Its a fact that Sugar is bad for everyones system, the body is not designed to burn sugar, especially the processed sugars we eat. When your body burns sugar instead of fat, you dont lose weight, when the body burns carbs instead of fat, you dont lose weight.
The only way to lose weight is for your body to burn fat, so how do you do it? Low sugar, Low Carbs. Calorie input does matter, because calories must be burned, but the type of calories you eat most decide what your body is most efficient at burning.
You think I'm lying? Eat rice 3 times a day for a week and you'll gain weight even if your calories are low, then eat bacon and eggs 6 times a day for a week and you'll lose weight, why?
Bacon is easier to burn and digests slowly Rice digests quick and takes forever to burn Bacon has fats inside it, and eating fat increases hormone levels of testorsterone and others which help us burn fat
Rice has no fat, so your hormones may get out of balance
Bacon, your body is designed to digest meats, nuts and the occassional fruits and berry, while bacon has animal fat instead of omega3, its closer to the humans natural diet.
Rice has no fat, its nearly 100 percent starch, its a complex carb, your body is not designed to handle it, so it takes a longer time to burn.
Conclusion based on these facts? Avoid high gi carbs. High GI carbs are carbs which your body digests quickly, rice, starches, sugars, sweets, junk food, cereal.
Take in low GI slow digesting carbs and never eat any carbs without a greater ratio of fat and protien, meaning if you are going to eat a tablespoon of rice,you should be eating 4-5 peices of fried chicken with it. Never eat a bucket of rice with small peices of meat like stir fry.
The low carb diet works, bodybuilders use it, I use it. But its supposed to be for bodybuilders, not just for general weight loss. The reason people go on low carb is so they can lose weight QUICKLY while keeping muscle, if you go on a starvation diet of one meal a day for a month you will lose weight, but half your weight will be in muscle and the other half in fat. Low carb allows you to lose 90 percent fat and maybe 10 percent muscle, these is extremely important to the athelete, the body builder etc who want to lose FAT, not lose weight.
I want to lose fat, I go low carb because I can continue to eat fat. You must eat fat if you want your body to remember how to burn it, your body burns what you eat, if you eat low fat and high carbs your body burns carbs, if you eat high fat low carb your body burns fat, and if you eat high protien and low everything, your body burns protien.
What you want to do is make the body adapt, so that you burn fat for fuel with more efficiency while on your low calorie diets, its more of a metabolism boosting diet, and its safer than the traditional starvation diet.
Wow you act like you've never been jobless before. I'm sure when you were in highschool those same people paid for your bill.
By the way, even if I had a job I'd be getting financial aid, you act like I could somehow many enough money to pay for college on my own!
Now, back to the subject, back up what you claim with some evidence, just because you are a republican doesnt mean the majority of people are. According to the last election, Al Gore had more votes than George Bush, people know Al Gore supports higher taxes at least in theory and they voted for him because they as in the working class has something to gain by higher taxes. The working class have families which without taxes would not be able to get an education, they working class pays taxes but the upper class is supposed to pay more as it distributes the wealth.
The wealth redistribution applies to schools, law enforcement and many other useful agencies. Music and Movies could be something the majority of young people want, young people happen to be the same people who cannot afford these things even with a job. Old people instead of having to pay for these things with their credit card will pay for it via taxes and no I dont think record companies and people like britney spears should the the money, there should be a democracy not a monopoly. Based on what people listen to most the government should give the money out.
Musicians would make more money this way than they do now as they currently dont make much anything from CD sales and make most of their money from touring.
Movies in the short term might have smaller budgets which mean slightly less special effects but newer actors will have a chance to get into the industry so its a tradeoff of talent for budget cuts.
Yes, I'm quite aware that there's public funding for museums, symphonies, and other such public things. That's really quite different, and doesn't meet the criteria of what I said. If you take a look at, say, France who actually subsidizes movies and the like through taxes on the services you'll better understand.
Young people aren't usually interested in classical music or museums. Old people can afford to buy music themselves. Why shouldn't the old people pay taxes to support the young? They do it for education.
If you think increased Government involvement in art is a good thing, then I believe you should think for quite a long time. A second is far too little time for true reflection, or to find sufficient information to come to a rational conclusion. Show me a survey proving that the majority of middle aged people prefer to avoid paying taxes on entertainment. Show some statistical evidence. You should never write a response without first doing your research. This is what you told me.
I'm sure the people that get slammed with the high end of the progressive income tax "ARE" really looking forward to subsidizing musicians so college students can feel better about downloading music off of the 'net.
Islam promotes Polygyny, You yourself said Africans were promiscuous so I told you the cause assuming you were right however I dont think its being promiscuous behavior which spreads HIV, in the USA people seem even more promiscuous. In Africa they dont believe in using condoms, they have religious and cultural reasons to support this and their government is doing nothing to change their religious and cultural norms. At one point in the USA homosexuality was not acceptable, if we were to believe anyone who uses a condom is a "faggot" a lot of traditional thinking straight guys might not use these condoms.
Here is proof American children are slow in math and science.
See it for yourself. And here is a quote "the latest survey by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study measured the performance of eighth-graders in 38 countries, following up on a 1995 survey of fourth-, eighth- and twelfth-graders. U.S. results range from bad, to worse, to abysmal.Bad, because the most charitable thing that can be said about U.S. performance is that it's average. And that's in a field that excludes most of Europe, as well as China and India." Of course I know the difference between knowledge and intelligence. I said I had high intelligence, higher than yours perhaps but this has nothing to do with my knowledge of the subject. My knowledge of the subject comes from research, I'm currently in sociology class as we speak discussing these very issues so the research I do to write these posts also helped me get an A on my exam today.
