Well, no, producers are good... but when they are controlled by the Record company and not the artist they usually do more harm than good. You can litterally hire a producer online now-a-days. I know a guy that does it for a living now. He produces entire records remotely and it works out pretty well.
Record companies have nothing to do with that. They hire other people to do it and subject them to the same nasty contracts the artists are subjected to.
There's a gaping hole in the side of our cruise ship, but no need to panic folks, it's been there since we left port so this is nothing new, just new to us!
The problem is there is absolutely no need for a record company anymore. The record companies are trying their damnedest to keep that a secret for as long as possible.
Photographs of a public event copyrightable? The public event itself copyrightable? It's stupid. All around. If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself. And likewise, if I'm dancing around in the park like a fool covered in chalk and I try to claim ownership over pictures you take of me, or prevent you from publishing them, I'm equally as dumb.
If it's in public, where anyone could have viewed it should they have been there, there shouldn't be a copyright concern. It should automatically be public domain. I'm looking at you Olympic committee.
Who the fuck cares? Do you seriously think there would have been ANY difference between the 2 of them? Obama has expanded every program liberals hated about Bush including his wars, and Obama is certainly more liberal than Gore. They all want the same thing... power... and they all do the same god damned thing once they get it: Whatever it takes to keep that power.
What purpose would it serve for the NSA to brick a bunch of phoneS at one time?
To stop a revolution?
When asking yourself if any new power the government gains is good or bad, you need to think of more than just the immediate future. Instead think "If in 50 years or so, we elect the next Hitler to office, what's the worst he could do with this new power?"
In 50 years that's entirely possible that we'd swing to some extreme that we'd make such a mistake... over 100 years it's twice as likely. 500? Countries are around for a very long time, and government NEVER gives up power. So when we do get our next tyrant, what could he do with the ability to disable all mobile communication at once? Will there be any other kind of communication by that point? Wouldn't it be, in effect, the ability to silence the entire populace?
I tell my friends that if this country had a straight up popular vote, we would never, ever again elect a Republican.
Except for: George W Bush William McKinley Ulysses Grant George H.W. Bush William Taft Ronald Reagan Andrew Johnson Dwight Eisenhower Herbert Hoover Theodore Roosevelt Richard Nixon Calvin Coolidge Warren Harding
But hey, Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote. So your theory might hold true... maybe.
Ah no, he's avoiding extradition to the United States where he would most assuredly be tortured, put through a sham military trial and then never heard from again. I wont even argue if he's guilty of the allegations in Sweden. He certainly should face the authorities on that, but not at the risk of his own life. Secret courts and secret rulings have a tendency to screw up "Justice"
You know he wants to end the Federal reserve right? Can you imagine ANY "corporate fat cat" liking that idea? He has a slightly better chance at getting elected than his father, but basically all the money in corporate America will be against him should he get nominated. His only real chance is if the market collapse we all know is coming, hits before the election.
The majority of people buy the prettiest phone in the display case when they go to sign their contract. I know several people that "accidentally" got a windows phone recently and were surprised to find that all their old favorite games and such simply don't exist as far as their concerned now.
A contractor gets paid for a job. The contractor has to calculate the chance of his own error and how much it would cost him to fix it into his bid.
You are either hourly or salaried. You get paid a specific amount for a specific amount of time given back. I'm that way to... and if my boss wants me to spend the day washing windows, I'll do just that. My productivity is his problem, and if I'm not productive or produce too much error he needs to fire me. If he wants a contractor he's welcome to go get one, but contractors cost a hell of a lot more than my salary does.
Well you're never going to cure another man of his bigotry against you and your beliefs by reciprocating that bigotry. In my time I've debated a lot of fundamentalists of several different religions. In almost every case I got to the end of the debate feeling pity for the person because I'd eventually realize their fundamentalism was just a manifestation of a much deeper set of problems.
One gentleman was standing on a street corner, with his son, telling every woman that walked by in a skirt that she was... well, a lady of the night... anyways, I felt bad for his kid that was forced to hold up a not-very-nice sign while his father was clearly losing his mind in front of a crowd so I engaged the man. He actually claimed that he hadn't sinned in 10 years. Which means he clearly didn't understand that bible AT ALL. So it all came down to: "Sir, could God make a square circle?" which is of course the old Omnipotence paradox. He got angry and started yelling that I was just using a straw-man argument. I explained that I wasn't, and that this question did indeed have a correct answer. So I asked his kid holding the sign what he thought. He said "I don't know" and I told him "Neither do I! Welcome to the club!" While God may be omnipotent, he does not expect you to be. You can not know everything about about anything and he just expects you to do the best that you can.
