It's not a matter of whether this is right or wrong. It's not a matter of whether intellectual property is legally protected
half right... it doesn't matter how much effort they place on enforcing legal issues, there will always be problems... so what's the answer? What's missing is the fundamental ideals of right and wrong. Copyright legally won't stop a thing. But if people would understand and respect the creators, they'd know it's not about 'paying $X', it's about supporting the creator. Ideally, there would be no copyright, but by nature, everyone would pay directly to the creator for the purchase whatever price the creator asks for (it's their product after all), and always give due respect and credit to their product from then on. Right now, it's all or nothing. If someone doesn't like the price, they believe they have the right to have it anyway. The creator, nor the people who put effort into distribution mean nothing. So, if they want it bad enough, they'll screw everyone and do what they can to take it for free.
In the end, the current attitude is wrong on both sides - people shouldn't be taking what they think they should have just because the price is too high, and also those selling it shouldn't pad their prices because they know they can get more and not because they feel their work is worth more.
In an ideal world, people would naturally respect the creative process, and prices being sold at would directly reflect what the creators and distributers feel their work is worth. Then everyone will be happy.
Of course, that will never happen... so the supposed answer is enforcing copyright law. *sigh* No one, right now, is fully in the right (legally or ethically) IMO
The argument has been made 1000s of times here about item X having a legitimate purpose but that it can also be used for purposes other than what it was intended for yet those items are still legal
That all depends how you word it. I see mod chips as having 'an illegitimate purpose, but it can also be used for purposes other than what it is intended for'... it's purpose is mainly illegal uses, yet has legal uses, rather than entirely legal, but with fringe illegal uses...
it was just like kazaa - sure it had legitimate uses, but the vast majority of its known traffic was entirely illegal...
what kind of Christian are you if you don't believe the Bible's description of God? I thought a Christian was one who followed the God of the Bible. Believing in a God who's restricted by something He created and is fundamentally above, especially when described that way in the Bible, I don't believe means you believe in the same God...
You may believe in Jesus, and God's purpose for His life and death and resurrection, but all that is for naught if you don't agree with why it was necessary - the fundamentals of creation in the Genesis account. It's not just an interpretation of Genesis that is self contained, having no effect on the rest of the Bible - it's an interpretation that changes the entire purpose and reason for His plan and the rest of history that (I'm assuming) you believe the Bible is accurate on...
otherwise, as a 'Christian', what 'Christ are you following'?
(I'm sure this will modded as troll probably, but hopefully this will be recognized as a healthy disagreement about faith to a post about faith, thus not troll *shrug* just hoping for a genuine expression)
for those interested, there are a number of sites to get up to date, though you're pretty much at the end of the arg now... even so, http://ilb.extrasonic.com/ is a good start, and http://www.thebruce.ca/ilovebees/ has transcripts of all the audio, and a timeline and text compilation of all that happened before the axon phase.
And also, if you can't be bothered to download all the audio wav's, you can visit The Axon Plot containing transcripts of everything so far... if you're new to the game, start out at the compilations section and read up on the timeline and full text source...
or go to the fireflies wiki for a much more detailed explanation of the game, rather than text sources.
What's even better is the fact that I (and probably loads of other people) first thought of putting McDonalds, of all businesses, in the search when first taking a look at local.google.com!:)
You're right about that... I went to school with Eric, he was a friend of mine 5 years ago... funny thing is, I can see him getting into something like this haha
However, if you are saying that the creators of the filesharing networks are responsible, then the logical extension of your argument would be to say that the builders of the alleys should be held resposible for the actions of those who occupy their creations.
Sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense
I think the analogy was a little flawed to start with... if you extend it to the builders of the alleys, then you need also define the active job of the owners. In Kazaa, the writers and owners have an active role in maintaining the network, updating the software, and generally providing a decent active service, etc. The builders of an alley; well, technically they don't build the alley, but for arguments sake, once it's built it's built. Now, if the builders, say, also owned and maintained an alley as a service to those who supposedly are to utilize it, then yes, I would say they have the responsibility of being held accountable for the actions going on within.
If the cops come along to the alley owners and say - hey, we're arresting you for promoting and maintaining illegal activities in your alleys, I'd highly doubt they could cop out by saying - sir, we built the alleys for the few who walk through it, and we have no way of knowing, let alone stopping, all this 'illegal activity' you speak of.
the law supports his ability to parody without permission,...Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties
Therein lies the catch. He's all fine because he's asking permission AND getting profit.
If he weren't in it for the money, he wouldn't need permission.
