And to firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity without any evidence whatsoever that it's true is a faith statement, instead of simply a philosophical statement.
But that's just a strawman since practically nobody actually believes anything of the sort. It's also begging the question since you're assuming that there is a god, or at least that belief in one has merit which is what you're trying to demonstrate.
Given that there is no evidence for a god, then not buying into it is just basic common ense nad the default position.
They are in no way symmetrical positions.
One is blind faith in an entirely unsupportable position, while the other is simply not buying into an entirely unsupportable position.
I don't believe in Zeus either. Do you? Why or why not? If not, please explain exactly how you mananged to choose between two identically supported views. It certainly isn't reason though. Rationally every god ever invented is identically likely.
Really? What proof do you have that God doesn't exist?
What proof do you have that he does? None.
The very question you ask begs the question. It assumes that there is some sort of legitimacy to such a bleief for which there is not one single scrap of evidence.
When you make invisible friends, the onus is 100% on you to provide proof for it.
Listening to your description of your invisible friend and saying "that's pretty stupid, nonsensical, and contradictory" is the common sense response.
Now were you able to look at the subject objectively, that would be quite obvious to you.
I doubt you can though, since you're obviously so emotionally invested in the idea of your magical invisible friend.
Actually, I don't see much difference between radical atheists and radical Christians.
Christian: "If you don't believe in God, you're going to Hell" Atheist: "If you do believe in God, you're doomed to ignorance"
They both preach to anyone who will listen, and a great many who won't. They both have total faith in their position and will never change their minds.
That last sentence is where you went wrong. I'm not aware of any atheists who wouldn't change their minds if there was ever any reason to. Given the hundreds of thousands of years of history and thousands of different gods that have been made up in that time and the fact that there does not exiust one single legitimate reason to believe in any of them, it's only basic common sense to disbelieve.
Were whichever god or gods there "are" to actually make themselves known, then it wouldn't be an issue and most, if not all, atheists would cease to be such. You can't make that sort of statement about religious sorts as they would have long since done so given the mass of contradictions inherent in any belief involving an interfering god.
Do you hold deists that espouse there religion as vociferously in the same regard?
That they're religious and emotionally invested in their beliefs?
I'd imagine that the OP and almost all other people of whatever stripe hold deists in that regard. It's practically a tautology, so I doubt you meant that exactly.
Refusing to believe in ridiculous creatures that no one else believes in is one thing, turning your back on something that the vast majority of your society believes in is quite another.
You're again begging the question. It's not "turning you back on" anything except for the fact that you are pesassuming that there is some sort of legitimacy to belief in ridiculous creatures.
The fact that most people (in America anyhow) are lied to by their parents from an early age in order to brainwash them to buy into ridiculous nonsense in no way offers any reason to do so. Well, unless you're so cowardly as to be unable to do the right thing when it's unpopular.
So, your argument that atheism is in any way shape or form religious is complete nonsense unless you consider yourself to be a member of a near infinite number of different religions.
Here's an example of a netizen who was 'interviewed' by the secret service after having posted a comment. Follow the link in his story to read the comment which attracted their attention. Then realize: Your comments are public.
Yeah Dude, you got to be careful what you say these days.
You could declare default values for any arguments. As for letting you put them in any order, that's not tricky at all. Even FORTRAN had namelists.
Hmmm..OK,then I guess my question showed that I'm not a developer. When you said that, I heard something to the effect of:
Say you have a function that requires 6 arguments, 2 integers, 2 strings, and 2 others, say, that you're well versed in and I have no clue what are;-) Call them A,B,C,D,E,F in the order above. I'm thinking you can do: function(A B C D E F), function(E C A B D F), function( B D A C F E)... or any other ordering you choose and the compiler will "magically" figure out what you meant.
I'm guessing that there's more to it. Care to give the idiot version of what you're talking about?
Things which aren't really possible with any Unix environment I'm aware of. (with regard to remote client management, monitoring, and configuration).
Ummm... ssh $host `do stuff` or am I missing something? That certainly covers any management or configuration. Monitoring possibly isn't so simple, but nagios or the like for active monitoring or snmp traps for passive pretty much covers that realm.
I mean maybe you're talking about something in specific, but "not possible"?!? That's really hard to believe especially given Window's relatively recent use for any important tasks relative to unix.
Go to any Mac user, and look at the installed apps on his computer, and you'll see that nearly 100% of them are from Apple (not including freeware).
Heck, look at my computer and exclude "freeware" and you'll think I'm a magician since I can run Cedega with no other code on the machine at all including an OS. Well, ok, I paid for the games too;-)
There was a language called TOM which did that. It also let you pass the arguments in any order, and omit any you didn't care about.
How the fuck did it allow that? Not arguing, it just seems like a really difficult problem unless it's like function(arg5:foo arg2:bar... ) or something.
It is obvious you are totally incapable of any discussion beyond screaming and crying about evil Republicans and stupid details.
Ahhh yes, details. Those utterly meaningless facts and stuff. I'm sure you just feel the truthiness.
but the gist was they were quoting military budget prices out of things that *surprise* weren't military budget documents, they were other books about how the military spends too much.
That article was an analysis of another paper. Perhaps you should pay more attention. Heck, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate that the facts are incorrect which you've still done nothing to show.
You say you don't vote party lines and then cry how all Republicans are evil and scum.
Where is the inconsistecy there? There is none. Support of evil is still evil. The Republican party's goals are entirely evil, anti-American and entirely inconsistent with a free society. Those are facts which have been made abudantly clear in the last 30 years or so. So, refusing to vote for a person who has actively chose to ally themselves against the best interests of this nation nad its citizens is basic common sense. Voting all Democrat would be voting the party line. Voting against proven murdering, torturing, scum isn't. Pretty simple concepts, really.
You say stupid shit like "my boy Negroponte"...oh yes that is right...party line team voters don't understand that you don't have to support everyone in a party.
In point of fact, yes you do. Say you don't support him all you want, but the fact is that your support of that party *does* provide support for him and the other mass murdering traitors who are runing the country solely due to the support of people like you. That's why political parties and especially our voting system are so contrary to their stated goals.
