You cannot possibly make such a statement. You cannot say with any certainty whatsoever that something has not interacted with any matter, even the smallest particles, anywhere in the Universe. Your observational powers aren't even close to being able to make such a measurement. My position is that I cannot say whether the FSM exists or not. I allow for the possibility of the existence of a FSM. You seem to have foreclosed that possibility, which illustrates my point nicely.

Of course Satyrs might exist. I have no reason to think they do, but they might. There are still places on this earth that have not been fully explored. We discover new species all the time. I don't know what kind of life there is on other planets either. Maybe the Satyrs will show up in a spaceship tomorrow, I really can't say.

Did dark matter exist before we detected it? I would argue it did. But from your reasoning it did not, practically speaking. This is precisely my point and why I love this line of inquiry. The only assertion I am making is that we should not let the limits of our observation limit the world of the possible. We will discover things in the coming decades (and hopefully centuries) that will make the unknown known and the impossible possible. The Universe is not limited; we are. And yet we continue to deny the possibility of things rather than having the humility to tell the truth; that we simply don't know.

I wish I had mod points, because this is an insightful post. There is a line of thought that says that if something can't be observed, measured or defined scientifically then it doesn't exist. I think that way of thinking closes the mind. There is a lot we don't know or understand, so foreclosing the possibility of other states of being or consciousness is a mistake. We simply don't know, as you say.

Science and the scientific method have enabled us to understand a lot of the world around us. Its value is self-evident. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that it is the only tool we have for gathering knowledge. It can't answer every question, and that's okay.

Way to completely ignore the power differential between an employer and employee. If it were as easy as simply finding another job, no one would ever work in an unpleasant or intrusive environment. And yet people work in shitty jobs every day. So there must be some other dynamic at play that you have not considered.

The way your post is worded, you may just be trolling. But if you're serious, your stance on the issue shows that you have not thought it through at all. Saying that people should just find another job shows that you haven't considered many of the realities of working in America.

You know how we have found records from ancient Egypt and China and South America that are thousands of years old, enabling us to learn about those cultures? That won't happen with us. We store our records on fragile magnetic disks that require electricity and an extremely complex machine to read. No one wants to think that our civilization could end, but odds are it will at some point. I often wonder what future archaeologists will think about our civilization. What trace will we leave behind now that everything has gone digital?

So, if an officer tells me to cluck like a chicken, I must do it or face arrest? I'm not sure that's right.

I'm not sure that's right either.

Maybe if you stopped calling them niggers, they'd be nicer to you. Know what I mean, asshole?

More like cops harassing everyone, especially Black people. I didn't realize abuse of power was only a concern for the Left. Patriot groups have nothing to fear from government overreach I guess.

The negotiations with Iran are being held in order to get them to not develop a nuclear weapon. I would think Israel would be in favor of such negotiations, if they are so scared of a nuclear-armed Iran. So I don't see how we have snubbed them, unless Israel's actual goal is to get the US to attack Iran for them, and thereby advance their strategic interests.

What an idiot. Sorry, how responsive is the federal government to the needs of the People? There have been studies done that show that citizens have little say in how policy is formed. We vote for Kodos or Kang every two to four years and not much changes for the better.

So what am I supposed to do? Sure, I can get involved politically and I do that to some extent. But I have a 40+ hour a week job to maintain, kids at home once I get there at night, and life maintenance/kid stuff to do on the weekends. So I don't have a massive amount of time to spend on making sure government agencies are following the law and acting appropriately. And, frankly, I shouldn't have to! That's why I elect people in a representative government. My elected representatives are supposed to look out for their constituents. I am painfully aware that they do not often do that. But that's not my fault, it is theirs. They were elected to do a job just like I was hired to do my job. My boss does not constantly check up on me to make sure I'm doing my job. If he had to do that, I would be fired. I am expected to know what my job is and do it correctly with minimal supervision.

As you can probably tell, I am sick of people blaming the citizenry for government corruption and/or incompetence. Yes, people need to pay attention, stay engaged and vote responsibly. But big business, intelligence agencies and wealthy special interests have been working for years to rig the game and get what they want. They do it behind closed doors to purposely keep the People out of the process (just look at the TPP for an example). And then there's that fact that the public is lied to and propagandized such that a lot of people don't understand the issues and rely on bad information. So fuck off with this blaming the public crap. Yes, the public has to stay on point. But it is not nearly that simple, and it's not their fault when people entrusted with responsible government let them down.

You get 50%?! I'm on a supposedly 105 Mb connection and speed tests routinely report 10 - 12 Mb. I would be thrilled with 50% of advertised bandwidth.

It's also that Elizabeth warren is one of the few who actually thinks Wall Street fraud should be prosecuted.

Not even close. I'll vote twice for Bernie Sanders if given the chance.

All the contract bullshit pisses me off too. I am looking for a new job (my boss sucks and I don't get projects to keep my skills current) and I see so many job descriptions that read like a full-time position but are actually 6 month contracts. Seriously? They want a Systems Admin with 3 years of VMWare and SAN experience, Active Directory, backup, Exchange, firewall and LAN/WAN but they only need it for 6 months? That's a permanent, full-time position. But they say it's contract.

Well, guess what? I'm not applying for that position. Why would I give up a full-time job with benefits for a 6 month or 1 year contract? I see many jobs I think I'm qualified for, but so many of them are posted as contract when the description is clearly for a full-time permanent position.

I agree in principle. But practically speaking, we both know how far that would have gone.

The CEO is probably one of the highest paid people in the company. Surely, they could find someone to do that job for less. And yet, that calculation never seems to come up. Funny, eh?