It was probably close to a decade or so ago I saw it so I don't know if it still holds true- but I remember seeing a spreadsheet of average state spending per child- and state rank based on SATs.
It was surprising: back then at least there was no correlation between amount spent per child and SAT scores. (although how much of this was reactionary- our schools stink, so lets spend more).
I think a more qualifying thing would be WHAT do the schools spend the money on? Is it hiring more talented teachers- or upgrading the sports complex and masseusses to give the athletics teams foot rubs and happy endings?
Most science-fiction authors, from my experience, have a poor understanding of actual scientific knowledge and, instead, rely on omission of fact to glaze over scientific points of interest. Frankenstein, for example, never exactly explains in concrete terms exactly how the monster was brought to life, or how it survived, or what it ate, or actual and exact process undertaken to reproduce the experiment.
HG Wells and Jules Verne were famous of being very dismissive of each other. Both fantastic classic authors of the science fiction genre.
Verne complained that HG Wells works contained very little science content. HG Wells complained that Verne was lost in the science- and his works didn't have any content on society- didn't make a statement.
To this day there are still science fiction author's who are more Vernelike or Wellslike. You may like the more science-based Verne type novels however, the Wells camp is equally legitimate.
HG Wells saw science fiction as a means of doing more than telling a story- but also of making a statement about society. Every one of his novels has a meaning one is supposed to read from it. By twisting current reality in one small way- it is thought you can see how our society works a little better.
I see merits to both types of authors- but honestly- I prefer the Wells style. Unfortunately most Science Fiction these days is neither a social narrative or a story about technology- it's just cheap "harlequin for men" - cheap mass produced novels with the same plot retold using different characters.
Yeah, although he should have stopped with Ender's game. I don't know why I kept reading his books after that. Ender's game was fantastic. Each book thereafter got progressively worse.
They may not have been hastily written- but they were poorly written nonetheless.
True... although living in low G causes bones to get weaker. I don't know therefore if our healthy astronaughts after months in space will have weaker hip-bones by the time they reach Mars. (to the moon is negligable).
I'd actually find it more amusing to be called a heathen. My wife does fairly frequently- but to have someone outside my marriage call me heathen would be amusing.
I'm still laughing about one day when one of my neighbours trying to offend me (for being a minority caucasian in my neigbourhood) called me a honkey. Words like heathen and honkey are too ludicrous to be offensive... to me at least.
Even if you get a doctor on mars- or the medical know-how you won't necessarily have the medical supplies of a hospital on earth. If you get bit by a venomous snake- you can almost guarantee they won't have the right anti-venom handy. Snakes on a space-plane would be a disaster.
Seriously though. We need to accept the risks- the first manned mission to mars will be a lonely one-way slow-suicide mission. The first men on mars will be the first men to die on mars.
We need to first send people willing to accept that they are laying down the groundworks for a future colony and that they can't realistically expect to come home or have first class accomidations or healthcare. Instead they get the immortality of knowing they were the first men there and that they will have dozens of moons, asteroids, planets, space cities named after them throughout the millenia.
There would be no shortage of volunteers for such a crazy mission. It simply costs too much to get there and back- getting there is less than half the cost. The first men setup the base. The next wave brings in the doctors.
I dated for about 3 months with my wife before I knew I'd end up marrying her... 11 months after our first date we were married. That was 11 years ago- I don't know ANYONE as happily married as we are. I really lucked out. I wouldn't trade her for anyone.
Statistics have actually shown that people who spend longer BEFORE getting married end up with a higher divorce rate. Sometimes you just know really quickly. The importance is- why is the person perfect for you. Looks is not the main thing... it is easy to be attracted to someone. Romantic love is great- and important- but even it isn't the main thing. The main thing is that you are socially compatible- if you're fighting after 3 months- you'll be fighting when you're married.
You've got to WANT to love the one you're with. If you're reluctantly in love with someone- or not sure why you like them or what you see in them- eventually it's going to end.
I can count on one hand the number of times my wife and I have fought since I've known her. Sure- we've had little bickerings- but we almost never fight... and when we do we make sure our boxing gloves are padded.
Not to sound mean, but I think it means you need a hobby and to get out more. I'd be in the same boat if I wern't married... thankfully I have a wonderful wife of 11 years... but I'm really not a social guy- so I'd have difficulty too.
