Fanaticism is relative by definition, as is the rationality of their actions. You do realize American soldiers are either currently attacking, or contemplating attacking, their home countries, right?
That's a good point. I've always been astounded at flight 93, since it disagrees with every stereotype I have about people. Still, the people on 93 didn't even gain access to the cockpit, and cockpits have been strengthened since 9/11. If hijackers manage to get in the cockpit, they're probably pretty safe even if the passengers do grow some balls.
I think I stumbled into the wrong thread here. My original point was that most Americans, no matter how manipulatable (and they are VERY manipulatable, you're perfectly correct), wouldn't jump a hijacker with any sort of impressive-looking or effective weapon. Soon as the first guy tried and got stabbed/shot/burned, if anyone did try, the rest would cower in the back and cry.
But then the thread got hijacked into Bush-bashing.
The plane is, or at least can be, flown by a crew on the ground. It's probably a lot easier to jump over the airport fence with an Uzi and a few breaching charges and take over the control room than it is to bring an Uzi and a breaching charge onto a plane and take over the cockpit.
Our president's intentions to take down Saddam after 9/11 don't change the fact that we, America and probably most of the first world, are pussies. Have you ever been in a fight? I've never been in a fight. I was a gigantic asshole for the last two years high school and never found myself in the slightest danger of receiving even a single punch.
I'm aware of that. But I'd bet my left arm you can't find a single person in the world who's heard of Occam's Razor who doesn't immediately think "The simplest explanation is usually correct." The fact that those words don't appear in his writings isn't really relevant.
No, I meant his other razor. The one people have referred to as "Occam's Razor" for centuries, which has proven useful as a rhetorical tool, and which doesn't include any reference to scripture.
You probably _are_ that ignorant, and you ARE anonymous. I don't know who you are. I don't even know your email address, much less name or address. If you're so proud of your opinions you're willing to identify yourself, go ahead. I want name, address, and phone number, otherwise you're just as cowardly as the poster you responded to.
You can't advocate Occam's Razor AND decry choosing the simplest explanation. Those positions are conradictory by definition.
And the fact remains that there's never, ever, EVER, been been found even remotely reliable evidence of anything supernatural. With so many unknown things in studies like physiology, neurology, quantum physics, and cosmology, science would be in a sad place if sceintists spent their time trying to find conclusions to support the claims of religion instead of finding natural explanations for natural phenomena, which you may have forgotten is the purpose of science.
It would help if religious people knew how to spell things like Occam. Whose Razor, by the way, is only a rule of thumb, and which doesn't support the existence of God any more than it supports the existence of Freya. Natural explanations are always simpler than supernatural explanations, because assuming the supernatural exists has so many side effects.
Science doesn't try to disprove the existence of God. It has spent 400 years disproving the concrete claims of religion, saying "See? You're wrong!" and watching religion scurry backward seeking undisprovable claims.
Ooh! I know! I know! Is it because we spend our time doing things other than licking our fingers while our drunk friends take our pictures? I thought so. We evolved past stupidity millennia ago, you see.
But then, it's not that long ago that Google was just two guys doodling on scrap paper.
...after which they came out with a very useful and innovative search engine, which people needed and therefore use. Not an "OS" on top of a browser on top of an OS, which is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Shitcock.
That's a good point. I've always been astounded at flight 93, since it disagrees with every stereotype I have about people. Still, the people on 93 didn't even gain access to the cockpit, and cockpits have been strengthened since 9/11. If hijackers manage to get in the cockpit, they're probably pretty safe even if the passengers do grow some balls.
I think I stumbled into the wrong thread here. My original point was that most Americans, no matter how manipulatable (and they are VERY manipulatable, you're perfectly correct), wouldn't jump a hijacker with any sort of impressive-looking or effective weapon. Soon as the first guy tried and got stabbed/shot/burned, if anyone did try, the rest would cower in the back and cry.
But then the thread got hijacked into Bush-bashing.
The plane is, or at least can be, flown by a crew on the ground. It's probably a lot easier to jump over the airport fence with an Uzi and a few breaching charges and take over the control room than it is to bring an Uzi and a breaching charge onto a plane and take over the cockpit.
Nope, guess again. If you're hoping to show that one region is tougher than another, I'd advise against it; America is amazingly homogeneous.
Our president's intentions to take down Saddam after 9/11 don't change the fact that we, America and probably most of the first world, are pussies. Have you ever been in a fight? I've never been in a fight. I was a gigantic asshole for the last two years high school and never found myself in the slightest danger of receiving even a single punch.
No remote access allowed to a computer without the administrator password, either.
Sorry, maybe next generation. This one isn't even tough enough to get hit with a rubber ball in gym class without crying and suing the school.
But how do you know when something's "wondering"? Anyone can make a program that prints out "I wonder... am I intelligent? Why am I here?"
Why do you insist on keeping the metric system down? Are you keeping Atlantis off the maps too?
I'm aware of that. But I'd bet my left arm you can't find a single person in the world who's heard of Occam's Razor who doesn't immediately think "The simplest explanation is usually correct." The fact that those words don't appear in his writings isn't really relevant.
No, I meant his other razor. The one people have referred to as "Occam's Razor" for centuries, which has proven useful as a rhetorical tool, and which doesn't include any reference to scripture.
If I whistle innocently, will you forget I said that?
That's why I don't call people cowards for being anonymous.
You probably _are_ that ignorant, and you ARE anonymous. I don't know who you are. I don't even know your email address, much less name or address. If you're so proud of your opinions you're willing to identify yourself, go ahead. I want name, address, and phone number, otherwise you're just as cowardly as the poster you responded to.
You can't advocate Occam's Razor AND decry choosing the simplest explanation. Those positions are conradictory by definition.
And the fact remains that there's never, ever, EVER, been been found even remotely reliable evidence of anything supernatural. With so many unknown things in studies like physiology, neurology, quantum physics, and cosmology, science would be in a sad place if sceintists spent their time trying to find conclusions to support the claims of religion instead of finding natural explanations for natural phenomena, which you may have forgotten is the purpose of science.
It would help if religious people knew how to spell things like Occam. Whose Razor, by the way, is only a rule of thumb, and which doesn't support the existence of God any more than it supports the existence of Freya. Natural explanations are always simpler than supernatural explanations, because assuming the supernatural exists has so many side effects.
Science doesn't try to disprove the existence of God. It has spent 400 years disproving the concrete claims of religion, saying "See? You're wrong!" and watching religion scurry backward seeking undisprovable claims.
The more important question is: will you understand if there's no drop in grades? Or will you try to explain it away?
Ooh! I know! I know! Is it because we spend our time doing things other than licking our fingers while our drunk friends take our pictures? I thought so. We evolved past stupidity millennia ago, you see.
Don't people use C anymore?
This story is interesting, as are many of the political discussions. Nerds aren't only interested in technology.
Spell checkers make you a worse speller. Why remember which letters are doubled? The spellchecker can do that!
Haven't you seen The life of Brian? "Do you find something... wisible... when I say the name BIGGUS.......... DICKUS???"