Einstein didn't believe in a god; he admired the sublime beauty and order he saw and experienced. He may have agreed with Jesus or whatever ("Without deep reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people.", plus he praised Moses, Buddha and Jesus as teachers (of morals), too, and very highly), but belief doesn't really enter into any of that, does it:)
God (or nature) certainly does play dice. Darwin proved that conclusively.
That's an entirely different ballpark. Einstein was on about determinism, not randomness on that level. WTF. Why diss the man with stuff you read on breakfast cereal?
After all, quite a number of people believe for example that Albert Einstein was a religious person in terms of following some religion, yet there is plenty of his writing where he specifically states that he does not believe in a god.
Not a personal God.
Meine Religiosität besteht in einer demütigen Bewunderung des unendlich überlegenen Geistes, der sich in dem wenigen offenbart, was wir mit unserer schwachen und hinfälligen Vernunft von der Wirklichkeit zu erkennen vermögen. Moral ist eine höchst wichtige Sache, aber für uns, nicht für Gott.
Which roughly translates to: "My religion (religiosity?) consists in a humble admiration of the infiinitely superior mind (spirit?), which reveals itself in the little which we can recognize of reality with our weak and feeble rationality. Morality is very important, but for us, not for God."
and
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
Of course he wasn't "a believer" in fairytale A or fairytale B... and I never ran into someone who believed he was, actually, so I have no idea where you got that from. You kinda just painted him as someone he wasn't, namely as someone who doesn't believe in a[ny kind of] god. Well nuh-uh, try again:P
That's the thing, it cannot mean either. In the sentence "It doesn't get much more clearly evil than that." the the "much more" applies to "clearly evil", not just to "evil". That's just how the language, which is wasted on you, works.
Oh, I don't doubt that comes from the heart. But where's the brains? Some people shill for their delusions, that's their paycheck.. thanks for the demonstration I guess ^^
While the corporations are probobly getting treated better than your average citizen, I doubt they really enjoy the way our political environment exists today any more than we do. The problem isn't the rich, or corporations, that's just a red herring thrown at you by the REAL problem: The Democrat and Republican parties.
What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.
That gave me an idea, but: if we put put bankers on icebergs, we would have no incentive to fight global warming. What a dilemma:/
Wait, I know! Put them on a very flat island, and put a huge ship in the middle of that island. If the water level rises by too much, they can get off the island. Our job is to keep them there. That plan is truly too sick to fail ^^
Well, sure, let's just say "granted". Now -- what does this have to do with anything? That them Democrats are just the ones to do such silly things -- while Republicans aren't? Surely no, so what, exactly, is the point of this, other than to wank and gloat?
Holy crap, that is literally kindergarden/stunted adult style. If you disagree, it's better to begin with "no". Otherwise it's awfully close to "I know you are, but what am I?".
Also, it is correct, perfect even. How else could it have been put? You don't say, because you can't. You just had a hiccup while reading, and that's awfully cute, but the sentence means exactly one thing.
Boo-fucking-hoo. They're big and full of shit (or put another way, big as a whole and tiny individually); what part of that do you not see/understand? Reacting viciously to that is not "bashing" them, that's just giving corporations what corporations crave.
just because you fucking failed to read it correctly the first time, doesn't make pointing that out a "ex post facto" qualification.
holy fuck.
"much more" obviously refers to "clearly", since it precedes it. otherwise it would have been "it clearly doesn't get much more evil". but that's not what he said, hence you're all fucking idiots. and you call troll? the nerve.
Thanks for putting it so clearly... and may I suggest to everyone that nitpicking over "Republicans play to the religious crazy people. Democrats play to the sane people" would be missing the point. If you're Republican and feel offended, swap with "Republicans play to the upstanding, God loving patriots, while Democrats play to dirty fucking hippies" -- the point is, and it is important, that A and B both play to Y and X, while actually aiming for Z, which neither X nor Y would actually want; if you plainly asked them without any deceitful tricks.
And actually, even the religious crazy people, as well as the crack smoking hippies, are both much better, and much easier to love, than the cynical, man eating business that is Z. So step back and get some perspective, will ya.
Yeah, right. Obama ran with "Change & Hope", without any further promises. What did he deliver? "Too big to jail" -- anything else??
Noam Chomsky: Obama recycles George W. Bushs plans ("Uploaded by RussiaToday on May 11, 2009" -- so it's totally a commie plot to undermine blah-di-blah and also tralala, but it's also, well, 3 years ago)
Seriously people, wake up. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Obama, "the first black president", my oh my. It was/is a cynical farce front to back, and that the republicans are *totally* nuts and evil is the only reason such shit can even happen.
^ Doesn't apply to "here's a video of my dog with some music".
What about copyright expiration?
What about it?
Why do they get to usurp our common history and culture for profits that go well beyond anything that anyone would consider reasonable simply because they are allowed to?
WTF? If you don't listen to GEMA music, how would this concern you? If you do, how does not being able to broadcast a song from your childhood change the fact that you heard that song in your childhood, and that you and your pals remember it?
Personally, I am fed up, I just DON'T want their shit, I don't want to hear it, I don't want to know about it, I want it gone.
I doubt you know what you want. I really do. You do not want to make posts that make the slightest fucking sense, that's for sure.
it will be up to the Music industry to go after whoever played it illegally for losses
So you want to change the world... into a world which is exactly as it is now? Man, I envy your energy for such a huge ball of nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
o_O
project much?
Oh my, the nerve of some people!! I hope whoever did that to you gets modded into oblivion :D
I always, always fall for that kind of thing, sorry ^^
Actually, you're right.
