> And you whiners run around screaming "They hate us for our freedom".
And you go spouting off when you haven't got a fucking clue: Here's a hint. What the administration tells us to think and what we actually think are two very different things.
Well, sort of. Some of them are Libertarian in practice, but Republican in name because they don't think they'll be reelected, running as a Libertarian.
> The directory quoted is also only useful per machine, which often would just help one user, thus saving 0 time
Uh, no... First option, you could run a batch file that first copies the icon then runs the install program, thus saving you a bit of time per-machine.
Even better, though: As horrible (terrible, ghastly, fucking idiotic) an idea as it is, windows has an admin share of the C: drive that can't be disabled, so an administrator of a domain can throw together a quick script to loop through all his IP addresses (or just the last octet I guess) and just do this:
COPY file.lnk \\%IP%\C$\DOCUME~1\alluse~1\desktop
That would copy a file to the desktop on all PCs. This example is for Windows 2000, XP's directories might be a bit different. If he has mixed OS versions, it's not so simple (and he should have done better planning:)
> If you as you claim state that there is no god then you have committed a act of religion, like it or not.
It's called a dictionary, you should buy one, or at least use dictionary.com and look up what the word religion means:
Def 1: A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Def 2: The life or condition of a person in a religious order. Def 3: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
1) I have no reverence for anything supernatural, nor do I go to any institution of worship 2) I am in no religious order 3) I have no spiritual leader
Therefore there is absolutely no definition of religion that includes atheism, and it seems that you are too stubborn to admit that you were wrong about one tiny thing. That's one type of trolling, ergo, you are a troll. Again, QED... like it or not.
This discussion is done. It should have been done about 6 posts ago when I realized there was no hope of you seeing reality, but I had hoped you weren't that stupid. No more replies from me unless you say something useful, and the important part, not a friggin lie.
> Damn that ActiveX with its annoying [list of things not requiring ActiveX]
Damn that Mozilla, still being able to use all the things you listed without ActiveX. None of that stuff relies on AX. (Except maybe "embedded" WMP, I embed the files, not the player) I use Mozilla, but can still put all that crap on the Intranet site I've made.
> the fundamental question of religion is: Does God/gods exist?
WRONG. The fundamental question is "which god do I believe in?" If the answer is none, you are atheist.
Why do you insist on applying words that are incorrect simply because you want to justify your own ignorance? GET OVER YOURSELF, I HAVE NO RELIGION, no matter how many times you lie to yourself. Get a fucking clue.
Do you make it a point to incite everyone you meet that isn't a part of your religion? Wait, you're christian, of course you do, that's the point!
Get it? Fuck off, I'm sick of you trying to fill peoples' heads with lies for the sole purpose of making them cows to be milked by your religious leader, George Bush.
Get the point now? I had no trouble with you until you started acting like a bitch, now evidently, swearing and screaming is the only way to get through your thick fucking skull.
No matter how many times you lie to yourself, atheism is still the lack of any religion at all, QED. You are no longer wanted.
You are quoting one of the top ten most important people of the Catholic Church and Wikipedia. The first is not exactly a good representative of atheists and the second of reality. Wikipedia is not always written by people with a good grasp of reality, and sometimes has people adding information because of their own agenda, especially on hotly-debated topics like that. But anyway...
> In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.
And how, exactly, does atheism have ANYTHING to do with my "relationship with the universe" except that it means I don't believe it was created by a supernatural force. An atheist can believe that the universe appeared exclusively for him a day earlier. It would probably be the dumbest person I ever met, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is religious.
No, atheism does not provide any "answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe," it does the exact opposite. It removes a particular choice (invisible being[s]) from that explanation because that explanation is self-contained (I guess you could say you have to believe the source to believe the explanation). Or, in the opinion of some, that explanation is as silly as believing in the tooth fairy.
Two atheists can have staggeringly different views on how we "came to be," yet agree 100% that there are no gods.
If you think that atheists are religious, you are a complete fool. Agnostics are the ones that don't know, they are the fence sitters between religious & not religious. Do you say shit like that because you believe it, or are you just trolling like it seems?
