As someone with a low UID who must therefore be a FORTRAN veteran, shouldn't you know acronyms instinctively?
Yeah, us 300k-range users are even old enough to remember those with 5, 4 and even 3 digit UIDs. Of course all of those have died and we now use the oil left behind by their passing to power our cars. Sometimes though, late at night, if you listen closely, you can still hear the ghostly whispers left behind by these distant anscestors.....
and when I originally head about a spinoff, I was thinking "Great, the Cylon war!". It seemed like it'd be a home-run, start with the launch of Galactica, and you've got potentially years worth of adventures, and plenty of opportunities for great combat scenes in a setting that already proved that people would like it. Then I heard about Caprica, and I was confused. Then I actually watched Caprica, and I was even more confused. Oh, not by the story, it was easy enough to follow, but by the fact that they thought it was a good idea. Forget about the plot holes that were big enough to fly Pegasus through, the story itself just seemed like it was targeted at a completely different audience than BSG was. I tried to get into it, but after a while, I just found hitting play on the DVR was a chore, not something to look forward to, so I gave up on it. As for it getting canceled, I'd probably have never noticed if I didn't read about it on slashdot.
I think you're still missing the point. If Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft then Microsoft's treasury is Bill Gate's treasury, whether he is acting as owner of Microsoft or just as himself.
No, that's incorrect. Bill Gates (from the example) created the entity of Microsoft to operate as a business. As such, if your copy of Windows injures you, you can't sue Bill Gates, you can sue Microsoft. Bill Gates' treasury is whatever is in Bill Gates bank account, he can not simply start spending Microsoft's money on hookers and blackjack.
Similarly, as any public corporation is owned by its shareholders, the corporation is its shareholders, and it makes no sense to speak of rights the shareholders have as individuals which they cannot exercise while acting as a group, i.e. as the corporation.
If those shareholders want to speak out politically, as a group, they can form a PAC to do so, but the corporation is not structured or intended to be a force-multiplier for the shareholders political ambitions, it's structured intended to make software/make widgets/sell shoes/whatever.
A corporation is not a distinct, independent person in its own right, but it is a group of individual shareholders, with all the natural rights those individuals collectively hold.
That's not exactly true. The corporation is set up to be an independent entity, which, among other things, shields the shareholders from personal liability for its deeds. If you're going to dissolve the distinction between that entity and the shareholders for the purposes of political speech, why can't I dissolve it and sue each individual shareholder in a company for liability if the corporation's product injures me?
Except it isn't just payment processing, it's [virtual] shelf-space. You're welcome to sell you product wherever you like, but if you want it in front of Apple's App-Store audience, you're going to pay to do it. It reminds me of back when I worked at $GIGANTIC_RETAIL_BOOKSTORE. Typically the company refused to pay more than around 40% of the sales price of books, meaning that $GIGANTIC_RETAIL_BOOKSTORE often took 60% of the sales. No lube was offered to the publishers prior to the orders being placed.
Keep in mind, publishing is a weird business. In other types of retail, you get a product, and mark it up to whatever you think you can get for it. With books, the price is usually printed on the book with the rest of the cover by the publisher. Sure, you can put a sticker over it, but nobody ever raises the price above what the printed price is (at least, not if they actually want to sell books). End result, the price is pre-determined, so if the retailer wants more, the only way to get it is for the publisher to take less.
(disclaimer: it's been a while since I worked in that business, it's possible that things have changed since then wrt pricing)
You do realise that the reason you have root on your iPhone is because hackers found a hole in Apple's security, one that soon got closed?
The "hoops" in getting root on Android are because they're the sanctioned way to do it. If there was a remote root exploit in Android's web browser, some other hacker could give you a one-step jailbreak too.
That's not quite true. Getting root on Android, at least when using Unrevoked (a popular rooting tool) does indeed require using an expoit. From the UnrEVOked website: "At this time, unrevoked3 works on all versions of the supported phones, thanks to the exploit discovered by Sebastian Krahmer."
"Will you release the source code? At this time, we are not disclosing the vulnerability we have exploited to unlock the NAND flash."
