If this were true, it wouldn't require a label, and people wouldn't feel the need to badge themselves with that label on slashdot.
Lack of evidence is hardly the only criteria for 'delusions', yet this dogmatic rhetoric belies the intention to assert your faith onto others.
If you look at the definition of religion, and the definition of atheism, its clear that atheism is not a religion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
I don't really get why your against giving a name to way people describe what they think on a given topic. It seems you'd rather everyone explain their ideas in full, even when a single word describing it would do equally well.
Your scale is arbitrary, so there is no difference between those two things.
Whatever floats your boat, go ahead and do it. My point was not that you shouldn't be allowed for that to be the most valuable thing you can find to do. My point was that, if that is the most valuable thing you can find to do, then your time isn't all that valuable.
Their time isn't valuable to you. You've used your value system to compile a list of things you consider to be of high value, and those who value doing things you consider to be trite, you've reached the conclusion that their time isn't valuable. But the only valid conclusion is that their priorities are different, not their value of their own time.
Actually, I don't think I ever said anybody is "better" than anybody else. Please... read... my... posts... carefully. What we're discussing is how much someone's time is worth to them. Now, what my example about doctors and lawyers does get at is that the amount people will pay for your talents provides us with a fair barometer of what the rest of society feels is the value of your time.
These are all examples of how a person values someone elses time, not their own. Even then its not a view of how much they think its actually worth, but really more a question of scarcity and need.
Most of the time, individuals have roughly the same estimation of their time's value as the rest of society does
I'll admit, I chuckled when I read this. How do you measure how important someone feels their time is? What are the units?
I always thought school teachers were considered to be of high value to society, but they don't seem to get paid much.
Close, but not exactly. I'm not saying that YouTube isn't valuable to them (Heck, I know some people who think that YouTube is the best reason to have an internet connection). What I said was: their time isn't valuable to them.
You think that watching youtube for enjoyment has no value, but other people feel differently. They CHOOSE to spend their free time watching youtube over other activities, so it HAS to have some value, or else no one would do it.
What I think it all boils down to, is that you do not like it when people find value in things you don't. More so, people shouldn't be able to value something you don't.
Look at the the lives of doctors, lawyers, pilots, skateboarders, hair-stylists, and gas-station attendants and you'll see a clear inverse relationship between how much they are able to bill for their time and the amount of time spent watching YouTube.
Now you're saying a person is better if they make more money. This says a lot.
Breaking story: If you're visiting YouTube, you've already decided that your time isn't valuable.
Your argument is that because you don't consider something to be valuable to you, it can't possibly be valuable to another person.
I read another article where a guy was mad because he couldn't go switch to something else in the 5-6 seconds while a page loads in Safari (probably while he's driving, too).
Now you're just building strawmen.
To be honest, it seems like you don't get why people would want something, so you don't want them to have it.
Because they have cosine waves too
Sounds shifty to me
The entire point of these MS stores is to say F**K YOU APPLE. It is ALL about leveraging Microsoft's vast financial resources to hurt Apple as much as possible. They don't care if they lose huge amounts of money doing it. That is why Zune exists, why their advertising is all about underpricing Macs, why they propose opening stores right next to Apple Retail Stores, and now why they are actively trying to poach Apple Retail Store management.
I think its much simpler then. As you've stated, Microsoft still has a the majority of the OS market. While I'm sure they consider Apple a future threat, they really aren't big enough to be their main concern. Microsoft is probably more worried about falling behind in search engines then what will happen with Apple in the next 10 years.
This is most likely exactly what it looks like, Microsoft is trying to get experienced managers for their stores. Another commenter had it right, they are selling a lifestyle, similar to how Apple stores sell an image. The stores are similar in nature (I'm not saying they won't compete with each other) so hiring managers that ran Apple stores would be a good hire.
As a side note, I don't see whats wrong with what Microsoft is doing. They are offering managers more money for a very similar job. There are risks associated with making such a move, but I think that it's a win if the employees end up better off.
I have to agree with the BWCA suggestion. Used to go there with my father when I was in high school (mid-90's). The first day was the roughest, but after that you adjust quickly to the physical aspect of it, and the lack of technology. Its very refreshing to cleanse the system of overexposure to EM and computers.
If you want to get away from EM I'd suggest you stay out of view of the sun
The new part is loving and forgiving if there is repentance which means a turning away from the sinful lifestyle. Homosexuality, like adultery is explicitly spoken against as something that would keep you out of heaven in both the old and new parts.
You have no actual evidence that, if God does exist, he doesn't like homosexuality. All you have is one book written by humans
Suicide is illegal in this country. Why? You don't hurt anyone else. But you cause harm to yourself, in this case ending your life. In the case of homosexuality you cause harm to yourself, in this case eternal separation from God. I personally see that as even more dramatic harm than ending your life. So, while it doesn't directly affect me I will not encourage a behavior which I believe causes irreparable and permanent harm to the one doing it. I will instead try to help discourage people from it. That may be by voting for a law prohibiting it or it may be by trying to convince someone my position is correct. If the law allows them to marry persuasion is my only tool left and I'll use it. Until then I'll try to use the law.
You are of the opinion that homosexuality is harmful. If, however, you wish to live in a free country, then as long as a person is not causing you harm, you cannot punish them for living differently.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
