I'm amazed how little your comment resembles reality. Libertarians, and also the TEA party crowd (though they are not exactly the same) favor a smaller government all the way around. Sure, there are some who, for instance, hate recreational drug use. However, as they favor less government, they don't want the government to restrict it. On the other hand, on the left leaning side, some might not like people to have firearms, and yet they also don't want government regulation there.
The Libertairians and the TEA party voters don't agree on how to wield the mighty arm of the law, they agree that it should be weakened. They believe that instead these things should be decided on a state, or community level, but not on the national level. They certainly wouldn't push for the regulations you speak of, and controling communications is right out.
I think that you've summed it up. The purpose for any of this comes down to the government wanting more. In this case, I think it's the government wanting more control of personal data. Of course, it could just be for more money in the way of an ISP fee. IMHO, the government should stay out of such things entirely.
I'm certain that you meant that as an insult, but it actually seems pretty good to me. We have a large ball of resources that we know won't last even if we don't use it. I'm all for keeping things clean pleasant where possible, but I think that we should use what we can get from it.
That's why I favor drilling on our own land rather than bringing oil in across the ocean which we've seen make a mess. We should be smart and work on alternatives for when the supply runs out, but I think it's foolish to just let a good resource go to waste.
I think that the main point of contention is whether you belive that man will be able to "save the planet". I do not, so most of the arguments of the green movement mean nothing to me. That isn't to say that there are some arguments that would be apealing, but they are sadly unemphasised these days.
Profanity is rare for me. Amoung the people I spend time with, most use none at all, though I have some acquaintances who slip on ocassion. Most of the clerks at the stores don't either. In fact, slashdot is the only exposure that I have to profanity on a regular basis.
As for televangelists, you would have a hard time finding one that is biblically sound. I'm not sure that I even know of any who are.
Basically, I don't care a bit about the latest special effects and celebrities. I don't care what kind of TV commercials they have. I would much rather spend $30 on a simple film that meets my needs than $2 on some over budget eye candy that doesn't. Furthermore, I am not effected by fancy advertising. I likely couldn't even name one single movie currently in theaters, but I can name at least three that have little to no advertising. As for distribution, I can burn my own CD. Basically, the only cost there is that of hosting the torrent (and the initial seeding). I'm probably a minority, but I think there are enough of us out there to present a market for cheap films.
You are forgetting that these worthless corporate tools are complying with the law. Naturally the law will be on their side, so it does make sense. If you think the law doesn't make sense, then consider new politicians.
The difference is that in a free market (which we no longer have) anybody is equally as welcome to that money and the power that goes with it. If the people don't want them to have power, then they shouldn't buy their merchandise. If somebody wants power to stop them, then they should sell useful products/services, or collect donations from people who do.
Sadly, the problem here is that government regulations unfairly distribute money and power to people who did not earn it. In this case, it's the media companies.
Here in America, these groups heavily support the Democrats, and for good reason. It is that party which spends large ammounts of money in pork spending and other boons to them. Both of the current parties have their pet projects, so I'm not saying that either is good. It's just something to think about when you vote next month.
It is interesting, but I always thought that slime molds were just randomly generated. Of course, I would still like to see them used to trace a path for a railway through the Dungeons of Doom.
To the contrary, by your definition of "liberal", no truth is liberal.
For instance, "1x1=1" is pretty narrow-minded. In fact, for most people who support that statement, it's not even up to debate. Liberal implies that everything is subjective, hence the "open-mindedness". Truth, by it's very nature must be objective. Therefore, while any statement may be accepted by a liberal thinker, to hold it as truth is to betray liberality.
Open-mindedness is great for creating art and brainstorming. However, narrow-mindedness is required to form rational thought. A closed mind, on the other hand, only repeats what it has learned.
I completely agree. It's the fact that I don't know what I'm clicking that is the most concern for me. I don't think that I've ever knowingly clicked on a shortened URL for that reason.
I guess that I could understand why people who use twitter or other SMS technologies might want a shortened URL, but as you already mentioned, any site can do that for themself if they want. I don't think that anybody has a 140+ char domain name in use.
Defining what is a "real motion picture" by whether or not a handful of companies decide to play it is not the best option. I fully support capitalism, but for it to work, we must be able to move beyond reasoning that the level at which something is marketed is the definition of it's quality.
Media companies practically have an oligarchy, and people have been eating it up. However, as they pump out more trash, the people seek more substance. When comapanies want control, users want usability. In a time when economies are low and tech is high, I feel that people will reach more and more for technology and a community module for entertainment.
