Not to include that music has already played itself out (no pun intended).
Just as the RIAA get a spike in CD sales from the re-issue of back catalogs in the 90s, the P2P music wave is now largely over. People have most of the music they want today.
And just to be clear on this, I do understand that the CD re-issue rush of the 1990s made the RIAA feel entitled to increased music sales through the 2000s. Just because the decrease in sales are understandable from a consumer level doesn't mean that piracy isn't a problem in music today. I feel that artist support is extremely important and I do not think that an artist should be forced to tour to support their art.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more doesn't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.
I fully support the efforts of any nation to keep the science going.
The ending, like those last pages of a book, was a key reason why we started playing in the first place.
Really? I don't recall this. For me the pleasures in the play. While certain games need to work out to some kind of resolution I do not play just to get to the end. Nor have I ever read a book just to get to the end. A few movies out there are pretty mediocre until the end but I rarely find the ending so good that I'm willing to put up with 1.5-3 hours of crap for a fantastic 5 minutes at the end.
I think they were more asking about how much stuff of this size have we really put out that far that we haven't kept track of.
10 meters wide, that's a large size for a man made object. On top of that consider that this object is coming from outside the geosynchronous range. Now, how many man made objects are there that are larger 10 meters wide and outside of geosync? And how the hell did they lose track of them? I think it's a pretty interesting question.
You must be new around here. If Bono gave his thoughts on any matter it would be published for no other reason than him being Bono.
He's like Al Gore; he may mean well enough, he may even be right but he's certainly no expert on the subject matter he presents. He might know more than we do but when it comes down to it I'll side with real experts, economists in the case of Bono and meteorologists in the case of Gore, in a second.
That's one area of science. Why don't you go shout down those who claim that data about the moon is erroneous because, as they claim, there is no way for us to leave the earth? Why not shout down those who scoff at popular vaccines? That has a much more direct impact on a society and it's relation to science. Why not shout down those who think that the 2012 movie has more to do with science then the LHC?
You point out one extremely small area of science and those people who deny it have little sway on the scientific community as a whole. What Joe Sixpack has to say about science doesn't amount to shit in the scientific community. You know it, I know it. And overall, what is the real value of Darwinism at this point? I doubt many doubt the daily evolution that we could present to them. The overall theory of evolution means little to applied science. Maybe if you guys would worry more about presenting the practical side of science to the populous than discussing a theory that they can't relate to you'd see a better response. I guess that kind of thinking never crosses the mind of those who think that they're so advanced.
And the fact I mentioned was done for a reason I'm only guessing you never considered but would surely scream out if someone came up with shoddy scientific evidence that doesn't support your views of the world: Correlation does not equal causation. The FACT is that there really isn't even a correlation to be spoken of. The FACT of the matter is that less people believe in literal interpretations of religion in that nation today than ever before in history and yet we find out that we're falling further and further behind. Doesn't that set off some alarms in your mind when someone cries out that the decline of science in this nation is caused by religion, another institution in steady decline? Please answer that if nothing else.
In the current scientific/regligious climate in the US, where creationist nutjobs get their opinions into the national press, and their viewpoints are presented as being a valid alternative to science (in reality as valid as flat earth "alternative" view points), I'm glad that a few people are willing to stand up and speak for scientific literacy.
Jesus Christ (no pun intended) can we finally put this to bed? Religion in our society is at an all time low. Those who still profess to be believers do very little to show it in an outword way. We've had legalized abortion for well over three decades, homosexuality is extremely public, atheism is at an all time high and they're getting more of their way than ever before but we still have to hear this mantra of "It's the fault of religion."
There certainly is something wrong in our culture but to blame an institution that is at a historical low point is asinine.
This decline has been going on much longer than any war on terror. This is a problem on a wide social level that has no single cause and no single solution. The sooner people stop using this problem to push their own political agenda the sooner we can get down to solving it.
I feel this way because of the reasons stated above. There are some basic truths that can not be upheld and have programs like universal health care at the same time. Sorry if you have a problem with that.
I know many have responded but I must add some and agree with others:
Yes, I am. Aren't you comfortable using an operating system that's too large for any one person to understand in its entirety?
Am I more comfortable making a choice while not holding the fate of hundreds of millions in my hands, not even my own? Yes. Am I more comfortable knowing that an OS has to hold to some semblance of mathematical logic? Yes. Am I comfortable knowing that the company I buy the OS from or pay support from is trying to keep me as a customer? Yes. If an Os fails me I can dump it. If legislation fails me and those around me it will be like pulling teeth to get it replaced. Certainly you look at some laws and see them as foolish and/or outdated. Tell me, what's easier? Speaking to the common sense of a nation or replacing a shitty distro?
