Ummm, mplayer? Seriously! You have to install the Real codecs, but it does fine with them, provided the website hasn't totally obfuscated the link (I can view the source on 90% of pages and get a link MPLayer can hit).
Mplayer will stream to hard disk, and iirc will also just output to stdout, and you can pipe that directly into oggenc, if you'd like.
That's not even close to being correct. The space-time curvature is a myth. A body in orbit is purely imaginary because the earth is flat, the heavens are anchored in one place and do *not* move. The earth spins like a fan blade, because it is attached to a huge fan, the center of which is the Sun.
Alright, try this one on for size. I'm currently involved in two separate and distinct business pursuits. Both make money, but neither alone pays the bills. In fact, both together don't pay the bills, but let's assume that sometime in the next month or so that status changes and both together pay the bills, but neither alone will pay the bills.
Oh yeah, one's in the food business and the other is my website (and a few related materials on the website). They're not at all related to one another. (I'm also pursuing freelance writing, in case anyone's interested in hiring a writer for some reason)
Am I an amateur in both areas? I.e. amateur barbecue man and amateur web publisher? Or am I a--wait for it--professional amateur?
Man, you came so close. IN the following quote, s/archaeology/science
"Archaeology is the pursuit of fact. If it's Truth you want, check out..." the philosophy class down the hall. (Sorry, memory gave out and I forgot the rest of the quote)
Alright, I'm going to attack one minor part of your post for one simple reason. And it's not because in context my username is almost certainly more profane than yours.
The actions of scientists have saved billions of people from death.
Um, no. Scientists have so far been completely unable to save any person or group of people from death. All they have managed to do, to date, is prolong people's lives.
Why is the distinction important? Simple. There is a very common idea in America today that if we wish hard enough, we won't die. Look at all the PR stuff. Don't do drugs, you'll OD and die. Don't smoke cigarettes, you'll get lung cancer and die. Don't do this, don't do that, don't do anything, because you'll die diediedieDIE.
And when it comes down to it, if you listen to all the PR and don't do any of that stuff, whatever it is, you will still die.
So quit hiding from it, and quit rewarding scientists and others for saving people's lives. They haven't. The fireman who pulled you out of the burning building? He didn't save your life, sorry. He certainly contributed to prolonging your life, no argument here. But you're still going to die, no matter what that fireman does.
You can't ban death, and we have yet to either outwit it, or render it obsolete through scientific advancement.
I know, you're not even addressing that, and for you I've just completely blindsided you.
Yeah, I'm thinking that pure, unadulterated, the earth is only 5,000 years old, creationism is a minority. A very loud one, but still a minority. Seems that most people are willing to let science and religion exist side by side, without necessarily reconciling them. Just like many of us say "There's no proof for or against God, so I'll just get on with my life and not worry about" and are happy with this ignorance, seems that most creationists are perfectly happy to say "The bible doesn't really say how old the Earth is, and science doesn't yet know for certain, and that's fine. They're both right, and it's not for me to understand His Mysterious Ways" and are perfectly happy with their ignorance.
All of us are far more similar than we're willing to admit and waste far too much time fighting over things that will eventually prove themselves, one way or the other.
As an intellectual exercise, though, I quite enjoy debating the existence of God. If I ever meet a Christian that is willing to do so solely as an intellectual exercise without getting all emotionally-charged, offended, and generally upset, then I'd like to do so.;) But that is a type of Christian I have yet to meet.
Where I come from, illuminate is the word that represents the thought "to make visible or understandable". So if the light turns on, the room as become illuminated. Similarly, if I see a pile of shit on the floor and my wife tells me that a dog was seen in the house recently, then she has illuminated the source of the shit. She has *not* answered the question "Why is there shit on the floor?" She has only provided me with facts that enable me to draw a logical conclusion which will help me to understand why there is shit on the floor.
An alternate explanation may still exist and be true, rather than the obvious one, in light of her facts. Perhaps one of my kids shit on the floor, perhaps the cat that the dog chased out of the house shit on the floor but nobody saw the cat, and so forth.
Philosophy, like science in some ways, is based on inquiry, theorising, logical deduction and to some extent testing those ideas as to how well we can apply them to our world. Philosophy doesn't so much seek to give us definitive answers. Rather it seeks to give us answers that are useful in interracting with the world.
