The whole apk bit I find generally ... amusing. I almost never see a post from the actual apk user, pretty much they are always AC posts claiming to be him. Granted, accounts on slashdot aren't goo for establishing identity anyways but seeing an AC claim to be someone is something I find humorous.

That said the AC/apk posts directed at you are certainly meaner than the typical AC/apk posts here.

You just keep repeating your memes, as if they mean something...

... as you have of the sources you just attempted to make fun of. This means I am at least as qualified as you to say that your source sucks.

Hey, maybe your way really IS more fun!

It could well be an American thing. Frankly I would expect that if anyone from any other country (sans perhaps Afghanistan or Somalia) saw ads for American politicians and knew what they actually stand for, they would go running far, far, away from this site.

On a different note, slashdot won't let me add you to my friends list yet. I see you put me on yours but the option does not exist for me to reciprocate. It doesn't seem to be a case of having too many friends, as I can get to that for other users, so I presume it is because your new account is so new?

We saw a project like this (at least) a couple years ago. Someone did something like this previously, when data plans were generally expensive but unlimited SMS was easily available.

The National Institutes of Health are one of (or perhaps the, depending on whom you ask) largest funding sources for research from the federal government. I know many people who have reviewed grant applications there, and they would be rather astonished to see

Because at NIH indeed you are placed on a grant review board because of your techical knowledge of the matter. On top of that, the applications are all supported by citations in technical (and peer-reviewed) papers.

As best I understand funding at DOE and NSF works much the same way; your odds of getting funded are astronomically better if you have good primary literature to support the experiment you propose. Now, if your funding plans revolve around convincing your favorite congress-critter to write in a line (or a full bill) to get you some money, that might work too but it generally isn't the most reliable way to establish a career path.

No, for the argument that I presented later in the same post. The problem I have is the modern hijacking of the term atheist.

If one declares there to be no god, they are making a statement of faith. It is of the same magnitude - though opposite orientation - as one made by someone declaring there to be a god.

Similarly, the classic definition of agnostic was a "doubter", one who questioned the existence of a deity. Then some of the "atheists" took on a faith of their own and pushed the classical atheists out in search of a new term to describe their standing.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on this matter. My point is that people who specifically state a belief in there not being a particular (generally Abrahamic) god are calling themselves atheists when they are showing faith in that very statement. Similarly by the way that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" have been redefined in modern times, one could reasonably describe any random person to likely be agnostic towards a deity that they have never heard of (unless they specifically subscribe to the existence of a different one in a way that prevents them from accepting any other).

I'm pretty sure he was making a joke, there.

... can you run multiplayer doom if you have several of these printers? Maybe make the printer print out red when you're hit?

You've nearly hit the nail on the head, there - though I suspect perhaps not in the way you had intended. A lot of people who embrace the term "atheist" today do go and try to convert people. This in reality means that they are not atheists in the classic definition of the word as they are expressing a faith and a drive for that faith.

The bigger failure, from my vantage point, is that people who call themselves "atheists" today often have faith in there not being a god. At that point they are not truly atheists as the term means "without faith". They have instead hijacked the term to now mean "anyone who believes there to not be a god"; indeed it takes just as much faith to believe there to not be a god as it does to believe there to be one.

This is why while I am classically an atheist, I use the term agnostic to describe myself in the modern world.

There should be a Dell tech support joke attached to this somehow... how long would it take for a Dell support tech to pay for a $100 phone at the rate Dell pays?

I am about as big of a fan of Bernie Sanders as any person you will ever find (particularly hanging out in a conservative echo chamber like slashdot). However I am also enough of a realist to know that

• He will never run for president
• • and
• His ideas for dismantling the for-profit stranglehold on our federal government will never gain any traction during my lifetime (unless our country finally calls it enough and splits into two or more independent nations).

I would love to see Bernie Sanders take on the cult leader's son in a debate. Sanders would completely dismantle him.

Mostly just the lobbyists who have been busy buying up democrats. But we don't need them anyways.

Again, voting for Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything. You need a candidate who can actually compete against the machine, and you have yet to show an example of such a candidate. All you can do is vote for the least evil candidate and hope for the best.