We're long past the days when a single human being could understand all the details of our most complex systems. What a single person can do is learn the broad outlines, and look up detailed information as needed. It's called reductionism, and it's the foundation of all progress we've made since Aristotle.
Ever stop to think that there are some pies that the federal government shouldn't be allowed to paint in wide swaths for the reason that the system is too complex to work efficiently on such a massive scale with a singular set of cumbersome laws? Ever stop to think that if there are so many good individual ideas in there that we should break them down into smaller, more manageable portions that would be easier to recraft if the need arises? It's the foundation of all of modern computing which absolutely kicks Aristotle in the nutsack.
Each word of that 3,000 page bill has been read thousands of times, even if not by the same person each time. What's wrong with that?
Ever heard the idiom about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing? The massive systems must work in harmony or they will do more damage than good. Wouldn't you agree? Unless you can cover the entire landscape of such legislation you're risking letting huge loopholes take place. Of course, changing them will be a breeze, eh?
Of course, your response will be that we shouldn't need laws that are that complex in the first place. Well, what do you base that on? Your gut feeling? Modern society is complex. Maybe it needs nuanced and sophisticated laws.
And what do you base your guess on, pray-tell?
Have you considered that the people harping about a "3,000 page bill" are the ones who passed the byzantine Medicare Part D system?
One can not cleanse the self with the sins of someone else.
That maybe they're exploiting the hysterical reaction some people have to the page count to serve their ulterior interests?
Ah yes, the assumption is made even more clear... if someone doesn't do the democrat goosestep they must do the republican goosestep. Sorry, I think for myself.
Besides, you know what would be simpler than the current bill? Single payer.
I don't believe in universal health care on any level. Ever.
So what you're saying is that you're ok with passing large chunks of legislation even tho no single person could possibly have the time to read over it and give it a little time to settle in as to what it means?
Slashdot Mirror
Not to include that music has already played itself out (no pun intended).
Just as the RIAA get a spike in CD sales from the re-issue of back catalogs in the 90s, the P2P music wave is now largely over. People have most of the music they want today.
And just to be clear on this, I do understand that the CD re-issue rush of the 1990s made the RIAA feel entitled to increased music sales through the 2000s. Just because the decrease in sales are understandable from a consumer level doesn't mean that piracy isn't a problem in music today. I feel that artist support is extremely important and I do not think that an artist should be forced to tour to support their art.
Thanks for skirting the issue.
If you bought an inkjet you got screwed before you ever had to buy ink for it.
Ummm. No. For the kinds of skills that most desktop level jobs require a college degree is not only too expensive it is also wasteful of resources.
And not everyone can afford a 4 year degree. I guess those people are just dog shit and should be scoffed at?
I don't know when you were in college last but most degrees really aren't much better. Except to show that you have a lot more money to spend.
Someone shouldn't have to go to a university to prove that they have what it takes to work on the Geek Squad.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more doesn't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.
I fully support the efforts of any nation to keep the science going.
The ending, like those last pages of a book, was a key reason why we started playing in the first place.
Really? I don't recall this. For me the pleasures in the play. While certain games need to work out to some kind of resolution I do not play just to get to the end. Nor have I ever read a book just to get to the end. A few movies out there are pretty mediocre until the end but I rarely find the ending so good that I'm willing to put up with 1.5-3 hours of crap for a fantastic 5 minutes at the end.
I think they were more asking about how much stuff of this size have we really put out that far that we haven't kept track of.
10 meters wide, that's a large size for a man made object. On top of that consider that this object is coming from outside the geosynchronous range. Now, how many man made objects are there that are larger 10 meters wide and outside of geosync? And how the hell did they lose track of them? I think it's a pretty interesting question.
You must be new around here. If Bono gave his thoughts on any matter it would be published for no other reason than him being Bono.
He's like Al Gore; he may mean well enough, he may even be right but he's certainly no expert on the subject matter he presents. He might know more than we do but when it comes down to it I'll side with real experts, economists in the case of Bono and meteorologists in the case of Gore, in a second.
That's one area of science. Why don't you go shout down those who claim that data about the moon is erroneous because, as they claim, there is no way for us to leave the earth? Why not shout down those who scoff at popular vaccines? That has a much more direct impact on a society and it's relation to science. Why not shout down those who think that the 2012 movie has more to do with science then the LHC?
