I'm not trying to talk down your point at all, but how much music do you need? Three Terabytes (guessing, 1mil @ 3MB ea) of music not good enough for you?
> You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.
How many times does it need to be said? THEY NEVER HAD THAT X DOLLARS! If they never had it, it couldn't be taken from them, therefore it is not stealing. It is preventing profit, which is very different. Protestors in front of a store can convince people to not shop there. Did they then "steal" from the store by preventing the profit?
No matter how many times you put "in fact" in front of an incorrect statement, it is still incorrect.
> It is theft, maybe not of the actual media, but of the profit the seller SHOULD have been allowed to make on the item.
No one prevented them from being allowed to make money. They did not offer it at an attractive-enough price, so the person chose not to give their money to a corrupt organization (whether they knew it was corrupt or not).
> you do not have the right to steal their money.
But they have the right to steal mine through illegally-obtained and relatively arbitrary taxes?
Fuck that. Once they start playing fair, I will start playing "fair." You can complain about it being illegal, which I will not argue, but you aren't convincing anyone with those tired, rehashed, B.S. arguments. It is IP infringement, stealing is, by definition, about actual property, it does not include infringing on a company's distribution rights to an abstract concept.
Would you argue that it would be stealing if I recorded a song that sounded almost exactly like a popular one (AKA a remake) and then gave it away, because anyone who liked my remake would have liked the original. Thus, I have deprived the original distributor of the money they could have made by people buying copies of the original. Am I a filthy thief?
> the universe is its own creator, which is the scientific view -- and frankly, the only view science can really take.
I don't know about that... "Science" can also take the view that it has always existed. Of course, there is no way to prove that one either, so it would be untruthful to state it as fact either way.
Oh well, I guess I'll have to continue living unsure where we came from... Well, besides our parents.
Wow, I had no idea. I remember slobbering over one back in the day (as if a decade ago is BitD), and thinking it was such a powerhouse. Of course, I wasn't allowed to touch it, since I wasn't high-level staff, so I never knew how good it really was.
> If you say yes, you must be prepared to defend your account of Biblical history, because there are some Christians who believe
I believe the world came out of my ass, or rather, will come out of my ass, the moment I will die. I wrote a book about it. A couple people believe it, so you MUST be prepared to defend your account of reality as compared to mine.
> If your child is very sick and needs to get a painful treatment, does that mean that you are cruel?
If you are a Christian "Scientist," treatment is not an option. But since you can manage to use a computer, I'll asume you are not one.
Your hypothetical asks if you would trade suffering for a cure. The question was why would an uncruel god choose suffering AND death? Riches after life is great in theory, but if you want 6 billion people to believe you are all powerful and good, punishing them for being born in the wrong area is not the way to do it. I'm imperfect and I can figure that one out, yet your almighty can't get that simple concept through his dense fucking skull (assuming he had one)? We can only rely on what we see; I see needless suffering through inaction of man and, if you believe in one, inaction of a god.
Allowing someone to suffer and die when you have do do the equivalent of "nothing" is cruel. No amount of handwaving and faith will change that.
> The law is generally presented in it's simple form and only covers a closed system.
That statement is used to point out that the Earth is not a closed system, but if we are talking about the Universe (we still are, right?), we don't know if it's a closed system of not -- we would have to be able to either observe it as a whole or observe something adding energy from outside the universe, both of which are (currently? eternally?) impossible.
If he is timeless unchanging, how could he create a universe? Why would he? If he is unbound by time, that means the things he created are timeless as well, and therefore the universe always existed. Certainly seems unlikely that only 10K years have passed since the timeless one changed his mind.
> this is just as stupid as 'creating' a theory that instead of predicting the output for the given input, looks at the output and 'tells' you what the input was
You mean Quantum theory? Seems to fit well with time travel...
> I don't know about you but I'm for keeping drugs out of the hands of my children, at ANY cost.
Obviously, that cost includes "a million people in jail for the controlled burning of a plant." Since you said "ANY," keeping your kids away from getting high is more important than keeping them alive?
You really need to think about what you say before saying it.
That's pretty fucking ignorant. From your spelling, it appears you have never been to a university. So I'll clue you in. This university was acting in a RESPONSIBLE manner by not acting like a lackey just because some big company now thinks they have judicial power and tells them to roll over and take it in the ass.
