Um, of course they will. You see, those are the consequences of your free speech. There has never been any real disagreement on this issue, you have free speech, and you have the responsibility to use it wisely.
Uh huh. By that definition, no nation on Earth has ever violated free speech rights:
King: I have declared that from now on, all my subjects have the right to free speech. Naive Subject: I disagree with the monarchy and think the people should elect representatives with short term periods! King: Arrest and execute that man! Naive Subject: But you said we had the right to free speech! King: And so you do! Nobody stopped you from saying what you did. However, you must now pay the consequences.
I agree that there are legitimate consequences to speech that one must answer for, but they don't include offending someone else. If you yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater, people can be hurt in the ensuing chaos. You should answer for inciting a panic, which was an actual consequence of your speech. If you commit libel, you can cost someone their reputation, and they should have the right to collect damages (and truth is an absolute defense to libel, because if you're stating the truth, you didn't damage their reputation, the person in question did it all his own, with his actions).
This wasn't libel, though. The page was a parody page pretending to be written by the principal, but nobody could mistake it for being an actual page written by said principal. Therefore, it's sort of like going on stage, and saying with a Michael Jackson like voice that you like little boys. Nobody would mistake you for Michael Jackson, so it's parody.
If you actually say that jacko is a child molester, and state that as truth, and not your opinion, then it's slander (because he was never convicted of such, and you can't prove it). However, that's not what analogous to what happened here.
What catches my attention is that the student didn't merely call the principle names, but also accused the principle of engaging in a felony (chile abuse; aka "hitting on kids").
From what I can tell, the page didn't accuse the principal of anything. It made a parody page, where the "principal" identified himself as being a pedophile, but which was obviously not written by the real principal, and could not be confused to be actually him.
If it is true, regardless of what is said on the page, it contains about as much libelous content as Fake Steve Jobs's blog.
Funny, I'm sick of third-party supporters telling me that the democrats are the republicans are "the same," which is an utter lie
On the issues that matters to a lot of people on this forum, they are the same. They're both for big government (although the republicans don't admit it, we've seen it first hand). They're both for draconian copyright terms. Now apparently they're both against net neutrality.
and I'm also sick of being urged to vote for someone whose policies I detest (like Ron Paul) simply to make a statement.
I would never want you to vote for someone whose policies you detest, that's ridiculous. In fact, the reason I advocate third-party voting is to stop people from voting for people they dislike. People keep telling me this bullshit about "lesser of two evils" and won't even read the stance of third-party candidates. The reason we're stuck between the two candidates whose policies they detest is exactly because nobody will consider the other guys. If they did, they'd have a chance of winning.
If, on the other hand, you actually like the democrat or republican candidate, then by all means, vote for one of them. That's democracy in action. Just don't bitch that you hate "both" candidates and that you can't vote for another because you'd be "wasting your vote."
"we're the US government. we don't DO that sort of thing."
Wesley: "I'm with Starfleet. We don't lie!" (Justice, TNG)
I swear, the writers must have been trying a social experiment to see if they could make Wesley so disliked that trekkies would try to kill Wil Wheaton...
Remember Trekkies...as your God, I'd much rather you kill Berman.
I honestly don't get the whole hate that Wikipedia seems to have against sci-fi and geeky topics... I think it's an attack by people who figure that if they have too much of it that Wikipedia won't resemble an old media encylopedia.
It's not just sci-fi and geeky topics. It's the whole "low-brow" and "high-brow" battle that has always existed. It's pretty annoying, but anytime people add information that others consider "low-brow" (which happens a lot with pop-culture topics), people complain that it's diminishing wikipedia.
I personally believe Wikipedia's strength is in how it contains information about a large number of topics traditional encyclopedias wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. All that it needs is one editor that is interested in the topic and suddenly the article pops up. Nothing else comes close as a one-stop source of preliminary information or as a method to quickly satisfy your curiosity on a topic (if used correctly as a starting point in your research, even the issues of article vandalism and incorrect information are unimportant. You'll get the information as a starting point and sort out what's correct and what's incorrect later on in your research. Just don't use it as your sole source, which applies to anything really).
I'm glad to see somebody else agrees with me that filtering of information is a step in the wrong direction for wikipedia. As long as the articles are properly organized, if you're not interested in a particular section, you can just skip it.
Society doesn't care about your life. Society also doesn't care about your ability to use tools. Society wants to protect itself, and if that means you lose your life because you can't use a tool, that's just tough luck.
Now, whether or not there is a greater value to society that comes from banning guns is a totally separate question, but is really the only relevant one.
I don't think you understand what the point of "society" is. First of all, it's not a living entity, and it doesn't like to be anthropomorphized.
Individuals define the society they live under. It's called a social contract. As an individual, you only agree to enact a societal rule because it somehow benefits you. Otherwise, you wouldn't agree. Because people value different things, we don't always get what we want, but the whole point is individual satisfaction. If it's not working for you, and you can't get enough people to agree on a change, you should move to a society of more like-minded people. There's absolutely no reason to be part of a society that maximizes the common good unless you're part of that common good. This is also a reason for having very few laws at a large scale government level (federal) and having most of the laws on a lower scale (state, municipal). It makes it easier for you to find a society of like-minded people that fits in with your views.
As far as the gun laws argument, as with every law, what we need to think about is the purpose of the law. If it's about cutting down on armed robberies and gun homicides, then the argument "only outlaws will have guns" is valid because anyone committing any type of robbery and homicide is already willing to break teh law, and a law against gun ownership isn't going to deter them. Instead, it prevents law abiding citizens, who would not be committing those illegal acts anyway, from owning guns, which is not the intention of the law. These people are losing their rights to perform actions that society doesn't necessary care about.
On the other hand, if the goal is lowering gun accidents then lowering the overall number of guns in legitimate settings will work. This is a point where lots of people differ, though. People like me don't want the government protecting people from their idiocy. I don't like seat belts laws either (in fact, I like seat belt laws worse than I like gun laws. Gun accidents usually involve other people, but if you don't wear your seat belt you're only hurting yourself).
You know, I was actually going to follow and read all the links you posted as an attempt to understand why creationists sometimes consider evolution and other sciences another form of religion, and then I intended to post a well-formed rebuttal. However, I couldn't get past your first link. I couldn't even finish reading it.
Basically, the contents of that page offended me. Not because I care what other people believe in, but because it was obvious that the people who wrote that piece are not actually that dumb, but are trying their best to mislead the less educated and that's just really dishonest. Examples:
However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution -- in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.