You point out one extremely small area of science and those people who deny it have little sway on the scientific community as a whole. What Joe Sixpack has to say about science doesn't amount to shit in the scientific community. You know it, I know it. And overall, what is the real value of Darwinism at this point? I doubt many doubt the daily evolution that we could present to them. The overall theory of evolution means little to applied science. Maybe if you guys would worry more about presenting the practical side of science to the populous than discussing a theory that they can't relate to you'd see a better response. I guess that kind of thinking never crosses the mind of those who think that they're so advanced.
And the fact I mentioned was done for a reason I'm only guessing you never considered but would surely scream out if someone came up with shoddy scientific evidence that doesn't support your views of the world: Correlation does not equal causation. The FACT is that there really isn't even a correlation to be spoken of. The FACT of the matter is that less people believe in literal interpretations of religion in that nation today than ever before in history and yet we find out that we're falling further and further behind. Doesn't that set off some alarms in your mind when someone cries out that the decline of science in this nation is caused by religion, another institution in steady decline? Please answer that if nothing else.
In the current scientific/regligious climate in the US, where creationist nutjobs get their opinions into the national press, and their viewpoints are presented as being a valid alternative to science (in reality as valid as flat earth "alternative" view points), I'm glad that a few people are willing to stand up and speak for scientific literacy.
Jesus Christ (no pun intended) can we finally put this to bed? Religion in our society is at an all time low. Those who still profess to be believers do very little to show it in an outword way. We've had legalized abortion for well over three decades, homosexuality is extremely public, atheism is at an all time high and they're getting more of their way than ever before but we still have to hear this mantra of "It's the fault of religion."
There certainly is something wrong in our culture but to blame an institution that is at a historical low point is asinine.
Care to be a little more detailed on how you came to this conclusion?
When you have 60% of your population denying Evolution, a scientific fact, your civilization is circling the drain.
Oddly enough, when that number was much higher the US was the indisputable leader of the world.
This decline has been going on much longer than any war on terror. This is a problem on a wide social level that has no single cause and no single solution. The sooner people stop using this problem to push their own political agenda the sooner we can get down to solving it.
I feel this way because of the reasons stated above. There are some basic truths that can not be upheld and have programs like universal health care at the same time. Sorry if you have a problem with that.
I know many have responded but I must add some and agree with others:
Yes, I am. Aren't you comfortable using an operating system that's too large for any one person to understand in its entirety?
Am I more comfortable making a choice while not holding the fate of hundreds of millions in my hands, not even my own? Yes. Am I more comfortable knowing that an OS has to hold to some semblance of mathematical logic? Yes. Am I comfortable knowing that the company I buy the OS from or pay support from is trying to keep me as a customer? Yes. If an Os fails me I can dump it. If legislation fails me and those around me it will be like pulling teeth to get it replaced. Certainly you look at some laws and see them as foolish and/or outdated. Tell me, what's easier? Speaking to the common sense of a nation or replacing a shitty distro?
We're long past the days when a single human being could understand all the details of our most complex systems. What a single person can do is learn the broad outlines, and look up detailed information as needed. It's called reductionism, and it's the foundation of all progress we've made since Aristotle.
Ever stop to think that there are some pies that the federal government shouldn't be allowed to paint in wide swaths for the reason that the system is too complex to work efficiently on such a massive scale with a singular set of cumbersome laws? Ever stop to think that if there are so many good individual ideas in there that we should break them down into smaller, more manageable portions that would be easier to recraft if the need arises? It's the foundation of all of modern computing which absolutely kicks Aristotle in the nutsack.
Each word of that 3,000 page bill has been read thousands of times, even if not by the same person each time. What's wrong with that?
Ever heard the idiom about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing? The massive systems must work in harmony or they will do more damage than good. Wouldn't you agree? Unless you can cover the entire landscape of such legislation you're risking letting huge loopholes take place. Of course, changing them will be a breeze, eh?
Of course, your response will be that we shouldn't need laws that are that complex in the first place. Well, what do you base that on? Your gut feeling? Modern society is complex. Maybe it needs nuanced and sophisticated laws.
And what do you base your guess on, pray-tell?
Have you considered that the people harping about a "3,000 page bill" are the ones who passed the byzantine Medicare Part D system?
One can not cleanse the self with the sins of someone else.
That maybe they're exploiting the hysterical reaction some people have to the page count to serve their ulterior interests?
Ah yes, the assumption is made even more clear... if someone doesn't do the democrat goosestep they must do the republican goosestep. Sorry, I think for myself.
Besides, you know what would be simpler than the current bill? Single payer.
I don't believe in universal health care on any level. Ever.
So what you're saying is that you're ok with passing large chunks of legislation even tho no single person could possibly have the time to read over it and give it a little time to settle in as to what it means?