These are not directly contradictory. God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god?show=0&t=1284423252] I see no reason that someone cannot believe in a form of fate without believing in god. An atheist can certainly believe that the universe tends towards reason without some magical omnipotent being necessarily controlling it all. My personal feeling is essentially this - but yes, I call myself an agnostic.

Are you serious? Seems like a "woooosh" as to anything Colbert does. His shtick is to mock the right by pretending to be one of them. His comedy is very left wing.

Well - it's like saying a ferrari won't sell well (i.e. compete) because it can't compete on a cost-per-max-speed or miles-per-gallon, certainly, that's exactly what he's saying, you hit the analogy on the money. Poor performance though? You're putting words in his mouth - in fact the opposite of the ones that came out. Clearly the ferrari can go faster and accellerate faster, but you don't need that to get to work.

Mod parent down, please.

So - you said "if you don't like it, use something else" in response to him saying "i didn't like it, so i use something else." What part about it makes him a troll or a moron? Sounds like the first part of what I'm formulating as the "my momma's a ho? YOUR momma's a ho" syndrome. (i.e., useless name calling.)

I haven't read all the replies, but I'm surprised that so far I haven't heard any mention of the amazing mandelbrot set. That could make for an interesting background at the least. If I were to do it, it would likely be some mosaic of all the most interesting math I could find, with probably some overlay of mandelbrot and the golden number (like, many many of the digits closely-packed) as the background. It would certainly take some time (yes, for me, probably years) to figure out what the foreground would be. Very interesting and introspective-inducing post. Shame on all those who preach "no tattoo" to someone clearly interested in a tattoo.

I have trouble with your premise of "only benefit yourself". A tattoo is valued for the viewing, I would argue, namely for the viewing by others upon you. Displaying the fact that science and math are important to oneself cannot be deemed wholly selfish in that there is a direct act of display, which involves the view and judgment of other people. Saying "i think math and science are cool" is not a bad thing. People equating coolness with math and science is not a bad thing. A very well done math and science tattoo can in and of itself be a really cool thing. People appreciating coolness of science and math may lead to additional effort and interest in the subjects. From me, kudos to the original poster. -Matt

Mods, I'm surprised this wasn't marked "informative".

Right - making backups may not be the simplest step - if the web developer doesn't have a clue what they're doing when using a local file-system for a web application. The article alludes to the fact that a smart application would only use the filesystem as a local replica - it doesn't assume that it would be stupid to do anything else with it (as, imho, it should, and not even mention this backup issue). But the article does this in a number of places - point out flaws that are only "flaws" when considering a really bad implementation. Allowing for a bad implementation is not a flaw - it is essentially a requirement: if an api gives you the power you need to get something done, then they will always also be giving you the power to shoot yourself in the foot. This is NOT a design flaw. If you need to make a backup of a local filesystem of a web page, the somebody is doing something terribly wrong, because any "fresh" client should be able to quickly and easily recreate the local filesystem (for example, upon logging into the web application with my same username and password.)

No - it the author of the article assuming bad implementations will be the norm, without indicating to the user that this would merely be a bad web page implementation. Lazy ass writer, I say.

One reason. Money. I think we can all understand the horrible reality of the necessary evil of a marketing department.

I dunno about your solitaire argument - even though people do gamble on it, the cards aren't saying "bet with me, bet with me" when you look at them. (While they could - and that might be a neat concept for an online casino game or something, this is aside from the point.) Card games don't afford gambling simply because they are gambled on. But as to all your other points, yeah - no minesweeper, no chess, no bubble popping, no reversi... chess and go *do* (intrinsically) say "we're fighting a war" when you look at them. I agree this just won't be enforced, adding to the air of hypocrisy that is commonly held as the image of the chinese government.

Quest For Glory 1: So You Want to be a Hero?