Agnosticism is not the belief that "something is out there". Perhaps you should look up your terms before spouting nonsense. That is closest to deism, not agnosticim.
My definition was just as good as your definition of atheism. *shrug*. There are other definitions of agnostic, but that's the one I subscribe to. The belief that God is unknown and possibly unknowable. That's right from the dictionary, whereas your definition of atheism as 'maybe so, maybe no' fits the second definition of agnosticism.
It doesn't waste my time? No, not now, but it once did, and I'm still incensed at being lied to. You have no proof that you were lied to, you have only your belief. Nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. You also have had free will your entire life, and blaming others because of the choices you made is whiny and weak. Stay 'incensed', most people just get over it.
Science never advertises absolute knowledge, yet it has showed us many things which we accept to be facts simply because they are demonstratable.
Yes, that's one difference between science and atheism. Scientists will occasionally admit the possibility that they don't know everything and could possibly be wrong.
I'm sure you know of the Occam's razor principle?
Yep. I am aware of it. I take it as simpler and thus more likely that some type of design was involved in our universe than matter created itself and resolved itself into a giant conglomeration of perfectly aligned rules. That's just my opinion, and again I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right. It does seem simpler, though, and that's what Occam's Razor is all about.
You can't disprove man didn't really evolve from clams, but that won't stop people from saying it's not true. There are better explanations out there.
I don't need to prove man evolved from anything. It's not neccessary for my worldview. I don't need to disprove it, either. It just doesn't matter that much to me where we came from; we're here now. How we got here isn't that important to me. That's why I don't subscribe to any religion, and why I don't care about the evolution debate.
But that doctor shouldn't be allowed to claim success unless scientifically shown to be true. I see. Scientists would never claim something to be true when it was not. Never. Couldn't happen. Must be nice, the world you live in.
SUVs, on the other hand, are a highly destructive, wasteful consumer good (not intermediate good) that are a pure artefact of American consumer culture, and as such completely arbitrary.
HAHahahahahaHAHAhAHhAHAHHAhahahaha. Land Rovers are a pure artefact of American culture? You *are* funny. 18-wheelers are exactly as 'arbitrary' as SUVs. Take that however you wish.
Nice way to purposefully be dense, but he's clearly referring to when medicine (and the science behind it) and religion mix.
Nice way to ignore the contribution of religion to people's health worldwide. There is no reason that science and religion can't mix, except when idiots on both sides decide they're too smart to keep an open mind.
(Many) Atheists don't claim to know the answer for sure. Semantic quibbling aside, most atheists don't believe in/disbelieve in god the same way you don't believe in/disbelieve in bigfoot. Sure, it could exist, but there's either no definite way to know and it's rather unlikely given the nature of the claim. Agnosticism isn't necessarily a middle ground between atheism and theism-- one could be agnostic and be the other.
Then why do so many atheists feel compelled to tell religious people they're wrong all the time? Really, atheism is specifically a disbelief. Agnosticism is the belief that something is out there, but no one knows what. It can also include people who feel there is a higher power but don't choose to quantify it, or don't think they're capable of doing so.
And why does praying hurt? It wastes time. It does absolutely nothing but waste time. If you want to feel good about doing something for an ill person, work for them, not being lazy and pretending you're doing something when you're really not.
It doesn't waste *your* time. I seriously doubt there is anything the OP could actively do to help the article poster. Praying is no worse in this situation than simply reading about it on/. and then forgetting about it. Of course, if there *is* a God, then praying could help. Your statement that it does absolutely nothing contradicts your previous statement that atheists don't claim to know for sure. "[Prayer] does absolutely nothing but waste time" isn't an ambiguous statement.
If your doctor says 'I'm praying for you instead of administering medicine," that's totally different. However, if that's the kind of doctor you want to go to, it's your life and your health. You have the option of accepting that or going to a different doctor. That's the beauty of choice.
I wish the Atlanta police department had your sense of humor.
Police can't afford a sense of humor, because they are too busy busting people for 'crimes against society' and 'crimes against one's own person' and parking in fire lanes and popping sirens to get through red lights and beating down darkies and handing out parking tickets to have a sense of humor. As a desperate attempt to get back to something resembling the topic, many homeless people are suffering from some form of mild-moderate mental illness, and many times they are arrested for being vagrant even though they cannot support themselves. One solution to the 'homeless problem' is to spend some of the money we're currently wasting on the 'war on drugs' to help get mentally ill people off the street, as many of them *could* lead productive lives with minimal supervision. Of course, our society doesn't work that way.