Android is open as in open-source, but the handsets themselves are locked down by the carriers and manufacturers. They want to keep you away from root just as much as Apple does with the iPhone.
In the end, you need harsh controls on what goes down in the Socialist system- and things aren't as efficient even in Sweden or Norway (How quickly do you get access to medical care? I'd posit that it was about like the Canadian story, which means hours waits in many cases unless you're in a triage situation from a trauma that requires an ER visit.).
Firstly, you appear to admit you have no idea what medical care is like in Sweeden or Norway, so you just go ahead and assume that it's bad. I've needed care in Norway, and even as a foreign visitor, I noticed no particular problems or deficiencies in the way things worked there. Next, where the hell are you that you just walk into a hospital and get immediate care? I live in the NYC area, and wait times can be hours before being admitted or meaningfully treated. The last time I was at the hospital, the person I brought in spent 11 hours waiting to be admitted. How is your "Canadian story" any different, aside from either getting a co-pay, a bill for a few thousand dollars, or both in the U.S.?
I'm not sure how you're doing that. What version of Android/Phone/provider do you have?
When dialing out from an Android phone, you have the option of either using the number that was assigned to you by your provider, or using "call with Google Voice". This is essentially the same as using Skype2Go, meaning that the call is placed over your cellular provider's network to a Google number, which then routes the call and makes it appear to come from your Google Voice number to the person you're calling. Making calls this way does not work over Wifi, and still uses minutes on your cell plan. I have never seen any model of Android phone that allows for calls to be made when there is no cellular service available, but WiFi is, and I've never heard of Google offering actual VOIP service from a handset, only from your computer.
Now, I understand that soon T-Mobile will be offering Android phones that are UMA compatible, which allows a phone to treat both cellular and wifi networks as interchangeable. This is a little different than what's classicly thought of as VOIP though, and afaik, not yet actually available for Android.
it doesn't work on Sprint's 4G network either, it really is just WiFi only.
This doesn't really bother me, since I generally only use Skype as a fallback if there's no cell service available to me at all, so really it's doing just what I want. For long-distance calling when I have a signal, I generally stick with Google Voice which works great over regular cell networks, but has no VOIP option yet on Android. Once Google adds wifi calling, I'll be pretty close to saying bye-bye to Skype for paid services.
Okay, a little bit more practical application then. A wall is 15'3" long by 7'8" tall. 1 pint of paint will cover 2 square yards. How many gallons do I need?
Since I prefer the metric system, I'm not the one to ask. The guy who painted my house though, answered questions like that off the top of his head regularly. Somehow he managed to be pretty accurate even without the metric system.
What makes the metric system much more sophisticated than the imperial system is (a) All conversions are multiples of 10, which is the base that the bulk of humanity counts in, and (b) you only ever use one unit, whereas with imperial you always use two.
Sophistication is often in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps someone who prefers imperial or U.S. standard would say that the metric system is simplistic, dumbing down measurements to units of 10 for people who can't do more complex math in their heads.
My point is, you can argue function, you can argue usefulness, but in this context, I don't think calling someone backwards for their preference of measurement makes much sense. As soon as you stoop to just calling the other side "stupid", which is basically what you're doing when you say they're backwards, simple or unsophisticated, you've probably lost the debate.
Inches vs centimeters 1 m = 100 cm , 1 Foot = 12 inches. Now quickly tell me how many inches does it take to span 892360213452 feet cause i can just add two zeros at the end to do the conversion in metric.
Who cares? The average person will *never* have to figure out anything at all like that. The metric system does make figuring out smaller, more practical measurements easier, but still millions of people manage to successfully use the U.S. system every day, and based on the level of resistance they show to metrics, they prefer it. It doesn't make them "backwards".