I've taken many IQ tests, my intelligence ranges between 109 to over 130 depending on the test, either way my intelligence is always either just above average or way above average. I'm in college, but what does a persons major have to do with intelligence? I major in philosophy which has similar course load to liberal arts because its in the same section. People who major in things such as philosophy require one set of skills, people who major in math require another, my skill set includes reading/writing/research/critical thinking. Someone who majors in one of the sciences has a different skill set, usually mathematics/logical thinking/technical abilities and while I have the logic and technical abilities I lack the mathematic capacity at this time to be a scientist.
You have a masters degree? That's good for you. I'm guessing its in some scientific field based on an assessment of choice of words. 25 million aids cases in Africa instead of 75 million? All I know is its way too many, 800 million people instead of a billion? That number may have changes but 800 million is very close to being 1 billion. When I said governments like the UN, I did not mean it in the way you assume, I mean governments "grouped" like the UN, treating governments as a single entity. I assumed you would know the UN is a group of governments and I would not have to point out the obvious.
By the way, yes the federal government is supposed to spend 22 billion, but this number according to reports will be slashed by Bush if his tax cuts go through. 22 Billion for K12 on paper does not mean K12 will ever see it. 15 Billion for Africa, while the Africans may never see it, does it make sense for our government to be paying around the same amount to cure Africans Aids as they spend on our school system? This isn't about numbers because I was not trying to prove that point, the point I was trying to prove is that we spend what, 5 billion more on our education than we do donating to a single country? We should be spending triple what we spend on education and even you can support this. Based on your choice of words one does not have to do much research to see your arrogance.
And yes I know Aids is difficult to cure, I just said no company is going to invest in R&D to try finding that cure because a cure is not as profitable as treatmen
Islam doesn't tell you to be promiscuous. It doesn't tell you to engage in reckless sexual behavior that will kill you. Islam says you may have multiple wives. The Quran states that it is ok for a man to do this, therefore the Quran says to be promiscuous.
They don't understand science because the majority of them are not educated in it. That was precisely what I said, that they were ignorant.
Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do. Does this make us ignorant? No, you don't have to understand science to know science is important.
Your literacy skills are indeed fairly poor. Money alone doesn't provide knowledge, I'm afraid. I'm not going to get sucked into a tangential argument with you, however, about education. You skirt the issue rather than address things you cannot, because you're ignorant. My literacy skills were not on display as I was not putting them to use, so in this article I will have perfect grammar just to prove a point. Usually I reserve my skills for college or things which are important, not for random postings to Internet websites. I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that I'm at least above average, sure there are people smarter than me but I doubt you are one of those people.
People need to obtain money from somewhere. For one, you don't know what non-profit means, if you think it doesn't involve money. I worked for a non profit, money can come from grants, donations, and many sources, money is the easiest part.
Their time has no value without the capital and skills required to exercise it. You should manifest what you desire, rather than demand others do. I say this both because I know that you won't, and because you should. It doesn't take any skills to work in a factory. You act like you need a PHD to do that, all it takes is maybe a few weeks of training.
The U.N. is not a Government, and the WHO is: Did I say it was ï½a government.ï½ Learn to read, I said Govs which means Governments. 1. Already involved in providing AIDS relief. They give money 2. Not the exercising of Africa developing their own drugs, as you said they can. 3. Not meeting your needs. Patents must be removed
Long before you stampede on someone else's existing intellectual property rights in order to manifest a reality you desire, you get off of your own lazy, ignorant ass and make the sacrifices necessary to create it. I don't believe any human has the right to own information and I certainly don't believe even if you do own it, that you have exclusive rights of its production or distribution, you only have rights to profit from it in my opinion.
The U.S. has pledged $15B for AIDS over a period of four years, starting in '94. Of that, only $700M will be due in '94. I also wouldn't, especially from your position, expect that $15B to ever materialize. Correct your dates, I think you mean 2004, not 1994, next time learn proper grammar and do your research before trying to win a debate or argument on slash dot.
Uhh, the U.S. spends something along the lines of $320B a year on education. Just wander over to the NCES and find the statistics for any year you're interested in. Nice delusion, Tex. Not the federal government. The federal government spends a certain amount, and each state spends a certain amount, however the federal government does not spend 320 billion a year on education, perhaps all the states combined do but we are talking about the federal government.
If I were you, I won't go around throwing bricks in glass houses. You live in a country, which you yourself claim is so wealthy there's no excuse for someone to be as ignorant as yourself, but you have absolutely no problem with living with yourself. You have yet to prove my ignorance, p
"No, they really cannot comprehend them. If you're in a country where AIDS is rampant, and you cannot afford to engage in safe intercourse with other parties, you can either do the smart thing, or you can have intercourse with many parties anyway and receive disease. Which are they doing, HanzoSan? Yeah, that's right. Their cultural expectations mean squat. Acting with real understanding means doing what you know is best for yourself. Act irresposibly and you can die."
People in the USA get Aids too, its all about culture. These people believe in Islam and to them Islam is more important than life itself, they believe it is their god given right (allah given right) to have multiple wives. In their mind they are doing what the bible says do, just like George Bush and others who outlaw stemcell research believe they are doing what their bible says do. Its not that they are stupid, they just believe in tradition and are too religious to understand science, theres plenty of people in our country who are just as blind to science, we call them mormons, or conservatives.
