Someone who is so easily enraged that they would resort to physical violence over what ultimately amounts to a difference in beliefs over an intangible issue like privacy is no better than those who have, in the past, gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of God.

That's perfectly fine, but in practice, the HR people are the only ones that you are ever going to have a chance of seeing until you've done something to get yourself noticed by somebody higher up.

If you have connections that can get you past HR without any hassle, that's all very well and good... but not everyone is so well connected.

I decided to double-check that point on a government web site, and in fact, all "slower traffic keep right" signs mean is that the road is expected to accomodate a variety of vehicles which may be moving at various speeds (and of course, by law, all of them should be at or below the posted limit), and where the inner lanes are reserved exclusively for vehicles that are travelling at or very near the posted speed limit, other vehicles which may need to travel more slowly are advised to use the outside lane. Slow moving vehicles travelling below the posted limit are forbidden from using the left lane except where it is necessary for a left turn, but under no circumstances is a vehicle going the posted limit prohibited from using the lane, even if other vehicles around them are speeding.

"Keep right except to pass" is another sign which only occurs where an auxiliary lane has been added to a highway for passing purposes only. Usually, the roadway expands in width, with the lane markings shifting the existing lanes slightly to the right, making room for a new lane on the left, similar to what you mgiht find near an intersection having a dedicated left-turning lane All lanes to the right of this new lane are permitted for regular driving, however. The auxiliarly lane is usually of limited length, and the purpose of the sign is to caution drivers who might otherwise expect to be able to utilize the additional lane for regular cruising.

I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.

This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?

And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?

But honestly, the degree at least helps you get your foot in the door long enough that they may at least be willing to talk to you.

When you are competing with dozens of people for the same job, and if many of them have a degree and you do not, regardless of your actual skill or talent, in my experience it's unfortunately true that the employer probably won't look at your resume any longer than it takes to throw it in the round file.

That said... I've also known people who have lied about their degree in order to get a job... and it hasn't ever worked out for them very well.

It's time consuming, it's expensive, and it'll put you in debt for years to come as you work like an ass to pay it off... but as one who's travelled both roads, I can only say that it's worth it.

but violence is fun. there aren't any laws against being an asshole so too many fucks can go around legally bullying everyone and there's nothing you can do about it legally.

You can ask them to stop... or you can go somewhere that the owner can tell the glasshole to get lost or be charged with trespassing.

the only recourse these days is to kick someone's teeth in and wipe the smug look off their face.

When violence becomes the "only recourse" to something that is not, by itself, physically threatening in any way, one may want to consider whether or not there is something already seriously wrong with their own world view.

It's absolutely no different than those who have gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of religion.

And a person smugly proclaiming that it is their right to become physically violent in retaliation is any better?

And I cannot wait to see people who kick the shift out of glassholes facing legal consequences for thinking that they somehow have a right to enforce what they believe on others through violence.

I don't go slow. I go the speed limit... and I will usually be in whichever lane I need to be in to get where I need to go. Whether that's the left lane or the right, barring unusual traffic conditions which may necessitate that I move into a different lane, depends on which way I'm going to ultimately have to turn when I turn off of the road I'm on. Pretty much every time I ever mention this subject on slashdot, somebody invariably brings up this left lane issue, but as I've said, I've been driving for nearly 30 years now and honestly, I'm not remotely worried that I'll ever receive a ticket for going the posted limit in the left lane just because there may be a lot of people all around me who want to speed.

I've never so much as received any warning for driving the speed limit when others all around me are speeding heavily. I am unconcerned about the alleged possibility of it happening.

I'll be in whichever lane I need to be in to get where i need to go. I also drive the speed limit... I'm not going to feel even slightly responsible for making you angry just because you might want to speed but are stuck behind me. Feel free to circumnavigate my vehicle if you want to speed. I don't.

Been driving for nearly 30 years now and haven't yet encountered a situation that I sincerely felt warranted driving in excess of the limit. I've accidentally gone over the limit on occasion, of course, but I'll usually be driving exactly on it, unless road conditions are bad enough that driving slower is warranted. I also keep lane changes to a minimum, finding whatever lane that I need to be in at the earliest opportunity for me to safely do so, and staying in it until I need to turn.

Fair enough... observable evidence seems to suggest that it is of a finite age. Obviously if we are interpreting the data incorrectly then our conclusions can be invalid.

Of course, by that reasoning, the conclusion that God does not exist based on evidence (or the lack thereof) can be an equally invalid conclusion based on a misinterpretation of available data as well.

Politicians tend to be very wise....

You kinda tanked your credibility by starting a sentence that way....

It's not remotely logically impossible for the universe to have always existed, but based upon the evidence that we have so far, it appears that it did not. Our scientific sampling, therefore, consists only of things which are of finite age, but that doesn't mean that's all that exists.

I would maintain that a God who is powerful enough to have created everything else that exists must be necessarily beyond or above reality as we can ever hope to understand it... transcendental is a term I've often heard used, but I dislike the term because the word "real" itself can refer to a set of numbers in mathematics, and transcendental numbers are part of the real number set, so I am more partial to terms like "superreal" or "sureal". Trying to prove the existence of something which such characteristics using only what is real is kind of pointless, since it is very easy to start with an assumption that only real things can exist, and anything which exists must necessarily be real. As logical as this assumption might be, bear in mind also that even logically valid assumptions do not necessarily have to be true. This assumption does not hold in mathematics for example (most complex numbers are not real, for instance, but prior to their discovery any so-called "number" with properties that did not fit those of real numbers was assumed to not exist at all), so I'm of the opinion that the assumption that it must hold anywhere else in particular needs to be taken with a grain of salt.