Now, obviously you don't want to actually take any responsibility for your actions, since that's like kryptonite to you mother fuckers, so you pretend that you can vote for the Republicans without voting for Republicans?!? Seriously, WTF
The fact is that The Republican party is a monolithic organization. You don't vote for candidates, you vote for the party. Because as clearly demonstrated with everything dealing with the torture/murder/treason scandals the Republicans closed ranks against the American people. So had *you* and those like you not supported these sociopathic mass murderers, then we would not have a death camp commandat as our deputy secretary of state further demonstrating America's complete contempt for anything approximating a moral.
The fact that you can still support them after they've fucked your ass bloody demonstrates your extreme idiocy.
Seriously, keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
I realize that is a tad confusing to you, but its true, there really are still Republicans that aren't right wing religious fanatics.
Yet the simple fact that they are still Republicans long after the party was taken over by religious extremists back in the Reagan era demonstrates absolutely that they do, in fact, actively support the goals of the religious extremists. Hell, they could be atheists and it wouldn't change that fact. The thing Republicans seem most unable to grasp is that actions speak far louder than words. You words say that you don't support religious extremists and mass murderers, but your actions make those words lies. There is no ambiguity there and nothing unclear about where your real loyalties lie. It's possible that you're just too stupid to realise that by supporting terrorists and traitors, you becomeresponsible for their actions. There's that personal responsibility that you're dodging as hard as you can again.
There are quite a few at local and state government levels that aren't part of the national shenannagins.
No there aren't. It's a national organization. Any support for the party supports the whole thing through numbers, money, voting base and the like.
Yes, the majority of people here consider themselves Republicans, but if you're willing to get past somebody's political views, there are also lots of friendly people.
There is a large difference between "political views" and extremist nutjobs who actively support the dismantling of the constitution, and it's replacement with a fascist theocracy. It's also very different from people who want the biggest most oppressive government possible. and are actively working to make it happen.
Maybe you should wake up and realise that running death camps in third world shitholes in order to torture and murder innocent people to pretend they're dealing with a threat that they made up isn't a "political view" Those are *actions* which could only be supported by savage cowardly subhuman monsters as evidenced by the oly people who still support this tyrannical treasonous regime.
That's just so laughable. They've murdered a shitload of inocent people to make a few douchebags richer at all of our expense, destabilized an entire region, looted the treasury *again* just like the Bushies did to the S&L, destroyed any integrity we had as a nation, proved themselves to be the most corrupt congress in our history, and promoted anti-American hate based legislation, and you call it "political views".
Seriously, Dude. That's just pure unadulterated lunacy.
I'll pass on living near some cowardly douchebags who would happily watch me and my whole family murdered as long as their dear leader says I'm a terrorist regardless of the fact that his whole act is just making fun of how stupid he *knows* they are. Who but an idiot would have fallen for that shit?
So, sorry, but no such thing as a friendly Republican is even possible. Just one who hasn't fucked you yet.
Oh wait, supporting mass murder, torture, and unlimited government power is ok as long as they're polite to your face before stabbing you in the back.
I am also aware that the paper cited rather dubious sources when it came to quoting numbers such as the cost of training a pilot.
And yet you still have nothing to offer as to what's wrong with the sources. If you feel there is something iaccurate about it, the why are you having such a problem putting it on the table?
That doesn't negate the fact that a large portion of it is anti military fluff.
Which is merely self-serving rhetoric with no basis in fact as far as I can tell. Perhaps you'd care to offer anything resembling a fact or figure as opposed to empty worthless opinion?
I happen to agree with a great number of Republicans who maintain those tenets that you say are gone,
Yet everything they actually do *disagrees* completely with your stated beliefs. Sounds pretty crazy to me. I mean, name one. If they had a scrap of integrity, then they would have left the party decades ago when they completely cast off those old chestnuts. So, no, there are no Republican elected officials that maintain shit of that. Look at the fucking defecit and then lie to me again.
The Republicans managed to take the control they had going into the Bush era because the Democrats were the biggest spending hypocritical pieces of corrupt shit..
Which merely demonstrates how far behind the times and how delusional your fatasy world is. The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the old Republican "values". From him on, the Republicans took the title of biggest spending and ran with it to our current record debt. Damn, dude. This is all a matter of public record. Maybe you should actually look at issues instead of having faith in a political party of all things.
as long as morons like you team vote and rant about entire parties you just make the problem worse.
See, here's a perfect example of how you just make shit up out of nowhere. I've never voted for the scum in either major political party. I do think about the issues, so I certaily don't "team vote". That's mostly a Republica trait as evidenced irrefutably by the last several elections and by the behavior of the scum that Republicans elect.
Ranting about the Republican party is basic common sense. Your failure to be able to deal with reality doesn't change that fact. The Republican party base consists of fascists and religious extremists. The fact that you haven't even noticed that is quite telling. Those are the only people who get their voices heard in that party any more. Hell Iraq was the Republican's war entirely. The fact that they were aided by Democrats doesn't change the basic fact that the Republicans made up the entire thing to make a few people rich. You can't get more anti-Classical Republican values than that.
By falling into line and blaming entire parties for stupid shit like this it totally absolves them of personal responsibility and allows party line media spin and other such nonsense to sway folks like you into kneejerk voting.
Again more delusional nonsense. Absolve from personal responsibility?!? Read my sig again, idiot. I do hold them personally resposible for their cowardice and treason. Nobody with a scrap of decency would be a Republican, so the fact that scum join the party of scum is a fact. It has othing to do with absolvig them of responsibility for their crimes.
So you go back to voting your party lines so we can get a new crop of corrupted shits and continue the cycle.
Except you just pulled that out of your ass. I've never voted party lines, nor will I. You're the one trying to whitewash the Republicans, I'm not trying to whitewash anybody. The fact that you're defending them at this point after 30+ years of blatant robbery (S&L looting by the Bushies), mass murder (your boy Negroponte and his death camps) and the current savage assault on liberty driven by your treasonous dear leader, shows either your complete lack of knowledge about pretty much anything that's
You totally ignored the fact that military spending is probably 10x what it should be at due to it being forced to operate outside of the normal economy.
That's actually one of the major premises of the paper that you're claiming to have read and further claiming is just a fluff piece even though it made several of the points you're trying to make far better than you are.
Nevermind the vague assertions of ammounts spent with questionable reference sources that the paper uses to prove that investments in other areas would have paid off more. The military is being used to siphon tax dollars into private defense sector firms.
