|
|
I am an atheist, believing in no life after this one, and the upshot of this is I find all human life to have indefinite value - indefinite but basically equal. If you are mourning right now and your surname isn't "Jackson", then it is a direct affront to those who die through no fault of their own and are implicitly disregarded by the rest of the world during the absurd rituals we employ to mark the death of somebody famous.
I don't believe in human nature or historical inevitability. I believe in free will, and thus I believe people have a choice. Masses of people have made the wrong choice, and it makes me both sad and angry. The reaction to Michael Jackson's death, rather than the death itself, has put a real downer on my day.
Wow! That's fascinating!
Please be sure and keep us updated on your personal beliefs and what they imply for your vision of the world! Afterward, take a moment to reflect on how you have the social and intellectual high ground on annoying theists who invoke their religion at times that are inappropriate and to an audience that doesn't care.
2) If my wife calls me and says she is lost, if I can get Google Street up, I can get a fair sense of what she is seeing once I have an intersection. Much, much better than guiding someone around over the phone using a map.
Mod this shit up, yo!
Streetview is especially useful when you're in a big city other than your own - rows and rows of skyscrapers and highrises can all blend in and obscure the actual street and location you're looking for, but Streetview allows you to look around and pick a landmark as an identifier. When I first saw it demoed on mobile devices, I was like "Why the fuck would I want to see (what is essentially) a Power Point presentation of city blocks on my phone?", but one set of wonky directions from my GPS provided an opportunity for Streetview to prove its usefulness.
I can't speak to the usefulness of the service to criminals, but I can definitely find legitimate purpose in it.
Not if your net worth is below something like $5,000,000. Those poor multi-millionaires!
So because they're worth a certain amount of money, it's okay to plunder the estate state of the deceased?
What a peculiar outlook. Not necessarily a wrong outlook - it just strikes me as odd to see the "us vs. them" mentality justified because those "poor multi-millionaires" are somehow less deserving to pass their worldly gains to their children with less taxation than those who are worth less.
I don't really get it, but then I suppose that doesn't really matter.
When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of us!" -- Turkish proverb