I find philosophy to be very interesting.;) It's not religion, but religion has always influenced it (just like it has regular science). If I were to try to define philosophy without the aid of a dictionary, I'd have to say that philosophy is the application of the scientific method to the observed world in an attempt to understand why the world is what it is, and more importantly, how we should interact with it. So I suppose we're on the same page, here, but philosophy does tend to attempt to provide morality, and more and more it has attempted to do so without the help of religion.
But in the case of science, philosophy, and religion, all require you to accept certain things without proof, whether they're called postulates, axioms, or observations. All three of them currently call for peer review, as well! Jesus doesn't dictate that God exists, he challenges you to find God yourself (or so I've heard, and I've read enough of the Gospel to see that interpretation present in the writings). Science requires your peers to have the same observations in order to review your experiment. What good is it if you say you discovered electrons based on the observation of electricity and some experimentation if nobody else ever observed electricity? That, of course, leads right into philosophy, and if nobody else observes it, did it really happen?;)
On a final note, Confucius say "Man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok".
Wow, I've read that chapter before, but it's interesting reading it now. See, last time I read that chapter, I was in the grip of my own drug addiction, and I decided that a greater power wasn't needed. I felt that if I really needed a Higher Power in order to break the addiction, then I was totally worthless. Since I refuse to believe I'm totally worthless, I searched inside for more power to overcome the addiction.
I ultimately succeeded, and have been drug-free for a number of years, now. I break several rules of AA, in fact. I tell war stories (the air guitar story on my website, the cop searching my car story, etc). I don't admit there's a Higher Power, and I refuse to submit myself to one if it turns out there is. And I drink occasionally, and have gained some measure of control over how much I drink.
Interesting, though, reading that chapter again after all these years. Can't even describe the feelings going through my head, but one particular feeling surfaces. Pride. Pride that I didn't have to submit to a Higher Power in order to take control of my own life.
How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...
If there isn't a God, I don't vanish in a puff of smoke, either. I still exist, somehow, and an alternate explanation must also exist. In fact, many alternate explanations do exist.
In any case, religion can only be proven in the positive. That is, you can only prove that religion is right, you can never prove that it is wrong. What good would it be if it were so easy to disprove? Can't be done, can it?
Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting.
Are there any religions that don't believe in God that maintain some modicum or morality? Why yes there are. IN fact, every single religion (with a few obscure exceptions) contains a set of rules virtually identical to those presented in the Bible, either testament, in fact. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find atheists or anybody else lacking religion to be completely immoral people as a result.
Now, I agree that morality is something that for some people requires an objective foundation. Most people seem to be satisfied with a subjective foundation, as in "It's not right to steal because then other people could steal from you." Or "It's not a good idea to steal because you'll go to jail". Whatever. But I am definitely one of those people who require an objective foundation, and the only objective foundation I've found is Freedom. It's real simple, there's one postulate, which is that we are all Free individuals.
To build a system of morality using Freedom as a base, I shall leave as an exercise for the student. It should (and is) be possible to build a system of morality that very closely resembles the common base of morality practiced by every religion (at least taught, if not practiced by every individual), and it should be (and is) possible to wind up with at least 5 of the ten commandments, along with Jesus's revisions, all using Freedom as a base, and requiring no leap of faith that there's God, Jesus, and so forth.
Why does accepting one's own ignorance require "courage"?
Well, to be honest, it doesn't take as much courage as it used to. Society is much more forgiving about it now than it was even 18 years ago when I left the church. And looking back over history, there was once a time where you would have been burned at the stake, or subject to any number of tortures ending in execution.
In any case, the reason it still requires some courage, at least, has to do with the fear of death. Many people fear death to the extent that they'd prefer to deny its existence, and would prefer to believe they will live forever. They love life that much, apparently. Not a bad thing, I certainly love life a great deal. But it generally takes courage to overcome fear, and accepting your ignorance usually includes accepting that you don't know what happens when you die, which is when the fear becomes greatest for many. To overcome that fear, of course, requires courage.
