Or make people think it is acceptable to get shot for not stoping when a police officer yells at you.
Um... that's very acceptable. Why wouldn't you stop when told to by the police? Got something to hide?
People always complain about the US government 'eroding' or 'trampling' our personal rights and liberties, but have you ever been to, say, Russia? Just try and fuck with the police there. Those guys know how to get it done.
I am merely suggesting that ridiculing those who have different belief systems is wrong, immature and rude
There is exactly one thing in the universe that is absolutely correct and flawless, all the time, and that thing is logic. If a person willingly holds a non-logical belief, then by definition that belief is unsupported. Yet they believe it anyway. I can't see why this wouldn't deserve ridicule. If a given person has a conjecture that is the least bit scientific, I'll be happy to consider and discuss it. Otherwise, they're wasting my time.
The tip of the day is: If you want to play on the winning team, don't try to operate outside the bounds of science. It only makes you look foolish.
So in other words it's okay to ridicule people who believe differently than you?
It's okay to ridicule people who stubbornly believe something that is wrong. In this case, yes, it's also different from what I believe, since I construct my beliefs based on evidence and not nonsense.
Are you suggesting that belief in the force of gravity and belief in invisible pink unicorns are both deserving of the same amount of respect?
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It should be very obvious that believing in the Tooth Fairy is foolish, because there is exactly zero evidence that such a belief is valid. The same goes for any other "faith-based" beliefs.
when did being a person of faith... become an object of ridicule?
Off-topic, but: as far as I'm concerned, being "a person of faith" (as you put it) has always deserved ridicule. You would ridicule a grown man who believed in the Tooth Fairy, wouldn't you?
...the content that I would miss the most isn't ad-supported anyway, so it's not going anywhere.
The very best pages on the internet are those that are in the tone of "Hey, check out the information I've compiled about how Product X works. I reverse-engineered it; here are some pictures." Private enthusiasts always generate the most interesting stuff.
In a way, I think adblocker and the like are akin to people taking anti-biotics every time they get a sniffle. It just ends up creating new strains of antibiotic resistant germs which, eventually will not be able to be combatted.
Are you suggesting that we'll have unblockable ads at some point? I disagree. For that to happen, advertisers would have to have control over our computers at a fairly low level -- and, as they say, they can have that when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
And exactly how does knowing the answer to any of the above questions keep you driving at or lower than the speed limit, maintaining a proper following distance, obeying all traffic signals, merging correctly in construction zones, and not driving on the sidewalk? I think you're confusing being an efficient driver with being a good one.
You've just selected aspects of driving that don't show any overlap between "being a good driver" and "being an efficient driver". There are, however, lots of apsects that do show this overlap. For example, you shouldn't brake hard at the last second when coming up to an intersection. Doing so will (a) make people waiting at the intersection nervous because it's hard to determine your intentions, and (b) wear your brakes much faster.
There are other examples, too. People in areas with frequent flooding often stall or hydrolock their engines because they don't understand how intake and combustion work (so they'll try to ford a washed-out road or something; no pun intended.)
About adhering to the speed limit: I think you'll agree that staying around the speed limit is something a 'good' driver does, but it's also something an efficient driver does. Speed limits are typically close to the point where the efficiency of a car's engine and the aerodynamics of a car's body come into balance and the best fuel mileage is attained.
As for maintaining the proper following distance, I think it's pretty clear that people wouldn't gas-brake-gas-brake-gas-brake 15 feet behind the car in front of them if they knew that the material their pads and rotors are made from will last only a fraction as long as if they followed at a distance where they didn't need to use them.
The basic functioning of cars is really pretty simple. It's not a lot to ask to throw a few technical how-it-works questions on the written portion of the driver's exam.
You're equating knowing how to drive well with knowing how your car works, and you have the nerve to call my questions dumb?
Precisely correct. I don't think I've ever known a very good driver who didn't also have a pretty good idea of how a car works. I realize that's only anecdotal evidence -- I also present some questions that, if people were able to answer, would lead to a better driving experience:
Why it it bad to 'ride' the brakes when descending a hill?
While slowing down (when approaching a stop light, etc.), is more fuel saved by shifting to neutral or leaving the car in gear?
How does ABS work?
What are the problems caused by under- or over-inflated tires?
There are a lot of reasons to know more about your car.
So those who don't know exactly how their highly-computerized car works should not operate one?
