Actually, this would be a great application for that Van Eck idea. Everyone's always playing with their wifi doodads at airports, no one will notice someone setting up an odd "wifi" antenna that just happens to capture the images on the security guy's monitor. Heck, maybe his flight is late in the day, he could be there for hours.
That could end up like that guy who sold "celebrity" poo on eBay. Sure, they say it's a picture of Jessica Alba in a terahertz wave machine, but really it's just some random guy's crap in a plastic bag. You know?
You know, I've always thought it would be easier to do math if we had a number system based on primes. Like, the first digit is ones, then twos, then threes, then fives, then sevens, then elevens and so on. Thus, as you point out, 108 would be 320.
The problem with this idea is that 109 would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It makes addition suck.
But multiplication is easy. 109x108 would just be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,320. It's like multiplication and addition swap places if you do math this way. Neat, huh?
It is a statistical certainty (p < 10e-11) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay.
It's an absolute certainty that completely innocent people have received the death penalty (in the USA) for crimes they didn't commit. No one at Guantanamo is receiving the death penalty.
It's an absolutely certainty that literally thousands of innocent people were killed overnight in that atrocious "Shock and Awe" crap. No one at Guantanamo is being killed in their sleep, or dying in agony buried in the rubble of their home.
It's an absolutely certainty that the people in Guantanamo are receiving better medical treatment than the people caring for them. That they are receiving free access to education. That they are no longer struggling to make ends meet, as many of us are in this day and age regardless of our country of origin.
There are a ton of way more important things to bitch about than people being treated fairly decently for not having the good sense to get out of the way of a war zone when they saw it coming.
From the definition I cited for religion on Wikipedia, Nationalism and Soviet Communism do not qualify as religions. Also, I openly stated that the monotheistic requirement was extremely biased, and gave polytheistic religions a status as simply more primitive, which matches the general trend. Of course, this is all just a restatement of what I said earlier.
Great! Now I sound like the crazy person. Clever jerk =p.
For me, the belief in the supernatural is a necessary component of religion. Possibly because of American culture, I would probably also stipulate that the supernatural being(s) would have to be singular, as it seems to be in any religion with at least a million followers. (Many argue that the Hindu pantheon can be seen as one deity with several faces, much like the father, son and holy ghost, other than that they're all overtly monotheistic, right down to Ahl-e Haqq). People who do believe in a polytheistic system would therefore fall under the "primitive religion" section for me, likely because most cultures have the tendency to shift toward monotheism and away from polytheism. It's not an absolutely all-inclusive world view, but at least I'm honest about it.
That often-used, terrible source of data Wikipedia largely agrees on this definition, sans the monotheistic bent.
Thus my original question could be phrased: "How does not believing in unexplained supernatural phenomena (ie Santa Claus) make me someone who believes in unexplained supernatural phenomena, particularly involving a supreme being (ie Religious)?"
Foolish me, I thought I could use inexact phrasing in an informal medium such as an online forum. My apologies.
Thank you for arguing with my semantics and completely ignoring my point altogether. That is a superb way of contributing nothing useful and sounding like a complete ass all at the same time. Kudos.
I wish I could find this article... But I once read that people who multi-task on two things tend to create much less well-developed products than people who attack the problems one at a time, given the same total amount of time.
So MySpace wasn't a fad? It's not over? Twitter won't die off like MySpace did when something new and slightly-less-craptastic comes along? Facebook is forever?
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't cutting ourselves off from society definitively be social decay?
Haha, good point! I don't think Guantanamo isn't wrong, I just think that there are bigger wrongs to worry about.
I get that a lot.
Is this the fucking Greenpeace sight?
No, but it is the Greenpeace site
.
Actually, this would be a great application for that Van Eck idea. Everyone's always playing with their wifi doodads at airports, no one will notice someone setting up an odd "wifi" antenna that just happens to capture the images on the security guy's monitor. Heck, maybe his flight is late in the day, he could be there for hours.
I dunno, the rate we're going people won't realize they're prisoners until they've put the bars up in their own homes.