For a very small minority, at this time, courage isn't required at all. Simple logic will suffice. I shall begin by making use of this map. Errr, anyway, this minority is growing, and doesn't require courage to overcome their fear of death because they don't fear death in the traditional sense. For my part, I welcome it, but I'd like to put it off as long as possible (always procrastinating, I know). As much as I'd love to live forever, though, I'm not entirely convinced it's the panacea the religionists would have me believe. Risk and uncertainty are great motivators and add a great deal of spice to life. Remove those, and what's left?
I don't believe that this requires courage on my part.
You might just be lucky enough to be in that minority of people that don't require courage, but for the rest of us instinctive know-it-alls, admitting that we don't know is in itself a painful act, all fears aside.;)
Aha, Schroedinger's Cat (sp?).;) So does an agnostic then go on to say "The existance of God is merely a cloud of probability, but cannot be determined with utter certainty until and unless He arrives?"
I totally agree with another poster on the subject. I don't know, I don't care, but if the God of the Christian Bible exists, I don't care to worship Him. In fact, I'll take it a step further, and if that God really exists, and if He really intends to pull judgement day on us, I intend to enlist in the Army of Darkness to oppose His Rule, and ultimately to overthrow Heaven and liberate the poor souls that currently occupy it.;)
In the meantime, why trouble myself with it? We still don't know if there's even a cat in the box, let alone whether or not the little fuck is alive.
I think that ignorance of existence should be enough to qualify one for agnosticism.
Otherwise, what am I?
Answer: In too much of a hurry to seek classification.
Solution: Forget about it. When people ask that question wanting to know your religion, tell them their question has no meaning to you. If you have to, acknowledge that while it has meaning to them, that doesn't immediately require it to have meaning to you. It may upset them, but fuck 'em. Get on with your life, don't let little things trouble you.;)
You know, I'm all for classification and so forth, but I tend to think that attaching labels to an absence of religion only prolongs the problem of religion, assuming, of course, that religion is a problem.
The way I figure it, once upon a time people started putting God on the shelf with all the other myths and were persecuted for it. In an effort to answer the question "Well, what are you, then?" with something more than "Nothing!" and simultaneously attempt to gain credulity for an absence of religion, some folks decided that the word "Atheist" would do nicely. It's a word that can be torn apart and understood quite easily, in fact. And it just manages to put a classification on the absence of religion that fits it into the larger scheme of religions, thus gaining some modicum of credulity.
The reason I have a problem with this is that by classifying yourself in the larger order of religions you also implicitly lend credence to all religions. Maybe not a lot, but at least a little. By providing an answer to the question "Well, what are you, then?" you also provide meaning to the question. I think the correct answer to that question should be something like "Homo sapiens", "Mechanic", "Male", or something like that, and by sucking away the meaning of the question when asked about religion you also suck away some of the credulity that religion currently enjoys. (And no, if the answer is "African American", "Caucasian", or "Anything-American", you would be contributing to other problems not related to religion. It's an all-encompassing question, unfortunately)
No surprise, but it's the same reason I ultimately turned away from LaVey's particular style of Satanism, regardless of my philosophical alignment with the group. You see, by allowing myself to be classified not just in the order of religions, but also directly in relation to Christianity, I was only putting more fuel on the fire of religion, a fire I would really like to extinguish.
Coincidentally, in the authorized biography of Anton LaVey, he says something very similar, and also indicates that he ultimately grew out of his own creation of Satanism. It's an interesting exercise, I think.
Simple embedded reflectors are already installed like this in areas like the northeast US, and they survive our snowplows just fine.
That's because the plow part of the snowplow doesn't actually contact the road.
Whoah! Really?
Really! See, it sits an inch or more off the road. Then the snowplows drive really fast and the energy of the plow hitting the snow melts the snow at the bottom of the plow, causing it to wash down and out (due to the curved nature of the plow). That's what gets the snow off the road!
That's pretty cool! SO can I leave pebbles or something on the road and expect to find them after the snowplow goes over them?
Fuck no! You see, permanent installations on the road under a certain height will be unaffected by the snowplow, but anything light and loose will be affected and pushed away. Because that's what the snowplow is designed to do!
And believe me if you have ever aquaplaned you would not have ever tried to joke about it.
Um, maybe you're just a pussy? Here in the US, when it rains, many of us go driving just so we can ride the waves. Not very often you can drive your car like it's a speedboat.
