) which makes up the universe, and its actions are determined only by its own inner physicals laws?
It's sad but true that the intellectual leaders of the West since the Enlightenment have mainly been scientists or brainy people of scientific bent. They, for historical intellectual reasons, generally came to believe that not only is materialism true, but also that the idea that there might be an all powerful Spirit who coul raise people from the dead is not only false but utterly ludicrous, a product of ancient and medieval superstition, and anyone who still believes in a spiritual dimension must be basically stupid or enslaved by outworn religious belief. It's my rationality against your rationality, and the tribes are ready for war.
There are, of course, a lot of reasons to be appreciative of contemporary science. But today's scientists generally are ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of science itself. in other words, they do not understand *why* their explanation of the world is only one alternative explanation among others. They naively do not realize that they have built their beautiful intellectual edifices on sand.
HOwever, all is not lost. For some time now a few courageous philosophers of science have challenged the simple-minded presupposiitons of contemporary materialist scientists. That is, for the first time in hundreds of years, philosophers of science and even some scientists themselves have starting to ask philosophical questions about the justifications of science, and their conclusions are very upsetting to the materialist scientists. (Again, see the Nagel controversy that has been raging since last year.)
If you're interested in the philsophical issues that are being raised about contemporary scientce, Edward Feser has another good comment on his blog today about one of Nagel's more rational critics, Philip Kitcher.
Yes, the intellectual times are 'achanging -- a bit, anyhow. At least some of the opponents are starting to talk to each other civilly.
I should add that Scalfari's description of his own world-view is a fine example of the contemporary philosophy of contemporary. What encourages me about the interview is Scalfari's almost childlike excitement at meeting the Pope (it shows at least an emotional opening to the Church). That Francis wanted to meet with him is also very enouraging for anyone who cares about the honorable skeptics.
I should also add that Benedict too was interested in dialogue with the agnostics and skeptics. Too bad he didnt' believe in dialogue within the Church.
John Haught's "Darwin's Nagging Doubt" in the current issue of Commonweal is timely with respect to the conversation between the Pope and Eugenio Scalfari, especailly Scalfari's explanation about his atheist beliefs. While recognizing that Thomas Nagel has essentailly no interest in theological explanations for the universe, Haught nevertheless applauds Nagel for his criticism of philosophical materialism as providing a fully rational explanation of the presence of consciousness in the cosmos. According to Haught,
"Materialists, both ancient and modern, believe that lifeless and mindless 'matter' is the ultimate origin and final destiny of all that exists. Nagel claims that when materialist belief is alloyed with evolutionary biology, as is usually the case today, it only clouds our understanding of life. 'Evolutionary naturalism,' as Nagel labels the materialist slant on the story of life, is not science but a spurious nonscientific interpretation of science. Instead of illuminating evolution, materialism only dulls our understanding of it. It reduces living things to lifeless elements and in effect denies that when life and mind emerged in cosmic history anything truly new or revelatory was happening.
This muddling becomes especially evident, Nagel argues, in materialism's failure to explain satisfactorily how 'mind'—evolution's most exquisite outcome so far—came into being from an utterly mindless universe. Moreover, if, as materialists believe, minds are reducible to physical stuff that has been blindly shuffled and reshuffled by a long and mindless evolutionary process, why—as Darwin wondered—should we assume these same minds can lead us to a correct understanding of anything?"
Bill Collier,
thanks for the helpful association with Haught's discussion of Nagel.
I found it a bit amusing when Scalfari referenced Descartes' "cogito" as playing a role in his evolution away from his childhood faith. The Pope then reminded him that Descartes posited the existence of a transcendent God. Signor Scalfari then remarked about other readings that influenced him, without specifying further. But, interestingly, at the end of their time together, Scalfari suggests they might continue another time and speak of Pascal, whom he calls "quella grande anima."
To me the great irony of contemporary atheistic materialism is that their greatest intellectual heroes -- Galileo and Newton were both believers. Galileo remained a Catholic even though the Pope put him under house arrest during his last years. And Newton, who believed in God, explicitly rejected a totally mechanistic world. The other of their greatest heroes, Einstein, didn't believe in a personal God but did believe that some sort of intelligence put order in the world.
To get the attention of a world leader such as the Pope is a heady experience which may or may not signal a true openness for dialogue. Pope Francis evangelizes always, using words when he must. Scalfari may be of an age when salvation/what's next issues are suddenly paramount. Even scientific materialists can find themselves lost in their own inability to provide all encompassing , explanatory principles. For Francis, I suspect, it was a truly pastoral moment.
An interesting development.


text:
What is the difference between $S_{0.5}$ values and $K_m$ values in enzyme kinetics?
This expands my comment on the question to an answer.
If an enzyme exhibits Michaelis-Menten kinetics, then it is valid to define a KM and this equates to the substrate concentration when reaction velocity is 0.5 * Vmax.
However, many enzymes do not exhibit Michaelis-Menten kinetics. One example is when the enzyme shows a co-operative response to substrate concentration. In these circumstances the substrate concentration when reaction velocity is 0.5 * Vmax is still a useful parameter, but there is no KM.
See this paper for a discussion of the kinetic properties of the glucokinase of pancreatic β cells, which acts as the glucose sensor. This enzyme shows positive co-operativity with respect to its substrate glucose, and the authors develop a kinetic analysis in terms of various parameters. These include an S0.5 value for glucose, but a KM value for ATP (presumably because the kinetics with respect to ATP are simple Michaelis-Menten).


text:
At its annual celebration of Nonprofit Awareness Day on June 9, the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network awarded Waltham-based Junior Achievement of Northern New England, Inc. with the Nonprofit Excellence Award in Board Governance.
At the event, state Treasurer Steve Grossman and Senate President Therese Murray joined hundreds of nonprofit and business leaders, as well as elected officials, at the State House to celebrate the nonprofit sector, raise awareness of causes throughout the state, and award local nonprofits for their impact. This celebration of Nonprofit Awareness Day, a statewide holiday signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2007, was hosted by the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network and presented by Citizens Bank.