Currently, I don't go to theaters, so what comes out in them means little to me. I also don't spend much time in the video rental stores for the same reason: there's nothing there that interests me these days. I find that I have better luck finding good content on the internet. I'm probably a minority now, but I see that sentiment growing.
Even if light bulbs were inefficient at heating, they still provide light. So the question is whether they are inefficient at providing both light and heat. Other than an open flame (which has it's own drawbacks), I can't think of anything more efficient for providing both as well as an an incandescent light bulb. Also, the ability to use a simple potentiometer to adjust the brightness is nice.
Actually, the text reads "living soul". The word being translated soul is "nephesh", which according to my limited knowledge of Hebrew implies something a lot more complex than any single celled life, but would at least have to have been capable of breathing as we know of it. You say that the Bible does not contradict evolution. I once believed that too, but I was mistaken. I do not dispute Microevolution, but Macroevolution is clearly in opposition to the Bible.
One point is that man, as well as all creatures, were made in one day. The Bible is very clear on the length of a day as being what we think of as a day now. Furthermore, there have not been millions of years, but instead about 10,000 years, and man was around from the beginning. The point is that you either believe the Bible or you do not.
You are right that an atheist does not need Darwin, or even evolution or science for that matter. By definition, they must only believe that there is no God. You say that there is no way for God to prove Himself. That is true, it is impossible to prove anything to somebody who really wants to believe otherwise. If one were to ask for a proof that he understood, then it would seem too easy to be conclusive. God is not a sideshow performer, but instead the sovereign ruler of all who would be just even if He gave no proof and of His own whim demanded that everyone believe. Fortunately, God has given us the Bible, and offers to every man proof as much as he is willing to accept.
So, it comes down to faith. Therefore, the debate is not creationism or darwinism. It is between faith in God and faith in self (your own ability to successfully reason). Once one rejects God and the Bible, then he is free to debate darwinism vs. any other theory of how things were formed.
This will probably be modded into oblivion, but I am compelled to say this as simply and as honestly as I can. I can take a hit to my karma, and I understand that it may be off topic.
I was once an overthinker, still am sometimes. My mind was always moving contemplating everything, and I like it that way. Sometimes I wondered if my thoughts were out of control, but then pride set it and I would think that I was the smart one and that people who didn't think like me were too dumb to know better. I wanted to learn everything, so I studied science, but I was stuck with the realisation that what I had once thought of as "proof" didn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. So, I studied philosophy and even looked into metaphysics. I eventually read Descartes, and realised that the only undeniable statement is "I think, therefore I am". Everything else was based on assumption. I didn't want to admit it at the time, but that proved that all knowledge comes from faith in something. I then looked for a priori knowledge to see if there were something that we "just knew" to be true that I could start with, but began to get frustrated with all of the ridiculous suggestions.
The whole time, I was troubled. Although I saw the world as a beautiful place with more depth than the average person could comprehend, I was saddened that nobody else could see it the way that I did. Even though I believed I knew the reasons for everything, my life was still falling apart. I had swings of wild ecstasy followed by depression. I felt that the short depressions were worth the highs and that I had attained the best life could give me. I was wrong.
I would like to say that I found God, but the truth is that He found me. I thought that I knew Him because I had read the Bible and had been to church, but despite my own wisdom, I knew very little about Him. In the end, knowledge let me down as I realised that the world I had built was a fantasy world. When every body and everything, even my mind failed me, God lifted me up and showed me His way. Only then, could I really understand the Bible. Now, it is hard for me to understand how I ever ignored the truth in front of me. The scriptures are practical and have answered with ease all of the questions that I thought were beyond my grasp with logic that I cannot deny. I discovered that I didn't care anymore to understand me because it isn't about me.
I still get upset when some Christian tries to persuade somebody with faulty logic like Pascal's Wager, especially when there are so many better arguments. I particularly despise the televangelists whose knowledge of God is probably less than an atheist's. I can say that now my thoughts are tamed and more focused and productive. A lot of the old paradoxes that used to amuse me are like childish games now. Most of all, I am happy and at peace. There is still plenty for me to contemplate. The problem was that before, I was starting with a faulty foundation, so all of my learning was shaky. The foundation which has been given to me now is sturdy and sure. I have questioned it and tried it, and have found it unshakeable.
The Bible says that no temptation has taken you but that which is common to man. Don't think that you are alone in this. It may be a gene that makes it more prominent, but how we deal with it is up to each of us.
