It's pretty simple stuff, because that's what I'm capable of, but the mixing was an adventure (and the final result ended up way too quiet on one of the tracks).
It's something I'm always wanting to work on, but stupid life keeps getting in the way.
This whole debate started when you claimed that professional producers where just "sound engineers" who needed no talent or musicality whatsoever for churning out the next Britney hit.
I would say sometimes that could be the case, but you're right, it's not a valid assertion in general.
For the record I have composed and produced music as an amateur.
Your comments seem to betray bias as well. I also find it amusing that you disparage a group like Dream Theater, the members of which are also classically trained... and I can point you to the classical recordings to back it up. You might not like their style, but you can't deny their technical and artistic skill, which is almost unmatched in the industry. They are among those artists who rose through their merit, as opposed to those million-selling schlock-factories who can afford to buy the talents of people like your friend to prop up some manufactured flavor-of-the-month. That doesn't mean the producers, session musicians, etc, aren't top-notch folks trying to do their best. It's my experience that records made by producers like your friend, session musicians and other similar behind-the-scenes types are usually far more interesting than the big names they might work for. I would also imagine a lot of these folks use the pay they make working for big names to finance what they "really" want to do.
Frank Zappa's a good example. His more popular records, good as they are, were created in part to finance his experimental work, which remains very obscure, but that's what he really wanted to do. This was an astoundingly-brilliant player and composer who could make fun and silly stuff like "Valley Girl" and then turn around and compose for an orchestra. Or release an album on the synclavier, just to see what he could do with it.
Here's another example: Steve Stevens is a guitar player who played with Billy Idol (if I remember correctly) and Michael Jackson. Not two names that inspire me, but check out some of the work he's done... he released an album of flamenco music that is quite amazing, and cut a couple of mind-blowing albums with Terry Bozzio and Tony Levin, two other guys who have done tons of session work.
You also insist that producing and composing are the same thing, although that is certainly not true. A good musician can sit down at a piano or with a guitar (or whatever), and perform his or her work... and the ones who can tend to be the ones who actually create good music. It doesn't take a producer to play a piano or sing, it takes a producer to make a good-sounding recording of someone who plays or sings.
I think in part you missed my point. I can turn on the radio and hear a three-minute song that consists solely of the same 4 measures repeated over and over. Just because pop music might be hard to make doesn't mean that a lot it doesn't also just plain suck, artistically. If people like it, that's fine. I like Taco Bell, but I don't pretend it's gourmet food. I like Gilligan's Island but I don't pretend it's sophisticated drama. That doesn't mean that Taco Bell doesn't spend millions on R&D of their product, or that the talented actors, etc, of the TV show didn't put years of hard work into creating it.
It's not a knock on your friend or people like him to acknowledge that the music industry doesn't put out very much interesting product, at least until you dig. The big name music industry isn't about art, so there's not much call for it. If it were, it wouldn't be so homogeneous, predictable and bland. There's tons of good art out there though, and I'm sure your friend has made significant contributions.
Gee, that's funny. So what does this producer say when you actually present him with some music, like say Beethoven or Bach? Or to be more modern, the likes of Dream Theater, Spock's Beard, the Flower Kings or Echolyn who each have more music in one song than Britney Spears (or whoever churns out her material) has made in her whole career?
Most pop music is crap, and no so-called producer is going to convince me there's any real _musical_ talent in much of it. Producing music is not the same as composing music. The former can be very sophisticated even when the latter is lacking.
When this producer can pack 3 odd time-signatures into a chorus and make it sound as natural as walking, then I'll take his opinion, otherwise he's just a sound engineer, which is a completely different animal.
The sound/production/engineering might be sophisticated, but, in most cases, the music most certainly is not.
Your mythology is so convoluted you can't even be consistent from one paragraph to another. You've answered the question, I'll give you that, and yet you contradict yourself in your very own answer, so it fails the "unequivocal" part I requested.
See what I mean by doublethink. I can't see how you can claim to believe something when you can't even answer a simple question that requires a one word answer without a whole bunch of (wait for it...) ifs, ands and buts.
This is demonstrably false.
Then demonstrate it. I hear is a lot of "would say", "could be translated". Doesn't sound very specific to me. Why would Scripture only "hint" at such a fundamental truth?
I can't address the Catechism citation as I do not have one handy at the moment. Why should I rely on the interpretation of _my_ religion by people who do not practice it? I don't care what Jews or Muslims supposedly "would" (but don't) say about Christianity. They are not Christians.