Einstein didn't believe in a god; he admired the sublime beauty and order he saw and experienced. He may have agreed with Jesus or whatever ("Without deep reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people.", plus he praised Moses, Buddha and Jesus as teachers (of morals), too, and very highly), but belief doesn't really enter into any of that, does it :)
I guess that cup had passeth me by so far o_O I had no idea haha. As an avid reader of timecube.com, I thank you.
That's an entirely different ballpark. Einstein was on about determinism, not randomness on that level. WTF. Why diss the man with stuff you read on breakfast cereal?
Not a personal God.
Meine Religiosität besteht in einer demütigen Bewunderung des unendlich überlegenen Geistes, der sich in dem wenigen offenbart, was wir mit unserer schwachen und hinfälligen Vernunft von der Wirklichkeit zu erkennen vermögen. Moral ist eine höchst wichtige Sache, aber für uns, nicht für Gott.
Which roughly translates to: "My religion (religiosity?) consists in a humble admiration of the infiinitely superior mind (spirit?), which reveals itself in the little which we can recognize of reality with our weak and feeble rationality. Morality is very important, but for us, not for God."
and
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
Of course he wasn't "a believer" in fairytale A or fairytale B... and I never ran into someone who believed he was, actually, so I have no idea where you got that from. You kinda just painted him as someone he wasn't, namely as someone who doesn't believe in a[ny kind of] god. Well nuh-uh, try again :P
That's the thing, it cannot mean either. In the sentence "It doesn't get much more clearly evil than that." the the "much more" applies to "clearly evil", not just to "evil". That's just how the language, which is wasted on you, works.
Oh, I don't doubt that comes from the heart. But where's the brains? Some people shill for their delusions, that's their paycheck.. thanks for the demonstration I guess ^^
What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.
-- Noam Chomsky
That gave me an idea, but: if we put put bankers on icebergs, we would have no incentive to fight global warming. What a dilemma :/
Wait, I know! Put them on a very flat island, and put a huge ship in the middle of that island. If the water level rises by too much, they can get off the island. Our job is to keep them there. That plan is truly too sick to fail ^^
Well, sure, let's just say "granted". Now -- what does this have to do with anything? That them Democrats are just the ones to do such silly things -- while Republicans aren't? Surely no, so what, exactly, is the point of this, other than to wank and gloat?
Holy crap, that is literally kindergarden/stunted adult style. If you disagree, it's better to begin with "no". Otherwise it's awfully close to "I know you are, but what am I?".
Also, it is correct, perfect even. How else could it have been put? You don't say, because you can't. You just had a hiccup while reading, and that's awfully cute, but the sentence means exactly one thing.
Boo-fucking-hoo. They're big and full of shit (or put another way, big as a whole and tiny individually); what part of that do you not see/understand? Reacting viciously to that is not "bashing" them, that's just giving corporations what corporations crave.
just because you fucking failed to read it correctly the first time, doesn't make pointing that out a "ex post facto" qualification.
holy fuck.
"much more" obviously refers to "clearly", since it precedes it. otherwise it would have been "it clearly doesn't get much more evil". but that's not what he said, hence you're all fucking idiots. and you call troll? the nerve.
English isn't even my first language and I understood it easily the first time I read it.
"Clearly evil" doesn't mean "the most evil", and if you don't get that, YOU are the weakest link. This whole thread is BS, I truly feel for the OP :/
But that's not an ad-hominem, that clearly applies here. Feel free to go back and prove otherwise ;)
No need to. Just read it again: "clearly evil" doesn't mean "pinnacle of evil". It just means clearly evil.
Mods, get off the crack (I'm referring to the guy being modded down for giving you morons a lesson in fucking reading comprehension)
Actually, no. I don't pander to people who can't laugh at themselves. I agree it's the better way, but personally I just can't/don't want to do it.
Thanks for putting it so clearly... and may I suggest to everyone that nitpicking over "Republicans play to the religious crazy people. Democrats play to the sane people" would be missing the point. If you're Republican and feel offended, swap with "Republicans play to the upstanding, God loving patriots, while Democrats play to dirty fucking hippies" -- the point is, and it is important, that A and B both play to Y and X, while actually aiming for Z, which neither X nor Y would actually want; if you plainly asked them without any deceitful tricks.
And actually, even the religious crazy people, as well as the crack smoking hippies, are both much better, and much easier to love, than the cynical, man eating business that is Z. So step back and get some perspective, will ya.
In a way, he was campaigning for Obama, too... I mean, with such opponents you just can't loose, can you.
Oh, sweet democracy, which is so unlike WWF...
Yeah, right. Obama ran with "Change & Hope", without any further promises. What did he deliver? "Too big to jail" -- anything else??
Noam Chomsky: Obama recycles George W. Bushs plans ("Uploaded by RussiaToday on May 11, 2009" -- so it's totally a commie plot to undermine blah-di-blah and also tralala, but it's also, well, 3 years ago)
Seriously people, wake up. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Obama, "the first black president", my oh my. It was/is a cynical farce front to back, and that the republicans are *totally* nuts and evil is the only reason such shit can even happen.
I wouldn't kiss that bitch with a stolen mouth ^^
What about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
^ Doesn't apply to "here's a video of my dog with some music".
What about it?
WTF? If you don't listen to GEMA music, how would this concern you? If you do, how does not being able to broadcast a song from your childhood change the fact that you heard that song in your childhood, and that you and your pals remember it?
I doubt you know what you want. I really do. You do not want to make posts that make the slightest fucking sense, that's for sure.
So you want to change the world... into a world which is exactly as it is now? Man, I envy your energy for such a huge ball of nothing.
I think it would look neater like this:
Mark Zuckerberg
Bitch & CEO of Facebook
"Who's paying your food, dude?"
"Millions of people I despise... though to none of them I'm worth more than a few cents."
Awwww, poor little bitch... money can only help so much with issues like this ^^