Imagine an OS that doesn't need virus protection, doesn't crash, and is completely customisable. Imagine a browser that doesn't beg for viruses and follows a consistent set of standards between release rather than arbitrarily making new rules each time. Imagine software that is free and useful that doesn't come from some shady site that you've never heard of. Believe it or not, such software already exists. It's called FOSS, and an entire toolchain has been built with it allowing all sorts of new and powerful applications.
That's a great start. If you can tell me how I could get the functioanlity of Vimperator, Web Developer, and Video Download helper, then I might be looking at a new browser.
I use Firefox exclusively on my laptop. Speed is not its strong point. The main reason that I use FF is for a few add-ons that I now find necessary (mostly Vimperator to get vi keybindings). Speed is a reasonable trade off for me to have such a customizable browser, and I always assumed that the speed loss may have been due to the XUL stuff.
I think that FF being slow is common knowledge these days. I think that Mozilla is trying to show that the reason their browser is slower on some (most) things is because it is optimised for other things. In that case, I don't mind the test being skewed. If I thought that they were saying that FF was the fastest browser, I might laugh and move on.
Clippy: I see that you are writing a ruling. Would you like me to show you the EULA where we already own your ruling through Microsoft's substantial control of the legal system?
My vote is that all official documents must be typed in vi(m), or at worst emacs. Even if somebody did manage to use DOS line endings, a few simple keypresses would fix it.
This kind of thing makes me happy to do IT work. In an economy where people can't afford the basic necessities, they still seem to be willing to spend money on technology. As I see it, there are a few reasons for this. First, websites, computers, and the like can be seen as giving an advantage which can be helpful in tough times. Also , it's one of the improvements to a business that at the moment doesn't have huge government price tags and red tape. That is, until the EPA decides that servers cause dangerous emissions. Of course, the most important things is that computers and technology are still cool and people will always want the latest new toy.
I see this as yet another bubble, and I plan to hold on until it bursts. I'll fight against the government spending money on such wasteful things all day. However, I plan to be there to catch the profits as they fall down.
The really smart criminals are the politicians. Look at the current administration here in the US. They are the ones who took bribes, stole money and pushed their agendas and crashed the system. Then, they blamed it on the one guy who wasn't (at least not completely) in bed with them, and managed to get elected again to do the exact same things. Then, they ask for more money while convincing the people that we have to "do something" because the last administration (i.e. themselves) messed things up so badly. The people with their hands in the housing market crash have been promoted, and one is now the president.
Look at the so-called stimulus bill. The first one suckered us out of our money and made us even worse off than we were, but now the tell us they need to do it again. Their reasoning? "We can't just sit here and do nothing" It's pretty cold and immoral, but it does take some smarts, and they do get rich off of us.
These petty criminals aren't smart. If they were, they would be "Community Organisers" and get a nice salary, excellent benefits, and have a chance at a nice political career. All they have to do is spread some liberal propaganda. If you think I'm making it up, look at Craigslist's "nonprofit sector". They may have be hoaxes, but it's still interesting.
That's exactly my reaction. I have no interest in their music. In fact, I don't currently listen to any contemporary music, and I haven't paid for music in years. However, seeing something like this almost makes me want to find a way to contribute. In reality, I'll probably never get around to sending any cash their way. Nevertheless, if I can be swayed a little, I'm sure that there are many almost fans who will get to know them and like them because of this move. I don't know if this type of marketing could work without also selling albums, concerts, etc., but I'm sure that it adds to their appeal.
I think that I may disagree with you on every point here. First off, as far as morality is concerned, prostitution is wrong. Morality is not subjective. If that were the case, then it would be moral for me to kill people. It is objectively immoral for anybody to have sex with anybody who they are not married to, wether for pay or for fun.
That being said, I don't think that something should be illegal just because it is wrong. If that were the case, then we should fine people for making stupid/. comments. Legality, at least in America, should be based on law and respect of the right to own, use, and trade property including your body. Some people are willing to degrade themselves and harm themselves for profit. I think that all of us would agree that it is wrong to hold a gun to somebody's head, but offering money makes it their choice. People should be legally allowed to make wrong and immoral choices in our society.
Now that I'm done with that rant, I can point out that Craigslist is probably doing what it feels is best for their site. They probably don't care either way for the adult section and realise that it opens them up to liability that they don't want. If somebody wants an adult meeting site, build one. It's not that hard.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm amazed how little your comment resembles reality. Libertarians, and also the TEA party crowd (though they are not exactly the same) favor a smaller government all the way around. Sure, there are some who, for instance, hate recreational drug use. However, as they favor less government, they don't want the government to restrict it. On the other hand, on the left leaning side, some might not like people to have firearms, and yet they also don't want government regulation there.