If he didn't get permission, he couldn't be in it for the money.
Wierd Al does require permission for his purpose, to make a profit off his parodies.
fully agreed. However, I'd be very, VERY distressed as an artist if I could no longer be sure of selling my artistic creations as a whole, or as I intend them to be sold, even if it's an album which I decide to break into 10-16 tracks but want to keep as a whole. I would want to know that if I made an album like that, that it would only ever be sold as a whole, and not made available anywhere legally in parts, if that was my intent.
Obviously it wouldn't be legally possible without my consent of course. But if it's made legal for a third party to sell portions of an album legally, or downloading portions made legal, then I'd get worried. It should still always end up going back to the owner of the IP to decide how the media may be distributed legally to the public.
The public's rights in purchasing should never overshadow the owner's rights in selling. The power given the purchaser is the choice NOT to buy, and through that make a statement to the seller that their product is either not desired or not worth it.
But yes, we seem to agree about our main points. It was fun discussing this:) I'm glad it remained civilized hehe
Firstly, I agreed that albums aren't necessarily meant to be experienced as a whole... perhaps my 'most artists' phrases weren't the best choice of words. On a fundamental level, you're right, most artists don't care, otherwise the radio, singles, cover bands, all of that media wouldn't be as popular as they are.
And I know plenty of albums that are meant to be played as a whole; for example, any live album where there's no audible breaks between tracks, are intended to be listened together, otherwise they wouldn't blend the tracks together. There are plenty of albums where song progressions occur, either flowing from one to the next or just in theme or style.
My point is that unless an artist actually sells singles of the songs, or sells them as downloadable single mp3's, or you hear them individually on the radio, or anywhere else, then what right have you to say that you deserve to only have one, or a portion of the songs that are included on a CD you do not wish to buy?
The point is, the price is what it is. If you don't like the price, then you don't believe it's good enough for the price, and you forfeit your right to own the song or album. People do not get that.
My whole argument is solely based on the fact that it is wrong to break the law to change the law, especially when the law can be changed by lawful processes. But people are so wanting and self-seeking they they feel they deserve, or have a right to get what they want for what they feel is fair. But if something they want isn't 'fairly priced', they feel they have the right to take it, and maybe give what they feel it's worth. And that, in my eyes, is flat out, 100% wrong.
If there's one song on an album which is only sold together, never heard in pieces or sold in singles, I'm not going to just go and download the one song I want, or borrow it and rip the one song. The album was intended to be sold as one collection, and even if I only think one song is good, it's my own choice as to whether I believe the album is worth buying or not, for the price that the merchant, artist, or label, want for it. If I don't think it's fair, that's too bad for me, I can't get the song. If I'm that desperate, I'll write the artist, or label, or store, who knows, and see if they'll give me a break.
That's my point. Not just whether or not album are always intended to be listened to and owned as a whole, which not all, quite obviously and thankfully, aren't.
I guess this is where we differ on the meaning or purpose of an album. I view an album in most cases as the same structure to a book. The book is collection of whatever it's made of - chapters, topics, etc. But it's a collection, in other words, everything within falls under the topic the book is intended to be presenting. That, in itself, is a whole. You don't go to a library and remove section 4 and 5 from the book because the others don't interest you. You get the entire book. If the author wanted to let you have certain sections on their own, they would release them in separate books. Of course, nothing is stopping you from ONLY reading the sections you want to read, and not the rest. But the artist's intent was that the entire book be had with each section.
That's how I see albums. Most artists gather their songs into an album, order them how they want feel is best to experience the full effect they intend, and hope that people will get the entire album. You may only want one or two songs from the album, but that doesn't negate the right the artist has for wanting each person to have the whole. You may not listen to every song the way it's intended, that's your choice, but it's offered there, and no one is offering a 'cheapened' version of their creativity.
The way it seems these days is that people think it's unfair to force people to buy whole albums if they only like one or two songs. My gripe with that - if the artist really wants to sell the album as a whole, you have NO RIGHT to expect freedom to choose whatever you want, nor illegally go about doing it. But, obviously the real issue here lies with the artists who really don't care, and are only forced to release full albums because the label says so. And here is where music downloading begins.
As for an artist's painting, it all depends on what you consider the album. Like I said, I see the album, from most artists, as intended to be one artistic creation, just as a painting. So my analogy stands, as it pertains to these types of albums and artistic intent. Your analogy works for albums like collections where the songs themselves are their own artistic creation and have no effect or bearing on the songs preceding and following them on the album.
ok then... screw any historic debates where 'examples' had to be made... why even have the term "for example"? I mean, all they're doing is making an analogy as an example...