That could end up like that guy who sold "celebrity" poo on eBay. Sure, they say it's a picture of Jessica Alba in a terahertz wave machine, but really it's just some random guy's crap in a plastic bag. You know?
You know, I've always thought it would be easier to do math if we had a number system based on primes. Like, the first digit is ones, then twos, then threes, then fives, then sevens, then elevens and so on. Thus, as you point out, 108 would be 320.
The problem with this idea is that 109 would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It makes addition suck.
But multiplication is easy. 109x108 would just be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,320. It's like multiplication and addition swap places if you do math this way. Neat, huh?
http://instantrimshot.com/
Psh, get Bronze Working and Pottery and just do an early rush. Take over the world before you invent the alphabet.
It is a statistical certainty (p < 10e-11) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay.
It's an absolute certainty that completely innocent people have received the death penalty (in the USA) for crimes they didn't commit. No one at Guantanamo is receiving the death penalty.
It's an absolutely certainty that literally thousands of innocent people were killed overnight in that atrocious "Shock and Awe" crap. No one at Guantanamo is being killed in their sleep, or dying in agony buried in the rubble of their home.
It's an absolutely certainty that the people in Guantanamo are receiving better medical treatment than the people caring for them. That they are receiving free access to education. That they are no longer struggling to make ends meet, as many of us are in this day and age regardless of our country of origin.
There are a ton of way more important things to bitch about than people being treated fairly decently for not having the good sense to get out of the way of a war zone when they saw it coming.
There's bigger fish to fry.
Whoa now, wait a sec. There's a new new series?
I want to see Last and First Men and Star Maker.
Your rights ______ ?
Offline.
From the definition I cited for religion on Wikipedia, Nationalism and Soviet Communism do not qualify as religions. Also, I openly stated that the monotheistic requirement was extremely biased, and gave polytheistic religions a status as simply more primitive, which matches the general trend. Of course, this is all just a restatement of what I said earlier.
Great! Now I sound like the crazy person. Clever jerk =p.
For me, the belief in the supernatural is a necessary component of religion. Possibly because of American culture, I would probably also stipulate that the supernatural being(s) would have to be singular, as it seems to be in any religion with at least a million followers. (Many argue that the Hindu pantheon can be seen as one deity with several faces, much like the father, son and holy ghost, other than that they're all overtly monotheistic, right down to Ahl-e Haqq). People who do believe in a polytheistic system would therefore fall under the "primitive religion" section for me, likely because most cultures have the tendency to shift toward monotheism and away from polytheism. It's not an absolutely all-inclusive world view, but at least I'm honest about it.
That often-used, terrible source of data Wikipedia largely agrees on this definition, sans the monotheistic bent.
Thus my original question could be phrased: "How does not believing in unexplained supernatural phenomena (ie Santa Claus) make me someone who believes in unexplained supernatural phenomena, particularly involving a supreme being (ie Religious)?"
Foolish me, I thought I could use inexact phrasing in an informal medium such as an online forum. My apologies.
Maybe it's getting on to time for a -1 Spam. -1 Offtopic isn't always applicable.
Thank you for arguing with my semantics and completely ignoring my point altogether. That is a superb way of contributing nothing useful and sounding like a complete ass all at the same time. Kudos.
I'm fairly certain they were referring to Twitter the specific service as a fad, not the method of communication.
I wish I could find this article... But I once read that people who multi-task on two things tend to create much less well-developed products than people who attack the problems one at a time, given the same total amount of time.
So MySpace wasn't a fad? It's not over? Twitter won't die off like MySpace did when something new and slightly-less-craptastic comes along? Facebook is forever?
fans of the "ow my balls" program
Wait, that's a real show? I just thought it was from that scary future-history film. What was it? Last and First Men?
... which was attached to latter events ... You suck now, but will get better latter ...
Is this one of those jokes like the aliens who asked the FBI agents to take them to their larder? Cause I don't get it.
That last one there always bothers me.
If I don't believe in Santa Claus, how does that make me religious?