Comment It's good to test the corner cases (Score 3, Informative) 165
News at 11.
News at 11.
After the fact it was discovered that they had lots of clues. The problem is how to link them together when you've got so much in your files.
It's waiting for you to get on it.
I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that dressing casually is seen as non-conformist is from the perspective of people who value appearance over substance.
When people ask whether I would cut my hair for a job I tell them "maybe so, but I wouldn't want to work for anyone who asked me to".
The article is, after all, about image.
I guess the idea is that if someone can keep her job despite not conforming, she must be really good at it.
Then there's the talking heads on the Sunday television shows, who can be wrong as often as they please and not suffer the slightest risk of losing their jobs.
Or the investment advisors. IIRC someone tracked Cramer's buy/sell advice for a year and found that he had a 49% track record - you would have done slightly better by flipping a coin.
Those deep field photos always give me vertigo.
These are political reforms: it may look like something has changed, but it's business as usual.
Adding a new meaning to the term "security theater"...
Once those pesky real journalists that insist on facts and sources start digging into this, I'd expect the cataclysmic claims will be slowly walked back to something much less sinister, like almost all other claims of thwarted plots.
Are you serious? One of their agents saw that they had the intention!
Belief in atheism is a belief.
Atheism is a belief *about* religion, but that doesn't make it a religion.
I also have beliefs about planets, but those beliefs aren't planets...
Are they providing a sensible version of GNOME? I very want to shuck Ubuntu, and this would let me have my Steam games *and* a usable desktop system.
(I know there are GNOME alternatives, but I'm hoping for the easy way out.)
Let's see, you ask me what kind of Ferrari I drive, I say 'none', and you say that's a kind of Ferrari.
And you express that idiotic view with a glaring logical fallacy: If religion is a collection of beliefs, it does not follow that every collection of beliefs is a religion.
Hope you were just out for a troll...
No, that has to wait until we all get to Hell.
Don't these sociopaths realize that people cling to their guns and religion? What happens when you take away their religion? Hmm?
But I jest. From an atheist viewpoint, religion serves a valuable purpose: to keep the real sociopaths in line. The only reason they don't run rampant is because they believe in Heaven/Hell, and God's omniscience.
Except for those who think that means they *should* run rampant.
Atheists like Marx believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, but they're fools to tell anyone that!
Yeah, I found his observation really offensive when I was a church-going schoolboy. But now I don't think many religious people even know what he meant: it's not about religion-as-a-drug, but rather about religion as a way to keep the masses under control. Apparently *lots* of famous leaders throughout history said the same thing, in their own words.
I vividly recall GWB at a memorial for some people he sent off to die in Iraq stating confidently that they were in a better place now. As if he (or anyone else) would actually know.
Apparently the neocons behind "intelligent design" were following the script from Plato's Republic: religious beliefs are good for the masses, though the Guardian class knows better. And they humbly consented to bear the burdens of being the Guardians and dealing with reality so the masses won't have to.
First thing one should focus on to learn reason is logical fallacies, and the False Dichotomy, for example, "Reason versus religion", is right up toward the top.
I disagree. Anyone who actually reasons about their religion will shuck it in a heartbeat. There's not the slightest evidence to support one religion's claims vs. another's, so the only rational choice is to set your standard for evidence low and believe all of them, or set it high and reject all of them. And since they are mutually contradictory, reason requires you to throw one of those options out.
Religion is a culturally transmitted phenomenon, almost like language. It's no accident that if you know when and where a randomly selected person lives or lived you can predict both their language and religion with fairly high accuracy. Reason indicates that religion all about tradition, not about some objective reality.
You will have many recoverable tape errors.