Yes analogies can never be perfect examples, because the only perfect example is the original situation itself. That doesn't negate the use of analogies to make a point... not at all!
Don't try to force me to compute the way you...want me to compute...Don't sneak information off of my computers...It's MY computer...I don't lease it...I don't run it at your good pleasure, or under your benevolent supervision, or to your tune, or at your permission...It's MINE!
Can't you hear yourself? Don't you know who you sound like?
"mine"... it's been called that before; but not by you./gratuitous lotr reference
If anyone, at any point, believes they know everything 100% as truth and fact and they are the only ones correct, they are professing perfection. The only perfection is biblical truth. Each denomination should strive to mirror biblical truth as accurately as possible. There are clear-cut practices that some denominations profess that are not biblical, such as supporting abortion. However, the real reason denominations exist should only for those areas which are a matter of comfort, or interpretation - not things which are black and white in the Bible. Such as, how much focus do we put on Baptism in the Christian's life? (Baptists generally put a lot of focus as the next step in professing your Christian faith - it does not make you a christian, nor does it deny your faith if you fail to be baptized, but it is a major choice one makes) although other denominations also hold that baptist is important, they don't necessarily hold it is a main point of the denomination. Some denominations are generally quieter, restrained, and some are more charismatic and energetic. Are either wrong? No. That is the point to denominations.
It's taken too far when a denomination believes that to make everyone happy they need to support a belief that is on very shaky ground at best. Such as supporting abortion, allowing homosexual pastors or preachers or men of cloth (clearly anti-Biblical), allowing female pastors/preachers/deacons (this one is very shaky as it borders on modern sexism), and much more.
God calls us in denominations NOT to quarrel among ourselves about unimportant things, but to come together with faith like a child. We all believe the same fundamental truths, and that's where the importance of Christianity lies. If we let the little disagreements get to us, it distracts us from our ultimate goal and purpose of spreading the gospel and the 'good news'. The quarrels are all the world sees these days. That's just very sad.
Going to an art sale, and let's say an artist is there trying to sell his work. You say you love a particular painting, so you get your camera, snap just the coastline in bottom left of the picture that really is only part of the picture you like, pay him a fraction of the cost of the painting, thank him and walk away.
Now imagine what thoughts are going through his head? Might he care? maybe, maybe not. A REAL artist will, because he created the painting as a whole, and even though he technically got 'equivalent compensation' for the portion you took, you only took a portion of the whole. No loss to him, but he made some quick $ off of it. A shallow artist wouldn't care. A real artist would.
If an artist releases an album he intends to be heard as one piece, it's NOT your right to only want a piece of it without getting the whole. The way he intended it to be sold is the way you should buy it. Is there any direct consequence? sure, maybe not. But you -are- doing a disservice to the artist by not experiencing the whole that he intended you to experience. IF the artist decides to sell the songs individually on say iTunes, then go ahead, get'em all you want... but until then, the only way you SHOULD get the songs is the way intended by the artist. And usually you can tell if the songs are supposed to be heard together or if it doesn't really matter.
I also am a Christian. Interesting how many 'rational Christians' can have differing viewpoints, no? Anyway... I won't get into the 'God used evolution' debate, as that has theological flaws in itself...
As for stem cell research, as Christians, all we are against is abortion. The killing of a living human being. This does not mean that embrios are equivalent to a thinking, intelligent, human shaped person. But the point that the egg is fertilized is the point that the 'human being' is formed; at that point they continue to grow, whether it be in the womb or out, into the person who's foundation was formed when the egg and seed joined. Therefore, as Christians we are against abortion because it is the killing of a human being.
It's not about the ethics of stem cell research. It's not just about the issue of 'playing God'. You are right, there is so much more to God than creating life. However, also remember that 'cloning' isn't creating life, cloning is manually taking a step to jumpstart life, from existing life. Cloning doesn't make us essentually 'Gods', but as was said, the process is flawed, and it becomes a matter of 'birthing' twins which have high percentages of deaths - essentially we create our own mass murder. If morally we agree murder is wrong, then abortion, and the current process of cloning is wrong.
Now if you say that well, eventually cloning could be perfected, then you are trying to rationalize the killing of who knows how many human beings to get there... 'the ends justifies the means'? Sorry, no.