Things may have changed dramatically over the last decade- but I briefly looked at online dating sites when I was single and quickly found it's the place where people who can't get a date on their own merits accumulate.
Some of them are probably just people with no out-going hobbys; more are just undatable for some reason or other.
Find a way to get out the house and meet people- you'll have a much higher success ratio with those you meet then you will flipping through the reject pages online. (again, not trying to sound mean- but that's what they are... people only use online dating if they can't meet someone a different way).
I don't know there is no god. If I had to put odds on it- I'd say I'm 95% sure. Personally, I actually hate the term "Atheist" and "Agnostic". Why put a name on it? We don't give a name to people who don't watch baseball. We don't give a name to people who don't dance. We don't give a name to people who arn't "dead-heads".
Why give a name to people who don't think there is a god?
I shouldn't be associated with an "-ism" for an absence of a belief... the term atheist serves the religious people more than it does myself.
The difference between "God" and "The Easter Bunny" are two fold.
One: yes, I think it is feasibly more possible that there is a god than the easter bunny. The complexity of the universe is such that there are certain things we don't understand. We can theorise- but we don't know where the "big-bang came from". It is theoretically possible some God set it in motion- and programmed it in such a way that they knew how it would evolve over time- or have influence in how it worked, be able to perform supernatural acts. There are things we don't understand- and I suppose it is legitimate to have a belief in that supernatural powers could have created them.
I don't believe that to be the case- but I see it as feasible. With the easter bunny- I have witnessed with my own eyes my wife and others creating easter-baskets for the kids. I have strong evidence that the easter bunny doesn't exist.
There is absolutely no reason to believe in the easter bunny- and there are no unexplained questions.
Second reason to say why the easter bunny and "god" are different: You asked if agnostics were agnostics rather than atheists for "sensitivity" reasons. The answer is no- but there is some credibility to "thoughts-in-number". It is statistics, not peoples feelings that does give some credence.
If you, (which as atheists/agnostics we are) are in the minority opinion of something- you have to consider "have I misthought something? am I missing something?"
Being of the majority opinion does not make you right; however, I would say statistically that for *most* questions, the more people give a specific answer the more likely it is for that answer to be correct. Sometimes the majority is wrong- but I do think there is weight in numbers. The more you disagree with mainstream society about something, the more likely you are to be wrong.
It isn't that being of a the majority opinion makes something correct- but one has to accept that all people are mostly rational beings with intelligence. Some are smarter than me- some are not so smart. When people disagree about a fact it means at least one person is wrong. No-one is right 100% of the time. It is possible you and I are on the god issue.
Of course- there was a time when the majority of people thought the world was flat. That the earth was the centre of the universe, etc. So the majority can be wrong.
The fact that no sane people consider the easter bunny, elves, or fairies to be real means that no-one is necessarily wrong about that fact. The fact that many people disagree with the existance of god means that by definition at least one person is wrong. There is a very small chance it could be me (and you).;)
It is possible- but if the cockroach reached an optimal design for it's niche a million years ago- then the pressure would be to avoid change.
Chances are the cockroach has changed in minor ways- because their environment has. But the fact is- they were near perfect design for the niche to begin with- they haven't had to change much.
Same with Vostok- if an organism is of near perfect design for that environment- they could very well stay more-or-less the same for billions of years. Any derivitive from the optimal design would be a move away from it.
Atheism/Agnosticism isn't about any specific deity though. (usually)
I'm agnostic because I don't believe there is a god- of any flavour- but can't say with full certainty. It has nothing to do with the judeo-christian god specifically any more than it is any god. In fact- I would gamble if there is a god it is more likely NOT the god of judeo christianity than it IS that god.
Most atheists/agnostics are equal opportunists. We think all religions are unplausible. It's not that we're saying the bible is incorrect- it's that we're saying NO religion we've thus heard sounds provable, likely, or correct.
I'm almost 100% certain the bible as written word-for-word is not correct- it contains contradictions and "truths" that are verifiably incorrect. We have evidence the bible is not word-for-word correct. That doesn't mean the general premise of the bible is incorrect- we can't prove that. It's what I suspect- but can't prove it.
I'm less certain by a few % that there is no god at all. There is no evidence that there is no god. It's easy to pick at certain mythical beings.
Truth be told- we can't say 100% elves and easter bunny don't exist either. The chances for either being true are ludicrously small that we can assume they don't. However in light of discoveries such as Homo Floresiensis they may have originated from some truth and been manipulated over time.
