I agree with your post but the first sentence - I never said his hypothesis was invalid just because I couldn't think of the experiment to prove it. That was left up to him.
It's not my job to prove other people's hypothesis - it's the proposers. That's the #1 issue I have with ID. Even as a Christian, I don't like ID because there's nothing to test. If the come up with a good experiment, like "using time travel viewing technology see the Hand of God appear 12,000,000 years ago to inject a creature with DNA altering viruses", then I'll be happy to go with with it.
So until they have "We will look at the fossil record and see X to prove Y", I can't even consider them.
I hate to disagree, but #3 is not an experiment. #1 isn't even a valid observation - it has large gaps. Let's rewrite this:
1. Life exists today. However, to create that life, the environment does not exist since it seems to be very specific. I observe that life will not form in:
volcanoes pools of acid boiling water areas where bad Elvis impersonators are singing
In these areas, there is no life forming.
Hypothesis: Therefore, some external force must have caused life to occur.
Now, you can form your experiment. What that would be? Hey, you do your own homework. You might try to find some combination of factors that causes life (say, self replicating DNA strands) to exist, and state that that combination does not occur in nature.
So, you have the four steps - but for *what*, I honestly can not figure out.
True science has facts: I read the thermometer and is said "50 degrees Celsius".
The hypothesis is "I lit a fire under the thermometer and the thermometer reading changes. Therefore, if I light a fire under another thermometer it should read 50 degrees Celsius".
The hypothesis is that the T-Rex was a predator, or that he was a scavenger. Both present evidence for either side - but neither is a "fact". A fact would be "I found a bone and this is what it looked like".
That other people hold up such hypothesis and theory as fact is their own fault for not applying the scientific method. We teach in schools the theories that have the most support and the most evidence - not the ones we "have faith in". We teach the facts in school (so-and-so sat outside and look up in the heavens and wrote this book, and based on his theory we think we go around the sun, and here's the evidence of that theory), and we should teach the theory, and good science teachers will explain the difference.
A short breakdown:
A belief is something you think is true. Faith is the believing in something and acting on that belief in the absence of evidence (aka: faith is the evidence of things unseen, as I think the scripture goes). Knowledge is belief that has been proven.
And I know I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm sorry, but the comment "It's not any less scientific than evolution" is a fascinating one to me.
Let's break down the scientific method:
1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Experiment 4. Results, start over at 1.
Evolution we know happens (see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc). However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.
How did Darwin come up with this theory?
1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment. 2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above). 3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive. Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed. Therefore, there should be Fossil B that is like Fossil A, only it includes some of the mutations of C but not all of them as the species adapted to better fit the environment. This fossil should be between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 years old. If we find it, then we know we're right. If we don't, then either we need a better theory or need to keep looking." (For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory). 4. Results: Over time, thousands of fossil records and observations of species has held up the Theory of Evolution. Adaptations have come into play (such as the "Survival of the Fittest and the Luckiest", which holds that sometimes pure chance comes into play of wiping out a dominant species, such as an asteroid, but when equilibrium is reached Survival of the Fittest is shown to work again).
This leads to a "theory": a set of rules that *currently* work in explaining a phenomena. The Theory of Relativity has been held up by experiment (such as "can we find bended light around a large gravity source. Answer: Yes.). As long as no one comes up with a better scientifically proved theory, the theory is held up.
Intelligent Design doesn't follow these rules. It goes like this:
1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there. 2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment. 3. Ummmm....
The "step 3" is important. With Intelligent Design, you *can't test it*. Actually, let me back up: you're not allowed to test it. The only way to prove/disprove Intelligent Design is to find a tablet between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 million years old that says "Note to self: change DNA of duck billed platypus to make it better to survive. Love, ID."
If you do bring up a changing fossil record and say "Look, we have a changing species over time", the ID'er will say "Ah, see - the designer changed the species". Again, no proof, no experiment needed.
