I work for a government agency and I can swear this to be the absolute truth. I believe the reason to be a lot of politicking in management and not enough actual IT experience. No one wants to step on toes or else it might come back to bite you later when you need funds for a project so when user X asks for feature Y in software Z and there is no way it can be implemented without hacking together a mess of SQL query strings that may or may not work, well then you do it, because if you don't do it. User X may at one point be on a committee that can divert funds from your server or software upgrade budget.
Well, saying your can't tether your phone is a bit like saying you have unlimited text messaging unless you're sending messages to your mom, then you've violated your TOS. Never mind that the data being transferred is exactly the same type whether your streaming through your phone or through your laptop attached through your phone.
Questioning the validity of juxtaposing 2 neighboring entities doesn't change the fact that if I have 1 apple and I acquire another apple I then have 2 apples. And while you're questioning whether I really have 2 apples or just 1 and 1 apples you're missing the point. It doesn't really matter who posited otherwise. This whole argument is less about facts and more about evidence and there is no evidence for god, religion, etc, therefore the logical conclusion is that they do not exist. Attacking the idea of the foundations of logic does not somehow make god more real or the bible, koran, torah, etc, ad nauseum any less fictitious or their followers any more deluded.
So while my original argument of "religion is illogical and a conclusion that can be arrived at without emotional leanings (in a reasonable manner)" still stands you're just attacking the semantics of the argument.
The simple fact is that religion is, by definition a collection of ideas that cannot be reasoned, otherwise there would be no need for faith. While you may set forth an idea proposed by a single individual that may or may not be accepted by a wide variety of people you cannot apply those ideas universally to all subjects. Indeed there are a set of facts that must be accepted as true without justification, those facts are often empirical in that they can be observed. 1 is 1 as you can observe that 1 is 1 and the logic of it cannot be reasoned or disputed, but the same cannot be applied to a series of cryptic beliefs based on an easily disprovable book which is its self based on folklore and shaky history.
So while you think I'm singling out religion because of some bias, I'm not I'm doing it because the simple fact is that religion is not based on facts and reason, but on faith and feelings. There is no observable evidence of religious fact outside of its own special realm of reasoning and logic which do not coexist with actual reason or logic.
BTW the assumptions I'm making about your religious affiliation are based solely on the fact that no one other than a religious person would attempt to categorize religious logic in with math and science other than to justify their own doubts about an obviously flawed system of logic. Its not an "us vs them" mentality I'm pushing, I'm just trying to state what is obvious to so many and you became angry to the point of using profanity (not that I really give a fuck about that) but it showed a level of offense that can only be taken when one feels they are being attacked personally.
So for a rundown of the points:
Math - verifiable by outside observation based on facts
Science - verifiable by outside observation based on facts
Religion - not verifiable by outside observation and based on faith, fear, and myth.
So are tying to say that religion is logical and true even though it is completely and totally unprovable in the purest sense of the word? Who's being irrational now? I think you're hiding behind an argument not intended for your select purpose to try to prop up a complete lack of evidence. Your anger at me positing so only furthers my point that religion and religious people are not reasonable or logical.
That's a nice rosy thought, but the ability to afford an attorney for trial has nothing to do with your budgetary capability of paying for one, it is all about how poor you are and like many social services, you have to be very VERY poor in order to have an attorney appointed for you. If you don't meet the financial requirements then the state has NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to provide you with an attorney because hey if you really really wanted to, you could not pay your rent for a month or two to keep yourself out of jail. If you can't afford an attorney and one will not be appointed for you then you are on your own. Want to go ahead anyway? Well, there are a long series of rules and procedures you have to follow in order to represent yourself in a proper manner and you have to know that the prosecution is under not obligation to help you in any way shape or form. "You didn't see that piece of evidence? Well it's been here the whole time for you to look at" etc. The american justice system is of, by, and for the wealthy and they are often the only ones that can afford to go to trial which is why more often than not they get off Scot free.
Religion, or a belief in a god, are not conclusions arrived to by logical thought, and your obvious outrage at the implications as such only strengthen my point. If you cannot logically arrive at a conclusion it is an illogical conclusion, pure and simple.
That's easy, any religion that I don't agree with is a cult. Of course since I don't agree with any religions you can see where that will go however YMMV.