His father stored off with him in tow, and at the very least that particular street corner was more peaceful, but hopefully his son could find his way through faith without the anger his father was consumed with. I don't know what happened to his father to make him that way, but I certainly don't hate him for it. I pity him, and did what I could to help him out of the clear hell he was living in.
I'm about sick of people engaging in these debates with "Creationists" over evolution. Each and every time, the person supporting evolution argues the completely wrong argument. Instead of arguing the validity of Evolution, they instead try to argue that there is no God... or that Evolution means there is no God. Meanwhile the creationist simply has to lean on his Bible and say "Well see? It says right here... God did that bit, that's how!"
It's pretty much impossible to prove some omnipotent being didn't just make everything the way it is. How can you argue against that other than its statistical unlikelihood?
So, the correct argument... It's simply: There is nothing about Evolution that contradicts a belief in God. You can believe in Evolution and Believe God, just as a belief that Egg Noodles are tasty would have no baring on your belief in God either. The Bible doesn't mention egg noodles, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time.
But oh! you say, the bible says the earth is 6000 years old, so obviously it contradicts Evolution. Well, no, on all accounts. First off, we didn't decide the Bible is the word of God yet, there are lots of religions out there after all. But lets assume so... nowhere in the bible is the age of the earth mentioned. You'd think that if this was something God was particularly concerned about, he' have stated something like "The earth was created on January 1 3995 BC" but no... instead we have biblical scholars that have added up the dates between different events in the bible and declared the age of the earth as 6000 years. To me, this isn't at all clear. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to find flaws in the bible here, I'm trying to get things right. If the Bible is the real word of God and he really wanted us to be arguing over how old the earth really was... Don't you think he would have put it in there? He wasn't sneaky about Murder... or stealing... but the entire natural history of creation he made a riddle? That doesn't make sense to me.
There are lots of other facts and figures that are mixed up in the Bible. Again, I'm not looking for flaws. I personally believe in God and think the Christian bible is indeed his work. I just do not think the Bible is the white-papers for the earth. I think it's poetry (and in fact, a lot of it really is poetry) and like poetry needs to be accepted as a whole work, not dissected and fiddled with to find hidden meaning. The truth of the Bible is obvious. Those things that seem questionable, we should leave that way. Make your own decision about what they mean and don't force it on others.
We don't. We're aware of a tiny fraction what was around then... and usually only animals that had skeletons. Think of sharks... the only reason we know how long they've been around if because we find their teeth. There could have been entire species of invertebrates that ruled the earth and we'd have little chance of ever finding out.
Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones. But only the loud and idiotic get on TV so now we have a christian stereotype. I believe in God and I don't presume to tell him how he went about creating the universe. In my opinion science is the method by which we understand God.
As far as the literal interpretation of the Bible goes... I've never really thought any religion, especially Christianity, intended for entire professions to be wrapped up in deciphering their holy works word for word to find hidden meanings. The Bible gives a pretty clear and definitive guide to being a good person. If someone needs to spend half an hour flipping from page to page to show me the clues to that lead them to believe some secret truth held there-in I usually just write them off as having way too much time on their hands. I know I'm a good person and have faith that God agrees with me. After I'm dead, if I find out Gods as big of a Jerk as these people have been claiming all along, well I don't want to hang out with him anyway. And if I find out there is no God... well I guess I wont find out will I? So it doesn't matter.
Well, first off, there is no "Dark side" of the moon.
Secondly, since the moons in tidal lock with the earth, the side facing us pretty much gets the least amount of light with the exception of the full moon. So, if light were a concern to them, the majority of the mining would be done outside of our view. Also, I believe most of the resources they'd be interested in are at the 2 poles. So again, it's unlikely you could see it from earth.
This is a bill coming from the GOP??? and its pro transparent science?? Color me skeptical, but this looks like a good idea to me
It is, someone was thinking, and used the GOPs conspiracy theories to gain some traction on a legitimate piece of legislation. You can tell who the ideologs are here by all the leftists trying to shoot it down out of the gate just because it came from the republicans. This is the problem with a 2 party system.
I used to handled DMCA requests for an ISP. They are awful. There is no real way to verify the person complaining is who they say they are, much less that they own the content. What if the complaint came from Robin Thicke himself? Does he own his own songs? Or does his record company? Micheal Jackson owned the Beatles albums... and how do you know this is really him? All you got was an email...
Then, on the other side you have the supposed infringer. First you have to verify they are doing what the complaint says... no easy task. It also involves invading their privacy, annoying them, etc... and keep in mind they are the ones PAYING you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, producers are good... but when they are controlled by the Record company and not the artist they usually do more harm than good. You can litterally hire a producer online now-a-days. I know a guy that does it for a living now. He produces entire records remotely and it works out pretty well.