This is why ID is not science, or even a theory: it's a belief. It's a nice belief. Do I believe some God/Goddess/Higher Being made the Universe? Sure. Do I think that They put a hand in everything?
Who cares? Until such a being gets on the Megaphone of the Cosmos and says "Hey, dudes - check out Chromosome #15 where I spelled out 'Jesus if fucking metal", I'll trust that They wrote the universe so that we could
Even with the apology, it seems that the software is still not available.
So it's like "Sorry we invaded our country, killed your citizens, but didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction - but hey, sorry! And no, we won't give you your country back until things are the way we want them."
Until the software is back up, Warner can cram their apology up their ass.
It's OK to copy the iPod design down to the "metal back/plastic colored front", but heaven forbid that someone should get to use their human interface (which, from what I've seen, it basically "folders that hold music instead of files".
1. We're talking conversion of ice to water to cause the expansion. Ice usually floats, so the ice that was above the ocean is now *under* the ocean (sinking because it is colder), which causes a change in the total *volume* of water.
2. So, with greater volume of water, ocean levels rise and remain cool. Since there's the lack of warmth, glaciers can build up and remain stable for longer without the warm water to cool them.
So really, to stop the ice age you need the water to warm up, which takes a long time (like a thousand years!) since the ice is reflecting the sunlight back out.
Depending on whom you ask, this could be a global warming issue. This is something I researched back in high school and got weird looks, but the logic goes like this:
1. Temperature warms up. Surface ice in the northern/southern reaches melt. This is something we've been seeing with the shrinking glaciers/nothern ice cap/Antartic icebergs melting.
2. Ocean rises, which causes a lowering of the ocean temperature from the influx of cold water.
3. With ocean levels higher, the ocean is able to absorb more energy, which shuts down the warm ocean currents.
4. Without the warm ocean currents, weather patterns are altered. Cold air that would have been warmed by the ocean currents remain cold. In time, the water that melted is converted into ice.
5. With the altered weather patterns and no warm air, the ice age comes into being. The more ice that forms, that more sunlight redirected back into space.
6. This continues until enough build up of ocean warmth.
Or - something like that. It's been a decade or two since I studied it, and I'm sure a meteorologist would do a better job. But what I do recall is that a good chunk of research shows this process can take place in as little as three years - which means it might be a good time to start buying some land down in Mexico....
Don't tell the MPAA - they already tell people you can download an entire DVD movie over a 56K phone link in 15 minutes - imagine what they would tell people how much money they lose per second with this new high speed connection!
I'm on the "No buying Sony" bandwagon right now, though they've almost completed my requirements (pull the Rootkit filled CD's is the first, the second is the publicly promise that they will not do it again).
Because of this, odds are that MS will actually get some of my business. I'm not in the "I'm in line for a Xbox 360" (well, save to buy one and resell it on eBay sicne I'm evil), but lately I've been renting more Gamecube and Xbox games. I'm preparing to sell my PSP partially when there aren't any games I care about, and partially to not support Sony until they stop their DRM issues.
So, for MS to call out "Oh, we're going to help you be secure!" is a good move for them, especially with the upcoming PS3 versus Xbox 360 fight looming. Will it make a difference? Maybe - but as the old line says, "There's no such thing as bad press".
Well, unless you're Sony.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
You could say it's about advertisements. After all, the more people on the Internet, the more people searching Google, so the more money they make, right?
But there's another side, and depending on how they do it, it could either be interesting or scary. I'm betting on the Interesting, but -
With this service, Google will be able to track where everyone in this service goes, and then sell that data to others. Odds are, this would be like Tivo does it: track trends and report anonymous information. So if someone wants to figure out that people who watch "Monster Garage" also watch a lot of "Veronica Mars", they can throw up some he-man car adds on the later show to try and capture those eyeballs.