Citation needed for the whole "the majority of evolutionists are not Christians" part, but most importantly, evolution doesn't try to disprove God had a role in the creation of life. It simply cannot include God, because God is an unfalsifiable factor. Individual Christian scientists can and do believe that God directed evolution, but understand that this is a personal belief, and not a scientific theory (so they don't push for ID in classrooms either).
On the other hand, Adam and Eve being created 6,000 years ago with the rest of the Earth is a falsifiable claim, and there's plenty of evidence against it, so give up already. So far, that could be attributed to just an honest mistake, but here's where it gets dishonest:
On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.
That's not at all what they said. They said, "if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis" and NOT, "if all the evidence supported Genesis." So, for example, if at some point in the Bible it is mentioned that God makes things fall, the theory of gravity "best fits" the statement that "things fall" by saying that objects with mass are attracted to one another. It does not require a God, but it does not serve to "disprove" God. Again, the reason why we need to keep religion separate from science is because nothing can disprove the hypothesis of an all-powerful being that can do whatever He wants and that makes it unscientific. By the same token, it means you people can stop feeling like we're out to get you. Nothing science ever says will disprove the existence of God, it can only disprove certain things like a 6,000 year-old Earth.
What pisses me off is that I didn't even read the full context of the original quote, and I could spot their mistake. I can only expect it would be even more obvious if I had read the full article. Here's another dishonest moment:
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand t
Re:Ignorance vs. the Unknown
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Just remember - when they tested the first atomic bomb, they didn't know if it would ignite the atmosphere or not.
Fortunately it didn't.
No, no they didn't. Stop trying to frame scientists as these irresponsible idiots who could murder us all in one experiment. One person proposed that possibility, and it was thoroughly refuted before the test. From Wikipedia's Manhattan Project page:
Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere, because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. Bethe calculated, according to Serber, that it could not happen. In his book The Road from Los Alamos, Bethe says a refutation was written by Konopinski, C. Marvin, and Teller as report LA-602, showing that ignition of the atmosphere was impossible, not just unlikely.[7] In Serber's account, Oppenheimer mentioned it to Arthur Compton, who "didn't have enough sense to shut up about it. It somehow got into a document that went to Washington" which led to the question being "never laid to rest".[8]
Similarly, there's no chance the LHC can kill us. As you said, "we (as a species) haven't done anything on the scale of the LHC before" but that doesn't change the fact that nature does it all the time. Earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays of energy levels higher than the LHC can produce. If it could have destroyed us, it would have already.
The loons get airplay because the loony airplay gets the ratings - and TV/radio is about ad revenue first and actual content second.;p
If J.P. Schook is elected to be my representative, then it's his job to represent me, regardless of whether I voted for him, against him, or not at all.
Because voting is how you tell the candidate what your views are. He tells you what he's going to do while campaigning. If those views match what the majority of people in the community have, then he wins. Otherwise, the guy with the opposing views wins. If you don't vote, you're not telling anyone what your views are (most importantly, your representative doesn't know if it's the view most of the people he is representing have. You can call him, and he knows what you think, but you could be the one dissenting voice).
After all, it's not about representing you. It's about representing your community. If you're the one dissenting voice among the people around you on a particular issue, you're not somehow more important than the rest.
Now, if you don't vote, but you organize a sufficient number of people and lobby for something, he'll also listen to you. Not because he'll think it's their duty to represent you (politicians don't, even though it is), but because he'll be afraid of how you and your people are going to vote in the next election. The effect is the same though: you're telling your representative what your views are.
What I'm suggesting is the system where people choose to be unrepresented rather than misrepresented, and where their empty seat always inevitably votes "nay", no matter what the proposal.
Actually, with that last bit in place, I find that I actually like your idea. I originally interpreted your empty seats to be "abstained" votes, which is what happens now in the US when the congresspeople just aren't there to vote. If not voting means an automatic "nay", that would work well.
I still don't think enough people would bother to vote with empty ballots that any seat would actually be empty, but like you said, that's an ideal world solution anyway.
First, I have no interest in running for office. I follow politics to some degree, but it's not a passionate interest and I have other things that I do that are of more importance. To me.
Well, I meant to say that if there' snobody on the ballot you can stomach and you feel like you must make some sort of difference anyway then you should run for office.
I don't have anything against people not voting at all and staying home. In fact, I think it's desirable for people who didn't fully research the issues and the candidates to not vote (and I'm not saying that applies to you, since you said you follow politics. You still have the right to not vote for any reason).
Second, if someone wishes to run for office, it is up to him to convince me that he is worthy. It's not my job to bang his or anyone else's drum.
True enough, but then you lose all rights to complain. There are things you can do, and if you choose not to do them, you chose not to do them, it's not a problem with the system itself.
I'm not running for office either, I don't have any intention of running for office. I don't vote for the vast majority of elections because I feel like I haven't fully researched the issues. When I do vote, I know who I'm voting for, what they stand for, and I'm not afraid of voting third-party. I was just telling the other poster what he could do that would actually work if he wants to do something to make a difference.
eg. Asking the special Unix team if it was possible after a "dd" - as if Unix writes to the disk in some special way that Windows doesn't.
It's not because Unix writes to the disk in some special way, it's because nobody outside their unix team would know wtf the "dd" command does, so it had to escalate to them once they explained what they did to the drive.
I agree with the challenge though. It can't be done.
Not for a $40 reward, that's for goddamn sure. I'm not willing to spend time searching for a file that isn't deleted, and they just forgot where they saved it. Yes, I would charge over $40 to use the "find" command.
Furthermore, a declined or an invalid ballot is subsequently ignored. If 10% of the population cast such ballots, they will not get 10% of empty seats to represent them. So please do not flame me.
The problem with your plan is that it assumes two things that just aren't true:
Politicians would somehow be 'shamed' when they are reminded that not everyone supports them. Their actual response will be more along the lines of, "sweet! That district usually opposes me on issues A and B, and now that they chose to be unrepresented, I shall propose bills that deal with A and B. Basically, there's one thing that is worse than being represented by a crappy politician, and that is having no representation at all.
There are enough people who would cast empty ballots for that even to matter. In the United States, people don't even vote for the third-party candidate that matches their views because "(s)he can't win". Well, they can't win because you morons won't vote for them!
Here are the solutions that actually have a chance. If you find someone on the ballot that matches your views, vote for him even if he has "no chance of winning." At least his votes will be counted, and if he does get enough votes, he will get the office (which does exactly what you want).
