Hmmn. You don't seem new (at least according to your user id) but perhaps you don't know that it's not possible to post and moderate to the same thread.. so it can't have been me.
Also, pay no attention to the flamebait moderation; everyone has different ideas about what is or isn't trolling/flamebait. I didn't for one moment think you were trolling; although I did think "please answer the damn question!" a few times:)
Yah. I know; I can't even begin to guess.. Care to take a wild stab in the dark? No doubt the actual 'solution' will be somewhat more outlandish than anyone outside government could imagine but hey.. it's worth a go..
Ok, but why choose 'all powerful creator' rather than some other explanation ? Forgetting if you are able that that's exactly what everyone else chooses..
Yah yah, but what specifically is it in your experience that leads you to the conclusion that there's an all-powerful creator knocking-around, just beyond some veil of perception ? Hey, even take the reported experiences of others. You see what I'm saying? What *reasons* do you or anyone else have for all choosing the same belief based on the 'evidence'/your experiences?
There seems to be some reasons to choose Evolution as an explanation of how we came to exist. Darwin looked at the world around him and thought something along the lines of "given what I witness first-hand, this seems a reasonable explanation". Since then, that explanation has been demonstrated to be largely accurate, as far as I'm aware. Do you believe in DNA? Do you believe that genes express themselves physically and behaviourally and that these expressions make one more or less compatible with the other genetic expressions around oneself?
What *reasons* exist for choosing what is in effect a parallel of the relationship of parent to child for the whole of mankind? It's just soo tenuous and yet strangely familiar. You've all repeated the dogma so often you've stopped wondering why (IMNSHO tm).
An atheist on Slashdot is characterized by their remarkable ability to build and knock down ridiculous straw men for a religion of which they remain willfully and almost entirely ignorant, and yet continue to claim rationality as their guiding light.
Often, the evil Slashdotters are aware that the central tenet of at least one flavour of religion is a belief in an all-powerful entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever (indeed it's often claimed '<entity works in mysterious ways>' to disguise the fact that disparate actions attributed to <entity> are most likely unrelated and largely unpleasant). Moreover, despite such lack of evidence, certain religious practictioners set themselves up as having a direct line of communication with the entity in question. These chosen few are thus the natural choice when allocating earthly power; until the entity makes an appearence. How many poor souls have been captured by evil men and women who claim to speak for <entity> ?
Note: to all atheists: I challenge you to find a religious person and have them enlighten you on their chosen specialist subject.. In my experience, the chain of logic leading to '.. and so that's why I believe' breaks down after one step - somewhat far of the mark.
A similar level of ignorance of any other subject on which one would claim to speak intelligibly would rightly result in that person laughed out of the room.
However, given that most of the basis for religion consists of impossible-to-prove and inconsistent hearsay, rightly, laughter finds the appropriate target.
I've met plenty of irrational atheists and rational theists.
And yet.. an atheist is known as such because of their ability to be repetitively rational when it comes to the issue of whether they believe in some entity whose only purpose seems to be that of an all-powerful punisher should someone fail to comply with the rules provided by earth-based priests.
Likewise, a religious zealot is characterized by their repetitive willingness to abandon rationality.
waaa waaa waaa.. just keep sending covert attack teams to destabilize governments all around the world, sell them weapons, etc etc.. "we're not bad ppl" waaaaa
omg, even the comment box sucks on idle (twenty characters wide wtf) anyway, I digress..
you make it sound like christian-bashing is a bad thing.
however, "ooh, some christians have randomly chosen a course of action and now they appear to be bad ppl" isn't really news, is it? religious zealots aren't really known for their rationality.. are they?
btw, as far as I can tell without reading the summary or the article;P - they appear to think that they're doing some group a favour when that group gives them money. lol.
The problem is consequences, or more accurately the loss of. If the government and private sector had to pay compensation to people whose data and identity has been recklessly put at risk then there would be much tighter restrictions applied within companies/the state and to subcontractors.
Wishful thinking. What would happen is that we'd never hear about government blunders. Then again, given that government departments are apparently incapable of keeping a secret.. maybe not. Then again, they're only pretending to be inept so..
Month T-1000> All's well Month T-999> All's Well .... Month T-6> All's well Month T-5> All's well Month T-4> government department treats us to textbook example of previously unnoticed problem.. 1 Month T-3> government department treats us to textbook example of previously unnoticed problem.. 2 Month T-2> government department treats us to textbook example of previously unnoticed problem.. 3 Month T-1> government department treats us to textbook example of previously unnoticed problem.. 4 Month T-0> Government department fixes (non-existent) problem as side-effect of stealing the remainder of our freedoms in an as-yet-to-be-determined manner. Month T+1> inverse-w00t!
I wonder if it strictly has to be an IM client. What about an IRC server with SSL ? That way you can use a fully-featured IRC client (mirc for windows or I used to hear that x-chat is nice on linux) or an IM client like pidgin/miranda if you really need to.
Obviously it's repulsive to say it that way but otherwise your just wasting your breath talking to a really ignorant, angry and misinformed brick wall.
Making unfair comparisons isn't helping. I personally know many walls which are far more open to suggestion than your average conservative.
Agreed. I personally would think that anyone who tried to pull off such a stunt should be and will be fired.