If one foot was some arbitrary scale of a meter and it would be equal to 10 inches i would have no problem with it and would've cheerfully agreed with your analogies , but it is not.
and why is base 10 any less arbitrary than any other system of measurement? So you're basing your system on the number of fingers you have, rather than the average length of a person's foot, big deal. While we're at it, why isn't a centimeter twice as long as it is, or half as long? At some point, it's arbitrary as well, somebody, somewhere decided "Okay, this length is a centimeter, and everything is either bigger or smaller in factors of 10". If we were all in "The Simpsons" the metric system would be looked at as clumsy and awful to use because we'd be naturally predisposed to prefer base 8 systems. I'll say it again, I much prefer the metric system, but ultimately choosing it over imperial or U.S. standard is not a sign of sophistication.
Okay, I'm wandering way off-topic, but my karma can take it.....
I'm sick of the metric superiority thing. Yes, metric is more rational, and a nicer system. I'd love to see it become the standard everyday system of measurement in the U.S., but really the way some people go on about measurements you'd think that the metric system was TRUTH and everything else was the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism.
Think about the following: We use Euros, you use Dollars, you're backwards and we're not. We use the Latin alphabet, you use Cyrillic, you're backwards and we're not. We speak German, you speak Norwegian, you're backwards and we're not. We pronounce the letter 'Z' as Zee, and you pronounce it as Zed, you're backwards, and we're not. We use centimeters, you use inches, you're backwards and we're not.
Now, all of those are roughly on par, but aside from the last example, they're all pretty silly sounding. Yet the metric one is pretty commonly seen, which just strikes me as a little silly for something that technically has no "right" answer. Whatever you use is fine, be happy with it, who cares?
I know camperdave was probably just going for a quick throwaway joke, but the "Informative" mod got me thinking.....
In the case of apps from the Android market though, you have a 24 hour "return" period, where you can uninstall the software and get a refund. This should, in theory, take care of the people who get suckered into buying crapware and don't want to lose money on it. That being the case, your experience with Maxis games doesn't really translate into a good defense for Android App piracy (makes perfect sense to me for the situation you described though).
Oh for crying out loud, where do you people come from? Seriously. Do you really believe that there's this big group of people out there who just like killing babies for sport?
In other words, special means normal.
No. Special means cases where risk to the mother is significantly higher than would normally be expected. There are no doctors out there just rubbing their hands together and laughing maniacally about how many otherwise viable children they intend to kill off in needless third trimester abortions. If a woman is told at a late stage in her pregnancy that it looks like it's going to be either her or the baby, but not both that will survive, that's a horrible moment in her life. Some may choose to risk it all for the sake of the baby, but you have no right to act all superior and expect that she'll lay down her life for that child, who may not live either. You don't even have the courage to post under anything other than Anonymous Coward, so don't expect me to believe that you're so brave that you'd forfeit, or even risk, your life without a second thought.
Further, do you really think that pregnant women typically carry a baby for 6 or 7 months and suddenly decide, "naaah, I don't want one of these after all". There are not swarms of women in the last stages of pregnancy flocking to abortion clinics just for the fun of having an abortion. I won't say that it can't or doesn't *ever* happen, but a woman experiencing a healthy pregnancy, with a healthy baby is not at all likely to seek a late term abortion for no apparent reason.
I think this is the part that causes confusion for some people:
But yeah I agree, iPad and other Apple products are great if you stay within its narrow Apple sanctioned usage.
Everything you say is true enough for iOS gizmos, but "Apple products" also includes OSX machines, which are an entirely different animal (leopards mostly at the moment, lol). I suspect that some people get annoyed at their Macs getting lumped in with the phones and MP3 players as being "locked down" or more appropriate for the less-tech savvy than other machines.
Yeah, much better idea is to make sure you can get through Jersey to stop in Pennsylvania or New York for gas. That way, you can pay more per gallon for the privilege of pumping it yourself. That'll show'em.
I guess my point was, what's the difference between believing in magic and believing in God? From what I know, there's no scientific evidence that points to God existing, or a soul, or heaven/hell, and yet the vast majority of politicians publicly state that they believe these things.
