It seems to me that to say you're agnostic you must...
With the proper application of apathy, you don't even need to do that much. In fact, I think I'll go fry myself up a delicious bacon/egg and cheese sandwich right now instead of pondering a damn thing. Who gives a shit? I'm not a physicist, biologist, theologian, or policy maker, why should I waste my time on any of this?
Oh right, because it's fun to argue on the internet... oh well:)
I'll go ahead and cite Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash as my source for saying that religion is nothing more than a social/mental virus.
Sure it's fiction, but I'd wager it is just as good as any sources you can dig up to the contrary.
(oh, and for your information: there are a shitton of peer-reviewed papers and books about the origins of different religions. Go to any local university and ask a librarian for some help finding some.)
Lets see: scientist implies gravity exists because gravity exists. you imply gravity exists because god exists (because he exists).
So what you are saying then is you worship what is for all intents and purposes gravity? Cool story bro...
But in all seriousness, if this supposed god is "all mighty", then why limit his actions to the creation of gravity? Seems to me you've got yourself something of a "god of the gaps" thing going on.
You sound pretty sarcastic, but why not? It's a pretty good idea and it'd even be cheap. Just take some old cold-war era biological warfare ordinance, load it up with as many microbes as you can thing of, and cluster-bomb half of Mars with it. The only downside is you'd run the risk of wiping out whatever native life supposedly might be there already.*
* I find this to actually be even more of a reason to try it. The idea that earthen life, completely un-evolved for Martian life, would be more effective at surviving on Mars than native life that specifically evolved to life there is pretty crazy. Realisticly I'd expect you'd run into a "War of the Worlds" situation where the Martian life completely dominates the Earthen life (which is at a disadvantage by being outside of its environment, despite possibly being far more advanced). If however that proved to be the case, it'd make a pretty strong argument for the technical possibility and practicality of terraforming.
The lack of a magnetosphere will always present an issue for human life, but it wouldn't prevent life in general from getting a foothold. You wouldn't want to terraform the entirety of Mars to human standards anyways, it'd take far too long. More realistically you'd get some sort of 'crop' going to over time convert the soil into something usable and in the meantime set up sealed colonies. Far easier to terraform a geodesic dome or a martian cave than an entire planet.
You were modded funny, but it is not particularly hard to imagine a specially engineered lichen growing in the northern hemisphere of Mars. It could go dormant during the winter, and briefly grow during the summer when the sun begins to melt the (mostly CO2) icecap creating strong southward winds.
Scientists discover new extremophiles every year, the more we learn the more we discover the window that life can survive in is larger than we originally thought.
Why of course! That explains all the severe weather there! Wait, that's not how weather works at all... Mars most certainly has an atmosphere, and it is quite active. It just doesn't have a particularly dense atmosphere.
Results revealed that 18% of professionals believe misconfigured networks are the result of insufficient time or money for audits. 14% felt that compliance audits that don't always capture security best practices are a factor and 11% felt that threat vectors that change faster than they can be addressed play a key role."
Ok, so what did the other 57% think that misconfigured networks are the result of?
The way he is twisting the joke is removing the punchline. In Frank Sinatra's version the joke teller proclaims how he feels bad for people who don't drink, then explains it is because they don't have hangovers. Normally not having a hangover is considered to be a good thing, so this is a comedic reversal.
In the GGPs version, there is no reversal. He feels bad for people who don't get high, because they don't get high. The equivalent (and equally unfunny) form of this joke for drinking would be if Frank Sinatra felt bad for people who didn't drink because when they woke up they were not going to get drunk later that day. Again no comedic reversal, just an unfunny statement of the obvious.
This is why I explained that the joke was referring to hangovers, not the actual intended effects of the substance. You could perhaps argue that the new joke is also funny, but it is a new joke. Its form has been fundamentally changed.
SIGKILL dude, `kill -9 pid` will take care of it...
unless you are referring to zombie processes, in which case: who cares? They don't consume shit for resources, and they almost never happen unless you go out of your way to make it happen.
There are no 669,725 people that are in any more danger than anyone else. There isn't a 1/10,000 chance that it will hit each person, there is a 1/10,000 chance that it will hit any person. In other words, for every ten-thousand pieces of space junk that fall, you might get a single casualty.
If you think these are particularly bad odds, then I have some bad news about your car...
Why shouldn't it be hard? Large changes in velocity require large amounts of fuel. Doesn't matter if you are "speeding up" or "slowing down". That's why so many of these ideas involve working out a way for satellites to increase their drag after a time.
No such things (currently) exist, even in theory (as far as I know). Quantum entanglement doesn't allow for FTL communication if that is what you are thinking.
I guess you missed the part where he also cites the IMF, OECD, and the UN?
Or are those part of the"US propaganda machines" as well? Regardless, I'd say his numerous sources hold a hell of a lot more water than your zero sources.
Slashdot Mirror
With the proper application of apathy, you don't even need to do that much. In fact, I think I'll go fry myself up a delicious bacon/egg and cheese sandwich right now instead of pondering a damn thing. Who gives a shit? I'm not a physicist, biologist, theologian, or policy maker, why should I waste my time on any of this?
Oh right, because it's fun to argue on the internet... oh well :)
I'll go ahead and cite Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash as my source for saying that religion is nothing more than a social/mental virus.
Sure it's fiction, but I'd wager it is just as good as any sources you can dig up to the contrary.