From the real Christian standpoint, it always comes down to the taking of a life, whether it be in regards to abortion or cloning. Stem cells can also be found in other places than embryos as discussed here after a quick google search. If it's a matter of which method to use - use the one that does not include murder./rant:P
I'll second that. I was going to pick up the D60 early this year, but the week I was going to get it I heard it was discontinued for the 10D. Once the release date was announced, I was prepared to go pick it up. Stocks were limited, and Canon was slow on getting them out the door, but I got one on release date, and I have been happy ever since.
I had a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 film SLR to begin with, and decided to keep the body so I could still use film if I wanted to later on. Suffice to say - I haven't touched the Rebel 2000 since I bought my 10D.
I've looked at other cameras and the settings themselves are simply just not as intuitive as the Canon line. The fact that you've got everything from fully automatic to fully manual, and the ability to set one property and have the rest automatic for every camera setting for each property in between (aperture, speed), with f-stop over/under exposure, even a setting to use the AF points to set the best aperture to have everything in focus with the right speed for a good exposure, plus 'beginner' automatic settings for the type of picture you're taking so everything is optimized for that type, is really nice to have. And with an ISO range of 100 to 3200 (!) flash photographer is more of an accessory than a photography essential... in a dark scene, and ISO setting of 1600 can still print a quality 4x6 print with little 'grain'. Especially after digitally touched up:)
At the time I bought it, the 10D was the best quality in its digital SLR class. And the fact I could use my 2 lenses from my Rebel 2000 with the 10D also saved me some $. Of course, it was $2500 CAN at the time... the next model series up (the 1D and 1Ds) were $5000-$10000 I believe... so yeah, 10D's definitely worth the price. And now there's the EOS digital Rebel which is basically a cheaper/updated model of the 10D.
so if you're looking for a cheap film SLR, I can sell you my old EOS Rebel 2000 body;)
Given so many people seem to be against this, as it stands right now it's still very far off...
now if you believe the biblical account of the mark of the beast, according to the biblical account it's not a matter of choice that these are implemented. It won't be a "oh this is cool, I should get this" choice that people make. biblically it's the antichrist that requires people to get this. As you said (food for thought) what if everyone eventually believes that Home Land Security (in whatever form it may be in the future) IS essential? What if the leader at that time is 'forced' to make a decision, maybe due to continued terrorist threats or disasters, that homeland security must be increased to a mandatory advanced tracking system? What if something happens that eventually causes the masses to value this highly advanced tracking system for all citizens so only citizens have 'freedom' within the country?
if you think about it, right now the chances of something like this being implemented on a wide scale are practically nil. Combine it with imminent threat, so it becomes the 'best choice' amidst other undesirable choices or risks, and it's got a good possibility...
just food for thought... I'm not a conspiracy theorist:)
thanks for saying something... I completely agree. Unfortunately it's hard to make comments about morality based on Christianity in discussions like this. This issue isn't specifically about 'christianity'... it's about simple morality.
sex isn't wrong, sex isn't a sin. Sex is only a portion of the bigger picture. people don't realize that lust is the main issue, and sex is only a fraction of that. people don't understand that lust isn't something totally contained in your own mind. Lust inherently disgraces another person, unless that person is your spouse. people don't realize that marriage is more than just two names on a piece of paper endorsed by the government. people simply don't realize that anything related to lust outside of marriage is wrong - whether that be having sex or gratifying yourself by watching two other people have sex.
Build into your children the morality we all follow - not a relative morality - else the world would be chaos... sorry, it already is... teach children morality, allow them to make their own choices, allow them to make mistakes - to a degree - teach them to learn, teach them that not everything has to be 'experienced' to be 'understood', teach them to be independent by realizing that doesn't mean they can go off and make their own choices based on their own decisions of what's right and wrong.
Just as everyone knows you can't truly be a leader until you've known defeat... you can't be truly independent until you know you can't do it all on your own!
as a christian it goes against everything I believe in.
Thank god most kids don't think like you.
obviously he's refering to the fact that pornography is wrong, not everything about it... sex isn't against christianty... sex outside of marriage is wrong, sex with anyone but the person you're married to is wrong, and sex is only one aspect of lust, which is wrong outside of marriage, and this then includes lusting after anyone else, even if they're the ones having sex... lust is the key, not sex.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of whether this is right or wrong. It's not a matter of whether intellectual property is legally protected
half right... it doesn't matter how much effort they place on enforcing legal issues, there will always be problems... so what's the answer? What's missing is the fundamental ideals of right and wrong. Copyright legally won't stop a thing. But if people would understand and respect the creators, they'd know it's not about 'paying $X', it's about supporting the creator. Ideally, there would be no copyright, but by nature, everyone would pay directly to the creator for the purchase whatever price the creator asks for (it's their product after all), and always give due respect and credit to their product from then on. Right now, it's all or nothing. If someone doesn't like the price, they believe they have the right to have it anyway. The creator, nor the people who put effort into distribution mean nothing. So, if they want it bad enough, they'll screw everyone and do what they can to take it for free.
