That's a bit of a silly argument. You may as well say that there are no tasks you do today with your 52' Plasma screen High-Def TV that you couldn't do back in 1956 with your 14" black and white CRT screen.
Or you may as well argue that there's no tasks we do today with a Boeing 767 that couldn't have been done with a WW1-era bi-plane, or with a really large blimp.
While such statements are more-or-less technically correct, they're rather missing the point, eh?
Personally, the words "Gee, that's odd" are the LAST thing I'd want to hear from a nuclear physicist. There's a very good possibility they'd be followed by a loud *BOOM*.
*shrug* that's quite possible. I'm not exactly up on the methods and tactics of the IRA. I know there were some cases in which they targeted random civilians, however, I got the general impression that this was the exception rather than the rule. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The rest of my statements still stand. Even if the methods and tactics of the IRA were exactly the same as the current crop of Islamist terrorists, it doesn't change the fact that they were NOT a religiously based organization, nor were they bent on world domination.
That's nowhere close to being an accurate comparison. As others have pointed out, the conflict with the IRA was more about nationality than religion. That's why it was called the Irish Republican Army, and not something like "The Avenging Sword of Christian Supremacy".
Moreover, their bombings were much more rare, and they tried to focus on political targets because they were attempting to achieve a political goal. I'm not excusing their actions, nor am I saying that they didn't kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, but they generally didn't go out of their way to blow up coffee shops, discos, and bus stations. Nor did they fly airliners into buildings.
And finally, their goal was to achieve freedom for Ireland. Whereas Muslim extremist groups continue to target western civilians despite the fact that there are dozens of Muslim nations which hold full authority over their own borders. And many of these lunatics make it quite clear that their ultimate goal is the Islamification (yes, I know it's not a real word) of the whole world. Off hand, I really can't think of any Christian groups which preach that religious warfare should be used to convert the world to Christianity. Can you?
Of course the elephant repellent is working! You don't see any elephants around here, do you?
Seriously though, that's a problem in many fields. People don't appreciate the value of a good military until they're under attack. They don't appreciate the value of a well funded police department until the crime rate starts increasing exponentially. And they don't appreciate the value of a good fire department until their whole block has gone up in flames. Sysadmins are no different.
If you really want to be technical about it, he wasn't killed by a bullet either, he was killed by the sudden relocation of large quantities of cranial matter. Nobody is ever killed by a bullet, they're killed by the resulting effect on the body.
No amount of web pages, youtube videos, or self-appointed researchers can convince most people that there was anything suspicious about 9/11. Forget about alien saucer crashes or the health benefits of battery acid.
And, if I remember correctly, something like 70% believe that JFK wasn't killed by Oswald.
So I think you're being overly generous (to put it mildly) in your estimation of the intelligence of others. Even the 9/11 "truth" movement - possibly the dumbest bunch of bastards I've ever met - continues to grow and can probably count 15% of the US population amongst it's ranks, and a greater percentage in other countries. Judging by the figures on JFK, you can probably expect that by 2029 at least 50% of Americans will believe that 9/11 was pulled off by the CIA.
Human stupidity is nothing new. Beliefs in ESP, paranormal phenomena, aliens, miracle healing, etc, have been with us for a long, LONG time. The only difference is that now people can read about them online, and convince themselves that they are learning something useful.
But the kids these days -- anything they might want to know is sitting there in the computer room. They will never know a world of informationlessness. Everything from obscure programming langauges to Hatian Gods to currrent events, right in front of them.
Yeah! For instance, they can learn that the US Government demolished the WTC with space lasers while a bunch of Jews danced, that the UFO in Roswell isn't really saucer shaped, that we never landed on the moon, the holocaust never happened, communism will solve all the world's ills, Islam is the religion of peace, Cuba has the worlds best health care, and battery acid cures the common cold.
Right.
Realistically, even if we ignore the fact that most people lack the curiosity to research anything, their research and critical thinking skills are so poor that the internet serves as a fountain of misinformation rather than true knowledge. 90% of the people I know are too stupid to check Snopes before forwarding the Nigerian Banker scam, let alone go research "weird or esoteric subjects".
