If it wasn't the band that composed it, they should have paid for this before they recorded the song.
># Wrote the lyrics
Same as above. As a programmer, I am hired to write code, yet I get no part of the profits made on the finished product if I've sold that work to someone else. Why should music be any different?
># Played the instruments to make the music
This would be the *artists* mentioned above.
># Mixed the album
The *artists* should pay to have their album mixed. Why should this guy get a piece of the profits from the finished product?
># Promoted the album
Artists pay for promotion.
># Discovered the singer in the first place
Unnecessary function, unnecessary expense.
># Created the cover art for the CD
The *artists* should pay for the cover art for their album.
># Produced the album
Honestly, why do you think that any of these people deserve more than to be paid for the actual work they did?
>So we humans have the ability to make nature be uniform? Seems you think man is pretty powerful if we can make matter obey our ideas.
Nope. Nature is uniform, regardless what we think of it. All of our so-called Platonic forms are just internal representations of what's going on "out there", and they will never be anything but an approximation of it, based on the rules we can agree to.
>If you want to rely on the Inductive Principle and uniformity of nature--they have to be abstract, invariant, and unchanging laws that rule over the physical world.
I like your idea of proof by assertive statement. You say it, so it must be so! To me it sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse, saying that the ideas are what's behind the reality. How do you know that your abstract laws are anything more than your generalizations about reality instead of the rules behind it?
While I agree that *nature* may have invariant and unchanging laws, our ideas about them are only shadows of reality.
>You misunderstand me. This is not a compelling reason to demand that man be rational.
And perhaps you misunderstand me. I make no demands that man be rational - he strives to be by nature. I can no more demand it than I demand a bee live in a hive.
>By the way, humans don't live in hives--unlike bees, humans can and do survive on their own.
Yes, but it is a less fruitful existence than for humans who can get along with one another, and as far as evolution is concerned that is all that matters.
>Do you have an answer to Plato's problem--that he can't give an account for how the world of ideas interacts with the world of matter?
The world of ideas interacts with the world of matter through us human beings, especially since that world of ideas is completely dependent upon us.
>How can abstract, invariant, unchanging laws or ideas interact with the physical world?
I wasn't aware that they had to.
>The evolutionary argument for imposing rationality on other men has a very complex refutation.
That's the beauty of it. You don't have to impose rationality on them, since evolution already has.
>If evolution is true, it would be to my advantage to take whatever I want from you.
No more than it makes sense for an individual bee to steal honey from its hive. Individual humans are less able to survive than a group of humans, so while stealing from others may have short-term advantages, it will hurt your chances of survival in the long run.
>Instead, you should allow men to say and think whatever they want--why be rational if the Christian God doesn't exist?
Because the existence of the Christian god has nothing to do with rationality. Humans were rational before that god was invented.
>Ahh, but to the materialist, the physical laws in the end control your thought process do they not? BTW, this is an internal critique of the materialist worldview.
Of course physical laws control my thought processes. How could it be otherwise? There is no magic going on inside my brain. I've got a massive collection on neurons that have come together in such a way that they can represent both the outside world and also the container that holds them. If that brain wasn't there, neither would I be.
>Because the materialist cannot account for abstract, non-material laws of logic. They don't exist.
They exist where all the other abstract, non-material things do - inside our heads. The laws of logic are useful abstractions of how our universe works. If all humanity disappeared tomorrow, all of our laws would go with us and the universe would keep on following its rules even if we aren't here to argue about them.
>They are conventions which can change, as conventions are wont to do. Also, if all our thoughts are governed by physical laws (another thing unaccounted for by atheists).
What's unaccounted for? The rest of that sentence?
>>If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree, they had no idea it was evil to disobey god. > >God told them not to eat of the tree (Gen 2:16-17). They disobeyed. Your straw men is impressive, but a straw man nonetheless.