Google is running fiber? I didn't know the prohabitionists had outlawed fiber! I must get myself some bootlegged oatmeal. I simply can't go without my daily poop.
The Easter Bunny is not a religion. The easter bunny is not a god; even my children, who believe in the existance of the easter bunny do not worship him or think he created the universe- or can control it. To them he is just a special creature that distributes chocolate.
Nothing to do with Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. I don't know if there is a god or not- strongly suspect there isn't one. However if there is one- I'm almost certain he isn't the one from Western religion. If there is a god- I don't expect him to be the one from the bible.
I am still agnostic - I do not know whether there is a god as much as I suspect there isn't. To me, elemental logic dictates the western god as written in the bible makes no sense- I can't say there isn't one of any flavour though.
Atheism most decidedly DOES relate humanity to spirituality. Specifically, Atheism includes a belief that humanity created spirituality to serve its own interests.
Let's put this in parallel. Consider Baseball fans. You can have red socks fans, blue socks fans, whatever other colour socks your baseball players wear.
We don't call people who don't like baseball a type of baseball fan. "They are defined by not liking baserball".
Atheism is not a religion. Just as people who don't like baseball are not baseball fans. I don't define spirituality as being "human created". In fact, there is quite a bit of proof that it is genetic and the areas of the brain that light up when someone is experiencing "spirituality" has long been found. I believe what people experience as spirituality is something that once held an important step in the evolution of society- or at very least is a side-affect of our genes.
I find there is a blur between agnostic and atheist.
I don't think there is a god- in fact I think chances of there being a god in the form of any religion I've had described is small- however, I acknowledge that I don't know whether there is a god- I see no proof either way. Therefore I consider myself an agnostic, because I don't KNOW. I know people with similar opinions but they call themselves atheist. Some may call me an atheist.
I find that most atheists/agnostics tend to keep a fairly low-profile- there really isn't much advantage to telling the world- and there is no advantage to "converting people". The kind that go out bad-mouthing religion and religious people are fairly low in-number and are far from being "a disproportionate amount of outspoken Atheists are inflammatory jerk-offs with some misguided superiority complex". ALTHOUGH, you tend to find a larger number of them online than in real life.
To have any sort of bias against atheists as you express- even if you are an agnostic yourslef is no better than thinking all Germans are like Hitler, or any other all "x" are like "y" scenario.
Lake Vostok might (we think) have been sealed off for a very long time, but that doesn't mean it's a glimpse into the past, but, rather, a glimpse into a different version of the present.
That is very true; however, if the environment of Lake Vostok hasn't changed in x eons (and it likely hasn't under all that ice) then environmental causes for evolution won't have occurred. It is changes in the environment that cause most "directional" evolution. Without that all you have after a while is random genetic drift. Physically cockroaches look the same today as they did millions of years ago because they are a pretty darn good-design that can't be improved upon for any of the environments that have come and gone since.
You look at what is similar between any potential organisms there- and any organisms surface-side- and say that what is similar is "likely" a common historical trait.
Bad past 12 months for CEOs of tech companies named Steve.:(
If I were a CEO named Steve working for a tech company I'd spend every day wrapped in bubble wrap for a while... there again- that might end up suffocating me.
Not only did North Korea manage to produce a Nuclear Warhead- but the late Kim Jong himself put it together using only a paper clip, a mashed potato and a bucket of play-doh.
What it takes the West billions of $ and many top scientists, North Korea can accomplish with just a Kim and a few house-hold supplies. Incidentally, Kim Jong Il, invented the mashed potato. Just a little known factoid.
In a way they can. For every anonymous user they catch doing something- there could potentially be two more that join their organization. Unless anonymous just fizzles out under a collective ambivalence- it's impossible to completely end- because anyone-anytime can join and do something. Best the feds can do is clip a few branches here and there.
Eventually almost everyone who fights the law eventually gets caught. Doesn't mean there won't always be someone else to take their place.
This is not the Sith. You don't need a Sith lord to train the next Sith.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all well and good until the psychiatrist has a patient with Webcamophobia.
It was probably close to a decade or so ago I saw it so I don't know if it still holds true- but I remember seeing a spreadsheet of average state spending per child- and state rank based on SATs.