The Libertairians and the TEA party voters don't agree on how to wield the mighty arm of the law, they agree that it should be weakened. They believe that instead these things should be decided on a state, or community level, but not on the national level. They certainly wouldn't push for the regulations you speak of, and controling communications is right out.
I think that you've summed it up. The purpose for any of this comes down to the government wanting more. In this case, I think it's the government wanting more control of personal data. Of course, it could just be for more money in the way of an ISP fee. IMHO, the government should stay out of such things entirely.
I'm certain that you meant that as an insult, but it actually seems pretty good to me. We have a large ball of resources that we know won't last even if we don't use it. I'm all for keeping things clean pleasant where possible, but I think that we should use what we can get from it.
That's why I favor drilling on our own land rather than bringing oil in across the ocean which we've seen make a mess. We should be smart and work on alternatives for when the supply runs out, but I think it's foolish to just let a good resource go to waste.
I think that the main point of contention is whether you belive that man will be able to "save the planet". I do not, so most of the arguments of the green movement mean nothing to me. That isn't to say that there are some arguments that would be apealing, but they are sadly unemphasised these days.
Profanity is rare for me. Amoung the people I spend time with, most use none at all, though I have some acquaintances who slip on ocassion. Most of the clerks at the stores don't either. In fact, slashdot is the only exposure that I have to profanity on a regular basis.
As for televangelists, you would have a hard time finding one that is biblically sound. I'm not sure that I even know of any who are.
There are a few things I expect from a movie. Sadly, Hollywood does not provide them.
Other things I would like:
Basically, I don't care a bit about the latest special effects and celebrities. I don't care what kind of TV commercials they have. I would much rather spend $30 on a simple film that meets my needs than $2 on some over budget eye candy that doesn't. Furthermore, I am not effected by fancy advertising. I likely couldn't even name one single movie currently in theaters, but I can name at least three that have little to no advertising. As for distribution, I can burn my own CD. Basically, the only cost there is that of hosting the torrent (and the initial seeding). I'm probably a minority, but I think there are enough of us out there to present a market for cheap films.
You are forgetting that these worthless corporate tools are complying with the law. Naturally the law will be on their side, so it does make sense. If you think the law doesn't make sense, then consider new politicians.
The difference is that in a free market (which we no longer have) anybody is equally as welcome to that money and the power that goes with it. If the people don't want them to have power, then they shouldn't buy their merchandise. If somebody wants power to stop them, then they should sell useful products/services, or collect donations from people who do.
Sadly, the problem here is that government regulations unfairly distribute money and power to people who did not earn it. In this case, it's the media companies.
Here in America, these groups heavily support the Democrats, and for good reason. It is that party which spends large ammounts of money in pork spending and other boons to them. Both of the current parties have their pet projects, so I'm not saying that either is good. It's just something to think about when you vote next month.
It is interesting, but I always thought that slime molds were just randomly generated. Of course, I would still like to see them used to trace a path for a railway through the Dungeons of Doom.
That's a tautology. All truth is liberal.
To the contrary, by your definition of "liberal", no truth is liberal.
For instance, "1x1=1" is pretty narrow-minded. In fact, for most people who support that statement, it's not even up to debate. Liberal implies that everything is subjective, hence the "open-mindedness". Truth, by it's very nature must be objective. Therefore, while any statement may be accepted by a liberal thinker, to hold it as truth is to betray liberality.
Open-mindedness is great for creating art and brainstorming. However, narrow-mindedness is required to form rational thought. A closed mind, on the other hand, only repeats what it has learned.
I completely agree. It's the fact that I don't know what I'm clicking that is the most concern for me. I don't think that I've ever knowingly clicked on a shortened URL for that reason.
I guess that I could understand why people who use twitter or other SMS technologies might want a shortened URL, but as you already mentioned, any site can do that for themself if they want. I don't think that anybody has a 140+ char domain name in use.
Defining what is a "real motion picture" by whether or not a handful of companies decide to play it is not the best option. I fully support capitalism, but for it to work, we must be able to move beyond reasoning that the level at which something is marketed is the definition of it's quality.
Media companies practically have an oligarchy, and people have been eating it up. However, as they pump out more trash, the people seek more substance. When comapanies want control, users want usability. In a time when economies are low and tech is high, I feel that people will reach more and more for technology and a community module for entertainment.