Record companies have nothing to do with that. They hire other people to do it and subject them to the same nasty contracts the artists are subjected to.
That's what the Internet is for now.
There's a gaping hole in the side of our cruise ship, but no need to panic folks, it's been there since we left port so this is nothing new, just new to us!
The problem is there is absolutely no need for a record company anymore. The record companies are trying their damnedest to keep that a secret for as long as possible.
Photographs of a public event copyrightable? The public event itself copyrightable? It's stupid. All around. If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself. And likewise, if I'm dancing around in the park like a fool covered in chalk and I try to claim ownership over pictures you take of me, or prevent you from publishing them, I'm equally as dumb.
If it's in public, where anyone could have viewed it should they have been there, there shouldn't be a copyright concern. It should automatically be public domain. I'm looking at you Olympic committee.
Who the fuck cares? Do you seriously think there would have been ANY difference between the 2 of them? Obama has expanded every program liberals hated about Bush including his wars, and Obama is certainly more liberal than Gore. They all want the same thing... power... and they all do the same god damned thing once they get it: Whatever it takes to keep that power.
What purpose would it serve for the NSA to brick a bunch of phoneS at one time?
To stop a revolution?
When asking yourself if any new power the government gains is good or bad, you need to think of more than just the immediate future. Instead think "If in 50 years or so, we elect the next Hitler to office, what's the worst he could do with this new power?"
In 50 years that's entirely possible that we'd swing to some extreme that we'd make such a mistake... over 100 years it's twice as likely. 500? Countries are around for a very long time, and government NEVER gives up power. So when we do get our next tyrant, what could he do with the ability to disable all mobile communication at once? Will there be any other kind of communication by that point? Wouldn't it be, in effect, the ability to silence the entire populace?
I tell my friends that if this country had a straight up popular vote, we would never, ever again elect a Republican.
Except for:
George W Bush
William McKinley
Ulysses Grant
George H.W. Bush
William Taft
Ronald Reagan
Andrew Johnson
Dwight Eisenhower
Herbert Hoover
Theodore Roosevelt
Richard Nixon
Calvin Coolidge
Warren Harding
But hey, Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote. So your theory might hold true... maybe.
Barely scarping by? where I live that's an excellent wage, the average wage for a teacher in my state is $55k... AND they get summers off!!!
Ah no, he's avoiding extradition to the United States where he would most assuredly be tortured, put through a sham military trial and then never heard from again. I wont even argue if he's guilty of the allegations in Sweden. He certainly should face the authorities on that, but not at the risk of his own life. Secret courts and secret rulings have a tendency to screw up "Justice"
Of course it can. How else could my calculator work.
You know he wants to end the Federal reserve right? Can you imagine ANY "corporate fat cat" liking that idea? He has a slightly better chance at getting elected than his father, but basically all the money in corporate America will be against him should he get nominated. His only real chance is if the market collapse we all know is coming, hits before the election.
He said it was intentional, that in no way makes it any more intelligent.
The majority of people buy the prettiest phone in the display case when they go to sign their contract. I know several people that "accidentally" got a windows phone recently and were surprised to find that all their old favorite games and such simply don't exist as far as their concerned now.
A contractor gets paid for a job. The contractor has to calculate the chance of his own error and how much it would cost him to fix it into his bid.
You are either hourly or salaried. You get paid a specific amount for a specific amount of time given back. I'm that way to... and if my boss wants me to spend the day washing windows, I'll do just that. My productivity is his problem, and if I'm not productive or produce too much error he needs to fire me. If he wants a contractor he's welcome to go get one, but contractors cost a hell of a lot more than my salary does.
Well you're never going to cure another man of his bigotry against you and your beliefs by reciprocating that bigotry. In my time I've debated a lot of fundamentalists of several different religions. In almost every case I got to the end of the debate feeling pity for the person because I'd eventually realize their fundamentalism was just a manifestation of a much deeper set of problems.
One gentleman was standing on a street corner, with his son, telling every woman that walked by in a skirt that she was... well, a lady of the night... anyways, I felt bad for his kid that was forced to hold up a not-very-nice sign while his father was clearly losing his mind in front of a crowd so I engaged the man. He actually claimed that he hadn't sinned in 10 years. Which means he clearly didn't understand that bible AT ALL. So it all came down to: "Sir, could God make a square circle?" which is of course the old Omnipotence paradox. He got angry and started yelling that I was just using a straw-man argument. I explained that I wasn't, and that this question did indeed have a correct answer. So I asked his kid holding the sign what he thought. He said "I don't know" and I told him "Neither do I! Welcome to the club!" While God may be omnipotent, he does not expect you to be. You can not know everything about about anything and he just expects you to do the best that you can.