Keep an eye on 'Ask Slashdot'. In the immediate future you may see an entry along the lines of "My subordinate has spent his budget on games consoles; now none of *his* subordinates ever do any work; What flavour of punishment would be most suitable?"
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmn. You don't seem new (at least according to your user id) but perhaps you don't know that it's not possible to post and moderate to the same thread.. so it can't have been me.
Also, pay no attention to the flamebait moderation; everyone has different ideas about what is or isn't trolling/flamebait. I didn't for one moment think you were trolling; although I did think "please answer the damn question!" a few times :)
man, noone reads the article/review anyway, so it's moot, isn't it ;)
Yah. I know; I can't even begin to guess.. Care to take a wild stab in the dark? No doubt the actual 'solution' will be somewhat more outlandish than anyone outside government could imagine but hey.. it's worth a go..
Ok, but why choose 'all powerful creator' rather than some other explanation ? Forgetting if you are able that that's exactly what everyone else chooses..
Yah yah, but what specifically is it in your experience that leads you to the conclusion that there's an all-powerful creator knocking-around, just beyond some veil of perception ? Hey, even take the reported experiences of others. You see what I'm saying? What *reasons* do you or anyone else have for all choosing the same belief based on the 'evidence'/your experiences?
There seems to be some reasons to choose Evolution as an explanation of how we came to exist. Darwin looked at the world around him and thought something along the lines of "given what I witness first-hand, this seems a reasonable explanation". Since then, that explanation has been demonstrated to be largely accurate, as far as I'm aware. Do you believe in DNA? Do you believe that genes express themselves physically and behaviourally and that these expressions make one more or less compatible with the other genetic expressions around oneself?
What *reasons* exist for choosing what is in effect a parallel of the relationship of parent to child for the whole of mankind? It's just soo tenuous and yet strangely familiar. You've all repeated the dogma so often you've stopped wondering why (IMNSHO tm).
Often, the evil Slashdotters are aware that the central tenet of at least one flavour of religion is a belief in an all-powerful entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever (indeed it's often claimed '<entity works in mysterious ways>' to disguise the fact that disparate actions attributed to <entity> are most likely unrelated and largely unpleasant). Moreover, despite such lack of evidence, certain religious practictioners set themselves up as having a direct line of communication with the entity in question. These chosen few are thus the natural choice when allocating earthly power; until the entity makes an appearence. How many poor souls have been captured by evil men and women who claim to speak for <entity> ?
Note: to all atheists: I challenge you to find a religious person and have them enlighten you on their chosen specialist subject.. In my experience, the chain of logic leading to '.. and so that's why I believe' breaks down after one step - somewhat far of the mark.
However, given that most of the basis for religion consists of impossible-to-prove and inconsistent hearsay, rightly, laughter finds the appropriate target.
And yet.. an atheist is known as such because of their ability to be repetitively rational when it comes to the issue of whether they believe in some entity whose only purpose seems to be that of an all-powerful punisher should someone fail to comply with the rules provided by earth-based priests.
Likewise, a religious zealot is characterized by their repetitive willingness to abandon rationality.
*cough* idle sucks
waaa waaa waaa.. just keep sending covert attack teams to destabilize governments all around the world, sell them weapons, etc etc.. "we're not bad ppl" waaaaa
omg, even the comment box sucks on idle (twenty characters wide wtf) anyway, I digress..
you make it sound like christian-bashing is a bad thing.
however, "ooh, some christians have randomly chosen a course of action and now they appear to be bad ppl" isn't really news, is it? religious zealots aren't really known for their rationality.. are they?
btw, as far as I can tell without reading the summary or the article ;P - they appear to think that they're doing some group a favour when that group gives them money. lol.
Won't someone think of the children?
Wishful thinking. What would happen is that we'd never hear about government blunders. Then again, given that government departments are apparently incapable of keeping a secret.. maybe not. Then again, they're only pretending to be inept so..
*cough* World Trade Centres
*cough* War on peaceful co-existence
Indeed.
Then again, why would they jettison a refrigerator-sized tank of something unpleasant without planning a safe reentry?
Anyhow, I for one hope I survive this game of space-frogger. Good luck fellow competitors ;P
wow. mathematicians make such trigger-happy moderators.
modded troll in 3, 2, 1...
Try Miranda.. far more stable; very configurable.. http://www.miranda-im.org/
I wonder if it strictly has to be an IM client. What about an IRC server with SSL ? That way you can use a fully-featured IRC client (mirc for windows or I used to hear that x-chat is nice on linux) or an IM client like pidgin/miranda if you really need to.
Perhaps I misunderstood but the feeling throughtout the film was that without the appropriate rating, there would be no audience.
According to This Film Is Not Yet Rated the American Movie Ratings Board censors heavily according to some hidden agenda..
uhh.. the invisible <joke></joke> tags..
I guess conservatives can't see the invisible tags.. :(
Making unfair comparisons isn't helping. I personally know many walls which are far more open to suggestion than your average conservative.
Keep an eye on 'Ask Slashdot'. In the immediate future you may see an entry along the lines of "My subordinate has spent his budget on games consoles; now none of *his* subordinates ever do any work; What flavour of punishment would be most suitable?"
I'm starting to suspect that reading the summary would be beneficial :S
Uhh.. maybe they're game developers?