Eh? As I said, how did they know it was evil to disobey god? If they didn't know it was evil, why the harsh (and eternal) punishment? It's kind of like handing a baby a loaded revolver and telling him not to shoot anything - he has no idea what you're talking about.
>It is the only rational worldview I have found. It can account for laws of logic, morality, human dignity, and the inductive principle. Materialism does not.
Whatever makes it easier to sleep at night...
>I ask you, why should men be rational in your worldview?
Because natural selection drives us towards rationality. It is the ultimate survival strategy. Our environment no longer controls us, except in extreme cases, we control it.
>There is a distinct difference between discerning whether something is good or evil, and understanding that a boundary has been set and should not be crossed. > >My 20 month old son does not discern that touching a hot stove will burn him, but he does comprehend that he must not touch the stove.
Yes, he might understand that you have told him not to touch it, but he does not understand why. His touching the stove would literally be no more evil than what Adam and Eve did, yet we are all still supposedly suffering for their 'sin'. All badness in the world flows from that one uninformed mistake.
>Adam and Eve knew what God said, and that breaking the rule was BAD
Is there a difference between 'BAD' and evil? Remember that they didn't comprehend 'evil'.
>God told them, if you break this rule, you will die.
Did they know what that meant either? They had never seen anything die in the garden, so how could this threat mean anything to them?
>The root problem is that they (like us) want to do what THEY want rather than obey God. When they chose to disobey God, the consequence was separation from Him, and ultimately, death - for themselves and for their offspring.
>What's going on in this gray matter in my cranium is controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. I don't really think,
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Everything going on in your head could be entirely chemical and biological, and can still be considered thought. There is no violation of physical laws going on when you think.
>If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing.
Once again, an unfounded logical leap. What is your evidence that rationality is anything more than 'whatever people end up thinking and doing'?
>However, the Christian God calls men to be consistent and rational.
No, he does not. The very premise of the religion, that man is born in sin because of the acts of the original man and woman, is illogical. If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree, they had no idea it was evil to disobey god. "When you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." If you don't know that an act is evil, how can you (and all your children for all eternity) justifiably be punished for it?
Your religion is no more rational than any other. Get used to it.
Well, a single mutation that developed a complete set of new fins would be highly unlikely, but a single mutation that re-enabled the leg building subroutine wouldn't be too hard...
There is already an amendment that deals with this, the fifth, and there is no way that the original intent of the it was to allow the government to take someone's property just to give it to someone else. "Public use" means just that - like building a road or a park.
"Then there is the issue of acceleration. Shawyer has calculated that as soon as the thruster starts to move, it will use up energy stored in the cavity, draining energy faster than it can be replaced. So while the thrust of a motionless emdrive is high, the faster the engine moves, the more the thrust falls."
>No. Once the government starts something, it is extremely difficult to stop it. Further, there is always the 'creep' factor. First it's supposed suspected terrorists, then it's a different group of suspected people, and so on and so forth.
I think the progession goes like this: terrorists->pedophiles->drug dealers->hackers->drug users->general public
Eh? Almost nobody has heard 22kHz sound. Dogs maybe, but they don't complain too much about the distortion my cds have introduced into their listening.
>But here is a fact: A well mastered vinyl pressing will ALWAYS have MORE of the original audio signal than any CD will.
While that may be a fact, there isn't a player in the world that can reproduce that original audio signal in anywhere near the fidelity of a cheapo cd player. Every part of a record player, from the needle to the drive mechanism, introduce distortions to the music that will not be present when playing back from a cd. Yes, in theory, vinyl has the better ability to store audio, but in practice it is blown away by digital.
>A mathmatical computer algorithm does not know or care about this and just removes what has a statistical probability to not be noticed. Well it is noticable.
Strange how such noticable things disappear in ABX tests.
>does not mean what you think it does. > >It's not "thou shalt not search without a warrant", period, full stop.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Exceptions to the rule have been created by the Judicial branch, and yes, most of them are reasonable exceptions, but there is nothing to allow wholesale spying on American citizens by the president whether 'at war' or not.