(oh, and for your information: there are a shitton of peer-reviewed papers and books about the origins of different religions. Go to any local university and ask a librarian for some help finding some.)
Go to your local library and start reading books out of the science and logical/critical thinking section.
If you don't do this, then you are just as much a part of the problem you assert there is in the world as anyone else.
Lets see: scientist implies gravity exists because gravity exists. you imply gravity exists because god exists (because he exists).
So what you are saying then is you worship what is for all intents and purposes gravity? Cool story bro...
But in all seriousness, if this supposed god is "all mighty", then why limit his actions to the creation of gravity? Seems to me you've got yourself something of a "god of the gaps" thing going on.
You sound pretty sarcastic, but why not? It's a pretty good idea and it'd even be cheap. Just take some old cold-war era biological warfare ordinance, load it up with as many microbes as you can thing of, and cluster-bomb half of Mars with it. The only downside is you'd run the risk of wiping out whatever native life supposedly might be there already.*
* I find this to actually be even more of a reason to try it. The idea that earthen life, completely un-evolved for Martian life, would be more effective at surviving on Mars than native life that specifically evolved to life there is pretty crazy. Realisticly I'd expect you'd run into a "War of the Worlds" situation where the Martian life completely dominates the Earthen life (which is at a disadvantage by being outside of its environment, despite possibly being far more advanced). If however that proved to be the case, it'd make a pretty strong argument for the technical possibility and practicality of terraforming.
Something closer to half a percent on average as I recall. ;)
The lack of a magnetosphere will always present an issue for human life, but it wouldn't prevent life in general from getting a foothold. You wouldn't want to terraform the entirety of Mars to human standards anyways, it'd take far too long. More realistically you'd get some sort of 'crop' going to over time convert the soil into something usable and in the meantime set up sealed colonies. Far easier to terraform a geodesic dome or a martian cave than an entire planet.
You were modded funny, but it is not particularly hard to imagine a specially engineered lichen growing in the northern hemisphere of Mars. It could go dormant during the winter, and briefly grow during the summer when the sun begins to melt the (mostly CO2) icecap creating strong southward winds.
Scientists discover new extremophiles every year, the more we learn the more we discover the window that life can survive in is larger than we originally thought.
Why of course! That explains all the severe weather there! Wait, that's not how weather works at all... Mars most certainly has an atmosphere, and it is quite active. It just doesn't have a particularly dense atmosphere.
Well for one thing, plants usually need CO2, not oxygen....
Suddenly sprout weeds? Of course not. With sufficient money and engineering eventually support plant growth? Why not?
So you'd throw the parents in jail and put the kids in foster care? How exactly would that help anything?
Yes, I did. You haven't looked at any desktop environment prior to windows 95 though have you?
Yes.
Believe it or not, the world of GUIs did not start with windows 95.
All I know right now is I think I might have just had too much to drink. I'll give reading your response another shot in a few hours...
Fun fact: Anheuser-Busch InBev is a Belgium company. If you really want to stretch it you could say Budweiser is no longer an "American" beer.
(really though, that statement is quite a stretch. I mean, calling Budweiser a beer?!?)
Presumably the other 3% thought it was the easiest IT resource to exploit, but did not actually come across them more than three quarters of the time.
This summary is an absolute nightmare.
Ok, so what did the other 57% think that misconfigured networks are the result of?
The way he is twisting the joke is removing the punchline. In Frank Sinatra's version the joke teller proclaims how he feels bad for people who don't drink, then explains it is because they don't have hangovers. Normally not having a hangover is considered to be a good thing, so this is a comedic reversal.
In the GGPs version, there is no reversal. He feels bad for people who don't get high, because they don't get high. The equivalent (and equally unfunny) form of this joke for drinking would be if Frank Sinatra felt bad for people who didn't drink because when they woke up they were not going to get drunk later that day. Again no comedic reversal, just an unfunny statement of the obvious.
This is why I explained that the joke was referring to hangovers, not the actual intended effects of the substance. You could perhaps argue that the new joke is also funny, but it is a new joke. Its form has been fundamentally changed.
SIGKILL dude, `kill -9 pid` will take care of it...
unless you are referring to zombie processes, in which case: who cares? They don't consume shit for resources, and they almost never happen unless you go out of your way to make it happen.
The joke is obviously referring to hangovers (where you feel particularly shitty in the morning after drinking), which marijuana does not give you.
...that is not how they work.
There are no 669,725 people that are in any more danger than anyone else. There isn't a 1/10,000 chance that it will hit each person, there is a 1/10,000 chance that it will hit any person. In other words, for every ten-thousand pieces of space junk that fall, you might get a single casualty.
If you think these are particularly bad odds, then I have some bad news about your car...
Why shouldn't it be hard? Large changes in velocity require large amounts of fuel. Doesn't matter if you are "speeding up" or "slowing down". That's why so many of these ideas involve working out a way for satellites to increase their drag after a time.
No such things (currently) exist, even in theory (as far as I know). Quantum entanglement doesn't allow for FTL communication if that is what you are thinking.
For ease of fact checking, enjoy the following two maps, curiosity of the IMF and the UN respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imf-advanced-un-least-developed-2008.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2009.PNG
Facts are fun :)
I guess you missed the part where he also cites the IMF, OECD, and the UN?
Or are those part of the"US propaganda machines" as well? Regardless, I'd say his numerous sources hold a hell of a lot more water than your zero sources.