> Why is it not relevant that something which you mentioned as though it were in existence was in fact abandoned 3 years ago?
The RIAA went down the path of forgive, but a bunch of brats thumbed their nose at them, and the RIAA found it necessary to pursue other means to protect their property. Kind of like what the Warner bros CEO did.
> 2. Can you offer any evidence that this program was in fact "wide spread" or is that surmise on your part?
Anyone could sign up for it. Isn't that widespread? Oh, I see, you think I meant the people who signed up for it. No, people just want to get their music for free and not pay for it.
> 3. It's not at all clear that the "actions" to be prevented are "illegal". For example, do you have any legal authority for the proposition that having a shared files folder with copyrighted song files in it is "illegal"?
Please. No one is copying around random bits across filestores for a reason. They aren't worth anything. At the end of it, the most main reason by several orders of magnitude for carrying around copyrighted music bits is so someone can listen to it without a license.
The problem with all this stuff is not looking at a bunch of anonymous streets. It's about the way the world is going to be.
There will be surveillance everywhere run by an increasingly powerful organization, the US government. That in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. My tax dollars will stretch more, less police needed, etc. People will be safer. However, laws are generic in nature. Rather than having more freedom, less freedom will be the norm.
San Jose, CA passed a "no pissing outside" law some years ago. Now that may seem innocuous, but think about the reality. There are laws against indecent exposure, so it wasn't about that. It was that someone didn't like the idea of a guy urinating outside. The question then becomes, where to laws like this stop? No spitting laws?
Now who knows where things are heading, but the US government has already passed anti-discrimination laws, which include not making a hostile workforce. What about making a hostile location? There goes freedom of speech.
That's interesting. Given this,it would seem L and D life forms are orthoganal (outside, perhaps of plant life forms). One might expect "L" and "D" forms in the same bio-sphere if life were common.
I've read some are thinking perhaps meteors have biased amounts of L and D amino acids. The thinking is how can we explain only "L" handed life forms. If that doesn't turn out to be the case, another explanation gains credibility.
That is, perhaps it is really unusual to get life started in the first place.
Given that almost all life uses left handed amino acids, perhaps that is were life came from: some meteorite that favored left handed forms.
That there aren't right handed forms also suggests life might be hard to get started (someone help out here, could left handed life forms get calories from right handed life forms?).
Except when it comes to insensitive language at our places of learning.
Except in the workplace, where even facts might cause a hostile working environment (have a frank chat about the Koran and see if that is hostile, for instance).
Except by the use of the race card to silence ideas and opinions in politics.
Even/. readers will mark this down as flamebait because the truth hurts, and trying to silence opposition is the/. way.
Meanwhile, all the man said was that the world has changed and we may need to revisit freedom of speech. Since he hasn't said anything about how to restructure the freedom of speech, how can anyone fault what he said? He didn't say "eliminate it," you know. Given the article didn't delve much into his reasoning, nor any way in which he might want to restructure freedom of speech, it seems silly to be in opposition.
The obtuse indignation of your comments reveal you for what you really are: a self centered religious bigot. You want to control other people's actions for what YOU view as important. Everyone should recycle, so that way everyone can know the importance of Gaia earth.
Regarding your other post, I already provided the information. Go buy the book and read it yourself.
As an aside, it's really amazing to me how much the highest parent post and other posts I have made on this topic have been modded down for "flamebait" and "overrated." At least 6 mod points total. Typical religious tactics: try to silence opinion and ideas in opposition.
You claim you are freedom loving and open minded, but when you get right down to it, you aren't willing to have a reasonable debate, try to silence opinion, and are rude and arrogant to those who have a different viewpoint than your own.
Oh, I know, it's all for a good cause, the planet and all, but really the planet will continue to be just fine. If you look at other religious nut cases, like the Spanish Catholics who settled California, you will find they had similar views. They used to beat California Indians because they thought they were saving their soles. Now its different with you: you just use your tactics silly rules to get people to conform, by convincing like mindless zealots of the correctness of your religion.
See, you aren't willing to prove a thing. You put the burden on me and then take pot shots when I provide ample support for my positions.
Meanwhile, you are weasling away from the point. Now, instead of can they be renewed, you say we can't renew them today. And then more assertions, the pollution would be too great. How the heck do you know? And by whose definition?