"Nonprofits are the cornerstones of our communities that enrich the lives of all residents in Massachusetts as well as a vital economic engine that employs almost 17 percent of the state�s workforce," said Rick Jakious, CEO, Massachusetts Nonprofit Network. "Nonprofit Awareness Day is a special holiday that gives us a chance to recognize the essential role nonprofits play in strengthening the Commonwealth and honor the best of the best work being done in the nonprofit sector through the Excellence Awards."
In the past two years, the Board of Directors of Junior Achievement of Northern New England, Inc., which teaches financial literacy, workforce readiness and entrepreneurship to young people, has been successful in improving organizational effectiveness in predetermined areas: marketing, development, stewardship, board nominations and special events, according to the organization. Under the board�s leadership, the organization successfully navigated a major leadership transition and has almost doubled operating surplus, dramatically increased student impact, boosted the number of trained volunteers by 47 percent, and almost doubled the amount of staff.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
The Newton Activity Center will be closed on Thanksgiving Day but the Newton Wellness Center will be open from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. for those wanting to work out before their big Thanksgiving feast. Lynette Hendrickson will be teaching a free Zumba class at 8:45 a.m. in the Railer Room.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Fifteen months ago, after more than 10 years of driving trucks, I became a van man. I started doing construction projects while still in high school, picking up lumber in the family Suburban. Eventually I acquired a Ranger and an old F-250 flatbed, which together formed a pretty good setup for a variety of jobs. After contracting in California for a number of years, I decided to get serious about finish work, and in the summer of 2012 moved to Tennessee and went to work for a high-end trim carpentry outfit. Before leaving, I sold my trucks and started to think about what I would drive now that my requirements had changed. On small jobs it might be necessary to haul material but on large jobs it's delivered—so for the most part I need only transport the tools for one trade (tool-intensive though it is). I thought I would buy another truck, but with some encouragement from my new boss, I began to look at vans. The Chevy Uplander was too small, and full-size Ford and Chevy vans were too large. Sprinters were similarly gigantic, and expensive. Ultimately I settled on the Ford Transit, a small European-style van that in a few short years has gone from being an oddity to something you see all the time.
I bought a used 2010 Transit Connect XLT. It cost about $20k and there were 24,000 miles on the odometer. There are two seats in front and a large cargo area in back. The cargo area can be accessed through a pair of outswing doors on the rear of the vehicle or sliding doors on either side. Working out of this vehicle forced me to change the way I hauled and organized tools but it has been worth it. For photos and a description of how I organized my tools to fit in a smaller vehicle see the slideshow on this page.
The Transit averages around 21 MPG (city/highway) loaded and keeps my gear dry in Tennessee's abrupt summer downpours. The payload capacity is 1,500 pounds inside and 150 pounds on the roof. I installed the rack; it cost about $350.
Credit: Aaron Telian
With outswing doors on back, sliding doors on the sides, and cargo space that is low to the ground the Transit offers exceptional access for loading and unloading.
The gray material on the floor is some kind of embossed 1/2-inch plywood. It was there when I bought the van and I'm not sure whether it is stock for the cargo model or some kind of aftermarket accessory.
I've become spoiled by how much easier it is to park and maneuver around crowded jobsites in a smaller vehicle. I can squeeze in and out of spaces that would be a nightmare (or simply impossible) in a truck. Here it is in a very short driveway.
The transit came with a Sortimo shelving unit already installed and if set up right it had the potential to be a "lean mean carpentry machine".
The shelving unit offers several compact storage options. At the bottom is a compartment with a lift-up door.
Above the lift-up door is a shallow drawer.
There is open divided storage at a convenient height (in the middle). Above that there are bins that lock onto tracks in the shelving unit.
The cargo space measures 59"x75" (minus the wheel wells), and is 51" high. The shelving unit takes up some of this space, but provides a ton of organization. A hose hanger cable-tied to the shelf carries air hoses, and an inverter clamped in place allows me to charge batteries on the road (there is a factory-installed 12-volt socket on the center console that is always live). I can fit an entire finish toolkit inside the van by employing the strategies described in the following photos.
Get rid of blow-molded cases. You should probably do this even if you don't have a van. They are frustrating to use and take up way too much space. I use an assortment of milk crates, old school metal toolboxes, and soft bags to carry my power tools (for easier access some are stored loose in the Sortimo shelving unit). The exception to that rule would be my laser and Festool products; those I store in the supplied cases.
Keep your setup simple. There are lots of fancy tables and things out there that promise to make everything easy. Some of them probably do, but since few of us drive moving trucks, we have to get creative. I have a sturdy set of plastic sawhorses and 4' melamine shelf that is my all-purpose table (on larger jobs we'll set up a 2x8 workbench or a 4x8 assembly table). I have a folding stand for the table saw and a Sawhelper miter saw stand (the wings ride on top). The sawhorses and folding stands ride against the driver's side wall and are secured to the clip track with a bungee cord.
Use small tools. Like many young carpenters, I decided I liked building stuff and promptly went out and bought a 28oz hammer. I've since learned that bigger is not always better. A small compressor, small table saw, and small dust extractor help me stay compact (okay, so the one on the bottom is kind of large—but you get the idea).
Try to be modular. Milk crates slide in next to each other nicely. Festool Systainers stack. Having some dimensional standards for your storage makes it more space-efficient and also more adaptive. You can't be a one-stop construction shop in a Transit. Everything needs to earn its place. Every month or two, I find an opportunity to completely unload my van, assess what I'm using and not using, and reorganize. The demands of the job are always changing so it's worth spending the time to keep your setup in top form and get rid of dead weight.
We've heard some of the good, but what about the limitations to this sort of setup? While I've successfully carried sheets of plywood or long bundles of trim on the roof rack, you're not going to be hauling a lot of material, and you're certainly not going to be towing. With its 2L 4-cylinder engine the Transit is doing well to get itself down the road. The interior is Spartan, and the handling and ride are not what you'd call plush. There is a fair amount of road noise in the cab, and it tends to vibrate annoyingly at stop lights. If you get one of these vehicles you'll need to steer clear of drive-throughs and parking garages. Trust me on this one.