Prehaps it would have been better said no one here has suggested. Medicine and religion have a long history of bad blood and we would probably but a lot healthier without religion.
"Prehaps" it would have, but I assumed no one would be a big enough idiot to need it spelled out like that. Apparently I was wrong. We would "but" a lot healthier without religion? Wow. If you meant "be", I'd have to ask if the people in third world countries whose only access to medicine or modern tech comes from missionaries would "but" healthier without religion. If none of the doctors who are also religious went into medical practice, would we "but" healthier because of that, too? Please understand, since you apparently need everything spelled out for you, I'm not saying that religion makes us healthier. I'm just saying that stating that without religion we would be healthier is illogical. There hasn't been a time in human history when there has been a total absence of religion, so there's no way you could support that statement. Good to know you're on the case, though, ready to shove your personal religious beliefs down everyone's throat by any means neccessary.
Atheists believe in reason. That said, I classify myself as a militant agnostic; I don't know the answers, and neither does anybody else.
That's funny, some of the most unreasonable people I know are atheists. As far as militant agnosticism, what do you do, get in people's faces and scream "I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DIE, BITCH!"? That would be rather amusing to see.
Wow. I didn't know the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and the family ad council posted on/.
Let me provide a counter to this: I know someone who is mildly schizophrenic, and smokes pot instead of taking meds, which only made things worse. With a low dosage, less than a full joint per day, this person is doing just fine. I'm not saying that pot is a miracle cure for any disease, just that different people react differently to the same thing, so couching anti-pot propaganda in this way is useless. I know the AC whose post I'm responding to was making shit up, but you never know, someone might believe him.
First of all, anybody with moderating experience, please remove any of the attempts to be funny I've just observed in the comments above here.
Go fascism. I'm sure it will happen independant of your desires, but it's the thought that counts.
ps to the purveyors of the foolish comments above, you're ignorant, and if I had you here in person, you'd get a smack in the mouth.
Sometimes the way to deal with traumatic things is to laugh at them. Laughter is good for you. When you can laugh about something, even if you don't feel you 'should', it can help you to deal with it. If you gave me a smack in the mouth, I'd happily press charges, and I'm truly sorry for you if you think that violence is a better reaction to something than humor. If you don't like people making jokes out of serious things, what the FUCK are you doing reading slashdot?
That's fine with me. But my reply was also very sincere: as much as he was trying to help with praying, I was informing about the fact that it is not helping and people should not rely on it. My point is: I see way too many people relying on praying and such while completely ignoring regular medical stuff which may be their only help.
I guess there's no such thing as the placebo effect, then. Also, why do you care if someone who is not you is relying on prayer instead of medical care? I've seen quite a few people who have relied on medical care and have been given the wrong medicine, wrong dosage, treated for the wrong condition, etc. Medicine isn't perfect, nor does it fix every problem. Personally, I'm going to go to the doctor instead of some priest when I'm sick, but that's my personal choice. If someone else wants to suffer intead of get well, that's their business. Also, it's quite a stretch to take an unsolicited person's statement that they're going to pray for party A as evidence that party A is relying on prayer rather than medicine.
Good thing not everyone turned to prayer. Scientists have actually researched schizophrenia and have come up with many medications to help people live with this horrible mental disorder.
Progress comes with hands working, not hands praying.
Praying may not help, but what does it hurt? If you don't believe that it does anything, why do you care? No one's suggesting that doctors pray instead of treat, just some random person who isn't working for the cure wants to spend their own time praying. Why do you care?
If you're a rabid atheist or a fundamental religious type, get your flamethrower ready. Atheism is the only religion I know of that's based around NOT believing something. I mean, I don't believe in ghosts, but I don't go around preaching about it to people who do and I don't call myself an 'aghostist'. If someone told me they were going to commune with the spirits for me, I'd just shrug and get on with my life. I'm an agnostic, so I try not to tell people what to believe. If you want to believe in a religion, go ahead. If you want to not believe something, that's fine too. Just don't preach about it to me EITHER WAY unless I ask you to. Most people who contantly refer to themselves as atheists, however, have more in common with fundamentalists than they like to admit. Personally, I think *anyone* who says they know the answer for sure is deluded. Of course, I could be wrong. Try getting a rabid atheist *or* a rabid religious nut to say that.
