Slashdot Mirror
Happy Towel Day
An anonymous reader writes "While Douglas Adams continues his attempt to set a new record for the longest extended lunch break, geeks all over the universe pay tribute to the beloved author by celebrating the tenth edition of Towel Day. Towel Day is more alive than ever. This year Richard Dawkins, one of Adams' best friends, has tweeted a Towel Day reminder to his numerous followers. The CERN Bulletin has published an article on Towel Day. There has been TV coverage and there will be a radio interview. The Military Republic of the Deltan Imperium, a newly formed micronation, has recognized Towel Day as an official holiday. In Hungary several hundreds of hitchhiker fans want to have a picnic together in a park. And there's a concert, a free downloadable nerdrap album, a free game being released, the list goes on and on."
....to bring one!
Reason #453 to not live in a time zone other than the US: I never remember Towel Day until someone in America reminds me, during the afternoon.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/513235829_c6ebab39af_o.jpg
backup link - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitta/513235829/sizes/o/
triple backup link http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitta/
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
sitting right here on my work chair. Been asked about it about a dozen times thus far, really dissapointed that in an IT firm so few have read the book (let alone seen the movie).
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Do you wanna get high???
it should be February 11th.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This year Richard Dawkins...
especially since Richard Dawkins is mentioned.
That guy is such a prick. I will not acknowledge Towel Day due to his involvement.
It can finally stand up by itself.
Why, what's the problem with Dawkins? I enjoy his books, but I've never met the guy.
Thanks for letting everyone know that you're not a frood, AND you don't even know where your towel is.
Belgium!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So long, and thanks for all the fish / So sad that it should come to this / We tried to warn you all, but, oh, dear / You may not share out intellect / Which might explain your disrespect / For all the natural wonders that grow around you / So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish! The world's about to be destroyed / There's no point getting all annoyed / Lie back and let the planet dissolve around you / Despite those nets of tuna fleets / We thought that most of you were sweet / Especially tiny tots and your pregnant women / So long, so long, so long, so long, so long! So long, so long, so long, so long, so long! So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!/ If I had just one last wish / I would like a tasty fish!/ If we could just change one thing / We would all have learnt to sing!/ Come one and all / Man and mammal / Side by side / In life's great gene pool!/ So long, so long, so long, so long, so long / So long, so long, so long, so long / So long, so long and thanks for all the fish! And Carry a Towel
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
want to have a picnic together in a park
Shouldn't that be a panic in the park?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
?!
Why are these "x day" stories only widely reported on the day itself, when it's too late to take part?
For once there's a day dedicated to doing something so easy that even I might have bothered making the effort, yet now I'm denied that opportunity for another 364 days.
and saw a guy with a towel over his shoulder. I thought to myself, "what's with the towel?"
Now I know
"Lame" - Galaxar
Sorry, but I don't believe that Richard Dawkins exists.
<grin>
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
While Douglas Adams continues his attempt to set a new record for the longest extended lunch break
That’s just for tax reasons. ;)
P.S.: Oh, and don’t dare to taint towel day with the lamest drawn character of all time. You know who I mean. That one of South Park infame.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Awwwww. Poor baby. Did he make fun of your imaginary friend?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
He contends that faith (belief in something that cannot be proven) is fraudulent, while arguing from and promoting a philosophy that cannot be proven (atheism).
Since when do "philosophies" need proving?
If you meant "a religion" like most people do, then let me remind you that calling Atheism a religion is like calling 'not collecting stamps' a hobby.
Sure it can, kill him and if science doesn't bring him back from the dead then obviously god DOES exist :)
How do you know he exists, then?
If, as a non-stamp collector, you invested considerable amounts of time in investigating stamp collecting, try to find flaws in the activities of stamp collectors, holding meetings to espouse the value of not collecting stamps, constructing straw-man arguments to illustrate the futility of stamp collecting, trying to assert that the bad behaviour of a given stamp collector ought to cause the whole of philately to be outlawed, wrote several books asserting that the possibility that a letter could be sent without requiring a stamp 'proves' that stamps do not in fact exist, etc., etc., etc., then - yes - I would describe your 'not collecting stamps' as a hobby, if not an obsession.
Hoopy.
ROFL at the irony. So the arguments to illustrate the non-existence of what you call "God" are straw-men? Again, ROFL at the irony.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Does this stamp collecting lead to wars, genocide, terrorism, assaults on human rights, genital mutilation, suppression of women and suppression of free speech? Opposing that might be a good hobby then.
Watch your $#*! language!
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
It really is good to know where your towel is. I'll explain.
