It's been a long time since I played this title. I tried the first final fantasy as a veteran of the SNES games. I was not expecting it to be as difficult as it was. I remember finally getting to the end, and it came down to the final round. 3 of my characters were dead. My white mage was the last man standing, and he didn't have enough HP left to last another round. I had that sword equipped on him that was suppose to be really good for white mages, and I fired off my last attack..... and I won!:)
After reading your tips I suddenly feel the desire to fire up that old game once more in mednafen (my old NES is gone *sniff*).:)
Amen.... just... amen. I try explaining this to people all of the time, and nobody ever "gets" it. I enjoy things so much more than everyone else who is bitching and moaning about minutia. A big example for me is the matrix sequels. I enjoyed them because I sat back and enjoyed the ride. I watched the story unfold, and I did not question it. Why should I? It's fiction... it isn't a history documentary.
So here's to a fellow/.'er who understands how to enjoy himself instead of bitching and moaning on/.:)
Spammers use hacked wordpress and joomla sites. The domains just happen to be the ones of the sites they hacked. All you would find are innocent people whose only crime is ignorance and possibly stupidity (even if the seriousness is debatable). Most of the time when dealing with a hacked site used for phishing or other such purposes the hosting company simply restores a backup and goes on with life. any logs that could indicate who are gone within days.
The problem with this is that a large number of IP's blocked by dns blacklists are home computers operated by your typical ignorant user that have no idea their system has been hijacked to send spam. A hosting provider can't simply drop all traffic from these systems without aggravating a lot of their clients wondering why their users are being blocked. Black lists are already notorious for illegitimate or hasty blocks and block a huge potion of real and sometimes important e-mail. Trusting them for a full fledged iptables DROP is a bad idea.
Now you've met one. Used it once every few weeks for about a year, haven't touched it in over 4. Was fun but hardly worth getting addicted to, and the cost was prohibitive.
To go a little bit off topic here, it is only a matter of time before we will (or maybe even need) to artificially augment our own minds to continue to keep up.
You should check your eyeglass prescription. The article is inquiring about how he got HIGHER than advertised speeds. Your reply seems to be answering a different question...
You've managed to write a lot without actually saying much. So, without being entirely sure what it is you are saying, I would still like to comment on what I think you are trying to convey.
You seem to imply that the idea of a supposed beginning and end of the universe was only conceived because the idea of birth and death is large part of many religions and cultures. Any scientist is open to the idea that the universe always has been and always will be, and, in fact, the idea has been considered. The problem is the current evidence does not support that idea. The big bang is not a wild guess. It just happens to be the best guess on how things came to be the way they are now based on current observed phenomenon.
Also, no one is saying we have observed all or even close to all phenomenon, but we must start somewhere. We take what we know, and we try to explain things using that. In time we learn more, and we adjust our theories accordingly. There is no finish line or end goal. Any respectable scientist has a mind open enough to accept that at any time we could observe something that completely changes everything we thought we knew. It's happened before, and it will likely happen again. In the meantime we have no choice but to work with what we know now to try to explain what we observe.
At the same time we also recognize that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge and models. This is where theoretical physics comes in. Great thinkers try to explain the unexplainable and, in the process, they create new models that might even predict new phenomenon that we haven't even observed. These theories might even guide us in finding a method to observe them if they are there. The best part is sometimes these new things may be completely unexpected, and this is where considerable shifts in how we understand the universe come from. One major example is the general theory of relativity. It predicted several new things we'd never thought of before, and in time we learned how to detect these things. The more we test it, the more it is shown to be accurate. One day something else might even replace it.
Mu ultimate point is that when you say "our current understanding of cosmology seems open-ended to me. i think it would be very arrogant for us if we believe we have seen all of the dynamics of the universe in play, that our model of the universe is anywhere near complete. i think there is phenomena about the functioning of the universe we are not aware of yet" you are correct, but the way you say it implies that we think our current model is complete and that we are aware of everything. It is not, and we know it. We must build our way up, however. We can't skip to the finish line. We must endure incomplete understandings that slowly but surely become more complete. Perhaps the universe is infinitely complex, and we will never fully understand it. We will continue trying.
Another person is another person, whether it is an exact copy of you or not. You don't emerge on the receiver pad. You are dead. You have ceased to exist. Your copy is constructed on the receiver pad thinking it is you.