This. One person saying they are the spokesperson for anon would be like me standing up and saying I speak for all of America. Anon's own biggest enemy is anon and always will be. It is the embodiment of chaos and randomness.
Would a Biologist be fired for liking Windows over *nix? Absurd.
They should be if they wouldn't STFU about how great the latest Ubuntu release is and tried to arbitrarily get people to switch while constantly being a total asshat and wasting everyone else's time.
I've had many physics and engineering professors who ALSO believed in Intelligent Design. Hell even Einstein believed in it. Should these people be fired simply because they believe there is a Creator the originated the Big Bang and Evolution?
These claims are spurious at best. A professor can believe whatever religious bullshit they choose since most of them won't go too far past the textbooks to actually teach, it doesn't lend it any more credibility.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
The simple reason for this is that you cannot use logic to counter an argument that was made without logic. You cannot reason with an unreasonable belief because the 2 positions are not on the same terms. Simply put: "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." -- House.
I would think, that since his job is based on science and he has such a flawed understanding of it to think that a 50,000,000 year old plesiosaur still existed in an isolated loch in Scotland, then yes fire him for his idiotic beliefs or that the earth is only 6000 years old, its 2 sides of the same coin after all. I don't want a doctor working on me that still thinks my humors are out of balance and decides I need a bile infusion, or a pilot that believes in the flat earth theory. However, this isn't about freedom of belief so much though as has been stated previously, it's about some asshat trying to force his asshat point of view on his fellow colleagues.
I agree. I have easily used 500gb in a span of a few weeks. The local provider changed the plans here to a 50mb connection with a 50gb data cap and then they claim that should be plenty. I will keep my 10mb connection with unlimited data until they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Throttling/limiting data usage seems to me like selling you a "limited hour" internet plan. As an aside from that, it will start becoming an issue similar to the digital divide. The people with access to more information and larger data plans will be better off socially and economically than those that have severely limited access to data.
Slashdot Mirror
I work for a government agency and I can swear this to be the absolute truth. I believe the reason to be a lot of politicking in management and not enough actual IT experience. No one wants to step on toes or else it might come back to bite you later when you need funds for a project so when user X asks for feature Y in software Z and there is no way it can be implemented without hacking together a mess of SQL query strings that may or may not work, well then you do it, because if you don't do it. User X may at one point be on a committee that can divert funds from your server or software upgrade budget.
Well, saying your can't tether your phone is a bit like saying you have unlimited text messaging unless you're sending messages to your mom, then you've violated your TOS. Never mind that the data being transferred is exactly the same type whether your streaming through your phone or through your laptop attached through your phone.
Questioning the validity of juxtaposing 2 neighboring entities doesn't change the fact that if I have 1 apple and I acquire another apple I then have 2 apples. And while you're questioning whether I really have 2 apples or just 1 and 1 apples you're missing the point. It doesn't really matter who posited otherwise. This whole argument is less about facts and more about evidence and there is no evidence for god, religion, etc, therefore the logical conclusion is that they do not exist. Attacking the idea of the foundations of logic does not somehow make god more real or the bible, koran, torah, etc, ad nauseum any less fictitious or their followers any more deluded.
So while my original argument of "religion is illogical and a conclusion that can be arrived at without emotional leanings (in a reasonable manner)" still stands you're just attacking the semantics of the argument.
no
The simple fact is that religion is, by definition a collection of ideas that cannot be reasoned, otherwise there would be no need for faith. While you may set forth an idea proposed by a single individual that may or may not be accepted by a wide variety of people you cannot apply those ideas universally to all subjects. Indeed there are a set of facts that must be accepted as true without justification, those facts are often empirical in that they can be observed. 1 is 1 as you can observe that 1 is 1 and the logic of it cannot be reasoned or disputed, but the same cannot be applied to a series of cryptic beliefs based on an easily disprovable book which is its self based on folklore and shaky history.
So while you think I'm singling out religion because of some bias, I'm not I'm doing it because the simple fact is that religion is not based on facts and reason, but on faith and feelings. There is no observable evidence of religious fact outside of its own special realm of reasoning and logic which do not coexist with actual reason or logic.
