Minor correction made....

Cool story!

Side note, Tomato could be extended to encompass a lot of the functions that McAffee talks about, but that doesn't mean it couldn't exist alongside his box.  He'd probably like that...

A fiery CHARIOT?

Aw come on.

At least let's give him a 1968 Camaro, yellow with black stripes, twin  turbocharged.

if such a box had built in functions that encouraged different means of accomplishing ends, though, that would be huge.  For example, it might encourage peer to peer email, destroying current server based email systems. 

It might store entirely or partly, the last billion google searches, and disassociate search with user id.

I am not sure why the idea of 'a box' is necessary as these functions would preferably be built right into devices.  And the entire OS in a router can be replaced with something like Tomato.

Abundant data exists that....

Obama lied, and the health plans died.

It does not follow that 'universes can be simulated on computers', because there you encounter the problem of resolution of the simulated universe.  Perhaps you might use a granularity of 1 centimeter.  But that wouldn't resolve a person very well, and would not give him much of a brain.  So ideally, you'd use a resolution of a subatomic particle.  You'd need as much memory for your computer as the total sum of subatomic particles....at that point the particles clearly have the advantage, as opposed to the simulation.

If we argue for the existence of a consciousness-dense universe, then using the prior assertions it is required to recognize that all of that consciousness came to be after the big bang.  Another common concept for a god is something/someone that stands outside the process of the creation of the universe, who was there 'before the big bang'.  This to me is a question that does not have to be answered since dimensionality and the arrow of time did not exist before the big bang.  The question is improperly constructed.

I think Christians might look at things such as the wonders of life as 'evidence', but with exceptions of some of them who are idiots and misunderstand their own faith, they are basically, 'the faithful'.

Faith, and belief, are central issues.  "evidence", is secondary or tertiary...

Yes, there is a lot wrong with the statement "I believe that I am."  Let me correct it to "I am."

Sure I will explain my point of view.  For the largest part I hold to be an atheist, and I am not particularly interested in the 'jesus christ was he real, etc' issue of western philosophy.

Today many think we approach a technological singularity, and some style of intelligent machines.  I think this is reasonable if we give it 50-100 years, instead of the 2025 date that's often quoted.  We know some of the consequences of that type of an event.  They may be summarized as, after the initial spark of consciousness, growth of that entity's knowledge and understanding and capability in terms of doublings per millisecond.  The generally accepted statement is that "We don't know what the world will be like 24 hours later."

Having noted these ideas, I would conjecture that we're not the first or only intelligent species to have existed in the several cycles of stellar evolution in the universe.  And there would have been other, prior technological singularities.  This implies that the universe is what might be called 'intelligence and consciousness rich'.  I think that's a reasonable view - if you like, consider it faith based.  But it doesn't have much to do with religions as they have existed historically, does it?

The opposite end of the spectrum, and what I would call the "19th century mechanistic atheist view", is that man is alone, as far as the evidence shows.  This viewpoint reminds me of what Galileo fought against.

The universe DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH.

lol...

That's pretty well stated to express the concept (which exists actually in math, not in words) but let me point out one thing.

You won't get to a space where 'no matter, energy, light, or universe exists'.  That implies movement and dimensionality, and where it is not, it simply is not. 

Cosmology does not embrace infinity.  Has not for some time...

Evidence for what?

If you refer to 'a belief in Jesus Christ' then you refer to a faith based dogma.  Both the terms belief, and faith imply that evidence is not used in the decision process.

I would note here that a personal stand based on faith/belief can be much, much stronger than one based on 'evidence'.

IIRC Jesus himself scorned those who demanded 'proof' and who could not or would not take matters on faith.  Not in the mood to go look it up, but the question posed was not his nature as 'son of god or man/god'.  Rather the question would have been related to 'the Creator' or such.

What has to be understood is that IF there were references to radical Muslims, don't associate with them, ETC (we know that was not the case because we have knowledge of how Major Hasad was treated)....

....You have a case where evangelical Christians are actually being equalized as extreme and radical alongside radical Muslims.

And we all know the differences between the two.  They are not remotely similar.  One turns the other cheek, the other massacres innocent people.

No, you are not sure of that. 

Naw, that's not close to true.  What you likely mean to say is that they reason as well as anyone else on a thousand subjects.  Best place to eat, where to buy cheap stuff, how to balance a bank account, on and on.  But they don't reason the way you'd prefer on the subject of religion.  But even there there is ridiculously wide diversity in thought and behavior.  So we need to ascribe your assertion to the 'true evangelical Christian'.

He lives in a little cottage in the woods with the True Scotsman...



PS:  The "True Scotsman" refers to an error in logic.

But suppose you were in a position to influence who the soldiers interact with.  You in your heart, know that fundamentalist Christians and Tea Party groups are very, very wrong.  You sincerely believe that.  (suppose this is  true for a second)

Would it influence your behavior in telling the soldiers how to behave?  If so, why?  Why not other groups? 

It's the cattle prods and the long pointy things they have you need to worry about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQTESr6BC8

You ain't seen nothing.

Try some Muslim jerks.

Who is enemy of whose reason?

I submit that for every flaw in reason you may see in their group(s) I can find one in yours.

Let's start with the recent attempt by the Admin to display its 'reason'.

ATTACK SYRIA NOW!!!

Here's a thought.  Since bitcoin enables semi-anonymous transactions, micropayments for road usage are in fact possible without tracing the car or driver and without any government database.

All drivers need bitcoin.

A driver would set out on a section of road, placing a square bar code on his dash.  The system camera reads it and has authority to charge small amounts.  Then as he passes checkpoints the system docks the public key by incremental amounts, say 0.50 USD in bitcoin.  At the end of his drive, he's been billed say 3.50 in a half dozen transactions.

The way to sell this to the government agency would be to emphasize that their profit would be higher and their costs lower.

For discussion purposes let's say no license plate scanning is done except if the square bar code is not there or is not readable or does not have money.  In these cases the plate is scanned so a bill can be sent in the mail.

Glad we figured that out.

Now, back on topic...

  “The American public should be outraged that the U.S. Army is teaching our troops that evangelical Christians and tea party members are enemies of America and that they can be punished for supporting or participating in those groups,” Mr. Berry said, in Fox News. “These statements about evangelicals being domestic enemies are a serious charge.”

So are they enemies of America?

I did the same thing, trying to find the point of the article.  It's clearer - the total confusion in the mind of the writer - if you include his preceeding sentence.

As Lind notes, “While progressives betray their principles when they apologize for autocracy, libertarians do not.”   That’s because it is their philosophy. And in a progressive, civil libertarian coalition to advance the cause of privacy and limited government surveillance, this form of “I’ve got mine” nihilism has no place.

WTF?