1) Take the game way out of Hyrule. Hyrule can be included, but there's much more to that continent that is never explored - give us a planet to explore instead of one kingdom (and the little area outside of Hyrule we got in TP
Yours is a bit of a false analogy, because the whole Dodge community doesn't go around harping how superior their cars are for real drivers, how easy it is to mix those Dodge parts into the Ford hegemony, and how those who have to resort to duct-tape should have just RTFM.
OK dropping for lame ford/dodge analogy. Please tell me who in the Linux community makes these claims? Every claim like this that I have heard has been from "linfan437" in random boards/websites such as slashdot. Just because the internet gives these fanboys a voice doesn't mean you should actually listen to it!
Linux is great until you try to interoperate with something proprietary. I'm sick of hearing people bitch about how much linux sucks because they're trying to make it use Active Directory or Exchange. If you want to use Microsoft proprietary services then use Microsoft products. The various unix clones out there have plenty of their own technologies for solving the same problems, and they interoperate with any OS willing to implement the open specifications just fine.
THEY shut down the subway, bridges, and interstate? No sir, your fine city government did. They had the FBI BLOW THESE THINGS UP they were so scared. I can't believe someone would piss themselves over a line drawing of a cartoon character done with leds connected to a few batteries. Have you even seen pictures of these "devices"? It's a board with some leds and a few batteries... wtf. These goons didn't inconvenience you. You're retarded fuck local government did.
While I appreciate your humor, this post brings up an interesting point. There are many people who believe that any right not explicitly granted by law is implicitly denied. A default deny policy for law. While it's arguable that such a policy may be as effective in fighting crime as it is in fighting intrusions in CS, imagine having to justify every action you take with an existing law saying it is OK for you to take that action. Drug war enthusiasts tend to like this position. This kind of rights degrading position on law is of the same vein as the one currently being discussed.
What we need is a file system label structure that can/will apply to all files that we use.
You'll need a UI for this new filesystem concept. Perhaps it should be somewhat like Konqueror. A vertical tabbed frame on the left with multiple views of the data on the right. Perhaps a metadata view, or a context view, or a folder view. Of course this folder view would be enhanced by the intelligent use of labals to be able to organize, sort, and access files efficiently. Then we should put a work area to the right. A place to view or organize our files. Perhaps, in a small area below this work area, we include a viewer applet to preview or even use the file.
This sounds a little bit like another program....
You're still so busy dreaming about the future you haven't noticed it is here. This type of access to our data doesn't need to be filesystem based. In fact, there are advantages if it is not. We only need the proper viewers perhaps with some filesystem help like extended attributes. Things like amaroK or KPhotoAlbum as well as all the current work in desktop search are the future. amaroK loads nearly as quickly as konqueror too..
I was kinda with you until I saw this. I'm upset enough as it is about the cases that don't have to be tried by jury, and that the judge has too much power to override the jury. Trial by jury is the finest idea in justice there is. The jury ensures that the spirit of the law is upheld, and that it is applied fairly. They are the ones that can say, "this law doesn't apply to you on this day under these circumstances, go home" or "no one has thought to create a law to cover the horrible act you've committed, but we're still sending your sorry ass to prison." A jury is the only method of doing that fairly.
To speak on the rest of your comment, believe me if you run out of money the process would not last this long. I do think thoroughness is important, but allowing it does allow for some level of abuse of the system. Giving the power to the judge to prevent that abuse also gives him the power to abuse. So the question becomes who do you want to be able to abuse the system; the courts themselves, or the people? I vote for the people, always. that scenarios like the IBM vs. SCO case can happen is hardly the deepest darkest problem with our system. That problem is that the phrase innocent until prooven guilty is only what is written and not what is believed or practiced. Public defenders are purposely underpaid and overworked to make people who cannot afford a decent attorney easier to convict. If you work as a public defender and actually try to help and fight for the people you defend you are given more of a workload so you simply are unable to. Problems like that are the serious ones. Those are the ones we should address.
Really... because in my experience porn sites are pretty easy to cancel if you are intelligent enough to avoid the crap ones. The last one I cancelled was a 10 second 2 click online process. I still have 10 gigs of movies from them that I can watch whenever I want, and it was the most hassle free cancellation process I've ever experienced
This discussion has been interesting. Now, however, you are being as short sided you are claiming I am.
