> No, actually at least half of the stations you get on cable are subscription based.
I'm not signed up for any premium channels. Some of the channels I get are cable-only (the Comedy Channel or Sci-Fi are good examples), but even those are not subscription based. Keeping in mind that I was only using the $50.00 example because the parent did, I am literally only paying my $15.00 a month for delivery, not premium programming. I know I'm a little unusual in this, but since the original poster didn't allow exceptions I felt comfortable shooting back.
I thoroughly agree with you. That said, and switching on func(devil's_advocate), the networks are concerned for these reasons:
1.) PVRs make functionally perfect copies for cheap (I know they don't perfectly copy the incoming signal, but once captured subsequent copies can be replicated identically).
2.) It's much easier to edit out the commercials from a digital file than an analog recording (remember, (devil's_advocate) mode...).
3.) Sending said now-edited files around the world via the Internet will demolish the aftermarket for reselling TV shows/movies thus recorded.
Again, I stress that I disagree on the fundamentals of this, but I did want to point out that their argument isn't deontological. That is, they're not trying to argue that it's a duty to watch the ads. I'm sure they'd love to make everyone feel it's their duty to watch the commercials like good little consumers, but even they know that it would be unsupportable to say that.
I completely agree that the current business model for broadcasters is in danger of obsolescence from PVRs, but what your original article stated, and the the point I contended, was the right to free television. Still, there is a point in your latest response that I'd like to address.
> 3. Also, because the airwaves are public property, the networks can't just start encrypting those publicly owned airwaves. It's like a private company fencing off a public park and charging admission to get in.
Not exactly. It's perfectly legal to encrypt the data stream and then send it over a public frequency (HBO and cell networks do this all the time) as long as your FCC license allows it. At this point, regular television channels can't get such permission, but if a majority of them can begin to demonstrate significant financial hardship from their business model dying, they'll start getting permission to encrypt (or something else). Before you complain about this, you did say that the onus is on them to revise their business model, and switching network TV to pay-per-view certainly is a revision of the model, although not one I'd really like to see.
> oh wait...thats right, you probably pay upwards of $50/month for your free content, right? RIGHT?
Wrong. I pay $50.00 a month to get the broadcast signal sent to my house over a land-based cable, because I can then receive channels that are too far away for an antenna, and because I get better reception on the channels that are local. Therefore, I'm paying for the delivery network, not the content.
Wrong, yourself. You don't have the right to free television just because the airwaves are public any more than you have a right to a free vehicle because the government supports the highway system. The networks broadcast to everyone without charging for the signal itself (think encrypted signal like premium cable for contrast). In exchange, they air advertisements to pay for their costs. This is why they feel so threatened by devices like TiVo and Replay.
> In the US, as long as it is ion a different industry, and can not be reasonably mistaken for earlier trademark (i.e. not a similiar product, service, or device) you can have previously owned trade mark.
BT considered this, and it was addressed in the argument of fact in the case. Their claim was that since Sun's YP was an online search process (albeit not for phone numbers and such), that it would be confusing if BT ever wanted to put "the Yellow Pages" online.
> Both may be more physically demanding then what you are used to, but still will be a paycheck.
Good reading. He's got a job, you dimwit. And, since it's a part time, $5.50/hr convenience store job, I'd have a hard time saying he feels any particular job is "beneath" him. I find it easier to believe you're just more full of bluster than comprehension.
> There is no point in half assing life. Either bust ass or get out. This is weak.
I find I must protest your implication. His implication is not to "half-ass" life, but to expend less of his life on his job. At the expense of financial reward, he's getting more time to spend on things other than his job. If he chooses to spend that extra time watching TV, that's his choice. I wouldn't do the same (actually, I don't do the same) but this does not necessarily mean he's a layabout.
I've had a lot of people tell me that I could do better than I have if I'd get a job at a bigger company, but since money is only a part of what I want to get from life, I'm instead working for less of it. In trade, I get to work at a great little company serving a niche market, making decent money doing what I love doing. If you think that means I'm "half-assing" my life, my sons and my instruments will disagree with you.
