it is OT but the whole discussion about time zones is too so.

I recall watching CNN in some crap hotel somewhere where this was the only channel in a language I understood and they were talking about Middle East while consistently referring to west coast of Africa. I guess in ignorance US citizens do not occupy the first place alone - after living in many countries for years I concluded that only constant aspect of humans culture that is always clearly visible is that - ignorance.

on the moon?

What stroke me when I read your statement is that I noticed that not many coders I know can code properly anyway. I laugh every time I have to explain them the basics and why 'teh shit' they coded does not work. They produly disagree and search for another week or two only to produce even more shit which I promptly send back. There are quite a lot of those. In light of that I would actually welcome some coal miners - they cannot be worse and in my experience common sense is better than a finished programming course (yes I dd some of those myself so I know).

40ya most of us had only some other gray mass owners to talk to over whatever subject we worked on. the world has changed and now everybody has access the pipes - the result is that the average user of the pipes is well average (with or without a degree). The average human being cannot read with understanding anyway and does not see sense in going trough volumes of prose. It is not bad only different.

To shoot Z. into the sun? Come to think of it, maybe a good idea even if it does not do anything to FB

Furthermore, it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed.

I think you both exaggerate one little bit. The concern people have about privacy issues will grow eventually. We are not there yet judging on the way the intelligent well educated masses went over blatant violations of citizens rights by NSA and other scumbags. But there is no one single thing in the universe that stays the same. Even change changes all the time. FB will change. Maybe it will fade away or maybe it will come to senses or it will be forced to or all this together etc. I went with little pain off of FB. Now my contacts with some of my friends are bit more limited than before but hey how can one expect this moloch to fall if one does not do anything?

Furthermore, it is my opinion that FB must be destroyed.

?????I think I know what you are trying to say but if you did 'delete' account in the same style as you described your relationship with this great company than most likely the account was still there.

I personally had a problem with deleting the account. It was not clear how to do it and easy to find the way other than google it. I could not delete the account originally because even if I remembered my pwd for reasons I did not understand I had to provide my mobile number or some such to recover account details. I managed to delete it and indeed the account was gone - at least I could not use my credentials anymore. As I did not believe they really deleted it I registered again and tried to see my old account and it was not there. But here I was with a new account - I let it stay there to be sure my ex does not do some nasty impersonating thing but for that there are plenty other platforms so I guess that is not good enough argument. Still for work related stuff people look at FB so it is better to lock your presence there in a way that cannot be directly abused with nasty photos (of which some may even be real....). This much said you can delete your FB account. Whether they delete all data from it and do not sell it to other companies is of course another matter. I think Z. is not in criminal domain yet but I would not hesitate with tar and feathers given a chance of course...

the features you attribute to Google are the same all over our nice little piece of a rock in any sufficiently big and successful organisation. There are differences between all of them. Not sure you can blame FB for anything anyway - they do not even consider privacy as an existing artifact of a living 'private' person so in certain sense they are 'better' than all the others in that they are frank about it.

Very interesting post indeed. Made me waste a nice Sunday afternoon researching this 'paradox' and the previous one that started this particular thread.

The E. paradox does not take into account faiths where there is no god or there are flawed deities, it is most likely based on, from all other things, faith originating from the Middle East deserts. I think at least in European tradition there were gods that were not, as the riddle says they should be: flawed, tempted by their own feelings and fallible i.e. like humans but with superpowers - what about them are they worthy? It also does not take into account that chance that god is not omnibenevolent - does it make such god less of a god then? Is this a reason not to believe? And the question 'can there be a reason not to believe?' is also interesting one - can a human being make a decision not to believe and if so what soft of belief was it in the first place?

Leading this line of reasoning (or rather questioning) further: If my 'decision' to believe was flawed and based on fallacies or lack of information. Can it be that again that the decision to give up particular belief is also that i.e. flawed as based on incomplete information and faulty reasoning and thus can be revoked later on? If so maybe all the anger and aggression that these discussion bring with them is irrational?

What bothers me with the discussions on religion is the aggression and verbal abuse. What bothers me also is number of irregularities in reasoning on all sides of the divide and self-righteous attitude which I would expect from one side only (yes I have biases too) - the religion bashers would do some good to read David Hume and think about what they read.

This is all for the sake of argument of course. My beliefs are mine and I am not discussing them here.Try to guess them if you like...

there is a factual problem with the summary.TFA says it all so better read it. If not read this (I hope not to mess up it too much).

It is not required of the opponent to play rock 50% of the time. The referee is using a fair coin to determine if your opponent is to play rock or not. If s/he is not forced to play rock s/he is free to chose allowing him also to chose rock 100% of time too if s/he so wishes.

it would do good to RTFA as it says the condition is determined by a judge with a fair coin at the start of each round. So yes there is a chance he will never use rock in N first rounds because s/he is not forced to AND his strategy tells him to use paper or scissors. In other words it is not only his/her strategy that decides.

I think you have to try harder. You can start from where Goedel stopped.There are unprovable statements and if you say you proved them you most likely are on the course of pseudoscience.

This unprovable thing is a big problem for some folks. Some of them want so hard to have a scientific proof of God's existence and/or creation of our universe or earth or what else. Some of them think there is a proof to the contrary. There have been quite heavy thinkers in the history esp. of Western philosophy that knew this and showed the futility of such proofs.There is a good reason religion and science do not mix.

I appreciate and prefer an educated and polite discussion about almost anything with an intelligent and educated person rather than with an idiot, religion aspect of persons intellect not playing a vital role here because, unfortunately, religion is not a characteristic separating the two.

I think using tar and feathers on public officials is always a good cause. You have a valid point tho - national standards are good because they can be changed but usually there are some intelligent people doing them. Only in US the national standards are probably unamerican (whatever that means) and if they are introduced they will probably contain the same shit that the local communities already approved to be included anyway. Why exactly US is a country in which that is so is another matter but you the chances your federal system gives you and migrate to communities that have views similar to yours. To me it looks like the one and only way to resolve problems caused by hot heads.

I do not know about religion and beliefs but my ex was a witch and it cost me dearly to divorce her. She still throws evil spells on to my account every month and the money mysteriously disappears.

If that is as you say then curse can and does work but in somewhat different way we imagined. That is interesting - is curse a curse if we know how it works (by suggestion and some such)?