Cheers. Yeah, it was a bit if a cheap dig. Been off the smokes, so the mood is a bit flakey.
I wish people would learn a bit more about the past 2000 odd years of Christianity and Church history - if only to better understand what they're believing in. I'm in Ireland, where the majority are Catholics who think that the Council of Trent is a place in England where people go to complain when their bins haven't been collected. Shame.
Yes. The reference to Psalms is a bit odd, although not unexpected given the context. Even accepting that this book is intended for kids it's still amazingly over simplified. Electricity in this book could easily be the force from the Star Trek universe. Reading this one would think that electricity's magically appearing in bulbs without anyone knowing anything about its origin.
Contrary to what the book says, we know far more than how to bring electricity forth. I'm not sure if they're serious there or if it's just sloppy writing.
For balance it's better to read a bit more of the book. Why would a serious science book attempt to ascribe a reason to the moon's creation, let alone claim that it was created by God so that we would have light?
It's a pretty amusing attempt to shoe-horn Jesus in to science by over-playing gaps in our knowledge, and in places being downright dishonest. All standard stuff from the playbook of the liars for Jesus.
We're talking about people who believe that some long-dead bastard child of a divine being is going to be waiting after death to bring them to eternal happy land in the sky. Some of them gather each week so a guy in a robe can magic crackers in to the flesh of this guy so they can eat it.
With that foundation I'm more surprised that people are as sane and competent as they appear to be.
Oddly enough combining Christianity with science resulted in a science book that'll leave kids thinking that Jesus is busy each night towing the Moon in to the sky so we'll have a nice bit of light.
They have a point in that we may not have full explanations, and have to infer the existence of something from its effects rather than direct observation, but in the context of this book it's pretty clear they're a bunch of religious nutters looking to indoctrinate rather than educate.
The only thing that's going to be funnier than seeing an FBI-affiliated site defaced is all of their doors getting kicked in via no-knock warrants and their computers seized. It's hard to be little arrogant pricks on the internet without a computer.
Takes a brave man to share his masturbation fantasy with the world. Thank you!
It's difficult to not appear elitist while Fox TV news target demographics overlap with prisonplanet.com and WND. Their web stuff isn't too bad, but their TV content is about as lowbrow as news can get.
But that's software. If we follow the argument that he's violating his own principles then we'd have to conclude that contracting to develop software to specs provided by the people paying for it would also be a problem - even if it were released under GPL.
You're drawing a pretty broad conclusion from this one specific event. Had he agreed to *never* have any dealings with Israel then I'd agree there's a problem. All he did was to cancel lectures on this specific trip that is being paid for people kind of entitled to make such a demand - regardless of how petty it may be. I don't see how this is a civil liberties or freedom thing when he's voluntarily traveling on their ticket.
Any article summary that links to the Daily Mail as a source of news is automatically excluded from being anything worthwhile. Roblimo wants us to fear the yellow peril, and the Daily Mail can always be relied upon to deliver the best irrational and confused fear money can buy. I look forward to a future article citing Conservapedia as its source
>For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,
Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?
Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...
It takes an American to bother understanding the language they speak, and can recognize an insult built upon another insult? Interesting. I guess I honestly have some misconceptions of how the rest of the world operates.
Nope, you're over-thinking this. It's about as insulting as calling an Irishman a paddy, i.e. not very. The origin of the term doesn't necessarily reflect its modern usage. Berk is a classic example of this. It's used as a very mild insult, of the kind that you'd hear on daytime TV, yet it's rhyming slang for cunt. The long form is "Berkeley Hunt". Whether the originators thought this bunch of fox hunters were cunts is anyone's guess, but few people today even know the origin of the term, and I doubt many people who do would have any strong feelings either way for the Berkeley Hunt.
Take a look at a rhyming slang dictionary. You'll find that most of the terms used are pretty nonsensical. Stop being a berk. Enjoy some British culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
FOIA requests concern data held by the government - not data held privately (such as the Nintendo 3DS parked under your television). The FOIA is only useful if the government already has your data. Besides, privacy exclusions limit the information that can be disclosed. An FOIA request doesn't grant ownership of the requested data. It's not as if the USPS can request a copy of the song you wrote last week on your 3DS in order to sell it to MCA.
Ever wonder why armed robbers only rob convenience store clerks and not CEOs? Like to see the what convenience store corporations are doing to protect their CEOs from being ordered at gunpoint to empty the register while allowing its clerks to assaulted and robbed. Notice how it's only clerks that are robbed at gunpoint, not the directors. Guess companies can figure it out when it really matters.
It's down to roles and exposure. There's less of a need to expose certain types of data, such as payroll and executive renumeration, to the world while customer data will have to be more exposed for it to be of any use. It doesn't excuse sloppy security for which anyone holding personal data should be held liable.
