Firstly, I would argue that agriculture, if not directly a science, was created through "scientific" methods, and has since been tightly interwoven with science as to make it more productive.
To get more to the meat of what you are saying here, I don't feel that my statements discount art or agriculture in one bit -- both of those things are extremely effective at the things they claim to do. Agriculture at saving lives, art at entertaining and often educating us. Religion claims to be able to improve you in ways that are impossible, and easily falsifiable.
The "power of prayer" is thrown around left and right, despite the fact that it is easily proven that this sentiment is rubbish. While it is true that belief has a positive placebo effect, I have a hard time seeing how this can be anything of a reasonable argument for faith.
I may find it extremely comforting to believe that 2+2=5, but that does not change that fact that it is wrong. This delusion would be harmless unless of course I were to propagate my silly fantasy wide enough that 60% of the country believed that 2+2=5. It would be even worse were I to infiltrate the classroom and have a warning label put on math books, stating that it is only a "theory" that 2+2=4, and that students should come to their own conclusion. Or if I were so incensed by a cartoon depicted 2+2 equaling 4 that I decided to issue death threats against its creator.
I guess what I am trying to say is that even if the BS makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, it is still BS, and basing your life around BS can only lead to bad things. We need to work more diligently to ground ourselves in reality so that we can make sane, rational choices that benefit all of mankind.
You really think that the best way for the government to collect funds is by taking your money before you even get to see it? You think that it is fair (and constitutional) for the Federal Government to dig into all of the deepest areas of your personal life to make sure you are compliant? You think that it is just for people to be thrown into jail for misunderstanding the tens of thousands of pages of cryptic legalese that constitutes our tax code? I never said that taxes were a bad idea -- just that the current system we have now borders very closely on fascism. There are plenty of other ways for the government to collect the same amount of money with far less impact to our privacy, and less of a negative impact on the economy.
Referring to 'Darwinian Evolution' is simply a general term crediting the father of the theory -- it is in no way a statement that the father's formulation was conclusive -- it is exactly the same as referring to 'Newtonian Physics' -- we are not worshiping Newton nor are we suggesting that his word on physics is final -- we are simply giving him credit for his vast contribution to science.
As for science worship, I am going to have to simply disagree with you. Placing your 'faith' in science is not faith at all due to one major difference between science and every religion in history -- science works. We have used science to accomplish many mystical feats thought to be the realm of magic -- we can communicate instantly over vast distances, cure disease, fly through the air and into space, predict the future, and many others. It does not take faith to believe in science -- it WORKS. It takes faith to believe in anything else, as all other belief systems are religions are based on nothing, and prayer provably works no better than chance. Religion has never increased the human lifespan by a single hour, whereas science has increased the average human life span by 40 years over the past century.
This is, quite unfortunately, true in America these days. I find it positively baffling that 60% of a modern society can find it appropriate to take the word of a goat herder who lived in a tent 4,000 years ago over the whole of modern science. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Evolution is a fact. It is no longer in dispute that all life on Earth evolved over about 3 billion years and that all life has a common unicellular ancestor, and that life tends to become more complex over time, the human race included. This has been proven by biology, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, chemistry, and virtually every field of modern science. It is astonishing that this is still controversial and makes it very clear why things like the War in Iraq and Income Taxes are possible -- the vast majority of people out there are maddeningly stupid and proudly ignorant.
I have often wondered about this myself -- and I have decided that the day they uncover the Butt-Bomber, I am no longer flying. I mean, they already do it figuratively, how long until they literally have a box of latex gloves and a tube of KY at the security check point?
Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs?
Still, what's in the contract is binding...
No. Sony simply provides the artist a loan -- Sony pays all the cost of producing the album up front, but all of the costs must be recouped through album sales before the artist sees any income. Even after that, Sony will still take the vast majority of the profits (usually around 80% if you are lucky), which is why I have an aneurysm every time I hear the RIAA say they are doing something "for the artists".
As ownership of the tracks -- it is all about what is in the contract. I have a sneaking suspicion that Sony lawyers have some sort of loophole written into the contract to protect them from liability in this matter, being the bottom-feeding vermin that they are.
