The Internet was built with real end-to-end connectivity. From a connected host, I could (subject to local security policies at both ends) make a connection to any other host. It worked nicely for (depending on how you want to measure), anything of the order of 20 or 30 years, much of that before the web.
It worked nicely for the small subset of specialists that used it, and the types of networks that were used at that time.
p>NAT broke that, making innovation harder, as now every developer has to jump through a bunch of hoops to find tricks for two hosts to communicate with each other, typically with additional infrastructure in the middle.
What are you talking about? App development occurs at Layer 5 and above, Transport happens at layer 4 and below. An App developer never needs to know what is going on at layer 3.
At the same time, it made it harder for people behind NAT to run services other people could connect to, effectively creating a two-tier Internet of "producers" and "consumers". Of course, this makes a lot of ISPs who are also content providers very happy, as the Internet just turns into next-gen-TV, only with more funny cats.
IPv6 fixes the Internet by removing NAT and restoring the original end-to-end design. Bring it on.
Ok you sound like a developer. My advice is get a network guy to explain it to you because NAT is level 1 stuff for most network engineers.
It's a losing battle you're waging. The problem is, conservatives in the US are so off the charts these days, that "reality" has a liberal bias to them.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I'm not American, and our Right wing is more left than the US Democrats. So when we hear US Republicans talking, it seems like these people are from a different planet. If Nixon or Reagen were around these days they would be considered left, that's how crazy the US political system is now.
That's basically the same thing as bias. Agreement or disagreement is an opinion.
Not it's not. Reporting a story that presents facts is not biased. Having an opinions piece that gives alternate views equal time in not biased.
Fox News mostly only present their angle, or only their opinion, that's is why they are considered biased.
That's blatantly false (and quite naive on your part.) Take for example the concerted effort to get Glenn Beck off of the air. If they don't watch his show, why did they even want it off of the air?
I'm don't know who Glen Beck is sorry, nor do I know who "they" are.
You mean like the concerted effort to take Beck off of the air? No shit? You're pretty far off of the deep end dude.
I have no idea what you are talking about so can't comment.
You still haven't explained why you don't want to get a ticket.
Because like most people I don't like giving away my money. I see what you are trying to do here, trying to equate my rational risk of not throwing away money with your irrational fear of the bogey monster that doesn't exist. I'll repeat it again, the difference is in the probability. I have a much higher, real risk of giving away free money, you have almost no risk of being in some armed confrontation where carrying a gun will save you
This is demonstrated by my real experience of having received tickets and your non-experience of your gun saving you in some imaginary non-scenario.
If you don't understand probability, we should stop now.
Tell that to someone who's been the victim of a violent crime. Just tell them not to worry about it, it'll *probably* never happen again because it's sooooo unlikely, just like it was the first time.
What about the person who has never been a victim but think they might based on nothing but irrational fear (or maybe watching too much TV)?
So...just owning a gun has some magical power that makes you more likely to be the victim of a crime? How does that work, exactly, is it like a high-frequency magnetic field that only attracts bad people or something?
It's not magic, it's called statistics. If you don't understand it, then that is probably why we are going around in circles here.
And before I forget, tell me again why you don't want to get a ticket? I mean, it's just a ticket, what's the problem, is getting a ticket going to harm you somehow?
Are you serious? If yes then please send me all your money right now...
I'd actually prefer to see how much income tax everyone paid. I don't care so much if a CEO managed to wangle himself a million dollar salary, I do care if that prick is not contributing to the system that allows him to earn it.
But going public with the information is a twist. And a potentially awkward one. Not because of people in other companies comparing rates or people within a company comparing them, but family and friends seeing the information might make things awkward.
It's only awkward for the first few months, then it becomes normal.
I've done a few admin jobs and payroll projects and was shocked to learn much some dickheads make. After a while you accept that some people are better at whatever it is they do, or they are simply better at selling themselves, or they care more about money than you do about time (or whatever). Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.
Definitely they were going to lay somebody off. Clearly making more money moves you closer to the top of the list when management is looking to cut costs.
Redundancies are usually to clear the dead wood. It's rare to sack the performers, regardless of their pay as these people are what will keep the business going after the lay offs. If you're highly paid, and a passenger, then you should be concerned.
You really think this is that much of a problem that we need to change the school syllabus?