Atheism is the lack of belief in any God. Religion is a belief in the a supernatural being or process/order. Therefore, you are completetly clueless (or, again a troll).
You are trying to apply terms that do not fit in an attempt to justify your own choices, biases, or agenda. Do you always use words without knowing what they mean?
> don't want a bunch of truckers looking at porn at rest stops frequented by other people
You don't think truckers carry any porn around? Have you even been to a real truck stop? I don't mean one of those rest areas, I mean a truck stop with stores & stuff. Usually there's at least one porn store around there somewhere.
> I don't want my wife having to stop for a piss at a rest stop filled with a bunch of truckers who are by that point...frustrated.
Frustrated? Like frustrated because they finally got to a network hotspot only to find that they can't get their jerkoff fix, and now they are horny as well as severely pissed off?
> If the state doesn't want people browsing porn or other "unsavory" content on a state-provided wireless connection, then it's their option to stop you: JUST like parents would in their own home, for their children.
The government is not there to be your fucking mother. What parents can (and should) do is completely different from what a government can (and should) do!
And your "you're not free in prison" paragraph doesn't have a damned thing to do with governemt censorship of truck stop internet access. These are citizens who have not committed and do not intend to commit any crimes.
> Now I'm no prude,
"But I don't want anyone to be able to look at any naked humans unless they are in their own homes." Indeed.
> If a private company ran an internet cafe, and filtered such content, you would not cry foul of freedom of speech being hindered on your part;
No, because a private company is not required to follow all of the rules of the Constitution. A government body IS.
> What is your legal basis for a govt being required to provide access to ANY private material, obscene or not?
He doesn't need any legal basis, the access is already there, so that is not in question. And my problem with Miller v. CA is that "obscene" is entirely subjective term. I do not find the natural form of a human obscene, but christians (as a group, generally) do. I find organized brainwashing to be obscene, yet I do not go around ranting that religions should be illegal. Do you know why? Because I believe in personal responsibility (that applies to you as well as me).
If a religious person doesn't want to see porn, then they should stay the hell away from assfuckingunlimited.com! I, OTOH, stay away from churches and still hear tales of faeries and monsters and invisible beings told to adults who believe them. And I hear it from government officials who are on my dime. I still don't complain to my legislators about how I shouldn't have to listen to that bullshit, even though it aggravates me to no end. Why? Because I think that they should be able to express their opinion, regardless how silly it sounds to me.
> Do you think pro-life people should pay for people surfing on pro-choice web pages?
The fact that you have to ask that is very scary. If it is on a government-provided, publicly available connection, (and the content is legal, of course) then yes, they have to!
Anything else is imposing your beliefs on the public and is (theoretically) against the law.
> Texas doesn't have to offer free wifi at rest stops or correctional facilities (did you read the bill?!) in the first place, much less unfiltered access. Instead of railing against restrictions, explain to us why taxpayers should have to subsidize it at all.
You are arguing something that wasn't asked. I don't think it SHOULD be offered at rest stops, but that is not the question. The question is, since it is already there, should it be censored based on the religious beliefs of a governmental body. NO. Either offer it or do not offer it, but don't censor it. If you don't like what is on the Internet, don't log on.
You'd have to be a complete tool to be able to get on the Internet without knowing there is stuff on there you won't like.
Slashdot Mirror
> And you whiners run around screaming "They hate us for our freedom".
And you go spouting off when you haven't got a fucking clue: Here's a hint. What the administration tells us to think and what we actually think are two very different things.
> You don't say if you have a business account with them or not.
You call a different number based on your contract type. That's why they don't ask.
Well, sort of. Some of them are Libertarian in practice, but Republican in name because they don't think they'll be reelected, running as a Libertarian.
> The directory quoted is also only useful per machine, which often would just help one user, thus saving 0 time
:)
Uh, no... First option, you could run a batch file that first copies the icon then runs the install program, thus saving you a bit of time per-machine.
