NSA has proven that they can circumvent technologies which people had thought to be secure.
crooks can break into locked cars too, but i wouldn't advise people leave their cars unlocked
So, what hard drive encryptions seem particularly strong?
not sure, but anything FOSS is probably your best bet... anything closed-source can be corrupted if you're super-paranoid at least you can review and compile it yourself
in some cases gui's only seem like walled gardens because the user doesn't know how to do something, but that doesn't imply that they couldn't
everything is easy when you know how
gnome2 has a decent little tool called gconf-editor, which allows you to drill fairly deep into gui configuration
i'm sure even "windoze" could do a lot of cool things if users bothered to learn about the registry... maybe they shouldn't have to, but if you are willing to learn cli as an alternative it would be reasonable to assume that doing a little homework on the registry wouldn't be out of the question
whilst your technical definition may be true, i'm sure you would be aware that atheism has taken on a more religious (and even political) aspect with its rise in popularity, such that most would only self-identify as atheist if they had an active belief in there being no gods (since a lack of belief in gods wouldn't require an association with any kind of "ism").
atheism may imply lack of belief in god (or belief in no god) but that doesn't preclude atheism from being a religion, and i doubt anyone could argue that newborn babies are religious, regardless of their lack of belief in god. the reason why newborns become theist is precisely because they aren't atheist to begin with but are non-religious (they don't prescribe to any religious dogma, regardless of the stance on existence of deities).
i can personally attest to being sceptical of the existence of gods, but i don't associate myself with atheism as it implies that i follow the beliefs of other atheists; i don't because i have my own personal beliefs, and also because most atheists spout a whole lot of ignorant dogma (which is exactly what they claim about other religions).
I give a 50/50 chance that one will drive on the wrong side of the road, pull out in front of me, or do some other foolish thing. When driving in city traffic, I assume that the driver wiull do something stupid. Often they don't, often they do.
And let us not insult both our intelligences by trying to claim that I have faith in a 50/50 chance.
...and yet you ride your motorbike on the road anyway
sorry but the rest was just too longwinded to even bother reading
you are correct, and if someone told me unicorns existed i wouldn't be ignorant enough to tell them they were flat out wrong... i'm guessing you are though
same goes for paranormal phenomenon, much of which science has no answers for
when you drive on the correct side of the road, you have faith in other drivers that they will also do the same when travelling in the opposite direction... of course there is always an exception, but if your knowledge of this exception ruled your decision-making you wouldn't drive at all.
you also apparently have faith that there is no god, because you have faith in the religion of science and other members of that religion that have come before you that they were telling the truth when they wrote the stories in your bibles (physics books). of course i can go outside, look at the grass and decide to believe that it is green based on my own personal observation, but if someone tells me the same grass is red and i choose to think they are foolish it is only due to my belief and has nothing to do with whether the grass is actually green or red. the only reason why i believe that someone who says grass is red is wrong is due to consensus, and consensus is the basis of any religion, including science. if it wasn't generally accepted by the scientific religious community that the universe began with the so called "big bang" then you wouldn't believe it either because you have probably made no personal observations to justify such position on its merits alone. this consensus requirement is also why scientific papers that have had no independent review aren't considered credible, regardless of the evidence that they may put forth. evidence is important in science, but it's nothing on its own if you can't convince others of its validity/credibility.
mixing chemicals is fun, but using them to justify some kind of religious position is a bit of a stretch.
i'm an engineer, so i am heavily vested in the religion of science, and i'm also sceptical regarding the existence of dieties (though i wouldn't dare rule out the possibility altogether), so please don't assume i'm trying to belittle the contribution of the scientific religion to society. i have placed a lot of faith personally in the apostle newton that his observations remain consistent on the surface of the earth throughout my lifetime:-)
except that most scientists will balk at the possibility of faster than light travel or perpetual motion
Science certainly seeks to understand and categorize the nature of reality, but makes no claim to absolute "truth"
i think you're confusing science with engineering here... scientists love nothing more than to make claims; it is the job of the engineer to turn those claims into reality
Todays Santa is "modeled" after a real historical person
yeah cos everyone knows the real santa lives at the north pole, has flying reindeer and squeezes down the chimneys of every house to deliver presents to every child on earth:-D
whoever "modeled" santa based on a real historical person fucked up big time
Slashdot Mirror
in soviet america, government own you!
in soviet russia, government own you!
is it just me or have russian reversal jokes kinda lost their funny side?
it would be different if Ron Paul were president
NSA has proven that they can circumvent technologies which people had thought to be secure.
crooks can break into locked cars too, but i wouldn't advise people leave their cars unlocked
So, what hard drive encryptions seem particularly strong?
not sure, but anything FOSS is probably your best bet... anything closed-source can be corrupted
if you're super-paranoid at least you can review and compile it yourself
in some cases gui's only seem like walled gardens because the user doesn't know how to do something, but that doesn't imply that they couldn't
everything is easy when you know how
gnome2 has a decent little tool called gconf-editor, which allows you to drill fairly deep into gui configuration
i'm sure even "windoze" could do a lot of cool things if users bothered to learn about the registry... maybe they shouldn't have to, but if you are willing to learn cli as an alternative it would be reasonable to assume that doing a little homework on the registry wouldn't be out of the question
if someone wants to bash, they should be prepared to be bashed ;-P
google is a charity, not a multinational for-profit corporation
and besides, with a motto like "don't be evil", how could you not trust them?