Fair enough. Personally, I'd put those things on different levels of acceptability. My first choice would be an atheist, or at least agnostic, as this person would, presumably, be the least likely to engage in "magical thinking". I suppose you could find an atheist who believes in magic, but we'll put that hypothetical person to the side for the moment. The main problem with this person as a politician is that it'd be nearly impossible for them to get elected to anything important in the U.S., as the electorate seems to be pretty firm that belief in some kind of god, preferably the Christian version, is mandatory for their leaders. Next in terms of acceptability would be someone who is religious, but believes this deity is more hands-off. I suspect this is really the average religious person, they don't "hear" god talking to them, and generally they don't expect miracles to happen for them, or direct divine intervention. This is the type of person who might pray for assistance, but doesn't expect that assistance to come in a form that violates the laws of physics. Then we have the "magical thinkers", people who believe that there are powers available in every-day life that don't conform to reality as the rest of us know it. For them, god may just let them walk on water, or or turn away their enemies weapons, or any number of other direct actions. They not only talk to their god, but they believe that he/she/it talks back. They hear a voice that tells them that if they "smite" their enemies, they will be rewarded, and they actively work towards a paradise-like afterlife that the people in the second category don't really spend a lot of time thinking about. These are the people that I don't want making policy.
Of course, these are only my preferences, there's no concrete basis for them, just my own thoughts and observations.
"I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven,"
To me, this sounds like it means that the speaker believes in magic, but don't practice it themselves. If you believe magic exists, then you're likely to think you have to account for it in your decisions, which may or may not be a big deal. The one thing I know is, if you don't believe in witchcraft, you won't be burning any witches, either literally or metaphorically.
"I dabbled in Christianity at one time. I never joined a convent."
This one sounds like a religious moderate to me. While I would prefer that my politicians aren't influenced by the writings of bronze-age goat-herders, it's unrealistic to expect to get that, so I'll look for the most moderate of the religious over the devout or extreme.
""I believe in Santa Claus, but I've never gone to the North Pole to look for him."
And this one is either a lunatic or a six year old:)
I get what you're saying there, but we have to work with the world we've got, not the one we want. In my ideal world, people aren't religious, and they don't engage in magical thinking. In the world we have though, that's not the case, so given the choices that are available, I just try to find the most moderate, or least devout/extreme of the religious candidates I'm given.
That's all really beside the point. The comment you're replying to was in response to this: Where do you have any evidence that she ever believed in magic? If you're okay with a senator who believes in magic, that's your choice, but the fact remains that she does appear to believe in magic.
What's the difference? Sometimes people want to believe things that science doesn't support. I'm not going to hold it against her that her mind was open to things she doesn't understand. I would get upset if she said, "I'm going to take 50% of NSF's budget and reallocate it to a new Department of Magic", but she didn't.
Personally I find it concerning when someone who wants to make public policy demonstrates that they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. No, she probably wouldn't start a "Department of Magic", but if she can't tell that magic isn't real, what other issues will she be unable to make reasonable decisions about?
What was Einstein's quote? "I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."
I don't think that quote is really appropriate here. If she believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, would you say that it's fine because she's only being passionately curious? Certain beliefs just don't rise to the point of being reasonable, and I'd have to say magic is one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
....at the time the joke was made, but police didn't believe him since he had no Alibhai.
or did New Jersey slide south, 'case pretty much everything the AC said seems to apply here. New York too afaik.
Yeah, us 300k-range users are even old enough to remember those with 5, 4 and even 3 digit UIDs. Of course all of those have died and we now use the oil left behind by their passing to power our cars. Sometimes though, late at night, if you listen closely, you can still hear the ghostly whispers left behind by these distant anscestors.....
Lizard pr0n? Ewwww.
and when I originally head about a spinoff, I was thinking "Great, the Cylon war!". It seemed like it'd be a home-run, start with the launch of Galactica, and you've got potentially years worth of adventures, and plenty of opportunities for great combat scenes in a setting that already proved that people would like it. Then I heard about Caprica, and I was confused. Then I actually watched Caprica, and I was even more confused. Oh, not by the story, it was easy enough to follow, but by the fact that they thought it was a good idea. Forget about the plot holes that were big enough to fly Pegasus through, the story itself just seemed like it was targeted at a completely different audience than BSG was.
