> it's the DEMOCRATIC party that's in the Lawyers back pocket.
Partially... Yes it's sad that he doesn't realize that, but it's also sad that you don't realize that almost ALL politicians are in lawyers' pockets. I don't even claim that Libertarians are exempt from that, although I do not have any examples (small sample size).
> Now that you're no longer a broke college student, why not find a shark of a lawyer and sue the judge and police for the massive "pain and suffering" you've endured because of them?
Looking at KingSkippus' blogspot link, I found this, which states he's at least 34 years old. It's possible that the statute of limitations has run out or that he just doesn't want to get F*(&ed by the courts again.
> Everything in this universe has a beginning and end
Everything I have ever seen has been the colors red or blue, therefore there is no such thing as green. Just because you've never encountered anything infinite, it does not mean that nothing infinite exists at all. Really, you'd have to have left the planet (not to mention, galaxy) to even begin rationally thinking something like that.
> In the context of Buddhist [...] it does not work at all even as an concept cause the gods don't work that way.
Depends on your "flavour" of Buddhism. AFAIK, Zen Buddhism wouldn't have an opinion either way, unless the evolution was somehow "experienced." I could be wrong, though: it may be that since evolution as a concept cannot be experienced, it does not exist.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Is it that with the first it's the science that makes a prediction, whereas the second means people can predict what it will "say?" People drive the scienctific process, so I don't see a practical difference between them.
Dictionary.com: predictable & predictive. It has the exact same definition for both (same page, presumably because of the same root word).
> nice paradox in your post - stupid people, created in his own image.
I.D. proponents skirt around issues like that all the time. The "in his image" thing is biblical, and the designer doesn't have to be The Bible's god. Until they convince someone of that, then it's their god again, suddenly.
> Oh and my favorite is when they have that glass slider that they love to shut in your face
Working at a hospital with private Doctors' offices, I know that if they didn't close the window, the patients/customers would be constantly bothering them with questions they cannot answer, as if an open window is an open forum. Many times I've seen patients ask receptionists medical questions: she's not a freaking nurse, she's a secretary!
Also, sometimes receptionists do more than just answer phones, make appointments, and take messages. Admittedly, many of them are still jerks for the sake of being jerks.
> I'm disappointed he fails to mention the rise of horny young men
Do you really think young men are more horny these days than they were before? I don't think so. I believe it's more socially acceptable to talk about how horny you are to anyone and everyone. Unless you meant "rise" in another way, in which case I prefer not to comment.
> I miss the days when I could go out and have a nice dinner without people yammering on cell phones, tapping on PDAs, talking about computer problems, etc.
Boy I miss the days when I could go out to a nice dinner without people yammering to the people across the table from them, forks and knives scraping against plates, talking about politics, etc.
Is it the talking that bothers you, or the phone's ringing? That's the thing that gets me. I realize that people have a tendency to speak louder into a cellphone than they need, but they are inconsiderate jerks because they are speaking loudly, not because they are speaking into a phone. Some people yell across the table: they are no less inconsiderate, IMO.
> Billions of years ago, some alien creature was reading a news story about organic molecules discovered in the dust of our solar system. They've been watching us ever since...
Actually, since they are billions of light-years away, they just noticed last week.
> Seeing as he'd be the only person at one of those that wouldn't be interested in T2 selling a hojillion copies of GTA4, 5, 6
OK, we know there are laws about companies doing things not in the interests of their shareholders... What if it is other shareholders trying to make a company do what isn't in the best interests of other shareholders? Are there any repercussions for something like that?
> > "Darwin's Origin of Species is a rape-fantasy fulfillment manual" > I must say the last one is unusual
I think the idea behind that is a bastardization of "Survival of the fittest." Survival means extending your lineage which, in nature, could mean that the strongest "rape" the females of their species to continue. That's just off the top of my head, I don't know if that's an actually-used argument or not, I've certainly never heard it.
Slashdot Mirror
> Let her come out right back where she started *and* victorious in court.
She's already 24 grand out because of this. A court victory would not leave her "where she started," hence the call for donations.
> it's the DEMOCRATIC party that's in the Lawyers back pocket.
Partially... Yes it's sad that he doesn't realize that, but it's also sad that you don't realize that almost ALL politicians are in lawyers' pockets. I don't even claim that Libertarians are exempt from that, although I do not have any examples (small sample size).
> This prevents people from being unable to sue for fear of losing a case an bankrupting themselves
But it also encourages individuals (and corporations) to sue because they can outspend the opposition. It cuts both ways.
> How else does such a weenie interest group get such favorable legislation from Congress?
Weenie group??? They have the support of some very large corporations. As you pointed out:
> the RIAA can easily be outspent (outbribed[...])
Yes, but AFAIK the people who can afford to do that don't have a financial interest in doing so.
> Now that you're no longer a broke college student, why not find a shark of a lawyer and sue the judge and police for the massive "pain and suffering" you've endured because of them?