I don't know if you're noticed, but approximately everyone is a terrible driver. The world would be a better place if people understood at least a little about how their cars work.
Should everyone who doesn't have a medical degree and fully understand the human body avoid medical care?
You should know enough to not go to some quack. If Dr. Stupid tells you that he's going to remove your liver-bone and you just nod your head in agreement, then you are the victim of your own ignorance.
Should everyone who doesn't fully understand the intricacies of their local, regional and national economies not participate in them?
Maybe people should understand a little more than they do? Then, perhaps, the businesses of spammers wouldn't be sustained by people who actually buy their products.
I don't suppose the mod that rated my post 'Troll' would care to reverse that by posting and telling me what was incorrect about what I said? No, I thought not.
Nevermind that the moon sustains our ecosystem by creating low and high tides in the ocean...
Did I say that we should completely destroy the moon? No, I did not. With our current level of technology, would such a thing even be possible? Probably not.
Besides, if ocean tides were changed or eliminated, the only organisms that wouldn't survive are the rubbish ones that couldn't adapt. Adaptation of lifeforms is the reason that we're here in the first place.
Why go back to the Moon? The Apollo missions were fine, just to show it can be done -- but there's nothing there. It doesn't really have any valuable or useful minerals that we can't easily get on Earth, and it's pretty difficult to operate on its surface due to the low gravity and lack of atmosphere.
My friend had a great idea: we should nuke the Moon. It would be totally spectacular to see something like that at night, and it would provide a use for all these nuclear weapons that are sitting around doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want him to be thrown in jail for 15 years or anything
...but I do!
Or make people think it is acceptable to get shot for not stoping when a police officer yells at you.
Um... that's very acceptable. Why wouldn't you stop when told to by the police? Got something to hide?
People always complain about the US government 'eroding' or 'trampling' our personal rights and liberties, but have you ever been to, say, Russia? Just try and fuck with the police there. Those guys know how to get it done.
I am merely suggesting that ridiculing those who have different belief systems is wrong, immature and rude
There is exactly one thing in the universe that is absolutely correct and flawless, all the time, and that thing is logic. If a person willingly holds a non-logical belief, then by definition that belief is unsupported. Yet they believe it anyway. I can't see why this wouldn't deserve ridicule. If a given person has a conjecture that is the least bit scientific, I'll be happy to consider and discuss it. Otherwise, they're wasting my time.
The tip of the day is: If you want to play on the winning team, don't try to operate outside the bounds of science. It only makes you look foolish.
So in other words it's okay to ridicule people who believe differently than you?
It's okay to ridicule people who stubbornly believe something that is wrong. In this case, yes, it's also different from what I believe, since I construct my beliefs based on evidence and not nonsense.
Are you suggesting that belief in the force of gravity and belief in invisible pink unicorns are both deserving of the same amount of respect?
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It should be very obvious that believing in the Tooth Fairy is foolish, because there is exactly zero evidence that such a belief is valid. The same goes for any other "faith-based" beliefs.
when did being a person of faith ... become an object of ridicule?
Off-topic, but: as far as I'm concerned, being "a person of faith" (as you put it) has always deserved ridicule. You would ridicule a grown man who believed in the Tooth Fairy, wouldn't you?
...the content that I would miss the most isn't ad-supported anyway, so it's not going anywhere.
The very best pages on the internet are those that are in the tone of "Hey, check out the information I've compiled about how Product X works. I reverse-engineered it; here are some pictures." Private enthusiasts always generate the most interesting stuff.
In a way, I think adblocker and the like are akin to people taking anti-biotics every time they get a sniffle. It just ends up creating new strains of antibiotic resistant germs which, eventually will not be able to be combatted.
Are you suggesting that we'll have unblockable ads at some point? I disagree. For that to happen, advertisers would have to have control over our computers at a fairly low level -- and, as they say, they can have that when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
And exactly how does knowing the answer to any of the above questions keep you driving at or lower than the speed limit, maintaining a proper following distance, obeying all traffic signals, merging correctly in construction zones, and not driving on the sidewalk? I think you're confusing being an efficient driver with being a good one.
You've just selected aspects of driving that don't show any overlap between "being a good driver" and "being an efficient driver". There are, however, lots of apsects that do show this overlap. For example, you shouldn't brake hard at the last second when coming up to an intersection. Doing so will (a) make people waiting at the intersection nervous because it's hard to determine your intentions, and (b) wear your brakes much faster.
