It's not clear but it sounds like the files are encrypted but probably still available to the company the owns the servers. At the very least their client software is closed source and the data is stored in the NSA^h^h^h USA so I wouldn't recommend it.
Science tells me that its understand of the laws of physics stops at a black hole's singularity? Does that mean I disbelieve the singularity exists because science has no way of describing the singularity?
It means you don't make any factual claims about the nature of the singularity that you can't support with an evidence based model. We can say it exists, because the model we built to fit the actual observations we made predicts that it does. There are no such models that predict the existance of a God.
Superstring theory tells me that 10 dimensions of spacetime exist and bosonic string theory 26. Is it then possible that, if true, we can't (yet? ever?) comprehend events or life that takes place beyond our 3 dimensions of existence or that events from these dimensions can affect the reality of ours?
If the events inside those dimensions affect us, we can measure the effect. So far, all effects measured have followed fairly simple rules, at least on the relevant scales. There's no room for miracles in a world ruled by mathematical physics.
Why is it when we speak of entangled quantum particles separated by billions of miles affecting each other instantaneously as a valid theory
Because there is experimental evidence for quantum entanglement. Just because you find the reasoning incomprehensible doesn't mean that everything incomprehensible is equally valid.
yet the very real experiences a significant amount of humanity have had and can only explain that it was God (does it matter that they call that experience Buddha, Jesus, Marduk, or Zeus?) as ignorant ramblings?
Further, there is no experience any human has had that can only be explained as God. Trancendental experiences are simply altered states of mind, a slightly different configuration of the biological computer in our head. Trancendental experiences are no more evidence of God than schizophrenia is evidence of the devil.
That is, why exactly hasn't religion gone away after all this time?
Because it's a meme with a lot of selective advantages. None of which have to do with it being true.
Personally, I choose to keep a more open mind to possible explanations of reality than Dawkins and (insert religious fundamentalist figurehead here) choose to.
Do you think anyone would have come up with wave particle duality if scientists weren't open minded? We're willing to consider anything, if there's evidence. If there's no evidence, then why waste your time?
Hah! Throw out everything Phil Jones has ever done or reproduce it independently like the BEST group did and the answers still come out the same. There are thousands of scientists around the world who are studying the problem intensely. The thought that all of them are in on a conspiracy to bugger the science for political reasons strains credulity to the breaking point. It would have to be the biggest conspiracy ever and it would be impossible to hold a conspiracy that big together for any length of time.
Regarding hurricanes there was some speculation a decade ago about more of them but the IPCC has been ambivalent about that. Mostly what they say is that there is likely to be an increase in the average strength in the future. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was pretty quiet but the 2013 Pacific cyclone season wasn't. However, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are all tied for the 3rd most named storms in the Atlantic season so your "Reality is quieter hurricane seasons each year" statement is just wrong.
As for "No record lows anymore", I challenge you to find any scientist in the field that has actually said that. It hasn't happened. At most what they would say is that there will very likely be more record highs than record lows in the future.
I have read plenty on the subject but obviously not the stuff you read. Actually I have read some stuff from your side and most of it I find pretty laughable. Roy Spencer has some interesting stuff occasionally. I do read papers on the subject from time to time and I have read the IPCC AR4 WG I completely but they're a part of the conspiracy, aren't they?
I have no idea what you mean by "... you just repeat crap that has been debunked for over 5 years
Not all questions are resolvable by empiricism and scientific method
That's true. But there are zero questions resolvable by faith. Not if you care about accuracy. There are lots of things that are going to be unknowable. That's OK, we don't need to make up answers.
Epistemology is far wider than that. Is rock music good? Prove it.
That's an opinion. The theist makes a factual claim.
First, the teapot doesn't prove God doesn't exist. There could in fact be a God, just as there could be a teapot in orbit around the sun. Or maybe not a teapot, but a thermos, or perhaps a rubber chicken with a pully in the middle. The point is anything *could* be true. If we believed in everything that can't be disproven, we'd be very confused indeed. But if you do it the other way, and only believe in that which can be proven, the world makes much more sense.
Second, you bear the same burden of proof when you try to convince yourself of something. Anything less is being dishonest with yourself.
Sir Humphrey would be proud!
Introducing job security based on merit whold have set a dangerous precedent. Why else would one keep ministers around? We are happy, they are happy and as long as we waste money efficiently no dangerous answers would be required. And as long as there is the odd man overboard required we still have got a lot of politicians to spare and in steady supply.
So enter the marketdroids and sales critters. They promise they nearly have what is needed and there is very little customizing required. On paper this sounds like something that reduces risk when compared to a custom solution. But it rarely works that way. Deadlines for gov projects are a menace and resemble very much a gunshot. Do not enter that market without a humongous legal department staffed with a rabid pack of attack-lawyers who have been in the loop ever since you handed in your tender. And do not enter a contract like this carried on a wave of idealism. Because you will get burned. To a crisp.
There is no room for naivety in gov contracts.
The current administration should spend less time worrying about brown people and Bulgarians(read: lose votes to UKIP) and do their fucking jobs. The latest embarrassment was David Cameron turning up at Nelson Mandela's funeral. While Mandela was one of the forgiving sort, Cameron was the one who visited SA to support them against those totally unjustified and unfair anti-Apartheit sanctions.
Could we please put the whole bally lot out to pasture and not worry about bedroom taxes anymore? The rest of Europe is currently wondering why we should actually put up with UK shenanigans anymore. They've become more trouble than the French.
It's a digital magazine, not just print.
Tor does actually protect against traffic analysis too. Packets are split, concatenated and padded at random and a constant stream is generated.
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.