The bottom line: The Transit is not going to win any pull-offs or beauty contests, but it's an extremely practical vehicle for construction professionals in the lighter trades. Many service companies are starting to use them, and I expect we will see similar models from other manufacturers hit the market in the next couple of years.
Fleets, Trucks and Accessories
Please read our Content Guidelines before posting.
Check out Tool Videos from our Editors and Contributors
Copyright ©
2016 Hanley Wood Media, Inc. All rights reserved.


text: The final additional steps aim to help ensure that your time at Queen's is as happy, fulfilling and productive as possible. Registering with a doctor means that you can get medical advice as soon as you need it, exploring the library early will mean quicker access to academic resources, and students with disabilities can register for specialist support with the Disability Service in the Student Guidance Centre. The Student Guidance Centre also provides numerous services and support to help you during your time at Queen's.


text:
The Afrovision Managerial Contest
(Much of this is a repeat from the opening post of the first thread. Please read it all though, as some details have been added in)
From around the globe, 53 managers have come to Africa! Home to what is perhaps the most flamboyant football in the world, and what is essentially an underrated continent in footballing terms. However, the 53 impoverished nations that make up the continent can together boast a number of stars, which tells us that the quality is there. All that is needed is the public attention, and that is what the continent shall get as The Afrovision Managerial Contest lands upon the 30.2 million km2 of earth.
The South African multimedia company known as Broadcasters, African Television, Radio and Complete Entertainment Revolution (BATRACER) is the key company behind the new scheme that will bring fame to African football. After some success after a similar contest was trialled in the Americas, and of course following the huge international celebrity of the Eurovision Song Contest and the Eurovision Striking Contest, Africa is the next continent to be swept by the reality TV and interactive show craze. BATRACER will be broadcasting the Contest to all 53 African nations, and of course to the most interested of other nations (those currently being: the United States, Brazil, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, China and Japan), and will offer exclusive coverage of the finals.
Here's how it works: 53 of you have been selected to be the managers of the African nations. Mayotte and Réunion, not being FIFA members, have opted not to take part in the contest. The nation you will manage has been randomly assigned to you, and you can find out whose yours is below. With all the managers set at their nations, I will simulate two months of game time and provide a report. I'll then do this again until I have done six reports and covered a year of game time. This is where you'll come in: as Africa is such a huge continent, two nations will get a bye to the final. These will be the holder/host and the highest ranked African team at the end of the 12 months. If these are the same, the bye will go to the next-highest ranked team. The other 51 nations will compete in Semi-Finals, 17 in each of the three semi-finals. From each of the three, five nations will qualify, joining with the two biggest nations to make a 17-strong final.
You will be expected to vote in the semi-finals and final, so it is essential that you are able to continue to follow the sign-up once you have signed up. If you are one of the two nations with a bye, I will get you to give your votes for a specific semi-final. The others will vote for their own semi-final. All 53 managers are expected to vote in the final. As per the Eurovision Song Contest, your votes will consist of a 12-pointer, a 10-pointer, an 8-pointer and votes from 7 down to 1 points. After the votes, the nations are ranked in order of the number of points they have earned; the top five go through from the semi-finals but only the top nation will matter in the final, as they will be crowned the seasonal champion and will host the next contest. If nations are tied, they will be sorted by the number of 12-pointers they have received, then the number of 10-pointers, etcetera, until the tie is broken.
You have each created your manager and attributes have been assigned to that manager depending on how you valued different components of the Eurovision system. You have also been assigned a nation using a random number generator. Here are the managers of the nations that will take part in the tournament:
Each of these managers has been entered into the database and has travelled to their new nation to begin work. Pretty soon, BATRACER will send out its first broadcast updating 62 nations on the progress of the new competition. After six broadcasts, the competition starts properly, ramping up pace for live voting shows. Don't forget, as a manager, you are expected to vote in the semi-final that you are involved in and the final, and if you receive a bye I will give you a semi-final to vote in. I have marked several of those who have signed up on a watchlist: if you are one of them and you miss a tournament's worth of voting, you may be dropped without warning. If you miss one set of votes, your nation is deducted 12 points for that set of votes.Code:Username Manager NAT Managing... DodgeeD David Dodgson ENG Congo (Republic of) Whoopy D Whoopy Dee'e CMR Djibouti weeeman27bob Weeman Fernandez PER Namibia bergtaur Hryhorii Zahorchak UKR Chad Cardiovascular Cardio Hernandes POR Sierra Leone PaulHartman71 Jeremy English ENG Sudan pompey13 Pompey 13 ENG Malawi joetheref Joe Tompkins ENG Lesotho MattFergie Matt Ferguson SCO Somalia dafuge dafuge ENG Mozambique NeoAC Ryan Andrews RSA Swaziland rancer890 Ricky Nakano CAN Central African Republic canvey!! Didier Dardon FRA Morocco super_lampard Super Lampard ENG Seychelles PluckaDuck Tyler Burrows AND Egypt BenArsenal Ben Cee SIN Niger coldkohmew Mentho Latum SIN Tunisia Hamuel Alfred Jarry FRA Kenya fergysafc Liam Ferguson ENG Cameroon iacovone Sir Ronald Vaughan ENG Benin Loojay Steve Axworth FIN Ethiopia SJ234 Jose Rodriguez ESP Uganda Adamw Adam Wilkinson ENG Guinea hamilton162 Tom Hamilton AUS Comoros manchester07 Ricky Gill ITA Libya Robert_296 Robert Boyle ENG Algeria Lower Leagues Rule Des Tiny NZL Nigeria Greasy Chip Butty Chip Butty ENG São Tomé and Principe corinthiano Joaquim Ntadi MOZ Madagascar jayatsena Be Jayatsena ITA Burundi magvest Magnus Vestergaard SWE Burkina Faso jack.browne Jack Browne USA Rwanda chopper99 Craig Hopper KEN DR Congo Almondo Alex Almond ENG Mauritius Xx_WeeCoop_xX Mark Cooper SCO Guinea-Bissau Dees-Blake Dees Blake ENG Togo Tomaldinho Tomaldinho POR Liberia gavrenwick Kleen Shavern UKR Gambia SCIAG Quandiose Yancy GAM Eritrea Kenco Ken Co ENG Gabon hasdgfas Albert Holstein USA Ivory Coast Mikel LUFC Juan King ESP Angola tomsmith1989 Tom Smith POR Botswana spartans5 Lawrence Lazewski POL Mauritania stoehrst Charlie Henry USA Zimbabwe el sid The Green Beret ENG Equatorial Guinea Edinho Edward Still BOT Senegal JSalter Karl Unpingco GUM Cape Verde Elrithral Alfredo Dick ITA Ghana Mk_Forest Matt Lepino ENG South Africa himan Christina Modoglou CYP Zambia MikaelS Mikael Schøler DEN Mali Northerm Lights Thelonius Davis SEN Tanzania
The spotlight now turns to South Africa, the host of the inaugural tournament. It will be up to their manager Matt Lepino to ensure that the host nation delivers a good performance themselves. So, without further ado…let the games begin!