However, your very words betray the exact kind of confusion, word play and general lack of logic that I have consistently seen on the topic.
you would find it difficult to believe a 23 year old hick from the sticks in 1829 could write it
I would indeed. But since he copied a lot of it from other sources, that is to be expected.
Look, I appreciate your earnestness and your belief, I just think you are mistaken. Everything I have seen and read about the Mormon religion, from Mormons themselves, as well as critics, demonstrates to me that it is the biggest piece of doublethink since Orwell coined the term.
The day a Mormon can^h^h^h will answer this question, unequivocably and truthfully (no ifs, ands or buts), to a non-Mormon is the day I will take them seriously.
"How many Gods are there?"
Christianity is a monotheistic religion. No ifs ands or buts.
Every experience I have had with Mormons concerning religion has been an exercise in frustration and illogic. I had a good friend who was one and talked to the missionaries as a favor to her. To be honest, I'd stopped going to church in college and talking to Mormons was a big reason why I didn't go back for several more years than I might have otherwise. _That's_ how much they turned me off.
Regardless of what else the BoM has to say, it offers, in great detail, a history which is simply not true. As I understand there is an entire Mormon organization devoted to rationalizing all the specious history.
Your point? I said said "people here". I know plenty of educated and knowledgeable non-believers, I just tend not to find them on/. So unless all your friends are on/., your comment is irrelevant.
And promoting yourself as someone who has true perspective
I don't recall saying that, but I can back it up. I didn't say "smartness" is dumb, I said "Education involves more than just facts." and a lot of people on/. are big on facts and little on clue. If you want to make me into an "anti-intellectual" that's your fabrication (or a completely incompetent reading of my post). As an example of exactly what I am talking about, you respond to what you want me to be (an easy target), rather than what I am actually saying.
This is typical for people who either don't know how to read, or argue, or think. I rest my case.
Therefore it is pretty obvious that in such a society of smart people, religion is going to get a bad rap.
I find/. to be populated in large part by self-righteous ninnies who let their perceived intellectual superiority blind them to their own ignorance and bigotry. Sure there are plenty of intelligent people on/. But there are not so many wise people on/.
Hardly a story goes by that does not mention religious or politics that I do not see a level of ignorance, hatred and bigotry (I suggest collectively calling them: bogotry), that is well above what I perceive in the world at large./. is largely populated by college-aged or twenty-something people who (and I know this from personal experience) tend to think they understand a heck of a lot more than they do and confuse knowing a lot of facts or the ability to know a lot of facts with being educated. These same people (again speaking from my own experience as a former college student, now somewhat rehabiliated), that knowing a lot of facts does not mean you understand those facts... and it especially does not qualify you to speak on subjects you do not know about... and I can tell you for a fact, not too many people hear who criticize religion understand it or know much about it.
And that is what I see on/. Of course, if I thought/. was just a bunch of morons who need to move out their parents' basement and get out in the sun more, I wouldn't have stuck around all these years. There is plenty of thoughtful, provocative and challenging discussion to be had here. And even lots of useful info. But don't be fooled. It's a nerd club, and we know that most stereotypes are based, at least in part, on the truth.
Now, please excuse me, I have to go buy a bigger pocket protector and wax my sliderule.
No, it isn't. f=ma is true, but not for all values of f, m and a.
f=ma is true, but for only certain values of true.
Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to say that f=ma is a reasonable approximation, and until you reach velocities close to the speed of light or masses on the scale of a star or so, the error is wholly unmeasurable.
Newton's Laws were thrown out. But as it happens, they are still extremely accurate approximations for practically anything you would be doing on human scales.
It is quite possible that Einstein's laws (e.g., e=mc^2) will get thrown out too, in favor of laws for which Einstein's laws are extremely accurate approximations for anything but the most extreme conditions (e.g., 1 femtosecond after the Big Bang).
Most fundementalists do not consider Catholics "Christian". They have a long, boring explanation of why this is so.
And from what I've seen and heard many of the arguments used are on the same level as the KKK's arguments that blacks aren't as good as whites. I realize not all Fundamentalists are like this, but I find it ironic that many of these churches spend an inordinate amount of time teaching why all these other churches are evil, etc, etc. You know what they say about people who justify themselves by attacking others.
it won't take very many generations until you regress to the common state of 'dog'.