Better yet, I could have told them that registering long-guns is absolutely pointless for only ONE million dollars!
But that's not what they wanted. They wanted to waste money on a pointless project, while appearing to be doing something useful. It's all about public perception.
Your post should be rated +20,000 Insightful. Prior to reading it, I really didn't much care about this ID program. I didn't see it as a big problem. And the fanatical rantings of some of it's opponents (both here at slashdot, and elsewhere) were starting to convince me that all those opposed to it were a bunch of drooling morons.
Then I read your comment.
Short, simple, and elegant. In one movie quote you managed to sum up exactly what's wrong with this program, in a way that appeals even to those who DON'T think that all republicans are "Bushitler ts". Thank you for that.
What I was trying to say is that the assumption doesn't necessarily hold, and both the Big Bang theory and the belief that God created the everything share the same illogical assumption.
Nope.
Ok, I'll start off by saying that the original discussion had nothing to do with the Big Bang theory, so you're going off topic here. With that said, there is no comparison between the two explanations. Why? Because the "proof" that God must exist is always one of two things: either a phrase along the lines of "well SOMETHING must have created us", or an appeal to (false) authority in the form of pointing to the bible.
The Big Bang theory on the other hand is backed up by scientific research, and is constantly being revised as we acquire more data. You won't see any scientists saying "well SOMETHING must have created the universe", or "well, in Einstein's book it says that....". That's because the big bang theory was derived from observable phenomena, and is free to change over time, while "faith in God" is a dogmatic belief which can never be either proven, disproved, or made more accurate.
I understand why you think the Big Bang theory is illogical, however, I must point out that this is mainly due to the fact that you have only a very basic understanding of it. If you want a very simple explanation of "what came before the big bang", try here.
In the end, you're right to an extent: for most people, belief in the Big Bang is just as dogmatic as belief in God is for religious people. In this sense, there is very little difference. Fortunately, however, you can go out and study subjects like quantum physics in order to gain a better understanding of the underlying theory, and thereby come to understand the Big Bang in scientific terms. Whereas no matter how hard you study religion, you will never find any scientific evidence for God.
That's, ah, er, the point of the United Nations. Avoid World War III by making a place where every nation can come and bitch to the rest of the world.
Which is a nice idea, as long as you only allow rational and influential nations a seat at the table.
What the UN has actually turned into is the equivalent of raiding your town jail and local loony-bin to find members for your town council. While the concept of "equal representation" might seem noble, in these cases it fails horribly.
We (the "western" nations) have already recognized the fact that negotiating with terrorists, tyrants, and fascists is not only useless but counter-productive. Our foreign policies generally reflect that. Yet at the same time we allow such individuals to take part in UN discussions, and vote on matters with a voice equal to those of liberal democracies. I shouldn't need to point out the foolishness of such a hypocritical policy. The UN should have been scrapped years ago.
Any organization which elects Libya to chair it's "Human Rights Council" automatically loses any right to be taken seriously.
Seriously, is it possible any more to even pretend that the UN is anything but a forum for tinpot dictators and other nameless losers to bitch, complain, and blame the west for all of Earth's problems?
Come to think of it..... it kinda reminds me of Slashdot, actually;)
More importantly, wasn't the US culture BASED on concepts like separation of church and state and freedom of religion?
No, US Government was. There's a big difference. Which is why I can safely say that anyone who defends theocratic dictatorships as being "part of their culture" is a friggin' moron. There's a massive difference between a nations culture, and the government which reigns over it.
Doesn't seem like a huge problem. Just have the motors situated a foot or so in from the wheels, with a short driveshaft connecting them to the wheel. Might not be as efficient as having the motors inside the wheels, but it gets rid of the unsprung mass problem.
Anyway, don't some modern cars already have motors connected to the wheels in order to provide regenerative breaking?
Every time I criticize middle-eastern theocracies, some idiot (ok, MANY idiots) jump in screaming about how "that's their culture", and "we have no right to criticize". I'm surprised that there's nobody here defending Christian fundamentalism as "US culture" and telling all these damn foreigners that they have no right to criticize Bush:)
That's so ignorant, it hurts. Let's compare the US and North Korea. The US has more personal freedoms. The US has better living conditions. The average US citizen is fat, while a large portion of North Koreans are malnourished. And the educational system....well, I think you see where I'm going with this.