What on Earth are you talking about? I think ridicule is fine, and I wouldn't ever say that ridicule is out of bounds. How have I ridiculed everyone who doesn't share my belief system? What goalposts did we have to begin with and how have I moved them? How are those quoted texts relevant to whatever it is you're thinking? I could ask more questions, but that's pretty much covering the most baffling aspects of your post.
Oh, and the martyr card is popular but carries little weight. Yes, mods are as biased as posters. I always read on -1 for that reason, but even while I can see your posts I'm feeling increasingly confused by this handwaving and tizzy throwing stuff you're doing. Seriously, make a good point, or piss off and stop wasting time with amateur dramatics and hyperbole-fueled navel gazing.
I think though that you make too much of "rabid atheism". It's pretty rare. I think you'll find that the majority of atheists in Western Europe and the United States, myself included, would agree that it's okay to not know. Are you focussing on "rabid atheism" for practical purposes, i.e. you see it as a serious threat, or more for the principle of being even-handed?
Incidentally, regarding your signature, that kind of depends on the question being asked. If asked "Do you believe God exists", then I can rationally and correctly respond with a simple "no". "I don't know" risks being a mantra for rabid agnostics who are so wed to the idea that one can never know that they risk giving solipsists a run for their money in missing the point that opposing sides in the argument aren't just mirror images of each other.
Trapped between irrational believers and irrational deniers, that's where it leaves us.
Intellectually jerking off at the satisfaction of occupying a fictional middle-ground that confers upon its tenants a feeling of having somehow risen above the argy bargy?
Nah, that's just hand waving. Perry and the majority of citizens who have repeatedly re-ellected him are by now means in the fringe. Yeah the equivalents would theoretically exist at both ends of the spectrum, but which side do you think has a somewhat larger percentage of the wingnuts?
You're attempting to sound reasonable by finding a fictional dead-centre that only exists when one extreme is a fashioned in to a exaggerated caricature - a strawman. One may as well try to claim that Raelians are representative of atheism as a whole, and that Fred Phelps is standard Christian fare.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheers. Yeah, it was a bit if a cheap dig. Been off the smokes, so the mood is a bit flakey.
I wish people would learn a bit more about the past 2000 odd years of Christianity and Church history - if only to better understand what they're believing in. I'm in Ireland, where the majority are Catholics who think that the Council of Trent is a place in England where people go to complain when their bins haven't been collected. Shame.
Yes. The reference to Psalms is a bit odd, although not unexpected given the context. Even accepting that this book is intended for kids it's still amazingly over simplified. Electricity in this book could easily be the force from the Star Trek universe. Reading this one would think that electricity's magically appearing in bulbs without anyone knowing anything about its origin.
Contrary to what the book says, we know far more than how to bring electricity forth. I'm not sure if they're serious there or if it's just sloppy writing.
For balance it's better to read a bit more of the book. Why would a serious science book attempt to ascribe a reason to the moon's creation, let alone claim that it was created by God so that we would have light?
It's a pretty amusing attempt to shoe-horn Jesus in to science by over-playing gaps in our knowledge, and in places being downright dishonest. All standard stuff from the playbook of the liars for Jesus.
We're talking about people who believe that some long-dead bastard child of a divine being is going to be waiting after death to bring them to eternal happy land in the sky. Some of them gather each week so a guy in a robe can magic crackers in to the flesh of this guy so they can eat it.
With that foundation I'm more surprised that people are as sane and competent as they appear to be.
Unfortunately, yes:
http://www.bjupress.com/about/electricity-is-a-mystery.php
Oddly enough combining Christianity with science resulted in a science book that'll leave kids thinking that Jesus is busy each night towing the Moon in to the sky so we'll have a nice bit of light.
They have a point in that we may not have full explanations, and have to infer the existence of something from its effects rather than direct observation, but in the context of this book it's pretty clear they're a bunch of religious nutters looking to indoctrinate rather than educate.
+1 funny.
I've actually encountered people who think this way for real.
The only thing that's going to be funnier than seeing an FBI-affiliated site defaced is all of their doors getting kicked in via no-knock warrants and their computers seized. It's hard to be little arrogant pricks on the internet without a computer.
Takes a brave man to share his masturbation fantasy with the world. Thank you!
It's difficult to not appear elitist while Fox TV news target demographics overlap with prisonplanet.com and WND. Their web stuff isn't too bad, but their TV content is about as lowbrow as news can get.
Well played, sir!
He obeyed local laws. What he failed to do was to obey the local laws of a country he wasn't in at the time.
But that's software. If we follow the argument that he's violating his own principles then we'd have to conclude that contracting to develop software to specs provided by the people paying for it would also be a problem - even if it were released under GPL.
