I'd say you were a troll, but that would be an insult to me.
At any rate, you are as clueless in the matter of housing and building design as you are in DNS, since you apparently like BIND.
There's nothing wrong with prefab housing except you. I would strongly suggest looking into alternative methods of removing your genes from the pool. Try, perhaps, the bleach and ammonia cocktail.
When I read NYT I'm passively gleaning information and there is no need for me to make my identity known. When I post to slashdot - and my name AND physical location have both been made clearly available, as well as other online psuedonyms I use - I'm expressing my point of view to other people who may have an interest in verifying my statements. You are posting your point of view without any indication of who you are. Therefore, your statements are more suspect than individuals willing to make themselves open enough to be validated and tracked for the record. For all I know, you were arguing yesterday for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system and institution of a communist regime.
Complaints about anonymous individuals trying to reinforce their positions are completely valid. Your position is made weaker by the fact that you appear not to have the conviction to defend it with your name.
And I will make this point to you one last time. If you continue to fail to understand it, as you appear to have done to this point based on the only semi-relevant responses you're providing (I defy you to present any statement I have made in this thread about any company or all companies being "evil" - a claim which you have magically pulled out of the air and attributed to me), I will not reiterate it a third time.
A corporation can only be held liable to the law, not moral consequence. Corporations pursuing their stated goal, regardless of size, do not always act on moral grounds if they expect to succeed. They act in their best interest. If their best interest, in the long run, involves letting 40,000 people starve to death in some other country, then they would do so if they acted in the interests of the corporation.
They exist to make money, no matter what their size is. People would not start businesses, incorporated or otherwise, if they didn't intend to make money.
Therefore, unless the company is willing to hold itself responsible for its own actions by, for example, entering into contractual agreements with customers, shareholders, and employees, it must be assumed that it intends to take the opposite action of whatever it is it refuses to agree to.
If AOL refuses to agree not to collect and use personal information gleaned from its networks, then it intends to do so for all intents and purposes. You are correct, corporations are responsible to the law. And, if they refuse to enter into certain agreements so that law can be applied to their actions, then it is to be assumed that they intend to do the opposite of whatever those laws would have prevented. This is not a complicated concept, and it is quite clear that this is how corporations behave. If it were not the way corporations act, you wouldn't have sections in software licenses and credit card agreements that explicitly state that a company in question CAN'T be held liable for its actions if you chose to do business with them.
"Poke my head out of my ass", says the AC hiding for fear of repercussion. How cute.
I fail to see how a corporation of 5 family members is functionally different from a corporations comprised of a board of directors, shareholders, and a layered mess of management when discussing intent. My point is relevant to either type of business: the corporation, regardless of size, stands to gain from taking and reusing potentially valuable private information. Given that the company, again, regardless of size, exists for the purpose of making money, if it refuses to be held liable to laws that will prevent it from doing something, it has shown, through its actions, intent to do whatever it is it refuses to be legally bound not to do.
Corporations do not have the same goals as individual citizens and cannot be trusted like individual citizens as a result. If the company refuses to be contractually bound to not use the information on its networks, it must be assumed, regardless of what any talking head from the PR department says, that it intends to use the information on its networks.
If you can't make your point stand on its own and you're too egotistical to admit that you didn't understand your own position as well as you thought you did, just don't follow up on the post, don't make yourself look like a braying, fifteen year old moron by coming back with vague, overused insults.
First of all, it's irrelevant whether or not it seems "unreasonable" for AOL to take and redistribute your private information. The point is that they said they're willing to do it, so it should be assumed that they will. If someone points a gun at my head and says "don't worry, it's not loaded", I'm still going to assume it's loaded on the basis that they wouldn't have put a gun to my head if they didn't intend to kill me. People's actions do, indeed, speak louder than words, and AOL has obviously taken the initiative to decide that, if they see fit, they're going to take your communications and resuse them for their own personal gain.