No problem. As you mentioned "Politicians feel the need to fake religion". Politicians do that for one reason only: votes. And people don't vote according to their religion unless they want to. Regards polls however you like, but when people will elect their government representative based on it, then it's time to acknowledge they're taking it seriously. They may not be living out their religion very well, they may not attend services often enough to convince you of their devotion, but it's definitely important to them.
This is exactly my point. They are paying lip service and nothing more. At best they are held captive by their fears of damning some mythical immortal soul. At worst they are just hypocrites.
Or perhaps it's because the conservatives are not posting on the net so much because they're busy owning and running the companies that provide your internet service. Maybe they're just as involved in the net, but they've positioned themselves on the money collecting side rather than the money spending side. What's the golden rule again?
Because all liberals are poor hippies and all conservatives are rich beyond measure...
I've seen men's personal struggles and weaknesses used against them to attack the validity of their faith. It is, IMO, one of the worst things to be found in religion, and also seems to be what you're doing actually.
Do tell how I am doing this. I am not attacking the validity of their personal faith but the validity of the institution that defines it. No man or women should be ashamed of who they are solely because somebody says an invisible entity that nobody can show exists says they should be. There should be real, tangible, valid reasons, and there simply are none for this case. It is that institution which creates the personal struggle to begin with. It is that institution that makes them feel ashamed, alone, and unclean.
They may not be interested in your opinion of their religious faith. I propose that they may not be holding to that faith in an effort to please you.
I'm failing to see where I claimed that they are or should be. They are doing it to please their friends and family, or at the very least to avoid standing out and confrontation.
As opposed to the societies which to realise "God is Dead" and become utopian paradises. Oh wait, hang on that hasn't happened yet, they tend to become brutal totalitarian dictatorships so far. Let me know how that goes.
Once again putting words into my mouth. I expect a world without religion (or at the very least reduced influence of religion) to be a better place, but I never claimed it would be perfect. It would force us to reevaluate our morals and base them on reality instead of on a foundation made from the whims of the men of powerful positions in religion. Imagine if you had to justify your moral ethics based on more than "this is as god intended". There are many people like that already. They don't murder or steal, but they might smoke weed or bang members of the same sex. People like that still have a strong moral compass, but one based on life and not on god.
What if everyone had to live for today instead of some imaginary eternal afterlife? I posit that would help improve the quality of this world.
Feelings are not valuable tools for determining objective reality.
You are of course correct, but I hardly consider polls to be either. At least not when it comes to hot topics such as this. I will trust my instincts before I trust a poll. See the Spiral of Silence for one of many examples of how these kinds of polls are inadequate.
... but the industrial age did not remove religion and it doesn't seem likely to me that the information age will either.
Going on instincts are we? These two "ages" carry with them completely different properties. Just because one thing did or did not happen in one does not mean that it will or won't happen in the other. The industrial age brought with it mass production of material goods. The information age brings us unparalleled mass distribution of knowledge. To use polls, if I may, and also the effects of the Spiral of Silence it is widely understood that as intelligence increases religiousness decreases. Granted, knowledge does not equate to intelligence, but it does have an effect on it.
You also said something to the effect of "I meet a lot of liberals". Speak to a homosexual, they likely meet a lot of homosexuals, speak to a Christian, they likely meet a lot of Christians, speak to a Muslim, they likely meet a lot of Muslims, speak to a pot smoker, they likely meet a lot of pot smokers. Your impression that most of the people you meet share your views probably has a lot more to do with what you're tuned into and where you socialize than anything else. Buy a different model of car, you'll be surprised how many of them you start to see.
Indeed this can be the case depending on how you meet people, but there are plenty of ways to interact regularly with a random cross section of the population. Anything from people you work with to meeting random people in a restaurant or while sitting outside of a public building to have a smoke (not just conversing with other smokers). I would bring the internet into this. People often claim the internet has a liberal bias. Do you believe this to be because of the type of people who use the internet? If so what about it attracts only those kinds of people? I meet as many people who'd hang a pot smoker if given the chance online as I do in the real world. Just the other day I read a forum posting of a guy who could no longer comfortably drive his car because he knew drugs had been in it at one point. How sick is that? So, if it has this liberal bias compared to the real world, perhaps it is because the internet is the great facilitator of the information age, and as people who use the internet become more well informed their views change? If this were the case it'd be direct proof of the impact this age will have on religion.