Ice is even more fun.;)
Or maybe I'm eccentric. Nah, can't be it.
When I used to live in Austin, every time we got heavy rains I'd go take a drive up the old spicewood springs road where all the high flood water runoff stuff is located, hoping to hit some good waves. They weren't usually there, but I did get some good ones occasionally.;) The parking brake becomes a toy when the roads are wet.;)
Yes, however when you tell your dealer that you want a half ounce, he's going to measure out 14 grams for you.
And back in the day, I used to take that half ounce bag and stick it on my *own* scale, and if that needle didn't point right at half an ounce, he made up the difference (or I gave him the difference). I won't pay for half an ounce and not get exactly half an ounce.
Then I'd bitch about all the seeds and how much they weigh. And the stems. Goddammit, I don't want to pay weight on those things. It's like paying for the bone in a t-bone!
That's one reason I like the British so much. They're one of the only countries in the world who have dropped the parochial "local time" nonsense and switched to GMT.
Look, if Great Britain was also 3 Gazillion miles from sea to shining sea, they'd have timezones too. Fact is, your wonderful British are in just another fucking timezone, and to the east of Great Britain (until the international date line) each time zone is progressively later than GMT, and to the west each time zone is progressively earlier.
Not meaning to take your post too seriously, because I, like other posters, am having a little trouble determining if it's meant as a joke or not. But GMT means Greenwich Mean Time, and last I checked Greenwich Village was an area inside--wait for it--London.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Why couldn't you think Pipeline? Pipeline!
Oh yeah, because that makes me want to see this surfing on lava trick... ;)
I'd have to say that Star Wars started to suck when Threepio said "Artoo-uh Day-toe-ah", and has just continued to get worse since then.
Looks like a lot of throat-clearing, to me.
Ummm, mplayer? Seriously! You have to install the Real codecs, but it does fine with them, provided the website hasn't totally obfuscated the link (I can view the source on 90% of pages and get a link MPLayer can hit).
Mplayer will stream to hard disk, and iirc will also just output to stdout, and you can pipe that directly into oggenc, if you'd like.
That's not even close to being correct. The space-time curvature is a myth. A body in orbit is purely imaginary because the earth is flat, the heavens are anchored in one place and do *not* move. The earth spins like a fan blade, because it is attached to a huge fan, the center of which is the Sun.
I get the worm and fuzzies
My wife gets a worm and fuzzies when I do to her what NASA does--put a load into space.
Alright, try this one on for size. I'm currently involved in two separate and distinct business pursuits. Both make money, but neither alone pays the bills. In fact, both together don't pay the bills, but let's assume that sometime in the next month or so that status changes and both together pay the bills, but neither alone will pay the bills.
Oh yeah, one's in the food business and the other is my website (and a few related materials on the website). They're not at all related to one another. (I'm also pursuing freelance writing, in case anyone's interested in hiring a writer for some reason)
Am I an amateur in both areas? I.e. amateur barbecue man and amateur web publisher? Or am I a--wait for it--professional amateur?
I've been an analyst for 16 years. I'm in one of the two camps mentioned. You decide.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, you're a sell-out?
Where does the easter bunny get its eggs?
From the easter chicken?
From the female of the species?
Oh, I know, you're trying to imply that bunnies don't get laid.
From the easter CowboyNeal's mother's cousin's ex-girlfriend's former roommate.
Man, you came so close. IN the following quote, s/archaeology/science
"Archaeology is the pursuit of fact. If it's Truth you want, check out ..." the philosophy class down the hall. (Sorry, memory gave out and I forgot the rest of the quote)
Alright, I'm going to attack one minor part of your post for one simple reason. And it's not because in context my username is almost certainly more profane than yours.
The actions of scientists have saved billions of people from death.
Um, no. Scientists have so far been completely unable to save any person or group of people from death. All they have managed to do, to date, is prolong people's lives.
Why is the distinction important? Simple. There is a very common idea in America today that if we wish hard enough, we won't die. Look at all the PR stuff. Don't do drugs, you'll OD and die. Don't smoke cigarettes, you'll get lung cancer and die. Don't do this, don't do that, don't do anything, because you'll die die die die DIE .