now i'm going to go play with the toys that i got off santa claus
...i'm not American.
newborns are non-religious, not atheist
no doubt atheists would disagree, but atheism also falls into the definition of religion
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
religion
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
whilst your technical definition may be true, i'm sure you would be aware that atheism has taken on a more religious (and even political) aspect with its rise in popularity, such that most would only self-identify as atheist if they had an active belief in there being no gods (since a lack of belief in gods wouldn't require an association with any kind of "ism").
atheism may imply lack of belief in god (or belief in no god) but that doesn't preclude atheism from being a religion, and i doubt anyone could argue that newborn babies are religious, regardless of their lack of belief in god. the reason why newborns become theist is precisely because they aren't atheist to begin with but are non-religious (they don't prescribe to any religious dogma, regardless of the stance on existence of deities).
i can personally attest to being sceptical of the existence of gods, but i don't associate myself with atheism as it implies that i follow the beliefs of other atheists; i don't because i have my own personal beliefs, and also because most atheists spout a whole lot of ignorant dogma (which is exactly what they claim about other religions).
actually, our current models have both faster than light travel and perpetual motion
then explain why most believers in science will balk at the possibility of faster than light travel or perpetual motion?
I give a 50/50 chance that one will drive on the wrong side of the road, pull out in front of me, or do some other foolish thing. When driving in city traffic, I assume that the driver wiull do something stupid. Often they don't, often they do.
And let us not insult both our intelligences by trying to claim that I have faith in a 50/50 chance.
...and yet you ride your motorbike on the road anyway
sorry but the rest was just too longwinded to even bother reading
you are correct, and if someone told me unicorns existed i wouldn't be ignorant enough to tell them they were flat out wrong... i'm guessing you are though
same goes for paranormal phenomenon, much of which science has no answers for
when you drive on the correct side of the road, you have faith in other drivers that they will also do the same when travelling in the opposite direction... of course there is always an exception, but if your knowledge of this exception ruled your decision-making you wouldn't drive at all.
you also apparently have faith that there is no god, because you have faith in the religion of science and other members of that religion that have come before you that they were telling the truth when they wrote the stories in your bibles (physics books). of course i can go outside, look at the grass and decide to believe that it is green based on my own personal observation, but if someone tells me the same grass is red and i choose to think they are foolish it is only due to my belief and has nothing to do with whether the grass is actually green or red. the only reason why i believe that someone who says grass is red is wrong is due to consensus, and consensus is the basis of any religion, including science. if it wasn't generally accepted by the scientific religious community that the universe began with the so called "big bang" then you wouldn't believe it either because you have probably made no personal observations to justify such position on its merits alone. this consensus requirement is also why scientific papers that have had no independent review aren't considered credible, regardless of the evidence that they may put forth. evidence is important in science, but it's nothing on its own if you can't convince others of its validity/credibility.
mixing chemicals is fun, but using them to justify some kind of religious position is a bit of a stretch.
i'm an engineer, so i am heavily vested in the religion of science, and i'm also sceptical regarding the existence of dieties (though i wouldn't dare rule out the possibility altogether), so please don't assume i'm trying to belittle the contribution of the scientific religion to society. i have placed a lot of faith personally in the apostle newton that his observations remain consistent on the surface of the earth throughout my lifetime :-)
when you pick up a physics book do you regard it with any more critical thought than a christian would regard the holy bible?
Yes
i doubt it
There is a big difference between what someone believes and what someone says they believe
many people just don't give a fuck what other people believe, and they are often neither religious or scientific
except that most scientists will balk at the possibility of faster than light travel or perpetual motion
Science certainly seeks to understand and categorize the nature of reality, but makes no claim to absolute "truth"
i think you're confusing science with engineering here... scientists love nothing more than to make claims; it is the job of the engineer to turn those claims into reality
These are the same people that likely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that man rode his dinosaur to work
...or that a boeing 767 is capable of destroying a skyscraper
Time began about 13.5 billion years ago at the big bang.
yeah cos a statement like that doesn't require any faith at all
Kim Kardashian: The trigonometry of her boobs and butt.
you just turned me off trigonometry
the bible should say:
"respect your parents, get a job and don't believe everything you read on the intertubes"
that's why god created agnosticism :-)
makes me wonder if we've also found the IQ level below which people stop believing in evolution
it's probably about the same as the IQ of someone who expects others to believe in evolution
Will I get to toast my marshmellows over the embers?
jobless democrats can't afford marshmallows unless obama steals money from working republicans
Todays Santa is "modeled" after a real historical person
yeah cos everyone knows the real santa lives at the north pole, has flying reindeer and squeezes down the chimneys of every house to deliver presents to every child on earth :-D
whoever "modeled" santa based on a real historical person fucked up big time
thinking god isn't real and being an atheist isn't the same thing.
Uh... yes, they are.
not quite... just as monotheism is different from polyethism
atheism is specifically the belief that no deities exist, and as such as as religious as the religions that atheists love to ridicule
there is also agnosticism, which isn't necessarily believing in detities but not ruling out their existence due to uncertainty