Right, land war in the middle east. What could go wrong?
It may be that they could provoke an invasion, but which side do you think will suffer most? The side that deliberately kills civilians, or the side that accidentally kills civilians, and pretends to care about it?
Never mind, I answered my own question. It's the civilians, always the civilians. These assholes, they'll just melt away and do it again.
I think you vastly underestimate the moral revulsion of the western nations to use nuclear weapons on civilians (again). The threat would have to include an organized government (perhaps in the control of a group like ISIS) which has nukes of their own, and a likelihood that they will use them. Even then, the western nations would only use tactical nukes on weapon sites.
Despite how it appears to many (including you), the past hundred years has seen a huge reduction in human violence. I still believe that the next country to use nuclear weapons on civilians is likely to make the civilized nations decide, "we don't think you should be a country any more". Also, people are still basically decent.
You literally don't know what you're talking about. You showed explicitly that you don't even understand the arguments. You cannot participate in this discussion.
Goodbye and good luck, ShortbusGuy. You're going to need it!:-)
You don't have the capacity for this discussion, you've made that clear. None of your points are coherent. You are clueless about Russell, and you actually said that, "Saying that because I'm agnostic I have to believe a tea pot is floating around mars is childish." and "Logically, that makes Agnosticism a nobler pursuit."
Go find someone who does understand philosophy and logic, and ask them to explain Russell's teapot argument. I'm literally embarrassed for you, because you made it clear you're just playing with words you don't understand.
Here, I'll throw you a bone, this is at the level that matches your abilities. Last night, Stephen Colbert said, "Agnostics are just atheists without balls."
And you STILL didn't take the 20 seconds to look it up.
I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, you big baby.
I've seen it, I know it exists. You're just too lazy to look at it, yet you have the time to keep nattering away at me. Oh, and given how you represent yourself, I'm not too surprised you know the acronym Girl Friend Experience. What a maroon!
Well, you're not required to listen to fact based arguments, or to someone who has correctly predicted much of what has (and has not: like runaway inflation) occurred.
The talk is labeled Militant Atheism. Militant - combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.His fervor seems to fit that definition.
You're flailing here. Title aside, once again - all he proposed was that people speak up. No extreme or violent methods. As for confrontation, the choice is either accept the religious status quo or speak up. You can call that confrontation if you want, but the rest of your point is null. Can't you do better than that?
Saying that because I'm agnostic I have to believe a tea pot is floating around mars is childish.
All right, you've made it clear. You DON'T understand the argument. You either didn't read Russell's original argument, or you did and are not intelligent enough to understand it. There's no discussing it with you, because you are not equipped to comprehend the proposition, much less come to a cogent conclusion. We have to put that aside, perhaps until your junior year (in high school, I'm beginning to think).
The rest of your post was just juvenile drivel. I think we're done here. It's not so much that you brought a knife to a gunfight, it's more like you showed up in your LARP costume to a scientific symposium.
I have been watching Tyson in Cosmos, and I think giving people the backstory to the basic science on which all of technology and understanding of the universe is valuable, just as I believe the liberal arts in my CS BA was also valuable. It's also important to understand the people who made the discoveries. That's not hero worship.
But you didn't address the point of my post. Do you or don't you have any useful links to actual quotes from Tyson about the "science equals truth" claim of the GP? If not, then you wasted your time and mine, because all you have added so far is some general disdain for Tyson.
you end up with "established science" that claims, if we don't give all our money and lower our standard of living, and force third world countries to continue to wallow in poverty and filth, the world is going to end.
if you dare to disagree, you are an unenlightened denier, and hate babies.
You should throw out your talking points, they're a little dated. You need the fresher ones that purport to counter the current findings, that it is likely to be cheap, or even free, to address global warming. You need to do that, because the masters you serve for free, who may not reap the profits, want you to continue, despite the fact that it's not in your own interest.
This is a thimbleful of response compared to the religious machinery that has dominated human history. And I point out, AGAIN, his prescription was to... talk. Talk openly about one's beliefs. It's pretty outrageous to compare that to "the foundation of every religious war throughout history." You're really overheated about Dawkins - why do you despise him so much? It's certainly not because of the content of this talk, which was humorous and based on objective facts.
Also, you really should listen again to his reasoning on the difference between atheism and agnosticism, because I don't think you understood it. Go read the source he cited, Bertrand Russell's Teapot Argument. Are you really going to say you are "agnostic" about the assertion that a teapot is in orbit around Mars? Really? And you are also agnostic about the existence of a magic sky daddy who will give you things if you beg him? How about the Easter Bunny? Are you "agnostic" about that?
Given the blurring of the lines between both those words, and because the proof of the existence of god is as slight as it is for that teapot (that is, there's none at all), I see merit in the idea that we who don't believe in that stuff just call ourselves atheists and be done with it.
There, I hope I didn't upset your tummy. Now go and tell the other sophomores in your dorm about this.