Again, that is what that paper *said*, so, no, you didn't read it or your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you read it and failed to even understand the point.
So, yes, obviously, as my source demonstrated quite convincingly, the military is being used to siphon tax dollars. This system *also* has the effect of preventing those resources from being used in a productive manner, *prevents* most major research funding into non-military uses, and generally hurts our economy.
Now, if my source is such an empty fluff piece, then surely you can actually point out some "vague assertions of ammounts spent with questionable reference sources". Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.
However, instead of having any meaninful discussion, you assert that I couldn't possibly do that, that you are absolutely correct in all regards, and that because I disagree with your linked paper that I didn't read it.
Since you've at least twice tried to make claims as if you were coming up with something when they were major points made in the referenced paper, it's crystal clear that you did not read it since otherwise you wouldn't be disagreeing with it while poorly attempting to make the same points it made.
Had you actually picked something in it to disagree with, and supported your assertion then that paragraph might even make some sort of sense. Since all you did was say "it's wrong" and then go on and try to make one of the points it made, your paragraph doesn't make any sense at all.
Also right after it recaps what broken window fallacy is, it explains that the military isn't a producer...if you read my previous post you would notice I said that.
It's meaningless that the military isn't a producer. It's still an example of the broken window fallacy to claim thyat military spending is good for research and the economy. So it doesn't matter what you said about that since it's irrelevant to the point.
FYI Republicans want small government, less intrusions on the people, less government spending. What we have now calling themselves Republicans aren't that at all. But I guess if you knew what you were talking about you would know that already right?
FYI, Republicans want the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a fascist theocracy. They want bigger more oppressive government than the Democrats ever dreamed of. The fact that once upon a time many many decades ago there was some truth to that statement has nothing to do with reality and it has nothing to do with what it means to be a Republican today. Hell, back in the day, the most vocal, vicious racists were Democrats. They left en masse for the Republican party during the civil rights era. Point is that the parties cange what they stand for all the time. You apparently haven't clued into that simple fact and so keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
The fact is that the Republican party stands for big oppressive fascist government. If you vote Republican, then that is all that you are voting for. If you believe in what you delusionally claimed that Republicans believe in and you vote for Republican candidates, then you're an idiot since they are the *least* likely party to do anything to further your goals. That goes back at least to 1980, and given the scumbag piece of shit that was Nixo
It is not a broken window fallacy because the purpose of the military is not to produce anything.
Try *reading* the linked article instead of imagining that you know what it says. You clearly don't. *everything* in our entire economy has been shaped by our massive overspending on the military. Given the amount spent on that *and therefore unavailable for any sort of productive use*, how could it, even only in theory, be possible that that isn't true?
the goal of the military is to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
If so incredibly naive as to believe that piece of nonsensical marketing fluff, then you're clearly not going to be making any insightful comments on the issue. The purpose of the military is to push the interests of various big corporations at gunpoint and to enrich the weapons manufacturers. It's been that way since WW2 at least. Would you care to give any examples of the military being used to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." since the end of WW2? No, didn't think so.
Now just for arguments sake...would you care to explain to me everything that never got invented because of military spending? I mean..can you give specific examples of the uninvented things that makes my point so ridiculous?
Again, had you actually read the linked document, then all of those questions would have been answered already. Instead of that, you decided to pretend that you knew what it said when you clearly don't and so you're just continuing to make ignorant statements and asking questions *that have already been answered*.
Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas.
While arguably true, that's really nothing but the broken window fallacy.
Here's a good pdf on the subject. When you add up the costs of the military to the economy, and consider how much else never got invented then your point is shown to be completely ridiculous.
Fourth, both the paper by Johanssen in your link and the more recent paper based on GRACE data from Rignot and Kanagaratnam [sciencemag.org] agree with the predictions of climate models that say the interior will build and the edges will melt.
On 1 July 2001, the Greenland Parliament Act on exploiting ice and water for export entered into force. The Exports of Ice and Water Act has the important objective of promoting commercial exploitation of Greenlands ice and water resources. The Act targets all types of export of ice and water.
History does go back farther than 300 years. And, whether you like it or not, what happened prior to the enlightenment is still important.
I'm well aware of that....a bunch of historical events...
None of which have anything to do with the bible. That's just politics/greed/brutality as usual. Sure, the Church was behind a lot of it, but that was all covered by part of my post which you even quoted, but apparently failed to read:
"The theocratic horrors of the world shaped by the bible didn't end, but they were curtailed."
So, yes, I'm well aware that the deep evil inherent in any form of religious rule is responsible for great horrors. The bible had jack shit to do with any of that.
Your next paragraph is well covered by the same sentence with the caveat that I probably should have added: "for a while although it's rearing it's ugly head again".
If you celebrate Christmas or Easter, you are celebrating a holiday set up in the bible. These holidays are huge, consumer industries, but the foundations came from some where.
The foundations did come from somewhere. However, as your deeply misinformed statement demonstrates, you have no idea what those foundations are. That's why I finished up by suggesting that you might want to do some more research before opening your mouth. You're clearly somewhat informed, and I'm really not trying to flame you, but if you can actually write something *that* ridiculous, you really really need to do some actual *research* as opposed to repeating lies spread by the Christians over the years in their concerted policy of cultural genocide.
Both of those holidays predate Christianity by *thousands of years*. It's probable that they predate the promotion of Jehova from wind god in the Hebrew pantheon to "one god", and possible that they predate the invention of that god in the first place although that last one is just speculation on my part as I've done no research on that in particular.
Have you ever been married or been to a general wedding? Unless you are of a religion other than Christianity, chances are you either were a part or witnessed a Christian celebration, FYI. The words you speak at the wedding bind you under God, not government.
I've been to many weddings. I'm married myself.
This was just bad though:
If you go to a Christian wedding you're watching a Christian ceremony.
Duh.
Marriage far predates Christianity as well. It's almost always been an *economic* institution anyhow, regardless of what mumbo jumbo they mumble at the ceremony.
Perhaps you're not actually aware of what's involved in getting married in America, so I'll tell you about my wedding day.
We flew into Vegas on Friday me from Chicago, and her from San Diego ( I was working on a contract at the time, although since we've moved to Chicago ( and I'm writing this from England, wheee)).