And his complaint targeting a private company was perfectly valid. Corporate entities have shown an amazing lack of common sense, appropriate discretion, self restraint, and moral clarity in the time they've existed. Whereas an individual citizen has little or nothing to gain from spying on your point to point communications, a coporation most certainly has everything to gain. They exist for the sole purpose of making money, and in a capitalist system such as the one AOL exists in, moral fiber has no place. If they intercept valuable data, as a corporation, the only thing stopping them from taking it and using it for their own purposes are laws. They're effectively saying here that they refuse to be bound by any laws, so it can only be assumed that the intent is to glean valuable data and reuse it for, perhaps, marketing research.
The conclusion here is quite simple. If a corporation refuses to be bound to appropriate, decent behavior by the law, it won't act appropriately or decently. Individuals have no such problem in most cases because, unlike corporations, they have little or no need for the sorts of things that would require them to be bound.
His jab at a company for being a company was perfectly legitimate, even if he wasn't sure why that was so.
I always found it somewhat amusing that the same people who will sit and whine about people using the de facto low-quality operating system of new PCs will almost all happily chug away with the de facto window manager of their linux installation.
I always imagined it had something to do with the popularity of the "movement". All the old school guys are still banging around on the CLI or, at most, using one of the lightweight managers while all the kids just need to have their flashy GUI and whatnot on the dual-install box (yea, I'm a FreeBSD CLI snob, get over it).
I guess if Gnome works for you, more power to you, but while the support isn't there for the apps (unless you're paying for WineX or Xver Office or something, which is cool), I fail to see why I should get so worked up everytime a new version is released. I'm still waiting for a reasonable alternative to the underlying X server that isn't completely unheard of in 90% of the OSS world.
Actually, most people can't run their own lives without state intervention. You'd never survive if the state didn't take care of you in some manner. That's the point of the state. You get a group of people together who are supposed to do things for the greater good of the people (that 'greater good' theoretically being indirectly defined by the people in our type of government) because it's easier to pool resources and centralize certain things like defense and transportation than to try and have everyone do their own private thing.
The problem, of course, is that the government doesn't want to stay small because being in government gives you certain powers to act. For a good long while people kept this in check by paying attention to what was going on. Post-WWII, however, this country became a haven for drug-addled, overprotected retards because "The Greatest Generation" didn't want their children growing up with the hardships they had to face down.
Now, sixty years later, we have a country full of emotional trainwrecks who think the world is theirs for the taking because every authority figure they've ever known has either
a) been nothing more than an overbearing, rigid authority figure worthy of little more than angry rebellious backlash
or, more likely,
b) been a wet piece of toilet paper that always wanted to make sure they felt good and were never "hurt" by things like, for example, valedectorians reminding them that some people are just smarter than others.
Now the place is filled up with characterless assholes who don't have the balls to stand up to their government and don't care enough about what it's doing to shut down the corrupt portions. So you get stupid shit like this because some asshole in Congress decided he was going to flex his political muscle and go for a money-grab. 90% of the people this affects aren't going to know until it's too late, 9% aren't going to care, and the remaining 1% will be scoffed at for speaking up against it because, after all......the government's just trying to protect you. Right?
And we'll see whether or not Congressman Asshole fixes his bill. I'm betting he sends an amendment to the floor that never goes anywhere or eventually dies in committee because nobody cares enough about it to do anything more than create the amendment to try and silence the critics. Even then, if the critics come back, the blame for the bill's death is so spread around that the suits can just point fingers at each other until the critics get so frustrated they give up.
And for a tech site, they sure have a hard time advertising crap that's actually useful. I fail to see how this would work for anyone without slender, feminine hands. That thing is clearly too tight for me to use, for example (and, surprisingly enough, it's not because I'm a fatass, I just have disproportionatly large hands and have to suffer with a deformity that makes me look like a hairless ape.... I guess you can't visit slashdot if you're perfectly normal though).
That's only really going to be a problem for you if you haven't replaced your monitor for... what... about twenty years? And if that's the case you probably haven't replaced your computer either, so you should probably be more worried about one of those old school power supplies having a shit fit, blowing up, and burning down your house.
Yea, someone should bring that idea here. It would be nice to live in a society where becoming an elected official was more meaningful than "hey guys, look! I got $35 million in campaign donations from lobbyists and managed to sell my face on TV and my name on knick knacks well enough to get elected by a bunch of goobers who MIGHT have spent 5 minutes researching the avaiable candidates".