As another note, I use to be active in the mormon church, which as you know almost puts caffeine in the same category as cigarettes. I along with many other people from that congregation have left because we understood the value of freedom and learned the many things in life that were frowned upon were only a danger if done irresponsibly. An even greater number of people stayed in the church, and because they are human did these things anyways. Because of the church, however, they had no idea how to do them responsibly. There are the people who think their way is absolute and everyone who doesn't follow their standards should be prosecuted by law. Oddly enough, they often do not follow their own ideals. There are a small handful of people in that church who actually truly believe and practice what they preach including tolerance and free will. I have seen the same situation in many church's of many types.
If people haven't figured out that religion isn't wanted, that would mean it still is wanted. Unless of course people think they want religion, but you know they really don't. People don't really know what they want, they need YOU to tell them! I can see why this appeals to y
Oh, and I agree 100% But I do believe it. I feel it. The information age is as unstoppable as the industrial age, and its effects will be just as profound. Even if the polls show otherwise currently, I explained my reasons for not taking them too seriously. Another poster mentioned comparing how many people say religion plays a serious role in their lives to those that go to church every sunday, or twice a week for that matter. Politicians feel the need to fake religion for the very same reason people feel the need to lie about it to pollsters or even their own family. The civilized world is so use to religion being here that we cannot seem to figure out that it isn't wanted anymore. "God is dead", and the sooner we understand what this means, the better off we'll be. Because without a desire for religion the existence of religion becomes corrupt.
They initiated action? They didn't vote. You think people protesting a few decades ago is responsible for action happening this decade? Pot smoking scientists got the science on our side. Scientists did what they always do. They saw false science and debunked it. The other problem was the hippie mentality of separating themselves from the world. Marijuana isn't as taboo now as it was back then because everyone, and I mean everyone, knows a pot smoker that is a productive and normal member of society, and also, to further my original point, because people are more open about it.
I honestly do not mean to trample over their efforts. Their hearts were in the right place. I also do not mean to imply that protesting is worthless, but it becomes much more effective if the protesters are voters as well. I strongly believe in the right to protest and respect those that take time out of their lives to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
Basically the suns solar winds push back interstellar matter. This can have a shape.
It's been a long time since I played this title. I tried the first final fantasy as a veteran of the SNES games. I was not expecting it to be as difficult as it was. I remember finally getting to the end, and it came down to the final round. 3 of my characters were dead. My white mage was the last man standing, and he didn't have enough HP left to last another round. I had that sword equipped on him that was suppose to be really good for white mages, and I fired off my last attack..... and I won! :)
:)
After reading your tips I suddenly feel the desire to fire up that old game once more in mednafen (my old NES is gone *sniff*).
Amen.... just... amen. I try explaining this to people all of the time, and nobody ever "gets" it. I enjoy things so much more than everyone else who is bitching and moaning about minutia. A big example for me is the matrix sequels. I enjoyed them because I sat back and enjoyed the ride. I watched the story unfold, and I did not question it. Why should I? It's fiction... it isn't a history documentary.
/.'er who understands how to enjoy himself instead of bitching and moaning on /. :)
So here's to a fellow
Your reasoning holds up brilliantly so long as you ignore the alternative...
Spammers use hacked wordpress and joomla sites. The domains just happen to be the ones of the sites they hacked. All you would find are innocent people whose only crime is ignorance and possibly stupidity (even if the seriousness is debatable). Most of the time when dealing with a hacked site used for phishing or other such purposes the hosting company simply restores a backup and goes on with life. any logs that could indicate who are gone within days.
The problem with this is that a large number of IP's blocked by dns blacklists are home computers operated by your typical ignorant user that have no idea their system has been hijacked to send spam. A hosting provider can't simply drop all traffic from these systems without aggravating a lot of their clients wondering why their users are being blocked. Black lists are already notorious for illegitimate or hasty blocks and block a huge potion of real and sometimes important e-mail. Trusting them for a full fledged iptables DROP is a bad idea.
the market?
Now you've met one. Used it once every few weeks for about a year, haven't touched it in over 4. Was fun but hardly worth getting addicted to, and the cost was prohibitive.
There must remain some ways we can think better.
To go a little bit off topic here, it is only a matter of time before we will (or maybe even need) to artificially augment our own minds to continue to keep up.
I hope it happens before I die...
You should check your eyeglass prescription. The article is inquiring about how he got HIGHER than advertised speeds. Your reply seems to be answering a different question...