If there's nobody on the ballot that you can stomach, run for office yourself, or work to help somebody else get on the ballot.
I'd appreciate it very much if someone could please explain to me, how is it possible that one company sells something at a loss and it's called "dumping" (which you can get in trouble for, IIUC), and another company sells something at a loss and it's called a "loss leader?" Wtf? It's especially clear in this case, when you have orange rings of death and whatnot, that the purpose is to bankrupt the competition by selling yours for less. By the time someone spent their Christmas money on one product, they won't buy the other. Hence, dumping.
They're only "dumping" if their business plan doesn't indirectly profit from the sales, thus compensating for the losses in consoles.
For example, if I'm a gas station across from another gas station, and I start selling gas at $1/gallon in order to get the other gas station to fold, I'm dumping. I'm just losing money, no part of my business plan makes any money back. It's not a "loss leader" for anything else.
However, with videogame consoles, neither sony or microsoft are losing money in their videogame division. Yes, they lose money on the console sale, but they make tons of profit with sales associated with the console. Once you have an xbox, you need to buy games for it. You'll likely pay for an xbox-live subscription, you might buy movies at their media store, etc. Same for sony, minus the live subscription.
Basically, their business plan is sustainable, even if the other company doesn't fold (and it won't, because they are all making a profit). That's actually good for customers, because their competition on price means we get cheaper consoles. The loss leader thing is actually the free market working, not a way to bypass it like dumping.
I have literally/always/ had better performance with dosemu for games, with out it taking much CPU usage. Hence why I use it.
YMMV, I guess. I like dosemu, but it emulates DOS so well that I always end up revisiting my days of trying to get enough conventional memory going before I can start a game. DOSBox takes care of that. It's not dosemu's fault, it's a result of them being a full emulator. You can replace the freedos they supply with MS-DOS and it'll work.
DOSBox has all the drivers you need (like sound blaster and mouse) already "loaded" without actually taking up any memory that the DOS applications can see. So 640k ends up actually being enough for anyone:)
I don't keep any valuable data on my Ubuntu box. If it comes to it (perhaps because someone gains root access to my box and locks me out), I can simply reformat and reinstall Ubuntu.
A lot of people have this attitude, but 90% of them are wrong (and 93.732% of all statistics are made up). Do you log on to your bank / credit card online? Do you let firefox save your passwords?
I've only helped someone clean a virus once, but when I did it, not only did I let the virus scanner clean it, but I told him to find all the files he needed, formatted his computer (you never know if a hidden rootkit might be interfering with the virus scan), created a partition for just data to simplify the next format, if needed, reinstalled windows, scanned the backups for viruses to make sure we weren't loading them back on, and recommended he change his username and password to every financial web site he logged on to, as well as e-mail. You never know what the thing harvested.
And has also been said before: So what - that doesn't cause random errors made by uninformed ignoramuses to magically become correct usage.
That's exactly the process by which language changes, dude. When people start using terms incorrectly and people don't understand what they mean, those people are wrong. When the incorrect usage overtakes the correct usage and more people will understand the "incorrect" usage, then it's no longer "incorrect." Use of the outdated form may in fact come to be incorrect later on.
Language is about conveying meaning. Any language rules that exist, exist to standardize and facilitate communication. That means that what the most people understand something to mean is what it actually means. If you have to explain the terms you're using by using extra language, you're doing it wrong.
It's entirely possible to have a niche vocabulary among nerds that holds the old usage of crackers, phreakers, and hackers. To expect an AP article to use those terms is stupid. The majority of people reading the article wouldn't understand what they mean, but they do in fact understand precisely what they meant by the word "hacker."
There's also the possibility that you actually trust someone. My wife knows the passwords for some of my stuff, simply out of convenience. It -does- happen that she needs some stuff (say pictures) from my laptop and I'm out. The home-partition is encrypted, she knows the password.
Well, that's the point I tried to make, but failed. If I give my password out to someone, it implies permission for them to use it. So they couldn't possibly use it "without authorization."
It just seems bizarre to me how many people think it's normal to give out their password to family/friends/partners/whatever. I've never revealed a password to anyone in my life and never will, and my really important ones get changed regularly.
Well, I have given out my bs password to friends, but I consider the "giving out of password" to be "permission to use it anyplace that I used said password at any time, without having to ask me." I'm not counting on their restraint other than their restraint to not give out passwords to others. If they do, I'll just change the password and not tell them the new one (since it only opens up stuff I don't care about anyway, it wouldn't be that big of a deal). The question is does that study count, "they didn't know I logged on july 15th, 2006, but they knew I logged on to those sites before" as "without permission"?
Obviously I have never given out my root password / bank password / important emails password / anything I don't want anybody else logging on to passwords to anyone and never will.
Doped or not doped, the entirety of professional sports is a sham. These people are treated with far greater respect, given far more opportunities to excel and far more financial compensation than any scientist, engineer or teacher ever will. Someone making 30 million a year for what amounts to being lucky to have their genetics is ridiculous (sure, training is involved, but training without supporting genetics means squat).
One of the downsides of the whole PC movement is the belief that we should ignore people's differences. Everything you are now capable of doing comes down to being lucky to have the genes you have. Plus training and dedication.
So you're not an athlete. I assume you're some type of scientist, engineer, or maybe a teacher. Your genes probably gave you above-average intelligence. That doesn't mean the work you put in to get educated means squat. You might not have had to study for tests, and others had to study for 4-8 hours. Then you still got a higher grade then they did. Congratulations, you will most likely have an easier time finding a job, you will most likely find a higher paying job, and all because you were lucky to land your genes.
Besides, training without supporting genetics doesn't mean squat. Unless you have an actual disability, training will improve your current condition and make you better in whatever you choose to be. In order to be the among the best in the world, training won't get you there without the genetics to support you, but again, that's true for everything. You are not going to be the next Albert Einstein, no matter how much you study physics (statistically speaking, I'm assuming you're not a genius).
People in science, education, arts and entrepreneurial business have to work their asses off to achieve something tangible as opposed to one of these "sports professionals" who have trained themselves to run REALLY fast in a straight line (sometimes in an oval too!)
I say fuck the games, let's simply let professional sport die as it should and leave sports as an enjoyable hobby / past time; not the enormous waste of time, money and space that it currently enjoys.