> But did you read it to learn how to operate
the car or to learn the "rules of the road" in order to pass the test.
No, but I did take lessons, which is functionally the same. Whether by lessons, reading or simply observing others do it, I still had to learn to start and operate the car.
> My 5 year old knows how to enter, start
and drive almost any car, even though he has never done it, read the manual or understod the rules of the road.
Again, familiarity takes over. It's true he's never read about operating your car or done it, but it's a safe bet he's watched you and others do it (so he's learned it by watching instead of practicing, but still learned it) and also, how good a driver do you really think he'd be if he tried? Without practice, not good, I'd guess.
> Did you need to RTFM in order to get out of a car, ever?
Back to the Ben Franklin example. I've learned by watching that the handle will open the door when pulled, given that the door is unlocked. Without that foreknowledge, is an unmarked handle and door lock latch really intuitive to someone who hasn't seen them? Would a handle marked "door open" and a latch marked "door locked/unlocked" be clearer? Remember, when you discuss intuitive, it has to be easily discernable for users who have never been in the described situation.
I agree that Cooper's book is worth a read, but I have to stop a little short of "fabulous" because of his problems with perspective. Understandably, he considers the user interface to be supreme, but he fails to see when usability isn't the most important consideration. The specific example he used was related to using an ATM. He states that the design of the interface is poor because he needs to enter all of the information necessary for a transaction, but if any of it is incorrect, the machine unceremoniously dumps him out and he needs to start again, rather than allowing him to correct what's wrong. Now it would seem he's right, but he doesn't consider that there's any good reason for this behavior, and in fact, it's done on purpose. The purpose is to maximize the inconvenience for someone who's trying to get money from the machine illegally, thereby either getting that person to give up the attempt, or to spend more time trying while the camera takes picture after picture of the criminal. However, because Mr. Cooper never considered why the machine does what it does, or can't imagine anyone using the machine differently than he does, he assumes that it's simply bad design. Many of his comments are on the mark, but while reading I suggest the reader look deeper into his experiences to see if there's more to the story than Alan notices.
Nice thought, but let's keep our perspective. As a percantage, how many brain surgeries involve life-or-death risks? It's very nearly all of them. How many programs can claim the same? It's rather closer to zero. Comparing the two is silly on the same level as comparing putting a Band-Aid on a ten year old's finger to brain surgery.
Actually, the design of most automobiles (and the operator interface) is controlled as much by legislation and safety concerns as by intuitive use. And as another point, yes, I did need to RTFM to drive a car. It was my driver's manual, so I could get a license. The point is that most automobiles are driven the same way, but to learn any of them, you must first learn one of them, which takes practice. The similarity among automobiles makes it easy to move from one to another, but if you insist that driving a car is in and of itself intuitive, I ask that you consider how someone who had never seen a car before would fare behind the wheel. For example, even if you told Ben Franklin what a car did, would he be able to tell without experimenting how to get it started, in gear, and moving in a non-hazardous manner? Probably not.
Also, you aren't considering that many programs don't do the same things. To extend that to your car analogy, you'd have to say that the same controls that you use to drive a car should seamlessly translate to flying a plane or driving a submarine, as they are also vehicles. Again, once you learn one airplane, you can (at least marginally) operate most of them, but again, it's not intuitive or nobody would need a pilot's license. For humorous demonstration, imagine you're on a plane, and the pilot passes out. You get behind the controls, and when you raise the tower on the radio, they say, "Just land it! It's like falling off a log!" I think you can see my point.
> Isn't it funny how that bible states that the earth is round? and this was written in the bible when the earth was still considered to be flat.
Isn't that interesting? Think about it... Now, how on earth could that get into the bible? And it wasnt by pure chance, unlike the theory of evolution which depends puerly on chance.
There are a few possible answers to this. If I felt contrary, I could say that the "Earth=round" was inserted into the Bible after the fact. Maybe it was a lucky guess. Perhaps it really was divine inspiration. The point is that it's not compelling evidence that it's divine inspiration. Oh, and evolution doesn't rely solely on chance. That's an extreme oversimplification, usually only used when one is trying to "straw-man" the theory.