In the same way, Google could sell anonymous research data to other firms. Something like "people who tend to visit Slashdot also tend to visit digg.com, news.google.com, etc". They don't have to give out individual "this person searched for this", but just trends - even searchable trends, like saying "these web sites reported on this item, and here's what the breakdown of those people who went to that site or searched for that item visited".
Far more effective than the questionaires of "what computer gaming sites do you visit?". With Google providing the access, they can just tell the marketers directly.
Anyway, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
If it is not - then it's called a "joke". Even if you believe in ID, it's still a joke, and a funny one. The parent did not state the validity of ID - merely making a joke about the use of the word "God" in the name of an ancient creature.
If you can not take the joke, then there is something truly sad about your whole position. Heck, people make jokes about mine all the time, and I laugh, because its funny.
So please, think about Turning the Other Cheek, being Blessed with the Meek and all of that.
I realize that this is a long shot, but with the rise of Mac sales and the upcoming change of Macs from PPC to X86, is there a chance if an OS X client? One of the reasons I believe that Blizzards WoW has done so well is because it allows both major desktop OS's to play together, rather than trying to partition on group on a separate server (or predenting they don't even exist, with all of those dollars itching to be spent).
And please - no wishy washy "Sony is committed to evaluating blah, blah, blah" - if there's no intention, just say so, please.
Of course, with Sony's DRM kick and some other things, they're making it easier for me to decide to ban them outright. I can live without a lot of movies (I have 3 small children, so I hardly go these days anyway).
So if they want to break the existing system in the hopes of getting more money, then screw them. I have an entire back catalog of games I haven't gotten around to playing. I can wait a few years.
Can you, Sony? Yes, I know, you won't miss me. But I wonder how many other people you'd piss off along the way - and in a looming battle between Microsoft and Nintendo, can you *really* take that risk?
Well? Do you feel lucky, punk? (Apologies to Clint. I couldn't help myself.)
Granted, I'm on OS X user who uses Linux servers, and I really don't give a rats ass about Gnome versus KDE - I just look at whatever I'm using and launch the app I need.
For Novell to work on one interface isn't saying "Oh, Gnome is the Hawt and KDE is not!" - it's just a cost saving move, and I can agree with that. The question is: will this help lead to a "one Linux Desktop" future where the de-facto standard is Gnome. When that happens, will more apps be Gnome based, or will we continue to see the dual-track desktop development?
I think the idea behind most campaign finance laws is not to stop contributions, but limit them. Same thing here - you can go ahead and pay for web sites and bloggers, but you can't spend millions upon millions of dollars just to overwhelm the Google search system that would equate Candidate X with "child molester".
So I'm not calling that all political speech on the Internet is bad - just that it needs some kind of limit that way that television/radio ads are suppose to be. (Granted, that system is screwed up thanks to loopholes, but at least the attempt is there.)
No kidding - I keep thinking about running but then realize that I don't have the money to do it anyway, and most of my debates would boil down to "I'm sorry - did you actually hear the question or are you incapable of a straight answer?".
This issue is really very complex, and do make it a simple "up or down" measure I think betrays the very issue of free speech that we're dealing with.
According to the Supreme Court, campaign finance laws do not violate the 1st Amendment. The argument basically goes like this:
You can't restrict campaign finance, because that limits free speech.
SCOTUS: Yes, you can, because then it gives all powers of speech into the hands of the few who can massively pay for it, and restricts "pure" free speech - but if you limit the amount each person/group is able to contribute, then it levels the playing field for speech. It's the equivalent to saying that the guy who can buy a 100 foot tall speaker is just exercising his free speech by drowning everybody else out.
So, now we're talking about the Internet. And here's the problem:
If someone has a political blog, that is probably free speech.
If someone pays a large number of people to have political blogs to support their view, is that still free speech, or is that diluting free speech?
What's the difference between paying for an advertisement on television saying that "Candidate so-and-so likes to have sex with black people and make bastard babies, don't vote for him!" and a company buying up advertisement on the Internet saying the same thing?