1. They are not a nation. They are a continent. 2. You don't understand the concept of "cost." People are not free. You missed the point, because you're either slow or dishonest. 3. I am quite sure there are people in Africa that are certainly more educated than "you are over here." 4. The populations of Africa are ignorant. There are educated people everywhere, but if you believe the standard of education is better in Africa, then please, provide links. That's irrelevant, though. 5. Your mythical highly educated Africans with the chemical and biological expertise to produce treatments for their illnesses, and the financial and production capacity to produce treatments, should have absolutely no problems developing alternative treatments for AIDS. I guess patents aren't a problem, then.
Nigeria and South Africa have successful economies. The Nigerians and South Africans who are in highschool ARE better educated than most American highschool students, yes theres more American highschool students, and yes the percentage of Americans in highschool are higher, but thats only because we have more highschools, not because we are smarter or have better teachers. We the USA are the richest yet dumbest nation, we have the lowest scores on most tests, we have high drop out ratios, we have kids who cant even read and write, theres no excuse for us to have problems like this when we are as rich as we are.
2. You don't understand the concept of "cost." People are not free. You missed the point, because you're either slow or dishonest.
I see you've never heard of non profit orgs?! If I donate money I'm donating time, why should I donate money when Africans can donate time? Theres enough of them willing to labor for free in non profit orgs, govs like the UN support these non profit orgs, and these orgs are the ones who create the generic drugs. Why do I need to donate? My tax dollars are going to pay, our government is spending 15 billion dollars to aid ther government, this is more than we spend a year on our school system in the USA. It does not take 15 billion dollars to high slave labor to run the factories and believe me theres PLENTY of cheap labor in Africa, just like theres cheap labor on taiwan, india, and other places, this 15 billion we are sending them however is being wasted on converting them to Christianity because our president is stupid enough to believe that we can go over to their country and try to promote monogamy to a group of people who for hundreds if not thousands of years have not done so. Aids prevention is good but I dont think it will work, the best solution is aids treatment.
1. Don't make claims about my beliefs you can't substantiate. 2. You've failed to provide any chain of reasoning as to how these people can develop their treatments. You've failed to explain how they can "work for free," and also why they haven't built these mystical factories.
This isnt even about excuses, you know for a fact that they'd make their own generic drugs if the patents were lifted. Its common sense that they'd do it if as many of them have HIV as we think.
Its not like its brain surgery to operate a factory.
They can comphrehend sexually transmitted disease, they just dont care, cannot afford condoms(yes you read it right), or its againnst their culture (people in africa are muslim and expect to have many wives)
The solution to aids will not be "protection" because not every religion says you must only have one wife, Muslims believe you can have many wives, hell even some of the mormons in the USA beleive that.
Really, if you think that patents are what really keep African nations from producing their own treatments for their diseases, you're quite a silly little creature. Its not what I think, the african government said it themselves. They say they have factories, they want the ability to sell generic drugs.
You act like the third world has no factories but most of our cars, electronics, and food comes from these places, they do have factories, their people work slave labor already, telling them to work for free to solve an aids problem they suffer from makes more sense to these people than telling them to work in a sweatshop for a dollar a day.
As a side note: 1. Do you think any number of people are costless? They require food, housing, and education. 2. 75,000,000 ignorant people can't perform chemical marvels any more than 75,000,000 of you could build a 767. Theres colleges in Africa, people there are educated in certain parts, theres a class system just like any other country where a certain large population lives in villages and then you have the urban highly educated population some who are better educated over there than we are here. Check out the college campus, theres more Africans on campus than Blacks which means the education in their third world Urban enviornment is better than the Education our kids get in inner cities in the USA.
Please do not claim a whole nation of a Billion people are ignorant, poor yes, ignorant no, hard working yes, in fact these people work harder than the average lazy American.
So yes its easy to believe that these people if infected with aids in great enough numbers would work for free and build factories, and alot of them can get educated here and go back there if you truely believe the myth that theres no schools in all of Africa.
What do you have against funding their treatment yourself? Surely you're not too greedy to simply buy the drugs for them, that would be selfish. You're not selfish, you're enlightened. Send them The solution is not donations, the solution is to teach them to fish for themselves and remove the sanctions or laws which prevent them from doing it. Can you blame them for not being able to fish if you wont allow them to make a fishing rod because you have a patent on it?
So instead you want us Americans to donate the rods which they could make for themselves if we just allowed them to use their OWN factories and their OWN schools which they DO have, supported by their OWN labor and money from their OWN governments.
It doesnt cost money to produce it, it costs labor. I'm sure you tell 75 million people in africa infected in aids that they cannot work in a factory to build the cure for their own illness and they will laugh at you.
Dont you know its against the law to convince other people not to buy music from the RIAA? Thats why napster is illegal, thats why mp3.com was sued, and you will be sued too if you share music and it stops millions of people from buying CDs.
If everyone who invented math did this we wouldnt have progressed this far. Imagine if Egyptians patented math?
Or what about drugs? Why should you be able to patent this? Sure no one else should be able to sell the drug, but if sick people in countries who cannot afford to buy the drug want to make it themselves why cant they?
First you do learn stuff about culture when you listen to music.
Second, entertainment is ok when you pay for it. You live on campus, you pay to live there, you pay for the internet, you should be able to do whatever they hell you want if you pay for it.