> Not like there's any benefit to having a healthy body
Sure there is, you can get on/. and preach to others about how they should get healthy like you, then go on to say how easy it was for you (even though it took 10 years), so it MUST be easy for everyone! And because it made them less depressed and got them a girl, of COURSE it will happen to anyone else who tries!
> Respect for others and their beliefs is also a moral value
You are showing no respect for my belief that people are not cursed by saying certain words. You say I have no self respect because I am not superstitious like you.
> I know most people don't make an issue of it, but it _is_ still a commandment, and it _is_ distressing for some of us to see.
You, sir, are an idiot. "Taking his name in vain" means swearing on his "name" without intending to follow through. Not only that, but his fucking name isn't "God." It's like saying "By Yahweh, I'll kill you" without doing it is taking his name in vain. It is NOT just saying "God damn," goddamnit.
The "rest of us" do not get offended by seeing a certain arrangement of letters. So kindly stop oppressing us, christian!
No, are you? Or can you just not read? There are no dissenters? That's why there are bombs going off at courthouses (of course, you don't pay any attention to the "little things" going on in the U.S.). You are just as blind as the Bush voters, you think your shit doesn't stink for some reason. Attention: everyone in the world is equally guilty for the world's problems if they do nothing more than sit on their asses and bitch about people (who are further away) who aren't doing everything for you.
I agree that Dems and Reps are basically the same. I'm neither. You are willfully ignorant and blind if you think no one has a dissenting opinion. Fuck, man, is Fox news the only American broadcast you've ever seen? Get a fucking clue or go home. Your trolling isn't impressing anyone.
> And the result is not greed?
No, it is apathy. They are very different. For instance, you do not seem to be apathetic. You are, however, greedy because you want everything your way. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, regardless how much you whine about it.
Subhumans, funny. Not even trying to cover your trolling any more. Those stinking Arabs are the subhumans. Don't believe it? Neither do I, but it's an easier statement than all Americans are subhuman. Although equally as ignorant. Luckily, mine was a joke. Yours, apparently, was not. At least we don't judge a group of people we have no fucking clue about. You sit and fucking whine all day, but YOU don't do a goddamned thing about it either. Why don't YOU give up all your fancy fucking furniture, and your expensive computer and donate it to AIDS research or something. I barely make enough fucking money to get by, it's not my fucking problem that people decide to live in a fucking desert or screw diseased monkeys. You obviously have enough time to blame us for everyone else's problems, get a fucking job or donate your time and money.
And at least I have the balls to attach a semi-identifiable name to my posts, instead of cowering behind the AC curtain.
What I think matters as much as I think it does, as well as those who read/hear it. It may mean nothing to you, but you are not here. You do not see people speak out against things you claim we are complacent about. IOW, you have no fucking idea.
Just because YOU think something needs to change, doesn't mean it does. In addition, I refuse to be held responsible for the idiocy of half a country, even if it is my own. I didn't vote for Bush, so he only "speaks for me" as far as I agree with what he's saying.
The average foreigner thinks his opinion should matter inside the U.S. Which is not to say it shouldn't matter anywhere. The average American says "let them do what they want, it's not my business."
Americans aren't consumed by greed, they are consumed with the desire to be happy. They are told that the only way they can be happy is to buy things. They are dumb, and they believe it.
> Yeah, I know there are some dissenters, but they are few and far between.
You mean the half of the U.S. population that voted for someone else? Twice? Dissenting doesn't always mean speaking out, and speaking out doesn't always mean you are worth hearing.
> When information is reported without your consent.
What constitutes consent? What if your consent was "given" by agreeing to a EULA (I know there are many other flaws in that, but hypothetically)? Would they then be able to send whatever info they wanted?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not trying to talk down your point at all, but how much music do you need? Three Terabytes (guessing, 1mil @ 3MB ea) of music not good enough for you?
> "666" will be an issue someday
If only refusing to think was illegal...
> You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.
How many times does it need to be said? THEY NEVER HAD THAT X DOLLARS! If they never had it, it couldn't be taken from them, therefore it is not stealing. It is preventing profit, which is very different. Protestors in front of a store can convince people to not shop there. Did they then "steal" from the store by preventing the profit?
No matter how many times you put "in fact" in front of an incorrect statement, it is still incorrect.
> It is theft, maybe not of the actual media, but of the profit the seller SHOULD have been allowed to make on the item.