Are you really a fucking idiot or do you just play one on slashdot? If you put new features into the OS, obviously it's going to take more clock cycles. How the hell is this abuse?
The "abuse" is the pattern of forced obsolescence, and the forming of partnerships with other companies, then screwing them, etc. In this case, my point was merely that Apple, since it is lauded by fanboys as a superior company, should be criticized when it fails to deliver, such as releasing an OS with poor performance on current hardware.
But go ahead and ignore the point, potty mouth. Cursing is a clear sign you admit you have no argument.:-)
It would still be a problem because Apple shouldn't allow the upgrade to be installed on a device which can't run it properly.
...Then the meme would be "Apple prematurely Orphans Older Models."
IOW, Apple can't win with the Fandroids.
Actually, since Apple is supposed to deliver such a superior user experience, this is a valid criticism, or don't you want people to hold Apple to that higher standard? It really is a myth. I think Apple abuses its most loyal customers worse than Microsoft. And they keep lining up (literally) for more.
What is a "valid criticism"? That Apple should somehow be able to eke out more performance from an older Microcontroller than it can actually deliver?...I don't think you have a rational argument here; but that never stopped an Apple-Hater yet.
Wow, your self-delusion is quite a formidable defense. No, the criticism is that Apple should release new versions of its OS that run reasonably on hardware that's still current, even if it's not the latest shiny thing.
You know, since Apple is so wonderful. They're really not - that was my point.
I am an iPhone user. An involuntary one. My company only equips us with iPhones, and we can't use our own phones, because IT is too stupid to figure out how to secure them.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. my. god. You like, took my own joke, copied it, and used it against me! How... how... retarded.
Good job.
Really? Operational security is a concern for you on a daily basis? Foreign states might try to coerce, corrupt, or disappear you?
Forget about foreign states, U.S. citizens are much more likely to suffer any of those from their own government.
Okay, sure, a normal American person. That is to say, mildly retarded and mistaken about 80% of the things you "know" are true.
There is nothing more annoying than: 2) People who can't pronounce my name
Really? It's mindwhip - you say it like it's spelled!
Just like Wojohowitz.
Right, land war in the middle east. What could go wrong?
It may be that they could provoke an invasion, but which side do you think will suffer most? The side that deliberately kills civilians, or the side that accidentally kills civilians, and pretends to care about it?
Never mind, I answered my own question. It's the civilians, always the civilians. These assholes, they'll just melt away and do it again.
I think you vastly underestimate the moral revulsion of the western nations to use nuclear weapons on civilians (again). The threat would have to include an organized government (perhaps in the control of a group like ISIS) which has nukes of their own, and a likelihood that they will use them. Even then, the western nations would only use tactical nukes on weapon sites.
Despite how it appears to many (including you), the past hundred years has seen a huge reduction in human violence. I still believe that the next country to use nuclear weapons on civilians is likely to make the civilized nations decide, "we don't think you should be a country any more". Also, people are still basically decent.
Well... sure, the original radio series was fine, but I once met Adams before the it aired, and he described it to me.
That was really the best version, in my opinion.
.22? Can you not afford a real gun?
It's important that the round not exit the skull, but instead ricochets around to turn the brain into mush.
It's just being considerate to the neighbors.
You literally don't know what you're talking about. You showed explicitly that you don't even understand the arguments. You cannot participate in this discussion.
:-)
Goodbye and good luck, ShortbusGuy. You're going to need it!
You're an asshole, because you STILL didn't do the 20 second Google search.
What a fucking retard you are, it's really sad.
You don't have the capacity for this discussion, you've made that clear. None of your points are coherent. You are clueless about Russell, and you actually said that, "Saying that because I'm agnostic I have to believe a tea pot is floating around mars is childish." and "Logically, that makes Agnosticism a nobler pursuit."
Go find someone who does understand philosophy and logic, and ask them to explain Russell's teapot argument. I'm literally embarrassed for you, because you made it clear you're just playing with words you don't understand.
Here, I'll throw you a bone, this is at the level that matches your abilities. Last night, Stephen Colbert said, "Agnostics are just atheists without balls."
And you STILL didn't take the 20 seconds to look it up.
I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, you big baby.
I've seen it, I know it exists. You're just too lazy to look at it, yet you have the time to keep nattering away at me. Oh, and given how you represent yourself, I'm not too surprised you know the acronym Girl Friend Experience. What a maroon!
GFE - Google Fucking Exists.
It's a 20 second search. If you're intelligent enough to press the keys.
As I said, I'm not going to cure your ignorance.
Well, you're not required to listen to fact based arguments, or to someone who has correctly predicted much of what has (and has not: like runaway inflation) occurred.
But that's generally the way I go.
Meh, if Apple fans are happy, that's fine with me.
I don't care, as long as my company doesn't force me to use an iPhone for more than email and calls.
The talk is labeled Militant Atheism. Militant - combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.His fervor seems to fit that definition.