I don't know what to do about Islam. I have no fucking idea. What I do know, however, is that we can't limit our expression because it offends a billion crackpot lunatics. I personally think that after that happened we should have had people pissing on the Koran on the evening news and burning effigies of Muhammed in the street rather than cowering in a corner like we did. We need to show these assholes that we will not let push us around. I REFUSE to let some underdeveloped retard dictate halfway around the world dictate what is and is not acceptable to say in the free world, and I don't care how violent they are willing to be. Is that a good enough answer?
That is a perfect example of what I was talking about! Someone made a cartoon -- it could not have done any harm in any way to any person. The only reason there were problems is that millions of microcephalic idiots decided that it was upsetting enough that they ought to kill people over it. That is a PERFECT example of how childish, silly, and destructive being offended can get if you let that sense of entitlement grow and fester.
That is certainly a funny example, but how has that done real harm to me? The bottom line is this: When you tell me that my wife's tits felt good last night, I can decide whether or not it will bother me. If come up behind me and hit me in the head with a hammer, though, I don't get to decide whether or not I have a fractured skull.
How is this a troll? It seems to me lately that mods don't understand the difference between 'Troll' and 'Differing Opinion' -- which is very ironic in this thread about free speech.
How is this a violation of free speech? This is the way free speech ought to work! The speaker is free to speak his mind, and the idiot student is free to yell about it. In a setting like this, it would also be acceptable to eject the student from the room for breaking social contract. Nobody was arrested and charged with crimes here, why is this a violation of free speech?
Really? Please give me a few examples of the way words can harm, outside of the uses that are already illegal (harassment, intimidation, libel, inciting violence). Other than making you feel icky, what can words do to you?
There's a new party being born: The People Who Hate People Party. People who hate people, come together! "No!" We're kind of having trouble getting off the boards, you know. Come to our meeting! "Are you gonna be there?" Yeah. "Then I ain't fucking coming." But you're our strongest member! "Fuck you!" That's what I'm talking about, you asshole! Fuck off! Damn, we almost had a meeting going. It's so hard to get my people together.
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
So? Why should it matter when we are talking about free speech? Not to mention the fact that any clever politician could quite easily use this definition you have just given to silence any and all critics.
Ugh, really? You are really going to make this a left vs. right thing? This soon after George W. Bush? You are going to completely ignore the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, Gitmo, legal torture, Abu Ghraib, and all that mess? This is not a left/right issue my friend, it is power, plain and simple. It seems like the vast majority of human beings on this planet have an innate desire to seize for themselves as much power as humanly possible and will use any means necessary to get it. If you are saying that the right is not an equally big threat to freedom, you are gravely mistaken.
I've been discharged a while (USMC) but that doesn't offend me at all.
It might be because I believe prayer to be a completely worthless means of getting anything done, but it also might be because I know that even though people have all sorts of beliefs I consider weird, very few of them have any actual impact on my life.
Above and beyond that, I feel that these jerks actually really help the cause of free speech by showing us where the lines are and instilling in the public's minds that we are indeed allowed to say what we like in this nation, regardless of how despicable and unpopular. In that way, the Westboro Baptist Church is a wonderful (maybe not the right word, but you get the picture) example of how far reaching our freedom of speech is.
I think the best way to handle is for people to grow a thicker skin and learn to let things slide every once in a while. These are just words we are talking about here. Sure, sometimes words can be used to incite harm, but harassment, libel, threats, and inciting riots are all already against the law! Being offended and butt-hurt about what someone else has to say, no matter how vile, is childish and silly behavior. If you don't like what I have to say, don't listen. It's that simple.
It is certainly not your fault that you are offended. The bottom line, though, is that whether or not you are offended is absolutely, 100% irrelevant in matters of free speech. I have the right to offend you as badly as I like, as my right to free speech supersedes your non-existent right to not hear things that make you feel icky. Remember, if you have a right to not feel icky, so do the people on the other side of the fence from you, and they will waste no time in using their delicate sensibilities to shut you up. The point is, free speech has to apply to all speech, no matter how hateful. If we start deciding what we are and aren't allowed to say based on how it makes people feel, everything becomes off limits in short order.