No one prevented them from being allowed to make money. They did not offer it at an attractive-enough price, so the person chose not to give their money to a corrupt organization (whether they knew it was corrupt or not).
> you do not have the right to steal their money.
But they have the right to steal mine through illegally-obtained and relatively arbitrary taxes?
Fuck that. Once they start playing fair, I will start playing "fair." You can complain about it being illegal, which I will not argue, but you aren't convincing anyone with those tired, rehashed, B.S. arguments. It is IP infringement, stealing is, by definition, about actual property, it does not include infringing on a company's distribution rights to an abstract concept.
Would you argue that it would be stealing if I recorded a song that sounded almost exactly like a popular one (AKA a remake) and then gave it away, because anyone who liked my remake would have liked the original. Thus, I have deprived the original distributor of the money they could have made by people buying copies of the original. Am I a filthy thief?
I suspected that after posting and slapped myslef for it, sorry. I figured it was either that or a horribly-executed troll :)
> I guess that would be the Big Butt Theory?
Pshh, you haven't seen my ass! It's not just BB, it's the the VBB (Very Big Butt) Theory.
> the universe is its own creator, which is the scientific view -- and frankly, the only view science can really take.
I don't know about that... "Science" can also take the view that it has always existed. Of course, there is no way to prove that one either, so it would be untruthful to state it as fact either way.
Oh well, I guess I'll have to continue living unsure where we came from... Well, besides our parents.
Wow, I had no idea. I remember slobbering over one back in the day (as if a decade ago is BitD), and thinking it was such a powerhouse. Of course, I wasn't allowed to touch it, since I wasn't high-level staff, so I never knew how good it really was.
Thanks for the info.
> If you say yes, you must be prepared to defend your account of Biblical history, because there are some Christians who believe
I believe the world came out of my ass, or rather, will come out of my ass, the moment I will die. I wrote a book about it. A couple people believe it, so you MUST be prepared to defend your account of reality as compared to mine.
> If your child is very sick and needs to get a painful treatment, does that mean that you are cruel?
If you are a Christian "Scientist," treatment is not an option. But since you can manage to use a computer, I'll asume you are not one.
Your hypothetical asks if you would trade suffering for a cure. The question was why would an uncruel god choose suffering AND death? Riches after life is great in theory, but if you want 6 billion people to believe you are all powerful and good , punishing them for being born in the wrong area is not the way to do it. I'm imperfect and I can figure that one out, yet your almighty can't get that simple concept through his dense fucking skull (assuming he had one)? We can only rely on what we see; I see needless suffering through inaction of man and, if you believe in one, inaction of a god.
Allowing someone to suffer and die when you have do do the equivalent of "nothing" is cruel. No amount of handwaving and faith will change that.
> The law is generally presented in it's simple form and only covers a closed system.
That statement is used to point out that the Earth is not a closed system, but if we are talking about the Universe (we still are, right?), we don't know if it's a closed system of not -- we would have to be able to either observe it as a whole or observe something adding energy from outside the universe, both of which are (currently? eternally?) impossible.
> creation is a necessary step for the Universe, since it has been proven to have had an origin.
Can you provide a link (or even a simplistic explanation) as to how this has been proven? I have seen no such proof and would like to see it.
> He simply exists, timeless and unchanging.
If he is timeless unchanging, how could he create a universe? Why would he? If he is unbound by time, that means the things he created are timeless as well, and therefore the universe always existed. Certainly seems unlikely that only 10K years have passed since the timeless one changed his mind.
> completely obsolete. "Cassatt" is an SGI Onyx2 "Reality Monster" with 12 CPUs and two InfiniteReality2 graphics pipes
Man, if that's obsolete... How does a machine like that compare to PCs of today? As in raw processing or graphics processing. Just curious.
I think "The Sims" will lose serious marketshare when that happens.
> this is just as stupid as 'creating' a theory that instead of predicting the output for the given input, looks at the output and 'tells' you what the input was
You mean Quantum theory? Seems to fit well with time travel...
> I don't know about you but I'm for keeping drugs out of the hands of my children, at ANY cost.
Obviously, that cost includes "a million people in jail for the controlled burning of a plant." Since you said "ANY," keeping your kids away from getting high is more important than keeping them alive?
You really need to think about what you say before saying it.