That's ridiculous. We don't have a shortage of people in the world. Like you said, these people were gifted with genes that make them outstanding athletes. Most of them would make only mediocre scientists, engineers, teachers, artists, or entrepreneurs. Some of them will go on to other professions once their athletic career is over. The waste would have been to ignore their potential. If you had the chance to truly excel at something, would you not want to?
Besides, professional sports does benefit the rest of us. There's a lot of science that goes on to train them. That benefits us. The money isn't wasted. People who pay to see the games are enjoying themselves, and that money isn't destroyed. It's used to pay for scholarships, it's used to pay for medical professionals, the money you paid for food and drinks is going to the people who supplied you with food and drinks...in turn those people are spending the money they earn in other things, and so forth. You cannot possibly "waste" money. It's impossible.
I really hate the whole politically correct thing thing. People are different, some are better at some things than others, and there's no shame in that. It's bad when you start thinking that being a world class athlete makes you a better person, because you're ignoring the fact that there are other skills that you suck at. It's bad when you're a kickass scientist and you think you're a better person than the jock. There's nothing wrong with knowing that you are naturally gifted in your field. Thank your deity if you believe in such things, and value the differences that allow others to accomplish that which you cannot.
And if you hate steak enough to order it ruined (with lots of nasty steak sauce to replace the flavor, I can only assume), why the heck would you eat at a steakhouse?
I hate raw steak enough that I want it cooked, but I don't hate steak. I usually like mine medium-well, but well-done is preferable to medium and below. I know a lot of people really like that raw meat taste, and I say more power to them. Why the hell some of those people take it as an insult that I don't like my food the same way they do, I'll never understand. The people who like the raw meat flavor will say that cooking removes that flavor, and I know that. I want that flavor removed. If you don't, order your steak medium-rare, rare, or even completely uncooked, and you won't be hearing any insults or sneers from me.
I'm sure that's why the waiter was annoyed with your brother.
He has no right to get annoyed, what difference would it make to him? If a waiter delivered my steak saying that they had to "ruin it," my first instinct would be to reply by saying that I wanted a "well-done" steak, not a "ruined steak" and if he can't deliver that, I'll be leaving for a restaurant that can. Also make sure to inform the manager of the reason I'm not returning to that particular restaurant.
Thankfully I don't usually act based on my first instincts, and try not to act like an asshole, even with people who ARE assholes. I'll interpret the first comment like that as a joke, but if the rest of his service is as poor, his tip will start to suffer.
Also, depending on the thickness, it can take over 20 minutes to cook a well-done steak
I'll definitely agree with that but I'm not one to get annoyed when food takes a long time to arrive anyway.
This just goes to show that just because something is done scientifically and according to the scientific method doesn't mean it's right.
Nobody claims it is. That's one of the differences between science and religion. Scientists don't never claim they're right unless it's a direct observation. They claim that a particular theory best fits current observation until it is contradicted. Scientists live for finding contradictions in accepted theories. That's the best result there is, because it leads to greater understanding.
For instance, you can scientifically prove that God doesn't exist all you want given the small amount of information we know about our universe.
No, you can't. That's why religion isn't science. A requirement for any scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. It must make predictions that, if they do not hold true, indicate the theory is wrong or at least incomplete.
The reasonable objections to the religious folks (I'll certainly admit there are some people that have unreasonable prejudices against religion) is when they try to place religion in the science classroom. You can't teach intelligence design as an alternative theory to evolution because intelligence design is not a falsifiable theory, and is therefore not science. Scientists are not saying that Intelligent Design isn't true. They're saying precisely that they can't prove that it's not true, and it therefore does not qualify as science. To ask it to be placed in equal footing in the science classroom is as ridiculous as asking churches to teach evolution in sunday school as an alternative to ID and creationism. It's not religion, it's science, it makes no sense for it to be taught there.
In other words, science can't explain everything...anything outside the world around us (aka: God) is, by definition, not bound by the rules of science.
Agreed, and no scientist claims otherwise. That's exactly why we can't include anything related to God or other religions in scientific theories, regardless of the personal beliefs of the scientist. However, many of the religious folk take leaving out God from the theories as saying that science is trying to disprove God. It's not. We simply accept that we can't disprove God, we can't prove or disprove Shiva, and we can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster through any observation. Therefore, we cannot assume their existence and try to explain all physical phenomena we can without them.
Let the burning begin.
Hopefully you'll agree that there was no burning. I'm agnostic, and I don't personally believe we need a "purpose" here other than the one we create for ourselves, but I completely respect whatever beliefs you choose to have. This isn't arrogance on my part, I'm also prepared to admit that your beliefs may be the correct ones (which is what makes me an agnostic), even though I don't share them. I just thought that you were being honest in your mistaken belief about the scientific method, and not trolling, maybe because of encounters you've had with people who were prejudiced against religion, and figured I could point you in the right direction.
the godawful Batman & Robin (to date, the only movie I've walked out of)
You must not have had the opportunity to walk out on Van Helsing. That movie was so bad that when I went to see it with my college roommate, I intended to walk out after about 15 minutes. Unfortunately, he had driven us to the theater, which meant I was stuck, and I didn't want to be impolite by asking him if he wanted to leave. Therefore, I proceeded with the only logical alternative: I got into as comfortable a position as I could, and tried to fall asleep.
The movie was surprisingly effective for that purpose, although for the money I paid, the theater should have more comfortable sleeping arrangements. The kindergarten type pads for nap-time would have been awesome. I might have paid to see it again, if those were available:)
I don't buy the "space alien" story for the simple reason that the "Area 51" aliens look too much like us.
I don't buy it either, and that's the second best argument to be made. The only counter-argument I can think of is that in order for there to be intelligent life above a certain level, evolutionary pressures may require certain similarities. For example, dolphins are pretty intelligent beings, but they're unlikely to grow to an intelligence capable of civilization before evolving a way to leave the water (so they may create fire) and manipulate tool. It's possible that anything that is as intelligent as us (or more) would have to be remarkably similar in appearance.
Plus, how would they have found us?
Depends on how common life is. For all you know, we're in the closest system to their own, and we're the first other system they've explored. Which would explain why only one alien species showed up thus far.
I can believe time travel before I believe faster than light travel.
I'm not a physicist but my limited pop-culture understanding of relativity implies that if you solve one problem, you solve the other. If we can figure out how to travel to the past, we should have all the tools we need to figure out how to travel ftl, and vice-versa.