Currently, I don't go to theaters, so what comes out in them means little to me. I also don't spend much time in the video rental stores for the same reason: there's nothing there that interests me these days. I find that I have better luck finding good content on the internet. I'm probably a minority now, but I see that sentiment growing.
Even if light bulbs were inefficient at heating, they still provide light. So the question is whether they are inefficient at providing both light and heat. Other than an open flame (which has it's own drawbacks), I can't think of anything more efficient for providing both as well as an an incandescent light bulb. Also, the ability to use a simple potentiometer to adjust the brightness is nice.
Actually, the text reads "living soul". The word being translated soul is "nephesh", which according to my limited knowledge of Hebrew implies something a lot more complex than any single celled life, but would at least have to have been capable of breathing as we know of it. You say that the Bible does not contradict evolution. I once believed that too, but I was mistaken. I do not dispute Microevolution, but Macroevolution is clearly in opposition to the Bible.
One point is that man, as well as all creatures, were made in one day. The Bible is very clear on the length of a day as being what we think of as a day now. Furthermore, there have not been millions of years, but instead about 10,000 years, and man was around from the beginning. The point is that you either believe the Bible or you do not.
You are right that an atheist does not need Darwin, or even evolution or science for that matter. By definition, they must only believe that there is no God. You say that there is no way for God to prove Himself. That is true, it is impossible to prove anything to somebody who really wants to believe otherwise. If one were to ask for a proof that he understood, then it would seem too easy to be conclusive. God is not a sideshow performer, but instead the sovereign ruler of all who would be just even if He gave no proof and of His own whim demanded that everyone believe. Fortunately, God has given us the Bible, and offers to every man proof as much as he is willing to accept.
So, it comes down to faith. Therefore, the debate is not creationism or darwinism. It is between faith in God and faith in self (your own ability to successfully reason). Once one rejects God and the Bible, then he is free to debate darwinism vs. any other theory of how things were formed.
This will probably be modded into oblivion, but I am compelled to say this as simply and as honestly as I can. I can take a hit to my karma, and I understand that it may be off topic.
I was once an overthinker, still am sometimes. My mind was always moving contemplating everything, and I like it that way. Sometimes I wondered if my thoughts were out of control, but then pride set it and I would think that I was the smart one and that people who didn't think like me were too dumb to know better. I wanted to learn everything, so I studied science, but I was stuck with the realisation that what I had once thought of as "proof" didn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. So, I studied philosophy and even looked into metaphysics. I eventually read Descartes, and realised that the only undeniable statement is "I think, therefore I am". Everything else was based on assumption. I didn't want to admit it at the time, but that proved that all knowledge comes from faith in something. I then looked for a priori knowledge to see if there were something that we "just knew" to be true that I could start with, but began to get frustrated with all of the ridiculous suggestions.
The whole time, I was troubled. Although I saw the world as a beautiful place with more depth than the average person could comprehend, I was saddened that nobody else could see it the way that I did. Even though I believed I knew the reasons for everything, my life was still falling apart. I had swings of wild ecstasy followed by depression. I felt that the short depressions were worth the highs and that I had attained the best life could give me. I was wrong.
I would like to say that I found God, but the truth is that He found me. I thought that I knew Him because I had read the Bible and had been to church, but despite my own wisdom, I knew very little about Him. In the end, knowledge let me down as I realised that the world I had built was a fantasy world. When every body and everything, even my mind failed me, God lifted me up and showed me His way. Only then, could I really understand the Bible. Now, it is hard for me to understand how I ever ignored the truth in front of me. The scriptures are practical and have answered with ease all of the questions that I thought were beyond my grasp with logic that I cannot deny. I discovered that I didn't care anymore to understand me because it isn't about me.
I still get upset when some Christian tries to persuade somebody with faulty logic like Pascal's Wager, especially when there are so many better arguments. I particularly despise the televangelists whose knowledge of God is probably less than an atheist's. I can say that now my thoughts are tamed and more focused and productive. A lot of the old paradoxes that used to amuse me are like childish games now. Most of all, I am happy and at peace. There is still plenty for me to contemplate. The problem was that before, I was starting with a faulty foundation, so all of my learning was shaky. The foundation which has been given to me now is sturdy and sure. I have questioned it and tried it, and have found it unshakeable.
The Bible says that no temptation has taken you but that which is common to man. Don't think that you are alone in this. It may be a gene that makes it more prominent, but how we deal with it is up to each of us.
I'm posting this using Iron. You may just have changed my browser. Time will tell, but I love having the option. Thank you.