Some Notes
- Each manager has started with a Current Ability of 130 and a Potential Ability of 160. They have a reputation of 7000 for each of the three reputation values.
- During standard update time, I will post an update every other day. Then updates will cease for a bit during the voting period, and updates will be every day during the tournaments.
- Managers mentioned in any reports will be mentioned using their manager name. The table above is a good example of one you can use to cross-reference if necessary.
- There will be times when I cannot make an update. I will tell you in advance and, if possible, will provide you with a few updates at once if I am going away for a week or two.
- The leagues loaded are the first divisions of England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal and South Africa. These will be run on minimal detail while international friendlies, the World Cup, the African Cup of Nations and African qualifying for those two will be run on full detail.
- If your manager gets sacked or leaves his job, you will retain your place in the sign-up. However, other forumers will be made aware that your manager is no longer in his/her job, so your performance in the following finals may suffer, but would improve thereafter. You are at risk of losing your place in the sign-up, however, if you fail to vote (see the stipulations above).
The image is courtesy of news.myjoyonline.com.


text:
There are number of income models available for different games on various platforms - income from ads, paid games, paid DLCs, microtransactions and so forth. What sources of income are available for developers of Xbox games (both on physical discs, Live Arcade and Live Indie)?
This is not an exhostive list, and will ignore some extraneous things such as T-shirts, figures, posters, etc..., and any costs will be given in US$($1 = 80 Microsoft points) for MSRP, and will discount profit margin/cut, and distributor cut (some of these must be directly negotiated by medium)
Physical Media:
considering that the average Xbox game retails for $60 these usually are purchased by the retailer in bulk (1-10 thousand at a time) up front (independent on actual sales), and distributed among locations (usually 5-10 copies per location). Keep in mind that in order to release any physical media game on the XBox Microsoft must give it a green light, and to have it placed in any store requires that the owner give permission by purchasing them.
these can have digital material in addition to the physical media (see DLC for details)
XBox live:
I am not directly sure as to if there are any direct influences from Microsoft for anything beside the general game. they have the right to not allow a game to be released for their system by just a single word.
As to the actual successfulness of any of these different options that will actually very from IP to IP, and could very well be dependent on the exact game. you could probably go and find the top sellers for physical media games, and downloaded games, and probably see that some game types sell better as physical media while others sell better as downloaded games. For a time it was sited that thousands of people were buying an Xbox360 just to play Bejeweled though this most likely will have changed.
Though this might not be what you wanted to hear, but like many things in popular culture the success, or failure of a given IP, or game can be determined not on its features, development time, or means of release, but on its ability to be that "flavor of the month" granted some IP/games have more of a staying power they are still just the current "flavor of the month".


text:
Both terms are used often in the gaming world and people tend to use "p2p" for abbreviating both. What are the correct abbreviations and usages?
Peer to Peer generally means a multiplayer game that is hosted on one of the player's machines.
Pay to Play is obviously when you pay a fee to play a game, such as WoW.


text:
I am confused as to whether/how capacitance changes when each plate has a different charge. For example, consider a coaxial cable and put $20Q$ on the outer cable, and $-Q$ on the inner. Or how about concentric spheres, grounding either the inner or the outer?
Systems of plates are not typically considered capacitors unless they are globally neutral. Nevertheless, capacitance is a geometric property that is to do with the system more than the actual voltages and charges you apply to it, so that your question still makes sense: the capacitance is the same as it would be with symmetric charges.
More specifically, the (mutual) capacitance of two conducting surfaces is defined as the charge that must be applied to one surface so that the potential in the other one will rise by one unit; by energy considerations it must be symmetric.
If the charges on both surfaces are antisymmetric (i.e. $+Q$ and $-Q$) then there will be a potential difference between the plates of $V=Q/C$. If they are asymmetric, a similar statement holds: if plate 1 has charge $Q_1$ and plate 2 has charge $Q_2$, then there will still be a potential difference between them of $V=(Q_1-Q_2)/2C$.
The problem with this, though, is that you're no longer seeing the whole picture, and you'll also have to deal with the self capacitance of the plates, which wasn't a problem before: if you put 100 C of charge on one plate and 99 C on the other, there will still be some potential difference between the plates, but they are also at a very high potential with respect to anything else you might consider, and you will have a host of other problems. This is why the situation is hardly ever considered.
In the general case, then, you have not one but two independent voltages to consider; that is, the mean and the difference, or the two voltages of the plates separately. To deal with this appropriately, you need to use a general capacitance matrix as Suresh describes in his answer.
Finally, you also need to worry about what other charged systems you must consider, and where they are. You can't just conjure a large charge on one plate without taking it from somewhere, and depending on where you're grounding there may also be some significant energy of interaction there.