And where does that mention that he can violate the other parts of the constitution in carrying out those duties? Even if only one half of the communication is from a US citizen, the president is still required to follow the constitution when spying on that person.
Not to mention that we are not at war, so the president has no wartime powers.
>I'm curious as to how the Fourth Ammendment protects you from having your international phone conversation tapped by agents from the other country you are talking to.
Ask yourself, if the framers had had telephones, would they have included them in the forth amendment or not? My thinking is that they absolutely would have, as the British would have been tapping them like crazy to get those 'Colonial Terrorists'.
The only way to keep the government from becoming a police state is to never give it the power to do so in the first place. You have to be insane to give this much authority over your life to the government. Will you trust it so much when Hillary is in control?
You are a coward. You can't deal with the fact that freedom means that danger is sometimes unavoidable.
I wonder if this guy can cite the recent WTO decision against the US as an argument that the federal government doesn't have any right to block international gambling?
>That's incorrect. We the public also gets to pay for your medical care, through higher insurance premiums or taxes going to Medicare/caid. Since not wearing a seat belt greatly increases those costs, you are harming others.
What crap!
By this line of thinking, the government should be able to prohibit *any* even slightly dangerous activity because you might harm yourself and increase insurance premiums for everyone else.
Water skiing? Gone. Skydiving? No more! Taking a shower? Forget about it...
There won't be any period of time when the field strength will be zero magnitude. It will just get increasingly sloppy, with local north and south poles popping up in random places until they reverse.
"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Putting Jesus ahead of God certainly sounds like a violation of Commandment Numero Uno to me! Of course now I'll get the excuse "but Jesus *is* God!" or some such nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
># Composed the music
If it wasn't the band that composed it, they should have paid for this before they recorded the song.
># Wrote the lyrics
Same as above. As a programmer, I am hired to write code, yet I get no part of the profits made on the finished product if I've sold that work to someone else. Why should music be any different?
># Played the instruments to make the music
This would be the *artists* mentioned above.
># Mixed the album
The *artists* should pay to have their album mixed. Why should this guy get a piece of the profits from the finished product?
># Promoted the album
Artists pay for promotion.
># Discovered the singer in the first place
Unnecessary function, unnecessary expense.
># Created the cover art for the CD
The *artists* should pay for the cover art for their album.
># Produced the album
Honestly, why do you think that any of these people deserve more than to be paid for the actual work they did?
>So we humans have the ability to make nature be uniform? Seems you think man is pretty powerful if we can make matter obey our ideas.
Nope. Nature is uniform, regardless what we think of it. All of our so-called Platonic forms are just internal representations of what's going on "out there", and they will never be anything but an approximation of it, based on the rules we can agree to.
>If you want to rely on the Inductive Principle and uniformity of nature--they have to be abstract, invariant, and unchanging laws that rule over the physical world.
I like your idea of proof by assertive statement. You say it, so it must be so! To me it sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse, saying that the ideas are what's behind the reality. How do you know that your abstract laws are anything more than your generalizations about reality instead of the rules behind it?
While I agree that *nature* may have invariant and unchanging laws, our ideas about them are only shadows of reality.
>You misunderstand me. This is not a compelling reason to demand that man be rational.
And perhaps you misunderstand me. I make no demands that man be rational - he strives to be by nature. I can no more demand it than I demand a bee live in a hive.
>By the way, humans don't live in hives--unlike bees, humans can and do survive on their own.
Yes, but it is a less fruitful existence than for humans who can get along with one another, and as far as evolution is concerned that is all that matters.
>Do you have an answer to Plato's problem--that he can't give an account for how the world of ideas interacts with the world of matter?
The world of ideas interacts with the world of matter through us human beings, especially since that world of ideas is completely dependent upon us.
>How can abstract, invariant, unchanging laws or ideas interact with the physical world?