Well, I don't believe in god. Very simple really. There's no logical reason TO believe in god, so I see no reason to think there is one.
Hence, faith.
Faith is not logical. It's an arbitrary belief people come by because other people told them to believe and those people can't provide valid proof that they're right. Would you dispute that?
it is entirely different to state that anyone who is religious is automatically lacking in mental activity
I didn't say they were lacking in mental activity. I reserve that particular insult for certain types of Bush supporters. I don't think that lacking critical thinking skills - which I think, based on my observation of people who are religious, is something of a common trait among more traditionally religious individuals - is an indication that a person is stupid anymore than I think complex critical thinkers are automatically smart.
Also, note that I didn't say there is no god. It would be folly to begin dismissing things as impossible because they haven't discovered. By that argument, one could say the universe doesn't exist because there's never been a discovery or conclusion made that explained its origins.
To the contrary, my point is that to believe in a god requires you to dispatch all logical thought and arbitrarily assume that this abstract concept you've never sensed, measured, or tested in any manner is the answer to any given problem you're facing. You could argue that "god" is merely a concept used to identify forces that drive the universe which haven't yet been discovered but the effects of which can be observed (which goes back to the original post I made), but since most people view "god" as a specific entity, not an abstract concept, that doesn't hold water when talking about the overall majority of religious individuals.
And, yes, your point the big bang is completely valid, but I'd like to turn around on you. A large number of religious people seem to feel unncessarily threatened by the big bang theory. Even though it's by far the best available explanation and is probably correct in at least the general sense if not in the specifics, these people refuse to accept it. Why? Because they THINK it challenges their belief in god. Of course, if you understand Big Bang, that's utterly ridiculous and practically completely the opposite. To the contrary, the big bang explains the state of the universe at point in time 0. So what happened or existed BEFORE that point in time? Well, shit man, your guess is good as mine, and, actually, all explanations as to what actually CREATED the singularity (e.g. "the creation of the universe") is pure wild speculation. There are a few semi-stable ideas, but no theories at all because everything we know about our universe as far as laws go breaks down from a fraction of a second after the big bang backwards in time.
And that, my friend, is why I have come to so closely associate ignorance and religion. I've known countless people who will argue endlessly that evolution or the Big Bang theory are some sort of insult to their religion when, in fact, neither theory is easily contestable and, more importantly, neither theory, when properly understood, is anything remotely close to a challenge to arbitrary religious beliefs about creationism and god.
I can't think of any religion that has one or more gods and doesn't define them as some manner of supernatural being. So, no, assuming you're not talking about some niche religion, cult, or your own personal beliefs, it's not the same and doesn't adequately define the TYPICAL view of "god".
Don't confuse people with the religion they practice. Bear in mind that Copernicus was scared to death of the church and wouldn't come out with his actual findings, one of his friends had to do it for him after he died. When Giordano Bruno not only pushed them publically, but suggested that other worlds and life may exist somewhere off of earth, he was tried by church and burned alive. Galileo was tortured and tried and forced to renounce his belief in Copernican theories for going against the church's geocentric view of the universe.
Further, bear in mind that Isaac Newton lived at a time when the church was under greater state control than was typical throughout its history and even received special treatment from the Church of Englad (courtesy of the King) such as the decree - still in effect today, currently on Stephen Hawking - that the Lucasian professor need not take Holy Orders, something nobody else can do. Furthermore, Newton's findings on gravitational fields did not directly challenge any particular belief held by the church.
The notion that science benefits significantly from religion is idiotic. It suggests in a subtle manner that the reason scientists succeed is that they're given baseless conclusions to smash, but that's not the case. Copernicus didn't go looking to beat up the Ptolemic model for the universe and didn't even want to accept his own findings. Galileo didn't go looking to beat up the Geocentric model of the universe. Einstien even rejected some of his discoveries - which are now turning out to be accurate to varying degress - with the famous quip "god doesn't play dice".