I said earlier that their similarity to us is the second best argument for their non-existence, so you might be wondering what the best argument is. The best argument is that our government can't even hide their wire-tapping activities, do we really expect them to be able to hide something like space aliens?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, of course they will. You see, those are the consequences of your free speech. There has never been any real disagreement on this issue, you have free speech, and you have the responsibility to use it wisely.
Uh huh. By that definition, no nation on Earth has ever violated free speech rights:
King: I have declared that from now on, all my subjects have the right to free speech.
Naive Subject: I disagree with the monarchy and think the people should elect representatives with short term periods!
King: Arrest and execute that man!
Naive Subject: But you said we had the right to free speech!
King: And so you do! Nobody stopped you from saying what you did. However, you must now pay the consequences.
I agree that there are legitimate consequences to speech that one must answer for, but they don't include offending someone else. If you yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater, people can be hurt in the ensuing chaos. You should answer for inciting a panic, which was an actual consequence of your speech. If you commit libel, you can cost someone their reputation, and they should have the right to collect damages (and truth is an absolute defense to libel, because if you're stating the truth, you didn't damage their reputation, the person in question did it all his own, with his actions).
This wasn't libel, though. The page was a parody page pretending to be written by the principal, but nobody could mistake it for being an actual page written by said principal. Therefore, it's sort of like going on stage, and saying with a Michael Jackson like voice that you like little boys. Nobody would mistake you for Michael Jackson, so it's parody.
If you actually say that jacko is a child molester, and state that as truth, and not your opinion, then it's slander (because he was never convicted of such, and you can't prove it). However, that's not what analogous to what happened here.
What catches my attention is that the student didn't merely call the principle names, but also accused the principle of engaging in a felony (chile abuse; aka "hitting on kids").
From what I can tell, the page didn't accuse the principal of anything. It made a parody page, where the "principal" identified himself as being a pedophile, but which was obviously not written by the real principal, and could not be confused to be actually him.
If it is true, regardless of what is said on the page, it contains about as much libelous content as Fake Steve Jobs's blog.
Funny, I'm sick of third-party supporters telling me that the democrats are the republicans are "the same," which is an utter lie
On the issues that matters to a lot of people on this forum, they are the same. They're both for big government (although the republicans don't admit it, we've seen it first hand). They're both for draconian copyright terms. Now apparently they're both against net neutrality.
and I'm also sick of being urged to vote for someone whose policies I detest (like Ron Paul) simply to make a statement.
I would never want you to vote for someone whose policies you detest, that's ridiculous. In fact, the reason I advocate third-party voting is to stop people from voting for people they dislike. People keep telling me this bullshit about "lesser of two evils" and won't even read the stance of third-party candidates. The reason we're stuck between the two candidates whose policies they detest is exactly because nobody will consider the other guys. If they did, they'd have a chance of winning.
If, on the other hand, you actually like the democrat or republican candidate, then by all means, vote for one of them. That's democracy in action. Just don't bitch that you hate "both" candidates and that you can't vote for another because you'd be "wasting your vote."
to [mis]quote a movie:
"we're the US government. we don't DO that sort of thing."
Wesley: "I'm with Starfleet. We don't lie!"
(Justice, TNG)
I swear, the writers must have been trying a social experiment to see if they could make Wesley so disliked that trekkies would try to kill Wil Wheaton...
Remember Trekkies...as your God, I'd much rather you kill Berman.
I honestly don't get the whole hate that Wikipedia seems to have against sci-fi and geeky topics... I think it's an attack by people who figure that if they have too much of it that Wikipedia won't resemble an old media encylopedia.
It's not just sci-fi and geeky topics. It's the whole "low-brow" and "high-brow" battle that has always existed. It's pretty annoying, but anytime people add information that others consider "low-brow" (which happens a lot with pop-culture topics), people complain that it's diminishing wikipedia.
I personally believe Wikipedia's strength is in how it contains information about a large number of topics traditional encyclopedias wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. All that it needs is one editor that is interested in the topic and suddenly the article pops up. Nothing else comes close as a one-stop source of preliminary information or as a method to quickly satisfy your curiosity on a topic (if used correctly as a starting point in your research, even the issues of article vandalism and incorrect information are unimportant. You'll get the information as a starting point and sort out what's correct and what's incorrect later on in your research. Just don't use it as your sole source, which applies to anything really).
I'm glad to see somebody else agrees with me that filtering of information is a step in the wrong direction for wikipedia. As long as the articles are properly organized, if you're not interested in a particular section, you can just skip it.
Society doesn't care about your life. Society also doesn't care about your ability to use tools. Society wants to protect itself, and if that means you lose your life because you can't use a tool, that's just tough luck.
Now, whether or not there is a greater value to society that comes from banning guns is a totally separate question, but is really the only relevant one.
I don't think you understand what the point of "society" is. First of all, it's not a living entity, and it doesn't like to be anthropomorphized.
Individuals define the society they live under. It's called a social contract. As an individual, you only agree to enact a societal rule because it somehow benefits you. Otherwise, you wouldn't agree. Because people value different things, we don't always get what we want, but the whole point is individual satisfaction. If it's not working for you, and you can't get enough people to agree on a change, you should move to a society of more like-minded people. There's absolutely no reason to be part of a society that maximizes the common good unless you're part of that common good. This is also a reason for having very few laws at a large scale government level (federal) and having most of the laws on a lower scale (state, municipal). It makes it easier for you to find a society of like-minded people that fits in with your views.
As far as the gun laws argument, as with every law, what we need to think about is the purpose of the law. If it's about cutting down on armed robberies and gun homicides, then the argument "only outlaws will have guns" is valid because anyone committing any type of robbery and homicide is already willing to break teh law, and a law against gun ownership isn't going to deter them. Instead, it prevents law abiding citizens, who would not be committing those illegal acts anyway, from owning guns, which is not the intention of the law. These people are losing their rights to perform actions that society doesn't necessary care about.
On the other hand, if the goal is lowering gun accidents then lowering the overall number of guns in legitimate settings will work. This is a point where lots of people differ, though. People like me don't want the government protecting people from their idiocy. I don't like seat belts laws either (in fact, I like seat belt laws worse than I like gun laws. Gun accidents usually involve other people, but if you don't wear your seat belt you're only hurting yourself).
You know, I was actually going to follow and read all the links you posted as an attempt to understand why creationists sometimes consider evolution and other sciences another form of religion, and then I intended to post a well-formed rebuttal. However, I couldn't get past your first link. I couldn't even finish reading it.
