If it didn;t affect me, it wouldn't bother me. The unfortunate thing is that these "believers" want to teach my kids "Intelligent Design" in schools.
So let them want to. Everyone wants things. Like ponys.
What's it to you? It's like you're taking it personally - something "believers", as you call them, sometimes do.
They want my tax money to go to their churches. They want to otherwise limit my rights in accordance to their belief.
Yes well, if I recall correctly, you people have this thing about religious freedom or something in your constitution. Maybe things would be more fair if atheism was treated like a religion before the law, but I somehow doubt you'd like that very much.
Worse than that, we currently have christians in the U.S. government who don't give a shit about the future because "rapture" will soon be upon us. Just wiki James Watt.
That's the thing about representative democracy - you get total nutjobs trying to bring in their ideas. Nothing you can do about it, unless you want to call the whole system into question.
Things that come to my mind when reading your viewpoint:
- People grow with the challenges they're given, or they're giving themselves. A lot.
- The environment people grow up in has a lot of influence on their aspirations.
- Maximizing the portion of the population with access to an higher education changes the environment younger people grow up in.
Of course not everyone will be able to graduate from high profile schools overnight, but the more people have a chance to, the more do. Changing the environment, increasing the number who will at least try.
Taken to its extreme, what you're advocating is the style of education common in Europe of the 19th century. Didn't work out so well, even though it was better than what has been before - no public education at all.
Modded troll? Don't see why..
Anyways, you might prefer an universe governed by constant, amoral laws, but what I was trying to point out was that there are perfectly valid reasons to prefer the other option.
I don't see what you find so disturbing about that - it's not like they affect you personally. Or at least they shouldn't - you shouldn't let them.
Of course all that is possible. Can't prove a negative and all that.
But usually, it makes more sense to start out with some sort of indication that something might be true, and go from there - not the other way around, accept something first and then look for evidence supporting it.
[...]all powerful being created them in his image.
So you think it all comes down to narcissm?
Hm, might be a factor, yes...
I thinks it's the need to believe in an axiomatic Truth, something reliable you can always hang on to, is what makes people cling to superstition. That Truth might as well be the being created in God's image part.
I'm sure religion has helped many overcome some very grave situations - something science is by definition rather bad at.
Is it really that surprising people choose faith over science?
It doesn't help any company very much to release a product using their latest technology when noone can afford it.
So they don't, and wait for certain components to become cheaper, or come up with cheaper ways to achieve the same.
Unless of course they're desperate for a piece of the market - then they might gamble and sell at a loss.
At least that's what I think the GP meant.
Many posters expressed their well-founded scepticism towards a kind of authority (Ministry of Truth?) rating websites for their trustworthiness.
But Tim Berners-Lee actually proposed that different organisations rate websites independently from each other.
That way, I suppose you yourself could rate those organisations in your browser and have it calculate some reliability index.
Kind of a simplified, less powerful but maybe more useful Web of Trust, as it's used for PGP - just for credibility, not authentication.
What would be the point?
It'd just be a massive waste of resources. https is pretty expensive, especially given the amount of traffic this site gets.
If you're worried about sending your unencrypted password through the tubes, I don't know, use tor or something, at least makes it less likely for someone who's after you personally to get your login data.
Well, you must admit those aren't all circles, or at least of different sizes - maybe even color.
Still an interesting thought process, maybe understanding that one will help UI design in some way.
Shame I don't care about UI design enough to actually think about it.
Interesting.
How you describe your politician's behaviour seems to support my impression, or at least doesn't contradict it.
On the other hand, how you describe what's happening in Ireland does. But maybe it's a kind of normalization, an accelerated adaption of Ireland's society to the rest of Europe, a phase that will be less noticable when it's secularity gets closer to that of at least England.
But who knows, maybe Ireland's going to be the most secular state in the world in a few decades.
