Christian Religion is Dying

Religion Superstition

Religion Superstition

The number of Americans who identify as Christian has fallen nearly eight percentage points in only seven years, according to a new survey.

Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans identified as Christian in 2014 – down from 78% in 2007.

In the same period, Americans identifying as having no religion grew from 16% to 23%.

Fifty-six million Americans do not observe any religion, the second largest community after Evangelicals.

The United States still remains home to more Christians than any other nation, with roughly seven-in-ten continuing to identify with some branch of Christianity.

In 2007 and then again in 2014, Pew conducted the “Religious Landscape Study”, interviewing 35,000 people each time.

Pew researchers say the losses they discovered were driven mainly by a decrease among liberal Protestants and Catholics and occurred in all regions of the US and among all ages and demographics.

About 5 million fewer Americans now identify as Christian compared to when the study was conducted in 2007.

In the South, those not-affiliated with religion – or as the researchers call them, “nones” – rose to 19% of the population, while in the Northeast they climbed to 25%.

In the West “nones” are a larger group than any religion, making up 28% of the public.

Greg Smith, Pew’s associate research director, said the findings “point to substantive changes” among the religiously unaffiliated, not just a shift in how people describe themselves.

Non-religious Americans have become increasingly organised since 2007, forming political groups designed to keep religion out of public life.

Kelly Damerow with the Secular Coalition for America tells BBC News that the Pew findings “lend credence to the growth we’ve witnessed within our community and that we have the potential to hold a lot of political clout”.

 

Source:   BBC.com

Boycott Apple

You should Boycott Apple:

Iphone 5 Sucks

Iphone 5 Sucks

The Internet is alight with outrage against Apple for winning a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus, claiming that Samsung infringes on US patent 8,086,604. This patent basically covers the unified search feature promoted not only in Apple’s Siri, but Android as well. It was this patent, the presiding Judge Koh concluded, that enabled Apple to justify that continued sales of the Galaxy Nexus would cause “irreparable harm” to Apple, which issued a statement regarding the lawsuit:

It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.

Samsung’s products in the past quite obviously were made to look similar to Apple’s iPhone, the Galaxy Nexus is a phone designed by Google and loaded with software directly from Google, only left to Samsung to manufacture. The Galaxy Nexus looks in no way similar to the iPhone apart from the fact that both devices share a touchscreen. Second, Apple fights very hard when companies steal its ideas, when Steve Jobs went on record saying that Apple has “always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” Quite hypocritical. So most of Apple’s lawsuits are hypocritical, but are they wrong? Should we be punishing Apple for suing other companies for infringing on its patents? No. In fact, some would argue that Apple is simply playing the system and playing to win. Most people would agree that the state of the patent system in the US is horrendous and is the root cause of these petty lawsuits. That’s why, when the Boycott Apple outbreak started, a few suggested something different. The patent system in the United States as we know it today has been derailed significantly from the founding fathers’ intentions. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, it states this:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

To put things simply, patents are not in place to protect the inventor. They are in place to promote invention and innovation. Providing the incentive of exclusivity to the inventor is simply a means to provide the end (rather than vice versa). This means that the focus of patents should be on innovation, not protection. Outright concentration on protection leads to a sheltered environment where innovation is stifled and progress is lost. But when did the patent system lose its way? Some suggest that when “processes” were finally allowed to be patented was the defining moment. You no longer had to have a machine to present to the patent office to show that you’d created something novel. All you needed was to write down a method of doing something (e.g., sliding your finger across a touchscreen to unlock a device) and all of a sudden you were a patent owner. This also allowed an influx of software patents to introduce themselves into the system. Eventually, the situation got to the point where it was considered that “a novel algorithm combined with a trivial physical step constitutes a novel physical device.” Basically, this means that new software loaded onto existing devices creates a completely new device, in the law’s eye. This is obviously a problem. Now you see companies patenting left and right methods rather than machines. Our society has been reduced from sparking great inventions and innovations to squabbling over how we move our finger around to wake our devices up.