> People are so gullable these days. Because some scientist somehere says something, everyone believes it, without question.
No argument here, although I'd extend it to anyone with a real or perceived claim to authority or expertise.
> How can you predict what happend some 12 billion years ago? The weather is bearly accurate to more than one day, and yet evolutionists claim they know what was in the earths atmosphere billions of years ago.
You have a skewed idea of the definition of "predict" if you think one needs to predict the past. The reason the weather long ago is better known than the weather tomorrow is that the long ago has already happened. Scientists can tell what the Earth's climate was like long ago by seeing the evidence of its effects. When meteorologists predict the weather, they're merely taking what they have and extrapolating educated guesses.
> When Charles Darwin came up with the theory of Evolution, not only did the world not believe it, but neither did he. As i see it, the theory of evolution was made up to create a substitute belief to creation.
Whether he believed in it or not is irrelevant to whether it's consistent with the evidence. And, as I see it, it was put forward as a theory to explain biological diversity in the Galapagos Islands.
> People dont want to believe that there is a being somwhere in the heavens that is superior to them, a being that created them and the universe. This being is able to create the universe, and all that is in it, from giant starts, to microscopic life in six days.
Based on the fact that 95% of the world believes in said higher power, I'd say that people do want to believe in a higher power.
> People dont understand how this is possible, and so they create a theory, which allows them to deceive themselves into thinking that they are the superior being. They dont want to have to submit to the one and only true God, they want to do their own thing, which is evil.
Apologies, but this is just nonsense. Firstly, nobody who follows the theory of the origin of the species thinks they they are the controlling factor in that origin, so your claims they they're thinking they are the superior being is incorrect. Second, "the one and only true God" is not science, it's religion, so it can't be applied to the theory of origins in any meaningful way.
> I'm not providing much scientific evidence here for creation, but, any critical person, should be able to see that the theory of evolution is only a THEORY.
You seem to imply that because it's a theory, that it's necessarily wrong. The theory of relativity is also considered a theory, but it has stood up to much experimentation. "Theory" means "not yet proven" but should not be extrapolated to mean incorrect. It's more appropriate to say that theories are incomplete.
> How can we, who dont even understand life, who cant create life in a controlled enviroment, claim that life came about by chance?
There are two points here. First, nobody on Earth can explain why gravitation works. Nobody knows the reason why massive bodies attract one another. To say, however, that this means we can't discuss gravitation in a meaningful way is just silly. We discuss gravity by examining its effects on our universe. We discuss evolution the same way.
Second, I don't personally know anybody who claims that life "came about by chance", and this is the classic straw man argument about evolutionary theory. All this statement demonstrates is that you haven't actually read or studied the theory, because your statement demonstrates gross misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution. I won't go into the gory details unless you wish me to do so, but suffice it to say you're badly misinterpreting evolutionary theory, and it ruins your argument.
> With all of our intelligence, we have not been able to create life in a lab, and this is with inteligent input. There was no intelligent input in the theory of evolution. Just chance.
Refer to my statements above about incomplete understanding, and about the "evolution=chance" argument. I will add here that not being able to create life in a lab has no bearing to this discussion, because it assumes that because we haven't done it yet, we never will, and because we don't understand it now, we never can. A mere one hundred years ago, nobody could build a heavier-than-air flying machine, or a computer, or a television, or any of a thousand other things. We learn. It's what we do best.
A window in the side of your PS won't show the electrons unless you get clear wires and you peel the wrapping off of all of the capacitors and wrap them back up with Scotch tape.
> TV program 'sharing' will not revolutionize anything in any way. It doesn't do anything that can't be done much easier using existing technologies.
Actually, it does. Digital recording allows for several things that "today's technology" (read: what's popular today) can't easily do:
1.) Digital data is much more portable than video tape. Where VHS can't go (handhelds, over the wire, in small storage spaces), digitized video can.