And when it comes down to it, if you listen to all the PR and don't do any of that stuff, whatever it is, you will still die.
So quit hiding from it, and quit rewarding scientists and others for saving people's lives. They haven't. The fireman who pulled you out of the burning building? He didn't save your life, sorry. He certainly contributed to prolonging your life, no argument here. But you're still going to die, no matter what that fireman does.
You can't ban death, and we have yet to either outwit it, or render it obsolete through scientific advancement.
I know, you're not even addressing that, and for you I've just completely blindsided you.
Too fuckin' bad, muthafucka. ;)
Um, because he's a big-mouthed fucktard?
;)
Yeah, I'm thinking that pure, unadulterated, the earth is only 5,000 years old, creationism is a minority. A very loud one, but still a minority. Seems that most people are willing to let science and religion exist side by side, without necessarily reconciling them. Just like many of us say "There's no proof for or against God, so I'll just get on with my life and not worry about" and are happy with this ignorance, seems that most creationists are perfectly happy to say "The bible doesn't really say how old the Earth is, and science doesn't yet know for certain, and that's fine. They're both right, and it's not for me to understand His Mysterious Ways" and are perfectly happy with their ignorance.
All of us are far more similar than we're willing to admit and waste far too much time fighting over things that will eventually prove themselves, one way or the other.
As an intellectual exercise, though, I quite enjoy debating the existence of God. If I ever meet a Christian that is willing to do so solely as an intellectual exercise without getting all emotionally-charged, offended, and generally upset, then I'd like to do so. ;) But that is a type of Christian I have yet to meet.
I suppose it depends what you take "illuminate" to mean. I took it to mean something similar to "provide answers"......
Many definitions, so I'll just link to it.
Where I come from, illuminate is the word that represents the thought "to make visible or understandable". So if the light turns on, the room as become illuminated. Similarly, if I see a pile of shit on the floor and my wife tells me that a dog was seen in the house recently, then she has illuminated the source of the shit. She has *not* answered the question "Why is there shit on the floor?" She has only provided me with facts that enable me to draw a logical conclusion which will help me to understand why there is shit on the floor.
An alternate explanation may still exist and be true, rather than the obvious one, in light of her facts. Perhaps one of my kids shit on the floor, perhaps the cat that the dog chased out of the house shit on the floor but nobody saw the cat, and so forth.
Philosophy, like science in some ways, is based on inquiry, theorising, logical deduction and to some extent testing those ideas as to how well we can apply them to our world. Philosophy doesn't so much seek to give us definitive answers. Rather it seeks to give us answers that are useful in interracting with the world.
I find philosophy to be very interesting. ;) It's not religion, but religion has always influenced it (just like it has regular science). If I were to try to define philosophy without the aid of a dictionary, I'd have to say that philosophy is the application of the scientific method to the observed world in an attempt to understand why the world is what it is, and more importantly, how we should interact with it. So I suppose we're on the same page, here, but philosophy does tend to attempt to provide morality, and more and more it has attempted to do so without the help of religion.
But in the case of science, philosophy, and religion, all require you to accept certain things without proof, whether they're called postulates, axioms, or observations. All three of them currently call for peer review, as well! Jesus doesn't dictate that God exists, he challenges you to find God yourself (or so I've heard, and I've read enough of the Gospel to see that interpretation present in the writings). Science requires your peers to have the same observations in order to review your experiment. What good is it if you say you discovered electrons based on the observation of electricity and some experimentation if nobody else ever observed electricity? That, of course, leads right into philosophy, and if nobody else observes it, did it really happen? ;)
On a final note, Confucius say "Man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok".
Wow, I've read that chapter before, but it's interesting reading it now. See, last time I read that chapter, I was in the grip of my own drug addiction, and I decided that a greater power wasn't needed. I felt that if I really needed a Higher Power in order to break the addiction, then I was totally worthless. Since I refuse to believe I'm totally worthless, I searched inside for more power to overcome the addiction.
I ultimately succeeded, and have been drug-free for a number of years, now. I break several rules of AA, in fact. I tell war stories (the air guitar story on my website, the cop searching my car story, etc). I don't admit there's a Higher Power, and I refuse to submit myself to one if it turns out there is. And I drink occasionally, and have gained some measure of control over how much I drink.