Even better, though: As horrible (terrible, ghastly, fucking idiotic) an idea as it is, windows has an admin share of the C: drive that can't be disabled, so an administrator of a domain can throw together a quick script to loop through all his IP addresses (or just the last octet I guess) and just do this:
COPY file.lnk \\%IP%\C$\DOCUME~1\alluse~1\desktop
That would copy a file to the desktop on all PCs. This example is for Windows 2000, XP's directories might be a bit different. If he has mixed OS versions, it's not so simple (and he should have done better planning
> I should not have to know a damn thing about driving in order to get behind the wheel.
More like "I should not have to know a damn thing about flying in order to get on a plane."
Not quite so silly any more.
> If you as you claim state that there is no god then you have committed a act of religion, like it or not.
It's called a dictionary, you should buy one, or at least use dictionary.com and look up what the word religion means:
Def 1:
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Def 2: The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
Def 3: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
1) I have no reverence for anything supernatural, nor do I go to any institution of worship
2) I am in no religious order
3) I have no spiritual leader
Therefore there is absolutely no definition of religion that includes atheism, and it seems that you are too stubborn to admit that you were wrong about one tiny thing. That's one type of trolling, ergo, you are a troll. Again, QED... like it or not.
This discussion is done. It should have been done about 6 posts ago when I realized there was no hope of you seeing reality, but I had hoped you weren't that stupid. No more replies from me unless you say something useful, and the important part, not a friggin lie.
You can't guess?
> you try backing up 200gb cheaply
A stack of DVDs. You said cheaply, not quickly.
> we haven't had many stories about SCO lately...
Ssssh!!! Don't remind them!
Vote with your mouse.
> Damn that ActiveX with its annoying [list of things not requiring ActiveX]
Damn that Mozilla, still being able to use all the things you listed without ActiveX. None of that stuff relies on AX. (Except maybe "embedded" WMP, I embed the files, not the player) I use Mozilla, but can still put all that crap on the Intranet site I've made.
Funny how that (just) works...
> the fundamental question of religion is: Does God/gods exist?
WRONG. The fundamental question is "which god do I believe in?" If the answer is none, you are atheist.
Why do you insist on applying words that are incorrect simply because you want to justify your own ignorance? GET OVER YOURSELF, I HAVE NO RELIGION, no matter how many times you lie to yourself. Get a fucking clue.
Do you make it a point to incite everyone you meet that isn't a part of your religion? Wait, you're christian, of course you do, that's the point!
Get it? Fuck off, I'm sick of you trying to fill peoples' heads with lies for the sole purpose of making them cows to be milked by your religious leader, George Bush.
Get the point now? I had no trouble with you until you started acting like a bitch, now evidently, swearing and screaming is the only way to get through your thick fucking skull.
No matter how many times you lie to yourself, atheism is still the lack of any religion at all, QED. You are no longer wanted.
Thet therr wis eh joke, m'boy :)
As an aside, is there a similar directory for KDE or gnome?
> Why is it such a big deal NOT to be able to browse porn at a truck stop or prison?
At a truck stop, it is because it is the government telling adults what they can or can't see.
As for prisoners, I don't think they should be surfing the Internet at all, so it seems that we are in at least partial agreement.
You are quoting one of the top ten most important people of the Catholic Church and Wikipedia. The first is not exactly a good representative of atheists and the second of reality. Wikipedia is not always written by people with a good grasp of reality, and sometimes has people adding information because of their own agenda, especially on hotly-debated topics like that. But anyway...
> In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.
And how, exactly, does atheism have ANYTHING to do with my "relationship with the universe" except that it means I don't believe it was created by a supernatural force. An atheist can believe that the universe appeared exclusively for him a day earlier. It would probably be the dumbest person I ever met, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is religious.
No, atheism does not provide any "answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe," it does the exact opposite. It removes a particular choice (invisible being[s]) from that explanation because that explanation is self-contained (I guess you could say you have to believe the source to believe the explanation). Or, in the opinion of some, that explanation is as silly as believing in the tooth fairy.