It was surprising: back then at least there was no correlation between amount spent per child and SAT scores. (although how much of this was reactionary- our schools stink, so lets spend more).
I think a more qualifying thing would be WHAT do the schools spend the money on? Is it hiring more talented teachers- or upgrading the sports complex and masseusses to give the athletics teams foot rubs and happy endings?
Most science-fiction authors, from my experience, have a poor understanding of actual scientific knowledge and, instead, rely on omission of fact to glaze over scientific points of interest. Frankenstein, for example, never exactly explains in concrete terms exactly how the monster was brought to life, or how it survived, or what it ate, or actual and exact process undertaken to reproduce the experiment.
HG Wells and Jules Verne were famous of being very dismissive of each other. Both fantastic classic authors of the science fiction genre.
Verne complained that HG Wells works contained very little science content. HG Wells complained that Verne was lost in the science- and his works didn't have any content on society- didn't make a statement.
To this day there are still science fiction author's who are more Vernelike or Wellslike. You may like the more science-based Verne type novels however, the Wells camp is equally legitimate.
HG Wells saw science fiction as a means of doing more than telling a story- but also of making a statement about society. Every one of his novels has a meaning one is supposed to read from it. By twisting current reality in one small way- it is thought you can see how our society works a little better.
I see merits to both types of authors- but honestly- I prefer the Wells style. Unfortunately most Science Fiction these days is neither a social narrative or a story about technology- it's just cheap "harlequin for men" - cheap mass produced novels with the same plot retold using different characters.
Yeah, although he should have stopped with Ender's game. I don't know why I kept reading his books after that. Ender's game was fantastic. Each book thereafter got progressively worse.
They may not have been hastily written- but they were poorly written nonetheless.
True... although living in low G causes bones to get weaker. I don't know therefore if our healthy astronaughts after months in space will have weaker hip-bones by the time they reach Mars. (to the moon is negligable).
why not just send a physician along to any long term deep space mission?
Because everyone knows it is the nurses that do all the work- and a nursey outfit would be impractical in space.
I'd actually find it more amusing to be called a heathen. My wife does fairly frequently- but to have someone outside my marriage call me heathen would be amusing.
I'm still laughing about one day when one of my neighbours trying to offend me (for being a minority caucasian in my neigbourhood) called me a honkey. Words like heathen and honkey are too ludicrous to be offensive... to me at least.
Regarding the Mars comments:
Even if you get a doctor on mars- or the medical know-how you won't necessarily have the medical supplies of a hospital on earth. If you get bit by a venomous snake- you can almost guarantee they won't have the right anti-venom handy. Snakes on a space-plane would be a disaster.
Seriously though. We need to accept the risks- the first manned mission to mars will be a lonely one-way slow-suicide mission. The first men on mars will be the first men to die on mars.
We need to first send people willing to accept that they are laying down the groundworks for a future colony and that they can't realistically expect to come home or have first class accomidations or healthcare. Instead they get the immortality of knowing they were the first men there and that they will have dozens of moons, asteroids, planets, space cities named after them throughout the millenia.
There would be no shortage of volunteers for such a crazy mission. It simply costs too much to get there and back- getting there is less than half the cost. The first men setup the base. The next wave brings in the doctors.
I dated for about 3 months with my wife before I knew I'd end up marrying her... 11 months after our first date we were married. That was 11 years ago- I don't know ANYONE as happily married as we are. I really lucked out. I wouldn't trade her for anyone.
Statistics have actually shown that people who spend longer BEFORE getting married end up with a higher divorce rate. Sometimes you just know really quickly. The importance is- why is the person perfect for you. Looks is not the main thing... it is easy to be attracted to someone. Romantic love is great- and important- but even it isn't the main thing. The main thing is that you are socially compatible- if you're fighting after 3 months- you'll be fighting when you're married.
You've got to WANT to love the one you're with. If you're reluctantly in love with someone- or not sure why you like them or what you see in them- eventually it's going to end.
I can count on one hand the number of times my wife and I have fought since I've known her. Sure- we've had little bickerings- but we almost never fight... and when we do we make sure our boxing gloves are padded.
Get a hobby/join a club that is local.
You can't expect the love of your life to just wander through your front door- if people arn't making an effort to be social they won't find anyone.
Make local friends- they will have friends.
Not to sound mean, but I think it means you need a hobby and to get out more. I'd be in the same boat if I wern't married... thankfully I have a wonderful wife of 11 years... but I'm really not a social guy- so I'd have difficulty too.