Sure, but take some of those common 'dogs' and put them in Siberia. Take some more and put them on Tahiti. Take some more and put them in the American Southwest.
Come back in a few generations and you will see very different versions of 'dog'. It's not unreasonable to conclude that in a million years they won't even be dogs any more... but... I don't know Siberian Sabre-toothed Wolves, Coyoteodons and um, Spuds Mackenzie.
The former process can be observed and duplicated with relative ease. The latter can't because we don't live long enough to see the results. That's why evolution is just a theory.
The thing I find much more amusing than the concept of ID, which at its face value is a reasonable hypothesis, is the hardcore Young Earth Creationists, who claim that "creation science" is starting from the conclusion that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and shoehorning all empirical evidence to fit the conclusion (i.e. the Flood killed the dinosaurs, etc). This is no more science than the Mormons "history" which involves constantly retro-interpreting their scripture concerning the history of South America because its face value is totally contradicted by archaeology, zoology and botany.
Thanks for correcting that, Nathan. I can't believe people on/. don't know the basis of our own calendar. I was amazed people didn't know this when I was in fifth grade. I don't pretend to be some kind of genius, but geez people, read some books once in a while.
(Yes, this is flamebait. I've had 50+ karma since back when Karma was still counted in points, so I've earned some flamebait.)
That's the thing about people. There is a significant minority of people who just don't fit the mold and appear smarter (or more often) less smarter than they really are.
One of my best friends is perhaps the smartest person I've ever known. He is extremely well-read and educated in science, math, religion (ironically as someone who doesn't practice religion, he went to a religious school as a kid and knows way more than the average Christian), and is a brilliant software architect and fairly accomplished musician.
Yet he is the worst speller I've ever met who is an adult. We've talked about it at length and apparently he sight-reads, whereas I, who am a good speller (but not a good proofreader, so lay off, spelling Nazis), read phonetically. Yet this difference hasn't adversely affected his education or professional career.
If you read something my friend Bob writes, you might think he's a typical/. type who makes allot of rediculas spelling mistates. But if you talk to him, you'll realize he's very intelligent, and not just in technical matters.
I was always a bored student who was easily distracted, but since I take tests well, it was easy to see I was a good student, but I can see how easy it would be for someone who doesn't quite fit in to the mold of school to look far less capable than he or she really is.
IMO a really intelligent person who's held back by society on account of their chronological age and forced to waste years of their life, surrounded by people who aren't nearly their intellectual equals, working on a curriculum that they could do in their sleep
I don't know, it worked for me.
The school skipped me ahead one grade, but when they wanted to skip me ahead another grade, my parents chose not to, because they didn't want me being _so_ much younger than my peers (7 vs 9 is a big difference). I cruised through high school and college, and have had a pretty lucrative and successful career in software development. In retrospect, I think they make the right decision, and I turned out OK.
Blaming lawyers for the law is like blaming a shotgun for murdering you.
Yeah, lawyers don't sure people. People sue people.
That said, though, you can't deny the fact that there are plenty of lawyers out there who do nothing more than game the system for their clients' (but mostly their own benefit. Furthermore, blaming big business isn't all that appropriate since big business is as much a victim of this mentality as anyone. As our legislatures and courts continue to water down the meaning of law into a vast, unintelligible morass of regulations suitable for nothing else than the lawsuit lottery, it's only natural that (some) lawyers will swim up from the bottom to snap at the chum.
The solution is not to kill the lawyers (ironically, Shakespeare's line implied that lawyers keep the tyrants at bay), but rather the legislatures:
Vote the bums out!
The problem with that is that the only people running, for the most part, are more bums.
Slashdot Mirror
Crazy low level programming
;-)
Everything I've ever read about the Atari makes it sound like just one step above the story of "Mel" from the Jargon file.
It sounds like a fascinating challenge, but I think I wait until someone pays me to learn it.
You could get half of the old data and half of the new data, right?
Actually, it's for the CD.
It's pretty simple stuff, because that's what I'm capable of, but the mixing was an adventure (and the final result ended up way too quiet on one of the tracks).
It's something I'm always wanting to work on, but stupid life keeps getting in the way.
This whole debate started when you claimed that professional producers where just "sound engineers" who needed no talent or musicality whatsoever for churning out the next Britney hit.
I would say sometimes that could be the case, but you're right, it's not a valid assertion in general.
For the record I have composed and produced music as an amateur.