2.) Editing out commercials is a pain in the ass with video tape, and requires more than one machine. With digital video, chopping out the commercials doesn't require much in money, time or expertise.
3.) Sharing is much easier, for reason 1 above. I can readily share VHS tapes only with people I meet in meatspace unless I want to incur mailing costs, whereas I can send digital video anywhere in the world with ease.
I can see easily why TV executives are scared by this loss of content control. Imagine how concerned they must be at the prospect that I can capture VHS-quality recordings of a whole season of Buffy, strip the commercials out and store them on one DVD (which will be cheap enough for widespread use within two years, if the CD-RW market is any indicator).
While the Klingon language is littered with apostrophes, your statement shouldn't be, pitiful pa'taQ.
Virg
P.S. Although the Klingon people are a fictitious entity, the Klingon language is not. It was originally assembled into a partial vocabulary by a fellow whose name escapes me, which has since then grown into a moderately usable language, much in the stripe of J.R.R. Tolkein's Elvish tongue.
1.) 95 theses, not 99.
2.) The Wittenburg church, not the Vatican, which doesn't have a door per se.
3.) Protestant Reformation, not Revolution (and no, that's not just semantics; the words mean very different things).
I have to argue your idea of "updating" the Second Amendment. The original intent was to (among other things) prevent the government from getting into a position where no group, no matter how big, was able to overthrow an oppressive regime. This means that it comes down to a metter of scale. The problem with letting everybody own their own bomb is twofold: first, the destructive power of a bomb gives a single person an inordinate amount of power. For example, if I have a normal handgun or rifle, I could (with planning and luck) take out many people. That number, however, is nothing to the scale of how much damage I could do with even a modest truck bomb (witness OK city for evidence of that device's destructive force). Second, such weapons can't really be used defensively, except in a preemptive manner. If someone wants to blow me up, and the only weapon I have is a bomb, then I have to blow them up before they can do the same to me, even if I don't know that I'm in danger.
So, there need to be limits on what "arms" means in the right to keep and bear arms, lest single entities start building private armies.
There's a grey area here. What the revelant parts of the site said was, in essence, "The government of this country needs to be overthrown violently. Here's how to build a bomb." Overly simplistic, I know, but it's not hard to see how a clear and present danger can be inferred from this. Whether that inference is too tenuous to be criminal has yet to be decided.
> I think YOU actually need to read some history, it certainly is okay to advocate violence.
The rules of the Constitution do not apply to the Revolutionary War, since the Constitution did not exist at that time. Also, the Founding Fathers were considered terrorists and criminals by the then-in-power government, namely the English royalty. Lastly, neither the British monarchy nor the U.S. Constitution say it's okay to advocate violence, and both governments have criminalized it. It's just that there are parts of the Constitution that make it difficult for the U.S. government to eliminate the means for violent revolution so that if things got bad enough the people could revolt against the government again.
Still, all of this is tangential to the original charge, which is defacing web sites, which he admitted. And, the punishment he's undergone so far was confiscation of his computers and documents and questioning for six hours. This is not only not extreme, it's not even all that severe. As to the raid, there's nothing that says the FBI can't show up at your house with a dozen tanks to make an arrest. They're just not allowed to use more force than is necessary to make the arrest safely. Since there's no mention that they shot up his house or used explosives to crack the door, I don't see anything out of line legally.
The major reasoning why this doesn't catch on is signal degradation. Taking the data off of the leads is certainly doable (in some of my studio work, there have been musicians that liked the sound of a particular amp or stack so much that they'd rather park a quality mic in front of it or power-soak the sound from the speaker wires back to line level than use a modeling device) but for most users (who don't have access to high-grade gear), this represents a noticeable drop in signal quality.
Slashdot Mirror
> No, actually at least half of the stations you get on cable are subscription based.
I'm not signed up for any premium channels. Some of the channels I get are cable-only (the Comedy Channel or Sci-Fi are good examples), but even those are not subscription based. Keeping in mind that I was only using the $50.00 example because the parent did, I am literally only paying my $15.00 a month for delivery, not premium programming. I know I'm a little unusual in this, but since the original poster didn't allow exceptions I felt comfortable shooting back.