A few weeks ago, I went to Atlanta (interstate, not interstellar) for a real estate closing. I stayed at the house there instead of a hotel. When I arrived, I found the "lawn" to be be nearing three feet tall. Though it was typically hot and humid, I had to mow it. That done, it was time for a shower, except there's not a towel to be found. Ended up driving to a store, just to buy a single towel.
Next road trip, I'm taking a towel. I've learned my lesson.
Doesn't seem like a fair test, maybe your God just thinks he's a dick and can't be bothered. A MUCH better test would be thus: Take the holiest of holy men of EVERY religion, From Buddhist to Scientology, Christian to Islam, line them up on international television, and have them shot.
This test should determine two things: One, if there is a God, since surely he will back up at least one of his homeboys, and two, it should finally solve which religion is the "correct" one, as the one that rises from the dead would obviously be held in higher favor than the worm food runner ups.
I would say this is a worthwhile experiment that would solve generations of slaughter and religious bigotry. So any volunteers?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Your analogy is flawed. A stamp is something you can pickup and hold. God is not. A better analogy is the Emperor's New Clothes. Something you can't see, but everyone behaves like they can.
...but "Towel Day" is pretty close to being the same sentiment.
http://www.petitiononline.com/towelday/
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
In the end, the last war on earth is going to be FSM followers vs IPU followers.
No, it's the stamp collectors who invest considerable amounts of time trying to get me to collect stamps
I don't have to try, those flaws are obvious
Never done that
It's stamp collecting that's totally based on straw man arguments
You are right there, it's only the bad behavior of 99% of the stamp collectors that gives a bad name to the rest
If no one has ever seen a stamp, it's the existence of stamps that should be proved first, not the other way round
I don't think philosophies need to be proved. Yet Dawkins seems to believe that atheistic rationalism reigns supreme among philophies. If that's the case, then by appealing to rationalism, logic should be able to prove that rationalism is correct. Show me the proof.
I guess when he's done with that, he can appeal to rationalism to prove to me that he exists.
He makes Bible-thumpers doubt their faith, therefor he is a tool of Satan, or some stupid crap like that.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Which is why I think that everyone should be agnostic. (Yes, I realize that that largely would then make the term meaningless.)
Sure, if we pretend that there is an invisible man in the sky that controls the universe, he *could* make the universe exactly as it is now... So even though I don't believe that that invisible man exists, I do understand the theoretical possibility (and consider myself atheist AND agnostic).
Now, if all of the people that do believe in the invisible man would realize the same thing (that the universe could be the result of natural phenomena), then presumably a lot of the bad things mentioned in other posts would not happen/have happened.
In 1985 or so, Douglas Adams came to a local mall to promote "So Long and Thanks For All the Fish." A 17 year old version of myself brought a pink towel for him to sign (I also brought a marker as I suspected he would not have one). As he signed it he said to me "If I had known that everyone was going to bring me towels to sign, I would not have put that part in the book."
Quite frankly, he seemed a bit unappreciative of his nerdy fans. It gives me some satisfaction that now, beyond his grave, the towel lives on.
Now if I can just find that old pink towel somewhere...
Funny. Perhaps you should read your sig block.
well, you know what they say. "Atheism is a religion, in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
thats it, we need a new analogy, this one broke my mind.
That is to say, i'm no longer sure what side of the original discussion you are arguing from, because the stamp analogy has gone so far.
its somewhat like the rule of narration that you can't have a flashback inside a flashback, because it will confuse the audience.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
you know, your sig is really bizarre, considering. You rag on religion because (at times) they exhibit Intolerant idealism. And yet, with that act, you exhibit Intolerant idealism, against religion. Its really rather amusing.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I don't think that Dawkins make bible-thumpers doubt their faith. His work makes the faith of athiests all over the world stronger.
Just as the Bible-Thumpers cannot prove God exists and just take it on faith, Dawkins cannot prove that he doesn't exist and takes it on faith. The friction between the two groups is due to the fact that both are very faithful to a belief that cannot be proven. If either could be proven, it would be called fact, not faith.
My neighbour has some sort of hippy spirituality thing going on. She does meditation, won't eat animals, all of that junk. I'm sure you are familar with the type.
Religion can cause harm, but so can anything else that humans feel strongly about. My neighbour has not caused any harm with her own little brand of religion, so suggesting that those things be universally connected to religion seems to be in error.
In other words, the existence of atrocities committed by religion does not indicate all religions cause atrocities.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
We weren't talking about you, we were talking about Richard Dawkins.
Perhaps if Dawkins wasnt such a dick people wouldnt react so violently against him?