Saying that technological growth is slowing down or speeding up is total hogwash, in my opinion. The only way to measure technological growth is by placing arbitrary mile markers in the road. On one hand you have the folks that choose to measure technological growth by new inventions and can say that we are just polishing things that have already been invented. On the other hand, you have the folks that measure technological growth by its ubiquity, and show that more and more people are using more and more tech each year. Who is right, and who is wrong? I would submit that it is irrelevant and simply humans trying to place arbitrary classification on a complex system. We ought to just make sure that we are always doing our best to further the fields of science and technology, and not worry about whether our growth is faster or slower than in the past.
You, unfortunately are in the minority. Most people want their computers to look slick, modern, and be aesthetically pleasing. Not only that, but a lot of times the UI is tied in too tightly to back end of a piece of software for it to be a simple fix to change something like that. Expecting Mozilla to put that kind of work into their software to please a small minority of folks such as yourself is unrealistic and bullheaded.
I'm sorry, but I guess reading a webpage tutorial or "how to" underneath a semi-transparent terminal window while typing in commands doesn't increase my efficiency.
Thank you, AC, I have used that particular one many, many times. Above and beyond that, why does everything need to be directly functional? I like the look of transparency and I enjoy using my computer more when the UI is aesthetically pleasing, which in turn indirectly improves my productivity.
So? Don't use it. The transparency is an OS function and you can disable it very easily if you like, instead of getting all 'get offa my lawn' about it on/.
"First they came for the Pedophiles and I didnâ(TM)t speak up, because I wasnâ(TM)t a Pedophile. Then they came for the Immigrants, and I didnâ(TM)t speak up, because I wasnâ(TM)t an Immigrant. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didnâ(TM)t speak up, because, like I said before, I wasn't a Pedophile. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, I would argue that agriculture, if not directly a science, was created through "scientific" methods, and has since been tightly interwoven with science as to make it more productive.
To get more to the meat of what you are saying here, I don't feel that my statements discount art or agriculture in one bit -- both of those things are extremely effective at the things they claim to do. Agriculture at saving lives, art at entertaining and often educating us. Religion claims to be able to improve you in ways that are impossible, and easily falsifiable.
The "power of prayer" is thrown around left and right, despite the fact that it is easily proven that this sentiment is rubbish. While it is true that belief has a positive placebo effect, I have a hard time seeing how this can be anything of a reasonable argument for faith.
I may find it extremely comforting to believe that 2+2=5, but that does not change that fact that it is wrong. This delusion would be harmless unless of course I were to propagate my silly fantasy wide enough that 60% of the country believed that 2+2=5. It would be even worse were I to infiltrate the classroom and have a warning label put on math books, stating that it is only a "theory" that 2+2=4, and that students should come to their own conclusion. Or if I were so incensed by a cartoon depicted 2+2 equaling 4 that I decided to issue death threats against its creator.
I guess what I am trying to say is that even if the BS makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, it is still BS, and basing your life around BS can only lead to bad things. We need to work more diligently to ground ourselves in reality so that we can make sane, rational choices that benefit all of mankind.
You really think that the best way for the government to collect funds is by taking your money before you even get to see it? You think that it is fair (and constitutional) for the Federal Government to dig into all of the deepest areas of your personal life to make sure you are compliant? You think that it is just for people to be thrown into jail for misunderstanding the tens of thousands of pages of cryptic legalese that constitutes our tax code? I never said that taxes were a bad idea -- just that the current system we have now borders very closely on fascism. There are plenty of other ways for the government to collect the same amount of money with far less impact to our privacy, and less of a negative impact on the economy.
Referring to 'Darwinian Evolution' is simply a general term crediting the father of the theory -- it is in no way a statement that the father's formulation was conclusive -- it is exactly the same as referring to 'Newtonian Physics' -- we are not worshiping Newton nor are we suggesting that his word on physics is final -- we are simply giving him credit for his vast contribution to science.
