That and a GIGANTIC FUCKING OCEAN! The only reason we can afford to fight so many wars is that it is very hard to invade America.
You may not have heard, but we've developed these things called "ships" and "airplanes" over the last couple centuries. You should read up on them - they're really kinda cool! Some 70 years ago, they allowed forces from the US, Canada, and Australia to successfully invade and defeat enemies in several nations, even though there were oceans in between!
I know, I know, it's hard to believe. Don't take my word on it - I'm sure if you google "World War 2" you should be able to come up with some confirmatory evidence.
Wrong. At best, you could argue that Atheists have one specific belief in common. One belief is not a "fundamental set of beliefs". In all accuracy though, as "twelveinchbrain" already pointed out, Atheists don't actually have even ONE belief in common.
In the field of physics, it is generally taught that all matter in the universe is finite, even though it breaks all understandings of physics to suggest that at the barrier/edge of all mass, nothing exists beyond that, but the mass isn't sucked into the resulting vacuum.
What?
I'm sorry, but that was the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time. Your grasp of physics must be tenuous at best. Mass that is already in a vacuum cannot be "sucked into the vacuum". Suction requires a pressure differential. That simple fact easily demolishes your entire argument, without even bothering to discuss your misunderstandings about the shape of the universe.
We don't have proof of reason to operate under the assumption that mass is fine, but we accept it without reason.
I dunno. Mass is just fine with me:)
A good chunk of math and science is heavily dependent on believing in things that can't be tested or proven.
Sheer nonsense. Mathematics, pretty much by definition, consists of postulates which have been proven. Science, on the other hand, may propose hypothesis which have not yet been tested, or theories which are poorly supported - however all such postulates must betestable and falsifiable. If they're not falsifiable, they're not science.
None of which has anything to do with what I said. My comment to you was that it is idiotic to make up something called "religion" and then claim that even those who reject it are "religious". Your first two sentences made a weak attempt to refute that statement - the rest of your comment was completely unrelated.
That's stupid. You can't make up something called "religion" and then say "even if you reject this, you're still religious". I mean, you can, but if you do then you're an idiot. And you're certainly not saying anything useful about my beliefs.
since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas
Now that's funny. What do you do for an encore? Claim that recent research shows that even homosexuals harbor strong heterosexual attractions?
I mean, it's nice to see you've been reading things other than the Quaran, but just because someone claims they're doing "research" doesn't mean it's accurate or reliable. You have to learn to think for yourself!
Exactly. He clearly has no clue of the actual reasons behind rejection of religion. The details he lists are relatively minor compared to the stuff you brought up.
I'd love to hear your definition of "atheists extremists", as well as how exactly they could ever be "as dangerous as the religious nutjobs". Should be fun watching you grab at threads.
I agree with most of what you are saying. Maybe I am just dreaming but I believe that some day theists and atheists will be able to sit down and discuss such topics by presenting thier own ideas to stand on its own merit without having to attack each other's.
Yep, you're dreaming. That's like saying "one day people who believe in fairies and people who don't believe in fairies will be able to present their own ideas instead of attacking each others".
By definition, Atheism is the rejection of theism. Theists make a claim, atheists say "you're full of shit". That's it. Without theism, atheism wouldn't even be a concept, so how in the world can you present an "atheist idea" which is independent of theistic claims?
It's been shown time and again that human communication depends as much on shared context and non-verbal cues as it does on the actual words being spoken. When you use the language of battle you evoke a specific reaction to your words. Either you're a sociopath who doesn't understand how to effectively communicate with those around him, or you're backpedaling now. Either way the fault lies with you, and not with the "morons" who can't appreciate your brilliance.
however warped and cruel their beliefs, they are to be respected, because they will fight for their (flawed) beliefs. meanwhile, there is no respecting those who flee, or even just threaten to flee.
You would have made a great Klingon.
I have no respect for either of the categories which you list. I do not respect "warriors" who butcher innocent people in order to bring to power a regime based on their immoral theistic beliefs. Why you fight and how you fight are a lot more important than the fact that you do fight. There is no honour in mindless slaughter.
It's a rhetorical point rather than a statement of fact. When Bush was elected, I noticed a distinct dearth or "liberal" refugees swarming over the border. Nor did the situation change upon his reelection. While one or two rare individuals may actually follow up on such statements, the vast majority will not. It's the equivalent of a young child threatening to run away from home; a cry for attention rather than a serious plan.
No, he had it right. You'd have to stretch the definition of "helicopter" quite a bit in order to have this qualify. So much, in fact, that under your new classification any aircraft with VTOL capability would also be a helicopter.
basically continuing the long-standing tradition of passing the production to poor countries and living on top of them by providing the services and support that ultimately control the means of production.