The most ironic part of it all, is you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you aren't saying there are apocolyptic consequences to not recycling, but on the other hand you argue we must recycle else the pollution would be too great! That's rich. The fact you don't realize this is religious drivel makes it even more funny. I would guess you are late twenties of age, and haven't gotten to the point at which you can think for yourself.
Now, please tell me the element we are running out of that makes it necessary to mine asteroids, if we dont' recycle?
I've done enough to support my claims. This particular book attempts to paint a picture of man influencing his environment in dangerous ways, and that recycling, clean burning cars, stopping cutting down trees, and even not washing your car!, are ways to salvation and avoiding the apocolypse.
This book is one of several I've looked through that my kid's have been forced to read. Read some for yourself.
Ignore the point if you will. Religious bigots have a problem in seeing the truth often.
If the earth gets too hot, all people will die. People create C02. C02 increases the temperature of the earth. If we don't cut down as many trees, will that help the C02 levels? If we have cars that get better gas mileage, will that help c02 levels?
The earth has some resources that can not be replaced. Man is using up those resources. Man needs those resources to survive. If you recycle, then the resources won't get used up so quickly.
Now, I'm not trying to scare you at all with any crazy ideas here! I don't mean that man is increasing the temperature of the earth and that we might all get cooked, or that if you don't recycle you will die, but you might want to think about it.
I think someone somewhere said religion blinds the masses, or other. Geez.
Oh, no it precisely says just that. Of course, when I wrote what I wrote I was speaking in generalities about a great many things. Imagine my surprise to find an entire chapter on the importance of recycling so that we don't make the earth inhospitable to us.
you really ought to be more intellectually honest.
To anyone that doubts the apocolyptic element I describe above, here are the very words of a slashdot poster to this thread (regarding recycling approaches):
Your approach will cost us lives because it will divert resources that could have been used to ensure that nanotechnology arrives sooner
"You test a hypothesis. You test it again (as many times as you care to) and you come to the conclusion that the hypothesis is proven to be correct or not."
I don't think so. We only come up with models for the universe, and so far none of them completely explain it. Just think about Newtonian physics to convince yourself of this.
Fair enough. Here are some quotations from "Earth Science", Holt Science and Technology ISBN 0-03-051953-5.
"Think of the earth as a giant life-support system for all of humanity. ..Interactions between the Earth's systems can cause changes in the Earth's environments. . ..Humans have found ways to survive by using natural resources to change their immediate surroundings."
This chapter then goes on to discuss Nonrenewable resources, recycling, etc. The dire warning to young minds: If you use up your non-renewable resources, you won't be able to adapt to the earth's changing environment.
Sections on water pollution includes the section "Nonpoint-Source Pollution" which shows a happy family washing their car. "All waste water and runoff eventuallyt enter a body of water, usually a steram. Every stream leads to a river, and every river leads to the ocean." [Is that really true? I don't think so.]
"Scientists hae estimated the amount of carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere over the last 100 years. The model should therefore be able to predict how mmuch warmer the atmosphere is today than it was 100 years ago."
The implication is that it is a fact that C02 levels [implicitely that man has added] are responsible for whatever temperature increase over the last 100 years. Now, I don't know the truth of it one way or another, but I do not believe it is a scientific fact whether man is responsible for increased temperature, or even if it is known whether C02 alone is responsible for temperature increases.
How can you "Prove" anything? How can you "Know" anything? Answer, you can not. Your brain is just interpreting signals from your senses. I don't think it will be too long before a man made machine can provide the entire input to the brain. . .
So science is, by definition, just an assumption. I happen to think it is the best thing going, but it certainly can not be proven.
No no, it's what I saw when I read the earth science books dogma my kids must read. Have you read any of it? Or are you just casting aspersions because you can't take someone disagreeing with your religion?
Slashdot Mirror
> Why is it not relevant that something which you mentioned as though it were in existence was in fact abandoned 3 years ago?
The RIAA went down the path of forgive, but a bunch of brats thumbed their nose at them, and the RIAA found it necessary to pursue other means to protect their property. Kind of like what the Warner bros CEO did.
> 2. Can you offer any evidence that this program was in fact "wide spread" or is that surmise on your part?
