Kill count updated for accuracy. Full list of deaths by god found here.
Thanks for the suggestion. I just added:
|The Plagues of Egypt||Ex.12:12||69,000||69,003|
This is tough number to crack but I did find some information on population estimates. Let's note the range of estimates.
“The population of Egypt by 1250 BCE has been estimated at 2.8 million…”
[Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Jack M. Sasson (ed.). Hendrickson:1995 (4vols)]
“Karl Butzer's population estimates of 1.2 million people for the Old Kingdom and 2 million for the Middle Kingdom… Even if we were to allow a population as high as 3 million, which I do not consider unreasonable…”
[Early Civilizations: Ancient Egypt in Context, Bruce G. Trigger, American University in Cairo:1993.]
“In the short term, they were so successful that Egypt's population had risen to more than a million by 2250 B.C.”
[Ancient Civilizations, Christopher Scarre and Brian Fagan, Longman:1997]
Since we are dealing with the New Kingdom, we'll use an average of the 2M and 2.8M (above), giving 2.4M. Let's apply our calculations from above to this number.
With an average household size of 2 (adults) + 6 (kids) + 1(domestic servant)=9, this yields 266,667 households. Taking 25% of these (from above), this yields 66,667 possible victims.
With there being 2 kids for every non-kid (6 kids versus 2+1 non-kids), in the population, the 2.4M yields 1.8M kids (2/3rds of the population), 4% of which is 72,000.
If we use 69,000 for an average/round number, this is slightly less than 3% of the total population. [It should be noted, though, that the plague is specifically targeted against Egyptians, and not non-Egyptians. There was a sizable group of non-Egyptians living in Egypt in the New Kingdom (e.g., merchants, slaves, military, etc), which could easily reduce these figures by 30%. And we should further reduce this by some number of Egyptian households who actually 'came over to' Israel, and became part of the Exodus community at this point.
So I think I will go with the 69,000 estimate. The odd part is that I heard somewhere recently that the number of years between the flood and the release of slaves in Egypt was only 100 years according to the timeline of the Bible. I must say that Noah and his family sure were busy.
Don't forget about Egypt! They lost their first born along with countless soldiers when Moses parted the sea.
Lol I read this after a search that was close to the page tags below. But here's one that really bothers me. Do a google search for "windows 7 registry fix". Look at the page one results. Look at the dates on the sites that show it. Notice any from this year? No, but I do see 2009 a few times. This is a quick example, not a good one. Every link on page one should be no less than a year old, software dates quickly. My point is this: giving authority based on website age may work in other genres, but not this one.
When Google tweaks its search algorithm, internet traffic changes with it. People can lose their livelihoods. Combine that with no real customer service, or way to appeal decisions made behind closed doors, and you can get a lot of people hurt.
All search engines do this, but I've noticed that searches on Google are becoming the worst offenders. I hate Microsoft too, but have been using Bing to find software for a few months now. Preventing spam by ossification of the internet will be a part of Google's fall, watch
Plus they broke the verbatim tool, it's almost useless half the time.
My blog is lonely, come give it a good kick The Ranting Randomly Blog
I decided to call the US Copyright office again and again I'm told that CSS is not protected by copyright law. Three out of three inquiries result in a "no" to "can I protect my CSS outside of Trade Dress?" I'm going to make one last inquiry in an attempt to get an official in-writing declaration by sending registered snail mail to the General Council of the US Copyright Office.
I strongly disagree with your decision to delete the other user's posts, and therefore this will be my last comment on the matter. ~leiger
And I strongly disagree that my blog is here as an outlet for trolls. I'm sorry that you feel I have to put up with them. Most of my material tends to push buttons because I take on controversial topics. As a result it can get heated and in doing so I need to filter out users that end up wasting my time so that I can focus more on those that can challenge me without being insulting in the process. Sometimes I take the time anyway and I almost always end up regretting it later, be it here, or my stomping grounds on youtube.
I just hope you decide not to censor my contributions also, because a blog where only one opinion can be heard is not a place I'd like to visit. ~leiger
It is not an issue of opinion, I accepted his correction regarding creative commons and adjusted my article to reflect that acceptance. At the same time I rejected his trolling. The fact that he came back to debate about fonts and make some snide remark about Google PR after I asked him not to post again only further proves he was trolling me. If I had any issue with your post(s) I would have made it clear as I did with the other users posts. I also "censor" the "contributions" of spammers but I trust that just like trolling, a judgement call has to made. Since it's my blog, I'll make that judgement. On to the topic which apparently you are now done with but you are still welcome to post if you wish.
That's for a court to decide. It would differ in each case. ~leiger
Of course, but one might imagine that there are some ground rules available as with other items protected by copyright; a sign that you are correct. Which if shown would result in a reversal but as it stands now, from what I've read and what I've been told, this article is accurate. But I have yet another conference call scheduled for tomorrow because a client also needs to be clear on this, perhaps we will be met with a different opinion.
Whilst I agree with part of what you have written, copyright is far more complex than the blog post indicates, and at times it can be extremely inconsistent. ~leiger
Of course! This is just a blog post, it was not intended to be comprehensive.
That's for a court to decide. It would differ in each case.
Whilst I agree with part of what you have written, copyright is far more complex than the blog post indicates, and at times it can be extremely inconsistent.