Yes it should be used mostly for education, but do you really think people could stand college if they cant get a break even when they go home or on the weekends?
If I spend my life working on something, driving my family into debt and I succeed and make something that will bring money in, my family and I shouldn't be allowed to profit from it?
First, Musicians dont make a dime from CD sales, they make money from tours, concerts, advertisements, movie soundtracks, learn the industry.
Yes some industries need patents, but not the music industry. I'm not sure that the Movie industry needs copyright either, because most people dont watch movies on video, they go to the theaters, and they go for a reason, big screen high quality movies with surround sound vs bootleg VHS tapes which have always existed since the VCR was invented, the movie industry survived piracy.
I can understand if you patent an actual product, a physical product, but Music and Movies are entertainment and do not deserve protection from the government. I really think patents should be restricted for revolutionary new ideas, if you invent a new technology you should be able to patent it but if you just re-invent the wheel in a different way there should be no patent, and patents shouldnt last longer than 15 years, there should be no lifetime patents.
if you discover a new form of matter yes you should be able to patent it, and you should have 15 years to profit from it.
If you just make a song, or a movie, the right to sell this movie should be patented, but the right to share it should not.
The difference is, one invention is a physical thing, the other is information, you should be able to patent products but not information.
If you discover a drug you should be the only one who is legally able to sell that drug but you should not be able to prevent other people in poor countries from creating the drug and giving it away for free to their sick.
This is debateable, but I think patents are actually causing people to die because they cannot afford drugs, so do you rate capitalism above human life? first you talk about slavery being bad, then you say patents matter more than life itself?
Everyone knew slavery was wrong, even slave owners. The reason slavery was ended is because in the 1850s the slaves were running away, learning to read, and starting to fight back. The US was becoming unstable and slavery had to end for both economic reasons and because slaves were going to fight back.
Voting rights were not given to blacks, blacks had to fight for them, same with women and now gays who fight for their rights, nothing was given.
Please tell me how these issues relate? Its clear that slavery is wrong, its also clear that sharing is right, no one is harmed when you share and someone gains something when you share, sharing therefore is right, correct?
If we think its right and we are a democracy, and the only people who say its wrong are the middlemen RIAA monopoly, well then.
This isnt about democracy being always right, fact is in a democracy WE THE PEOPLE DECIDE. The people do make mistakes in democracy, but you have no arguement which can prove that sharing music is a mistake, in fact most evidence proves Musicians would make more money because they'd have more fans to go to their concerts. Its proven that most musicians dont make a penny unless they sell platnium, and they may not make a penny until their second album. So your point?
Learn how the music industry works, the only ones who get hurt if we share music are the RIAA, the ones who benefit when we share music? We do, as well as the musicians who sell double the amount of tickets at their next concert. Musicians dont give a damn about CD sales because thats not how the game works, you dont make money off your CDs unless you are really selling millions of them and theres only a few hundred musicians who do this.
If you want to make money, you make money on tour, you make more money selling hats and tshirts than you would selling CDs.
So here we have both the fans and musicians supporting file sharing, and then you have a bunch of business men saying its bad, whos right and whos wrong? Considering if we allow sharing, Musicians make more money and we get more music, vs if we dont allow sharing and then we get less music and musicians make less money while the RIAA guys make more money?
I say the Musicians deserve more money, and I'd say we deserve more music and freedom. I say the RIAA are the slave owners here in this situation.
Wrong because its a proven fact that speeding is dangerous, instead you should say we should censor violence from TV, because its the opinion of certain people in the government that violence is bad for us.
Well I grew up watching violence on tv, and I'm not a violent person.
well no because speeding is dangerous, it harms someone, violence on tv is not really dangerous its just debateable the effects it has.
Same with mp3s and file sharing, it could be better for artists actually, or it could be worse, but I think it would be better because artists would get paid more and have more fans to go to their concerts. Artists dont make money on CD sales anyway
Speech is any form of communication, be it over the phonewire, the internet, the face to face, speech is speech.
So, if we want the freedom to communicate "restricted" speech, why is this any different than Iraqis wanting to talk about the government?
The people should decide, if the people as a whole want to talk about the Iraqi government, its ok to liberate them? But its not ok for us, if our people as a whole want to get rid of the copyright system? We dont benefit from copyright, very few industries actually NEED copyright, if the people dont want copyright, democracy says the government is supposed to do what the people want, not to control the people.
Look, if we want free speech online, meaning freedom to communicate any 1s and 0s we choose, this should be our choice, if the RIAA doesnt like our speech they should make it impossible for us to do it, meaning create music in a format that we cannot copy.
But to say we cannot copy it, and then after we copy it that we cannot speak it, well thats censorship.
25 cents an mp3, a CD has around 10 songs right? maybe 15? 15x25=375 so for about 4 bucks you'll have a whole CD, while right now 4 bucks pays for just a single.
Lets say I hack into your computer, and aha! MP3 files! I report you to the RIAA and you go to jail for Piracy. Why? Because currently the RIAA does not even check to see if you purchased the CDs or not, they assume every Mp3 is piracy, every file on Kazaa is stolen, fair use doesnt exist, if you have mp3s on your computer that you copied off a CD yourself, well you broke the law.
This is why you need to buy RIAA special MP3s, so they can know you arent a pirate.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a fact that Sugar is bad for everyones system, the body is not designed to burn sugar, especially the processed sugars we eat. When your body burns sugar instead of fat, you dont lose weight, when the body burns carbs instead of fat, you dont lose weight.