I learnt the phonetic alphabet in boy scouts, but still never use it because you sound like a dick saying it. D for dog works just as good, and coming up with the most unique words for each letter can make these communications a little more humorous.
C for Curry and T for Turban can work well when dealing with Indian call centres:)
I know you're only being funny, but whatever happened to music videos? The rise of MTV as a force seemed to disappear it the 90's when they went from actually playing music videos to doing stupid teeny reality shows.
Telephone service is a public utility, and as such has a variety of regulations, including on how pricing works, and where service is provided. If it is to be replaced, we need some other sort of public utility that can be used for communications.
And most importantly who can listen in on your communications. As much as govt shits me, as least we can vote them out, what happens when a corporation has that power?
IF by "Nothing broken" you consider NAT functional.
Seems to have functioned ok for the last 20+ years...
IF by "nothing broken' mean that routers have to work harder, to support the limited numbers and crappy routing tables.
What routers are you using that struggle with NAT? I had one once, it was a $50 McCrap model for my home cable connection, but I fixed that with a $100 version. I can't imagine this is a problem for any business with more than 3 people in it.
IF by "Nothing Broken" means "It works fine by me, and I don't care that it doesn't work for you"
NAT doesn't work for you? Since this is how the Internet has worked since forever, I can only assume the problem isn't with NAT.
Quite a few people are not on Facebook, Twitter, etc. It would also be _hugely_ unprofessional to do any job-related communication over such a venue.
Especially since using the app gives Facebook snooping rights to all of your data, contacts, messages, emails the works. I can't see this ever getting approved anywhere that has a security policy.
Depends on the subject. They are very blatantly biased and actually act as a propaganda tool for the Democrats when it comes to 2nd amendment rights issues.
Are they actually biased, or they just didn't agree with your views on the matter?
We have a govt broadcaster (funded by govt but with full editorial independence) always being criticised by the the Right for apparent Left wing bias. Independent analysis is done and never finds any,or if it does, it's the least biased of all media outlets. It seems that the Right will just complain more about sharing the platform with other, opposing points of view. Conservatism by it's nature does not like other points of view, ie it's conservative, whereas Liberalism embraces it (even if it's plain wrong)
These same right wing politicians will happily go on Fox News, so most of the times whenever I hear "bias" it usually means "disagrees with me and shouldn't be heard".
Well, it's 3 minutes of news cycle, then 22 minutes of talking heads going on about nothing important,
This is why I stopped watching the news. People love information, which is why the News is so popular, but watching a 'breaking story' where there is zero information and talking heads speculate over possible scenarios is just trash.
The sad part is that media is one of the pillars of a strong democracy, and by cheapening the news, it results in people switching off and caring just that little bit less.
Ironically when a story does break, the talking heads in here usually have far more insight than on TV. I remember when that jet went missing over Malaysia we had Pilots, Traffic controllers, Navy guys, GPS experts, all in here discussing the finer detail, then when I switched on the News it was the like the play school version by comparison.
Are we going around in circles? You seem to equate probability with irrational fear? Hint, they aren't the same thing.
Yes, I believe the risk of an accident is greater than the risk of needing a gun. I also believe the risk of being in another fire is less than either of those things, and yet I still keep a fire extinguisher handy. It's about the risk-to-consequences ratio.
Now we are making progress. So to quantify that risk (using made up numbers purely to demonstrate a point), if probability if a serious car accident is 1:10000, and probability of act of crime where having a gun improves the situation is 1:1000000, and you act on the 1:1000000 risk but don't act on the 1:10000 (ie don't wear a helmet while driving), unless there's other information I'm not aware of, it can only be because you've overstated the 1:1000000 risk for no logical reason. This is what irrational fear is.
Your thinking is unclear. People are killed by fires when they don't have a fire extinguisher, just like some people are killed by criminal assault when they don't have a gun.
Those people are also killed by fires and guns even when they do have preventative measures (eg it's hard to use your gun when you're asleep).
Unlike a fire though, a fire extinguisher NEVER increases your risk of being in a fire, whereas owning a gun does increase you chance of being shot. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ma... http://ajph.aphapublications.o...
Note: don't take this an anti-gun post, I'm fine with people owning guns, along with appropriate regulation, I just think the reason people think they need guns are somewhat misplaced.
http://www.radicati.com/?p=106...
