I will reiterate: No one shackles god and forces them to do anything. Men are in control of the definition of god and god's will.
It has been established many times that any meddling that any god might do is far below any level of statistical significance. This makes it no better than random chance and so by the null hypothesis should be assumed to be random chance. Again I will reiterate: this gives no verification step; no insight into god's will existent or otherwise.
So without any real evidence that leaves theists with one of two choices. To define god's will based on their own beliefs or to believe what they are told by someone doing one of the two as well. So I do not assume all theists define their own god- I assert it.
It does not matter if I understand you, control you or even that you exist at all. If I tell people what you do and what you want and they believe me then I have defined you. If you are do not correct me then I defacto control you. That it is not the truth is entirely my point. I can make up whatever I want and without evidence who's to say I am wrong? Apparently not god.
Your non sequiturs aside there are plenty of people that work on Saturday and Sunday.
The ten commands on public space does not offend but it does open the people whom take them seriously up to mockery from me and others. Who do you think will get more offended? Atheists at a ten commandments statue or ten commandment believers at a satanist statue?
You want to flog your beliefs? Fine but we are free to do that as well. We probably won't have the same reverence in your beliefs as you do, however, so we leave the choice up to you.
Perhaps you should follow some of the links and read up on those guys. They do not appear to promote evil, damage or chaos- it would seem they promote the opposite.
Sigh, fine. Man controls god because man creates god. I say the sky is blue because it is observably blue. There is no "word of god" to tell us what they might think; only people telling us they speak the "word of god".
I am not implying that people rope gods in with some theological lasso. Your god has not weighed in on anything- if he did there wouldn't be a thousand different types of Christians all telling me I'm wrong for completely different reasons.
Bypassing the whole god exists debate completely I said people define god's will. There is no verification path like statements on the colour of the sky. Anyone can claim to know the will of god. They do that and they have to. Without some belief in what a god wants what is the point in the belief of a god? Whether or not your god exists he seems unwilling to meddle in our affairs in any meaningful sense. So lacking any kind of verification mechanism we are left with less than hearsay about the will of a god. It is defined by people and we can trace its evolution through people and culture.
I'm not interested in getting into a theological debate so I will try to do this as undogmatic as possible. You exist / are willing to correct people. So if I were to say "Obfuscant wants all green eyed people to be killed" you would, presumably, correct me. Whereas if some blow-hard shouts "God hates fags" where is your god to weigh in on this? Basically followers say god believes whatever they do. They define their god's beliefs because there is no one else to correct them. I assure you that there is a whole lot of contradictory assertions about what the Christian god wants.
You implied that the solution to mastering a hit album was downloading the free Reaper. It isn't free for those purposes. Also, it has a slightly higher license fee if you are making more than $20000 or something like that.
That they're sold domestically and internationally doesn't really change the fact that the engineers are doing it for the purpose of helping those they care about.
No, a dirty bomb produces far less actual terror because once it was deployed its incredibly small area of affect would be cleaned up and people would realise that it is not a big threat. The only people that find a "dirty bomb" a good terror device are western governments. A good way to keep their populations terrorised that is.
Bringing a building down is much more effective. Mostly because it is actually achievable unlike a dirty bomb. Poisoning people is not that difficult; you do not need radiation for it. It is just much easier and more effective to blow them up.
Reaper is only free to try. Although reasonably priced it is definitely not free. Continuing to use it for free is abusing their licensing and using it for anything commercial would open yourself up to potential legal troubles.
Because none of those are realistic. What is the point of risking poisoning yourself to ransom hostages with radiation? A gun works much better.
Leverage as what? A threat? Again- a gun is more effective.
Who wants to hold a population hostage? And who thinks a bit of medical grade radiation will help them do so?
Dirty bombs are mostly a myth. Anyone that would want to use one would get much more effective use out of a conventional bomb. Plus it's a lot easier to obtain and has less personal risk. I mean they could kill everyone that went into the bathroom where they hid the material. Or they could blow up the whole building. You might find radiation scary but explosions are far more devastating than a small amount of radiation plus way easier to achieve.
Presumably most of those engineers would assume these technologies would be used to defend their friends/family/people they care about. I'm sure you would also be the first to put these engineers up against the wall when they refused to design anything that could defend against a bolt action rifle. A single shot is all you need for hunting or target practice after all; anything more is just to kill people.
Despite what your television tells you everyone that is a criminal isn't automatically interested in radioactive material. What the fuck do you think a "corrupt local official" would do with some black market medical grade radioactive material?
I wasn't really trying to make a point or contradict you- I was genuinely blown away. Nor do I really think it matters if it is federal law or not as a blanket curfew is undeniably oppressive.