As for science worship, I am going to have to simply disagree with you. Placing your 'faith' in science is not faith at all due to one major difference between science and every religion in history -- science works. We have used science to accomplish many mystical feats thought to be the realm of magic -- we can communicate instantly over vast distances, cure disease, fly through the air and into space, predict the future, and many others. It does not take faith to believe in science -- it WORKS. It takes faith to believe in anything else, as all other belief systems are religions are based on nothing, and prayer provably works no better than chance. Religion has never increased the human lifespan by a single hour, whereas science has increased the average human life span by 40 years over the past century.
"evolution" is still very controversial stuff
This is, quite unfortunately, true in America these days. I find it positively baffling that 60% of a modern society can find it appropriate to take the word of a goat herder who lived in a tent 4,000 years ago over the whole of modern science. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Evolution is a fact. It is no longer in dispute that all life on Earth evolved over about 3 billion years and that all life has a common unicellular ancestor, and that life tends to become more complex over time, the human race included. This has been proven by biology, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, chemistry, and virtually every field of modern science. It is astonishing that this is still controversial and makes it very clear why things like the War in Iraq and Income Taxes are possible -- the vast majority of people out there are maddeningly stupid and proudly ignorant.
The european swallows what?
Loads.
Your mom is European?
I have often wondered about this myself -- and I have decided that the day they uncover the Butt-Bomber, I am no longer flying. I mean, they already do it figuratively, how long until they literally have a box of latex gloves and a tube of KY at the security check point?
Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs? Still, what's in the contract is binding...
No. Sony simply provides the artist a loan -- Sony pays all the cost of producing the album up front, but all of the costs must be recouped through album sales before the artist sees any income. Even after that, Sony will still take the vast majority of the profits (usually around 80% if you are lucky), which is why I have an aneurysm every time I hear the RIAA say they are doing something "for the artists".
As ownership of the tracks -- it is all about what is in the contract. I have a sneaking suspicion that Sony lawyers have some sort of loophole written into the contract to protect them from liability in this matter, being the bottom-feeding vermin that they are.
I don't know what to do about Islam. I have no fucking idea. What I do know, however, is that we can't limit our expression because it offends a billion crackpot lunatics. I personally think that after that happened we should have had people pissing on the Koran on the evening news and burning effigies of Muhammed in the street rather than cowering in a corner like we did. We need to show these assholes that we will not let push us around. I REFUSE to let some underdeveloped retard dictate halfway around the world dictate what is and is not acceptable to say in the free world, and I don't care how violent they are willing to be. Is that a good enough answer?
That is a perfect example of what I was talking about! Someone made a cartoon -- it could not have done any harm in any way to any person. The only reason there were problems is that millions of microcephalic idiots decided that it was upsetting enough that they ought to kill people over it. That is a PERFECT example of how childish, silly, and destructive being offended can get if you let that sense of entitlement grow and fester.
That is certainly a funny example, but how has that done real harm to me? The bottom line is this: When you tell me that my wife's tits felt good last night, I can decide whether or not it will bother me. If come up behind me and hit me in the head with a hammer, though, I don't get to decide whether or not I have a fractured skull.
How is this a troll? It seems to me lately that mods don't understand the difference between 'Troll' and 'Differing Opinion' -- which is very ironic in this thread about free speech.
How is this a violation of free speech? This is the way free speech ought to work! The speaker is free to speak his mind, and the idiot student is free to yell about it. In a setting like this, it would also be acceptable to eject the student from the room for breaking social contract. Nobody was arrested and charged with crimes here, why is this a violation of free speech?
Really? Please give me a few examples of the way words can harm, outside of the uses that are already illegal (harassment, intimidation, libel, inciting violence). Other than making you feel icky, what can words do to you?
There's a new party being born: The People Who Hate People Party. People who hate people, come together! "No!" We're kind of having trouble getting off the boards, you know. Come to our meeting! "Are you gonna be there?" Yeah. "Then I ain't fucking coming." But you're our strongest member! "Fuck you!" That's what I'm talking about, you asshole! Fuck off! Damn, we almost had a meeting going. It's so hard to get my people together.