You've managed to write a lot without actually saying much. So, without being entirely sure what it is you are saying, I would still like to comment on what I think you are trying to convey.
You seem to imply that the idea of a supposed beginning and end of the universe was only conceived because the idea of birth and death is large part of many religions and cultures. Any scientist is open to the idea that the universe always has been and always will be, and, in fact, the idea has been considered. The problem is the current evidence does not support that idea. The big bang is not a wild guess. It just happens to be the best guess on how things came to be the way they are now based on current observed phenomenon.
Also, no one is saying we have observed all or even close to all phenomenon, but we must start somewhere. We take what we know, and we try to explain things using that. In time we learn more, and we adjust our theories accordingly. There is no finish line or end goal. Any respectable scientist has a mind open enough to accept that at any time we could observe something that completely changes everything we thought we knew. It's happened before, and it will likely happen again. In the meantime we have no choice but to work with what we know now to try to explain what we observe.
At the same time we also recognize that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge and models. This is where theoretical physics comes in. Great thinkers try to explain the unexplainable and, in the process, they create new models that might even predict new phenomenon that we haven't even observed. These theories might even guide us in finding a method to observe them if they are there. The best part is sometimes these new things may be completely unexpected, and this is where considerable shifts in how we understand the universe come from. One major example is the general theory of relativity. It predicted several new things we'd never thought of before, and in time we learned how to detect these things. The more we test it, the more it is shown to be accurate. One day something else might even replace it.
Mu ultimate point is that when you say "our current understanding of cosmology seems open-ended to me. i think it would be very arrogant for us if we believe we have seen all of the dynamics of the universe in play, that our model of the universe is anywhere near complete. i think there is phenomena about the functioning of the universe we are not aware of yet" you are correct, but the way you say it implies that we think our current model is complete and that we are aware of everything. It is not, and we know it. We must build our way up, however. We can't skip to the finish line. We must endure incomplete understandings that slowly but surely become more complete. Perhaps the universe is infinitely complex, and we will never fully understand it. We will continue trying.
Guilty due to being creepy and weird... nice.
Allow me to dumb it down for you:
You die.
Your copy lives.
End of story.
Another person is another person, whether it is an exact copy of you or not. You don't emerge on the receiver pad. You are dead. You have ceased to exist. Your copy is constructed on the receiver pad thinking it is you.
So hold on.. what you are saying is after 256 starts your done? Get a new key/reprogram the bike?
1) Take the game way out of Hyrule. Hyrule can be included, but there's much more to that continent that is never explored - give us a planet to explore instead of one kingdom (and the little area outside of Hyrule we got in TP
You mean like in Link's Awakening?
Yours is a bit of a false analogy, because the whole Dodge community doesn't go around harping how superior their cars are for real drivers, how easy it is to mix those Dodge parts into the Ford hegemony, and how those who have to resort to duct-tape should have just RTFM.
OK dropping for lame ford/dodge analogy. Please tell me who in the Linux community makes these claims? Every claim like this that I have heard has been from "linfan437" in random boards/websites such as slashdot. Just because the internet gives these fanboys a voice doesn't mean you should actually listen to it!
Linux is great until you try to interoperate with something proprietary. I'm sick of hearing people bitch about how much linux sucks because they're trying to make it use Active Directory or Exchange. If you want to use Microsoft proprietary services then use Microsoft products. The various unix clones out there have plenty of their own technologies for solving the same problems, and they interoperate with any OS willing to implement the open specifications just fine.
THEY shut down the subway, bridges, and interstate? No sir, your fine city government did. They had the FBI BLOW THESE THINGS UP they were so scared. I can't believe someone would piss themselves over a line drawing of a cartoon character done with leds connected to a few batteries. Have you even seen pictures of these "devices"? It's a board with some leds and a few batteries... wtf. These goons didn't inconvenience you. You're retarded fuck local government did.
While I appreciate your humor, this post brings up an interesting point. There are many people who believe that any right not explicitly granted by law is implicitly denied. A default deny policy for law. While it's arguable that such a policy may be as effective in fighting crime as it is in fighting intrusions in CS, imagine having to justify every action you take with an existing law saying it is OK for you to take that action. Drug war enthusiasts tend to like this position. This kind of rights degrading position on law is of the same vein as the one currently being discussed.
What we need is a file system label structure that can/will apply to all files that we use.