I think you may have made a typo when you tried to write "basically continuing the long-standing tradition of providing poor countries with the means of production and massively closing the gap between their standard of living and ours". It's ok, it happens.
"We know Saddam has WMD, but we can't show you what we know because it's secret!". Everybody knows how that argument went in Iraq.
We do?
They did show us what they knew. It just turned out to be crap. Did you really need to venture into historical revisionism in order to support your point?
The crappy thing about blood money is that nobody will take it from you. People have this weird opposition to handling bills which are coated in human bodily fluids. That's why money laundering is such a big business.
So in this context, how does the artist/creator earn their daily bread?
Well, in the old days, they did it through Patronage, as well as by charging for live performances.
A good artists can easily earn his/her "daily bread" even if his/her works are copied without limit. What you're really asking is "How can a few industry-selected artists continue to rake in millions of dollars, out of all proportion to the time, effort, and talent which they've invested in their work". And the answers is simple: they can't, and I don't see any reason why they should.
Why do artists get to control their creation after they sell it? Manufacturers don't. Crafts makers don't. If I sell you a car I can't tell you how fast to drive it, where to drive it, or what brand of oil you can use for oil changes.
No, but you certainly can tell me that I can't make a duplicate copy and sell it as the genuine article. Your analogy sucks.
Just because something is "artistic" or "creative" (a property that is ill defined and could apply to anything) should not give you special rights.
You're absolutely right there, but not for the reason you think. These rights apply to all patented/copyrighted works, within a certain time frame. Being "creative" has nothing to do with it.
I *just* tried a partial search --also for a part of a phone number-- and got precise results, including every message with the entire phone number. No idea why your partial string search failed.
I just tried the same thing, and it didn't work. I prefer the gmail interface over thunderbird, but he's right: there are quite a few things that are "klunky".
Slashdot Mirror
That and a GIGANTIC FUCKING OCEAN! The only reason we can afford to fight so many wars is that it is very hard to invade America.
You may not have heard, but we've developed these things called "ships" and "airplanes" over the last couple centuries. You should read up on them - they're really kinda cool! Some 70 years ago, they allowed forces from the US, Canada, and Australia to successfully invade and defeat enemies in several nations, even though there were oceans in between!
I know, I know, it's hard to believe. Don't take my word on it - I'm sure if you google "World War 2" you should be able to come up with some confirmatory evidence.
Maybe if we weren't in their country they wouldn't be attacking?
Have you ever picked up a history book?
Even atheists have a fundamental set of beliefs.
Wrong. At best, you could argue that Atheists have one specific belief in common. One belief is not a "fundamental set of beliefs". In all accuracy though, as "twelveinchbrain" already pointed out, Atheists don't actually have even ONE belief in common.
In the field of physics, it is generally taught that all matter in the universe is finite, even though it breaks all understandings of physics to suggest that at the barrier/edge of all mass, nothing exists beyond that, but the mass isn't sucked into the resulting vacuum.
What?
I'm sorry, but that was the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time. Your grasp of physics must be tenuous at best. Mass that is already in a vacuum cannot be "sucked into the vacuum". Suction requires a pressure differential. That simple fact easily demolishes your entire argument, without even bothering to discuss your misunderstandings about the shape of the universe.
We don't have proof of reason to operate under the assumption that mass is fine, but we accept it without reason.
I dunno. Mass is just fine with me :)
A good chunk of math and science is heavily dependent on believing in things that can't be tested or proven.
Sheer nonsense. Mathematics, pretty much by definition, consists of postulates which have been proven. Science, on the other hand, may propose hypothesis which have not yet been tested, or theories which are poorly supported - however all such postulates must be testable and falsifiable. If they're not falsifiable, they're not science.
None of which has anything to do with what I said. My comment to you was that it is idiotic to make up something called "religion" and then claim that even those who reject it are "religious". Your first two sentences made a weak attempt to refute that statement - the rest of your comment was completely unrelated.
That's stupid. You can't make up something called "religion" and then say "even if you reject this, you're still religious". I mean, you can, but if you do then you're an idiot. And you're certainly not saying anything useful about my beliefs.
since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas
Now that's funny. What do you do for an encore? Claim that recent research shows that even homosexuals harbor strong heterosexual attractions?
I mean, it's nice to see you've been reading things other than the Quaran, but just because someone claims they're doing "research" doesn't mean it's accurate or reliable. You have to learn to think for yourself!
Exactly. He clearly has no clue of the actual reasons behind rejection of religion. The details he lists are relatively minor compared to the stuff you brought up.
You're weak, not soft.
I'd love to hear your definition of "atheists extremists", as well as how exactly they could ever be "as dangerous as the religious nutjobs". Should be fun watching you grab at threads.