The only way to lose weight is for your body to burn fat, so how do you do it? Low sugar, Low Carbs. Calorie input does matter, because calories must be burned, but the type of calories you eat most decide what your body is most efficient at burning.
You think I'm lying? Eat rice 3 times a day for a week and you'll gain weight even if your calories are low, then eat bacon and eggs 6 times a day for a week and you'll lose weight, why?
Bacon is easier to burn and digests slowly
Rice digests quick and takes forever to burn
Bacon has fats inside it, and eating fat increases hormone levels of testorsterone and others which help us burn fat
Rice has no fat, so your hormones may get out of balance
Bacon, your body is designed to digest meats, nuts and the occassional fruits and berry, while bacon has animal fat instead of omega3, its closer to the humans natural diet.
Rice has no fat, its nearly 100 percent starch, its a complex carb, your body is not designed to handle it, so it takes a longer time to burn.
Conclusion based on these facts? Avoid high gi carbs. High GI carbs are carbs which your body digests quickly, rice, starches, sugars, sweets, junk food, cereal.
Take in low GI slow digesting carbs and never eat any carbs without a greater ratio of fat and protien, meaning if you are going to eat a tablespoon of rice,you should be eating 4-5 peices of fried chicken with it. Never eat a bucket of rice with small peices of meat like stir fry.
The low carb diet works, bodybuilders use it, I use it. But its supposed to be for bodybuilders, not just for general weight loss. The reason people go on low carb is so they can lose weight QUICKLY while keeping muscle, if you go on a starvation diet of one meal a day for a month you will lose weight, but half your weight will be in muscle and the other half in fat. Low carb allows you to lose 90 percent fat and maybe 10 percent muscle, these is extremely important to the athelete, the body builder etc who want to lose FAT, not lose weight.
I want to lose fat, I go low carb because I can continue to eat fat. You must eat fat if you want your body to remember how to burn it, your body burns what you eat, if you eat low fat and high carbs your body burns carbs, if you eat high fat low carb your body burns fat, and if you eat high protien and low everything, your body burns protien.
What you want to do is make the body adapt, so that you burn fat for fuel with more efficiency while on your low calorie diets, its more of a metabolism boosting diet, and its safer than the traditional starvation diet.
Wow you act like you've never been jobless before. I'm sure when you were in highschool those same people paid for your bill.
By the way, even if I had a job I'd be getting financial aid, you act like I could somehow many enough money to pay for college on my own!
Now, back to the subject, back up what you claim with some evidence, just because you are a republican doesnt mean the majority of people are. According to the last election, Al Gore had more votes than George Bush, people know Al Gore supports higher taxes at least in theory and they voted for him because they as in the working class has something to gain by higher taxes. The working class have families which without taxes would not be able to get an education, they working class pays taxes but the upper class is supposed to pay more as it distributes the wealth.
The wealth redistribution applies to schools, law enforcement and many other useful agencies. Music and Movies could be something the majority of young people want, young people happen to be the same people who cannot afford these things even with a job. Old people instead of having to pay for these things with their credit card will pay for it via taxes and no I dont think record companies and people like britney spears should the the money, there should be a democracy not a monopoly. Based on what people listen to most the government should give the money out.
Musicians would make more money this way than they do now as they currently dont make much anything from CD sales and make most of their money from touring.
Movies in the short term might have smaller budgets which mean slightly less special effects but newer actors will have a chance to get into the industry so its a tradeoff of talent for budget cuts.
Next we must sue Google, and then the internet itself.
Yes, I'm quite aware that there's public funding for museums, symphonies, and other such public things. That's really quite different, and doesn't meet the criteria of what I said. If you take a look at, say, France who actually subsidizes movies and the like through taxes on the services you'll better understand.
Young people aren't usually interested in classical music or museums. Old people can afford to buy music themselves. Why shouldn't the old people pay taxes to support the young? They do it for education.
If you think increased Government involvement in art is a good thing, then I believe you should think for quite a long time. A second is far too little time for true reflection, or to find sufficient information to come to a rational conclusion.
Show me a survey proving that the majority of middle aged people prefer to avoid paying taxes on entertainment. Show some statistical evidence. You should never write a response without first doing your research. This is what you told me.
I'm sure the people that get slammed with the high end of the progressive income tax "ARE" really looking forward to subsidizing musicians so college students can feel better about downloading music off of the 'net.
Islam promotes Polygyny, You yourself said Africans were promiscuous so I told you the cause assuming you were right however I dont think its being promiscuous behavior which spreads HIV, in the USA people seem even more promiscuous. In Africa they dont believe in using condoms, they have religious and cultural reasons to support this and their government is doing nothing to change their religious and cultural norms. At one point in the USA homosexuality was not acceptable, if we were to believe anyone who uses a condom is a "faggot" a lot of traditional thinking straight guys might not use these condoms.
Here is proof American children are slow in math and science.
http://www.rockypreps.com/seebach/1210seeba.shtml
See it for yourself. And here is a quote "the latest survey by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study measured the performance of eighth-graders in 38 countries, following up on a 1995 survey of fourth-, eighth- and twelfth-graders.
U.S. results range from bad, to worse, to abysmal.Bad, because the most charitable thing that can be said about U.S. performance is that it's average. And that's in a field that excludes most of Europe, as well as China and India." Of course I know the difference between knowledge and intelligence. I said I had high intelligence, higher than yours perhaps but this has nothing to do with my knowledge of the subject. My knowledge of the subject comes from research, I'm currently in sociology class as we speak discussing these very issues so the research I do to write these posts also helped me get an A on my exam today.