So, while I don't think that either the Dems or the Repubs have noble interests at heart, this is an interesting challenge. Do you just say "The Internet doesn't have to worry about campaign finance", and give the possibility of the delution of "pure" free speech as discussed by the Supreme Court and previous campaign finance laws, or do you try and put some language saying "If you get money based on your political views, you have to reveal who did it and how much and can only accept X amount".
I'd rather see a law like the "truth in advertising" - if you're getting money for writing the blog/hosting an ad, you have to state on your web site where that comes from and how much. This way people who are just running ads can say "Google adsense", and those getting it from campaign groups can disclosed if they are a hired gun or not. Granted, there is more to the language than this, but this is just my thumbnail sketch, so if you need to split hairs, at least come up with your own complete language to cover the complexity of the issue:).
It's an interesting question, and one that *should* be debated for a good and long time. If you notice, this was the failure not of a majority but of a "mega-majority" of 2/3 to pass the bill. Some further debate and clarification of the language should make it palatable to that majority in the end, which I believe is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your post but the first sentence - I never said his hypothesis was invalid just because I couldn't think of the experiment to prove it. That was left up to him.
It's not my job to prove other people's hypothesis - it's the proposers. That's the #1 issue I have with ID. Even as a Christian, I don't like ID because there's nothing to test. If the come up with a good experiment, like "using time travel viewing technology see the Hand of God appear 12,000,000 years ago to inject a creature with DNA altering viruses", then I'll be happy to go with with it.
So until they have "We will look at the fossil record and see X to prove Y", I can't even consider them.
And experiment proved it was not, so a new hypothesis was needed. Your point?
I hate to disagree, but #3 is not an experiment. #1 isn't even a valid observation - it has large gaps. Let's rewrite this:
1. Life exists today. However, to create that life, the environment does not exist since it seems to be very specific. I observe that life will not form in:
volcanoes
pools of acid
boiling water
areas where bad Elvis impersonators are singing
In these areas, there is no life forming.
Hypothesis: Therefore, some external force must have caused life to occur.
Now, you can form your experiment. What that would be? Hey, you do your own homework. You might try to find some combination of factors that causes life (say, self replicating DNA strands) to exist, and state that that combination does not occur in nature.
So, you have the four steps - but for *what*, I honestly can not figure out.
I'm afraid your T-Rex example is a bad one.
True science has facts: I read the thermometer and is said "50 degrees Celsius".
The hypothesis is "I lit a fire under the thermometer and the thermometer reading changes. Therefore, if I light a fire under another thermometer it should read 50 degrees Celsius".
The hypothesis is that the T-Rex was a predator, or that he was a scavenger. Both present evidence for either side - but neither is a "fact". A fact would be "I found a bone and this is what it looked like".
That other people hold up such hypothesis and theory as fact is their own fault for not applying the scientific method. We teach in schools the theories that have the most support and the most evidence - not the ones we "have faith in". We teach the facts in school (so-and-so sat outside and look up in the heavens and wrote this book, and based on his theory we think we go around the sun, and here's the evidence of that theory), and we should teach the theory, and good science teachers will explain the difference.
A short breakdown:
A belief is something you think is true.
Faith is the believing in something and acting on that belief in the absence of evidence (aka: faith is the evidence of things unseen, as I think the scripture goes).
Knowledge is belief that has been proven.
Thank goodness.
And I know I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm sorry, but the comment "It's not any less scientific than evolution" is a fascinating one to me.
Let's break down the scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Results, start over at 1.
Evolution we know happens (see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc). However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.
How did Darwin come up with this theory?
1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above).
3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive. Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed. Therefore, there should be Fossil B that is like Fossil A, only it includes some of the mutations of C but not all of them as the species adapted to better fit the environment. This fossil should be between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 years old. If we find it, then we know we're right. If we don't, then either we need a better theory or need to keep looking." (For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory).