I agree with most of what you are saying. Maybe I am just dreaming but I believe that some day theists and atheists will be able to sit down and discuss such topics by presenting thier own ideas to stand on its own merit without having to attack each other's.
Yep, you're dreaming. That's like saying "one day people who believe in fairies and people who don't believe in fairies will be able to present their own ideas instead of attacking each others".
By definition, Atheism is the rejection of theism. Theists make a claim, atheists say "you're full of shit". That's it. Without theism, atheism wouldn't even be a concept, so how in the world can you present an "atheist idea" which is independent of theistic claims?
That's what you get for using the 4chan dictionary plugin.
Well, if you are going to bring some books to the discussion, I would include Lucas' source material, the epics of Homer.
Oh come on ... The Simpsons was a decent show, but hardly an epic!
And, anyway, what's that got to do with books?
No they didn't - that's how prune juice is supposed to taste.
No don't get me wrong, I see the applications of Augmented Reality. I don't get the applications of Augmented Reality Games
You could play bra-basketball with that busty new intern, without the risk of getting slapped?
It's been shown time and again that human communication depends as much on shared context and non-verbal cues as it does on the actual words being spoken. When you use the language of battle you evoke a specific reaction to your words. Either you're a sociopath who doesn't understand how to effectively communicate with those around him, or you're backpedaling now. Either way the fault lies with you, and not with the "morons" who can't appreciate your brilliance.
however warped and cruel their beliefs, they are to be respected, because they will fight for their (flawed) beliefs. meanwhile, there is no respecting those who flee, or even just threaten to flee.
You would have made a great Klingon.
I have no respect for either of the categories which you list. I do not respect "warriors" who butcher innocent people in order to bring to power a regime based on their immoral theistic beliefs. Why you fight and how you fight are a lot more important than the fact that you do fight. There is no honour in mindless slaughter.
It's a rhetorical point rather than a statement of fact. When Bush was elected, I noticed a distinct dearth or "liberal" refugees swarming over the border. Nor did the situation change upon his reelection. While one or two rare individuals may actually follow up on such statements, the vast majority will not. It's the equivalent of a young child threatening to run away from home; a cry for attention rather than a serious plan.
Yah yeah, a "ducted fan VTOL" which is so much easier to say than helicopter.
Well if we're going to be choosing names based on what's easier to say, we'll just call it "plane!". And you can change your name to zippy.
No, he had it right. You'd have to stretch the definition of "helicopter" quite a bit in order to have this qualify. So much, in fact, that under your new classification any aircraft with VTOL capability would also be a helicopter.
Stupid.
basically continuing the long-standing tradition of passing the production to poor countries and living on top of them by providing the services and support that ultimately control the means of production.
I think you may have made a typo when you tried to write "basically continuing the long-standing tradition of providing poor countries with the means of production and massively closing the gap between their standard of living and ours". It's ok, it happens.
"We know Saddam has WMD, but we can't show you what we know because it's secret!". Everybody knows how that argument went in Iraq.
We do?
They did show us what they knew. It just turned out to be crap. Did you really need to venture into historical revisionism in order to support your point?
The crappy thing about blood money is that nobody will take it from you. People have this weird opposition to handling bills which are coated in human bodily fluids. That's why money laundering is such a big business.
So in this context, how does the artist/creator earn their daily bread?
Well, in the old days, they did it through Patronage, as well as by charging for live performances.
A good artists can easily earn his/her "daily bread" even if his/her works are copied without limit. What you're really asking is "How can a few industry-selected artists continue to rake in millions of dollars, out of all proportion to the time, effort, and talent which they've invested in their work". And the answers is simple: they can't, and I don't see any reason why they should.
Why do artists get to control their creation after they sell it? Manufacturers don't. Crafts makers don't. If I sell you a car I can't tell you how fast to drive it, where to drive it, or what brand of oil you can use for oil changes.
No, but you certainly can tell me that I can't make a duplicate copy and sell it as the genuine article. Your analogy sucks.
Just because something is "artistic" or "creative" (a property that is ill defined and could apply to anything) should not give you special rights.
You're absolutely right there, but not for the reason you think. These rights apply to all patented/copyrighted works, within a certain time frame. Being "creative" has nothing to do with it.
I *just* tried a partial search --also for a part of a phone number-- and got precise results, including every message with the entire phone number. No idea why your partial string search failed.
I just tried the same thing, and it didn't work. I prefer the gmail interface over thunderbird, but he's right: there are quite a few things that are "klunky".
My home router constantly has regular attacks on it. Have I ever thought I was on a cyber battlefield? No.
Pft. Damn hippie pacifist. I'll bet your router's covered in daisies!