I've taken many IQ tests, my intelligence ranges between 109 to over 130 depending on the test, either way my intelligence is always either just above average or way above average. I'm in college, but what does a persons major have to do with intelligence? I major in philosophy which has similar course load to liberal arts because its in the same section. People who major in things such as philosophy require one set of skills, people who major in math require another, my skill set includes reading/writing/research/critical thinking. Someone who majors in one of the sciences has a different skill set, usually mathematics/logical thinking/technical abilities and while I have the logic and technical abilities I lack the mathematic capacity at this time to be a scientist.
You have a masters degree? That's good for you. I'm guessing its in some scientific field based on an assessment of choice of words. 25 million aids cases in Africa instead of 75 million? All I know is its way too many, 800 million people instead of a billion? That number may have changes but 800 million is very close to being 1 billion. When I said governments like the UN, I did not mean it in the way you assume, I mean governments "grouped" like the UN, treating governments as a single entity. I assumed you would know the UN is a group of governments and I would not have to point out the obvious.
By the way, yes the federal government is supposed to spend 22 billion, but this number according to reports will be slashed by Bush if his tax cuts go through. 22 Billion for K12 on paper does not mean K12 will ever see it. 15 Billion for Africa, while the Africans may never see it, does it make sense for our government to be paying around the same amount to cure Africans Aids as they spend on our school system? This isn't about numbers because I was not trying to prove that point, the point I was trying to prove is that we spend what, 5 billion more on our education than we do donating to a single country? We should be spending triple what we spend on education and even you can support this. Based on your choice of words one does not have to do much research to see your arrogance.
And yes I know Aids is difficult to cure, I just said no company is going to invest in R&D to try finding that cure because a cure is not as profitable as treatmen
Islam doesn't tell you to be promiscuous. It doesn't tell you to engage in reckless sexual behavior that will kill you. Islam says you may have multiple wives. The Quran states that it is ok for a man to do this, therefore the Quran says to be promiscuous.
They don't understand science because the majority of them are not educated in it. That was precisely what I said, that they were ignorant.
Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do. Does this make us ignorant? No, you don't have to understand science to know science is important.
Your literacy skills are indeed fairly poor. Money alone doesn't provide knowledge, I'm afraid. I'm not going to get sucked into a tangential argument with you, however, about education. You skirt the issue rather than address things you cannot, because you're ignorant.
My literacy skills were not on display as I was not putting them to use, so in this article I will have perfect grammar just to prove a point. Usually I reserve my skills for college or things which are important, not for random postings to Internet websites. I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that I'm at least above average, sure there are people smarter than me but I doubt you are one of those people.
People need to obtain money from somewhere. For one, you don't know what non-profit means, if you think it doesn't involve money.
I worked for a non profit, money can come from grants, donations, and many sources, money is the easiest part.
Their time has no value without the capital and skills required to exercise it. You should manifest what you desire, rather than demand others do. I say this both because I know that you won't, and because you should.
It doesn't take any skills to work in a factory. You act like you need a PHD to do that, all it takes is maybe a few weeks of training.
The U.N. is not a Government, and the WHO is: Did I say it was ï½a government.ï½ Learn to read, I said Govs which means Governments.
1. Already involved in providing AIDS relief. They give money
2. Not the exercising of Africa developing their own drugs, as you said they can.
3. Not meeting your needs.
Patents must be removed
Long before you stampede on someone else's existing intellectual property rights in order to manifest a reality you desire, you get off of your own lazy, ignorant ass and make the sacrifices necessary to create it.
I don't believe any human has the right to own information and I certainly don't believe even if you do own it, that you have exclusive rights of its production or distribution, you only have rights to profit from it in my opinion.
The U.S. has pledged $15B for AIDS over a period of four years, starting in '94. Of that, only $700M will be due in '94. I also wouldn't, especially from your position, expect that $15B to ever materialize. Correct your dates, I think you mean 2004, not 1994, next time learn proper grammar and do your research before trying to win a debate or argument on slash dot.
Uhh, the U.S. spends something along the lines of $320B a year on education. Just wander over to the NCES and find the statistics for any year you're interested in.
Nice delusion, Tex.
Not the federal government. The federal government spends a certain amount, and each state spends a certain amount, however the federal government does not spend 320 billion a year on education, perhaps all the states combined do but we are talking about the federal government.
If I were you, I won't go around throwing bricks in glass houses. You live in a country, which you yourself claim is so wealthy there's no excuse for someone to be as ignorant as yourself, but you have absolutely no problem with living with yourself.
You have yet to prove my ignorance, p
"No, they really cannot comprehend them.
If you're in a country where AIDS is rampant, and you cannot afford to engage in safe intercourse with other parties, you can either do the smart thing, or you can have intercourse with many parties anyway and receive disease. Which are they doing, HanzoSan? Yeah, that's right. Their cultural expectations mean squat. Acting with real understanding means doing what you know is best for yourself. Act irresposibly and you can die."
People in the USA get Aids too, its all about culture. These people believe in Islam and to them Islam is more important than life itself, they believe it is their god given right (allah given right) to have multiple wives. In their mind they are doing what the bible says do, just like George Bush and others who outlaw stemcell research believe they are doing what their bible says do. Its not that they are stupid, they just believe in tradition and are too religious to understand science, theres plenty of people in our country who are just as blind to science, we call them mormons, or conservatives.