Your comments seem to betray bias as well. I also find it amusing that you disparage a group like Dream Theater, the members of which are also classically trained... and I can point you to the classical recordings to back it up. You might not like their style, but you can't deny their technical and artistic skill, which is almost unmatched in the industry. They are among those artists who rose through their merit, as opposed to those million-selling schlock-factories who can afford to buy the talents of people like your friend to prop up some manufactured flavor-of-the-month. That doesn't mean the producers, session musicians, etc, aren't top-notch folks trying to do their best. It's my experience that records made by producers like your friend, session musicians and other similar behind-the-scenes types are usually far more interesting than the big names they might work for. I would also imagine a lot of these folks use the pay they make working for big names to finance what they "really" want to do.
Frank Zappa's a good example. His more popular records, good as they are, were created in part to finance his experimental work, which remains very obscure, but that's what he really wanted to do. This was an astoundingly-brilliant player and composer who could make fun and silly stuff like "Valley Girl" and then turn around and compose for an orchestra. Or release an album on the synclavier, just to see what he could do with it.
Here's another example: Steve Stevens is a guitar player who played with Billy Idol (if I remember correctly) and Michael Jackson. Not two names that inspire me, but check out some of the work he's done... he released an album of flamenco music that is quite amazing, and cut a couple of mind-blowing albums with Terry Bozzio and Tony Levin, two other guys who have done tons of session work.
You also insist that producing and composing are the same thing, although that is certainly not true. A good musician can sit down at a piano or with a guitar (or whatever), and perform his or her work... and the ones who can tend to be the ones who actually create good music. It doesn't take a producer to play a piano or sing, it takes a producer to make a good-sounding recording of someone who plays or sings.
I think in part you missed my point. I can turn on the radio and hear a three-minute song that consists solely of the same 4 measures repeated over and over. Just because pop music might be hard to make doesn't mean that a lot it doesn't also just plain suck, artistically. If people like it, that's fine. I like Taco Bell, but I don't pretend it's gourmet food. I like Gilligan's Island but I don't pretend it's sophisticated drama. That doesn't mean that Taco Bell doesn't spend millions on R&D of their product, or that the talented actors, etc, of the TV show didn't put years of hard work into creating it.
It's not a knock on your friend or people like him to acknowledge that the music industry doesn't put out very much interesting product, at least until you dig. The big name music industry isn't about art, so there's not much call for it. If it were, it wouldn't be so homogeneous, predictable and bland. There's tons of good art out there though, and I'm sure your friend has made significant contributions.
Gee, that's funny. So what does this producer say when you actually present him with some music, like say Beethoven or Bach? Or to be more modern, the likes of Dream Theater, Spock's Beard, the Flower Kings or Echolyn who each have more music in one song than Britney Spears (or whoever churns out her material) has made in her whole career?
Most pop music is crap, and no so-called producer is going to convince me there's any real _musical_ talent in much of it. Producing music is not the same as composing music. The former can be very sophisticated even when the latter is lacking.
When this producer can pack 3 odd time-signatures into a chorus and make it sound as natural as walking, then I'll take his opinion, otherwise he's just a sound engineer, which is a completely different animal.
The sound/production/engineering might be sophisticated, but, in most cases, the music most certainly is not.
If the bible says Pi=3, does that mean e=2 or does e=3 also? Pi=e??? Chuckle.
I don't know, but sqrt(2) == 1.5 and the Cosmological Constant is 0.
Yeah, Sony only delivered it to people just trying to listen to music.
I sure (Insert Your Favorite Murderer Here) didn't manufacture the bullets he used to kill his victims either.
I have a hard time with a religion that basically says "If we can bamboozle you into believing what we say is true, it must be true."
Everything about it is such a maze of illogic... no wonder they have to practice cult tactics to keep their membership in line.
Which of the Gods do we worship?
...
We worship three of the Gods,
(But yes, we only worship God the Father).
Your mythology is so convoluted you can't even be consistent from one paragraph to another. You've answered the question, I'll give you that, and yet you contradict yourself in your very own answer, so it fails the "unequivocal" part I requested.
See what I mean by doublethink. I can't see how you can claim to believe something when you can't even answer a simple question that requires a one word answer without a whole bunch of (wait for it...) ifs, ands and buts.
This is demonstrably false.
Then demonstrate it. I hear is a lot of "would say", "could be translated". Doesn't sound very specific to me. Why would Scripture only "hint" at such a fundamental truth?