I took a cab to the courthouse, met up with her, waited in line for 5-10 minutes and got a license. At midnight, we met up at the chapel and had a quick ceremony with a few friends and no Jesus, no God.
So, really, the government is the *only* one that actually matters in the entire thing as you need a license from them to have your marriage recognized legally and whoever performs the ceremony does as well. No religious anything is involved unless you go out of your way to make it so.
Unless you read the actual bible at least once through, then your "research" is very limited to the opinions of other people.
I'm not even sure what, specifically, you're talking about here. Especially since the bible isn't even "opinion". It's a collection of myths with some actual history thrown in. If you mean research into what the bible actually says (in detail), then certainly you'd need to read it.
There are plenty of other sources though which you'd need to read *in addition* to the bible for it to be research about anything el
That is how they grow and hatch elves. Elves cannot grow in cold climates so they put elf eggs all over warm suburban yards where little kids find them and break them open when they are ripe. Then the 4th of July scares the elves back to the North Pole. Like dogs, they hate loud sounds. It's all part of Krebb's Holiday Cycle.
LOL. Did you come up with this yourself? That's hilarious.
Actually, there is evidence that Jesus was born in March or April as he was born during the time of the Roman Census.
Well, technically the best guess that can be made from the bible gives something like that as Jesus' birthdate. Actually, there is no credible evidence that there ever was such a person.
It is the book that has shaped Western Civilization as we know it.
Hardly. Western Civilization as we know it was shaped by the Enlightenment which was largely a rejection of religious dogma in favor of reason. The theocratic horrors of the world shaped by the bible didn't end, but they were curtailed.
By understanding it, you'll have a deeper understanding of most poems and literature.
Well, "a lot", certainly. Most? Not so much.
The book also provides evidence of God.:-P You cannot say there isn't any when there is a little bit; just about as much as Santa gets.
Not at all. Well, unless you consider The Iliad to be evidence that Zeus exists. All it is is evidence that people believe that god exists. Heck, there isn't even one single scrap of evidence that Jesus ever lived as a man, let alone a god.
I'm not saying I'm religious at all, but I do my research before I open my mouth.
The question is - are you being compensated appropriately for the value you bring to the company? Workplace camaraderie, company trips and all that are great ways to make employees feel compensated beyond what it really costs the company to provide those things. In other words, they are buying you for pennies on the dollar and making you feel like they are doing you a favor. That is smart business on the company's part, but bad business on your part.
I thought I was pretty clear that I am being quite well compensated via a salary I'm quite happy with, quarterly bonuses, stock grants and the like. I also mentioned that anybody who didn't feel like going to the concert was compensated in other ways (days off, cash, etc.) I felt like going and I quite like (most of) the people I work with, so while I wouldn't have shelled out that kind of cash (~$500.00 per ticket) to see the Stones on my own, it was quite a good time and I have no regrets. That's hardly pennies on the dollar, although an argument could be made that since I wouldn't have paid that much myself and I could have been more or less comparably compensated in other ways that I did accrue an opportunity cost equal to the difference between the ticket price and what I would have been willing to pay for it.
Add in the fact that I actually do hang out with my boss outside of work from time to time anyhow since he's quite a cool guy, and the CEO is also very cool to the point that I spent a few work days (i.e. on the clock so to speak) sailing across Lake Michigan on his boat, I considered it quite a good time.
A year ago I was getting ready to buy a new computer as well. I had it all picked out and was talking to my boss about it (he's a geek too) and he offered to put it on the company. No strings. The final bill when we got done building it (online) was about double what I was planning to spend out of my pocket.
So while you're right that sometimes lame ass near worthless little incentives are used to attempt to pretend that a company gives a crap about you, there are actually companies that *really* do care that their employees are happy. And me being the employee in this case it's *my* definition of happiness (for me) that I'm using.
So, I'd say a getting a new computer (pretty well tricked out) out of the blue and a very expensive concert which I could have chosen to skip and still gotten other compensation isn't "bad business" on my part at all. YMMV
Irrationality and hate drools from your mouth, please use a handkerchief.
Well, it's true that I do hate 5th columnist terrorist supporting scum like you, but it's entirely rational. Your cowardice is directly affecting my way of life. No hankie needed.
Oh, and read all the posts regarding my original post and you will find an example.
Which was thouroughly debunked as the complete crap it is. The fact is that you have nothing to back up your point. The best you can come up with is the NYT doing *exactly* what the first amendment was put in place to allow them to do.
Sorry, it's only one because I've not the time or inclination to archive everything I read just so when some idiot wants "proof" I can cite.
The fact is you don't have one single example of what you're claiming. You are a coward, and you're pissing yourself over some largely overblown threat. In doing so you are supporting terrorists whose goal is to turn the US into a police state.
Your entire argument is that you think that pointing out the crimes of the current administration (which is why we have a first amendment) is a bad thing.
OK, we get it. You despise living in a free society. It's scary and you are not a brave person. Why do you feel the need to work to destroy this one rather than just moving to a place where your values are respected. Saudi Arabia or China would work out quite nicely for you. If you have reasons you wouldn't like to live there, then consider the fact that what you are attacking here is exactly what was put in place for the exact purpose of preventing the US from becoming like you don't like about those other places.
First they are getting increased sales from Vista because it allows acess to HD media.
The point is that had Ms actually done what their customers wanted rather than what the media cartel wanted then their customers would have access to HD media *without* DRM which is how they want it since it allows them to use their property in the manner that they see fit. Instead of doing this, MS colluded with the media cartels *against* their customers.
You seem to have the delusional belief that without DRM the media cartels would just close up shop which is blatantly false. Had they not found a stooge to help them fuck the citizenry out of their rights, which is all that DRM is intended to do, then the media cartels would have been unable to force all this shit onto the public.
It's a monopoly colluding with a cartel to provide negative benefits with no upside.
You seem to think that citizens that exercise thier right to choose are somehow second class.
Not at all. I'm saying that Microsoft's collusion with the media cartels have removed the choice that people want which is DRM free media. That is the choice that has been removed from the table.
The media will be there regardless of whether or not DRM exists. That's the absolute fact you continue to fail to get.
If the tech companies work for their customers rather than against them then DRM would never have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
And to firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity without any evidence whatsoever that it's true is a faith statement, instead of simply a philosophical statement.