Now, which nation do you suppose has a lower crime rate? I'll give you three guesses, but I gaurantee you'll only need one.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bit of a silly argument. You may as well say that there are no tasks you do today with your 52' Plasma screen High-Def TV that you couldn't do back in 1956 with your 14" black and white CRT screen.
Or you may as well argue that there's no tasks we do today with a Boeing 767 that couldn't have been done with a WW1-era bi-plane, or with a really large blimp.
While such statements are more-or-less technically correct, they're rather missing the point, eh?
Well said!
Personally, the words "Gee, that's odd" are the LAST thing I'd want to hear from a nuclear physicist. There's a very good possibility they'd be followed by a loud *BOOM*.
*shrug* that's quite possible. I'm not exactly up on the methods and tactics of the IRA. I know there were some cases in which they targeted random civilians, however, I got the general impression that this was the exception rather than the rule. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The rest of my statements still stand. Even if the methods and tactics of the IRA were exactly the same as the current crop of Islamist terrorists, it doesn't change the fact that they were NOT a religiously based organization, nor were they bent on world domination.
That's nowhere close to being an accurate comparison. As others have pointed out, the conflict with the IRA was more about nationality than religion. That's why it was called the Irish Republican Army, and not something like "The Avenging Sword of Christian Supremacy".
Moreover, their bombings were much more rare, and they tried to focus on political targets because they were attempting to achieve a political goal. I'm not excusing their actions, nor am I saying that they didn't kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, but they generally didn't go out of their way to blow up coffee shops, discos, and bus stations. Nor did they fly airliners into buildings.
And finally, their goal was to achieve freedom for Ireland. Whereas Muslim extremist groups continue to target western civilians despite the fact that there are dozens of Muslim nations which hold full authority over their own borders. And many of these lunatics make it quite clear that their ultimate goal is the Islamification (yes, I know it's not a real word) of the whole world. Off hand, I really can't think of any Christian groups which preach that religious warfare should be used to convert the world to Christianity. Can you?
Of course the elephant repellent is working! You don't see any elephants around here, do you?
Seriously though, that's a problem in many fields. People don't appreciate the value of a good military until they're under attack. They don't appreciate the value of a well funded police department until the crime rate starts increasing exponentially. And they don't appreciate the value of a good fire department until their whole block has gone up in flames. Sysadmins are no different.
:p
Guns don't kill people! BULLETS kill people!
If you really want to be technical about it, he wasn't killed by a bullet either, he was killed by the sudden relocation of large quantities of cranial matter. Nobody is ever killed by a bullet, they're killed by the resulting effect on the body.
And, if I remember correctly, something like 70% believe that JFK wasn't killed by Oswald.
So I think you're being overly generous (to put it mildly) in your estimation of the intelligence of others. Even the 9/11 "truth" movement - possibly the dumbest bunch of bastards I've ever met - continues to grow and can probably count 15% of the US population amongst it's ranks, and a greater percentage in other countries. Judging by the figures on JFK, you can probably expect that by 2029 at least 50% of Americans will believe that 9/11 was pulled off by the CIA.
Human stupidity is nothing new. Beliefs in ESP, paranormal phenomena, aliens, miracle healing, etc, have been with us for a long, LONG time. The only difference is that now people can read about them online, and convince themselves that they are learning something useful.
Hah. You know, I never understood why pessimists like you don't just off themselves, and leave more resources for the rest of us.
Right.
Realistically, even if we ignore the fact that most people lack the curiosity to research anything, their research and critical thinking skills are so poor that the internet serves as a fountain of misinformation rather than true knowledge. 90% of the people I know are too stupid to check Snopes before forwarding the Nigerian Banker scam, let alone go research "weird or esoteric subjects".
Better yet, I could have told them that registering long-guns is absolutely pointless for only ONE million dollars!