You'll need a UI for this new filesystem concept. Perhaps it should be somewhat like Konqueror. A vertical tabbed frame on the left with multiple views of the data on the right. Perhaps a metadata view, or a context view, or a folder view. Of course this folder view would be enhanced by the intelligent use of labals to be able to organize, sort, and access files efficiently. Then we should put a work area to the right. A place to view or organize our files. Perhaps, in a small area below this work area, we include a viewer applet to preview or even use the file.
This sounds a little bit like another program....
You're still so busy dreaming about the future you haven't noticed it is here. This type of access to our data doesn't need to be filesystem based. In fact, there are advantages if it is not. We only need the proper viewers perhaps with some filesystem help like extended attributes. Things like amaroK or KPhotoAlbum as well as all the current work in desktop search are the future. amaroK loads nearly as quickly as konqueror too..
Jury courts? Sure, try to work on their emotion.
I was kinda with you until I saw this. I'm upset enough as it is about the cases that don't have to be tried by jury, and that the judge has too much power to override the jury. Trial by jury is the finest idea in justice there is. The jury ensures that the spirit of the law is upheld, and that it is applied fairly. They are the ones that can say, "this law doesn't apply to you on this day under these circumstances, go home" or "no one has thought to create a law to cover the horrible act you've committed, but we're still sending your sorry ass to prison." A jury is the only method of doing that fairly.
To speak on the rest of your comment, believe me if you run out of money the process would not last this long. I do think thoroughness is important, but allowing it does allow for some level of abuse of the system. Giving the power to the judge to prevent that abuse also gives him the power to abuse. So the question becomes who do you want to be able to abuse the system; the courts themselves, or the people? I vote for the people, always. that scenarios like the IBM vs. SCO case can happen is hardly the deepest darkest problem with our system. That problem is that the phrase innocent until prooven guilty is only what is written and not what is believed or practiced. Public defenders are purposely underpaid and overworked to make people who cannot afford a decent attorney easier to convict. If you work as a public defender and actually try to help and fight for the people you defend you are given more of a workload so you simply are unable to. Problems like that are the serious ones. Those are the ones we should address.
Really... because in my experience porn sites are pretty easy to cancel if you are intelligent enough to avoid the crap ones. The last one I cancelled was a 10 second 2 click online process. I still have 10 gigs of movies from them that I can watch whenever I want, and it was the most hassle free cancellation process I've ever experienced
This discussion has been interesting. Now, however, you are being as short sided you are claiming I am.
No problem. As you mentioned "Politicians feel the need to fake religion". Politicians do that for one reason only: votes. And people don't vote according to their religion unless they want to. Regards polls however you like, but when people will elect their government representative based on it, then it's time to acknowledge they're taking it seriously. They may not be living out their religion very well, they may not attend services often enough to convince you of their devotion, but it's definitely important to them.
This is exactly my point. They are paying lip service and nothing more. At best they are held captive by their fears of damning some mythical immortal soul. At worst they are just hypocrites.
Or perhaps it's because the conservatives are not posting on the net so much because they're busy owning and running the companies that provide your internet service. Maybe they're just as involved in the net, but they've positioned themselves on the money collecting side rather than the money spending side. What's the golden rule again?
Because all liberals are poor hippies and all conservatives are rich beyond measure...
I've seen men's personal struggles and weaknesses used against them to attack the validity of their faith. It is, IMO, one of the worst things to be found in religion, and also seems to be what you're doing actually.
Do tell how I am doing this. I am not attacking the validity of their personal faith but the validity of the institution that defines it. No man or women should be ashamed of who they are solely because somebody says an invisible entity that nobody can show exists says they should be. There should be real, tangible, valid reasons, and there simply are none for this case. It is that institution which creates the personal struggle to begin with. It is that institution that makes them feel ashamed, alone, and unclean.
They may not be interested in your opinion of their religious faith. I propose that they may not be holding to that faith in an effort to please you.
I'm failing to see where I claimed that they are or should be. They are doing it to please their friends and family, or at the very least to avoid standing out and confrontation.
As opposed to the societies which to realise "God is Dead" and become utopian paradises. Oh wait, hang on that hasn't happened yet, they tend to become brutal totalitarian dictatorships so far. Let me know how that goes.