This has been an interesting effort that I have supported since it first started. I have over 16780 units completed to date (35.011 years effort in processing time) and hope that it leads to something. Once you get started though its like a drug... gotta finish more units!
Or the same ones over and over again. It doesn't seem to matter to seti afficianados that they're watching the same units complete that others have seen before them, as long as they get to watch their penis, er I mean stats, rise.
Hmm. I don't remember telling anyone what they must drive, just pointing out that (in my opinion) a bike is usually much more practical for these kinds of journeys. If I told you that a hammer probably wasn't the best way to open a can of beans, would you feel that I was taking away your freedom?
You called for a ban on SUVs. That certainly is telling people what to drive. Also, it can be quite efficient to open a can of beans with a hammer, if it has a claw end. If you called for a ban on hammers, because you don't want people opening cans with them, you'd be infringing upon my freedom.
Telling someone what to drive is very different from caring what they drive. SUV drivers are usually the ones that ignore me and almost knock me off. They also take up large amounts of road. Traffic jams would probably become a thing of the past if every solo driver in a car was on a bike instead. And even at 28-35MPG, it's still around half as fuel efficient as my bike.
We all know there was no traffic before SUVs became popular.
I'd still rather get home in 10 mins on my bike rather than spend 1/2 hr in a traffic jam in an SUV.
If you're doing that, you're probably one of those dicks that gives bikes a bad name by illegally driving on the shoulder or in between cars. Otherwise stuck in traffic is stuck in traffic.
If anybody in the US would bother to speak the Queen's English, I guarantee you the communication barrier between Americans and Indians would drop 50% my dear chap, don't you think that's raw-ther exxagerated? I was not aware that 'Helloing and thanking you for choose microstar computers, how may i being of assistance today?' was the Queen's English. Pip pip and all that.
Americans don't say aluminium for a very good reason: the accepted American spelling of the word is aluminum. The accepted Limey spelling and the accepted Amurrican spelling are different, and thus they pronounciations differ as well. Sometimes, as with kerb and tyre, this doesn't make much difference, but asking an Amurrican to say 'al-u-min-ee-um' when we spell the word aluminum is like asking us to pronounce 'truck' as 'lorry'. You say potatoe, i say potato. let's call the whole thing off.
* we told one lady her computer was crashing because she was wearing yellow, and it was causing a larger than normal static buildup.
* sunspots were causing electrical issues, causing computers to crash
* and then, old faithful, El Nino (affecting the magnetosphere or something, take your pick)....and then there was the one guy who was complaining his computer was going to slow. This was back in the days of the digital clock speed on the front of the case, so we just fixed the display to read 300 instead of 166, and he thought we were the best thing since sliced bread.
god, i miss tech support. --J
I think they were even *more* fun the first time: when they were on the excuse-a-day calendar the BOFH uses.
747s average about 0.2 miles per gallon for a reasonable-distance flight. When you figure in their larger passenger capacity, it costs significantly less fuel to transport a passenger in a 747 than it does to transport a passenger in even a fully-occupied SUV.
Yes, I too enjoy comparing apples to oranges. Try taking a 747 to your kid's soccer game.
So, freight trains are 13.41x as fuel-efficient as Escalades. Now that must be a surprise...
Where are your stats comparing, say, a farmer's combine to an escalade? or maybe a deep-sea vishing vessel? How does the Space Shuttle compare?
Why not just outlaw them altogether? In fact, why not threaten to cripple the automotive industry unless they radically reform their entire way of doing business?
Or better yet, outlaw 18-wheelers. They're bigger than SUVs. They put clouds of noxious junk into the air. Outlaw them. Oh, wait, then you couldn't get your Birkenstocks delivered to you or your combine-death causing 'animal friendly' vegetarian food or your posterboard and magic markers for your protest signs. Let's keep our country free by outlawing everything we don't like!
99% OF THE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THEM DON'T FUCKING NEED THEM.