I can't address the Catechism citation as I do not have one handy at the moment. Why should I rely on the interpretation of _my_ religion by people who do not practice it? I don't care what Jews or Muslims supposedly "would" (but don't) say about Christianity. They are not Christians.
However, your very words betray the exact kind of confusion, word play and general lack of logic that I have consistently seen on the topic.
I'm impressed. :-)
I've seen proofs that 1 == 2, 1 == 0, but never 1 == 3.
Just don't remind all the Bible literalists out there that Scripture requires PI to be exactly 3.
Do NBC and CBS show anything worth watching?
you would find it difficult to believe a 23 year old hick from the sticks in 1829 could write it
I would indeed. But since he copied a lot of it from other sources, that is to be expected.
Look, I appreciate your earnestness and your belief, I just think you are mistaken. Everything I have seen and read about the Mormon religion, from Mormons themselves, as well as critics, demonstrates to me that it is the biggest piece of doublethink since Orwell coined the term.
The day a Mormon can^h^h^h will answer this question, unequivocably and truthfully (no ifs, ands or buts), to a non-Mormon is the day I will take them seriously.
"How many Gods are there?"
Christianity is a monotheistic religion. No ifs ands or buts.
No, I haven't. No plans to either.
Sorry.
Every experience I have had with Mormons concerning religion has been an exercise in frustration and illogic. I had a good friend who was one and talked to the missionaries as a favor to her. To be honest, I'd stopped going to church in college and talking to Mormons was a big reason why I didn't go back for several more years than I might have otherwise. _That's_ how much they turned me off.
Regardless of what else the BoM has to say, it offers, in great detail, a history which is simply not true. As I understand there is an entire Mormon organization devoted to rationalizing all the specious history.
Teacher: As we are approaching the speed of light, our movement through time is slowing down. Unfortunately recess won't be for 7 trillion years.
Really? I find that many of my atheist friends
/. So unless all your friends are on /., your comment is irrelevant.
/. are big on facts and little on clue. If you want to make me into an "anti-intellectual" that's your fabrication (or a completely incompetent reading of my post). As an example of exactly what I am talking about, you respond to what you want me to be (an easy target), rather than what I am actually saying.
Your point? I said said "people here". I know plenty of educated and knowledgeable non-believers, I just tend not to find them on
And promoting yourself as someone who has true perspective
I don't recall saying that, but I can back it up. I didn't say "smartness" is dumb, I said "Education involves more than just facts." and a lot of people on
This is typical for people who either don't know how to read, or argue, or think. I rest my case.
Therefore it is pretty obvious that in such a society of smart people, religion is going to get a bad rap.
/. to be populated in large part by self-righteous ninnies who let their perceived intellectual superiority blind them to their own ignorance and bigotry. Sure there are plenty of intelligent people on /. But there are not so many wise people on /.
/. is largely populated by college-aged or twenty-something people who (and I know this from personal experience) tend to think they understand a heck of a lot more than they do and confuse knowing a lot of facts or the ability to know a lot of facts with being educated. These same people (again speaking from my own experience as a former college student, now somewhat rehabiliated), that knowing a lot of facts does not mean you understand those facts... and it especially does not qualify you to speak on subjects you do not know about... and I can tell you for a fact, not too many people hear who criticize religion understand it or know much about it.
/. Of course, if I thought /. was just a bunch of morons who need to move out their parents' basement and get out in the sun more, I wouldn't have stuck around all these years. There is plenty of thoughtful, provocative and challenging discussion to be had here. And even lots of useful info. But don't be fooled. It's a nerd club, and we know that most stereotypes are based, at least in part, on the truth.
I find
Hardly a story goes by that does not mention religious or politics that I do not see a level of ignorance, hatred and bigotry (I suggest collectively calling them: bogotry), that is well above what I perceive in the world at large.
And that is what I see on
Now, please excuse me, I have to go buy a bigger pocket protector and wax my sliderule.
No, it isn't. f=ma is true, but not for all values of f, m and a.
f=ma is true, but for only certain values of true.
Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to say that f=ma is a reasonable approximation, and until you reach velocities close to the speed of light or masses on the scale of a star or so, the error is wholly unmeasurable.
Newton's Laws were thrown out. But as it happens, they are still extremely accurate approximations for practically anything you would be doing on human scales.