Hm, is Tony Blair non-religious?;)
I don't know where you got your stats from, but from what I have experienced religious people in Europe tend to stay among themselves, and only sometimes the most daring of them expose themselves to ridicule by admiting to their faith publicly.
But they're ridiculed not because they're the absolut minority, but because nobody in their right mind admits to being religious;
Firstly, religion is considered a private thing. Secondly, in the last 150 years Europe's intellectual leaders spent a lot of effort to debunk God and religion as such. Against such mighty opposition it's hard to rationally explain being religious. Trying, and failing, to do so will effectively make them outcast in Europe's technocratic society.
But all that doesn't change the way those people feel - they're still religious, just not openly so.
Like ThinkGeek said, the joke is on the stereotype, not in the people or the nation.
Besides, can you really blame them? The French are an easy target;)
Wow, you're bitter.
Experiencing another country's culture really does expand people's horizon. Sure, they don't need to be so smug about it, but c'mon, people brag about anything, and that kind of bragging is far from the worst kind.
Well, what he was referring to was game programmers - programming games is supposed to require even more time and effort than, say, programming your standard device driver. Thus, only the nerdiest of the nerdy excel at sort of work, and as their work takes up so much of themselves, their world view tends to be more limited than other people's. Specialization sucks that way.
So, my guess is that he's saying that people with limited perspective shouldn't be making statements.
I don't really agree either, because those people do have a differently view on the world than the rest of us, making it at least thinkable they could make a valid observation of the world only possible from just that perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
If it didn;t affect me, it wouldn't bother me. The unfortunate thing is that these "believers" want to teach my kids "Intelligent Design" in schools.
So let them want to. Everyone wants things. Like ponys.
What's it to you? It's like you're taking it personally - something "believers", as you call them, sometimes do.
They want my tax money to go to their churches. They want to otherwise limit my rights in accordance to their belief.
Yes well, if I recall correctly, you people have this thing about religious freedom or something in your constitution. Maybe things would be more fair if atheism was treated like a religion before the law, but I somehow doubt you'd like that very much.
Worse than that, we currently have christians in the U.S. government who don't give a shit about the future because "rapture" will soon be upon us. Just wiki James Watt.
That's the thing about representative democracy - you get total nutjobs trying to bring in their ideas. Nothing you can do about it, unless you want to call the whole system into question.
Things that come to my mind when reading your viewpoint:
- People grow with the challenges they're given, or they're giving themselves. A lot.
- The environment people grow up in has a lot of influence on their aspirations.
- Maximizing the portion of the population with access to an higher education changes the environment younger people grow up in.
Of course not everyone will be able to graduate from high profile schools overnight, but the more people have a chance to, the more do. Changing the environment, increasing the number who will at least try.
Taken to its extreme, what you're advocating is the style of education common in Europe of the 19th century. Didn't work out so well, even though it was better than what has been before - no public education at all.
Modded troll? Don't see why..
Anyways, you might prefer an universe governed by constant, amoral laws, but what I was trying to point out was that there are perfectly valid reasons to prefer the other option.
I don't see what you find so disturbing about that - it's not like they affect you personally. Or at least they shouldn't - you shouldn't let them.
Of course all that is possible. Can't prove a negative and all that.
But usually, it makes more sense to start out with some sort of indication that something might be true, and go from there - not the other way around, accept something first and then look for evidence supporting it.
[...]all powerful being created them in his image.
So you think it all comes down to narcissm?
Hm, might be a factor, yes...
I thinks it's the need to believe in an axiomatic Truth, something reliable you can always hang on to, is what makes people cling to superstition. That Truth might as well be the being created in God's image part.
I'm sure religion has helped many overcome some very grave situations - something science is by definition rather bad at.
Is it really that surprising people choose faith over science?
It doesn't help any company very much to release a product using their latest technology when noone can afford it.
So they don't, and wait for certain components to become cheaper, or come up with cheaper ways to achieve the same.
Unless of course they're desperate for a piece of the market - then they might gamble and sell at a loss.