Once again putting words into my mouth. I expect a world without religion (or at the very least reduced influence of religion) to be a better place, but I never claimed it would be perfect. It would force us to reevaluate our morals and base them on reality instead of on a foundation made from the whims of the men of powerful positions in religion. Imagine if you had to justify your moral ethics based on more than "this is as god intended". There are many people like that already. They don't murder or steal, but they might smoke weed or bang members of the same sex. People like that still have a strong moral compass, but one based on life and not on god.
What if everyone had to live for today instead of some imaginary eternal afterlife? I posit that would help improve the quality of this world.
You are of course correct, but I hardly consider polls to be either. At least not when it comes to hot topics such as this. I will trust my instincts before I trust a poll. See the Spiral of Silence for one of many examples of how these kinds of polls are inadequate.
Going on instincts are we? These two "ages" carry with them completely different properties. Just because one thing did or did not happen in one does not mean that it will or won't happen in the other. The industrial age brought with it mass production of material goods. The information age brings us unparalleled mass distribution of knowledge. To use polls, if I may, and also the effects of the Spiral of Silence it is widely understood that as intelligence increases religiousness decreases. Granted, knowledge does not equate to intelligence, but it does have an effect on it.
You also said something to the effect of "I meet a lot of liberals". Speak to a homosexual, they likely meet a lot of homosexuals, speak to a Christian, they likely meet a lot of Christians, speak to a Muslim, they likely meet a lot of Muslims, speak to a pot smoker, they likely meet a lot of pot smokers. Your impression that most of the people you meet share your views probably has a lot more to do with what you're tuned into and where you socialize than anything else. Buy a different model of car, you'll be surprised how many of them you start to see.
Indeed this can be the case depending on how you meet people, but there are plenty of ways to interact regularly with a random cross section of the population. Anything from people you work with to meeting random people in a restaurant or while sitting outside of a public building to have a smoke (not just conversing with other smokers). I would bring the internet into this. People often claim the internet has a liberal bias. Do you believe this to be because of the type of people who use the internet? If so what about it attracts only those kinds of people? I meet as many people who'd hang a pot smoker if given the chance online as I do in the real world. Just the other day I read a forum posting of a guy who could no longer comfortably drive his car because he knew drugs had been in it at one point. How sick is that? So, if it has this liberal bias compared to the real world, perhaps it is because the internet is the great facilitator of the information age, and as people who use the internet become more well informed their views change? If this were the case it'd be direct proof of the impact this age will have on religion.
As another note, I use to be active in the mormon church, which as you know almost puts caffeine in the same category as cigarettes. I along with many other people from that congregation have left because we understood the value of freedom and learned the many things in life that were frowned upon were only a danger if done irresponsibly. An even greater number of people stayed in the church, and because they are human did these things anyways. Because of the church, however, they had no idea how to do them responsibly. There are the people who think their way is absolute and everyone who doesn't follow their standards should be prosecuted by law. Oddly enough, they often do not follow their own ideals. There are a small handful of people in that church who actually truly believe and practice what they preach including tolerance and free will. I have seen the same situation in many church's of many types.
If people haven't figured out that religion isn't wanted, that would mean it still is wanted. Unless of course people think they want religion, but you know they really don't. People don't really know what they want, they need YOU to tell them! I can see why this appeals to y
Oh, and I agree 100% But I do believe it. I feel it. The information age is as unstoppable as the industrial age, and its effects will be just as profound. Even if the polls show otherwise currently, I explained my reasons for not taking them too seriously. Another poster mentioned comparing how many people say religion plays a serious role in their lives to those that go to church every sunday, or twice a week for that matter. Politicians feel the need to fake religion for the very same reason people feel the need to lie about it to pollsters or even their own family. The civilized world is so use to religion being here that we cannot seem to figure out that it isn't wanted anymore. "God is dead", and the sooner we understand what this means, the better off we'll be. Because without a desire for religion the existence of religion becomes corrupt.
They initiated action? They didn't vote. You think people protesting a few decades ago is responsible for action happening this decade? Pot smoking scientists got the science on our side. Scientists did what they always do. They saw false science and debunked it. The other problem was the hippie mentality of separating themselves from the world. Marijuana isn't as taboo now as it was back then because everyone, and I mean everyone, knows a pot smoker that is a productive and normal member of society, and also, to further my original point, because people are more open about it.
I honestly do not mean to trample over their efforts. Their hearts were in the right place. I also do not mean to imply that protesting is worthless, but it becomes much more effective if the protesters are voters as well. I strongly believe in the right to protest and respect those that take time out of their lives to do it.