1. They are not a nation. They are a continent.
2. You don't understand the concept of "cost." People are not free. You missed the point, because you're either slow or dishonest.
3. I am quite sure there are people in Africa that are certainly more educated than "you are over here."
4. The populations of Africa are ignorant. There are educated people everywhere, but if you believe the standard of education is better in Africa, then please, provide links. That's irrelevant, though. 5. Your mythical highly educated Africans with the chemical and biological expertise to produce treatments for their illnesses, and the financial and production capacity to produce treatments, should have absolutely no problems developing alternative treatments for AIDS. I guess patents aren't a problem, then.
Nigeria and South Africa have successful economies. The Nigerians and South Africans who are in highschool ARE better educated than most American highschool students, yes theres more American highschool students, and yes the percentage of Americans in highschool are higher, but thats only because we have more highschools, not because we are smarter or have better teachers. We the USA are the richest yet dumbest nation, we have the lowest scores on most tests, we have high drop out ratios, we have kids who cant even read and write, theres no excuse for us to have problems like this when we are as rich as we are.
2. You don't understand the concept of "cost." People are not free. You missed the point, because you're either slow or dishonest.
I see you've never heard of non profit orgs?! If I donate money I'm donating time, why should I donate money when Africans can donate time? Theres enough of them willing to labor for free in non profit orgs, govs like the UN support these non profit orgs, and these orgs are the ones who create the generic drugs. Why do I need to donate? My tax dollars are going to pay, our government is spending 15 billion dollars to aid ther government, this is more than we spend a year on our school system in the USA. It does not take 15 billion dollars to high slave labor to run the factories and believe me theres PLENTY of cheap labor in Africa, just like theres cheap labor on taiwan, india, and other places, this 15 billion we are sending them however is being wasted on converting them to Christianity because our president is stupid enough to believe that we can go over to their country and try to promote monogamy to a group of people who for hundreds if not thousands of years have not done so. Aids prevention is good but I dont think it will work, the best solution is aids treatment.
1. Don't make claims about my beliefs you can't substantiate.
2. You've failed to provide any chain of reasoning as to how these people can develop their treatments. You've failed to explain how they can "work for free," and also why they haven't built these mystical factories.
This isnt even about excuses, you know for a fact that they'd make their own generic drugs if the patents were lifted. Its common sense that they'd do it if as many of them have HIV as we think.
Its not like its brain surgery to operate a factory.
Aids Patents harm Africa
see for yourself
They can comphrehend sexually transmitted disease, they just dont care, cannot afford condoms(yes you read it right), or its againnst their culture (people in africa are muslim and expect to have many wives)
The solution to aids will not be "protection" because not every religion says you must only have one wife, Muslims believe you can have many wives, hell even some of the mormons in the USA beleive that.
Really, if you think that patents are what really keep African nations from producing their own treatments for their diseases, you're quite a silly little creature.
Its not what I think, the african government said it themselves. They say they have factories, they want the ability to sell generic drugs.
You act like the third world has no factories but most of our cars, electronics, and food comes from these places, they do have factories, their people work slave labor already, telling them to work for free to solve an aids problem they suffer from makes more sense to these people than telling them to work in a sweatshop for a dollar a day.
As a side note: 1. Do you think any number of people are costless? They require food, housing, and education.
2. 75,000,000 ignorant people can't perform chemical marvels any more than 75,000,000 of you could build a 767. Theres colleges in Africa, people there are educated in certain parts, theres a class system just like any other country where a certain large population lives in villages and then you have the urban highly educated population some who are better educated over there than we are here. Check out the college campus, theres more Africans on campus than Blacks which means the education in their third world Urban enviornment is better than the Education our kids get in inner cities in the USA.
Please do not claim a whole nation of a Billion people are ignorant, poor yes, ignorant no, hard working yes, in fact these people work harder than the average lazy American.
So yes its easy to believe that these people if infected with aids in great enough numbers would work for free and build factories, and alot of them can get educated here and go back there if you truely believe the myth that theres no schools in all of Africa.
What do you have against funding their treatment yourself? Surely you're not too greedy to simply buy the drugs for them, that would be selfish. You're not selfish, you're enlightened. Send them The solution is not donations, the solution is to teach them to fish for themselves and remove the sanctions or laws which prevent them from doing it. Can you blame them for not being able to fish if you wont allow them to make a fishing rod because you have a patent on it?
So instead you want us Americans to donate the rods which they could make for themselves if we just allowed them to use their OWN factories and their OWN schools which they DO have, supported by their OWN labor and money from their OWN governments.
It doesnt cost money to produce it, it costs labor. I'm sure you tell 75 million people in africa infected in aids that they cannot work in a factory to build the cure for their own illness and they will laugh at you.
Dont you know its against the law to convince other people not to buy music from the RIAA? Thats why napster is illegal, thats why mp3.com was sued, and you will be sued too if you share music and it stops millions of people from buying CDs.
If everyone who invented math did this we wouldnt have progressed this far. Imagine if Egyptians patented math?
Or what about drugs? Why should you be able to patent this? Sure no one else should be able to sell the drug, but if sick people in countries who cannot afford to buy the drug want to make it themselves why cant they?
First you do learn stuff about culture when you listen to music.
Second, entertainment is ok when you pay for it. You live on campus, you pay to live there, you pay for the internet, you should be able to do whatever they hell you want if you pay for it.