But that's just a strawman since practically nobody actually believes anything of the sort.
It's also begging the question since you're assuming that there is a god, or at least that belief in one has merit which is what you're trying to demonstrate.
Given that there is no evidence for a god, then not buying into it is just basic common ense nad the default position.
They are in no way symmetrical positions.
One is blind faith in an entirely unsupportable position, while the other is simply not buying into an entirely unsupportable position.
I don't believe in Zeus either. Do you? Why or why not?
If not, please explain exactly how you mananged to choose between two identically supported views.
It certainly isn't reason though. Rationally every god ever invented is identically likely.
Really? What proof do you have that God doesn't exist?
What proof do you have that he does? None.
The very question you ask begs the question. It assumes that there is some sort of legitimacy to such a bleief for which there is not one single scrap of evidence.
When you make invisible friends, the onus is 100% on you to provide proof for it.
Listening to your description of your invisible friend and saying "that's pretty stupid, nonsensical, and contradictory" is the common sense response.
Now were you able to look at the subject objectively, that would be quite obvious to you.
I doubt you can though, since you're obviously so emotionally invested in the idea of your magical invisible friend.
Actually, I don't see much difference between radical atheists and radical Christians.
Christian: "If you don't believe in God, you're going to Hell"
Atheist: "If you do believe in God, you're doomed to ignorance"
They both preach to anyone who will listen, and a great many who won't. They both have total faith in their position and will never change their minds.
That last sentence is where you went wrong.
I'm not aware of any atheists who wouldn't change their minds if there was ever any reason to.
Given the hundreds of thousands of years of history and thousands of different gods that have been made up in that time and the fact that there does not exiust one single legitimate reason to believe in any of them, it's only basic common sense to disbelieve.
Were whichever god or gods there "are" to actually make themselves known, then it wouldn't be an issue and most, if not all, atheists would cease to be such.
You can't make that sort of statement about religious sorts as they would have long since done so given the mass of contradictions inherent in any belief involving an interfering god.
Do you hold deists that espouse there religion as vociferously in the same regard?
That they're religious and emotionally invested in their beliefs?
I'd imagine that the OP and almost all other people of whatever stripe hold deists in that regard.
It's practically a tautology, so I doubt you meant that exactly.
Refusing to believe in ridiculous creatures that no one else believes in is one thing, turning your back on something that the vast majority of your society believes in is quite another.
You're again begging the question. It's not "turning you back on" anything except for the fact that you are pesassuming that there is some sort of legitimacy to belief in ridiculous creatures.
The fact that most people (in America anyhow) are lied to by their parents from an early age in order to brainwash them to buy into ridiculous nonsense in no way offers any reason to do so. Well, unless you're so cowardly as to be unable to do the right thing when it's unpopular.
So, your argument that atheism is in any way shape or form religious is complete nonsense unless you consider yourself to be a member of a near infinite number of different religions.
Here's an example of a netizen who was 'interviewed' by the secret service after having posted a comment. Follow the link in his story to read the comment which attracted their attention. Then realize: Your comments are public.
Yeah Dude, you got to be careful what you say these days.
You could declare default values for any arguments. As for letting you put them in any order, that's not tricky at all. Even FORTRAN had namelists.
;-)
Hmmm..OK,then I guess my question showed that I'm not a developer.
When you said that, I heard something to the effect of:
Say you have a function that requires 6 arguments, 2 integers, 2 strings, and 2 others, say, that you're well versed in and I have no clue what are
Call them A,B,C,D,E,F in the order above.
I'm thinking you can do:
function(A B C D E F), function(E C A B D F), function( B D A C F E)... or any other ordering you choose and the compiler will "magically" figure out what you meant.
I'm guessing that there's more to it.
Care to give the idiot version of what you're talking about?
Things which aren't really possible with any Unix environment I'm aware of. (with regard to remote client management, monitoring, and configuration).
Ummm... ssh $host `do stuff`
or am I missing something?
That certainly covers any management or configuration. Monitoring possibly isn't so simple, but nagios or the like for active monitoring or snmp traps for passive pretty much covers that realm.
I mean maybe you're talking about something in specific, but "not possible"?!? That's really hard to believe especially given Window's relatively recent use for any important tasks relative to unix.
Go to any Mac user, and look at the installed apps on his computer, and you'll see that nearly 100% of them are from Apple (not including freeware).
;-)
Heck, look at my computer and exclude "freeware" and you'll think I'm a magician since I can run Cedega with no other code on the machine at all including an OS. Well, ok, I paid for the games too
There was a language called TOM which did that. It also let you pass the arguments in any order, and omit any you didn't care about.
... ) or something.
How the fuck did it allow that? Not arguing, it just seems like a really difficult problem unless it's like function(arg5:foo arg2:bar
It is obvious you are totally incapable of any discussion beyond screaming and crying about evil Republicans and stupid details.
Ahhh yes, details. Those utterly meaningless facts and stuff. I'm sure you just feel the truthiness.
but the gist was they were quoting military budget prices out of things that *surprise* weren't military budget documents, they were other books about how the military spends too much.
That article was an analysis of another paper. Perhaps you should pay more attention. Heck, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate that the facts are incorrect which you've still done nothing to show.
You say you don't vote party lines and then cry how all Republicans are evil and scum.
Where is the inconsistecy there? There is none. Support of evil is still evil. The Republican party's goals are entirely evil, anti-American and entirely inconsistent with a free society. Those are facts which have been made abudantly clear in the last 30 years or so. So, refusing to vote for a person who has actively chose to ally themselves against the best interests of this nation nad its citizens is basic common sense. Voting all Democrat would be voting the party line. Voting against proven murdering, torturing, scum isn't. Pretty simple concepts, really.
You say stupid shit like "my boy Negroponte"...oh yes that is right...party line team voters don't understand that you don't have to support everyone in a party.
In point of fact, yes you do.
Say you don't support him all you want, but the fact is that your support of that party *does* provide support for him and the other mass murdering traitors who are runing the country solely due to the support of people like you.
That's why political parties and especially our voting system are so contrary to their stated goals.