Imagine an OS that doesn't need virus protection, doesn't crash, and is completely customisable. Imagine a browser that doesn't beg for viruses and follows a consistent set of standards between release rather than arbitrarily making new rules each time. Imagine software that is free and useful that doesn't come from some shady site that you've never heard of. Believe it or not, such software already exists. It's called FOSS, and an entire toolchain has been built with it allowing all sorts of new and powerful applications.
That's a great start. If you can tell me how I could get the functioanlity of Vimperator, Web Developer, and Video Download helper, then I might be looking at a new browser.
I use Firefox exclusively on my laptop. Speed is not its strong point. The main reason that I use FF is for a few add-ons that I now find necessary (mostly Vimperator to get vi keybindings). Speed is a reasonable trade off for me to have such a customizable browser, and I always assumed that the speed loss may have been due to the XUL stuff.
I think that FF being slow is common knowledge these days. I think that Mozilla is trying to show that the reason their browser is slower on some (most) things is because it is optimised for other things. In that case, I don't mind the test being skewed. If I thought that they were saying that FF was the fastest browser, I might laugh and move on.
Clippy: I see that you are writing a ruling. Would you like me to show you the EULA where we already own your ruling through Microsoft's substantial control of the legal system?
My vote is that all official documents must be typed in vi(m), or at worst emacs. Even if somebody did manage to use DOS line endings, a few simple keypresses would fix it.
This kind of thing makes me happy to do IT work. In an economy where people can't afford the basic necessities, they still seem to be willing to spend money on technology. As I see it, there are a few reasons for this. First, websites, computers, and the like can be seen as giving an advantage which can be helpful in tough times. Also , it's one of the improvements to a business that at the moment doesn't have huge government price tags and red tape. That is, until the EPA decides that servers cause dangerous emissions. Of course, the most important things is that computers and technology are still cool and people will always want the latest new toy.
I see this as yet another bubble, and I plan to hold on until it bursts. I'll fight against the government spending money on such wasteful things all day. However, I plan to be there to catch the profits as they fall down.
The really smart criminals are the politicians. Look at the current administration here in the US. They are the ones who took bribes, stole money and pushed their agendas and crashed the system. Then, they blamed it on the one guy who wasn't (at least not completely) in bed with them, and managed to get elected again to do the exact same things. Then, they ask for more money while convincing the people that we have to "do something" because the last administration (i.e. themselves) messed things up so badly. The people with their hands in the housing market crash have been promoted, and one is now the president.
Look at the so-called stimulus bill. The first one suckered us out of our money and made us even worse off than we were, but now the tell us they need to do it again. Their reasoning? "We can't just sit here and do nothing" It's pretty cold and immoral, but it does take some smarts, and they do get rich off of us.
These petty criminals aren't smart. If they were, they would be "Community Organisers" and get a nice salary, excellent benefits, and have a chance at a nice political career. All they have to do is spread some liberal propaganda. If you think I'm making it up, look at Craigslist's "nonprofit sector". They may have be hoaxes, but it's still interesting.
...and much like the MS progress bar, the whole system will crash long before the bar reaches completion.
That's exactly my reaction. I have no interest in their music. In fact, I don't currently listen to any contemporary music, and I haven't paid for music in years. However, seeing something like this almost makes me want to find a way to contribute. In reality, I'll probably never get around to sending any cash their way. Nevertheless, if I can be swayed a little, I'm sure that there are many almost fans who will get to know them and like them because of this move. I don't know if this type of marketing could work without also selling albums, concerts, etc., but I'm sure that it adds to their appeal.
I think that I may disagree with you on every point here. First off, as far as morality is concerned, prostitution is wrong. Morality is not subjective. If that were the case, then it would be moral for me to kill people. It is objectively immoral for anybody to have sex with anybody who they are not married to, wether for pay or for fun.
That being said, I don't think that something should be illegal just because it is wrong. If that were the case, then we should fine people for making stupid /. comments. Legality, at least in America, should be based on law and respect of the right to own, use, and trade property including your body. Some people are willing to degrade themselves and harm themselves for profit. I think that all of us would agree that it is wrong to hold a gun to somebody's head, but offering money makes it their choice. People should be legally allowed to make wrong and immoral choices in our society.
Now that I'm done with that rant, I can point out that Craigslist is probably doing what it feels is best for their site. They probably don't care either way for the adult section and realise that it opens them up to liability that they don't want. If somebody wants an adult meeting site, build one. It's not that hard.