In the end, the current attitude is wrong on both sides - people shouldn't be taking what they think they should have just because the price is too high, and also those selling it shouldn't pad their prices because they know they can get more and not because they feel their work is worth more.
In an ideal world, people would naturally respect the creative process, and prices being sold at would directly reflect what the creators and distributers feel their work is worth. Then everyone will be happy.
Of course, that will never happen... so the supposed answer is enforcing copyright law. *sigh* No one, right now, is fully in the right (legally or ethically) IMO
The argument has been made 1000s of times here about item X having a legitimate purpose but that it can also be used for purposes other than what it was intended for yet those items are still legal
That all depends how you word it. I see mod chips as having 'an illegitimate purpose, but it can also be used for purposes other than what it is intended for'... it's purpose is mainly illegal uses, yet has legal uses, rather than entirely legal, but with fringe illegal uses...
it was just like kazaa - sure it had legitimate uses, but the vast majority of its known traffic was entirely illegal...
As a Christian, I strongly disagree...
what kind of Christian are you if you don't believe the Bible's description of God? I thought a Christian was one who followed the God of the Bible. Believing in a God who's restricted by something He created and is fundamentally above, especially when described that way in the Bible, I don't believe means you believe in the same God...
You may believe in Jesus, and God's purpose for His life and death and resurrection, but all that is for naught if you don't agree with why it was necessary - the fundamentals of creation in the Genesis account. It's not just an interpretation of Genesis that is self contained, having no effect on the rest of the Bible - it's an interpretation that changes the entire purpose and reason for His plan and the rest of history that (I'm assuming) you believe the Bible is accurate on...
otherwise, as a 'Christian', what 'Christ are you following'?
(I'm sure this will modded as troll probably, but hopefully this will be recognized as a healthy disagreement about faith to a post about faith, thus not troll *shrug* just hoping for a genuine expression)
for those interested, there are a number of sites to get up to date, though you're pretty much at the end of the arg now... even so, http://ilb.extrasonic.com/ is a good start, and http://www.thebruce.ca/ilovebees/ has transcripts of all the audio, and a timeline and text compilation of all that happened before the axon phase.
And also, if you can't be bothered to download all the audio wav's, you can visit The Axon Plot containing transcripts of everything so far... if you're new to the game, start out at the compilations section and read up on the timeline and full text source...
or go to the fireflies wiki for a much more detailed explanation of the game, rather than text sources.
What's even better is the fact that I (and probably loads of other people) first thought of putting McDonalds, of all businesses, in the search when first taking a look at local.google.com! :)
I work at a local ISP, and he apparently was violating our contracts and actually used gigs of our service for spam on a highspeed package...
I tell ya... it's a small world!
spam doesn't fall far from the spam tree
You're right about that... I went to school with Eric, he was a friend of mine 5 years ago... funny thing is, I can see him getting into something like this
haha
However, if you are saying that the creators of the filesharing networks are responsible, then the logical extension of your argument would be to say that the builders of the alleys should be held resposible for the actions of those who occupy their creations.
Sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense
I think the analogy was a little flawed to start with... if you extend it to the builders of the alleys, then you need also define the active job of the owners. In Kazaa, the writers and owners have an active role in maintaining the network, updating the software, and generally providing a decent active service, etc. The builders of an alley; well, technically they don't build the alley, but for arguments sake, once it's built it's built. Now, if the builders, say, also owned and maintained an alley as a service to those who supposedly are to utilize it, then yes, I would say they have the responsibility of being held accountable for the actions going on within.
If the cops come along to the alley owners and say - hey, we're arresting you for promoting and maintaining illegal activities in your alleys, I'd highly doubt they could cop out by saying - sir, we built the alleys for the few who walk through it, and we have no way of knowing, let alone stopping, all this 'illegal activity' you speak of.
That, my friend, simply doesn't make sense...
the law supports his ability to parody without permission,...Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties
Therein lies the catch. He's all fine because he's asking permission AND getting profit.
If he weren't in it for the money, he wouldn't need permission.
If he didn't get permission, he couldn't be in it for the money.