Now, obviously you don't want to actually take any responsibility for your actions, since that's like kryptonite to you mother fuckers, so you pretend that you can vote for the Republicans without voting for Republicans?!? Seriously, WTF
The fact is that The Republican party is a monolithic organization. You don't vote for candidates, you vote for the party. Because as clearly demonstrated with everything dealing with the torture/murder/treason scandals the Republicans closed ranks against the American people.
So had *you* and those like you not supported these sociopathic mass murderers, then we would not have a death camp commandat as our deputy secretary of state further demonstrating America's complete contempt for anything approximating a moral.
The fact that you can still support them after they've fucked your ass bloody demonstrates your extreme idiocy.
Seriously, keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
I realize that is a tad confusing to you, but its true, there really are still Republicans that aren't right wing religious fanatics.
Yet the simple fact that they are still Republicans long after the party was taken over by religious extremists back in the Reagan era demonstrates absolutely that they do, in fact, actively support the goals of the religious extremists. Hell, they could be atheists and it wouldn't change that fact.
The thing Republicans seem most unable to grasp is that actions speak far louder than words.
You words say that you don't support religious extremists and mass murderers, but your actions make those words lies. There is no ambiguity there and nothing unclear about where your real loyalties lie. It's possible that you're just too stupid to realise that by supporting terrorists and traitors, you becomeresponsible for their actions. There's that personal responsibility that you're dodging as hard as you can again.
There are quite a few at local and state government levels that aren't part of the national shenannagins.
No there aren't. It's a national organization. Any support for the party supports the whole thing through numbers, money, voting base and the like.
Yes, the majority of people here consider themselves Republicans, but if you're willing to get past somebody's political views, there are also lots of friendly people.
There is a large difference between "political views" and extremist nutjobs who actively support the dismantling of the constitution, and it's replacement with a fascist theocracy. It's also very different from people who want the biggest most oppressive government possible. and are actively working to make it happen.
Maybe you should wake up and realise that running death camps in third world shitholes in order to torture and murder innocent people to pretend they're dealing with a threat that they made up isn't a "political view" Those are *actions* which could only be supported by savage cowardly subhuman monsters as evidenced by the oly people who still support this tyrannical treasonous regime.
That's just so laughable. They've murdered a shitload of inocent people to make a few douchebags richer at all of our expense, destabilized an entire region, looted the treasury *again* just like the Bushies did to the S&L, destroyed any integrity we had as a nation, proved themselves to be the most corrupt congress in our history, and promoted anti-American hate based legislation, and you call it "political views".
Seriously, Dude. That's just pure unadulterated lunacy.
I'll pass on living near some cowardly douchebags who would happily watch me and my whole family murdered as long as their dear leader says I'm a terrorist regardless of the fact that his whole act is just making fun of how stupid he *knows* they are. Who but an idiot would have fallen for that shit?
So, sorry, but no such thing as a friendly Republican is even possible. Just one who hasn't fucked you yet.
Oh wait, supporting mass murder, torture, and unlimited government power is ok as long as they're polite to your face before stabbing you in the back.
Fucking retard.
I am also aware that the paper cited rather dubious sources when it came to quoting numbers such as the cost of training a pilot.
And yet you still have nothing to offer as to what's wrong with the sources. If you feel there is something iaccurate about it, the why are you having such a problem putting it on the table?
That doesn't negate the fact that a large portion of it is anti military fluff.
Which is merely self-serving rhetoric with no basis in fact as far as I can tell. Perhaps you'd care to offer anything resembling a fact or figure as opposed to empty worthless opinion?
I happen to agree with a great number of Republicans who maintain those tenets that you say are gone,
Yet everything they actually do *disagrees* completely with your stated beliefs. Sounds pretty crazy to me.
I mean, name one. If they had a scrap of integrity, then they would have left the party decades ago when they completely cast off those old chestnuts. So, no, there are no Republican elected officials that maintain shit of that. Look at the fucking defecit and then lie to me again.
The Republicans managed to take the control they had going into the Bush era because the Democrats were the biggest spending hypocritical pieces of corrupt shit..
Which merely demonstrates how far behind the times and how delusional your fatasy world is.
The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the old Republican "values". From him on, the Republicans took the title of biggest spending and ran with it to our current record debt.
Damn, dude. This is all a matter of public record. Maybe you should actually look at issues instead of having faith in a political party of all things.
as long as morons like you team vote and rant about entire parties you just make the problem worse.
See, here's a perfect example of how you just make shit up out of nowhere.
I've never voted for the scum in either major political party. I do think about the issues, so I certaily don't "team vote". That's mostly a Republica trait as evidenced irrefutably by the last several elections and by the behavior of the scum that Republicans elect.
Ranting about the Republican party is basic common sense.
Your failure to be able to deal with reality doesn't change that fact.
The Republican party base consists of fascists and religious extremists. The fact that you haven't even noticed that is quite telling. Those are the only people who get their voices heard in that party any more. Hell Iraq was the Republican's war entirely. The fact that they were aided by Democrats doesn't change the basic fact that the Republicans made up the entire thing to make a few people rich. You can't get more anti-Classical Republican values than that.
By falling into line and blaming entire parties for stupid shit like this it totally absolves them of personal responsibility and allows party line media spin and other such nonsense to sway folks like you into kneejerk voting.
Again more delusional nonsense. Absolve from personal responsibility?!? Read my sig again, idiot. I do hold them personally resposible for their cowardice and treason.
Nobody with a scrap of decency would be a Republican, so the fact that scum join the party of scum is a fact. It has othing to do with absolvig them of responsibility for their crimes.
So you go back to voting your party lines so we can get a new crop of corrupted shits and continue the cycle.
Except you just pulled that out of your ass. I've never voted party lines, nor will I. You're the one trying to whitewash the Republicans, I'm not trying to whitewash anybody. The fact that you're defending them at this point after 30+ years of blatant robbery (S&L looting by the Bushies), mass murder (your boy Negroponte and his death camps) and the current savage assault on liberty driven by your treasonous dear leader, shows either your complete lack of knowledge about pretty much anything that's
You totally ignored the fact that military spending is probably 10x what it should be at due to it being forced to operate outside of the normal economy.
That's actually one of the major premises of the paper that you're claiming to have read and further claiming is just a fluff piece even though it made several of the points you're trying to make far better than you are.