Religion is a crutch for people who want to know the "why" of something but don't want to go to all the trouble of following the "how" backwards long enough to get a real answer. People wouldn't be religious if they were clear, critical thinkers because the idea of making non-time-sensitive judgements on faith is an absurd thing born of ignorance and fear. Taking on religious beliefs is like wandering around in the dark and coming to a pit in the floor. Religious people would just back up and take a running jump not know how wide or deep it. Smart people would run some tests like dropping pebbles into it to depth test and trying to determine the width before they jumped. Rare is the case where you'd be forced to simply jump on faith and not be stupid for doing so such as, for example, because you are being chased by a wild animal or something.
Stop pulling arbitrary "answers" to phenomena you don't understand out of your ass and calling them "Truth" and I'll stop mocking you for being a clueless dolt.
If you can't tell the difference between fact and fairy tale, that's not my problem, and I'm tired of so many religious people trying to MAKE it my problem. Stay out of my life and (had I any children) my children's lives and I'll stay out of yours.
That was either a lame attempt to troll people, or you decided now would be a really good time to hilight the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Regardless, so as not to confuse ignorant people as some religious goober will likely see this and go "heeeeeyyyyy yeaaaaaa", "dark matter" is a temporary name given to something that's having an effect we can see, even though we can't see what's actually driving the effect.
We're not saying 'ah yes, this must be what is here', we're saying 'well, something is there as evidenced by this, this, and this, but damn if I can tell you what, so I will call it "dark matter" until I can figure out what it really is'.
Whereas science will continue to try and resolve that open question, religion would just arbitrarily make up some assinine answer on the spot, declare itself completely and unquestionably correct, and then mock anyone who did something so silly as suggest that maybe they should have actually tried some observations and tests before coming to a conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
YOU FAIL IT (proper endian-ness: 000000001)
Since you're father apparently caused your defects, show him my last post and suggest he take the instruction seriously.
I'd say you were a troll, but that would be an insult to me.
At any rate, you are as clueless in the matter of housing and building design as you are in DNS, since you apparently like BIND.
There's nothing wrong with prefab housing except you. I would strongly suggest looking into alternative methods of removing your genes from the pool. Try, perhaps, the bleach and ammonia cocktail.
When I read NYT I'm passively gleaning information and there is no need for me to make my identity known. When I post to slashdot - and my name AND physical location have both been made clearly available, as well as other online psuedonyms I use - I'm expressing my point of view to other people who may have an interest in verifying my statements. You are posting your point of view without any indication of who you are. Therefore, your statements are more suspect than individuals willing to make themselves open enough to be validated and tracked for the record. For all I know, you were arguing yesterday for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system and institution of a communist regime.
Complaints about anonymous individuals trying to reinforce their positions are completely valid. Your position is made weaker by the fact that you appear not to have the conviction to defend it with your name.
And I will make this point to you one last time. If you continue to fail to understand it, as you appear to have done to this point based on the only semi-relevant responses you're providing (I defy you to present any statement I have made in this thread about any company or all companies being "evil" - a claim which you have magically pulled out of the air and attributed to me), I will not reiterate it a third time.
A corporation can only be held liable to the law, not moral consequence. Corporations pursuing their stated goal, regardless of size, do not always act on moral grounds if they expect to succeed. They act in their best interest. If their best interest, in the long run, involves letting 40,000 people starve to death in some other country, then they would do so if they acted in the interests of the corporation.
They exist to make money, no matter what their size is. People would not start businesses, incorporated or otherwise, if they didn't intend to make money.
Therefore, unless the company is willing to hold itself responsible for its own actions by, for example, entering into contractual agreements with customers, shareholders, and employees, it must be assumed that it intends to take the opposite action of whatever it is it refuses to agree to.
If AOL refuses to agree not to collect and use personal information gleaned from its networks, then it intends to do so for all intents and purposes. You are correct, corporations are responsible to the law. And, if they refuse to enter into certain agreements so that law can be applied to their actions, then it is to be assumed that they intend to do the opposite of whatever those laws would have prevented. This is not a complicated concept, and it is quite clear that this is how corporations behave. If it were not the way corporations act, you wouldn't have sections in software licenses and credit card agreements that explicitly state that a company in question CAN'T be held liable for its actions if you chose to do business with them.