It is quite possible that Einstein's laws (e.g., e=mc^2) will get thrown out too, in favor of laws for which Einstein's laws are extremely accurate approximations for anything but the most extreme conditions (e.g., 1 femtosecond after the Big Bang).
Most fundementalists do not consider Catholics "Christian". They have a long, boring explanation of why this is so.
And from what I've seen and heard many of the arguments used are on the same level as the KKK's arguments that blacks aren't as good as whites. I realize not all Fundamentalists are like this, but I find it ironic that many of these churches spend an inordinate amount of time teaching why all these other churches are evil, etc, etc. You know what they say about people who justify themselves by attacking others.
it won't take very many generations until you regress to the common state of 'dog'.
Sure, but take some of those common 'dogs' and put them in Siberia. Take some more and put them on Tahiti. Take some more and put them in the American Southwest.
Come back in a few generations and you will see very different versions of 'dog'. It's not unreasonable to conclude that in a million years they won't even be dogs any more... but... I don't know Siberian Sabre-toothed Wolves, Coyoteodons and um, Spuds Mackenzie.
The former process can be observed and duplicated with relative ease. The latter can't because we don't live long enough to see the results. That's why evolution is just a theory.
The thing I find much more amusing than the concept of ID, which at its face value is a reasonable hypothesis, is the hardcore Young Earth Creationists, who claim that "creation science" is starting from the conclusion that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and shoehorning all empirical evidence to fit the conclusion (i.e. the Flood killed the dinosaurs, etc). This is no more science than the Mormons "history" which involves constantly retro-interpreting their scripture concerning the history of South America because its face value is totally contradicted by archaeology, zoology and botany.
Thanks for correcting that, Nathan. I can't believe people on /. don't know the basis of our own calendar. I was amazed people didn't know this when I was in fifth grade. I don't pretend to be some kind of genius, but geez people, read some books once in a while.
(Yes, this is flamebait. I've had 50+ karma since back when Karma was still counted in points, so I've earned some flamebait.)
That's the thing about people. There is a significant minority of people who just don't fit the mold and appear smarter (or more often) less smarter than they really are.
/. type who makes allot of rediculas spelling mistates. But if you talk to him, you'll realize he's very intelligent, and not just in technical matters.
One of my best friends is perhaps the smartest person I've ever known. He is extremely well-read and educated in science, math, religion (ironically as someone who doesn't practice religion, he went to a religious school as a kid and knows way more than the average Christian), and is a brilliant software architect and fairly accomplished musician.
Yet he is the worst speller I've ever met who is an adult. We've talked about it at length and apparently he sight-reads, whereas I, who am a good speller (but not a good proofreader, so lay off, spelling Nazis), read phonetically. Yet this difference hasn't adversely affected his education or professional career.
If you read something my friend Bob writes, you might think he's a typical
I was always a bored student who was easily distracted, but since I take tests well, it was easy to see I was a good student, but I can see how easy it would be for someone who doesn't quite fit in to the mold of school to look far less capable than he or she really is.
My experience is that people who think that they're smarter than everyone else aren't.
Is that why you feel the need to tell us you think you're smarter than everyone else?
IMO a really intelligent person who's held back by society on account of their chronological age and forced to waste years of their life, surrounded by people who aren't nearly their intellectual equals, working on a curriculum that they could do in their sleep
I don't know, it worked for me.
The school skipped me ahead one grade, but when they wanted to skip me ahead another grade, my parents chose not to, because they didn't want me being _so_ much younger than my peers (7 vs 9 is a big difference). I cruised through high school and college, and have had a pretty lucrative and successful career in software development. In retrospect, I think they make the right decision, and I turned out OK.
Well, mostly OK.
Blaming lawyers for the law is like blaming a shotgun for murdering you.
Yeah, lawyers don't sure people. People sue people.
That said, though, you can't deny the fact that there are plenty of lawyers out there who do nothing more than game the system for their clients' (but mostly their own benefit. Furthermore, blaming big business isn't all that appropriate since big business is as much a victim of this mentality as anyone. As our legislatures and courts continue to water down the meaning of law into a vast, unintelligible morass of regulations suitable for nothing else than the lawsuit lottery, it's only natural that (some) lawyers will swim up from the bottom to snap at the chum.
The solution is not to kill the lawyers (ironically, Shakespeare's line implied that lawyers keep the tyrants at bay), but rather the legislatures:
Vote the bums out!
The problem with that is that the only people running, for the most part, are more bums.