Things may have changed dramatically over the last decade- but I briefly looked at online dating sites when I was single and quickly found it's the place where people who can't get a date on their own merits accumulate.
Some of them are probably just people with no out-going hobbys; more are just undatable for some reason or other.
Find a way to get out the house and meet people- you'll have a much higher success ratio with those you meet then you will flipping through the reject pages online. (again, not trying to sound mean- but that's what they are... people only use online dating if they can't meet someone a different way).
I don't think there is a god.
I don't know there is no god. If I had to put odds on it- I'd say I'm 95% sure. Personally, I actually hate the term "Atheist" and "Agnostic". Why put a name on it? We don't give a name to people who don't watch baseball. We don't give a name to people who don't dance. We don't give a name to people who arn't "dead-heads".
Why give a name to people who don't think there is a god?
I shouldn't be associated with an "-ism" for an absence of a belief... the term atheist serves the religious people more than it does myself.
I don't think there is much "fiber" in BBQ.
The difference between "God" and "The Easter Bunny" are two fold.
One: yes, I think it is feasibly more possible that there is a god than the easter bunny. The complexity of the universe is such that there are certain things we don't understand. We can theorise- but we don't know where the "big-bang came from". It is theoretically possible some God set it in motion- and programmed it in such a way that they knew how it would evolve over time- or have influence in how it worked, be able to perform supernatural acts. There are things we don't understand- and I suppose it is legitimate to have a belief in that supernatural powers could have created them.
I don't believe that to be the case- but I see it as feasible. With the easter bunny- I have witnessed with my own eyes my wife and others creating easter-baskets for the kids. I have strong evidence that the easter bunny doesn't exist.
There is absolutely no reason to believe in the easter bunny- and there are no unexplained questions.
Second reason to say why the easter bunny and "god" are different:
You asked if agnostics were agnostics rather than atheists for "sensitivity" reasons. The answer is no- but there is some credibility to "thoughts-in-number". It is statistics, not peoples feelings that does give some credence.
If you, (which as atheists/agnostics we are) are in the minority opinion of something- you have to consider "have I misthought something? am I missing something?"
Being of the majority opinion does not make you right; however, I would say statistically that for *most* questions, the more people give a specific answer the more likely it is for that answer to be correct. Sometimes the majority is wrong- but I do think there is weight in numbers. The more you disagree with mainstream society about something, the more likely you are to be wrong.
It isn't that being of a the majority opinion makes something correct- but one has to accept that all people are mostly rational beings with intelligence. Some are smarter than me- some are not so smart. When people disagree about a fact it means at least one person is wrong. No-one is right 100% of the time. It is possible you and I are on the god issue.
Of course- there was a time when the majority of people thought the world was flat. That the earth was the centre of the universe, etc. So the majority can be wrong.
The fact that no sane people consider the easter bunny, elves, or fairies to be real means that no-one is necessarily wrong about that fact. ;)
The fact that many people disagree with the existance of god means that by definition at least one person is wrong. There is a very small chance it could be me (and you).
It is possible- but if the cockroach reached an optimal design for it's niche a million years ago- then the pressure would be to avoid change.
Chances are the cockroach has changed in minor ways- because their environment has. But the fact is- they were near perfect design for the niche to begin with- they haven't had to change much.
Same with Vostok- if an organism is of near perfect design for that environment- they could very well stay more-or-less the same for billions of years. Any derivitive from the optimal design would be a move away from it.
Atheism/Agnosticism isn't about any specific deity though. (usually)
I'm agnostic because I don't believe there is a god- of any flavour- but can't say with full certainty. It has nothing to do with the judeo-christian god specifically any more than it is any god. In fact- I would gamble if there is a god it is more likely NOT the god of judeo christianity than it IS that god.
Most atheists/agnostics are equal opportunists. We think all religions are unplausible. It's not that we're saying the bible is incorrect- it's that we're saying NO religion we've thus heard sounds provable, likely, or correct.
I'm almost 100% certain the bible as written word-for-word is not correct- it contains contradictions and "truths" that are verifiably incorrect. We have evidence the bible is not word-for-word correct. That doesn't mean the general premise of the bible is incorrect- we can't prove that. It's what I suspect- but can't prove it.