First: a compiler is better at optimizing than you are. Don't try to fight it.
Second: if you understand how x86 is implemented in a modern CPU nobody that wants a programmer can afford you. You have a rudimentary (and probably outdated) understanding about what a computer is doing. Knowing how computers worked in the past doesn't make you a good programmer. Experience, passion and skill make you a good programmer.
Programmers have always been bad. Everyone knows that. Otherwise maintaining legacy code bases would be an awesome job.
I gave a reference to poster and position. I didn't think scrolling up a couple posts in the same thread would be that confusing.
I assure you it was people like you being parodied. "Rabble rabble freedom!" plus all the personal attacks as some kind of argument about why you should be able to endanger others. Or more satirically put "It's my right to endanger others! You must be stupid or unpatriotic to challenge that".
You keep going on about a bubble as if you think more hyperbole will help make your point. If you think requiring a drive-train to be able to keep a vehicle under control is some unbearable bubble then it may be you that is the "brain dead" one (talk about meaningful discussion).
The ability to toggle is perfectly acceptable- at the track. There is no excuse for the unnecessary risk this can present on public roads. You do not need (and cannot legally use) a 5th of the power this vehicle provides so limiting power isn't an excuse. Your desire to powerslide around corners isn't really a good excuse either as that is also highly frowned upon.
I'm sure the person driving this car believed they had no need for them also. We see how that turned out.
As well as a torrent of Dunning-Kruger case studies! If you think things with proven safety records are bullshit because of your unyielding faith in your ability then you are probably the last person that should have a license.
There are plenty of safety features in a drive-train that are mandated by law. This is discussion of whether or not this should be one of them. Cut the hyperbole. It's funny that you perfectly match adolf's parody above but are totally serious about it.
There may be no deadly spiders in the UK but that doesn't mean you want a bite. All spiders have venom (as far as I know). Even a non-deadly spider can give a bite that hurts like crazy and leaves a nasty infection.
Slashdot Mirror
I will reiterate: No one shackles god and forces them to do anything. Men are in control of the definition of god and god's will.
It has been established many times that any meddling that any god might do is far below any level of statistical significance. This makes it no better than random chance and so by the null hypothesis should be assumed to be random chance. Again I will reiterate: this gives no verification step; no insight into god's will existent or otherwise.
So without any real evidence that leaves theists with one of two choices. To define god's will based on their own beliefs or to believe what they are told by someone doing one of the two as well. So I do not assume all theists define their own god- I assert it.
It does not matter if I understand you, control you or even that you exist at all. If I tell people what you do and what you want and they believe me then I have defined you. If you are do not correct me then I defacto control you. That it is not the truth is entirely my point. I can make up whatever I want and without evidence who's to say I am wrong? Apparently not god.
Okay, fine. Xenu statue it is then.
Your non sequiturs aside there are plenty of people that work on Saturday and Sunday.
The ten commands on public space does not offend but it does open the people whom take them seriously up to mockery from me and others. Who do you think will get more offended? Atheists at a ten commandments statue or ten commandment believers at a satanist statue?
You want to flog your beliefs? Fine but we are free to do that as well. We probably won't have the same reverence in your beliefs as you do, however, so we leave the choice up to you.
Perhaps you should follow some of the links and read up on those guys. They do not appear to promote evil, damage or chaos- it would seem they promote the opposite.
Sigh, fine. Man controls god because man creates god. I say the sky is blue because it is observably blue. There is no "word of god" to tell us what they might think; only people telling us they speak the "word of god".
I am not implying that people rope gods in with some theological lasso. Your god has not weighed in on anything- if he did there wouldn't be a thousand different types of Christians all telling me I'm wrong for completely different reasons.
Bypassing the whole god exists debate completely I said people define god's will. There is no verification path like statements on the colour of the sky. Anyone can claim to know the will of god. They do that and they have to. Without some belief in what a god wants what is the point in the belief of a god? Whether or not your god exists he seems unwilling to meddle in our affairs in any meaningful sense. So lacking any kind of verification mechanism we are left with less than hearsay about the will of a god. It is defined by people and we can trace its evolution through people and culture.
I'm not interested in getting into a theological debate so I will try to do this as undogmatic as possible. You exist / are willing to correct people. So if I were to say "Obfuscant wants all green eyed people to be killed" you would, presumably, correct me. Whereas if some blow-hard shouts "God hates fags" where is your god to weigh in on this? Basically followers say god believes whatever they do. They define their god's beliefs because there is no one else to correct them. I assure you that there is a whole lot of contradictory assertions about what the Christian god wants.