I strongly disagree with your decision to delete the other user's posts, and therefore this will be my last comment on the matter. I just hope you decide not to censor my contributions also, because a blog where only one opinion can be heard is not a place I'd like to visit (and I was actually starting to enjoy reading your posts).
However, if someone were to copy a class name and all 10-15 rules inside that class exactly, that would be copyright infringement. ~ leiger
Where does one draw the line? If there are 10 rules then can someone copy 8? 9? What if I copy all 10 rules but I choose to use #111111 instead of #000000 and I choose 6px padding instead of 5px and a content width of 959px instead of 960px? Is that infringement? What if I copy all 10 rules but all 10 are off slightly by 1px or 1 shade of the color? What if I copy all of the CSS except one line? All but two? How many changes total would I have to apply to the CSS in order to escape infringement?
To be honest, I don't think it's as straight-forward as you explained it, Wayne. Bytehead does bring up a couple of good points, and the copyright system at the moment is a bit of a mess. Luckily it's not as bad as the patent system!
You cannot copyright a single colour or a single line of CSS. You also cannot copyright a single line of code in any other language, or a variable name.
However, you can copyright the work as a whole - including CSS. (There is a difference between trade dress and copyright, and I am talking about copyright here).
"Copying this code, taking just a little piece of this code, or resale & redistribution is strictly forbidden!"
I agree with you that this is not a valid way to copyright your work. It's not in the correct format for declaring a copyright claim.
As you pointed out, it claims that copying "just a little piece of this code" would be a breach of copyright law. It's probably worth elaborating on that. If that "little piece" is one or two generic lines, there's no breach.
However, if someone were to copy a class name and all 10-15 rules inside that class exactly, that would be copyright infringement.
I just added:
|God sends a lying spirit to lure Ahab into a war to get killed||1 Kg.22, 2 Chr.18||1+||770,359+|
It could be argued that since God plotted the war himself for the purpose of killing Ahab that every death in that war ads to gods kill count. However since the actual number of those killed is missing I'm just adding a +. It is interesting that god needs to lie to Ahab through his prophets in order to kill him off when he supposedly has all the power in the universe.
@Christian The Middle East is a cross roads for Judeo Christian beliefs. That includes Islam, Christianity, and Jewish beliefs (among others) and as such it is often argued that "religion" is a driving force behind current and historical violence.
Hmm, if I only I could move a comment… as I don't want to stray off topic from this page, I'll invite you (John and Shane both) to repost your thoughts on one of the articles from my atheism blog. Shane I'm particularly interested in your redefinition of atheism.
John, regarding your suggestions for my blog, I think I'll stick to blogging about whatever I wish, with or without you (or anyone else) liking it. In fact if you hate it a lot, then you should expose my blog to others and tell them how "stupid" I am. ;-)
Hi @Christian and thanks for posting.
The conversation accomplished nothing. However posting the conversation accomplished a number of things.
- It added content to my blog and for my readers.
- It helped (or will eventually help) to obtain additional trust from Google in terms of PR.
- It satisfied my ego a bit to correct Ray and show that his avoidance did not go unnoticed.
- It provided me with additional feedback relating to the time required by Google to find my terms in Google Alerts.
Apologies for the delay. For some reason, despite watching this site, I'm not getting post notifications (seems like I had and solved this problem once before).
The original source for the kill count is lost to me however I do have a cut and paste from old notes , a secondary source that I copied at a later date. The number is slightly off and if memory serves I was planning to correct the motivational but for the most part it's close. I think this list is more accurate than the original I found.
Do you think it might be the predominant religion of Islam that is the driving force behind this violent streak?
What do you think that conversation accomplished?
Suspecting that you had pulled these numbers from elsewhere (not calculated them yourself, as I had first thought), I went looking for the possible source.
The closest I got was to this post, which references the original but does not link to it: http://www.nairaland.com/588437/wow-bible-god-killed-more
So I'm a step closer, but have not found any calculations yet.
The religion section of that site contains 363 pages of results, so I'm not particularly interested in the idea of combing through that list until I find the original blog post. I also cannot find it by going via the author's name.
Do you have any easier way of finding it, e.g. a bookmark or link stored somewhere from when you first visited the page?
As someone brought attention to this earlier today, I'd like to ask: how did you settle on these numbers?
It seems to be a rather bold claim, but I see no references or calculations here. Do you remember where you pulled the numbers from?
This is getting a bit off-topic, however…
John (guest): Get off linking this atheist BS to info on Craigslist etc. Your personal choice not to believe in a Higher Power is your own and create a seperate blog for that. You certainly don't have to believe in Heavan and God etc but what's your reward for proliferating your "personal choice"?
Perhaps a more respectful way of saying the same thing as John:
Atheism is a religion in itself. It's followers have faith too; faith in the fact that there is no god or gods. Whilst it's not disputed that the Bible has some level of historical truth (certain events have been proven with historical finds), atheists generally disagree with the overall accuracy of the book and wish to see further proof of the miracles and resurrection mentioned in the gospels.
Just as non-Theists do not want to hear Theists proclaiming their faith as loud as possible in public and attempting to actively "convert" others … non-Atheists do not want to hear Atheists proclaiming their faith as loud as possible in public and attempting to "convert" others.