Do you really want to go there? I bet you own a TV. I bet you own a computer. I bet you own more than one set of silverware, more than 1 set of clothes...some furniture. Do you FUCKING NEED your MTV? I don't think so. Of course, if people wanted to take your granola away, you'd be all up in their grill. Why don't you try living a lifestyle free of everything you don't FUCKING NEED before running your mouth off about what other people need? Nah, that would be too logical.
Let's not forget that their average fuel economy is worse than my fucking lawnmower.
Oh, man. You have a gas-powered lawnmower? Holy fuck, you're certainly qualified to tell others what they FUCKING NEED. I use a reel mower (like on Leave it to Beaver). I don't FUCKING NEED to mow my lawn, but I choose to do it anyhow. If everyone only did/had what they FUCKING NEEDED, life would be shitty. Of course, you only care about what OTHER people need or don't need, right?
Sure you may need to tow things sometimes, or take 4 passengers, but I regularly see SUVs with one person in driving to work.
My motorbike gets 65+ MPG and can get me to work a hell of a lot quicker than an SUV. I wouldn't consider it a sensible tool for towing a caravan and in a similar way an SUV isn't a sensible tool to get one person 10 miles to work in the morning.
I love motorcycles. I drove one for 5+ years with no other means of transportation. Bikes are terrific. However, it's stupid to say that they're hands-down better for getting to work than SUVs. I'd MUCH rather be in an SUV than on a bike when it's raining. I'd MUCH rather be in an SUV than on a bike when getting run into by another vehicle. (And yes, I've been in that situation on a bike, which produced a broken hand, road rash, and a bunch of sprains, and in a car, which produced a slight neckache for a day) It's really hard to carry stuff on a motorcycle, and you have to be much more road aware as people ignore you, expect you to move, or just don't see you in the first place. Bikes rule, but they are not hands down better than SUVs, just as SUVs are not straight better than bikes. Personal preference also should account for something. I don't care if a single guy wants to drive an SUV. It's supposed to be a free country where I live, and telling people what to drive goes against my definition of 'free'. Also, car companies are responding to peoples' complaints about SUV fuel efficiency by....making more fuel-efficient SUVs. Funny how that works. Once the average SUV gets 28-35 MPG, what will you haters complain about?
This is the same stupid debate as if smoking really causes cancer, or not? The effekt IS there, it's just not certain how strong it is and will be.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, idiot. It's the free radicals mutating cells that cause the cancer. Smoking just puts a larger number of free radicals near vital organs. Plenty of non smokers get cancer, and plenty of smokers don't. Just because an activity puts you at a higher risk for something does not mean that it causes that thing. That's like saying that spending time outside causes skin cancer, when we all know it's the harmful radiation that does that. Spending time outside just puts you at higher risk. Of course, with skin cancer you can use sunblock to lessen that risk, and smokers can increase their intake of antioxidants for the same reason. Now, it's quite possible that smoking causes dirty looks from ignorant assholes like you on the street....but I'm not going to state it as a fact. Maybe you anti-smokers are just total dicks.
Or its just like the other debate of the same reality-negating kind like these people which argue that the nazis didn't actually kill the jews... Yes of course!?!
Sure. It's exactly like that. People choosing to smoke is exactly the same as people choosing to attempt genocide. Why do you idiots play the Nazi card so much? I think it's because you have no basis in reality for what you're saying, and what's more, you know it. Stop playing the Nazi card unless you're talking about attempted genocide.
So what's *your* answer? Pay for murderers to live on death row for 50 or 60 years at an average cost of 150k per year per prisoner? Set them free to kill again? State-sanctioned execution's main purpose is to prevent individuals who have already PROVEN that they will take human life from ever possibly doing so again. I suppose you wouldn't support "murdering" an animal with rabies, either. I bet that your views would change if that rabid animal bit your child...or if a human waste of existence murdered your family. It's easy to be "above" issues that you don't think affect you directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Agnosticism is not the belief that "something is out there". Perhaps you should look up your terms before spouting nonsense. That is closest to deism, not agnosticim.
My definition was just as good as your definition of atheism. *shrug*. There are other definitions of agnostic, but that's the one I subscribe to. The belief that God is unknown and possibly unknowable. That's right from the dictionary, whereas your definition of atheism as 'maybe so, maybe no' fits the second definition of agnosticism.