But that's not what they wanted. They wanted to waste money on a pointless project, while appearing to be doing something useful. It's all about public perception.
You guys are deffinitely living up to the Slashdot stereotype.
As for me, I had no difficulty beating the machine. Neither did my sister.
Your post should be rated +20,000 Insightful. Prior to reading it, I really didn't much care about this ID program. I didn't see it as a big problem. And the fanatical rantings of some of it's opponents (both here at slashdot, and elsewhere) were starting to convince me that all those opposed to it were a bunch of drooling morons.
Then I read your comment.
Short, simple, and elegant. In one movie quote you managed to sum up exactly what's wrong with this program, in a way that appeals even to those who DON'T think that all republicans are "Bushitler ts". Thank you for that.
Ok, I'll start off by saying that the original discussion had nothing to do with the Big Bang theory, so you're going off topic here. With that said, there is no comparison between the two explanations. Why? Because the "proof" that God must exist is always one of two things: either a phrase along the lines of "well SOMETHING must have created us", or an appeal to (false) authority in the form of pointing to the bible.
The Big Bang theory on the other hand is backed up by scientific research, and is constantly being revised as we acquire more data. You won't see any scientists saying "well SOMETHING must have created the universe", or "well, in Einstein's book it says that....". That's because the big bang theory was derived from observable phenomena, and is free to change over time, while "faith in God" is a dogmatic belief which can never be either proven, disproved, or made more accurate.
I understand why you think the Big Bang theory is illogical, however, I must point out that this is mainly due to the fact that you have only a very basic understanding of it. If you want a very simple explanation of "what came before the big bang", try here.
In the end, you're right to an extent: for most people, belief in the Big Bang is just as dogmatic as belief in God is for religious people. In this sense, there is very little difference. Fortunately, however, you can go out and study subjects like quantum physics in order to gain a better understanding of the underlying theory, and thereby come to understand the Big Bang in scientific terms. Whereas no matter how hard you study religion, you will never find any scientific evidence for God.
What the UN has actually turned into is the equivalent of raiding your town jail and local loony-bin to find members for your town council. While the concept of "equal representation" might seem noble, in these cases it fails horribly.
We (the "western" nations) have already recognized the fact that negotiating with terrorists, tyrants, and fascists is not only useless but counter-productive. Our foreign policies generally reflect that. Yet at the same time we allow such individuals to take part in UN discussions, and vote on matters with a voice equal to those of liberal democracies. I shouldn't need to point out the foolishness of such a hypocritical policy. The UN should have been scrapped years ago.
Any organization which elects Libya to chair it's "Human Rights Council" automatically loses any right to be taken seriously.
..... it kinda reminds me of Slashdot, actually ;)
Seriously, is it possible any more to even pretend that the UN is anything but a forum for tinpot dictators and other nameless losers to bitch, complain, and blame the west for all of Earth's problems?
Come to think of it
Doesn't seem like a huge problem. Just have the motors situated a foot or so in from the wheels, with a short driveshaft connecting them to the wheel. Might not be as efficient as having the motors inside the wheels, but it gets rid of the unsprung mass problem.
Anyway, don't some modern cars already have motors connected to the wheels in order to provide regenerative breaking?
OMGZ0RS TITS A CUNSPIRACY!!!1ONE!1ELEVEN!!
Or, you know, you might just be one poor, stupid, paranoid bastard.
Either or.
False Dilemma.
Just to play devils advocate for a sec:
:)
Every time I criticize middle-eastern theocracies, some idiot (ok, MANY idiots) jump in screaming about how "that's their culture", and "we have no right to criticize". I'm surprised that there's nobody here defending Christian fundamentalism as "US culture" and telling all these damn foreigners that they have no right to criticize Bush
Yeah...I mean really....abolishing slavery...what were they thinking???
That's so ignorant, it hurts. Let's compare the US and North Korea. The US has more personal freedoms. The US has better living conditions. The average US citizen is fat, while a large portion of North Koreans are malnourished. And the educational system....well, I think you see where I'm going with this.
Now, which nation do you suppose has a lower crime rate? I'll give you three guesses, but I gaurantee you'll only need one.