Looking at KingSkippus' blogspot link, I found this, which states he's at least 34 years old. It's possible that the statute of limitations has run out or that he just doesn't want to get F*(&ed by the courts again.
> if this guy really believed what he was saying, he'd continue working on the case with deferred payment.
It's one thing to be in moral agreement with someone, yet it's entirely different to forego a paycheck for a few months to support them.
> In most jurisdictions if the defendant wins, his legal bills are paid by the claimant
I was under the impression that those "jurisdictions" did not include anywhere in the United States.
> Everything in this universe has a beginning and end
Everything I have ever seen has been the colors red or blue, therefore there is no such thing as green.
Just because you've never encountered anything infinite, it does not mean that nothing infinite exists at all. Really, you'd have to have left the planet (not to mention, galaxy) to even begin rationally thinking something like that.
I almost made fun of you for cloning his post before I "got it"...
> In the context of Buddhist [...] it does not work at all even as an concept cause the gods don't work that way.
Depends on your "flavour" of Buddhism. AFAIK, Zen Buddhism wouldn't have an opinion either way, unless the evolution was somehow "experienced." I could be wrong, though: it may be that since evolution as a concept cannot be experienced, it does not exist.
> ID could be science if we could show that some existing race put us here for their own purposes
Wouldn't it then simply be a "fact?"
> I think you mean predictive, not predictable.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Is it that with the first it's the science that makes a prediction, whereas the second means people can predict what it will "say?" People drive the scienctific process, so I don't see a practical difference between them.
Dictionary.com: predictable & predictive. It has the exact same definition for both (same page, presumably because of the same root word).
> So how can it be "sad" if the people who believe in [x], are happy believing in such?
If one finds happiness in slavery, is he still a slave? Is it still wrong to treat him as a slave? Even if not "wrong," is it still sad?
> nice paradox in your post - stupid people, created in his own image.
I.D. proponents skirt around issues like that all the time. The "in his image" thing is biblical, and the designer doesn't have to be The Bible's god. Until they convince someone of that, then it's their god again, suddenly.
> All I have to say is "Follow the money" on the article
Well, the first people mentioned in the article (2nd link) were Gartner, who usually appear to jump on the MS bandwagon, IIRC.
> > We still don't know what the long term social effects will be,
;)
> Fewer people?
Amazingly enough, I don't think oral contraceptives will stop too many pregnancies
A college-aged girl broke up with you because her parents made her? Wow.
> Oh and my favorite is when they have that glass slider that they love to shut in your face
Working at a hospital with private Doctors' offices, I know that if they didn't close the window, the patients/customers would be constantly bothering them with questions they cannot answer, as if an open window is an open forum. Many times I've seen patients ask receptionists medical questions: she's not a freaking nurse, she's a secretary!
Also, sometimes receptionists do more than just answer phones, make appointments, and take messages. Admittedly, many of them are still jerks for the sake of being jerks.
> I'm disappointed he fails to mention the rise of horny young men
Do you really think young men are more horny these days than they were before? I don't think so. I believe it's more socially acceptable to talk about how horny you are to anyone and everyone. Unless you meant "rise" in another way, in which case I prefer not to comment.
> I miss the days when I could go out and have a nice dinner without people yammering on cell phones, tapping on PDAs, talking about computer problems, etc.
Boy I miss the days when I could go out to a nice dinner without people yammering to the people across the table from them, forks and knives scraping against plates, talking about politics, etc.
Is it the talking that bothers you, or the phone's ringing? That's the thing that gets me. I realize that people have a tendency to speak louder into a cellphone than they need, but they are inconsiderate jerks because they are speaking loudly, not because they are speaking into a phone. Some people yell across the table: they are no less inconsiderate, IMO.
Not that it really matters, but atheist means believing in NO god of ANY kind. So if you believe in at least one, you are not an atheist.
> Billions of years ago, some alien creature was reading a news story about organic molecules discovered in the dust of our solar system. They've been watching us ever since...
Actually, since they are billions of light-years away, they just noticed last week.
> Seeing as he'd be the only person at one of those that wouldn't be interested in T2 selling a hojillion copies of GTA4, 5, 6
OK, we know there are laws about companies doing things not in the interests of their shareholders... What if it is other shareholders trying to make a company do what isn't in the best interests of other shareholders? Are there any repercussions for something like that?
> Enter religion: a free open-source alternative to other "ways of knowing."
Not necessarily. Scientology is "proprietary." Of course, I don't believe it's actually a religion, but that is just my opinion.
> > "Darwin's Origin of Species is a rape-fantasy fulfillment manual"
> I must say the last one is unusual
I think the idea behind that is a bastardization of "Survival of the fittest." Survival means extending your lineage which, in nature, could mean that the strongest "rape" the females of their species to continue. That's just off the top of my head, I don't know if that's an actually-used argument or not, I've certainly never heard it.
> then delivered Thompson's body to the nearby dog food factory, where he is turned in to a new brand of dog food
I don't know if dogs would eat it. Well, I guess they DO lick their own assholes...