--Bill Hicks
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
So? Why should it matter when we are talking about free speech? Not to mention the fact that any clever politician could quite easily use this definition you have just given to silence any and all critics.
Ugh, really? You are really going to make this a left vs. right thing? This soon after George W. Bush? You are going to completely ignore the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, Gitmo, legal torture, Abu Ghraib, and all that mess? This is not a left/right issue my friend, it is power, plain and simple. It seems like the vast majority of human beings on this planet have an innate desire to seize for themselves as much power as humanly possible and will use any means necessary to get it. If you are saying that the right is not an equally big threat to freedom, you are gravely mistaken.
I've been discharged a while (USMC) but that doesn't offend me at all.
It might be because I believe prayer to be a completely worthless means of getting anything done, but it also might be because I know that even though people have all sorts of beliefs I consider weird, very few of them have any actual impact on my life.
Above and beyond that, I feel that these jerks actually really help the cause of free speech by showing us where the lines are and instilling in the public's minds that we are indeed allowed to say what we like in this nation, regardless of how despicable and unpopular. In that way, the Westboro Baptist Church is a wonderful (maybe not the right word, but you get the picture) example of how far reaching our freedom of speech is.
I think the best way to handle is for people to grow a thicker skin and learn to let things slide every once in a while. These are just words we are talking about here. Sure, sometimes words can be used to incite harm, but harassment, libel, threats, and inciting riots are all already against the law! Being offended and butt-hurt about what someone else has to say, no matter how vile, is childish and silly behavior. If you don't like what I have to say, don't listen. It's that simple.
It is certainly not your fault that you are offended. The bottom line, though, is that whether or not you are offended is absolutely, 100% irrelevant in matters of free speech. I have the right to offend you as badly as I like, as my right to free speech supersedes your non-existent right to not hear things that make you feel icky. Remember, if you have a right to not feel icky, so do the people on the other side of the fence from you, and they will waste no time in using their delicate sensibilities to shut you up. The point is, free speech has to apply to all speech, no matter how hateful. If we start deciding what we are and aren't allowed to say based on how it makes people feel, everything becomes off limits in short order.
Saying that technological growth is slowing down or speeding up is total hogwash, in my opinion. The only way to measure technological growth is by placing arbitrary mile markers in the road. On one hand you have the folks that choose to measure technological growth by new inventions and can say that we are just polishing things that have already been invented. On the other hand, you have the folks that measure technological growth by its ubiquity, and show that more and more people are using more and more tech each year. Who is right, and who is wrong? I would submit that it is irrelevant and simply humans trying to place arbitrary classification on a complex system. We ought to just make sure that we are always doing our best to further the fields of science and technology, and not worry about whether our growth is faster or slower than in the past.
You, unfortunately are in the minority. Most people want their computers to look slick, modern, and be aesthetically pleasing. Not only that, but a lot of times the UI is tied in too tightly to back end of a piece of software for it to be a simple fix to change something like that. Expecting Mozilla to put that kind of work into their software to please a small minority of folks such as yourself is unrealistic and bullheaded.
I'm sorry, but I guess reading a webpage tutorial or "how to" underneath a semi-transparent terminal window while typing in commands doesn't increase my efficiency.
Thank you, AC, I have used that particular one many, many times. Above and beyond that, why does everything need to be directly functional? I like the look of transparency and I enjoy using my computer more when the UI is aesthetically pleasing, which in turn indirectly improves my productivity.
So? Don't use it. The transparency is an OS function and you can disable it very easily if you like, instead of getting all 'get offa my lawn' about it on /.
Whoa WTF happened to my apostrophes?
"First they came for the Pedophiles and I didnâ(TM)t speak up, because I wasnâ(TM)t a Pedophile. Then they came for the Immigrants, and I didnâ(TM)t speak up, because I wasnâ(TM)t an Immigrant. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didnâ(TM)t speak up, because, like I said before, I wasn't a Pedophile. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."