You're drawing a pretty broad conclusion from this one specific event. Had he agreed to *never* have any dealings with Israel then I'd agree there's a problem. All he did was to cancel lectures on this specific trip that is being paid for people kind of entitled to make such a demand - regardless of how petty it may be. I don't see how this is a civil liberties or freedom thing when he's voluntarily traveling on their ticket.
...do you verify that all of the ads on that site you are visiting are from reliable sources? Doubleclick, Dailymail...
This may indeed be the one situation in which The Daily Mail could be considered a reliable source.
By that logic the owners of any readily identifiable building or monument should be able to do the same. That's batshit crazy.
Any article summary that links to the Daily Mail as a source of news is automatically excluded from being anything worthwhile. Roblimo wants us to fear the yellow peril, and the Daily Mail can always be relied upon to deliver the best irrational and confused fear money can buy. I look forward to a future article citing Conservapedia as its source
>For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,
Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?
Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...
Where can I buy this game? I must have it!
It takes an American to bother understanding the language they speak, and can recognize an insult built upon another insult? Interesting. I guess I honestly have some misconceptions of how the rest of the world operates.
Nope, you're over-thinking this. It's about as insulting as calling an Irishman a paddy, i.e. not very. The origin of the term doesn't necessarily reflect its modern usage. Berk is a classic example of this. It's used as a very mild insult, of the kind that you'd hear on daytime TV, yet it's rhyming slang for cunt. The long form is "Berkeley Hunt". Whether the originators thought this bunch of fox hunters were cunts is anyone's guess, but few people today even know the origin of the term, and I doubt many people who do would have any strong feelings either way for the Berkeley Hunt.
Take a look at a rhyming slang dictionary. You'll find that most of the terms used are pretty nonsensical. Stop being a berk. Enjoy some British culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
FOIA requests concern data held by the government - not data held privately (such as the Nintendo 3DS parked under your television). The FOIA is only useful if the government already has your data. Besides, privacy exclusions limit the information that can be disclosed. An FOIA request doesn't grant ownership of the requested data. It's not as if the USPS can request a copy of the song you wrote last week on your 3DS in order to sell it to MCA.
But next week it'll cure cancer.
Ever wonder why armed robbers only rob convenience store clerks and not CEOs? Like to see the what convenience store corporations are doing to protect their CEOs from being ordered at gunpoint to empty the register while allowing its clerks to assaulted and robbed. Notice how it's only clerks that are robbed at gunpoint, not the directors. Guess companies can figure it out when it really matters.
It's down to roles and exposure. There's less of a need to expose certain types of data, such as payroll and executive renumeration, to the world while customer data will have to be more exposed for it to be of any use. It doesn't excuse sloppy security for which anyone holding personal data should be held liable.
It's a name. Names typically begin with a capital letter. Just happens that this name also happens to be a noun.
What on Earth are you talking about? I think ridicule is fine, and I wouldn't ever say that ridicule is out of bounds. How have I ridiculed everyone who doesn't share my belief system? What goalposts did we have to begin with and how have I moved them? How are those quoted texts relevant to whatever it is you're thinking? I could ask more questions, but that's pretty much covering the most baffling aspects of your post.
Oh, and the martyr card is popular but carries little weight. Yes, mods are as biased as posters. I always read on -1 for that reason, but even while I can see your posts I'm feeling increasingly confused by this handwaving and tizzy throwing stuff you're doing. Seriously, make a good point, or piss off and stop wasting time with amateur dramatics and hyperbole-fueled navel gazing.
I think though that you make too much of "rabid atheism". It's pretty rare. I think you'll find that the majority of atheists in Western Europe and the United States, myself included, would agree that it's okay to not know. Are you focussing on "rabid atheism" for practical purposes, i.e. you see it as a serious threat, or more for the principle of being even-handed?
Incidentally, regarding your signature, that kind of depends on the question being asked. If asked "Do you believe God exists", then I can rationally and correctly respond with a simple "no". "I don't know" risks being a mantra for rabid agnostics who are so wed to the idea that one can never know that they risk giving solipsists a run for their money in missing the point that opposing sides in the argument aren't just mirror images of each other.
Trapped between irrational believers and irrational deniers, that's where it leaves us.
Intellectually jerking off at the satisfaction of occupying a fictional middle-ground that confers upon its tenants a feeling of having somehow risen above the argy bargy?
Nah, that's just hand waving. Perry and the majority of citizens who have repeatedly re-ellected him are by now means in the fringe. Yeah the equivalents would theoretically exist at both ends of the spectrum, but which side do you think has a somewhat larger percentage of the wingnuts?
You're attempting to sound reasonable by finding a fictional dead-centre that only exists when one extreme is a fashioned in to a exaggerated caricature - a strawman. One may as well try to claim that Raelians are representative of atheism as a whole, and that Fred Phelps is standard Christian fare.