Interesting, though, reading that chapter again after all these years. Can't even describe the feelings going through my head, but one particular feeling surfaces. Pride. Pride that I didn't have to submit to a Higher Power in order to take control of my own life.
How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...
If there isn't a God, I don't vanish in a puff of smoke, either. I still exist, somehow, and an alternate explanation must also exist. In fact, many alternate explanations do exist.
In any case, religion can only be proven in the positive. That is, you can only prove that religion is right, you can never prove that it is wrong. What good would it be if it were so easy to disprove? Can't be done, can it?
Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting.
Are there any religions that don't believe in God that maintain some modicum or morality? Why yes there are. IN fact, every single religion (with a few obscure exceptions) contains a set of rules virtually identical to those presented in the Bible, either testament, in fact. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find atheists or anybody else lacking religion to be completely immoral people as a result.
Now, I agree that morality is something that for some people requires an objective foundation. Most people seem to be satisfied with a subjective foundation, as in "It's not right to steal because then other people could steal from you." Or "It's not a good idea to steal because you'll go to jail". Whatever. But I am definitely one of those people who require an objective foundation, and the only objective foundation I've found is Freedom. It's real simple, there's one postulate, which is that we are all Free individuals.
To build a system of morality using Freedom as a base, I shall leave as an exercise for the student. It should (and is) be possible to build a system of morality that very closely resembles the common base of morality practiced by every religion (at least taught, if not practiced by every individual), and it should be (and is) possible to wind up with at least 5 of the ten commandments, along with Jesus's revisions, all using Freedom as a base, and requiring no leap of faith that there's God, Jesus, and so forth.
Why does accepting one's own ignorance require "courage"?
Well, to be honest, it doesn't take as much courage as it used to. Society is much more forgiving about it now than it was even 18 years ago when I left the church. And looking back over history, there was once a time where you would have been burned at the stake, or subject to any number of tortures ending in execution.
In any case, the reason it still requires some courage, at least, has to do with the fear of death. Many people fear death to the extent that they'd prefer to deny its existence, and would prefer to believe they will live forever. They love life that much, apparently. Not a bad thing, I certainly love life a great deal. But it generally takes courage to overcome fear, and accepting your ignorance usually includes accepting that you don't know what happens when you die, which is when the fear becomes greatest for many. To overcome that fear, of course, requires courage.
For a very small minority, at this time, courage isn't required at all. Simple logic will suffice. I shall begin by making use of this map. Errr, anyway, this minority is growing, and doesn't require courage to overcome their fear of death because they don't fear death in the traditional sense. For my part, I welcome it, but I'd like to put it off as long as possible (always procrastinating, I know). As much as I'd love to live forever, though, I'm not entirely convinced it's the panacea the religionists would have me believe. Risk and uncertainty are great motivators and add a great deal of spice to life. Remove those, and what's left?
I don't believe that this requires courage on my part.
You might just be lucky enough to be in that minority of people that don't require courage, but for the rest of us instinctive know-it-alls, admitting that we don't know is in itself a painful act, all fears aside. ;)
Aha, Schroedinger's Cat (sp?). ;) So does an agnostic then go on to say "The existance of God is merely a cloud of probability, but cannot be determined with utter certainty until and unless He arrives?"
I totally agree with another poster on the subject. I don't know, I don't care, but if the God of the Christian Bible exists, I don't care to worship Him. In fact, I'll take it a step further, and if that God really exists, and if He really intends to pull judgement day on us, I intend to enlist in the Army of Darkness to oppose His Rule, and ultimately to overthrow Heaven and liberate the poor souls that currently occupy it. ;)
In the meantime, why trouble myself with it? We still don't know if there's even a cat in the box, let alone whether or not the little fuck is alive.
I think that ignorance of existence should be enough to qualify one for agnosticism. Otherwise, what am I?
Answer: In too much of a hurry to seek classification.
Solution: Forget about it. When people ask that question wanting to know your religion, tell them their question has no meaning to you. If you have to, acknowledge that while it has meaning to them, that doesn't immediately require it to have meaning to you. It may upset them, but fuck 'em. Get on with your life, don't let little things trouble you. ;)
You know, I'm all for classification and so forth, but I tend to think that attaching labels to an absence of religion only prolongs the problem of religion, assuming, of course, that religion is a problem.