4. Results: Over time, thousands of fossil records and observations of species has held up the Theory of Evolution. Adaptations have come into play (such as the "Survival of the Fittest and the Luckiest", which holds that sometimes pure chance comes into play of wiping out a dominant species, such as an asteroid, but when equilibrium is reached Survival of the Fittest is shown to work again).
This leads to a "theory": a set of rules that *currently* work in explaining a phenomena. The Theory of Relativity has been held up by experiment (such as "can we find bended light around a large gravity source. Answer: Yes.). As long as no one comes up with a better scientifically proved theory, the theory is held up.
Intelligent Design doesn't follow these rules. It goes like this:
1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there.
2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment.
3. Ummmm....
The "step 3" is important. With Intelligent Design, you *can't test it*. Actually, let me back up: you're not allowed to test it. The only way to prove/disprove Intelligent Design is to find a tablet between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 million years old that says "Note to self: change DNA of duck billed platypus to make it better to survive. Love, ID."
If you do bring up a changing fossil record and say "Look, we have a changing species over time", the ID'er will say "Ah, see - the designer changed the species". Again, no proof, no experiment needed.
This is why ID is not science, or even a theory: it's a belief. It's a nice belief. Do I believe some God/Goddess/Higher Being made the Universe? Sure. Do I think that They put a hand in everything?
Who cares? Until such a being gets on the Megaphone of the Cosmos and says "Hey, dudes - check out Chromosome #15 where I spelled out 'Jesus if fucking metal", I'll trust that They wrote the universe so that we could
Even with the apology, it seems that the software is still not available.
So it's like "Sorry we invaded our country, killed your citizens, but didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction - but hey, sorry! And no, we won't give you your country back until things are the way we want them."
Until the software is back up, Warner can cram their apology up their ass.
I'd like an anti-matter watch. I mean - at least then I wouldn't ever have to worry about telling time once I turned it on, right?
Me: Hey, honey - take a look at this watch.
My Lovely Wife (MLW): Oh - uh, what is that?
Me: Cathode ray tube watch.
MLW: Oh. How much is it?
Me: About $400.
MLW: $400 for that?
Me: Yeah. And you know what?
MLW: What?
Me: That is the exactly opposite of what kind of a watch I want you to buy me for Giftmas someday.
MLW: Got it.
It's OK to copy the iPod design down to the "metal back/plastic colored front", but heaven forbid that someone should get to use their human interface (which, from what I've seen, it basically "folders that hold music instead of files".
Ah - ok. Sure.
Not in this case - recall two things:
1. We're talking conversion of ice to water to cause the expansion. Ice usually floats, so the ice that was above the ocean is now *under* the ocean (sinking because it is colder), which causes a change in the total *volume* of water.
2. So, with greater volume of water, ocean levels rise and remain cool. Since there's the lack of warmth, glaciers can build up and remain stable for longer without the warm water to cool them.
So really, to stop the ice age you need the water to warm up, which takes a long time (like a thousand years!) since the ice is reflecting the sunlight back out.
Depending on whom you ask, this could be a global warming issue. This is something I researched back in high school and got weird looks, but the logic goes like this:
1. Temperature warms up. Surface ice in the northern/southern reaches melt. This is something we've been seeing with the shrinking glaciers/nothern ice cap/Antartic icebergs melting.
2. Ocean rises, which causes a lowering of the ocean temperature from the influx of cold water.
3. With ocean levels higher, the ocean is able to absorb more energy, which shuts down the warm ocean currents.
4. Without the warm ocean currents, weather patterns are altered. Cold air that would have been warmed by the ocean currents remain cold. In time, the water that melted is converted into ice.
5. With the altered weather patterns and no warm air, the ice age comes into being. The more ice that forms, that more sunlight redirected back into space.
6. This continues until enough build up of ocean warmth.
Or - something like that. It's been a decade or two since I studied it, and I'm sure a meteorologist would do a better job. But what I do recall is that a good chunk of research shows this process can take place in as little as three years - which means it might be a good time to start buying some land down in Mexico....