Suppose you have two conductors kept at voltages $V_1$ and $V_2$ and they have charges $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ respectively. Then, one has the relation $$ Q_1 = C_{11}\ V_1 + C_{12}\ V_2\quad \textrm{and}\quad Q_2 = C_{12}\ V_1 + C_{22} \ V_2 \ , $$ which defines a (symmetric) Capacitance matrix that is determined by the geometries of the two conductors. This generalizes the case that one uses for capacitors. See Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism in the Berkeley Series in Physics for a discussion.
Note added: The assumption in the above formulation is that the conductors have finite size. Then, when the charges $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are finite, one assumes that the potential at spatial infinity defines the zero of the potential.
Suresh's answer gives the correct general formalism.
(1) For the specific case of a coaxial cable, the electric field between the two conductors is determined by the charge $-Q$ on the inner conductor, which terminates on $+Q$ worth of charge on the outer conductor. (There can't be any field inside the inner conductor, so all the field generated by its charge extends outward.) The potential difference between the two conductors will just be $Q/C$, where $C$ is the capacitance of the coax.
The "excess" $19Q$ on the outer coax conductor produces a field extending outwards from the coax. If this field extends to infinity the potential drop will be infinite. Instead, one can terminate the field on $-19Q$ worth of new charge situated somewhere outside the coax. If that new charge resides on a new third conductor, that new topology is characterized by a new capacitance $C_{new}$, which will set the potential difference between the outer coax and the new third conductors: $19Q/C_{new}$.
(2) It's interesting to generate the capacitance matrix for this configuration. (See suresh's answer for the capacitance matrix equation formulation.) Because the coax cable length is infinite, one must consider the "specific" charges and capacitances, that is, charge and capacitance per unit length.
First consider the infinite coax in isolation. Evaluating the matrix elements (with the inner conductor denoted "1") gives: $$C_{11}=-C_{12}=-C_{21}=C_{22}=C=\frac{2 \pi \epsilon}{\ln\left(r_2/r_1 \right)}$$
This matrix is degenerate, forcing $Q_1=-Q_2$.
Now add a third, grounded cylindrical conductor at radius $r_3$, $r_3>r_2$. $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, and $C_{21}$ are unchanged, but $C_{22}$ acquires a new term:
$$ C_{22}= 2 \pi \epsilon \left( \frac{1}{\ln\left(r_2/r_1 \right)} + \frac{1}{\ln\left(r_3/r_2 \right)} \right) = C + C_{new}$$
This addition removes the degeneracy, allowing arbitrary charges to be assigned to the two coax's conductors, with the resulting voltages measured with respect to the grounded conductor. As $r_3$ increases, $C_{new}$ decreases, reaching the degenerate case in the limit.
Inverting this matrix equation and solving for the potential difference, one finds: $$ V_1 - V_2 = \frac{Q_1}{C} $$ agreeing with the first analysis result.
In general, the potential difference in terms of the capacitance matrix elements and charges is: $$ V_1 - V_2 = \frac{(C_{22}+C_{21}) Q_1 - (C_{11} + C_{12}) Q_2 }{C_{11} C_{22} - C_{12} C_{21} } $$


text:
Was anyone lucky (or unlucky) enough to score a BoC prior to them selling out?
Did you get one, I did?
41 Answers answer
Yup. Just kinda stumbled onto it. Wondered why they would be selling fertilizer.
Happened upon Facebook at just the right time! Hooray! @bsmith1 did you get one?
You can post the link now. =P
it was here for those who care
I was on my way into work when it posted ... CRAP.
Congrats to those who did score one, and it at least offers a slight bit of hope that such will be offered again in future Woot-offs or something.
Thanks to your previous question I did...thanks for the tip!
@jsimsace: do you mean the question that is no longer there? If so, your welcome
I scored my first today
My wife and I both got one :-)
edit: yes the earlier question also prompted me to look around
Yeah, and now I feel like I need to buy something else with my all-day free shipping (and that BoC was my 99th woot and I really like round numbers and want to get to 100).
@benyust2: plus you get your black square with #100 (so congrats in advance). My BoC put me at 92 so I am getting close to my black square
@mrsbeny: Nope. Was at the doctor's office. Stupid unborn child... already messing up my life...
@bsmith1: Doh! Hope all is well! I don't miss those monthly appointments. HUGS!
Thanks to a few special people who gave me a heads up, I was able to nab one.
I did score one thanks to @musicalman's post here
nope, i didn't log on until after it sold out. oh well...
on another note, it's nice to see a BOC offered on April Fools again
I got one!!
it's been almost FIVE YEARS since I've successfully scored a bandoleer of carrots!
It is a very clever plot by woot to get us to buy more stuff. I was able to snag a bag and now I feel a major compulsion to get the most out of my unlocked free shipping. So I will spend the day sifting through the woot multiverse looking for stuff to purchase. New woot site idea - poorcollegekids.woot
I basically had to pinch myself. Like @widmer69 I sort of wondered what the deal with fertilizer was (some kind of dried stuff? Local delivery?), and saw that it was a BOC. This will be (I think) my third maybe? I am not so excited, but glad I scored free shipping on the Rockwell oscillating tool: I've been wanting one for a while, and this was a great excuse to buy it.
I clicked on the link on Facebook. I honestly didn't expect the BoC, I was kind of hoping for manure...
DAMN YOU stupid sprint retrospective meeting!!!!!!111oneoneone
i briefly saw the link on woot's FB page but hadn't read it yet. then i got pulled into a meeting of stupidness which made me miss it.
on the other hand, it's good to know they still pop up every so often. congrats to everyone that got one!
I normally check every day, but I have family visiting and wasn't on woot. Gratz to those that scored.
Missed it. Been here. Frustrated. Cause i keep getting server error to add a deal. Other deals i can add. So must be something funky.
next time............. there will be a next time won't there ?
i knew it would be on the new site as a plus deal :P just didn't get the timing right. Good job, woot!
i knew it would be on the new site as a plus deal :P just didn't get the timing right. Good job, woot!
Congrats to all that were successful. As normal "I missed it by that much."
Got one!