"Poke my head out of my ass", says the AC hiding for fear of repercussion. How cute.
I fail to see how a corporation of 5 family members is functionally different from a corporations comprised of a board of directors, shareholders, and a layered mess of management when discussing intent. My point is relevant to either type of business: the corporation, regardless of size, stands to gain from taking and reusing potentially valuable private information. Given that the company, again, regardless of size, exists for the purpose of making money, if it refuses to be held liable to laws that will prevent it from doing something, it has shown, through its actions, intent to do whatever it is it refuses to be legally bound not to do.
Corporations do not have the same goals as individual citizens and cannot be trusted like individual citizens as a result. If the company refuses to be contractually bound to not use the information on its networks, it must be assumed, regardless of what any talking head from the PR department says, that it intends to use the information on its networks.
If you can't make your point stand on its own and you're too egotistical to admit that you didn't understand your own position as well as you thought you did, just don't follow up on the post, don't make yourself look like a braying, fifteen year old moron by coming back with vague, overused insults.
First of all, it's irrelevant whether or not it seems "unreasonable" for AOL to take and redistribute your private information. The point is that they said they're willing to do it, so it should be assumed that they will. If someone points a gun at my head and says "don't worry, it's not loaded", I'm still going to assume it's loaded on the basis that they wouldn't have put a gun to my head if they didn't intend to kill me. People's actions do, indeed, speak louder than words, and AOL has obviously taken the initiative to decide that, if they see fit, they're going to take your communications and resuse them for their own personal gain.
And his complaint targeting a private company was perfectly valid. Corporate entities have shown an amazing lack of common sense, appropriate discretion, self restraint, and moral clarity in the time they've existed. Whereas an individual citizen has little or nothing to gain from spying on your point to point communications, a coporation most certainly has everything to gain. They exist for the sole purpose of making money, and in a capitalist system such as the one AOL exists in, moral fiber has no place. If they intercept valuable data, as a corporation, the only thing stopping them from taking it and using it for their own purposes are laws. They're effectively saying here that they refuse to be bound by any laws, so it can only be assumed that the intent is to glean valuable data and reuse it for, perhaps, marketing research.
The conclusion here is quite simple. If a corporation refuses to be bound to appropriate, decent behavior by the law, it won't act appropriately or decently. Individuals have no such problem in most cases because, unlike corporations, they have little or no need for the sorts of things that would require them to be bound.
His jab at a company for being a company was perfectly legitimate, even if he wasn't sure why that was so.
Wow. Metatrolling. You're so original. Please don't mind my yawn.
Adequacy ->
Also
I Agree With This Post
I always found it somewhat amusing that the same people who will sit and whine about people using the de facto low-quality operating system of new PCs will almost all happily chug away with the de facto window manager of their linux installation.
I always imagined it had something to do with the popularity of the "movement". All the old school guys are still banging around on the CLI or, at most, using one of the lightweight managers while all the kids just need to have their flashy GUI and whatnot on the dual-install box (yea, I'm a FreeBSD CLI snob, get over it).
I guess if Gnome works for you, more power to you, but while the support isn't there for the apps (unless you're paying for WineX or Xver Office or something, which is cool), I fail to see why I should get so worked up everytime a new version is released. I'm still waiting for a reasonable alternative to the underlying X server that isn't completely unheard of in 90% of the OSS world.
IAWTP
It's a fun game, but I think it might be encouraging the wrong behavior in the youth.
Actually, most people can't run their own lives without state intervention. You'd never survive if the state didn't take care of you in some manner. That's the point of the state. You get a group of people together who are supposed to do things for the greater good of the people (that 'greater good' theoretically being indirectly defined by the people in our type of government) because it's easier to pool resources and centralize certain things like defense and transportation than to try and have everyone do their own private thing.
...the government's just trying to protect you. Right?
The problem, of course, is that the government doesn't want to stay small because being in government gives you certain powers to act. For a good long while people kept this in check by paying attention to what was going on. Post-WWII, however, this country became a haven for drug-addled, overprotected retards because "The Greatest Generation" didn't want their children growing up with the hardships they had to face down.