Virg
I thoroughly agree with you. That said, and switching on func(devil's_advocate), the networks are concerned for these reasons:
1.) PVRs make functionally perfect copies for cheap (I know they don't perfectly copy the incoming signal, but once captured subsequent copies can be replicated identically).
2.) It's much easier to edit out the commercials from a digital file than an analog recording (remember, (devil's_advocate) mode...).
3.) Sending said now-edited files around the world via the Internet will demolish the aftermarket for reselling TV shows/movies thus recorded.
Again, I stress that I disagree on the fundamentals of this, but I did want to point out that their argument isn't deontological. That is, they're not trying to argue that it's a duty to watch the ads. I'm sure they'd love to make everyone feel it's their duty to watch the commercials like good little consumers, but even they know that it would be unsupportable to say that.
Virg
I completely agree that the current business model for broadcasters is in danger of obsolescence from PVRs, but what your original article stated, and the the point I contended, was the right to free television. Still, there is a point in your latest response that I'd like to address.
> 3. Also, because the airwaves are public property, the networks can't just start encrypting those publicly owned airwaves. It's like a private company fencing off a public park and charging admission to get in.
Not exactly. It's perfectly legal to encrypt the data stream and then send it over a public frequency (HBO and cell networks do this all the time) as long as your FCC license allows it. At this point, regular television channels can't get such permission, but if a majority of them can begin to demonstrate significant financial hardship from their business model dying, they'll start getting permission to encrypt (or something else). Before you complain about this, you did say that the onus is on them to revise their business model, and switching network TV to pay-per-view certainly is a revision of the model, although not one I'd really like to see.
Virg
> oh wait.. .thats right, you probably pay upwards of $50/month for your free content, right? RIGHT?
Wrong. I pay $50.00 a month to get the broadcast signal sent to my house over a land-based cable, because I can then receive channels that are too far away for an antenna, and because I get better reception on the channels that are local. Therefore, I'm paying for the delivery network, not the content.
Virg
Wrong, yourself. You don't have the right to free television just because the airwaves are public any more than you have a right to a free vehicle because the government supports the highway system. The networks broadcast to everyone without charging for the signal itself (think encrypted signal like premium cable for contrast). In exchange, they air advertisements to pay for their costs. This is why they feel so threatened by devices like TiVo and Replay.
Virg
> In the US, as long as it is ion a different industry, and can not be reasonably mistaken for earlier trademark (i.e. not a similiar product, service, or device) you can have previously owned trade mark.
BT considered this, and it was addressed in the argument of fact in the case. Their claim was that since Sun's YP was an online search process (albeit not for phone numbers and such), that it would be confusing if BT ever wanted to put "the Yellow Pages" online.
Virg
> Both may be more physically demanding then what you are used to, but still will be a paycheck.
Good reading. He's got a job, you dimwit. And, since it's a part time, $5.50/hr convenience store job, I'd have a hard time saying he feels any particular job is "beneath" him. I find it easier to believe you're just more full of bluster than comprehension.
Virg
> There is no point in half assing life. Either bust ass or get out. This is weak.
I find I must protest your implication. His implication is not to "half-ass" life, but to expend less of his life on his job. At the expense of financial reward, he's getting more time to spend on things other than his job. If he chooses to spend that extra time watching TV, that's his choice. I wouldn't do the same (actually, I don't do the same) but this does not necessarily mean he's a layabout.
I've had a lot of people tell me that I could do better than I have if I'd get a job at a bigger company, but since money is only a part of what I want to get from life, I'm instead working for less of it. In trade, I get to work at a great little company serving a niche market, making decent money doing what I love doing. If you think that means I'm "half-assing" my life, my sons and my instruments will disagree with you.
Virg
Playing such scenarios has its value, but in realistic terms, the situation described happens only extremely rarely.
Virg
> But did you read it to learn how to operate the car or to learn the "rules of the road" in order to pass the test.