Anyone could sign up for it. Isn't that widespread? Oh, I see, you think I meant the people who signed up for it. No, people just want to get their music for free and not pay for it.
> 3. It's not at all clear that the "actions" to be prevented are "illegal". For example, do you have any legal authority for the proposition that having a shared files folder with copyrighted song files in it is "illegal"?
Please. No one is copying around random bits across filestores for a reason. They aren't worth anything. At the end of it, the most main reason by several orders of magnitude for carrying around copyrighted music bits is so someone can listen to it without a license.
Whether the program is in effect anymore is irrelevent. The fact is the music industry offered wide spread amnesty for the illegal actions.
Maybe you forgot about the RIAA clean slate program?
http://www.riaa.com/pdf/cleanSlateAffidavit.pdf
The problem with all this stuff is not looking at a bunch of anonymous streets. It's about the way the world is going to be.
There will be surveillance everywhere run by an increasingly powerful organization, the US government. That in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. My tax dollars will stretch more, less police needed, etc. People will be safer. However, laws are generic in nature. Rather than having more freedom, less freedom will be the norm.
San Jose, CA passed a "no pissing outside" law some years ago. Now that may seem innocuous, but think about the reality. There are laws against indecent exposure, so it wasn't about that. It was that someone didn't like the idea of a guy urinating outside. The question then becomes, where to laws like this stop? No spitting laws?
Now who knows where things are heading, but the US government has already passed anti-discrimination laws, which include not making a hostile workforce. What about making a hostile location? There goes freedom of speech.
That's interesting. Given this,it would seem L and D life forms are orthoganal (outside, perhaps of plant life forms). One might expect "L" and "D" forms in the same bio-sphere if life were common.
I've read some are thinking perhaps meteors have biased amounts of L and D amino acids. The thinking is how can we explain only "L" handed life forms. If that doesn't turn out to be the case, another explanation gains credibility.
That is, perhaps it is really unusual to get life started in the first place.
Given that almost all life uses left handed amino acids, perhaps that is were life came from: some meteorite that favored left handed forms.
That there aren't right handed forms also suggests life might be hard to get started (someone help out here, could left handed life forms get calories from right handed life forms?).
I don't believe gravity is a huge impediment to life moving around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox.
Think about how far humankind will advance in 50 years, and whether we would be able to make a micro-replicator that we could send to other stars.
Except when it comes to insensitive language at our places of learning.
Except in the workplace, where even facts might cause a hostile working environment (have a frank chat about the Koran and see if that is hostile, for instance).
Except by the use of the race card to silence ideas and opinions in politics.
Even
Meanwhile, all the man said was that the world has changed and we may need to revisit freedom of speech. Since he hasn't said anything about how to restructure the freedom of speech, how can anyone fault what he said? He didn't say "eliminate it," you know. Given the article didn't delve much into his reasoning, nor any way in which he might want to restructure freedom of speech, it seems silly to be in opposition.
The obtuse indignation of your comments reveal you for what you really are: a self centered religious bigot. You want to control other people's actions for what YOU view as important. Everyone should recycle, so that way everyone can know the importance of Gaia earth.
Regarding your other post, I already provided the information. Go buy the book and read it yourself.
As an aside, it's really amazing to me how much the highest parent post and other posts I have made on this topic have been modded down for "flamebait" and "overrated." At least 6 mod points total. Typical religious tactics: try to silence opinion and ideas in opposition.
You claim you are freedom loving and open minded, but when you get right down to it, you aren't willing to have a reasonable debate, try to silence opinion, and are rude and arrogant to those who have a different viewpoint than your own.
Oh, I know, it's all for a good cause, the planet and all, but really the planet will continue to be just fine. If you look at other religious nut cases, like the Spanish Catholics who settled California, you will find they had similar views. They used to beat California Indians because they thought they were saving their soles. Now its different with you: you just use your tactics silly rules to get people to conform, by convincing like mindless zealots of the correctness of your religion.
See, you aren't willing to prove a thing. You put the burden on me and then take pot shots when I provide ample support for my positions.
Meanwhile, you are weasling away from the point. Now, instead of can they be renewed, you say we can't renew them today. And then more assertions, the pollution would be too great. How the heck do you know? And by whose definition?