Wierd Al does require permission for his purpose, to make a profit off his parodies.
fully agreed. However, I'd be very, VERY distressed as an artist if I could no longer be sure of selling my artistic creations as a whole, or as I intend them to be sold, even if it's an album which I decide to break into 10-16 tracks but want to keep as a whole. I would want to know that if I made an album like that, that it would only ever be sold as a whole, and not made available anywhere legally in parts, if that was my intent.
:) I'm glad it remained civilized hehe
Obviously it wouldn't be legally possible without my consent of course. But if it's made legal for a third party to sell portions of an album legally, or downloading portions made legal, then I'd get worried. It should still always end up going back to the owner of the IP to decide how the media may be distributed legally to the public.
The public's rights in purchasing should never overshadow the owner's rights in selling. The power given the purchaser is the choice NOT to buy, and through that make a statement to the seller that their product is either not desired or not worth it.
But yes, we seem to agree about our main points. It was fun discussing this
well the guy who I'm discussing this with doesn't seem to think so...
and of course analogies can't prove a point, but they help strengthen it by helping it be better understood. that's their point...
Firstly, I agreed that albums aren't necessarily meant to be experienced as a whole... perhaps my 'most artists' phrases weren't the best choice of words. On a fundamental level, you're right, most artists don't care, otherwise the radio, singles, cover bands, all of that media wouldn't be as popular as they are.
And I know plenty of albums that are meant to be played as a whole; for example, any live album where there's no audible breaks between tracks, are intended to be listened together, otherwise they wouldn't blend the tracks together. There are plenty of albums where song progressions occur, either flowing from one to the next or just in theme or style.
My point is that unless an artist actually sells singles of the songs, or sells them as downloadable single mp3's, or you hear them individually on the radio, or anywhere else, then what right have you to say that you deserve to only have one, or a portion of the songs that are included on a CD you do not wish to buy?
The point is, the price is what it is. If you don't like the price, then you don't believe it's good enough for the price, and you forfeit your right to own the song or album. People do not get that.
My whole argument is solely based on the fact that it is wrong to break the law to change the law, especially when the law can be changed by lawful processes. But people are so wanting and self-seeking they they feel they deserve, or have a right to get what they want for what they feel is fair. But if something they want isn't 'fairly priced', they feel they have the right to take it, and maybe give what they feel it's worth. And that, in my eyes, is flat out, 100% wrong.
If there's one song on an album which is only sold together, never heard in pieces or sold in singles, I'm not going to just go and download the one song I want, or borrow it and rip the one song. The album was intended to be sold as one collection, and even if I only think one song is good, it's my own choice as to whether I believe the album is worth buying or not, for the price that the merchant, artist, or label, want for it. If I don't think it's fair, that's too bad for me, I can't get the song. If I'm that desperate, I'll write the artist, or label, or store, who knows, and see if they'll give me a break.
That's my point.
Not just whether or not album are always intended to be listened to and owned as a whole, which not all, quite obviously and thankfully, aren't.
I guess this is where we differ on the meaning or purpose of an album. I view an album in most cases as the same structure to a book. The book is collection of whatever it's made of - chapters, topics, etc. But it's a collection, in other words, everything within falls under the topic the book is intended to be presenting. That, in itself, is a whole. You don't go to a library and remove section 4 and 5 from the book because the others don't interest you. You get the entire book. If the author wanted to let you have certain sections on their own, they would release them in separate books. Of course, nothing is stopping you from ONLY reading the sections you want to read, and not the rest. But the artist's intent was that the entire book be had with each section.
That's how I see albums. Most artists gather their songs into an album, order them how they want feel is best to experience the full effect they intend, and hope that people will get the entire album. You may only want one or two songs from the album, but that doesn't negate the right the artist has for wanting each person to have the whole. You may not listen to every song the way it's intended, that's your choice, but it's offered there, and no one is offering a 'cheapened' version of their creativity.
The way it seems these days is that people think it's unfair to force people to buy whole albums if they only like one or two songs. My gripe with that - if the artist really wants to sell the album as a whole, you have NO RIGHT to expect freedom to choose whatever you want, nor illegally go about doing it. But, obviously the real issue here lies with the artists who really don't care, and are only forced to release full albums because the label says so. And here is where music downloading begins.
As for an artist's painting, it all depends on what you consider the album. Like I said, I see the album, from most artists, as intended to be one artistic creation, just as a painting. So my analogy stands, as it pertains to these types of albums and artistic intent. Your analogy works for albums like collections where the songs themselves are their own artistic creation and have no effect or bearing on the songs preceding and following them on the album.
ok then... screw any historic debates where 'examples' had to be made... why even have the term "for example"? I mean, all they're doing is making an analogy as an example...