> What irrisponsible university
That's pretty fucking ignorant. From your spelling, it appears you have never been to a university. So I'll clue you in. This university was acting in a RESPONSIBLE manner by not acting like a lackey just because some big company now thinks they have judicial power and tells them to roll over and take it in the ass.
> Not like there's any benefit to having a healthy body
/. and preach to others about how they should get healthy like you, then go on to say how easy it was for you (even though it took 10 years), so it MUST be easy for everyone! And because it made them less depressed and got them a girl, of COURSE it will happen to anyone else who tries!
Sure there is, you can get on
> I'm sure there isn't a job available to someone with my lack of ability with proper hours that doesn't pay significantly less than I get now.
Sure there is, it's called CEO. Unfortunately, you have to either know someone or "know" someone to get those.
> Respect for others and their beliefs is also a moral value
You are showing no respect for my belief that people are not cursed by saying certain words. You say I have no self respect because I am not superstitious like you.
> I know most people don't make an issue of it, but it _is_ still a commandment, and it _is_ distressing for some of us to see.
You, sir, are an idiot. "Taking his name in vain" means swearing on his "name" without intending to follow through. Not only that, but his fucking name isn't "God." It's like saying "By Yahweh, I'll kill you" without doing it is taking his name in vain. It is NOT just saying "God damn," goddamnit.
The "rest of us" do not get offended by seeing a certain arrangement of letters. So kindly stop oppressing us, christian!
Thanks for your tolerance in the future.
> Are you dumb?
No, are you? Or can you just not read? There are no dissenters? That's why there are bombs going off at courthouses (of course, you don't pay any attention to the "little things" going on in the U.S.). You are just as blind as the Bush voters, you think your shit doesn't stink for some reason. Attention: everyone in the world is equally guilty for the world's problems if they do nothing more than sit on their asses and bitch about people (who are further away) who aren't doing everything for you.
I agree that Dems and Reps are basically the same. I'm neither. You are willfully ignorant and blind if you think no one has a dissenting opinion. Fuck, man, is Fox news the only American broadcast you've ever seen? Get a fucking clue or go home. Your trolling isn't impressing anyone.
> And the result is not greed?
No, it is apathy. They are very different. For instance, you do not seem to be apathetic. You are, however, greedy because you want everything your way. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, regardless how much you whine about it.
Subhumans, funny. Not even trying to cover your trolling any more. Those stinking Arabs are the subhumans. Don't believe it? Neither do I, but it's an easier statement than all Americans are subhuman. Although equally as ignorant. Luckily, mine was a joke. Yours, apparently, was not. At least we don't judge a group of people we have no fucking clue about. You sit and fucking whine all day, but YOU don't do a goddamned thing about it either. Why don't YOU give up all your fancy fucking furniture, and your expensive computer and donate it to AIDS research or something. I barely make enough fucking money to get by, it's not my fucking problem that people decide to live in a fucking desert or screw diseased monkeys. You obviously have enough time to blame us for everyone else's problems, get a fucking job or donate your time and money.
And at least I have the balls to attach a semi-identifiable name to my posts, instead of cowering behind the AC curtain.
What I think matters as much as I think it does, as well as those who read/hear it. It may mean nothing to you, but you are not here. You do not see people speak out against things you claim we are complacent about. IOW, you have no fucking idea.
Just because YOU think something needs to change, doesn't mean it does. In addition, I refuse to be held responsible for the idiocy of half a country, even if it is my own. I didn't vote for Bush, so he only "speaks for me" as far as I agree with what he's saying.
The average foreigner thinks his opinion should matter inside the U.S. Which is not to say it shouldn't matter anywhere. The average American says "let them do what they want, it's not my business."
Americans aren't consumed by greed, they are consumed with the desire to be happy. They are told that the only way they can be happy is to buy things. They are dumb, and they believe it.
> Yeah, I know there are some dissenters, but they are few and far between.
You mean the half of the U.S. population that voted for someone else? Twice? Dissenting doesn't always mean speaking out, and speaking out doesn't always mean you are worth hearing.
> When information is reported without your consent.
What constitutes consent? What if your consent was "given" by agreeing to a EULA (I know there are many other flaws in that, but hypothetically)? Would they then be able to send whatever info they wanted?
> when they saw the polls by ABC news showing 75% opposed them, they lost their balls.
No, they tried to force everyone to do as they believe by fucking around in congress, where they had no business talking about it.