There are other examples, too. People in areas with frequent flooding often stall or hydrolock their engines because they don't understand how intake and combustion work (so they'll try to ford a washed-out road or something; no pun intended.)
About adhering to the speed limit: I think you'll agree that staying around the speed limit is something a 'good' driver does, but it's also something an efficient driver does. Speed limits are typically close to the point where the efficiency of a car's engine and the aerodynamics of a car's body come into balance and the best fuel mileage is attained.
As for maintaining the proper following distance, I think it's pretty clear that people wouldn't gas-brake-gas-brake-gas-brake 15 feet behind the car in front of them if they knew that the material their pads and rotors are made from will last only a fraction as long as if they followed at a distance where they didn't need to use them.
The basic functioning of cars is really pretty simple. It's not a lot to ask to throw a few technical how-it-works questions on the written portion of the driver's exam.
You're equating knowing how to drive well with knowing how your car works, and you have the nerve to call my questions dumb?
Precisely correct. I don't think I've ever known a very good driver who didn't also have a pretty good idea of how a car works. I realize that's only anecdotal evidence -- I also present some questions that, if people were able to answer, would lead to a better driving experience:
Why it it bad to 'ride' the brakes when descending a hill?
While slowing down (when approaching a stop light, etc.), is more fuel saved by shifting to neutral or leaving the car in gear?
How does ABS work?
What are the problems caused by under- or over-inflated tires?
There are a lot of reasons to know more about your car.
So those who don't know exactly how their highly-computerized car works should not operate one?
I don't know if you're noticed, but approximately everyone is a terrible driver. The world would be a better place if people understood at least a little about how their cars work.
Should everyone who doesn't have a medical degree and fully understand the human body avoid medical care?
You should know enough to not go to some quack. If Dr. Stupid tells you that he's going to remove your liver-bone and you just nod your head in agreement, then you are the victim of your own ignorance.
Should everyone who doesn't fully understand the intricacies of their local, regional and national economies not participate in them?
Maybe people should understand a little more than they do? Then, perhaps, the businesses of spammers wouldn't be sustained by people who actually buy their products.
Any other dumb questions?
And yeah i use the product it beats the shit out of older soldering irons.
No it doesn't. The 'Cold Heat' iron passes current though the work, so it'll fry any solid-state electronics that you're trying to solder.
It's funny to see BitTorrent now get their comeuppance.
This, folks, is a perfect example of why you should both:
(a) read the article, and
(b) know something
before you make a smart-ass post.
Parent post should not, in fact, be -1, Troll, but rather +5, Exactly Fucking Correct. God damn it!
Are you mods braindead, or was I grossly misinformed?
THERE'S NOTHING IMPORTANT ON THE MOON.
I don't suppose the mod that rated my post 'Troll' would care to reverse that by posting and telling me what was incorrect about what I said? No, I thought not.
The Moon sucks, period.
Nevermind that the moon sustains our ecosystem by creating low and high tides in the ocean...
Did I say that we should completely destroy the moon? No, I did not. With our current level of technology, would such a thing even be possible? Probably not.
Besides, if ocean tides were changed or eliminated, the only organisms that wouldn't survive are the rubbish ones that couldn't adapt. Adaptation of lifeforms is the reason that we're here in the first place.
Why go back to the Moon? The Apollo missions were fine, just to show it can be done -- but there's nothing there. It doesn't really have any valuable or useful minerals that we can't easily get on Earth, and it's pretty difficult to operate on its surface due to the low gravity and lack of atmosphere.
My friend had a great idea: we should nuke the Moon. It would be totally spectacular to see something like that at night, and it would provide a use for all these nuclear weapons that are sitting around doing nothing.
I know at least 20 people who tried to order steak from McDonalds
No you don't.
See the difference?
... that the dollar is more important than freedom or principles.
I bet they'd be eager to know how to run a company and pay employees using freedom.
They buy them from hardware companies, put them in a shiny box
...and sell them for thrice the price!
What would you have done if you had not joined the Marines? Got a job with your high-school diploma?
...but a lot more drop out because they are stupid.
We're looking at you, you smarmy turtleneck-wearing bozo!
I think the availability to minors of pornography is a huge problem
Why?
(If you're from Indonesia, no problem, the software will only cost $1 anyways)
I think the concept of $1 Indonesian software just got filed between Korean old people and Soviet Russia.