"According to the report, Microsoft continues to be the leading vendor in the Email and Collaboration space with its Microsoft Office 365 and Exchange Server solutions. Combined, Microsoft Office 365 and Exchange Server currently account for 51% of worldwide mailboxes in the Business Email and Collaboration market. "
You've just nailed my number one complaint about MS Exchange. It's a bad copy of a pile of other things from before 1996 with a name stuck onto the shambolic pile to pretend that it is one thing.
Ok no point going further. Me and the rest of the world choose Exchange (or O365 now), and you stick with your homebrew shit trying to convince everyone it's really is better, honest it is...
Why are you still going on about a topic you clearly know nothing about but still lower yourself to the level of calling those how comment on it liars?
Lol, that's nothing more than a disingenuous way of saying you're afraid of the penalties for getting caught breaking the law.:)
And this is where we disagree. Fear is mostly based on speculation, reason is based on probable outcomes. I will *probably* get a ticket if I don't wear a seatbelt (in fact I've had a couple before I finally got the message in my younger days). You *probably won't* get shot if you never owned a gun (as demonstrated by the previous 30 years of you never needing it)
Well, then we're in agreement about wearing a helmet while driving. I also believe the risk of injury is so low as to not worry about it.
But you said the risk of an accident was greater than the risk of needing your gun? If you believe the gun fight to be a lower risk why do you have a gun and not a helmet? If you were consistent with your reasoning, then any risk greater than the need for a gun should also be acted on similarly.
I'm curious why it bothers you so much that other people want to be prepared for things that are proven to occur. Why do you care, why not let other people live the way they want?
I have no problem with it, I just disagree with the statement that you *need* a gun. Most people who have guns (and fire extinguishers) don't *need* them. Where a fire extinguisher differs from a gun of course is that I've never heard of anyone being killed by a fire extinguisher. So I believe the *need* factor for those things could probably do with a little more scrutiny.
How about this - the cop seizes your money anyways, and tells you to 'prove it in court'. They offer to settle for you getting half your money back.
So I go to court with my bank statement and get my money back. That's what courts are for.
You just named one of the frequent false positives. Buying a car - what sort of evidence might you have?
Bank statements
How do you 'prove' that you're not lying?
Bank statements
Other reasons I've seen are immigrant families(notorious for distrusting banks) looking to buy a business or equipment.
With their native Pesos? Or did they exchange their local currency, at a bank or money changer who is required by law to give a receipt for USD?
The amounts seized can be as low as a couple hundred bucks - and I'm now an 'older' gentleman, I traditionally grab a couple hundred just because I remember a time when credit cards weren't always an option, and checks weren't accepted out of state.
Where do you grab it from? Do you have a money fountain that magically produces cash out of thin air? Or do you get it from your bank account which has a full auditable trail?
Take somebody who has bad credit or whatever, suddenly they're back on cash, and might have to carry even more.
How did they earn it? That entity, by law must keep records.
They've even seized cash funds from employees doing a bank run, with money/receipts in the bank bag.
Citation?
I'm still struggling to see any scenario when a normal person would be affected by this, but I can see how a lot of dealers get caught out. No job, no income, but thousands of dollars in cash and no explanation of where it came from
The best hedge against that is a stable prosperous nation. The best way to get that is to have a strong central government to act as a counter-force to the unlimited power corporations would otherwise have.
Thanks for that, I was beginning to think I was going crazy. So many anti-gov nutters in here it's like the UFO/Free energy crowd.
You are only stimulated by conversations in which all parties agree on everything? That's a pretty dull dinner party.
Where did I say that? I'm stimulated by people who are open to discussion and form their opinions based on reason or personal experience, rather than because some dude in a funny hat told them to have that opinion.
I've had plenty of discussions with religious people and it always ends the same way. They believe the magic fairies and that's the end of it. Boring.
Slashdot Mirror
The Internet was built with real end-to-end connectivity. From a connected host, I could (subject to local security policies at both ends) make a connection to any other host. It worked nicely for (depending on how you want to measure), anything of the order of 20 or 30 years, much of that before the web.
It worked nicely for the small subset of specialists that used it, and the types of networks that were used at that time.
p>NAT broke that, making innovation harder, as now every developer has to jump through a bunch of hoops to find tricks for two hosts to communicate with each other, typically with additional infrastructure in the middle.