Or else you might have to have some string on hand for -
Oh, wait. Wrong Microsoft product. My bad.
Don't tell the MPAA - they already tell people you can download an entire DVD movie over a 56K phone link in 15 minutes - imagine what they would tell people how much money they lose per second with this new high speed connection!
Or, maybe I am. I decided "Hm - let's check it out."
Fill out the form - done.
Click the link to download - OK.
They state "Mac/PC compatible"! That's good - I can do this on my Powerbook while I'm working on this code.
Except - the only link takes you to a Windows executable. Um - I think they're missing something.
That, and the site looks like it was designed by people who are REALLY HAPPY! WE'RE AWAKE, AND DAMN IT, WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE YOU. Wagh.
Calm down. Take the lesson from Google: Simple. Easy. Not 20 different links and no clue which one to look for. So, too weird - forget it.
I'm on the "No buying Sony" bandwagon right now, though they've almost completed my requirements (pull the Rootkit filled CD's is the first, the second is the publicly promise that they will not do it again).
Because of this, odds are that MS will actually get some of my business. I'm not in the "I'm in line for a Xbox 360" (well, save to buy one and resell it on eBay sicne I'm evil), but lately I've been renting more Gamecube and Xbox games. I'm preparing to sell my PSP partially when there aren't any games I care about, and partially to not support Sony until they stop their DRM issues.
So, for MS to call out "Oh, we're going to help you be secure!" is a good move for them, especially with the upcoming PS3 versus Xbox 360 fight looming. Will it make a difference? Maybe - but as the old line says, "There's no such thing as bad press".
Well, unless you're Sony.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
You could say it's about advertisements. After all, the more people on the Internet, the more people searching Google, so the more money they make, right?
But there's another side, and depending on how they do it, it could either be interesting or scary. I'm betting on the Interesting, but -
With this service, Google will be able to track where everyone in this service goes, and then sell that data to others. Odds are, this would be like Tivo does it: track trends and report anonymous information. So if someone wants to figure out that people who watch "Monster Garage" also watch a lot of "Veronica Mars", they can throw up some he-man car adds on the later show to try and capture those eyeballs.
In the same way, Google could sell anonymous research data to other firms. Something like "people who tend to visit Slashdot also tend to visit digg.com, news.google.com, etc". They don't have to give out individual "this person searched for this", but just trends - even searchable trends, like saying "these web sites reported on this item, and here's what the breakdown of those people who went to that site or searched for that item visited".
Far more effective than the questionaires of "what computer gaming sites do you visit?". With Google providing the access, they can just tell the marketers directly.
Anyway, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I can not decide if you are being a troll or not.
If you are - then - whatever.
If it is not - then it's called a "joke". Even if you believe in ID, it's still a joke, and a funny one. The parent did not state the validity of ID - merely making a joke about the use of the word "God" in the name of an ancient creature.
If you can not take the joke, then there is something truly sad about your whole position. Heck, people make jokes about mine all the time, and I laugh, because its funny.
So please, think about Turning the Other Cheek, being Blessed with the Meek and all of that.
I realize that this is a long shot, but with the rise of Mac sales and the upcoming change of Macs from PPC to X86, is there a chance if an OS X client? One of the reasons I believe that Blizzards WoW has done so well is because it allows both major desktop OS's to play together, rather than trying to partition on group on a separate server (or predenting they don't even exist, with all of those dollars itching to be spent).
And please - no wishy washy "Sony is committed to evaluating blah, blah, blah" - if there's no intention, just say so, please.
Thanks for your time.
I would never buy another Playstation game again.
Of course, with Sony's DRM kick and some other things, they're making it easier for me to decide to ban them outright. I can live without a lot of movies (I have 3 small children, so I hardly go these days anyway).