Yes analogies can never be perfect examples, because the only perfect example is the original situation itself. That doesn't negate the use of analogies to make a point... not at all!
holy cow, lighten up buddy! it was a joke, sheesh
Don't try to force me to compute the way you...want me to compute...Don't sneak information off of my computers...It's MY computer...I don't lease it...I don't run it at your good pleasure, or under your benevolent supervision, or to your tune, or at your permission...It's MINE!
/gratuitous lotr reference
Can't you hear yourself? Don't you know who you sound like?
"mine"... it's been called that before; but not by you.
If anyone, at any point, believes they know everything 100% as truth and fact and they are the only ones correct, they are professing perfection. The only perfection is biblical truth. Each denomination should strive to mirror biblical truth as accurately as possible. There are clear-cut practices that some denominations profess that are not biblical, such as supporting abortion. However, the real reason denominations exist should only for those areas which are a matter of comfort, or interpretation - not things which are black and white in the Bible. Such as, how much focus do we put on Baptism in the Christian's life? (Baptists generally put a lot of focus as the next step in professing your Christian faith - it does not make you a christian, nor does it deny your faith if you fail to be baptized, but it is a major choice one makes) although other denominations also hold that baptist is important, they don't necessarily hold it is a main point of the denomination. Some denominations are generally quieter, restrained, and some are more charismatic and energetic. Are either wrong? No. That is the point to denominations.
It's taken too far when a denomination believes that to make everyone happy they need to support a belief that is on very shaky ground at best. Such as supporting abortion, allowing homosexual pastors or preachers or men of cloth (clearly anti-Biblical), allowing female pastors/preachers/deacons (this one is very shaky as it borders on modern sexism), and much more.
God calls us in denominations NOT to quarrel among ourselves about unimportant things, but to come together with faith like a child. We all believe the same fundamental truths, and that's where the importance of Christianity lies. If we let the little disagreements get to us, it distracts us from our ultimate goal and purpose of spreading the gospel and the 'good news'. The quarrels are all the world sees these days. That's just very sad.
Going to an art sale, and let's say an artist is there trying to sell his work. You say you love a particular painting, so you get your camera, snap just the coastline in bottom left of the picture that really is only part of the picture you like, pay him a fraction of the cost of the painting, thank him and walk away.
Now imagine what thoughts are going through his head? Might he care? maybe, maybe not. A REAL artist will, because he created the painting as a whole, and even though he technically got 'equivalent compensation' for the portion you took, you only took a portion of the whole. No loss to him, but he made some quick $ off of it. A shallow artist wouldn't care. A real artist would.
If an artist releases an album he intends to be heard as one piece, it's NOT your right to only want a piece of it without getting the whole. The way he intended it to be sold is the way you should buy it. Is there any direct consequence? sure, maybe not. But you -are- doing a disservice to the artist by not experiencing the whole that he intended you to experience. IF the artist decides to sell the songs individually on say iTunes, then go ahead, get'em all you want... but until then, the only way you SHOULD get the songs is the way intended by the artist. And usually you can tell if the songs are supposed to be heard together or if it doesn't really matter.
I dunno, now I'm just rambling.
I also am a Christian. Interesting how many 'rational Christians' can have differing viewpoints, no? Anyway... I won't get into the 'God used evolution' debate, as that has theological flaws in itself...
/rant :P
As for stem cell research, as Christians, all we are against is abortion. The killing of a living human being. This does not mean that embrios are equivalent to a thinking, intelligent, human shaped person. But the point that the egg is fertilized is the point that the 'human being' is formed; at that point they continue to grow, whether it be in the womb or out, into the person who's foundation was formed when the egg and seed joined. Therefore, as Christians we are against abortion because it is the killing of a human being.
It's not about the ethics of stem cell research. It's not just about the issue of 'playing God'. You are right, there is so much more to God than creating life. However, also remember that 'cloning' isn't creating life, cloning is manually taking a step to jumpstart life, from existing life. Cloning doesn't make us essentually 'Gods', but as was said, the process is flawed, and it becomes a matter of 'birthing' twins which have high percentages of deaths - essentially we create our own mass murder. If morally we agree murder is wrong, then abortion, and the current process of cloning is wrong.