BTW the assumptions I'm making about your religious affiliation are based solely on the fact that no one other than a religious person would attempt to categorize religious logic in with math and science other than to justify their own doubts about an obviously flawed system of logic. Its not an "us vs them" mentality I'm pushing, I'm just trying to state what is obvious to so many and you became angry to the point of using profanity (not that I really give a fuck about that) but it showed a level of offense that can only be taken when one feels they are being attacked personally.
So for a rundown of the points:
Math - verifiable by outside observation based on facts
Science - verifiable by outside observation based on facts
Religion - not verifiable by outside observation and based on faith, fear, and myth.
So are tying to say that religion is logical and true even though it is completely and totally unprovable in the purest sense of the word? Who's being irrational now? I think you're hiding behind an argument not intended for your select purpose to try to prop up a complete lack of evidence. Your anger at me positing so only furthers my point that religion and religious people are not reasonable or logical.
So did I
Building jails creates construction and guard jobs...
My good friend, it's already being done.
That's a nice rosy thought, but the ability to afford an attorney for trial has nothing to do with your budgetary capability of paying for one, it is all about how poor you are and like many social services, you have to be very VERY poor in order to have an attorney appointed for you. If you don't meet the financial requirements then the state has NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to provide you with an attorney because hey if you really really wanted to, you could not pay your rent for a month or two to keep yourself out of jail. If you can't afford an attorney and one will not be appointed for you then you are on your own. Want to go ahead anyway? Well, there are a long series of rules and procedures you have to follow in order to represent yourself in a proper manner and you have to know that the prosecution is under not obligation to help you in any way shape or form. "You didn't see that piece of evidence? Well it's been here the whole time for you to look at" etc. The american justice system is of, by, and for the wealthy and they are often the only ones that can afford to go to trial which is why more often than not they get off Scot free.
Religion, or a belief in a god, are not conclusions arrived to by logical thought, and your obvious outrage at the implications as such only strengthen my point. If you cannot logically arrive at a conclusion it is an illogical conclusion, pure and simple.
That's easy, any religion that I don't agree with is a cult. Of course since I don't agree with any religions you can see where that will go however YMMV.
This. One person saying they are the spokesperson for anon would be like me standing up and saying I speak for all of America. Anon's own biggest enemy is anon and always will be. It is the embodiment of chaos and randomness.
But these is still a chance.
Would a Biologist be fired for liking Windows over *nix? Absurd.
They should be if they wouldn't STFU about how great the latest Ubuntu release is and tried to arbitrarily get people to switch while constantly being a total asshat and wasting everyone else's time.
I've had many physics and engineering professors who ALSO believed in Intelligent Design. Hell even Einstein believed in it. Should these people be fired simply because they believe there is a Creator the originated the Big Bang and Evolution?
These claims are spurious at best. A professor can believe whatever religious bullshit they choose since most of them won't go too far past the textbooks to actually teach, it doesn't lend it any more credibility.
As for your claims about Einstein that's bullshit too
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
The simple reason for this is that you cannot use logic to counter an argument that was made without logic. You cannot reason with an unreasonable belief because the 2 positions are not on the same terms. Simply put: "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." -- House.
I would think, that since his job is based on science and he has such a flawed understanding of it to think that a 50,000,000 year old plesiosaur still existed in an isolated loch in Scotland, then yes fire him for his idiotic beliefs or that the earth is only 6000 years old, its 2 sides of the same coin after all. I don't want a doctor working on me that still thinks my humors are out of balance and decides I need a bile infusion, or a pilot that believes in the flat earth theory. However, this isn't about freedom of belief so much though as has been stated previously, it's about some asshat trying to force his asshat point of view on his fellow colleagues.
Breaking news: Vagina can cure a WoW addiction as well.
That's hard on mushrooms too.
This whole thread is a real tear-jerker.
You are instantly and forever my most favorite person ever.
Because Bender will teach those filthy bastards who's lovable!
I agree. I have easily used 500gb in a span of a few weeks. The local provider changed the plans here to a 50mb connection with a 50gb data cap and then they claim that should be plenty. I will keep my 10mb connection with unlimited data until they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Throttling/limiting data usage seems to me like selling you a "limited hour" internet plan. As an aside from that, it will start becoming an issue similar to the digital divide. The people with access to more information and larger data plans will be better off socially and economically than those that have severely limited access to data.
This is a good point. I suppose what I should have said was as soon as the government stops treating all of its non-wealthy citizens like criminals.