It doesn't waste my time? No, not now, but it once did, and I'm still incensed at being lied to.
You have no proof that you were lied to, you have only your belief. Nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. You also have had free will your entire life, and blaming others because of the choices you made is whiny and weak. Stay 'incensed', most people just get over it.
Science never advertises absolute knowledge, yet it has showed us many things which we accept to be facts simply because they are demonstratable.
Yes, that's one difference between science and atheism. Scientists will occasionally admit the possibility that they don't know everything and could possibly be wrong.
I'm sure you know of the Occam's razor principle?
Yep. I am aware of it. I take it as simpler and thus more likely that some type of design was involved in our universe than matter created itself and resolved itself into a giant conglomeration of perfectly aligned rules. That's just my opinion, and again I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right. It does seem simpler, though, and that's what Occam's Razor is all about.
You can't disprove man didn't really evolve from clams, but that won't stop people from saying it's not true. There are better explanations out there.
I don't need to prove man evolved from anything. It's not neccessary for my worldview. I don't need to disprove it, either. It just doesn't matter that much to me where we came from; we're here now. How we got here isn't that important to me. That's why I don't subscribe to any religion, and why I don't care about the evolution debate.
But that doctor shouldn't be allowed to claim success unless scientifically shown to be true.
I see. Scientists would never claim something to be true when it was not. Never. Couldn't happen.
Must be nice, the world you live in.
SUVs, on the other hand, are a highly destructive, wasteful consumer good (not intermediate good) that are a pure artefact of American consumer culture, and as such completely arbitrary.
HAHahahahahaHAHAhAHhAHAHHAhahahaha. Land Rovers are a pure artefact of American culture? You *are* funny.
18-wheelers are exactly as 'arbitrary' as SUVs. Take that however you wish.
Nice way to purposefully be dense, but he's clearly referring to when medicine (and the science behind it) and religion mix.
Nice way to ignore the contribution of religion to people's health worldwide. There is no reason that science and religion can't mix, except when idiots on both sides decide they're too smart to keep an open mind.
(Many) Atheists don't claim to know the answer for sure. Semantic quibbling aside, most atheists don't believe in/disbelieve in god the same way you don't believe in/disbelieve in bigfoot. Sure, it could exist, but there's either no definite way to know and it's rather unlikely given the nature of the claim. Agnosticism isn't necessarily a middle ground between atheism and theism-- one could be agnostic and be the other.
/. and then forgetting about it. Of course, if there *is* a God, then praying could help. Your statement that it does absolutely nothing contradicts your previous statement that atheists don't claim to know for sure. "[Prayer] does absolutely nothing but waste time" isn't an ambiguous statement.
Then why do so many atheists feel compelled to tell religious people they're wrong all the time? Really, atheism is specifically a disbelief. Agnosticism is the belief that something is out there, but no one knows what. It can also include people who feel there is a higher power but don't choose to quantify it, or don't think they're capable of doing so.
And why does praying hurt? It wastes time. It does absolutely nothing but waste time. If you want to feel good about doing something for an ill person, work for them, not being lazy and pretending you're doing something when you're really not.
It doesn't waste *your* time. I seriously doubt there is anything the OP could actively do to help the article poster. Praying is no worse in this situation than simply reading about it on
If your doctor says 'I'm praying for you instead of administering medicine," that's totally different. However, if that's the kind of doctor you want to go to, it's your life and your health. You have the option of accepting that or going to a different doctor. That's the beauty of choice.
I wish the Atlanta police department had your sense of humor.
Police can't afford a sense of humor, because they are too busy busting people for 'crimes against society' and 'crimes against one's own person' and parking in fire lanes and popping sirens to get through red lights and beating down darkies and handing out parking tickets to have a sense of humor. As a desperate attempt to get back to something resembling the topic, many homeless people are suffering from some form of mild-moderate mental illness, and many times they are arrested for being vagrant even though they cannot support themselves. One solution to the 'homeless problem' is to spend some of the money we're currently wasting on the 'war on drugs' to help get mentally ill people off the street, as many of them *could* lead productive lives with minimal supervision. Of course, our society doesn't work that way.