So if they want to break the existing system in the hopes of getting more money, then screw them. I have an entire back catalog of games I haven't gotten around to playing. I can wait a few years.
Can you, Sony? Yes, I know, you won't miss me. But I wonder how many other people you'd piss off along the way - and in a looming battle between Microsoft and Nintendo, can you *really* take that risk?
Well? Do you feel lucky, punk? (Apologies to Clint. I couldn't help myself.)
Me: OK - now I have my DVR so I can record shows.
Satellite company: Hey, but if you miss a show, you can download it to your DVR!
Me: Uh - that sounds pretty good. How much?
Satellite company: $0.99!
Me: Great - that's a better price than iTunes! So I can download it and watch it on my computer while I'm traveling -
Satellite company: No, you have to watch it at home.
Me: Oh. So can I sync it to my [insert portable video device here]?
Satellite company: No, you can watch it at home.
Me: But - could I just record the show with my DVR then? You know - the whole reason why I got a DVR?
Satellite company: You could, right until we decide that you can't record any shows you can buy. Isn't that swell?
Me: I knew there was a reason why I only use basic cable. This "digital crap but only through our proprietary boxes" is for losers.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Granted, I'm on OS X user who uses Linux servers, and I really don't give a rats ass about Gnome versus KDE - I just look at whatever I'm using and launch the app I need.
For Novell to work on one interface isn't saying "Oh, Gnome is the Hawt and KDE is not!" - it's just a cost saving move, and I can agree with that. The question is: will this help lead to a "one Linux Desktop" future where the de-facto standard is Gnome. When that happens, will more apps be Gnome based, or will we continue to see the dual-track desktop development?
I think the idea behind most campaign finance laws is not to stop contributions, but limit them. Same thing here - you can go ahead and pay for web sites and bloggers, but you can't spend millions upon millions of dollars just to overwhelm the Google search system that would equate Candidate X with "child molester".
So I'm not calling that all political speech on the Internet is bad - just that it needs some kind of limit that way that television/radio ads are suppose to be. (Granted, that system is screwed up thanks to loopholes, but at least the attempt is there.)
Or, King Kong versus Godzilla - two gigantic forces of destruction battling it out!
I'm going to pop some corn and watch the sparks fly.
No kidding - I keep thinking about running but then realize that I don't have the money to do it anyway, and most of my debates would boil down to "I'm sorry - did you actually hear the question or are you incapable of a straight answer?".
According to the Supreme Court, campaign finance laws do not violate the 1st Amendment. The argument basically goes like this:
So, now we're talking about the Internet. And here's the problem:
If someone has a political blog, that is probably free speech.
If someone pays a large number of people to have political blogs to support their view, is that still free speech, or is that diluting free speech?
What's the difference between paying for an advertisement on television saying that "Candidate so-and-so likes to have sex with black people and make bastard babies, don't vote for him!" and a company buying up advertisement on the Internet saying the same thing?
So, while I don't think that either the Dems or the Repubs have noble interests at heart, this is an interesting challenge. Do you just say "The Internet doesn't have to worry about campaign finance", and give the possibility of the delution of "pure" free speech as discussed by the Supreme Court and previous campaign finance laws, or do you try and put some language saying "If you get money based on your political views, you have to reveal who did it and how much and can only accept X amount".
I'd rather see a law like the "truth in advertising" - if you're getting money for writing the blog/hosting an ad, you have to state on your web site where that comes from and how much. This way people who are just running ads can say "Google adsense", and those getting it from campaign groups can disclosed if they are a hired gun or not. Granted, there is more to the language than this, but this is just my thumbnail sketch, so if you need to split hairs, at least come up with your own complete language to cover the complexity of the issue
It's an interesting question, and one that *should* be debated for a good and long time. If you notice, this was the failure not of a majority but of a "mega-majority" of 2/3 to pass the bill. Some further debate and clarification of the language should make it palatable to that majority in the end, which I believe is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.