No, but I did take lessons, which is functionally the same. Whether by lessons, reading or simply observing others do it, I still had to learn to start and operate the car.
> My 5 year old knows how to enter, start and drive almost any car, even though he has never done it, read the manual or understod the rules of the road.
Again, familiarity takes over. It's true he's never read about operating your car or done it, but it's a safe bet he's watched you and others do it (so he's learned it by watching instead of practicing, but still learned it) and also, how good a driver do you really think he'd be if he tried? Without practice, not good, I'd guess.
> Did you need to RTFM in order to get out of a car, ever?
Back to the Ben Franklin example. I've learned by watching that the handle will open the door when pulled, given that the door is unlocked. Without that foreknowledge, is an unmarked handle and door lock latch really intuitive to someone who hasn't seen them? Would a handle marked "door open" and a latch marked "door locked/unlocked" be clearer? Remember, when you discuss intuitive, it has to be easily discernable for users who have never been in the described situation.
Virg
I agree that Cooper's book is worth a read, but I have to stop a little short of "fabulous" because of his problems with perspective. Understandably, he considers the user interface to be supreme, but he fails to see when usability isn't the most important consideration. The specific example he used was related to using an ATM. He states that the design of the interface is poor because he needs to enter all of the information necessary for a transaction, but if any of it is incorrect, the machine unceremoniously dumps him out and he needs to start again, rather than allowing him to correct what's wrong. Now it would seem he's right, but he doesn't consider that there's any good reason for this behavior, and in fact, it's done on purpose. The purpose is to maximize the inconvenience for someone who's trying to get money from the machine illegally, thereby either getting that person to give up the attempt, or to spend more time trying while the camera takes picture after picture of the criminal. However, because Mr. Cooper never considered why the machine does what it does, or can't imagine anyone using the machine differently than he does, he assumes that it's simply bad design. Many of his comments are on the mark, but while reading I suggest the reader look deeper into his experiences to see if there's more to the story than Alan notices.
Virg
Nice thought, but let's keep our perspective. As a percantage, how many brain surgeries involve life-or-death risks? It's very nearly all of them. How many programs can claim the same? It's rather closer to zero. Comparing the two is silly on the same level as comparing putting a Band-Aid on a ten year old's finger to brain surgery.
Virg
Actually, the design of most automobiles (and the operator interface) is controlled as much by legislation and safety concerns as by intuitive use. And as another point, yes, I did need to RTFM to drive a car. It was my driver's manual, so I could get a license. The point is that most automobiles are driven the same way, but to learn any of them, you must first learn one of them, which takes practice. The similarity among automobiles makes it easy to move from one to another, but if you insist that driving a car is in and of itself intuitive, I ask that you consider how someone who had never seen a car before would fare behind the wheel. For example, even if you told Ben Franklin what a car did, would he be able to tell without experimenting how to get it started, in gear, and moving in a non-hazardous manner? Probably not.
Also, you aren't considering that many programs don't do the same things. To extend that to your car analogy, you'd have to say that the same controls that you use to drive a car should seamlessly translate to flying a plane or driving a submarine, as they are also vehicles. Again, once you learn one airplane, you can (at least marginally) operate most of them, but again, it's not intuitive or nobody would need a pilot's license. For humorous demonstration, imagine you're on a plane, and the pilot passes out. You get behind the controls, and when you raise the tower on the radio, they say, "Just land it! It's like falling off a log!" I think you can see my point.
Virg
...if spoilers and racing stripes are part of your car's user interface, I'd say you need some driving lessons, or a different car.
Virg
> Isn't it funny how that bible states that the earth is round? and this was written in the bible when the earth was still considered to be flat. Isn't that interesting? Think about it... Now, how on earth could that get into the bible? And it wasnt by pure chance, unlike the theory of evolution which depends puerly on chance.
There are a few possible answers to this. If I felt contrary, I could say that the "Earth=round" was inserted into the Bible after the fact. Maybe it was a lucky guess. Perhaps it really was divine inspiration. The point is that it's not compelling evidence that it's divine inspiration. Oh, and evolution doesn't rely solely on chance. That's an extreme oversimplification, usually only used when one is trying to "straw-man" the theory.