Prehaps it would have been better said no one here has suggested.
Medicine and religion have a long history of bad blood and we would probably but a lot healthier without religion.
"Prehaps" it would have, but I assumed no one would be a big enough idiot to need it spelled out like that. Apparently I was wrong. We would "but" a lot healthier without religion? Wow. If you meant "be", I'd have to ask if the people in third world countries whose only access to medicine or modern tech comes from missionaries would "but" healthier without religion. If none of the doctors who are also religious went into medical practice, would we "but" healthier because of that, too? Please understand, since you apparently need everything spelled out for you, I'm not saying that religion makes us healthier. I'm just saying that stating that without religion we would be healthier is illogical. There hasn't been a time in human history when there has been a total absence of religion, so there's no way you could support that statement. Good to know you're on the case, though, ready to shove your personal religious beliefs down everyone's throat by any means neccessary.
Atheists believe in reason. That said, I classify myself as a militant agnostic; I don't know
the answers, and neither does anybody else.
That's funny, some of the most unreasonable people I know are atheists. As far as militant agnosticism, what do you do, get in people's faces and scream "I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DIE, BITCH!"?
That would be rather amusing to see.
Wow. I didn't know the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and the family ad council posted on /.
Let me provide a counter to this: I know someone who is mildly schizophrenic, and smokes pot instead of taking meds, which only made things worse. With a low dosage, less than a full joint per day, this person is doing just fine. I'm not saying that pot is a miracle cure for any disease, just that different people react differently to the same thing, so couching anti-pot propaganda in this way is useless. I know the AC whose post I'm responding to was making shit up, but you never know, someone might believe him.
First of all, anybody with moderating experience, please remove any of the attempts to be funny I've just observed in the comments above here.
Go fascism. I'm sure it will happen independant of your desires, but it's the thought that counts.
ps to the purveyors of the foolish comments above, you're ignorant, and if I had you here in person, you'd get a smack in the mouth.
Sometimes the way to deal with traumatic things is to laugh at them. Laughter is good for you. When you can laugh about something, even if you don't feel you 'should', it can help you to deal with it.
If you gave me a smack in the mouth, I'd happily press charges, and I'm truly sorry for you if you think that violence is a better reaction to something than humor. If you don't like people making jokes out of serious things, what the FUCK are you doing reading slashdot?
That's fine with me. But my reply was also very sincere: as much as he was trying to help with praying, I was informing about the fact that it is not helping and people should not rely on it.
My point is: I see way too many people relying on praying and such while completely ignoring regular medical stuff which may be their only help.
I guess there's no such thing as the placebo effect, then. Also, why do you care if someone who is not you is relying on prayer instead of medical care? I've seen quite a few people who have relied on medical care and have been given the wrong medicine, wrong dosage, treated for the wrong condition, etc. Medicine isn't perfect, nor does it fix every problem. Personally, I'm going to go to the doctor instead of some priest when I'm sick, but that's my personal choice. If someone else wants to suffer intead of get well, that's their business. Also, it's quite a stretch to take an unsolicited person's statement that they're going to pray for party A as evidence that party A is relying on prayer rather than medicine.
Good thing not everyone turned to prayer. Scientists have actually researched schizophrenia and have come up with many medications to help people live with this horrible mental disorder.
Progress comes with hands working, not hands praying.
Praying may not help, but what does it hurt? If you don't believe that it does anything, why do you care? No one's suggesting that doctors pray instead of treat, just some random person who isn't working for the cure wants to spend their own time praying. Why do you care?
If you're a rabid atheist or a fundamental religious type, get your flamethrower ready.
Atheism is the only religion I know of that's based around NOT believing something. I mean, I don't believe in ghosts, but I don't go around preaching about it to people who do and I don't call myself an 'aghostist'. If someone told me they were going to commune with the spirits for me, I'd just shrug and get on with my life. I'm an agnostic, so I try not to tell people what to believe. If you want to believe in a religion, go ahead. If you want to not believe something, that's fine too. Just don't preach about it to me EITHER WAY unless I ask you to. Most people who contantly refer to themselves as atheists, however, have more in common with fundamentalists than they like to admit. Personally, I think *anyone* who says they know the answer for sure is deluded. Of course, I could be wrong. Try getting a rabid atheist *or* a rabid religious nut to say that.