I have met many Atheists and Christians. You know both groups have massive amounts of intolerance in them. Many use their religion to be bastards to other people. The Atheist religion is not immune to it. In fact my experience has show that Atheists, much like you have show here, seem to find a certain glee in provoking people. The very thing you accuse religion of doing you are doing yourself.
If you want to be an Atheist thats fine. But perhaps you could get a better role model than him? He has shown over and over to be nothing more than a glory hound who likes to cause strife wherever he goes.
Perhaps if *you* yourself would look inward you would see that all you cause around yourself is pain. It shows even in your writings, in your sig, and in your username. I only do this to you because you need a reflection of what you caused here. You need to stop and think that there may be other ways of thinking out there and yes they may or may not be wrong. But guess what it doesnt matter! Let me be the one to free you of your intolerance. Its ok that people do not think like you!
His books are some of the most manipulative literature I've ever read. Reading through the first chapter, you can see how he sets the stage just like a Vegas magician. Later, he acknowledges alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints only long enough to insult them and then squash them and will sign the death certificate himself without review. Perhaps, in 8th grade, you learned this as a pattern for "persuasive argument". He'll extend analogies for alternative theories to fairy tales and the stories of old fools, and then present analogies of his own, reasonable assumptions to historical figures who triumphed in the face of persecution. This is much more subtle, but not beyond detection.
My grandfather worked for Al Capone in the 20's in a speakeasy, and hustled pool to make money to get through engineering school. One thing he left me was the ability to spot a conman. Richard Dawkins is a very bright conman. I wonder how much of his tripe he actually believes.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
He has shown over and over to be nothing more than a glory hound who likes to cause strife wherever he goes.
Nothing more? That's it? We have encapsulated everything about this guy's humanity in one sentence? I'm a Christian, and I therefore disagree with Dawkins on a great many things, but I still think he's got a lot of good things to offer. I'm glad he's around. I frequently find his talks very refreshing. It's always a good thing to have devil's advocate in a discussion to weed out the crappy ideas. And regardless of your flavor of Christianity, there's certainly a surplus of crappy ideas. (Sam Harris is a way better atheist than Dawkins, though.)
Of course one cannot prove that atheism is correct. But similarly one cannot prove that God exists. Since neither is provable, maybe it makes more sense to believe in what correlates with actual investigations rather than a series of texts. That is not to say that God doesn't exist, of course. But for example, evidence that the world is older than 6000 years, and evidence for evolution, as it is far more direct than a text of unknown origin, should be considered more accurate. Again, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. But more importantly, a text of unknown origin does not mean he does.
The whole atheist/not atheist argument has personal relevance to me, as I imagine it does to many others. I haven't decided (and I don't see the argument as being worth fighting over). But saying that if rationalism reigns supreme among philosophies logic must be able to prove it is correct is rather silly. Even if it is supreme among philosophies, it does not follow that it is provable. Just as it cannot be proved that God exists.
(I hope I dont offend anyone, I'm just putting a point of view across. Peace out! :) )
You (and hargrand and Jarick C-Bol) are ignorant, superstitious fools, and I'm laughing at what morons you all are. You are pathetic, barely worthy of the derision you so eagerly invite.
Happy now? Give me your "turning the other cheek" theater again, dipshit.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I ride a bike to work and I keep my towel in a locker.
Except last night....
(why, you may ask...)
It needed washing so I took it home, and brought a fresh one in today.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Even though these are small things, religion causes shops to close on sundays. Religion is given all sorts of exceptions(imagine anyone else wanting to make a ton of noise on a sunday morning). Religion sneaks into laws all the time.
You can be religious as much as you want, but for some reason those who are constantly feel the need to press their superstitions on the rest of us, starting with their children who will then do the same, ad infinitum.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Typical religious zealot hypocrisy. I didn't start this little intolerance fest, YOU did. Perhaps YOU should start practicing some tolerance - you know, like you guys PREACH (but never actually practice).
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
He contends that faith (belief in something that cannot be proven) is fraudulent, while arguing from and promoting a philosophy that cannot be proven (atheism).
Um... isn't that supposed to be the default position in the sciences? If there's no evidence one way or the other for the existence of something, that is to say there is no experiment that will have a different result depending on whether or not this thing exists, then it may as well not exist. It's the argument that Russell's teapot, um, is. I can claim, with the same degree of confidence that there is no teapot floating through the asteroid belt, that there is no god.
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
You'll learn someday, soon or when it's too late, that science dictates proving something, and not a requirement to disprove something without the item being proven.
Hint: writings in a book through multiple governmental rewrites is not proof.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Very well, I'll say it then. Your signature combined with your post reminds me of that moronic quote from one of the recent Star Wars movies: "only the sith deal in absolutes".