Basically, the contents of that page offended me. Not because I care what other people believe in, but because it was obvious that the people who wrote that piece are not actually that dumb, but are trying their best to mislead the less educated and that's just really dishonest. Examples:
However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution -- in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.
Citation needed for the whole "the majority of evolutionists are not Christians" part, but most importantly, evolution doesn't try to disprove God had a role in the creation of life. It simply cannot include God, because God is an unfalsifiable factor. Individual Christian scientists can and do believe that God directed evolution, but understand that this is a personal belief, and not a scientific theory (so they don't push for ID in classrooms either).
On the other hand, Adam and Eve being created 6,000 years ago with the rest of the Earth is a falsifiable claim, and there's plenty of evidence against it, so give up already. So far, that could be attributed to just an honest mistake, but here's where it gets dishonest:
On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.
That's not at all what they said. They said, "if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis" and NOT, "if all the evidence supported Genesis." So, for example, if at some point in the Bible it is mentioned that God makes things fall, the theory of gravity "best fits" the statement that "things fall" by saying that objects with mass are attracted to one another. It does not require a God, but it does not serve to "disprove" God. Again, the reason why we need to keep religion separate from science is because nothing can disprove the hypothesis of an all-powerful being that can do whatever He wants and that makes it unscientific. By the same token, it means you people can stop feeling like we're out to get you. Nothing science ever says will disprove the existence of God, it can only disprove certain things like a 6,000 year-old Earth.
What pisses me off is that I didn't even read the full context of the original quote, and I could spot their mistake. I can only expect it would be even more obvious if I had read the full article. Here's another dishonest moment:
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand t
Just remember - when they tested the first atomic bomb, they didn't know if it would ignite the atmosphere or not.
Fortunately it didn't.
No, no they didn't. Stop trying to frame scientists as these irresponsible idiots who could murder us all in one experiment. One person proposed that possibility, and it was thoroughly refuted before the test. From Wikipedia's Manhattan Project page:
Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere, because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. Bethe calculated, according to Serber, that it could not happen. In his book The Road from Los Alamos, Bethe says a refutation was written by Konopinski, C. Marvin, and Teller as report LA-602, showing that ignition of the atmosphere was impossible, not just unlikely.[7] In Serber's account, Oppenheimer mentioned it to Arthur Compton, who "didn't have enough sense to shut up about it. It somehow got into a document that went to Washington" which led to the question being "never laid to rest".[8]
Similarly, there's no chance the LHC can kill us. As you said, "we (as a species) haven't done anything on the scale of the LHC before" but that doesn't change the fact that nature does it all the time. Earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays of energy levels higher than the LHC can produce. If it could have destroyed us, it would have already.
The loons get airplay because the loony airplay gets the ratings - and TV/radio is about ad revenue first and actual content second. ;p
No argument with that.
If J.P. Schook is elected to be my representative, then it's his job to represent me, regardless of whether I voted for him, against him, or not at all.
Because voting is how you tell the candidate what your views are. He tells you what he's going to do while campaigning. If those views match what the majority of people in the community have, then he wins. Otherwise, the guy with the opposing views wins. If you don't vote, you're not telling anyone what your views are (most importantly, your representative doesn't know if it's the view most of the people he is representing have. You can call him, and he knows what you think, but you could be the one dissenting voice).
After all, it's not about representing you. It's about representing your community. If you're the one dissenting voice among the people around you on a particular issue, you're not somehow more important than the rest.
Now, if you don't vote, but you organize a sufficient number of people and lobby for something, he'll also listen to you. Not because he'll think it's their duty to represent you (politicians don't, even though it is), but because he'll be afraid of how you and your people are going to vote in the next election. The effect is the same though: you're telling your representative what your views are.
What I'm suggesting is the system where people choose to be unrepresented rather than misrepresented, and where their empty seat always inevitably votes "nay", no matter what the proposal.
Actually, with that last bit in place, I find that I actually like your idea. I originally interpreted your empty seats to be "abstained" votes, which is what happens now in the US when the congresspeople just aren't there to vote. If not voting means an automatic "nay", that would work well.
I still don't think enough people would bother to vote with empty ballots that any seat would actually be empty, but like you said, that's an ideal world solution anyway.
First, I have no interest in running for office. I follow politics to some degree, but it's not a passionate interest and I have other things that I do that are of more importance. To me.
Well, I meant to say that if there' snobody on the ballot you can stomach and you feel like you must make some sort of difference anyway then you should run for office.
I don't have anything against people not voting at all and staying home. In fact, I think it's desirable for people who didn't fully research the issues and the candidates to not vote (and I'm not saying that applies to you, since you said you follow politics. You still have the right to not vote for any reason).
Second, if someone wishes to run for office, it is up to him to convince me that he is worthy. It's not my job to bang his or anyone else's drum.
True enough, but then you lose all rights to complain. There are things you can do, and if you choose not to do them, you chose not to do them, it's not a problem with the system itself.
I'm not running for office either, I don't have any intention of running for office. I don't vote for the vast majority of elections because I feel like I haven't fully researched the issues. When I do vote, I know who I'm voting for, what they stand for, and I'm not afraid of voting third-party. I was just telling the other poster what he could do that would actually work if he wants to do something to make a difference.
eg. Asking the special Unix team if it was possible after a "dd" - as if Unix writes to the disk in some special way that Windows doesn't.
It's not because Unix writes to the disk in some special way, it's because nobody outside their unix team would know wtf the "dd" command does, so it had to escalate to them once they explained what they did to the drive.
I agree with the challenge though. It can't be done.
Not for a $40 reward, that's for goddamn sure. I'm not willing to spend time searching for a file that isn't deleted, and they just forgot where they saved it. Yes, I would charge over $40 to use the "find" command.
Furthermore, a declined or an invalid ballot is subsequently ignored. If 10% of the population cast such ballots, they will not get 10% of empty seats to represent them. So please do not flame me.
The problem with your plan is that it assumes two things that just aren't true:
Here are the solutions that actually have a chance. If you find someone on the ballot that matches your views, vote for him even if he has "no chance of winning." At least his votes will be counted, and if he does get enough votes, he will get the office (which does exactly what you want).
If there's nobody on the ballot that you can stomach, run for office yourself, or work to help somebody else get on the ballot.