Now, sixty years later, we have a country full of emotional trainwrecks who think the world is theirs for the taking because every authority figure they've ever known has either
a) been nothing more than an overbearing, rigid authority figure worthy of little more than angry rebellious backlash
or, more likely,
b) been a wet piece of toilet paper that always wanted to make sure they felt good and were never "hurt" by things like, for example, valedectorians reminding them that some people are just smarter than others.
Now the place is filled up with characterless assholes who don't have the balls to stand up to their government and don't care enough about what it's doing to shut down the corrupt portions. So you get stupid shit like this because some asshole in Congress decided he was going to flex his political muscle and go for a money-grab. 90% of the people this affects aren't going to know until it's too late, 9% aren't going to care, and the remaining 1% will be scoffed at for speaking up against it because, after all...
And we'll see whether or not Congressman Asshole fixes his bill. I'm betting he sends an amendment to the floor that never goes anywhere or eventually dies in committee because nobody cares enough about it to do anything more than create the amendment to try and silence the critics. Even then, if the critics come back, the blame for the bill's death is so spread around that the suits can just point fingers at each other until the critics get so frustrated they give up.
And this is how American politics (don't) work.
And for a tech site, they sure have a hard time advertising crap that's actually useful. I fail to see how this would work for anyone without slender, feminine hands. That thing is clearly too tight for me to use, for example (and, surprisingly enough, it's not because I'm a fatass, I just have disproportionatly large hands and have to suffer with a deformity that makes me look like a hairless ape.... I guess you can't visit slashdot if you're perfectly normal though).
Nifty or not, it's still crap.
That's only really going to be a problem for you if you haven't replaced your monitor for... what... about twenty years? And if that's the case you probably haven't replaced your computer either, so you should probably be more worried about one of those old school power supplies having a shit fit, blowing up, and burning down your house.
Oh, you mean like they have in Iraq?
Yea, someone should bring that idea here. It would be nice to live in a society where becoming an elected official was more meaningful than "hey guys, look! I got $35 million in campaign donations from lobbyists and managed to sell my face on TV and my name on knick knacks well enough to get elected by a bunch of goobers who MIGHT have spent 5 minutes researching the avaiable candidates".
It's called an oligarchy. Welcome to it.
Huh? I'm not responding to you - I'm slapping that guy black mariah around. I don't actually have anything to say about your posts.
Cluestick time. You can't make a point about a real situation using make-believe comparisons.
An official law enforcement agent licensed, inspected, and insured your car?
I don't think so.
Yea, because 16 year olds with 90 days behind the wheel sure have experience with a deadly weapon.
Well, I don't believe in god. Very simple really. There's no logical reason TO believe in god, so I see no reason to think there is one.
Hence, faith.
Faith is not logical. It's an arbitrary belief people come by because other people told them to believe and those people can't provide valid proof that they're right. Would you dispute that?
it is entirely different to state that anyone who is religious is automatically lacking in mental activity
I didn't say they were lacking in mental activity. I reserve that particular insult for certain types of Bush supporters. I don't think that lacking critical thinking skills - which I think, based on my observation of people who are religious, is something of a common trait among more traditionally religious individuals - is an indication that a person is stupid anymore than I think complex critical thinkers are automatically smart.
Also, note that I didn't say there is no god. It would be folly to begin dismissing things as impossible because they haven't discovered. By that argument, one could say the universe doesn't exist because there's never been a discovery or conclusion made that explained its origins.
To the contrary, my point is that to believe in a god requires you to dispatch all logical thought and arbitrarily assume that this abstract concept you've never sensed, measured, or tested in any manner is the answer to any given problem you're facing. You could argue that "god" is merely a concept used to identify forces that drive the universe which haven't yet been discovered but the effects of which can be observed (which goes back to the original post I made), but since most people view "god" as a specific entity, not an abstract concept, that doesn't hold water when talking about the overall majority of religious individuals.