I tried to get into it, but after a while, I just found hitting play on the DVR was a chore, not something to look forward to, so I gave up on it. As for it getting canceled, I'd probably have never noticed if I didn't read about it on slashdot.
No, that's incorrect. Bill Gates (from the example) created the entity of Microsoft to operate as a business. As such, if your copy of Windows injures you, you can't sue Bill Gates, you can sue Microsoft. Bill Gates' treasury is whatever is in Bill Gates bank account, he can not simply start spending Microsoft's money on hookers and blackjack.
If those shareholders want to speak out politically, as a group, they can form a PAC to do so, but the corporation is not structured or intended to be a force-multiplier for the shareholders political ambitions, it's structured intended to make software/make widgets/sell shoes/whatever.
That's not exactly true. The corporation is set up to be an independent entity, which, among other things, shields the shareholders from personal liability for its deeds. If you're going to dissolve the distinction between that entity and the shareholders for the purposes of political speech, why can't I dissolve it and sue each individual shareholder in a company for liability if the corporation's product injures me?
Except it isn't just payment processing, it's [virtual] shelf-space. You're welcome to sell you product wherever you like, but if you want it in front of Apple's App-Store audience, you're going to pay to do it. It reminds me of back when I worked at $GIGANTIC_RETAIL_BOOKSTORE. Typically the company refused to pay more than around 40% of the sales price of books, meaning that $GIGANTIC_RETAIL_BOOKSTORE often took 60% of the sales. No lube was offered to the publishers prior to the orders being placed.
Keep in mind, publishing is a weird business. In other types of retail, you get a product, and mark it up to whatever you think you can get for it. With books, the price is usually printed on the book with the rest of the cover by the publisher. Sure, you can put a sticker over it, but nobody ever raises the price above what the printed price is (at least, not if they actually want to sell books). End result, the price is pre-determined, so if the retailer wants more, the only way to get it is for the publisher to take less.
(disclaimer: it's been a while since I worked in that business, it's possible that things have changed since then wrt pricing)
That's not quite true. Getting root on Android, at least when using Unrevoked (a popular rooting tool) does indeed require using an expoit. From the UnrEVOked website:
"At this time, unrevoked3 works on all versions of the supported phones, thanks to the exploit discovered by Sebastian Krahmer."
"Will you release the source code?
At this time, we are not disclosing the vulnerability we have exploited to unlock the NAND flash."
Android is open as in open-source, but the handsets themselves are locked down by the carriers and manufacturers. They want to keep you away from root just as much as Apple does with the iPhone.
Severed heads are really hard to fit into a wallet...I suppose it's a fairly effective form of population control though.
Living under a bridge, scaring children and posting on Slashdot?
Firstly, you appear to admit you have no idea what medical care is like in Sweeden or Norway, so you just go ahead and assume that it's bad. I've needed care in Norway, and even as a foreign visitor, I noticed no particular problems or deficiencies in the way things worked there.
Next, where the hell are you that you just walk into a hospital and get immediate care? I live in the NYC area, and wait times can be hours before being admitted or meaningfully treated. The last time I was at the hospital, the person I brought in spent 11 hours waiting to be admitted. How is your "Canadian story" any different, aside from either getting a co-pay, a bill for a few thousand dollars, or both in the U.S.?
I'm not sure how you're doing that. What version of Android/Phone/provider do you have?
When dialing out from an Android phone, you have the option of either using the number that was assigned to you by your provider, or using "call with Google Voice". This is essentially the same as using Skype2Go, meaning that the call is placed over your cellular provider's network to a Google number, which then routes the call and makes it appear to come from your Google Voice number to the person you're calling. Making calls this way does not work over Wifi, and still uses minutes on your cell plan. I have never seen any model of Android phone that allows for calls to be made when there is no cellular service available, but WiFi is, and I've never heard of Google offering actual VOIP service from a handset, only from your computer.