I'd appreciate it very much if someone could please explain to me, how is it possible that one company sells something at a loss and it's called "dumping" (which you can get in trouble for, IIUC), and another company sells something at a loss and it's called a "loss leader?" Wtf? It's especially clear in this case, when you have orange rings of death and whatnot, that the purpose is to bankrupt the competition by selling yours for less. By the time someone spent their Christmas money on one product, they won't buy the other. Hence, dumping.
They're only "dumping" if their business plan doesn't indirectly profit from the sales, thus compensating for the losses in consoles.
For example, if I'm a gas station across from another gas station, and I start selling gas at $1/gallon in order to get the other gas station to fold, I'm dumping. I'm just losing money, no part of my business plan makes any money back. It's not a "loss leader" for anything else.
However, with videogame consoles, neither sony or microsoft are losing money in their videogame division. Yes, they lose money on the console sale, but they make tons of profit with sales associated with the console. Once you have an xbox, you need to buy games for it. You'll likely pay for an xbox-live subscription, you might buy movies at their media store, etc. Same for sony, minus the live subscription.
Basically, their business plan is sustainable, even if the other company doesn't fold (and it won't, because they are all making a profit). That's actually good for customers, because their competition on price means we get cheaper consoles. The loss leader thing is actually the free market working, not a way to bypass it like dumping.
I have literally /always/ had better performance with dosemu for games, with out it taking much CPU usage. Hence why I use it.
YMMV, I guess. I like dosemu, but it emulates DOS so well that I always end up revisiting my days of trying to get enough conventional memory going before I can start a game. DOSBox takes care of that. It's not dosemu's fault, it's a result of them being a full emulator. You can replace the freedos they supply with MS-DOS and it'll work.
DOSBox has all the drivers you need (like sound blaster and mouse) already "loaded" without actually taking up any memory that the DOS applications can see. So 640k ends up actually being enough for anyone :)
I don't keep any valuable data on my Ubuntu box. If it comes to it (perhaps because someone gains root access to my box and locks me out), I can simply reformat and reinstall Ubuntu.
A lot of people have this attitude, but 90% of them are wrong (and 93.732% of all statistics are made up). Do you log on to your bank / credit card online? Do you let firefox save your passwords?
I've only helped someone clean a virus once, but when I did it, not only did I let the virus scanner clean it, but I told him to find all the files he needed, formatted his computer (you never know if a hidden rootkit might be interfering with the virus scan), created a partition for just data to simplify the next format, if needed, reinstalled windows, scanned the backups for viruses to make sure we weren't loading them back on, and recommended he change his username and password to every financial web site he logged on to, as well as e-mail. You never know what the thing harvested.
As has been said before: language changes
And has also been said before: So what - that doesn't cause random errors made by uninformed ignoramuses to magically become correct usage.
That's exactly the process by which language changes, dude. When people start using terms incorrectly and people don't understand what they mean, those people are wrong. When the incorrect usage overtakes the correct usage and more people will understand the "incorrect" usage, then it's no longer "incorrect." Use of the outdated form may in fact come to be incorrect later on.
Language is about conveying meaning. Any language rules that exist, exist to standardize and facilitate communication. That means that what the most people understand something to mean is what it actually means. If you have to explain the terms you're using by using extra language, you're doing it wrong.
It's entirely possible to have a niche vocabulary among nerds that holds the old usage of crackers, phreakers, and hackers. To expect an AP article to use those terms is stupid. The majority of people reading the article wouldn't understand what they mean, but they do in fact understand precisely what they meant by the word "hacker."
There's also the possibility that you actually trust someone. My wife knows the passwords for some of my stuff, simply out of convenience. It -does- happen that she needs some stuff (say pictures) from my laptop and I'm out. The home-partition is encrypted, she knows the password.
Well, that's the point I tried to make, but failed. If I give my password out to someone, it implies permission for them to use it. So they couldn't possibly use it "without authorization."
It just seems bizarre to me how many people think it's normal to give out their password to family/friends/partners/whatever. I've never revealed a password to anyone in my life and never will, and my really important ones get changed regularly.
Well, I have given out my bs password to friends, but I consider the "giving out of password" to be "permission to use it anyplace that I used said password at any time, without having to ask me." I'm not counting on their restraint other than their restraint to not give out passwords to others. If they do, I'll just change the password and not tell them the new one (since it only opens up stuff I don't care about anyway, it wouldn't be that big of a deal). The question is does that study count, "they didn't know I logged on july 15th, 2006, but they knew I logged on to those sites before" as "without permission"?
Obviously I have never given out my root password / bank password / important emails password / anything I don't want anybody else logging on to passwords to anyone and never will.
Doped or not doped, the entirety of professional sports is a sham. These people are treated with far greater respect, given far more opportunities to excel and far more financial compensation than any scientist, engineer or teacher ever will. Someone making 30 million a year for what amounts to being lucky to have their genetics is ridiculous (sure, training is involved, but training without supporting genetics means squat).
One of the downsides of the whole PC movement is the belief that we should ignore people's differences. Everything you are now capable of doing comes down to being lucky to have the genes you have. Plus training and dedication.
So you're not an athlete. I assume you're some type of scientist, engineer, or maybe a teacher. Your genes probably gave you above-average intelligence. That doesn't mean the work you put in to get educated means squat. You might not have had to study for tests, and others had to study for 4-8 hours. Then you still got a higher grade then they did. Congratulations, you will most likely have an easier time finding a job, you will most likely find a higher paying job, and all because you were lucky to land your genes.
Besides, training without supporting genetics doesn't mean squat. Unless you have an actual disability, training will improve your current condition and make you better in whatever you choose to be. In order to be the among the best in the world, training won't get you there without the genetics to support you, but again, that's true for everything. You are not going to be the next Albert Einstein, no matter how much you study physics (statistically speaking, I'm assuming you're not a genius).
People in science, education, arts and entrepreneurial business have to work their asses off to achieve something tangible as opposed to one of these "sports professionals" who have trained themselves to run REALLY fast in a straight line (sometimes in an oval too!)
I say fuck the games, let's simply let professional sport die as it should and leave sports as an enjoyable hobby / past time; not the enormous waste of time, money and space that it currently enjoys.
That's ridiculous. We don't have a shortage of people in the world. Like you said, these people were gifted with genes that make them outstanding athletes. Most of them would make only mediocre scientists, engineers, teachers, artists, or entrepreneurs. Some of them will go on to other professions once their athletic career is over. The waste would have been to ignore their potential. If you had the chance to truly excel at something, would you not want to?