I didn't start shit here, and don't consider myself particularly religious in any sort of classical sense (does futurism/transhumanism count? I'd argue probably not, for the purposes of this discussion). You're eagerness to write off criticism as the merit-less words of zealots does nothing to help your cause.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
It's a catalyst. ... dare I say since the beginning of human-kind as we know it.
It may be violence for religious purposes, it be be religion for violent purposes.
The link has existed for
By the way, your neighbor has a lifestyle, not a religion. The moment that your actions are disassociated from a person through adhering to the demand of a being that does not physically exist, that's when religion fabricates itself.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
There is also a strong as shit link between politics and violence, yet to assert governments are harmful constructs (as many people do assert) also seems in error to me.
You say tomato, I say... tomato. Guess that doesn't really work online...
She engages in what is essentially Gaia worship. I should have emphasized the spirituality part obviously.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
A group of 4 of my friends wore towels to school today. :)
Except I never claimed to be particularly tolerant; I'm not ... at least not in the way you and the politically correct crowd want. The whole notion of tolerance has been co-opted by people of your ilk who don't want to be held accountable for your bad decisions. You preach tolerance on the one hand, and expect that the world bow down on the altar of tolerance and when some chose not to, when they have the audacity to disagree with you, you get up on your high horse and shout "blasphemy!" as you have so aptly demonstrated. Thank you for your example. You serve your cause well.
Give her time to gain influence over decision makers. Then tell me how harmless she is/was.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Amen!
*grin*
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
I can't speak for the others, but you sure showed me.
Lack of Reason causes all kinds of bad things.
Teaching your kids to shun Reason and stop seeking truth because it's all laid out in one book, yes that is ALWAYS harmful.
Dawkins may be a fine scientist as evidenced by his education and his scientific accomplishments. When he tries to apply scientific principles to matters of theology, which is what he does every time he claims in a scientific context that there is no God, he violates that distinction... he makes a theological claim, which, as you point out, should have no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory.
But saying that if rationalism reigns supreme among philosophies logic must be able to prove it is correct is rather silly.
And you have captured the point I was trying to make quite well... Reductio ad absurdum.
The pagans shall be destroyed. :-)
Hmm... Such an event took place 2000 years ago, and is documented quite well. Looking at history, the experiment would not solve generations of slaughter and bigotry. Rather, the executioners and morgue people will be bribed to tell the political correct story. Witnesses will be persecuted. People following this homeboy will remain human (to err is human, isn't it), and attempt to impose the current set of moral values. In about 1100 years, war will be declared onto the followers of other religions, a power struggle under the guise of defending the gospel. And in about 1500-2000 years, people will realize that one has to engage the brain reading the documentation of the experiments. Failing to comprehend the incomprehensible, the incomprehensible is deemed irrational. Exit experiment.
Moreover, as usual studying history, to reproduce the experiment is an issue. And third, experimenting is all about testing hypotheses under controlled conditions. If there is a God, He will be sovereign, and do as He likes. Thus, we will have some troubles imposing our controlled conditions on Him and forcing Him to give consistent results. To find documentation of this is left as an exercise for the reader ;-)
Actually, and I'm sure this will gall the hell out of you, sorry, there is no more proof Jesus lived than that Ra makes the sun rise in the morning, since all you have is some badly edited pieces of sheepskin written by a goat herder somewhere. That gives you no more proof than L Ron had for Xenu. In fact there are some who find historical evidence that Jesus was based on Zoroastrian myth. I can give you a couple of thousand more links if that one isn't to your liking BTW.
So I'm sorry, but basing your life on "some long dead goat herders said it was true! I Swear!" is...welll...more than a little nutty. You might as well worship Ra or Odin or Zeus for all the evidence you have.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The worst part about Towel Day is the towel hangover the next day.
I propose the first manned ship to the asteroid belt be loaded up with a large supply of tea. That way, if the Teapot is there, we'll have what we need to make tea. If there is no Teapot, we'll have sacrificed little except some wasted fuel.
Just remember, Hitler was a vegetarian.
Necessarily! While certain beliefs can be proven false, the underlying concept cannot be, by it's very nature.That is exactly why religion and science don't mix, the underlying hypothesis of religion is not falsifiable. Given that, any argument that appears to falsify religion must be a straw man.
Nah, it'll never work. All you'll do is prove that those particular people were poseurs. The only way to dis-prove that would require that you prove their religion to be true and cause God to disappear in a puff of logic.
I find that the problem isn't religion, the problem is rationalizing things, in the name of an abstract concept (like a group of people), because of some perceived inefficiency or wrong, based on their model of reality or their idea of right and wrong.
In this way you can see anything can be rationalized.