Actually, I vastly don't appreciate some of the jokes flying around. I was diagnosed schizophrenic about 6 years ago.
Of course you don't appreciate the jokes. They're all aimed directly at *you*. We know who you are...
Too many people confuse Schizophrenia with Multiple Personality Disorder. The two are related, but are not the same thing.
I agree totally with you.
I, however, don't.
This has been an interesting effort that I have supported since it first started. I have over 16780 units completed to date (35.011 years effort in processing time) and hope that it leads to something. Once you get started though its like a drug ... gotta finish more units!
Or the same ones over and over again. It doesn't seem to matter to seti afficianados that they're watching the same units complete that others have seen before them, as long as they get to watch their penis, er I mean stats, rise.
Hmm. I don't remember telling anyone what they must drive, just pointing out that (in my opinion) a bike is usually much more practical for these kinds of journeys. If I told you that a hammer probably wasn't the best way to open a can of beans, would you feel that I was taking away your freedom?
You called for a ban on SUVs. That certainly is telling people what to drive.
Also, it can be quite efficient to open a can of beans with a hammer, if it has a claw end. If you called for a ban on hammers, because you don't want people opening cans with them, you'd be infringing upon my freedom.
Telling someone what to drive is very different from caring what they drive. SUV drivers are usually the ones that ignore me and almost knock me off. They also take up large amounts of road. Traffic jams would probably become a thing of the past if every solo driver in a car was on a bike instead. And even at 28-35MPG, it's still around half as fuel efficient as my bike.
We all know there was no traffic before SUVs became popular.
I'd still rather get home in 10 mins on my bike rather than spend 1/2 hr in a traffic jam in an SUV.
If you're doing that, you're probably one of those dicks that gives bikes a bad name by illegally driving on the shoulder or in between cars. Otherwise stuck in traffic is stuck in traffic.
If anybody in the US would bother to speak the Queen's English, I guarantee you the communication barrier between Americans and Indians would drop 50%
my dear chap, don't you think that's raw-ther exxagerated? I was not aware that 'Helloing and thanking you for choose microstar computers, how may i being of assistance today?' was the Queen's English. Pip pip and all that.
Get an American to say Aunt or Aluminium.
Americans don't say aluminium for a very good reason: the accepted American spelling of the word is aluminum. The accepted Limey spelling and the accepted Amurrican spelling are different, and thus they pronounciations differ as well. Sometimes, as with kerb and tyre, this doesn't make much difference, but asking an Amurrican to say 'al-u-min-ee-um' when we spell the word aluminum is like asking us to pronounce 'truck' as 'lorry'. You say potatoe, i say potato. let's call the whole thing off.
a few of the more fun ones:
...and then there was the one guy who was complaining his computer was going to slow. This was back in the days of the digital clock speed on the front of the case, so we just fixed the display to read 300 instead of 166, and he thought we were the best thing since sliced bread.
* we told one lady her computer was crashing because she was wearing yellow, and it was causing a larger than normal static buildup.
* sunspots were causing electrical issues, causing computers to crash
* and then, old faithful, El Nino (affecting the magnetosphere or something, take your pick).
god, i miss tech support. --J
I think they were even *more* fun the first time: when they were on the excuse-a-day calendar the BOFH uses.
747s average about 0.2 miles per gallon for a reasonable-distance flight. When you figure in their larger passenger capacity, it costs significantly less fuel to transport a passenger in a 747 than it does to transport a passenger in even a fully-occupied SUV.
Yes, I too enjoy comparing apples to oranges. Try taking a 747 to your kid's soccer game.
So, freight trains are 13.41x as fuel-efficient as Escalades. Now that must be a surprise...
Where are your stats comparing, say, a farmer's combine to an escalade? or maybe a deep-sea vishing vessel? How does the Space Shuttle compare?
Why not just outlaw them altogether? In fact, why not threaten to cripple the automotive industry unless they radically reform their entire way of doing business?
Or better yet, outlaw 18-wheelers. They're bigger than SUVs. They put clouds of noxious junk into the air. Outlaw them. Oh, wait, then you couldn't get your Birkenstocks delivered to you or your combine-death causing 'animal friendly' vegetarian food or your posterboard and magic markers for your protest signs. Let's keep our country free by outlawing everything we don't like!