Yes it should be used mostly for education, but do you really think people could stand college if they cant get a break even when they go home or on the weekends?
Because freenet isnt ready yet, a better idea would be to donate to freenet, giving freenet $100 or so would help.
If I spend my life working on something, driving my family into debt and I succeed and make something that will bring money in, my family and I shouldn't be allowed to profit from it?
First, Musicians dont make a dime from CD sales, they make money from tours, concerts, advertisements, movie soundtracks, learn the industry.
Yes some industries need patents, but not the music industry. I'm not sure that the Movie industry needs copyright either, because most people dont watch movies on video, they go to the theaters, and they go for a reason, big screen high quality movies with surround sound vs bootleg VHS tapes which have always existed since the VCR was invented, the movie industry survived piracy.
I can understand if you patent an actual product, a physical product, but Music and Movies are entertainment and do not deserve protection from the government. I really think patents should be restricted for revolutionary new ideas, if you invent a new technology you should be able to patent it but if you just re-invent the wheel in a different way there should be no patent, and patents shouldnt last longer than 15 years, there should be no lifetime patents.
if you discover a new form of matter yes you should be able to patent it, and you should have 15 years to profit from it.
If you just make a song, or a movie, the right to sell this movie should be patented, but the right to share it should not.
The difference is, one invention is a physical thing, the other is information, you should be able to patent products but not information.
If you discover a drug you should be the only one who is legally able to sell that drug but you should not be able to prevent other people in poor countries from creating the drug and giving it away for free to their sick.
This is debateable, but I think patents are actually causing people to die because they cannot afford drugs, so do you rate capitalism above human life? first you talk about slavery being bad, then you say patents matter more than life itself?
Everyone knew slavery was wrong, even slave owners. The reason slavery was ended is because in the 1850s the slaves were running away, learning to read, and starting to fight back. The US was becoming unstable and slavery had to end for both economic reasons and because slaves were going to fight back.
Voting rights were not given to blacks, blacks had to fight for them, same with women and now gays who fight for their rights, nothing was given.
Please tell me how these issues relate? Its clear that slavery is wrong, its also clear that sharing is right, no one is harmed when you share and someone gains something when you share, sharing therefore is right, correct?
If we think its right and we are a democracy, and the only people who say its wrong are the middlemen RIAA monopoly, well then.
This isnt about democracy being always right, fact is in a democracy WE THE PEOPLE DECIDE. The people do make mistakes in democracy, but you have no arguement which can prove that sharing music is a mistake, in fact most evidence proves Musicians would make more money because they'd have more fans to go to their concerts. Its proven that most musicians dont make a penny unless they sell platnium, and they may not make a penny until their second album. So your point?
Learn how the music industry works, the only ones who get hurt if we share music are the RIAA, the ones who benefit when we share music? We do, as well as the musicians who sell double the amount of tickets at their next concert. Musicians dont give a damn about CD sales because thats not how the game works, you dont make money off your CDs unless you are really selling millions of them and theres only a few hundred musicians who do this.
If you want to make money, you make money on tour, you make more money selling hats and tshirts than you would selling CDs.
So here we have both the fans and musicians supporting file sharing, and then you have a bunch of business men saying its bad, whos right and whos wrong? Considering if we allow sharing, Musicians make more money and we get more music, vs if we dont allow sharing and then we get less music and musicians make less money while the RIAA guys make more money?
I say the Musicians deserve more money, and I'd say we deserve more music and freedom. I say the RIAA are the slave owners here in this situation.
Wrong because its a proven fact that speeding is dangerous, instead you should say we should censor violence from TV, because its the opinion of certain people in the government that violence is bad for us.
Well I grew up watching violence on tv, and I'm not a violent person.
well no because speeding is dangerous, it harms someone, violence on tv is not really dangerous its just debateable the effects it has.
Same with mp3s and file sharing, it could be better for artists actually, or it could be worse, but I think it would be better because artists would get paid more and have more fans to go to their concerts. Artists dont make money on CD sales anyway
Speech is any form of communication, be it over the phonewire, the internet, the face to face, speech is speech.
So, if we want the freedom to communicate "restricted" speech, why is this any different than Iraqis wanting to talk about the government?
The people should decide, if the people as a whole want to talk about the Iraqi government, its ok to liberate them? But its not ok for us, if our people as a whole want to get rid of the copyright system? We dont benefit from copyright, very few industries actually NEED copyright, if the people dont want copyright, democracy says the government is supposed to do what the people want, not to control the people.
Look, if we want free speech online, meaning freedom to communicate any 1s and 0s we choose, this should be our choice, if the RIAA doesnt like our speech they should make it impossible for us to do it, meaning create music in a format that we cannot copy.
But to say we cannot copy it, and then after we copy it that we cannot speak it, well thats censorship.
Quit school so you can afford to pay for the RIAA's high priced CDs and avoid jailtime.
25 cents an mp3, a CD has around 10 songs right? maybe 15? 15x25=375 so for about 4 bucks you'll have a whole CD, while right now 4 bucks pays for just a single.
Lets say I hack into your computer, and aha! MP3 files! I report you to the RIAA and you go to jail for Piracy. Why? Because currently the RIAA does not even check to see if you purchased the CDs or not, they assume every Mp3 is piracy, every file on Kazaa is stolen, fair use doesnt exist, if you have mp3s on your computer that you copied off a CD yourself, well you broke the law.
This is why you need to buy RIAA special MP3s, so they can know you arent a pirate.