Nevermind the vague assertions of ammounts spent with questionable reference sources that the paper uses to prove that investments in other areas would have paid off more. The military is being used to siphon tax dollars into private defense sector firms.
Again, that is what that paper *said*, so, no, you didn't read it or your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you read it and failed to even understand the point.
So, yes, obviously, as my source demonstrated quite convincingly, the military is being used to siphon tax dollars.
This system *also* has the effect of preventing those resources from being used in a productive manner, *prevents* most major research funding into non-military uses, and generally hurts our economy.
Now, if my source is such an empty fluff piece, then surely you can actually point out some "vague assertions of ammounts spent with questionable reference sources". Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.
However, instead of having any meaninful discussion, you assert that I couldn't possibly do that, that you are absolutely correct in all regards, and that because I disagree with your linked paper that I didn't read it.
Since you've at least twice tried to make claims as if you were coming up with something when they were major points made in the referenced paper, it's crystal clear that you did not read it since otherwise you wouldn't be disagreeing with it while poorly attempting to make the same points it made.
Had you actually picked something in it to disagree with, and supported your assertion then that paragraph might even make some sort of sense. Since all you did was say "it's wrong" and then go on and try to make one of the points it made, your paragraph doesn't make any sense at all.
Also right after it recaps what broken window fallacy is, it explains that the military isn't a producer...if you read my previous post you would notice I said that.
It's meaningless that the military isn't a producer. It's still an example of the broken window fallacy to claim thyat military spending is good for research and the economy. So it doesn't matter what you said about that since it's irrelevant to the point.
FYI Republicans want small government, less intrusions on the people, less government spending. What we have now calling themselves Republicans aren't that at all. But I guess if you knew what you were talking about you would know that already right?
FYI, Republicans want the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a fascist theocracy. They want bigger more oppressive government than the Democrats ever dreamed of.
The fact that once upon a time many many decades ago there was some truth to that statement has nothing to do with reality and it has nothing to do with what it means to be a Republican today. Hell, back in the day, the most vocal, vicious racists were Democrats. They left en masse for the Republican party during the civil rights era.
Point is that the parties cange what they stand for all the time.
You apparently haven't clued into that simple fact and so keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
The fact is that the Republican party stands for big oppressive fascist government. If you vote Republican, then that is all that you are voting for. If you believe in what you delusionally claimed that Republicans believe in and you vote for Republican candidates, then you're an idiot since they are the *least* likely party to do anything to further your goals.
That goes back at least to 1980, and given the scumbag piece of shit that was Nixo
It is not a broken window fallacy because the purpose of the military is not to produce anything.
Try *reading* the linked article instead of imagining that you know what it says. You clearly don't. *everything* in our entire economy has been shaped by our massive overspending on the military. Given the amount spent on that *and therefore unavailable for any sort of productive use*, how could it, even only in theory, be possible that that isn't true?
the goal of the military is to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
If so incredibly naive as to believe that piece of nonsensical marketing fluff, then you're clearly not going to be making any insightful comments on the issue.
The purpose of the military is to push the interests of various big corporations at gunpoint and to enrich the weapons manufacturers. It's been that way since WW2 at least.
Would you care to give any examples of the military being used to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." since the end of WW2? No, didn't think so.
Now just for arguments sake...would you care to explain to me everything that never got invented because of military spending? I mean..can you give specific examples of the uninvented things that makes my point so ridiculous?
Again, had you actually read the linked document, then all of those questions would have been answered already.
Instead of that, you decided to pretend that you knew what it said when you clearly don't and so you're just continuing to make ignorant statements and asking questions *that have already been answered*.
Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas.
While arguably true, that's really nothing but the broken window fallacy.
Here's a good pdf on the subject. When you add up the costs of the military to the economy, and consider how much else never got invented then your point is shown to be completely ridiculous.
Nice try. Think it through next time though, ok?
Ahhh, but in measuring the decrease in the edges, did they take into account The eval ice cube industry?!?
History does go back farther than 300 years. And, whether you like it or not, what happened prior to the enlightenment is still important.
...a bunch of historical events...
I'm well aware of that.
None of which have anything to do with the bible. That's just politics/greed/brutality as usual. Sure, the Church was behind a lot of it, but that was all covered by part of my post which you even quoted, but apparently failed to read:
"The theocratic horrors of the world shaped by the bible didn't end, but they were curtailed."
So, yes, I'm well aware that the deep evil inherent in any form of religious rule is responsible for great horrors.
The bible had jack shit to do with any of that.
Your next paragraph is well covered by the same sentence with the caveat that I probably should have added: "for a while although it's rearing it's ugly head again".
If you celebrate Christmas or Easter, you are celebrating a holiday set up in the bible. These holidays are huge, consumer industries, but the foundations came from some where.
The foundations did come from somewhere. However, as your deeply misinformed statement demonstrates, you have no idea what those foundations are. That's why I finished up by suggesting that you might want to do some more research before opening your mouth.
You're clearly somewhat informed, and I'm really not trying to flame you, but if you can actually write something *that* ridiculous, you really really need to do some actual *research* as opposed to repeating lies spread by the Christians over the years in their concerted policy of cultural genocide.
Both of those holidays predate Christianity by *thousands of years*. It's probable that they predate the promotion of Jehova from wind god in the Hebrew pantheon to "one god", and possible that they predate the invention of that god in the first place although that last one is just speculation on my part as I've done no research on that in particular.
Have you ever been married or been to a general wedding? Unless you are of a religion other than Christianity, chances are you either were a part or witnessed a Christian celebration, FYI. The words you speak at the wedding bind you under God, not government.
I've been to many weddings. I'm married myself.
This was just bad though:
If you go to a Christian wedding you're watching a Christian ceremony.
Duh.
Marriage far predates Christianity as well. It's almost always been an *economic* institution anyhow, regardless of what mumbo jumbo they mumble at the ceremony.
Perhaps you're not actually aware of what's involved in getting married in America, so I'll tell you about my wedding day.
We flew into Vegas on Friday me from Chicago, and her from San Diego ( I was working on a contract at the time, although since we've moved to Chicago ( and I'm writing this from England, wheee)).
I took a cab to the courthouse, met up with her, waited in line for 5-10 minutes and got a license.
At midnight, we met up at the chapel and had a quick ceremony with a few friends and no Jesus, no God.