The way I figure it, once upon a time people started putting God on the shelf with all the other myths and were persecuted for it. In an effort to answer the question "Well, what are you, then?" with something more than "Nothing!" and simultaneously attempt to gain credulity for an absence of religion, some folks decided that the word "Atheist" would do nicely. It's a word that can be torn apart and understood quite easily, in fact. And it just manages to put a classification on the absence of religion that fits it into the larger scheme of religions, thus gaining some modicum of credulity.
The reason I have a problem with this is that by classifying yourself in the larger order of religions you also implicitly lend credence to all religions. Maybe not a lot, but at least a little. By providing an answer to the question "Well, what are you, then?" you also provide meaning to the question. I think the correct answer to that question should be something like "Homo sapiens", "Mechanic", "Male", or something like that, and by sucking away the meaning of the question when asked about religion you also suck away some of the credulity that religion currently enjoys. (And no, if the answer is "African American", "Caucasian", or "Anything-American", you would be contributing to other problems not related to religion. It's an all-encompassing question, unfortunately)
No surprise, but it's the same reason I ultimately turned away from LaVey's particular style of Satanism, regardless of my philosophical alignment with the group. You see, by allowing myself to be classified not just in the order of religions, but also directly in relation to Christianity, I was only putting more fuel on the fire of religion, a fire I would really like to extinguish.
Coincidentally, in the authorized biography of Anton LaVey, he says something very similar, and also indicates that he ultimately grew out of his own creation of Satanism. It's an interesting exercise, I think.
They missed one. I see nothing called "marriage".
It's called 'cat'
Simple embedded reflectors are already installed like this in areas like the northeast US, and they survive our snowplows just fine.
That's because the plow part of the snowplow doesn't actually contact the road.
Whoah! Really?
Really! See, it sits an inch or more off the road. Then the snowplows drive really fast and the energy of the plow hitting the snow melts the snow at the bottom of the plow, causing it to wash down and out (due to the curved nature of the plow). That's what gets the snow off the road!
That's pretty cool! SO can I leave pebbles or something on the road and expect to find them after the snowplow goes over them?
Fuck no! You see, permanent installations on the road under a certain height will be unaffected by the snowplow, but anything light and loose will be affected and pushed away. Because that's what the snowplow is designed to do!
Wow!
No no no. They're called APT, or "Automatic Pavement Trail".
And believe me if you have ever aquaplaned you would not have ever tried to joke about it.
Um, maybe you're just a pussy? Here in the US, when it rains, many of us go driving just so we can ride the waves. Not very often you can drive your car like it's a speedboat.
Ice is even more fun. ;)
Or maybe I'm eccentric. Nah, can't be it.
When I used to live in Austin, every time we got heavy rains I'd go take a drive up the old spicewood springs road where all the high flood water runoff stuff is located, hoping to hit some good waves. They weren't usually there, but I did get some good ones occasionally. ;) The parking brake becomes a toy when the roads are wet. ;)
Yes, however when you tell your dealer that you want a half ounce, he's going to measure out 14 grams for you.
And back in the day, I used to take that half ounce bag and stick it on my *own* scale, and if that needle didn't point right at half an ounce, he made up the difference (or I gave him the difference). I won't pay for half an ounce and not get exactly half an ounce.
Then I'd bitch about all the seeds and how much they weigh. And the stems. Goddammit, I don't want to pay weight on those things. It's like paying for the bone in a t-bone!
That's one reason I like the British so much. They're one of the only countries in the world who have dropped the parochial "local time" nonsense and switched to GMT.
Look, if Great Britain was also 3 Gazillion miles from sea to shining sea, they'd have timezones too. Fact is, your wonderful British are in just another fucking timezone, and to the east of Great Britain (until the international date line) each time zone is progressively later than GMT, and to the west each time zone is progressively earlier.
Not meaning to take your post too seriously, because I, like other posters, am having a little trouble determining if it's meant as a joke or not. But GMT means Greenwich Mean Time, and last I checked Greenwich Village was an area inside--wait for it--London. ;)
I'm more interested in working off UTC. ;)