Now, I understand that soon T-Mobile will be offering Android phones that are UMA compatible, which allows a phone to treat both cellular and wifi networks as interchangeable. This is a little different than what's classicly thought of as VOIP though, and afaik, not yet actually available for Android.
it doesn't work on Sprint's 4G network either, it really is just WiFi only.
This doesn't really bother me, since I generally only use Skype as a fallback if there's no cell service available to me at all, so really it's doing just what I want. For long-distance calling when I have a signal, I generally stick with Google Voice which works great over regular cell networks, but has no VOIP option yet on Android. Once Google adds wifi calling, I'll be pretty close to saying bye-bye to Skype for paid services.
Since I prefer the metric system, I'm not the one to ask. The guy who painted my house though, answered questions like that off the top of his head regularly. Somehow he managed to be pretty accurate even without the metric system.
Sophistication is often in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps someone who prefers imperial or U.S. standard would say that the metric system is simplistic, dumbing down measurements to units of 10 for people who can't do more complex math in their heads.
My point is, you can argue function, you can argue usefulness, but in this context, I don't think calling someone backwards for their preference of measurement makes much sense. As soon as you stoop to just calling the other side "stupid", which is basically what you're doing when you say they're backwards, simple or unsophisticated, you've probably lost the debate.
Yes, and I also said that I prefer metric measurments. The point is that choosing one over the other is not a matter of being unsophisticated.
Who cares? The average person will *never* have to figure out anything at all like that. The metric system does make figuring out smaller, more practical measurements easier, but still millions of people manage to successfully use the U.S. system every day, and based on the level of resistance they show to metrics, they prefer it. It doesn't make them "backwards".
and why is base 10 any less arbitrary than any other system of measurement? So you're basing your system on the number of fingers you have, rather than the average length of a person's foot, big deal. While we're at it, why isn't a centimeter twice as long as it is, or half as long? At some point, it's arbitrary as well, somebody, somewhere decided "Okay, this length is a centimeter, and everything is either bigger or smaller in factors of 10". If we were all in "The Simpsons" the metric system would be looked at as clumsy and awful to use because we'd be naturally predisposed to prefer base 8 systems. I'll say it again, I much prefer the metric system, but ultimately choosing it over imperial or U.S. standard is not a sign of sophistication.
Okay, I'm wandering way off-topic, but my karma can take it.....
I'm sick of the metric superiority thing. Yes, metric is more rational, and a nicer system. I'd love to see it become the standard everyday system of measurement in the U.S., but really the way some people go on about measurements you'd think that the metric system was TRUTH and everything else was the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism.
Think about the following:
We use Euros, you use Dollars, you're backwards and we're not.
We use the Latin alphabet, you use Cyrillic, you're backwards and we're not.
We speak German, you speak Norwegian, you're backwards and we're not.
We pronounce the letter 'Z' as Zee, and you pronounce it as Zed, you're backwards, and we're not.
We use centimeters, you use inches, you're backwards and we're not.
Now, all of those are roughly on par, but aside from the last example, they're all pretty silly sounding. Yet the metric one is pretty commonly seen, which just strikes me as a little silly for something that technically has no "right" answer. Whatever you use is fine, be happy with it, who cares?
I know camperdave was probably just going for a quick throwaway joke, but the "Informative" mod got me thinking.....
In the case of apps from the Android market though, you have a 24 hour "return" period, where you can uninstall the software and get a refund. This should, in theory, take care of the people who get suckered into buying crapware and don't want to lose money on it. That being the case, your experience with Maxis games doesn't really translate into a good defense for Android App piracy (makes perfect sense to me for the situation you described though).
dammit, I want to mod that funny so badly. I LOL'd.
Oh for crying out loud, where do you people come from? Seriously. Do you really believe that there's this big group of people out there who just like killing babies for sport?
No. Special means cases where risk to the mother is significantly higher than would normally be expected. There are no doctors out there just rubbing their hands together and laughing maniacally about how many otherwise viable children they intend to kill off in needless third trimester abortions. If a woman is told at a late stage in her pregnancy that it looks like it's going to be either her or the baby, but not both that will survive, that's a horrible moment in her life. Some may choose to risk it all for the sake of the baby, but you have no right to act all superior and expect that she'll lay down her life for that child, who may not live either. You don't even have the courage to post under anything other than Anonymous Coward, so don't expect me to believe that you're so brave that you'd forfeit, or even risk, your life without a second thought.