> People are so gullable these days. Because some scientist somehere says something, everyone believes it, without question.
No argument here, although I'd extend it to anyone with a real or perceived claim to authority or expertise.
> How can you predict what happend some 12 billion years ago? The weather is bearly accurate to more than one day, and yet evolutionists claim they know what was in the earths atmosphere billions of years ago.
You have a skewed idea of the definition of "predict" if you think one needs to predict the past. The reason the weather long ago is better known than the weather tomorrow is that the long ago has already happened. Scientists can tell what the Earth's climate was like long ago by seeing the evidence of its effects. When meteorologists predict the weather, they're merely taking what they have and extrapolating educated guesses.
> When Charles Darwin came up with the theory of Evolution, not only did the world not believe it, but neither did he. As i see it, the theory of evolution was made up to create a substitute belief to creation.
Whether he believed in it or not is irrelevant to whether it's consistent with the evidence. And, as I see it, it was put forward as a theory to explain biological diversity in the Galapagos Islands.
> People dont want to believe that there is a being somwhere in the heavens that is superior to them, a being that created them and the universe. This being is able to create the universe, and all that is in it, from giant starts, to microscopic life in six days.
Based on the fact that 95% of the world believes in said higher power, I'd say that people do want to believe in a higher power.
> People dont understand how this is possible, and so they create a theory, which allows them to deceive themselves into thinking that they are the superior being. They dont want to have to submit to the one and only true God, they want to do their own thing, which is evil.
Apologies, but this is just nonsense. Firstly, nobody who follows the theory of the origin of the species thinks they they are the controlling factor in that origin, so your claims they they're thinking they are the superior being is incorrect. Second, "the one and only true God" is not science, it's religion, so it can't be applied to the theory of origins in any meaningful way.
> I'm not providing much scientific evidence here for creation, but, any critical person, should be able to see that the theory of evolution is only a THEORY.
You seem to imply that because it's a theory, that it's necessarily wrong. The theory of relativity is also considered a theory, but it has stood up to much experimentation. "Theory" means "not yet proven" but should not be extrapolated to mean incorrect. It's more appropriate to say that theories are incomplete.
> How can we, who dont even understand life, who cant create life in a controlled enviroment, claim that life came about by chance?
There are two points here. First, nobody on Earth can explain why gravitation works. Nobody knows the reason why massive bodies attract one another. To say, however, that this means we can't discuss gravitation in a meaningful way is just silly. We discuss gravity by examining its effects on our universe. We discuss evolution the same way.
Second, I don't personally know anybody who claims that life "came about by chance", and this is the classic straw man argument about evolutionary theory. All this statement demonstrates is that you haven't actually read or studied the theory, because your statement demonstrates gross misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution. I won't go into the gory details unless you wish me to do so, but suffice it to say you're badly misinterpreting evolutionary theory, and it ruins your argument.
> With all of our intelligence, we have not been able to create life in a lab, and this is with inteligent input. There was no intelligent input in the theory of evolution. Just chance.
Refer to my statements above about incomplete understanding, and about the "evolution=chance" argument. I will add here that not being able to create life in a lab has no bearing to this discussion, because it assumes that because we haven't done it yet, we never will, and because we don't understand it now, we never can. A mere one hundred years ago, nobody could build a heavier-than-air flying machine, or a computer, or a television, or any of a thousand other things. We learn. It's what we do best.
Virg
A window in the side of your PS won't show the electrons unless you get clear wires and you peel the wrapping off of all of the capacitors and wrap them back up with Scotch tape.
Sheez.
Virg
> TV program 'sharing' will not revolutionize anything in any way. It doesn't do anything that can't be done much easier using existing technologies.
Actually, it does. Digital recording allows for several things that "today's technology" (read: what's popular today) can't easily do:
1.) Digital data is much more portable than video tape. Where VHS can't go (handhelds, over the wire, in small storage spaces), digitized video can.