At least that's what I think the GP meant.
Many posters expressed their well-founded scepticism towards a kind of authority (Ministry of Truth?) rating websites for their trustworthiness.
But Tim Berners-Lee actually proposed that different organisations rate websites independently from each other.
That way, I suppose you yourself could rate those organisations in your browser and have it calculate some reliability index.
Kind of a simplified, less powerful but maybe more useful Web of Trust, as it's used for PGP - just for credibility, not authentication.
OTOH, the estimated costs of "liberating" Iraq was a lot less than its real cost, too.
4-4-3
Nope. SI units are a lot older than nine years, and confusing units on a mars mission deserves getting laughed at for at least a decade.
Why can't I https://slashdot.org/?
What would be the point?
It'd just be a massive waste of resources. https is pretty expensive, especially given the amount of traffic this site gets.
If you're worried about sending your unencrypted password through the tubes, I don't know, use tor or something, at least makes it less likely for someone who's after you personally to get your login data.
[...] so not interested. Sorry google.
Yeah, they're going to care. You could be suffering from a kind of disorder I call "Delusion of Relevance" - might want to get that checked.
Well, you must admit those aren't all circles, or at least of different sizes - maybe even color.
Still an interesting thought process, maybe understanding that one will help UI design in some way.
Shame I don't care about UI design enough to actually think about it.
What else?
Interesting.
How you describe your politician's behaviour seems to support my impression, or at least doesn't contradict it.
On the other hand, how you describe what's happening in Ireland does. But maybe it's a kind of normalization, an accelerated adaption of Ireland's society to the rest of Europe, a phase that will be less noticable when it's secularity gets closer to that of at least England.
But who knows, maybe Ireland's going to be the most secular state in the world in a few decades.
Hm, is Tony Blair non-religious? ;)
I don't know where you got your stats from, but from what I have experienced religious people in Europe tend to stay among themselves, and only sometimes the most daring of them expose themselves to ridicule by admiting to their faith publicly.
But they're ridiculed not because they're the absolut minority, but because nobody in their right mind admits to being religious;
Firstly, religion is considered a private thing.
Secondly, in the last 150 years Europe's intellectual leaders spent a lot of effort to debunk God and religion as such. Against such mighty opposition it's hard to rationally explain being religious. Trying, and failing, to do so will effectively make them outcast in Europe's technocratic society.
But all that doesn't change the way those people feel - they're still religious, just not openly so.
s/both/all/;
But yes, you're right. But so was WWI, and that didn't take US participation. Mankind's potential for selfdestruction isn't bound to nationality.
Many non-religious Europeans (and I assume you belong to that group) absolutely underestimate European piety..
Like ThinkGeek said, the joke is on the stereotype, not in the people or the nation. ;)
Besides, can you really blame them? The French are an easy target
Wow, you're bitter.
Experiencing another country's culture really does expand people's horizon. Sure, they don't need to be so smug about it, but c'mon, people brag about anything, and that kind of bragging is far from the worst kind.
Huh? This is the MIT. An University. Therefore, academia.
So what the hell are you babbling about?!
And you get modded 'insightful'. The end is nigh.
Well, what he was referring to was game programmers - programming games is supposed to require even more time and effort than, say, programming your standard device driver. Thus, only the nerdiest of the nerdy excel at sort of work, and as their work takes up so much of themselves, their world view tends to be more limited than other people's. Specialization sucks that way.
So, my guess is that he's saying that people with limited perspective shouldn't be making statements.
I don't really agree either, because those people do have a differently view on the world than the rest of us, making it at least thinkable they could make a valid observation of the world only possible from just that perspective.
Please note how I did not use the word 'art'.
Concerning those bridges, go on, please tell me more.
Funny how those that bothered to reply to your post (and at this point, the mods) pretty much confirmed your point.
Nice story, but those paintings are pretty good. No toddler I know could have made them. I'm not surprised people were fooled.