Now if you say that well, eventually cloning could be perfected, then you are trying to rationalize the killing of who knows how many human beings to get there... 'the ends justifies the means'? Sorry, no.
From the real Christian standpoint, it always comes down to the taking of a life, whether it be in regards to abortion or cloning. Stem cells can also be found in other places than embryos as discussed here after a quick google search. If it's a matter of which method to use - use the one that does not include murder.
I'll second that. I was going to pick up the D60 early this year, but the week I was going to get it I heard it was discontinued for the 10D. Once the release date was announced, I was prepared to go pick it up. Stocks were limited, and Canon was slow on getting them out the door, but I got one on release date, and I have been happy ever since.
:)
;)
I had a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 film SLR to begin with, and decided to keep the body so I could still use film if I wanted to later on. Suffice to say - I haven't touched the Rebel 2000 since I bought my 10D.
I've looked at other cameras and the settings themselves are simply just not as intuitive as the Canon line. The fact that you've got everything from fully automatic to fully manual, and the ability to set one property and have the rest automatic for every camera setting for each property in between (aperture, speed), with f-stop over/under exposure, even a setting to use the AF points to set the best aperture to have everything in focus with the right speed for a good exposure, plus 'beginner' automatic settings for the type of picture you're taking so everything is optimized for that type, is really nice to have. And with an ISO range of 100 to 3200 (!) flash photographer is more of an accessory than a photography essential... in a dark scene, and ISO setting of 1600 can still print a quality 4x6 print with little 'grain'. Especially after digitally touched up
At the time I bought it, the 10D was the best quality in its digital SLR class. And the fact I could use my 2 lenses from my Rebel 2000 with the 10D also saved me some $. Of course, it was $2500 CAN at the time... the next model series up (the 1D and 1Ds) were $5000-$10000 I believe... so yeah, 10D's definitely worth the price. And now there's the EOS digital Rebel which is basically a cheaper/updated model of the 10D.
so if you're looking for a cheap film SLR, I can sell you my old EOS Rebel 2000 body
Anyone that works inside a major corporation can attest to much bigger Freuds going on inside those
Much bigger Freuds? Careful what you say, wouldn't want you to make any more Feudian slips...!
Given so many people seem to be against this, as it stands right now it's still very far off...
:)
now if you believe the biblical account of the mark of the beast, according to the biblical account it's not a matter of choice that these are implemented. It won't be a "oh this is cool, I should get this" choice that people make. biblically it's the antichrist that requires people to get this. As you said (food for thought) what if everyone eventually believes that Home Land Security (in whatever form it may be in the future) IS essential? What if the leader at that time is 'forced' to make a decision, maybe due to continued terrorist threats or disasters, that homeland security must be increased to a mandatory advanced tracking system? What if something happens that eventually causes the masses to value this highly advanced tracking system for all citizens so only citizens have 'freedom' within the country?
if you think about it, right now the chances of something like this being implemented on a wide scale are practically nil. Combine it with imminent threat, so it becomes the 'best choice' amidst other undesirable choices or risks, and it's got a good possibility...
just food for thought... I'm not a conspiracy theorist
thanks for saying something... I completely agree. Unfortunately it's hard to make comments about morality based on Christianity in discussions like this. This issue isn't specifically about 'christianity'... it's about simple morality.
sex isn't wrong, sex isn't a sin. Sex is only a portion of the bigger picture. people don't realize that lust is the main issue, and sex is only a fraction of that. people don't understand that lust isn't something totally contained in your own mind. Lust inherently disgraces another person, unless that person is your spouse. people don't realize that marriage is more than just two names on a piece of paper endorsed by the government. people simply don't realize that anything related to lust outside of marriage is wrong - whether that be having sex or gratifying yourself by watching two other people have sex.
Build into your children the morality we all follow - not a relative morality - else the world would be chaos... sorry, it already is... teach children morality, allow them to make their own choices, allow them to make mistakes - to a degree - teach them to learn, teach them that not everything has to be 'experienced' to be 'understood', teach them to be independent by realizing that doesn't mean they can go off and make their own choices based on their own decisions of what's right and wrong.
Just as everyone knows you can't truly be a leader until you've known defeat... you can't be truly independent until you know you can't do it all on your own!
obviously he's refering to the fact that pornography is wrong, not everything about it... sex isn't against christianty... sex outside of marriage is wrong, sex with anyone but the person you're married to is wrong, and sex is only one aspect of lust, which is wrong outside of marriage, and this then includes lusting after anyone else, even if they're the ones having sex... lust is the key, not sex.
thank god many kids DO think like him.