And, yes, your point the big bang is completely valid, but I'd like to turn around on you. A large number of religious people seem to feel unncessarily threatened by the big bang theory. Even though it's by far the best available explanation and is probably correct in at least the general sense if not in the specifics, these people refuse to accept it. Why? Because they THINK it challenges their belief in god. Of course, if you understand Big Bang, that's utterly ridiculous and practically completely the opposite. To the contrary, the big bang explains the state of the universe at point in time 0. So what happened or existed BEFORE that point in time? Well, shit man, your guess is good as mine, and, actually, all explanations as to what actually CREATED the singularity (e.g. "the creation of the universe") is pure wild speculation. There are a few semi-stable ideas, but no theories at all because everything we know about our universe as far as laws go breaks down from a fraction of a second after the big bang backwards in time.
And that, my friend, is why I have come to so closely associate ignorance and religion. I've known countless people who will argue endlessly that evolution or the Big Bang theory are some sort of insult to their religion when, in fact, neither theory is easily contestable and, more importantly, neither theory, when properly understood, is anything remotely close to a challenge to arbitrary religious beliefs about creationism and god.
Sorry, but this is my experience. YMMV.
Sounds more like you have no idea what you're talking about.
I can't think of any religion that has one or more gods and doesn't define them as some manner of supernatural being. So, no, assuming you're not talking about some niche religion, cult, or your own personal beliefs, it's not the same and doesn't adequately define the TYPICAL view of "god".
Don't confuse people with the religion they practice. Bear in mind that Copernicus was scared to death of the church and wouldn't come out with his actual findings, one of his friends had to do it for him after he died. When Giordano Bruno not only pushed them publically, but suggested that other worlds and life may exist somewhere off of earth, he was tried by church and burned alive. Galileo was tortured and tried and forced to renounce his belief in Copernican theories for going against the church's geocentric view of the universe.
Further, bear in mind that Isaac Newton lived at a time when the church was under greater state control than was typical throughout its history and even received special treatment from the Church of Englad (courtesy of the King) such as the decree - still in effect today, currently on Stephen Hawking - that the Lucasian professor need not take Holy Orders, something nobody else can do. Furthermore, Newton's findings on gravitational fields did not directly challenge any particular belief held by the church.
The notion that science benefits significantly from religion is idiotic. It suggests in a subtle manner that the reason scientists succeed is that they're given baseless conclusions to smash, but that's not the case. Copernicus didn't go looking to beat up the Ptolemic model for the universe and didn't even want to accept his own findings. Galileo didn't go looking to beat up the Geocentric model of the universe. Einstien even rejected some of his discoveries - which are now turning out to be accurate to varying degress - with the famous quip "god doesn't play dice".
Religion is a crutch for people who want to know the "why" of something but don't want to go to all the trouble of following the "how" backwards long enough to get a real answer. People wouldn't be religious if they were clear, critical thinkers because the idea of making non-time-sensitive judgements on faith is an absurd thing born of ignorance and fear. Taking on religious beliefs is like wandering around in the dark and coming to a pit in the floor. Religious people would just back up and take a running jump not know how wide or deep it. Smart people would run some tests like dropping pebbles into it to depth test and trying to determine the width before they jumped. Rare is the case where you'd be forced to simply jump on faith and not be stupid for doing so such as, for example, because you are being chased by a wild animal or something.
Stop pulling arbitrary "answers" to phenomena you don't understand out of your ass and calling them "Truth" and I'll stop mocking you for being a clueless dolt.
If you can't tell the difference between fact and fairy tale, that's not my problem, and I'm tired of so many religious people trying to MAKE it my problem. Stay out of my life and (had I any children) my children's lives and I'll stay out of yours.
That was either a lame attempt to troll people, or you decided now would be a really good time to hilight the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Regardless, so as not to confuse ignorant people as some religious goober will likely see this and go "heeeeeyyyyy yeaaaaaa", "dark matter" is a temporary name given to something that's having an effect we can see, even though we can't see what's actually driving the effect.
We're not saying 'ah yes, this must be what is here', we're saying 'well, something is there as evidenced by this, this, and this, but damn if I can tell you what, so I will call it "dark matter" until I can figure out what it really is'.
Whereas science will continue to try and resolve that open question, religion would just arbitrarily make up some assinine answer on the spot, declare itself completely and unquestionably correct, and then mock anyone who did something so silly as suggest that maybe they should have actually tried some observations and tests before coming to a conclusion.