What are you talking about? App development occurs at Layer 5 and above, Transport happens at layer 4 and below. An App developer never needs to know what is going on at layer 3.
At the same time, it made it harder for people behind NAT to run services other people could connect to, effectively creating a two-tier Internet of "producers" and "consumers". Of course, this makes a lot of ISPs who are also content providers very happy, as the Internet just turns into next-gen-TV, only with more funny cats.
IPv6 fixes the Internet by removing NAT and restoring the original end-to-end design. Bring it on.
Ok you sound like a developer. My advice is get a network guy to explain it to you because NAT is level 1 stuff for most network engineers.
It's a losing battle you're waging. The problem is, conservatives in the US are so off the charts these days, that "reality" has a liberal bias to them.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I'm not American, and our Right wing is more left than the US Democrats. So when we hear US Republicans talking, it seems like these people are from a different planet. If Nixon or Reagen were around these days they would be considered left, that's how crazy the US political system is now.
That's basically the same thing as bias. Agreement or disagreement is an opinion.
Not it's not. Reporting a story that presents facts is not biased. Having an opinions piece that gives alternate views equal time in not biased.
Fox News mostly only present their angle, or only their opinion, that's is why they are considered biased.
That's blatantly false (and quite naive on your part.) Take for example the concerted effort to get Glenn Beck off of the air. If they don't watch his show, why did they even want it off of the air?
I'm don't know who Glen Beck is sorry, nor do I know who "they" are.
You mean like the concerted effort to take Beck off of the air? No shit? You're pretty far off of the deep end dude.
I have no idea what you are talking about so can't comment.
You still haven't explained why you don't want to get a ticket.
Because like most people I don't like giving away my money. I see what you are trying to do here, trying to equate my rational risk of not throwing away money with your irrational fear of the bogey monster that doesn't exist. I'll repeat it again, the difference is in the probability. I have a much higher, real risk of giving away free money, you have almost no risk of being in some armed confrontation where carrying a gun will save you
This is demonstrated by my real experience of having received tickets and your non-experience of your gun saving you in some imaginary non-scenario.
If you don't understand probability, we should stop now.
Tell that to someone who's been the victim of a violent crime. Just tell them not to worry about it, it'll *probably* never happen again because it's sooooo unlikely, just like it was the first time.
What about the person who has never been a victim but think they might based on nothing but irrational fear (or maybe watching too much TV)?
So...just owning a gun has some magical power that makes you more likely to be the victim of a crime? How does that work, exactly, is it like a high-frequency magnetic field that only attracts bad people or something?
It's not magic, it's called statistics. If you don't understand it, then that is probably why we are going around in circles here.
And before I forget, tell me again why you don't want to get a ticket? I mean, it's just a ticket, what's the problem, is getting a ticket going to harm you somehow?
Are you serious? If yes then please send me all your money right now...
I'd actually prefer to see how much income tax everyone paid. I don't care so much if a CEO managed to wangle himself a million dollar salary, I do care if that prick is not contributing to the system that allows him to earn it.
But going public with the information is a twist. And a potentially awkward one. Not because of people in other companies comparing rates or people within a company comparing them, but family and friends seeing the information might make things awkward.
It's only awkward for the first few months, then it becomes normal.
I've done a few admin jobs and payroll projects and was shocked to learn much some dickheads make. After a while you accept that some people are better at whatever it is they do, or they are simply better at selling themselves, or they care more about money than you do about time (or whatever). Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.
and my taxes are high enough without paying for that too.
Are they? I hear this all the time, what do you think is the appropriate amount of tax to pay?
Definitely they were going to lay somebody off. Clearly making more money moves you closer to the top of the list when management is looking to cut costs.
Redundancies are usually to clear the dead wood. It's rare to sack the performers, regardless of their pay as these people are what will keep the business going after the lay offs. If you're highly paid, and a passenger, then you should be concerned.
Zero, four, three, zero, two, nine is much easier to get correct than Esss, Eff, Bee, Pee.
That's why schools need to teach the long names of letters.
You really think this is that much of a problem that we need to change the school syllabus? :)
I learnt the phonetic alphabet in boy scouts, but still never use it because you sound like a dick saying it. D for dog works just as good, and coming up with the most unique words for each letter can make these communications a little more humorous.