2.) Editing out commercials is a pain in the ass with video tape, and requires more than one machine. With digital video, chopping out the commercials doesn't require much in money, time or expertise.
3.) Sharing is much easier, for reason 1 above. I can readily share VHS tapes only with people I meet in meatspace unless I want to incur mailing costs, whereas I can send digital video anywhere in the world with ease.
I can see easily why TV executives are scared by this loss of content control. Imagine how concerned they must be at the prospect that I can capture VHS-quality recordings of a whole season of Buffy, strip the commercials out and store them on one DVD (which will be cheap enough for widespread use within two years, if the CD-RW market is any indicator).
Virg
While the Klingon language is littered with apostrophes, your statement shouldn't be, pitiful pa'taQ.
Virg
P.S. Although the Klingon people are a fictitious entity, the Klingon language is not. It was originally assembled into a partial vocabulary by a fellow whose name escapes me, which has since then grown into a moderately usable language, much in the stripe of J.R.R. Tolkein's Elvish tongue.
Well, that's a simple one. Eat all of the Pixie Stix powder, get massive sugar rush, and you'll be unstoppable!
Virg
1.) 95 theses, not 99.
2.) The Wittenburg church, not the Vatican, which doesn't have a door per se.
3.) Protestant Reformation, not Revolution (and no, that's not just semantics; the words mean very different things).
Carry on.
Virg
I have to argue your idea of "updating" the Second Amendment. The original intent was to (among other things) prevent the government from getting into a position where no group, no matter how big, was able to overthrow an oppressive regime. This means that it comes down to a metter of scale. The problem with letting everybody own their own bomb is twofold: first, the destructive power of a bomb gives a single person an inordinate amount of power. For example, if I have a normal handgun or rifle, I could (with planning and luck) take out many people. That number, however, is nothing to the scale of how much damage I could do with even a modest truck bomb (witness OK city for evidence of that device's destructive force). Second, such weapons can't really be used defensively, except in a preemptive manner. If someone wants to blow me up, and the only weapon I have is a bomb, then I have to blow them up before they can do the same to me, even if I don't know that I'm in danger.
So, there need to be limits on what "arms" means in the right to keep and bear arms, lest single entities start building private armies.
Virg
There's a grey area here. What the revelant parts of the site said was, in essence, "The government of this country needs to be overthrown violently. Here's how to build a bomb." Overly simplistic, I know, but it's not hard to see how a clear and present danger can be inferred from this. Whether that inference is too tenuous to be criminal has yet to be decided.
Virg
> I think YOU actually need to read some history, it certainly is okay to advocate violence.
The rules of the Constitution do not apply to the Revolutionary War, since the Constitution did not exist at that time. Also, the Founding Fathers were considered terrorists and criminals by the then-in-power government, namely the English royalty. Lastly, neither the British monarchy nor the U.S. Constitution say it's okay to advocate violence, and both governments have criminalized it. It's just that there are parts of the Constitution that make it difficult for the U.S. government to eliminate the means for violent revolution so that if things got bad enough the people could revolt against the government again.
Still, all of this is tangential to the original charge, which is defacing web sites, which he admitted. And, the punishment he's undergone so far was confiscation of his computers and documents and questioning for six hours. This is not only not extreme, it's not even all that severe. As to the raid, there's nothing that says the FBI can't show up at your house with a dozen tanks to make an arrest. They're just not allowed to use more force than is necessary to make the arrest safely. Since there's no mention that they shot up his house or used explosives to crack the door, I don't see anything out of line legally.
Virg
The major reasoning why this doesn't catch on is signal degradation. Taking the data off of the leads is certainly doable (in some of my studio work, there have been musicians that liked the sound of a particular amp or stack so much that they'd rather park a quality mic in front of it or power-soak the sound from the speaker wires back to line level than use a modeling device) but for most users (who don't have access to high-grade gear), this represents a noticeable drop in signal quality.
Virg
This sort of competition already exists. They refer to the arena in which it takes place as (collectively) "the Middle East".
Virg