The most ironic part of it all, is you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you aren't saying there are apocolyptic consequences to not recycling, but on the other hand you argue we must recycle else the pollution would be too great! That's rich. The fact you don't realize this is religious drivel makes it even more funny. I would guess you are late twenties of age, and haven't gotten to the point at which you can think for yourself.
Now, please tell me the element we are running out of that makes it necessary to mine asteroids, if we dont' recycle?
I put up when asked, now it is up to you. Prove to me we are depleting resources that can not be renewed.
I've done enough to support my claims. This particular book attempts to paint a picture of man influencing his environment in dangerous ways, and that recycling, clean burning cars, stopping cutting down trees, and even not washing your car!, are ways to salvation and avoiding the apocolypse.
This book is one of several I've looked through that my kid's have been forced to read. Read some for yourself.
Ignore the point if you will. Religious bigots have a problem in seeing the truth often.
If the earth gets too hot, all people will die.
People create C02.
C02 increases the temperature of the earth.
If we don't cut down as many trees, will that help the C02 levels?
If we have cars that get better gas mileage, will that help c02 levels?
The earth has some resources that can not be replaced. Man is using up those resources. Man needs those resources to survive. If you recycle, then the resources won't get used up so quickly.
Now, I'm not trying to scare you at all with any crazy ideas here! I don't mean that man is increasing the temperature of the earth and that we might all get cooked, or that if you don't recycle you will die, but you might want to think about it.
I think someone somewhere said religion blinds the masses, or other. Geez.
Oh, no it precisely says just that. Of course, when I wrote what I wrote I was speaking in generalities about a great many things. Imagine my surprise to find an entire chapter on the importance of recycling so that we don't make the earth inhospitable to us.
you really ought to be more intellectually honest.
Science of course.
Be careful what you wish for. Physics is hard and cold.
Oops, better not poop: the earth might not be able to take it. And as for passing gas, well, better hold that in too.
No, YOU are wrong, Mr. Smarty :)
:).
come on, face it. Neither of us knows the future (though I personally bet on progress: we've got a pretty good history of it
"You test a hypothesis. You test it again (as many times as you care to) and you come to the conclusion that the hypothesis is proven to be correct or not."
I don't think so. We only come up with models for the universe, and so far none of them completely explain it. Just think about Newtonian physics to convince yourself of this.
Bzzt. I said there wasn't any difference between the two. They both suck.
Fair enough. Here are some quotations from "Earth Science", Holt Science and Technology ISBN 0-03-051953-5.
.Interactions between the Earth's systems can cause changes in the Earth's environments. . . .Humans have found ways to survive by using natural resources to change their immediate surroundings."
"Think of the earth as a giant life-support system for all of humanity. .
This chapter then goes on to discuss Nonrenewable resources, recycling, etc. The dire warning to young minds: If you use up your non-renewable resources, you won't be able to adapt to the earth's changing environment.
Sections on water pollution includes the section "Nonpoint-Source Pollution" which shows a happy family washing their car. "All waste water and runoff eventuallyt enter a body of water, usually a steram. Every stream leads to a river, and every river leads to the ocean." [Is that really true? I don't think so.]
"Scientists hae estimated the amount of carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere over the last 100 years. The model should therefore be able to predict how mmuch warmer the atmosphere is today than it was 100 years ago."
The implication is that it is a fact that C02 levels [implicitely that man has added] are responsible for whatever temperature increase over the last 100 years. Now, I don't know the truth of it one way or another, but I do not believe it is a scientific fact whether man is responsible for increased temperature, or even if it is known whether C02 alone is responsible for temperature increases.
OK, Mr. Science. Prove it.
(What, can't? Looking into your crystal ball, or are you just prophesying the future).
How can you "Prove" anything? How can you "Know" anything? Answer, you can not. Your brain is just interpreting signals from your senses. I don't think it will be too long before a man made machine can provide the entire input to the brain. . .
So science is, by definition, just an assumption. I happen to think it is the best thing going, but it certainly can not be proven.
No no, it's what I saw when I read the earth science books dogma my kids must read. Have you read any of it? Or are you just casting aspersions because you can't take someone disagreeing with your religion?