99% OF THE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THEM DON'T FUCKING NEED THEM.
Do you really want to go there? I bet you own a TV. I bet you own a computer. I bet you own more than one set of silverware, more than 1 set of clothes...some furniture. Do you FUCKING NEED your MTV? I don't think so. Of course, if people wanted to take your granola away, you'd be all up in their grill. Why don't you try living a lifestyle free of everything you don't FUCKING NEED before running your mouth off about what other people need? Nah, that would be too logical.
Let's not forget that their average fuel economy is worse than my fucking lawnmower.
Oh, man. You have a gas-powered lawnmower? Holy fuck, you're certainly qualified to tell others what they FUCKING NEED.
I use a reel mower (like on Leave it to Beaver). I don't FUCKING NEED to mow my lawn, but I choose to do it anyhow. If everyone only did/had what they FUCKING NEEDED, life would be shitty. Of course, you only care about what OTHER people need or don't need, right?
Sure you may need to tow things sometimes, or take 4 passengers, but I regularly see SUVs with one person in driving to work.
My motorbike gets 65+ MPG and can get me to work a hell of a lot quicker than an SUV. I wouldn't consider it a sensible tool for towing a caravan and in a similar way an SUV isn't a sensible tool to get one person 10 miles to work in the morning.
I love motorcycles. I drove one for 5+ years with no other means of transportation. Bikes are terrific. However, it's stupid to say that they're hands-down better for getting to work than SUVs. I'd MUCH rather be in an SUV than on a bike when it's raining. I'd MUCH rather be in an SUV than on a bike when getting run into by another vehicle. (And yes, I've been in that situation on a bike, which produced a broken hand, road rash, and a bunch of sprains, and in a car, which produced a slight neckache for a day) It's really hard to carry stuff on a motorcycle, and you have to be much more road aware as people ignore you, expect you to move, or just don't see you in the first place. Bikes rule, but they are not hands down better than SUVs, just as SUVs are not straight better than bikes. Personal preference also should account for something. I don't care if a single guy wants to drive an SUV. It's supposed to be a free country where I live, and telling people what to drive goes against my definition of 'free'. Also, car companies are responding to peoples' complaints about SUV fuel efficiency by....making more fuel-efficient SUVs. Funny how that works. Once the average SUV gets 28-35 MPG, what will you haters complain about?
This is the same stupid debate as if smoking really causes cancer, or not? The effekt IS there, it's just not certain how strong it is and will be.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, idiot. It's the free radicals mutating cells that cause the cancer. Smoking just puts a larger number of free radicals near vital organs. Plenty of non smokers get cancer, and plenty of smokers don't. Just because an activity puts you at a higher risk for something does not mean that it causes that thing. That's like saying that spending time outside causes skin cancer, when we all know it's the harmful radiation that does that. Spending time outside just puts you at higher risk. Of course, with skin cancer you can use sunblock to lessen that risk, and smokers can increase their intake of antioxidants for the same reason. Now, it's quite possible that smoking causes dirty looks from ignorant assholes like you on the street....but I'm not going to state it as a fact. Maybe you anti-smokers are just total dicks.
Or its just like the other debate of the same reality-negating kind like these people which argue that the nazis didn't actually kill the jews... Yes of course!?!
Sure. It's exactly like that. People choosing to smoke is exactly the same as people choosing to attempt genocide. Why do you idiots play the Nazi card so much? I think it's because you have no basis in reality for what you're saying, and what's more, you know it. Stop playing the Nazi card unless you're talking about attempted genocide.
Because murder is murder.
So what's *your* answer? Pay for murderers to live on death row for 50 or 60 years at an average cost of 150k per year per prisoner? Set them free to kill again? State-sanctioned execution's main purpose is to prevent individuals who have already PROVEN that they will take human life from ever possibly doing so again. I suppose you wouldn't support "murdering" an animal with rabies, either. I bet that your views would change if that rabid animal bit your child...or if a human waste of existence murdered your family. It's easy to be "above" issues that you don't think affect you directly.
Do they have one that shows how to lie with girls?
I believe you're looking for the small, poorly-lit establishment on the edge of town. They have what you're looking for.