1. Schools in the US are NOT atheist; they are (and should be) *secular*. There is a very big difference here; atheism takes a position on the issue, whereas secularism (if that's a word) does not. An atheist school would promote or teach atheism, where a secular school, when it discusses religion, presents things totally matter-of-factly, generally from a historical viewpoint. If anything, schools in the US, in my experience tend to slightly favor theism.
2. I find your definition of atheism to be philosophically sloppy. I personally differentiate between strong atheism and weak atheism; strong atheists believe there is no God, whereas weak atheists don't believe there is a God. The difference is that strong atheists make an assertion (there is no God), and therefore assume the burden of proof, whereas weak atheists make no assertions, and therefore don't have to prove anything. A weak atheist has a lack of belief in God in the same sense that they have a lack of belief in Santa Claus; show it to me and I'll believe, until then, I won't. As a weak atheist, I don't feel this position is rooted in faith, but rather a clear understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge.
That said, theists could be right on. I just won't join them until there's a better chance that God exists than not. For what it's worth, I agree about the strong atheists, tho.:)
I think you're overlooking something very important - the industry does not exist to always embrace the most elegant or technologically advanced solution, cost be damned. The industry exists to sell computers and stuff; that's it. And backwards compatibility is a huge part of selling computers - do you really think Joe Bob gives a damn about the (for him) minimal performance advantages SCSI offers? Hell no; he wants to be able to open his WordPerfect documents from 1904. If the industry took your advice, and didn't worry about backwards compatibility, Joe Bob would still have a 286, if he bothered to buy a computer at all.
The reason normal people (myself included) can afford decent machines and good bandwidth is BECAUSE OF Joe Bob; if Joe Bob wasn't willing to buy, costs would be astronomical, and computers would be limited to corporations and universities.
Yes, SCSI is wonderful; yes, IDE sucks in many ways; yes yes yes. But IDE is good enough for most people, and it's cheap, and it maintains backwards compatibility, and for 90% of everyone, that's what counts, and that's what drives the industry.
Look, no disrespect, but how naive are you? This is absolutely about geeks, because they wouldn't DARE use it on the star quarterback; that's not how high school politics works. If they did that, they'd have to point out that randomly beating on people in the halls (i.e., the jocks at Columbine pre-shooting) isn't a nice thing, and is in fact violent behavior. And then the parents of these meatheads would throw fits. They're going to use this exclusively on outcasts, odd kids, etc. In other words, the geeks. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they'll apply this with parity. But I don't see that happening. -brennan
I don't know where Jon gets the idea that Guiliani was censoring the offensive art show. He simply said that the taxpayers don't have to pay for it.
Ah, but it's not that simple, is it? As has been noted, once the decision has been made to fund the arts, picking and choosing what will get funded based on how "offensive" the art is amounts to government subsidation and/or approval of certain points of view, and disapproval of others, which is unconstitutional.
But what I haven't heard many people complain about is the fact that the taxpayers didn't decide that they disliked the art, Giuliani decided that HE didn't like it. Since when could a single individual determine what will and won't be funded, at their discretion, whenever they feel like it? I find that notion by far more offensive than a little elephant dung. BTW, there's an excellent article on the whole flap by Anna Quindlen in the latest Newsweek. Really puts it in perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason normal people (myself included) can afford decent machines and good bandwidth is BECAUSE OF Joe Bob; if Joe Bob wasn't willing to buy, costs would be astronomical, and computers would be limited to corporations and universities.
Yes, SCSI is wonderful; yes, IDE sucks in many ways; yes yes yes. But IDE is good enough for most people, and it's cheap, and it maintains backwards compatibility, and for 90% of everyone, that's what counts, and that's what drives the industry.
-brennan
Look, no disrespect, but how naive are you? This is absolutely about geeks, because they wouldn't DARE use it on the star quarterback; that's not how high school politics works. If they did that, they'd have to point out that randomly beating on people in the halls (i.e., the jocks at Columbine pre-shooting) isn't a nice thing, and is in fact violent behavior. And then the parents of these meatheads would throw fits. They're going to use this exclusively on outcasts, odd kids, etc. In other words, the geeks. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they'll apply this with parity. But I don't see that happening. -brennan
Ah, but it's not that simple, is it? As has been noted, once the decision has been made to fund the arts, picking and choosing what will get funded based on how "offensive" the art is amounts to government subsidation and/or approval of certain points of view, and disapproval of others, which is unconstitutional.
But what I haven't heard many people complain about is the fact that the taxpayers didn't decide that they disliked the art, Giuliani decided that HE didn't like it. Since when could a single individual determine what will and won't be funded, at their discretion, whenever they feel like it? I find that notion by far more offensive than a little elephant dung. BTW, there's an excellent article on the whole flap by Anna Quindlen in the latest Newsweek. Really puts it in perspective.
-brennan