C for Curry and T for Turban can work well when dealing with Indian call centres
Yes, but video killed the radio star....
I know you're only being funny, but whatever happened to music videos? The rise of MTV as a force seemed to disappear it the 90's when they went from actually playing music videos to doing stupid teeny reality shows.
Telephone service is a public utility, and as such has a variety of regulations, including on how pricing works, and where service is provided. If it is to be replaced, we need some other sort of public utility that can be used for communications.
And most importantly who can listen in on your communications. As much as govt shits me, as least we can vote them out, what happens when a corporation has that power?
IF by "Nothing broken" you consider NAT functional.
Seems to have functioned ok for the last 20+ years...
IF by "nothing broken' mean that routers have to work harder, to support the limited numbers and crappy routing tables.
What routers are you using that struggle with NAT? I had one once, it was a $50 McCrap model for my home cable connection, but I fixed that with a $100 version. I can't imagine this is a problem for any business with more than 3 people in it.
IF by "Nothing Broken" means "It works fine by me, and I don't care that it doesn't work for you"
NAT doesn't work for you? Since this is how the Internet has worked since forever, I can only assume the problem isn't with NAT.
Quite a few people are not on Facebook, Twitter, etc. It would also be _hugely_ unprofessional to do any job-related communication over such a venue.
Especially since using the app gives Facebook snooping rights to all of your data, contacts, messages, emails the works. I can't see this ever getting approved anywhere that has a security policy.
Depends on the subject. They are very blatantly biased and actually act as a propaganda tool for the Democrats when it comes to 2nd amendment rights issues.
Are they actually biased, or they just didn't agree with your views on the matter?
We have a govt broadcaster (funded by govt but with full editorial independence) always being criticised by the the Right for apparent Left wing bias. Independent analysis is done and never finds any,or if it does, it's the least biased of all media outlets. It seems that the Right will just complain more about sharing the platform with other, opposing points of view. Conservatism by it's nature does not like other points of view, ie it's conservative, whereas Liberalism embraces it (even if it's plain wrong)
These same right wing politicians will happily go on Fox News, so most of the times whenever I hear "bias" it usually means "disagrees with me and shouldn't be heard".
Well, it's 3 minutes of news cycle, then 22 minutes of talking heads going on about nothing important,
This is why I stopped watching the news. People love information, which is why the News is so popular, but watching a 'breaking story' where there is zero information and talking heads speculate over possible scenarios is just trash.
The sad part is that media is one of the pillars of a strong democracy, and by cheapening the news, it results in people switching off and caring just that little bit less.
Ironically when a story does break, the talking heads in here usually have far more insight than on TV. I remember when that jet went missing over Malaysia we had Pilots, Traffic controllers, Navy guys, GPS experts, all in here discussing the finer detail, then when I switched on the News it was the like the play school version by comparison.
Why are you afraid of getting a ticket?
Are we going around in circles? You seem to equate probability with irrational fear? Hint, they aren't the same thing.
Yes, I believe the risk of an accident is greater than the risk of needing a gun. I also believe the risk of being in another fire is less than either of those things, and yet I still keep a fire extinguisher handy. It's about the risk-to-consequences ratio.
Now we are making progress. So to quantify that risk (using made up numbers purely to demonstrate a point), if probability if a serious car accident is 1:10000, and probability of act of crime where having a gun improves the situation is 1:1000000, and you act on the 1:1000000 risk but don't act on the 1:10000 (ie don't wear a helmet while driving), unless there's other information I'm not aware of, it can only be because you've overstated the 1:1000000 risk for no logical reason. This is what irrational fear is.
Your thinking is unclear. People are killed by fires when they don't have a fire extinguisher, just like some people are killed by criminal assault when they don't have a gun.
Those people are also killed by fires and guns even when they do have preventative measures (eg it's hard to use your gun when you're asleep).
Unlike a fire though, a fire extinguisher NEVER increases your risk of being in a fire, whereas owning a gun does increase you chance of being shot.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ma...
http://ajph.aphapublications.o...
Note: don't take this an anti-gun post, I'm fine with people owning guns, along with appropriate regulation, I just think the reason people think they need guns are somewhat misplaced.
If really you think that you really know nothing.
http://www.radicati.com/?p=106...