His father stored off with him in tow, and at the very least that particular street corner was more peaceful, but hopefully his son could find his way through faith without the anger his father was consumed with. I don't know what happened to his father to make him that way, but I certainly don't hate him for it. I pity him, and did what I could to help him out of the clear hell he was living in.
I'm about sick of people engaging in these debates with "Creationists" over evolution. Each and every time, the person supporting evolution argues the completely wrong argument. Instead of arguing the validity of Evolution, they instead try to argue that there is no God... or that Evolution means there is no God. Meanwhile the creationist simply has to lean on his Bible and say "Well see? It says right here... God did that bit, that's how!"
It's pretty much impossible to prove some omnipotent being didn't just make everything the way it is. How can you argue against that other than its statistical unlikelihood?
So, the correct argument... It's simply: There is nothing about Evolution that contradicts a belief in God. You can believe in Evolution and Believe God, just as a belief that Egg Noodles are tasty would have no baring on your belief in God either. The Bible doesn't mention egg noodles, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time.
But oh! you say, the bible says the earth is 6000 years old, so obviously it contradicts Evolution.
Well, no, on all accounts. First off, we didn't decide the Bible is the word of God yet, there are lots of religions out there after all. But lets assume so... nowhere in the bible is the age of the earth mentioned. You'd think that if this was something God was particularly concerned about, he' have stated something like "The earth was created on January 1 3995 BC" but no... instead we have biblical scholars that have added up the dates between different events in the bible and declared the age of the earth as 6000 years. To me, this isn't at all clear. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to find flaws in the bible here, I'm trying to get things right. If the Bible is the real word of God and he really wanted us to be arguing over how old the earth really was... Don't you think he would have put it in there? He wasn't sneaky about Murder... or stealing... but the entire natural history of creation he made a riddle? That doesn't make sense to me.
There are lots of other facts and figures that are mixed up in the Bible. Again, I'm not looking for flaws. I personally believe in God and think the Christian bible is indeed his work. I just do not think the Bible is the white-papers for the earth. I think it's poetry (and in fact, a lot of it really is poetry) and like poetry needs to be accepted as a whole work, not dissected and fiddled with to find hidden meaning. The truth of the Bible is obvious. Those things that seem questionable, we should leave that way. Make your own decision about what they mean and don't force it on others.
I really thought we knew more.
We don't. We're aware of a tiny fraction what was around then... and usually only animals that had skeletons. Think of sharks... the only reason we know how long they've been around if because we find their teeth. There could have been entire species of invertebrates that ruled the earth and we'd have little chance of ever finding out.
No, you got trolled.
Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones. But only the loud and idiotic get on TV so now we have a christian stereotype. I believe in God and I don't presume to tell him how he went about creating the universe. In my opinion science is the method by which we understand God.
As far as the literal interpretation of the Bible goes... I've never really thought any religion, especially Christianity, intended for entire professions to be wrapped up in deciphering their holy works word for word to find hidden meanings. The Bible gives a pretty clear and definitive guide to being a good person. If someone needs to spend half an hour flipping from page to page to show me the clues to that lead them to believe some secret truth held there-in I usually just write them off as having way too much time on their hands. I know I'm a good person and have faith that God agrees with me. After I'm dead, if I find out Gods as big of a Jerk as these people have been claiming all along, well I don't want to hang out with him anyway. And if I find out there is no God... well I guess I wont find out will I? So it doesn't matter.
Well, first off, there is no "Dark side" of the moon.
Secondly, since the moons in tidal lock with the earth, the side facing us pretty much gets the least amount of light with the exception of the full moon. So, if light were a concern to them, the majority of the mining would be done outside of our view. Also, I believe most of the resources they'd be interested in are at the 2 poles. So again, it's unlikely you could see it from earth.
Anecdotal evidence is usually not all that useful. Real statistics are more reliable: http://chart.av-comparatives.o...
Actually, I like Beta.
This is a bill coming from the GOP??? and its pro transparent science?? Color me skeptical, but this looks like a good idea to me
It is, someone was thinking, and used the GOPs conspiracy theories to gain some traction on a legitimate piece of legislation. You can tell who the ideologs are here by all the leftists trying to shoot it down out of the gate just because it came from the republicans. This is the problem with a 2 party system.
I used to handled DMCA requests for an ISP. They are awful. There is no real way to verify the person complaining is who they say they are, much less that they own the content. What if the complaint came from Robin Thicke himself? Does he own his own songs? Or does his record company? Micheal Jackson owned the Beatles albums... and how do you know this is really him? All you got was an email...
Then, on the other side you have the supposed infringer. First you have to verify they are doing what the complaint says... no easy task. It also involves invading their privacy, annoying them, etc... and keep in mind they are the ones PAYING you.