@j5: I tried to be subtle about it. I'm glad people figured out the clue. Frankly, I'm happier than a pig in... a bag of manure that I stumbled upon it at the right time.
Now....anything under $10 that I can use my free shipping for the day on?
Nope. I searched through last night at changeover, so I missed it this morning.
Congrats on your crappy prize!
@thumperchick: I am expecting the crappiest of crap. All the stuff I wouldn't/didn't buy even when I unlocked shipping for the day. No complaints though just enjoying this small flashback to Woot! of old
Missed it. Much to do today so I got up early and finished my Wooting and deal posting before this one was even posted. Ah, well. Just yesterday I was trying to shove random carp into my closet before DH could spot it and had to admit to myself that I have a too-much-carp problem. Didn't need more, but then "need" is such a relative word.
Congrats to everyone who scored a BOC. Please post pix!
I peeked in this morning and again just now, so none for me. I have to agree with @belyndag though. I have extra, I should not be looking for more.
Thankfully I am on vacation and was in the right place at the right time. Scored my first one ever!
@belyndag: Hey! Some of that crap went from my crap closet to your crap closet, it's a beautiful thing.
It figures, I saw it, but didn't even bother to check and see what the heck they were talking about.
Oh well, saved myself from the possibility of a major letdown...
Thanks to your brief question that got deleted I got one. Thank you........maybe. :)
@thumperchick: LOL! Actually, it went to my SIL's closet, although I believe her kiddos scattered most of it to the winds. She keeps saying she is going to post a list of her goodies, but I know she's been caught up in some family drama (story of our lives).
@blgauthier: Just a reminder to post about your thumperchick BOC!
@bsmith1: I about did a spit take with (sorry to mention it) coffee.
Downvotes = no sense of humor.
@thumperchick and @belyndag: OHMYGOD! I never posted my Thumperchick BOC information? I am soooooo sorry! I made a hand-written list of everything as my kids rifled through it and made off with what they wanted. It was a TERRIFIC box of craptacular stuff! I didn't get a clear picture of it to post, but if I can still find that list I will definitely put the information out.
Life keeps getting in the way of my Wooting, I'm afraid.
@belyndag: Well, to be fair I did mail the box to you, so forgive me for mixing you ladies up?
@blgauthier: darn that real life!


text:
A Leavenworth woman must pay more than $6,000 of her mother's outstanding medical bills after being found guilty of felony theft, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said in a news release.
Rebecca Hund, 44, was ordered Friday by Leavenworth County District Judge Gunnar Sundby to pay $6,053.40 to cover the unpaid medical bills incurred for the care of her mother at the Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital.
In April, Sundby accepted Hund's no contest plea to one count of felony theft and found her guilty of the charge.
The charge arose from an investigation by the attorney general's Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Division and the Nebraska attorney general's Medicaid Fraud and Patient Abuse Unit into Hund's conduct between November 2007 and December 2011. Acting as durable power of attorney for her mother, Hund sold her mother's house and used some of the proceeds for her own benefit rather than to care for her mother, according to the release.
In addition to payment of medical expenses, Hund was ordered to serve 12 months of probation with an underlying sentence of six months in the Kansas Department of Corrections. The case was prosecuted by Assistant Attorney General John Bryant of Schmidt's office.
Bryant previously served as deputy county attorney for Leavenworth County.
Earlier this year, Schmidt successfully advocated for a new law to toughen penalties for the financial abuse of senior citizens. That new law takes effect July 1.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
You are visiting our UK site. Click here to view our US site
Dermatology in Traditional Chinese Medicine (9781901149036)
Publisher: Donica Publishing
Binding: Hardcover
Written by one of China's foremost dermatologists. Dermatology in Chinese Medicine draws on the author's vast spectrum of clinical experience to provide a thorough survey of more than 120 commonly seen and difficult skin disorders likely to be encountered by TCM practitioners in their daily practice. Full pattern identification and a comprehensive array of treatment options for each condition, backed up by a meticulous and informative selection of case histories and up-to-date clinical observation studies, make this book an indispensable companion for the practicing dermatologist.
Save: £7.01
Saved: 10.62%!
Customer Reviews (view all) : Average Rating 5
Attilio D'Alberto, Rated: 5
Excellent Book
I've used this book to successfully treat several difficult skin conditions using herbal medicine. An excellent book that anyone practising herbal medicine should have in their library.
Related Products:
Acupuncture for Dermatological Diseases DVDby Wu Ying
Price: £29.99 £36.00
[more info]
People who purchased this also purchased...
Cosmetic Acupunctureby Radha Thambirajah
Price: £32.39 £35.99
[more info]
Case Studies on Pattern Identificationby ShuDe Jiao and Nigel Wiseman (Editor)
Price: £34.99 £55.00
[more info]
Ten Lectures on the Use of Formulas from the Personal Experience of Jiao Shu Deby Jiao Shu De and Nigel Wiseman (Editor)
Price: £42.69 £55.00
[more info]
Chinese Herbal Formulas and Applicationsby John Chen and Tina Chen
Price: £85.00 £89.95
[more info]
Acupuncture Researchby Hugh MacPherson
Price: £32.39 £35.99
[more info]
Build A Successful Practice And Retire In Comfort eBookby Alan Rouse
Price: £29.00 £39.00
[more info]
Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia Medica, 3rd editionby Dan Bensky, Steve Clavey and Erich St�ger with ...
Price: £62.99 £75.00
[more info]
The Treatment of Modern Western Medical Diseases With Chinese Medicineby Bob Flaws and Philippe Sionneau
Price: £71.25 £95.00
[more info]
The Five Elementsby Elisabeth de la Vallee
Price: £11.25 £12.50
[more info]
Subscribe To CMT
Shopping Basket
Your basket is empty!
Change Language
Change Currency
Events Calendar
Qigong for Self-Healing with Daverick Leggett (Saturday 15th October)
The focus of the day will be self healing through the practice of Qigong. [more]
Working with Excess- TCM Nutrition with Daverick Leggett (Friday 14th October)
Many,or perhaps all, chronic conditions have an underlying deficiency at their root [more]


text:
Saudi embassies, consulates and temporary Hajj consulate missions have issued more than 1.6 million Hajj visas this year, Saudi Gazette reported today.