Besides, professional sports does benefit the rest of us. There's a lot of science that goes on to train them. That benefits us. The money isn't wasted. People who pay to see the games are enjoying themselves, and that money isn't destroyed. It's used to pay for scholarships, it's used to pay for medical professionals, the money you paid for food and drinks is going to the people who supplied you with food and drinks...in turn those people are spending the money they earn in other things, and so forth. You cannot possibly "waste" money. It's impossible.
I really hate the whole politically correct thing thing. People are different, some are better at some things than others, and there's no shame in that. It's bad when you start thinking that being a world class athlete makes you a better person, because you're ignoring the fact that there are other skills that you suck at. It's bad when you're a kickass scientist and you think you're a better person than the jock. There's nothing wrong with knowing that you are naturally gifted in your field. Thank your deity if you believe in such things, and value the differences that allow others to accomplish that which you cannot.
And if you hate steak enough to order it ruined (with lots of nasty steak sauce to replace the flavor, I can only assume), why the heck would you eat at a steakhouse?
I hate raw steak enough that I want it cooked, but I don't hate steak. I usually like mine medium-well, but well-done is preferable to medium and below. I know a lot of people really like that raw meat taste, and I say more power to them. Why the hell some of those people take it as an insult that I don't like my food the same way they do, I'll never understand. The people who like the raw meat flavor will say that cooking removes that flavor, and I know that. I want that flavor removed. If you don't, order your steak medium-rare, rare, or even completely uncooked, and you won't be hearing any insults or sneers from me.
I'm sure that's why the waiter was annoyed with your brother.
He has no right to get annoyed, what difference would it make to him? If a waiter delivered my steak saying that they had to "ruin it," my first instinct would be to reply by saying that I wanted a "well-done" steak, not a "ruined steak" and if he can't deliver that, I'll be leaving for a restaurant that can. Also make sure to inform the manager of the reason I'm not returning to that particular restaurant.
Thankfully I don't usually act based on my first instincts, and try not to act like an asshole, even with people who ARE assholes. I'll interpret the first comment like that as a joke, but if the rest of his service is as poor, his tip will start to suffer.
Also, depending on the thickness, it can take over 20 minutes to cook a well-done steak
I'll definitely agree with that but I'm not one to get annoyed when food takes a long time to arrive anyway.
This just goes to show that just because something is done scientifically and according to the scientific method doesn't mean it's right.
Nobody claims it is. That's one of the differences between science and religion. Scientists don't never claim they're right unless it's a direct observation. They claim that a particular theory best fits current observation until it is contradicted. Scientists live for finding contradictions in accepted theories. That's the best result there is, because it leads to greater understanding.
For instance, you can scientifically prove that God doesn't exist all you want given the small amount of information we know about our universe.
No, you can't. That's why religion isn't science. A requirement for any scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. It must make predictions that, if they do not hold true, indicate the theory is wrong or at least incomplete.
The reasonable objections to the religious folks (I'll certainly admit there are some people that have unreasonable prejudices against religion) is when they try to place religion in the science classroom. You can't teach intelligence design as an alternative theory to evolution because intelligence design is not a falsifiable theory, and is therefore not science. Scientists are not saying that Intelligent Design isn't true. They're saying precisely that they can't prove that it's not true, and it therefore does not qualify as science. To ask it to be placed in equal footing in the science classroom is as ridiculous as asking churches to teach evolution in sunday school as an alternative to ID and creationism. It's not religion, it's science, it makes no sense for it to be taught there.
In other words, science can't explain everything...anything outside the world around us (aka: God) is, by definition, not bound by the rules of science.
Agreed, and no scientist claims otherwise. That's exactly why we can't include anything related to God or other religions in scientific theories, regardless of the personal beliefs of the scientist. However, many of the religious folk take leaving out God from the theories as saying that science is trying to disprove God. It's not. We simply accept that we can't disprove God, we can't prove or disprove Shiva, and we can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster through any observation. Therefore, we cannot assume their existence and try to explain all physical phenomena we can without them.
Let the burning begin.
Hopefully you'll agree that there was no burning. I'm agnostic, and I don't personally believe we need a "purpose" here other than the one we create for ourselves, but I completely respect whatever beliefs you choose to have. This isn't arrogance on my part, I'm also prepared to admit that your beliefs may be the correct ones (which is what makes me an agnostic), even though I don't share them. I just thought that you were being honest in your mistaken belief about the scientific method, and not trolling, maybe because of encounters you've had with people who were prejudiced against religion, and figured I could point you in the right direction.
the godawful Batman & Robin (to date, the only movie I've walked out of)
You must not have had the opportunity to walk out on Van Helsing. That movie was so bad that when I went to see it with my college roommate, I intended to walk out after about 15 minutes. Unfortunately, he had driven us to the theater, which meant I was stuck, and I didn't want to be impolite by asking him if he wanted to leave. Therefore, I proceeded with the only logical alternative: I got into as comfortable a position as I could, and tried to fall asleep.
The movie was surprisingly effective for that purpose, although for the money I paid, the theater should have more comfortable sleeping arrangements. The kindergarten type pads for nap-time would have been awesome. I might have paid to see it again, if those were available :)
I don't buy the "space alien" story for the simple reason that the "Area 51" aliens look too much like us.
I don't buy it either, and that's the second best argument to be made. The only counter-argument I can think of is that in order for there to be intelligent life above a certain level, evolutionary pressures may require certain similarities. For example, dolphins are pretty intelligent beings, but they're unlikely to grow to an intelligence capable of civilization before evolving a way to leave the water (so they may create fire) and manipulate tool. It's possible that anything that is as intelligent as us (or more) would have to be remarkably similar in appearance.
Plus, how would they have found us?
Depends on how common life is. For all you know, we're in the closest system to their own, and we're the first other system they've explored. Which would explain why only one alien species showed up thus far.
I can believe time travel before I believe faster than light travel.
I'm not a physicist but my limited pop-culture understanding of relativity implies that if you solve one problem, you solve the other. If we can figure out how to travel to the past, we should have all the tools we need to figure out how to travel ftl, and vice-versa.
I said earlier that their similarity to us is the second best argument for their non-existence, so you might be wondering what the best argument is. The best argument is that our government can't even hide their wire-tapping activities, do we really expect them to be able to hide something like space aliens?
Nah, Arrested Development taught me that you can escape as many times as you want, and they'll eventually let you go home with an ankle bracelet.
Only if you have a lawyer like Barry. He's very good.