I'm less certain by a few % that there is no god at all. There is no evidence that there is no god. It's easy to pick at certain mythical beings.
Truth be told- we can't say 100% elves and easter bunny don't exist either. The chances for either being true are ludicrously small that we can assume they don't. However in light of discoveries such as Homo Floresiensis they may have originated from some truth and been manipulated over time.
Google is running fiber? I didn't know the prohabitionists had outlawed fiber! I must get myself some bootlegged oatmeal. I simply can't go without my daily poop.
The Easter Bunny is not a religion. The easter bunny is not a god; even my children, who believe in the existance of the easter bunny do not worship him or think he created the universe- or can control it. To them he is just a special creature that distributes chocolate.
I consider myself agnostic.
Nothing to do with Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. I don't know if there is a god or not- strongly suspect there isn't one. However if there is one- I'm almost certain he isn't the one from Western religion. If there is a god- I don't expect him to be the one from the bible.
I am still agnostic - I do not know whether there is a god as much as I suspect there isn't. To me, elemental logic dictates the western god as written in the bible makes no sense- I can't say there isn't one of any flavour though.
Atheism most decidedly DOES relate humanity to spirituality. Specifically, Atheism includes a belief that humanity created spirituality to serve its own interests.
Let's put this in parallel. Consider Baseball fans. You can have red socks fans, blue socks fans, whatever other colour socks your baseball players wear.
We don't call people who don't like baseball a type of baseball fan. "They are defined by not liking baserball".
Atheism is not a religion. Just as people who don't like baseball are not baseball fans. I don't define spirituality as being "human created". In fact, there is quite a bit of proof that it is genetic and the areas of the brain that light up when someone is experiencing "spirituality" has long been found. I believe what people experience as spirituality is something that once held an important step in the evolution of society- or at very least is a side-affect of our genes.
I find there is a blur between agnostic and atheist.
I don't think there is a god- in fact I think chances of there being a god in the form of any religion I've had described is small- however, I acknowledge that I don't know whether there is a god- I see no proof either way. Therefore I consider myself an agnostic, because I don't KNOW. I know people with similar opinions but they call themselves atheist. Some may call me an atheist.
I find that most atheists/agnostics tend to keep a fairly low-profile- there really isn't much advantage to telling the world- and there is no advantage to "converting people". The kind that go out bad-mouthing religion and religious people are fairly low in-number and are far from being "a disproportionate amount of outspoken Atheists are inflammatory jerk-offs with some misguided superiority complex". ALTHOUGH, you tend to find a larger number of them online than in real life.
To have any sort of bias against atheists as you express- even if you are an agnostic yourslef is no better than thinking all Germans are like Hitler, or any other all "x" are like "y" scenario.
Lake Vostok might (we think) have been sealed off for a very long time, but that doesn't mean it's a glimpse into the past, but, rather, a glimpse into a different version of the present.
That is very true; however, if the environment of Lake Vostok hasn't changed in x eons (and it likely hasn't under all that ice) then environmental causes for evolution won't have occurred. It is changes in the environment that cause most "directional" evolution. Without that all you have after a while is random genetic drift. Physically cockroaches look the same today as they did millions of years ago because they are a pretty darn good-design that can't be improved upon for any of the environments that have come and gone since.
You look at what is similar between any potential organisms there- and any organisms surface-side- and say that what is similar is "likely" a common historical trait.
Bad past 12 months for CEOs of tech companies named Steve. :(
If I were a CEO named Steve working for a tech company I'd spend every day wrapped in bubble wrap for a while... there again- that might end up suffocating me.
Not only did North Korea manage to produce a Nuclear Warhead- but the late Kim Jong himself put it together using only a paper clip, a mashed potato and a bucket of play-doh.
What it takes the West billions of $ and many top scientists, North Korea can accomplish with just a Kim and a few house-hold supplies. Incidentally, Kim Jong Il, invented the mashed potato. Just a little known factoid.
"Anon can't stay one step ahead forever"
In a way they can. For every anonymous user they catch doing something- there could potentially be two more that join their organization. Unless anonymous just fizzles out under a collective ambivalence- it's impossible to completely end- because anyone-anytime can join and do something. Best the feds can do is clip a few branches here and there.
Eventually almost everyone who fights the law eventually gets caught. Doesn't mean there won't always be someone else to take their place.
This is not the Sith. You don't need a Sith lord to train the next Sith.