You're flailing here. Title aside, once again - all he proposed was that people speak up. No extreme or violent methods. As for confrontation, the choice is either accept the religious status quo or speak up. You can call that confrontation if you want, but the rest of your point is null. Can't you do better than that?
Saying that because I'm agnostic I have to believe a tea pot is floating around mars is childish.
All right, you've made it clear. You DON'T understand the argument. You either didn't read Russell's original argument, or you did and are not intelligent enough to understand it. There's no discussing it with you, because you are not equipped to comprehend the proposition, much less come to a cogent conclusion. We have to put that aside, perhaps until your junior year (in high school, I'm beginning to think).
The rest of your post was just juvenile drivel. I think we're done here. It's not so much that you brought a knife to a gunfight, it's more like you showed up in your LARP costume to a scientific symposium.
Good luck to you.
I have been watching Tyson in Cosmos, and I think giving people the backstory to the basic science on which all of technology and understanding of the universe is valuable, just as I believe the liberal arts in my CS BA was also valuable. It's also important to understand the people who made the discoveries. That's not hero worship.
But you didn't address the point of my post. Do you or don't you have any useful links to actual quotes from Tyson about the "science equals truth" claim of the GP? If not, then you wasted your time and mine, because all you have added so far is some general disdain for Tyson.
The Big Bang theory is now accepted by scientists as the best one - for the current known facts. So, you know, science, fuck yeah!
I like Tyson, I think he's a good representative for science, though he's standing on Carl Sagan's shoulders.
Do you have any links to "science equals truth" nonsense from him? I'd like to see them. Thanks.
you end up with "established science" that claims, if we don't give all our money and lower our standard of living, and force third world countries to continue to wallow in poverty and filth, the world is going to end.
if you dare to disagree, you are an unenlightened denier, and hate babies.
You should throw out your talking points, they're a little dated. You need the fresher ones that purport to counter the current findings, that it is likely to be cheap, or even free, to address global warming. You need to do that, because the masters you serve for free, who may not reap the profits, want you to continue, despite the fact that it's not in your own interest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html
This is a thimbleful of response compared to the religious machinery that has dominated human history. And I point out, AGAIN, his prescription was to... talk. Talk openly about one's beliefs. It's pretty outrageous to compare that to "the foundation of every religious war throughout history." You're really overheated about Dawkins - why do you despise him so much? It's certainly not because of the content of this talk, which was humorous and based on objective facts.
Also, you really should listen again to his reasoning on the difference between atheism and agnosticism, because I don't think you understood it. Go read the source he cited, Bertrand Russell's Teapot Argument. Are you really going to say you are "agnostic" about the assertion that a teapot is in orbit around Mars? Really? And you are also agnostic about the existence of a magic sky daddy who will give you things if you beg him? How about the Easter Bunny? Are you "agnostic" about that?
Given the blurring of the lines between both those words, and because the proof of the existence of god is as slight as it is for that teapot (that is, there's none at all), I see merit in the idea that we who don't believe in that stuff just call ourselves atheists and be done with it.
There, I hope I didn't upset your tummy. Now go and tell the other sophomores in your dorm about this.
Pray tell, how do you secure a personal phone? The following scenarios:
Confidential information on phone. Phone is stolen. Malware through side loading. Controlling how data can be shared/forwarded.
Personal phones can be as secure as company-issued iPhones. I won't educate you, because, you know, GFE.
Are you really a fucking idiot or do you just play one on slashdot? If you put new features into the OS, obviously it's going to take more clock cycles. How the hell is this abuse?
The "abuse" is the pattern of forced obsolescence, and the forming of partnerships with other companies, then screwing them, etc. In this case, my point was merely that Apple, since it is lauded by fanboys as a superior company, should be criticized when it fails to deliver, such as releasing an OS with poor performance on current hardware.
:-)
But go ahead and ignore the point, potty mouth. Cursing is a clear sign you admit you have no argument.
It would still be a problem because Apple shouldn't allow the upgrade to be installed on a device which can't run it properly.
...Then the meme would be "Apple prematurely Orphans Older Models." IOW, Apple can't win with the Fandroids.
Actually, since Apple is supposed to deliver such a superior user experience, this is a valid criticism, or don't you want people to hold Apple to that higher standard? It really is a myth. I think Apple abuses its most loyal customers worse than Microsoft. And they keep lining up (literally) for more.
What is a "valid criticism"? That Apple should somehow be able to eke out more performance from an older Microcontroller than it can actually deliver?...I don't think you have a rational argument here; but that never stopped an Apple-Hater yet.
Wow, your self-delusion is quite a formidable defense. No, the criticism is that Apple should release new versions of its OS that run reasonably on hardware that's still current, even if it's not the latest shiny thing.
You know, since Apple is so wonderful. They're really not - that was my point.
But speaking of irrational, go ahead and respond.
I am an iPhone user. An involuntary one. My company only equips us with iPhones, and we can't use our own phones, because IT is too stupid to figure out how to secure them.
I hate my iPhone.