In which religion can you control or even fully understand your god?
All of them. Ever notice how there is always someone telling you what god wants?
Being incapable of judging / seeing obstacles in your flight path is most definitely a fitness measurement.
You implied that the solution to mastering a hit album was downloading the free Reaper. It isn't free for those purposes. Also, it has a slightly higher license fee if you are making more than $20000 or something like that.
That they're sold domestically and internationally doesn't really change the fact that the engineers are doing it for the purpose of helping those they care about.
No, a dirty bomb produces far less actual terror because once it was deployed its incredibly small area of affect would be cleaned up and people would realise that it is not a big threat. The only people that find a "dirty bomb" a good terror device are western governments. A good way to keep their populations terrorised that is.
Bringing a building down is much more effective. Mostly because it is actually achievable unlike a dirty bomb. Poisoning people is not that difficult; you do not need radiation for it. It is just much easier and more effective to blow them up.
Reaper is only free to try. Although reasonably priced it is definitely not free. Continuing to use it for free is abusing their licensing and using it for anything commercial would open yourself up to potential legal troubles.
Because none of those are realistic. What is the point of risking poisoning yourself to ransom hostages with radiation? A gun works much better.
Leverage as what? A threat? Again- a gun is more effective.
Who wants to hold a population hostage? And who thinks a bit of medical grade radiation will help them do so?
Dirty bombs are mostly a myth. Anyone that would want to use one would get much more effective use out of a conventional bomb. Plus it's a lot easier to obtain and has less personal risk. I mean they could kill everyone that went into the bathroom where they hid the material. Or they could blow up the whole building. You might find radiation scary but explosions are far more devastating than a small amount of radiation plus way easier to achieve.
Presumably most of those engineers would assume these technologies would be used to defend their friends/family/people they care about. I'm sure you would also be the first to put these engineers up against the wall when they refused to design anything that could defend against a bolt action rifle. A single shot is all you need for hunting or target practice after all; anything more is just to kill people.
Despite what your television tells you everyone that is a criminal isn't automatically interested in radioactive material. What the fuck do you think a "corrupt local official" would do with some black market medical grade radioactive material?
I wasn't really trying to make a point or contradict you- I was genuinely blown away. Nor do I really think it matters if it is federal law or not as a blanket curfew is undeniably oppressive.
stay out after 10 PM (as a teenager)
Woa woa! Seriously? Citation? I was unaware of any kind of law like that in the States.
Freedom isn't always about the huge things
I would say freedom is primarily about the little things.
First: a compiler is better at optimizing than you are. Don't try to fight it.
Second: if you understand how x86 is implemented in a modern CPU nobody that wants a programmer can afford you. You have a rudimentary (and probably outdated) understanding about what a computer is doing. Knowing how computers worked in the past doesn't make you a good programmer. Experience, passion and skill make you a good programmer.
Programmers have always been bad. Everyone knows that. Otherwise maintaining legacy code bases would be an awesome job.
I gave a reference to poster and position. I didn't think scrolling up a couple posts in the same thread would be that confusing.
I assure you it was people like you being parodied. "Rabble rabble freedom!" plus all the personal attacks as some kind of argument about why you should be able to endanger others. Or more satirically put "It's my right to endanger others! You must be stupid or unpatriotic to challenge that".
You keep going on about a bubble as if you think more hyperbole will help make your point. If you think requiring a drive-train to be able to keep a vehicle under control is some unbearable bubble then it may be you that is the "brain dead" one (talk about meaningful discussion).
The ability to toggle is perfectly acceptable- at the track. There is no excuse for the unnecessary risk this can present on public roads. You do not need (and cannot legally use) a 5th of the power this vehicle provides so limiting power isn't an excuse. Your desire to powerslide around corners isn't really a good excuse either as that is also highly frowned upon.
I'm sure the person driving this car believed they had no need for them also. We see how that turned out.
As well as a torrent of Dunning-Kruger case studies! If you think things with proven safety records are bullshit because of your unyielding faith in your ability then you are probably the last person that should have a license.
There are plenty of safety features in a drive-train that are mandated by law. This is discussion of whether or not this should be one of them. Cut the hyperbole. It's funny that you perfectly match adolf's parody above but are totally serious about it.
More than pharmacists work in a pharmacy. Your anecdotes and idealism, unfortunately, doesn't have any affect on reality. People gossip.
There may be no deadly spiders in the UK but that doesn't mean you want a bite. All spiders have venom (as far as I know). Even a non-deadly spider can give a bite that hurts like crazy and leaves a nasty infection.
Just because it is insulting does not make it an ad hominem fallacy.