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs for Consular Affairs Ambassador Mohammad Alsalloom told the daily the Kingdom this year has issued more Hajj visas in less time because of a new system linking all authorities concerned with the Hajj. He added that the visas were approved in line with rules issued by the Minister of Interior, Ministry of Hajj, Ministry of Health, and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Ambassador Alsalloom said Saudi Arabia has deployed temporary Hajj missions to issue visas in countries where the Kingdom does not have embassies, including Benin, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Mauritius, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Togo, and Trinidad and Tobago.


text:
Firewall and network security
ACUTEC offer industry leading antispam, anti-virus and spyware solutions to keep your company and employees spam-free and free from viruses and numerous spyware and other threats to the security of your networks.
Employees can spend a good deal of time deleting inappropriate and unrequested email and that gets more complicated as we now have smartphone and tablets.
Our antispam works by effectively filtering at domain-level, so your servers and devices do not have to go through thousands of emails one by one.
Server outage or infrastructure problem? Your email is safely backed up and cached for 5 days until your systems are back up and ready to receive any waiting email. No more bounce messages sent to your client and with Information provided by our daily summary, you'll always be on top of things and configured, managed and monitored by our technical support team.
It's scalable, from small business use up to corporate size businesses.
ESET Antivirus
After an extensive trial and many successful deployments, the solution we now recommend is by ESET. It's so good, we even use it ourselves! Being an ESET UK Partner, ACUTEC are able to deliver outstanding service and support for this excellent product.
Why ESET Antivirus the best?
Best detection, Fastest Performance, Smallest Footprint
Don't let the name fool you, it is not just an antivirus solution, it provides real-time protection against viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, adware, riskware, rootkits, phishing and other malicious threats.
Smallest memory footprint in the industry – Single, highly-optimised engine; conserves resources in memory and on disk so your applications aren't compromised.
Virus and spyware outbreaks
It is inevitable that businesses without good technical advice can suffer from virus protection problems which result in full scale outbreaks which can cause costly downtime and worse, data loss. As well as providing you with the right software to prevent future security breaches, ACUTEC can help with the outbreak itself.
With our tools and expertise, ACUTEC can:
- Identify and remove the source of the infiltration
- Isolate problem PCs or equipment
- Remove spyware, adaware and browser hijacks
- Repair damage and restore functionality of hardware and software


text:
I've been wondering about this. Me and my partner (I'm gay) are thinking of adopting soon.
I can't imagine that teaching a child that God doesn't exist is, at it's heart, any different than teaching a child that God does exist. I have some very dear friends who do not believe in God. Really, it's a simple matter of they don't attend church, they observe some holidays (such as Christmas and Easter) from a purely secular standpoint (Santa Claus, Easter bunny, etc.). I imagine that, at some point, the question may come up from their boys, "Why does my friend believe in God and we don't?" or something from that perspective, but I don't see that there's any reason to call attention to the situation until/unless a child brings the topic up first. At that point, you will have to thoughtfully consider how to answer the question. I would hope that you wouldn't want to imply to your child that those who are religious are stupid or ignorant because of their beliefs, so you would have to choose your words carefully--in the same way that a parent who did believe in God might someday have to address the question of why one of their friends doesn't believe in God. I mean, do you really want to possibly sacrifice a personal friendship or one of your son's friendships because of a difference in beliefs? I would never want my child to believe that his friend or his friend's parents are bad or ignorant people because they don't choose to follow my family's belief system.
But I think that the reality is that if a child isn't exposed to a God-centric belief system, they are unlikely to construct one on their own. My oldest is 5, we are Christians, we have friends and family who are not who also have children around his age. They play together and have never discussed God to my knowledge. I expect eventually the topic will come up (especially with my nieces who are being raised--well, truthfully, I don't know what they're being raised exactly), but I don't plan to bring it up unless my children do.
Depending on the diversity of where you live, your child may never ask why your family's beliefs are different from those of his friends and acquaintances. In other areas, like where I live, the beliefs are somewhat more homogeneous which may draw more attention to your child's differences. This might cause him/her to ask questions sooner rather than later. Either way, I don't think the question is so much how to teach them that God doesn't exist, but rather how will you respond when they ask why their beliefs are different from others.
ETA: It occurred to me after responding that you said you were thinking of adopting which could add a whole new angle to the situation. If you adopt an older child, there may be some unlearning to do. In which case, being able to clearly articulate to a young-ish child (say, pre-school age) why you and your partner do not believe in God will be more important. At first, it may be a simple thing of not going to church, but if a child remembers attending church/mass/temple/etc. at some point, then he/she might eventually ask why you don't. I don't know your personal reasons, but keeping it short is probably the best way to address the situation: "We don't believe in God because we can't see God or speak with God or touch God" or whatever your reasons. You can get into other more metaphysical and metacognitive discussions about it when your child is older. This is how we approach teaching our children about God--at their age, the concepts are very simple, but progress in depth and breadth as our children grow older and their cognitive development can process the information better.
First, I think that it is important to think about what it is that you actually want to teach. Atheism is not in and of itself a belief system, it's a metaphysical position. Theism is also not a belief system. A "system" needs more than a single metaphysical point.
So what system of beliefs do you want to teach to your child? You're going to have to teach them something, even if that something is "people believe different things for different reasons and I am personally okay with that because people have a right to believe different things." That's much closer to a system of belief than atheism, because it involves ideas about rights and tolerance and other stuff that is outside of the single metaphysical point of whether or not god(s) or goddess(es) exist for some given definition of gods and goddesses.
So if your belief system is something like secular humanism, you teach your child the principles--be kind to others, show empathy, lying hurts people, stealing hurts people, etc.-- and give them the secular humanist rationale as is age appropriate. At some point they will become aware of the question of whether supernatural things are real or not, which is a different question.