Two atheists can have staggeringly different views on how we "came to be," yet agree 100% that there are no gods.
If you think that atheists are religious, you are a complete fool. Agnostics are the ones that don't know, they are the fence sitters between religious & not religious. Do you say shit like that because you believe it, or are you just trolling like it seems?
Atheism is the lack of belief in any God. Religion is a belief in the a supernatural being or process/order. Therefore, you are completetly clueless (or, again a troll).
You are trying to apply terms that do not fit in an attempt to justify your own choices, biases, or agenda. Do you always use words without knowing what they mean?
> Firefox's "install" consists of one directory.
Pshaw, don't be so naive! You also have to create a shortcut, which is half of the install!
And the risk of lighting an individual cigarette is extremely low as well.
> don't want a bunch of truckers looking at porn at rest stops frequented by other people
You don't think truckers carry any porn around? Have you even been to a real truck stop? I don't mean one of those rest areas, I mean a truck stop with stores & stuff. Usually there's at least one porn store around there somewhere.
> I don't want my wife having to stop for a piss at a rest stop filled with a bunch of truckers who are by that point...frustrated.
Frustrated? Like frustrated because they finally got to a network hotspot only to find that they can't get their jerkoff fix, and now they are horny as well as severely pissed off?
> If the state doesn't want people browsing porn or other "unsavory" content on a state-provided wireless connection, then it's their option to stop you: JUST like parents would in their own home, for their children.
The government is not there to be your fucking mother. What parents can (and should) do is completely different from what a government can (and should) do!
And your "you're not free in prison" paragraph doesn't have a damned thing to do with governemt censorship of truck stop internet access. These are citizens who have not committed and do not intend to commit any crimes.
> Now I'm no prude,
"But I don't want anyone to be able to look at any naked humans unless they are in their own homes." Indeed.
> If a private company ran an internet cafe, and filtered such content, you would not cry foul of freedom of speech being hindered on your part;
No, because a private company is not required to follow all of the rules of the Constitution. A government body IS.
> What is your legal basis for a govt being required to provide access to ANY private material, obscene or not?
He doesn't need any legal basis, the access is already there, so that is not in question. And my problem with Miller v. CA is that "obscene" is entirely subjective term. I do not find the natural form of a human obscene, but christians (as a group, generally) do. I find organized brainwashing to be obscene, yet I do not go around ranting that religions should be illegal. Do you know why? Because I believe in personal responsibility (that applies to you as well as me).
If a religious person doesn't want to see porn, then they should stay the hell away from assfuckingunlimited.com! I, OTOH, stay away from churches and still hear tales of faeries and monsters and invisible beings told to adults who believe them. And I hear it from government officials who are on my dime. I still don't complain to my legislators about how I shouldn't have to listen to that bullshit, even though it aggravates me to no end. Why? Because I think that they should be able to express their opinion, regardless how silly it sounds to me.
> accompanied by powerfull psychotropic drugs
What??? I HAD NO IDEA! I'm off to Guantanamo to get myself all wasted!
> Do you think pro-life people should pay for people surfing on pro-choice web pages?
The fact that you have to ask that is very scary. If it is on a government-provided, publicly available connection, (and the content is legal, of course) then yes, they have to!
Anything else is imposing your beliefs on the public and is (theoretically) against the law.
> Texas doesn't have to offer free wifi at rest stops or correctional facilities (did you read the bill?!) in the first place, much less unfiltered access. Instead of railing against restrictions, explain to us why taxpayers should have to subsidize it at all.
You are arguing something that wasn't asked. I don't think it SHOULD be offered at rest stops, but that is not the question. The question is, since it is already there, should it be censored based on the religious beliefs of a governmental body. NO. Either offer it or do not offer it, but don't censor it. If you don't like what is on the Internet, don't log on.
You'd have to be a complete tool to be able to get on the Internet without knowing there is stuff on there you won't like.
> Let's end up in an alcoholic comma.
, <-- Woo! That's one crazy comma! (sorry)