So, really, the government is the *only* one that actually matters in the entire thing as you need a license from them to have your marriage recognized legally and whoever performs the ceremony does as well.
No religious anything is involved unless you go out of your way to make it so.
Unless you read the actual bible at least once through, then your "research" is very limited to the opinions of other people.
I'm not even sure what, specifically, you're talking about here. Especially since the bible isn't even "opinion". It's a collection of myths with some actual history thrown in.
If you mean research into what the bible actually says (in detail), then certainly you'd need to read it.
There are plenty of other sources though which you'd need to read *in addition* to the bible for it to be research about anything el
That is how they grow and hatch elves. Elves cannot grow in cold climates so they put elf eggs all over warm suburban yards where little kids find them and break them open when they are ripe. Then the 4th of July scares the elves back to the North Pole. Like dogs, they hate loud sounds. It's all part of Krebb's Holiday Cycle.
LOL. Did you come up with this yourself? That's hilarious.
Actually, there is evidence that Jesus was born in March or April as he was born during the time of the Roman Census.
Well, technically the best guess that can be made from the bible gives something like that as Jesus' birthdate.
Actually, there is no credible evidence that there ever was such a person.
I would add that he also doesn't visit children of Russian and Greek Orthodox religions. Grandfather Frost visits them on 7th January.
;-)
That's interesting and all, but get to the meat of the issue: Which one brings the best presents
It is the book that has shaped Western Civilization as we know it.
:-P You cannot say there isn't any when there is a little bit; just about as much as Santa gets.
;-)
Hardly. Western Civilization as we know it was shaped by the Enlightenment which was largely a rejection of religious dogma in favor of reason. The theocratic horrors of the world shaped by the bible didn't end, but they were curtailed.
By understanding it, you'll have a deeper understanding of most poems and literature.
Well, "a lot", certainly. Most? Not so much.
The book also provides evidence of God.
Not at all. Well, unless you consider The Iliad to be evidence that Zeus exists.
All it is is evidence that people believe that god exists. Heck, there isn't even one single scrap of evidence that Jesus ever lived as a man, let alone a god.
I'm not saying I'm religious at all, but I do my research before I open my mouth.
Perhaps you might want to do a bit more
The question is - are you being compensated appropriately for the value you bring to the company? Workplace camaraderie, company trips and all that are great ways to make employees feel compensated beyond what it really costs the company to provide those things. In other words, they are buying you for pennies on the dollar and making you feel like they are doing you a favor. That is smart business on the company's part, but bad business on your part.
I thought I was pretty clear that I am being quite well compensated via a salary I'm quite happy with, quarterly bonuses, stock grants and the like. I also mentioned that anybody who didn't feel like going to the concert was compensated in other ways (days off, cash, etc.) I felt like going and I quite like (most of) the people I work with, so while I wouldn't have shelled out that kind of cash (~$500.00 per ticket) to see the Stones on my own, it was quite a good time and I have no regrets. That's hardly pennies on the dollar, although an argument could be made that since I wouldn't have paid that much myself and I could have been more or less comparably compensated in other ways that I did accrue an opportunity cost equal to the difference between the ticket price and what I would have been willing to pay for it.
Add in the fact that I actually do hang out with my boss outside of work from time to time anyhow since he's quite a cool guy, and the CEO is also very cool to the point that I spent a few work days (i.e. on the clock so to speak) sailing across Lake Michigan on his boat, I considered it quite a good time.
A year ago I was getting ready to buy a new computer as well. I had it all picked out and was talking to my boss about it (he's a geek too) and he offered to put it on the company. No strings. The final bill when we got done building it (online) was about double what I was planning to spend out of my pocket.
So while you're right that sometimes lame ass near worthless little incentives are used to attempt to pretend that a company gives a crap about you, there are actually companies that *really* do care that their employees are happy. And me being the employee in this case it's *my* definition of happiness (for me) that I'm using.
So, I'd say a getting a new computer (pretty well tricked out) out of the blue and a very expensive concert which I could have chosen to skip and still gotten other compensation isn't "bad business" on my part at all. YMMV
Irrationality and hate drools from your mouth, please use a handkerchief.
Well, it's true that I do hate 5th columnist terrorist supporting scum like you, but it's entirely rational. Your cowardice is directly affecting my way of life.
No hankie needed.
Oh, and read all the posts regarding my original post and you will find an example.
Which was thouroughly debunked as the complete crap it is.
The fact is that you have nothing to back up your point. The best you can come up with is the NYT doing *exactly* what the first amendment was put in place to allow them to do.
Sorry, it's only one because I've not the time or inclination to archive everything I read just so when some idiot wants "proof" I can cite.
The fact is you don't have one single example of what you're claiming. You are a coward, and you're pissing yourself over some largely overblown threat. In doing so you are supporting terrorists whose goal is to turn the US into a police state.
Your entire argument is that you think that pointing out the crimes of the current administration (which is why we have a first amendment) is a bad thing.
OK, we get it. You despise living in a free society. It's scary and you are not a brave person.
Why do you feel the need to work to destroy this one rather than just moving to a place where your values are respected.
Saudi Arabia or China would work out quite nicely for you.
If you have reasons you wouldn't like to live there, then consider the fact that what you are attacking here is exactly what was put in place for the exact purpose of preventing the US from becoming like you don't like about those other places.
First they are getting increased sales from Vista because it allows acess to HD media.
The point is that had Ms actually done what their customers wanted rather than what the media cartel wanted then their customers would have access to HD media *without* DRM which is how they want it since it allows them to use their property in the manner that they see fit.
Instead of doing this, MS colluded with the media cartels *against* their customers.
You seem to have the delusional belief that without DRM the media cartels would just close up shop which is blatantly false.
Had they not found a stooge to help them fuck the citizenry out of their rights, which is all that DRM is intended to do, then the media cartels would have been unable to force all this shit onto the public.
It's a monopoly colluding with a cartel to provide negative benefits with no upside.
You seem to think that citizens that exercise thier right to choose are somehow second class.
Not at all. I'm saying that Microsoft's collusion with the media cartels have removed the choice that people want which is DRM free media. That is the choice that has been removed from the table.
The media will be there regardless of whether or not DRM exists. That's the absolute fact you continue to fail to get.
If the tech companies work for their customers rather than against them then DRM would never have happened.