For example, when a child becomes aware of death, they may ask what happens to people when they die. It is really hard to avoid questions about whether there is or is not a god when discussing the possibility of the afterlife. I think that the thing to do in that case is to be honest and sensitive and explain what you think, and that other people think different things. I haven't really had my kids pursue me on why other people think different things. My daughter, who is 4, took that as permission to think something different herself, and decided that when people die, they come back as babies. Now she has decided that this is something that only happens "in the story", although which story that might be is somewhat unclear to me.
The question of god also comes up when well meaning Christians--apologies to the Christians, but I simply haven't been actively proselytized by any other religious group--tell your children that they should believe in god and give them religious material to view. In that case, if they are very young it helps to just treat it like you treat stories about Santa Claus or any other mythical characters. When my kids asked about Santa, I always turned the question around ("Well, what do you think) and that worked out pretty well--they believed for a year or so and then decided that Santa wasn't real. They've never asked about Jesus, possibly because he doesn't bring presents and is therefore less immediate.
The short answer, in other words, is that you talk to your kids about deep topics when they ask, and as much as you responsibly can, you let them figure it out for themselves.
All you need do is not teach them that God exists. If (when) they hear about God from elsewhere say something like "Some people believe in this God thing, but we don't. When you get older you will be able to make up your own mind, and look into it more if you want. But we don't believe in it so we're not going to make you go to church or anything."
I think thats a better approach than preaching atheism, if you get what I mean. For a start, as a child grows they will want to rebel. What better way to annoy Dad than dating a Catholic (Muslem, Hindu insert faith as appropriate)?
I think your best bet lies in teaching your children what you do believe or think, rather than what you don't. Not that there aren't times when you'll need to explain that something's not true, but it's generally more powerful to give your child the tools they need to determine what's true.
Children make wonderful scientists because of their curiosity. Nurture that. Don't settle for giving them answers like "that's just the way it is", and when they tell you something try asking them to explain why it's so or how they know it's true. When you can explain your lack of belief in a god in these same familiar terms, it will make sense to them.
Try to avoid prejudicial criticism like "Christians are stupid". One day your child will meet a nice, smart Christian and realize you lied. Instead use reasoned, specific criticism. Talk about who you disagree with, why you disagree. Give your child a chance to ask questions or raise objections, and address them seriously.
In our kid's school they teach them about a wide range of religions (Islam, Christianity, Hindu, Sikh etc) and while the school itself is slightly Christian, they support children in learning why their friends may have different beliefs than them, so my son, who is atheist/agnostic has a amongst his friends a couple of Muslim, one Hindu, a few Christians and some others who don't believe in any religion.
They don't see this as weird - it's just the way things are, like some have ginger hair and some don't. Some have different sexuality. Some have 1 parent, some have 2 the same sex etc.
They start to bring these teachings in around age 5 (not in much depth until a few years after that) and it doesn't actually start with religion - it begins with tolerance and an understanding that everyone is different.
Teaching them that god does or doesn't exist isn't necessary at this age - just give them a tolerance structure and enough information for them to work their own way. I'm definitely an atheist, but I give my kids enough room to decide when they are older.
First, consider the methods.
To teach that a specific god exists, you would typically raise your child as a member of a particular church.
To teach that 'god' doesn't exist, I see two primary options:
For option 1, you'd obviously be able to start that 'non-teaching' at day 1. For option #2, I don't think there is any one answer there. That's really going to depend on you.
We did it (gently) as soon as he started asking about Jesus - he went to a religious preschool in part so we could get this nonsense out of the way earlier. You know: Everyone has different beliefs but mommy and daddy believe this because of these reasons. Do you think Santa Claus is real or pretend?
I don't believe in teaching my beliefs to my child. I believe in talking about whatever interests my child in an adult manner. When my son asked me: "What is 'religion'?", I tried to explain my perception of the matter to him. He knows about the big bang, so when I said that some people believe that God created the universe, he replied: "But that is not true, it was created by the Big Bang." I said that I agreed with him, and that this seems the most probably theory to me, but that we don't know for certain, because no-one has been there and witnessed either. I don't usually bring up topics that my son is not currently interested in. And I try to give him all the facts I have, discussing their relative merits, and giving him the opportunity to chose his own interpretation. After all, I don't need him to be a sceptic like me. If he wants to believe in God, why not? But then I guess that this practice will make him a sceptic ;-)
You will of course chose your own message you want to convey, and the above was only meant as an illustration of what would be the best manner for all kinds of parents, independent of their beliefs:
We simply didn't go to church, pray, or talk much about God in our home because, well, being atheists, God and religion aren't an issue we spend time on.
Round about second grade, it came up with our oldest. She asked what church was, and why people went there. I think it was annoying that so many of her friends were unavailable on Sundays. We told her some people believe there's a powerful being called "God" that created everything and watches over everyone, but that mom and me had never seen any reason to believe that was true, and that her friends went to church to pray to and sing to God.
It never really came up again, until she became politically aware, and became disgusted at the way fundamentalists push their beliefs into public policy.
(Yeah, trying to force everyone to live a Biblical lifestyle is forcing religious beliefs into public policy. Live your life according to your beliefs, and let others do the same.)
Little sister seemed to figure it out, or perhaps she asked big sister, because she's never brought it up with us. She's the fourth family science nerd after me, (math/physics), mom (biology/chemistry/medicine) and big sister (conservation biology).
I'd say, when they're old enough to properly understand religion if you explained it to them. When they're young, they aren't old enough to actually understand. They simply unquestioningly believe whatever is taught to them. I've got to ask, if you don't believe in God why would you be letting your child be raised with religion, only to have to explain at a later, "we believe everything you've learned is not true."? Why not just keep them out of religious studies and let them grow up a child, unswayed or uninfluenced by whatever religion, the area you live in, predominantly is. If the question does arise in future you can approach it with "well, this person grew up here, so they believe in Jesus, this person grew up in this area so they believe in Mohammed" and so on, then explain your reasons for not believing. Religion shouldn't be the default.