Further, do you really think that pregnant women typically carry a baby for 6 or 7 months and suddenly decide, "naaah, I don't want one of these after all". There are not swarms of women in the last stages of pregnancy flocking to abortion clinics just for the fun of having an abortion. I won't say that it can't or doesn't *ever* happen, but a woman experiencing a healthy pregnancy, with a healthy baby is not at all likely to seek a late term abortion for no apparent reason.
I think this is the part that causes confusion for some people:
Everything you say is true enough for iOS gizmos, but "Apple products" also includes OSX machines, which are an entirely different animal (leopards mostly at the moment, lol). I suspect that some people get annoyed at their Macs getting lumped in with the phones and MP3 players as being "locked down" or more appropriate for the less-tech savvy than other machines.
How do you get arrested for not using iTunes?
Yeah, much better idea is to make sure you can get through Jersey to stop in Pennsylvania or New York for gas. That way, you can pay more per gallon for the privilege of pumping it yourself. That'll show'em.
Fair enough.
Personally, I'd put those things on different levels of acceptability. My first choice would be an atheist, or at least agnostic, as this person would, presumably, be the least likely to engage in "magical thinking". I suppose you could find an atheist who believes in magic, but we'll put that hypothetical person to the side for the moment. The main problem with this person as a politician is that it'd be nearly impossible for them to get elected to anything important in the U.S., as the electorate seems to be pretty firm that belief in some kind of god, preferably the Christian version, is mandatory for their leaders.
Next in terms of acceptability would be someone who is religious, but believes this deity is more hands-off. I suspect this is really the average religious person, they don't "hear" god talking to them, and generally they don't expect miracles to happen for them, or direct divine intervention. This is the type of person who might pray for assistance, but doesn't expect that assistance to come in a form that violates the laws of physics.
Then we have the "magical thinkers", people who believe that there are powers available in every-day life that don't conform to reality as the rest of us know it. For them, god may just let them walk on water, or or turn away their enemies weapons, or any number of other direct actions. They not only talk to their god, but they believe that he/she/it talks back. They hear a voice that tells them that if they "smite" their enemies, they will be rewarded, and they actively work towards a paradise-like afterlife that the people in the second category don't really spend a lot of time thinking about. These are the people that I don't want making policy.
Of course, these are only my preferences, there's no concrete basis for them, just my own thoughts and observations.
To me, this sounds like it means that the speaker believes in magic, but don't practice it themselves. If you believe magic exists, then you're likely to think you have to account for it in your decisions, which may or may not be a big deal. The one thing I know is, if you don't believe in witchcraft, you won't be burning any witches, either literally or metaphorically.
This one sounds like a religious moderate to me. While I would prefer that my politicians aren't influenced by the writings of bronze-age goat-herders, it's unrealistic to expect to get that, so I'll look for the most moderate of the religious over the devout or extreme.
And this one is either a lunatic or a six year old :)
I get what you're saying there, but we have to work with the world we've got, not the one we want. In my ideal world, people aren't religious, and they don't engage in magical thinking. In the world we have though, that's not the case, so given the choices that are available, I just try to find the most moderate, or least devout/extreme of the religious candidates I'm given.
That's all really beside the point. The comment you're replying to was in response to this:
Where do you have any evidence that she ever believed in magic?
If you're okay with a senator who believes in magic, that's your choice, but the fact remains that she does appear to believe in magic.
Personally I find it concerning when someone who wants to make public policy demonstrates that they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. No, she probably wouldn't start a "Department of Magic", but if she can't tell that magic isn't real, what other issues will she be unable to make reasonable decisions about?
I don't think that quote is really appropriate here. If she believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, would you say that it's fine because she's only being passionately curious? Certain beliefs just don't rise to the point of being reasonable, and I'd have to say magic is one of them.