"According to the report, Microsoft continues to be the leading vendor in the Email and Collaboration space with its Microsoft Office 365 and Exchange Server solutions. Combined, Microsoft Office 365 and Exchange Server currently account for 51% of worldwide mailboxes in the Business Email and Collaboration market. "
Burn....
Are you so pathetic that you've got to turn everything into a pissing contest?
No, but feel free to get angry if it makes you feel better...
You've just nailed my number one complaint about MS Exchange. It's a bad copy of a pile of other things from before 1996 with a name stuck onto the shambolic pile to pretend that it is one thing.
Ok no point going further. Me and the rest of the world choose Exchange (or O365 now), and you stick with your homebrew shit trying to convince everyone it's really is better, honest it is...
Why are you still going on about a topic you clearly know nothing about but still lower yourself to the level of calling those how comment on it liars?
I call ad hominem and claim my trophy...
Lol, that's nothing more than a disingenuous way of saying you're afraid of the penalties for getting caught breaking the law. :)
And this is where we disagree. Fear is mostly based on speculation, reason is based on probable outcomes. I will *probably* get a ticket if I don't wear a seatbelt (in fact I've had a couple before I finally got the message in my younger days). You *probably won't* get shot if you never owned a gun (as demonstrated by the previous 30 years of you never needing it)
Well, then we're in agreement about wearing a helmet while driving. I also believe the risk of injury is so low as to not worry about it.
But you said the risk of an accident was greater than the risk of needing your gun? If you believe the gun fight to be a lower risk why do you have a gun and not a helmet? If you were consistent with your reasoning, then any risk greater than the need for a gun should also be acted on similarly.
I'm curious why it bothers you so much that other people want to be prepared for things that are proven to occur. Why do you care, why not let other people live the way they want?
I have no problem with it, I just disagree with the statement that you *need* a gun. Most people who have guns (and fire extinguishers) don't *need* them. Where a fire extinguisher differs from a gun of course is that I've never heard of anyone being killed by a fire extinguisher. So I believe the *need* factor for those things could probably do with a little more scrutiny.
You're the one said Europe was a success for gun control.
It is, and you are yet to dispute in any coherent fashion...
Or did you mean another Western Democracy, like Mexico: absolute gun control, well known as a super-duper safe place to visit?
If you have you use a third world country to make yourself look good, you've already lost the argument...
What was your "documented evidence?"
Bank statements, ie where I got the money from.
How about this - the cop seizes your money anyways, and tells you to 'prove it in court'. They offer to settle for you getting half your money back.
So I go to court with my bank statement and get my money back. That's what courts are for.
You just named one of the frequent false positives. Buying a car - what sort of evidence might you have?
Bank statements
How do you 'prove' that you're not lying?
Bank statements
Other reasons I've seen are immigrant families(notorious for distrusting banks) looking to buy a business or equipment.
With their native Pesos? Or did they exchange their local currency, at a bank or money changer who is required by law to give a receipt for USD?
The amounts seized can be as low as a couple hundred bucks - and I'm now an 'older' gentleman, I traditionally grab a couple hundred just because I remember a time when credit cards weren't always an option, and checks weren't accepted out of state.
Where do you grab it from? Do you have a money fountain that magically produces cash out of thin air? Or do you get it from your bank account which has a full auditable trail?
Take somebody who has bad credit or whatever, suddenly they're back on cash, and might have to carry even more.
How did they earn it? That entity, by law must keep records.
They've even seized cash funds from employees doing a bank run, with money/receipts in the bank bag.
Citation?
I'm still struggling to see any scenario when a normal person would be affected by this, but I can see how a lot of dealers get caught out. No job, no income, but thousands of dollars in cash and no explanation of where it came from
The best hedge against that is a stable prosperous nation. The best way to get that is to have a strong central government to act as a counter-force to the unlimited power corporations would otherwise have.
Thanks for that, I was beginning to think I was going crazy. So many anti-gov nutters in here it's like the UFO/Free energy crowd.
You are only stimulated by conversations in which all parties agree on everything? That's a pretty dull dinner party.
Where did I say that? I'm stimulated by people who are open to discussion and form their opinions based on reason or personal experience, rather than because some dude in a funny hat told them to have that opinion.
I've had plenty of discussions with religious people and it always ends the same way. They believe the magic fairies and that's the end of it. Boring.