I wasn't aware that they had to.
>The evolutionary argument for imposing rationality on other men has a very complex refutation.
That's the beauty of it. You don't have to impose rationality on them, since evolution already has.
>If evolution is true, it would be to my advantage to take whatever I want from you.
No more than it makes sense for an individual bee to steal honey from its hive. Individual humans are less able to survive than a group of humans, so while stealing from others may have short-term advantages, it will hurt your chances of survival in the long run.
>Instead, you should allow men to say and think whatever they want--why be rational if the Christian God doesn't exist?
Because the existence of the Christian god has nothing to do with rationality. Humans were rational before that god was invented.
>Ahh, but to the materialist, the physical laws in the end control your thought process do they not? BTW, this is an internal critique of the materialist worldview.
Of course physical laws control my thought processes. How could it be otherwise? There is no magic going on inside my brain. I've got a massive collection on neurons that have come together in such a way that they can represent both the outside world and also the container that holds them. If that brain wasn't there, neither would I be.
>Because the materialist cannot account for abstract, non-material laws of logic. They don't exist.
They exist where all the other abstract, non-material things do - inside our heads. The laws of logic are useful abstractions of how our universe works. If all humanity disappeared tomorrow, all of our laws would go with us and the universe would keep on following its rules even if we aren't here to argue about them.
>They are conventions which can change, as conventions are wont to do. Also, if all our thoughts are governed by physical laws (another thing unaccounted for by atheists).
What's unaccounted for? The rest of that sentence?
>>If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree, they had no idea it was evil to disobey god.
>
>God told them not to eat of the tree (Gen 2:16-17). They disobeyed. Your straw men is impressive, but a straw man nonetheless.
Eh? As I said, how did they know it was evil to disobey god? If they didn't know it was evil, why the harsh (and eternal) punishment? It's kind of like handing a baby a loaded revolver and telling him not to shoot anything - he has no idea what you're talking about.
>It is the only rational worldview I have found. It can account for laws of logic, morality, human dignity, and the inductive principle. Materialism does not.
Whatever makes it easier to sleep at night...
>I ask you, why should men be rational in your worldview?
Because natural selection drives us towards rationality. It is the ultimate survival strategy. Our environment no longer controls us, except in extreme cases, we control it.
>There is a distinct difference between discerning whether something is good or evil, and understanding that a boundary has been set and should not be crossed.
>
>My 20 month old son does not discern that touching a hot stove will burn him, but he does comprehend that he must not touch the stove.
Yes, he might understand that you have told him not to touch it, but he does not understand why. His touching the stove would literally be no more evil than what Adam and Eve did, yet we are all still supposedly suffering for their 'sin'. All badness in the world flows from that one uninformed mistake.
>Adam and Eve knew what God said, and that breaking the rule was BAD
Is there a difference between 'BAD' and evil? Remember that they didn't comprehend 'evil'.
>God told them, if you break this rule, you will die.
Did they know what that meant either? They had never seen anything die in the garden, so how could this threat mean anything to them?
>The root problem is that they (like us) want to do what THEY want rather than obey God. When they chose to disobey God, the consequence was separation from Him, and ultimately, death - for themselves and for their offspring.
Did god not make them that way?
>What's going on in this gray matter in my cranium is controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. I don't really think,
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Everything going on in your head could be entirely chemical and biological, and can still be considered thought. There is no violation of physical laws going on when you think.
>If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing.
Once again, an unfounded logical leap. What is your evidence that rationality is anything more than 'whatever people end up thinking and doing'?
>However, the Christian God calls men to be consistent and rational.
No, he does not. The very premise of the religion, that man is born in sin because of the acts of the original man and woman, is illogical. If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree, they had no idea it was evil to disobey god. "When you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." If you don't know that an act is evil, how can you (and all your children for all eternity) justifiably be punished for it?
Your religion is no more rational than any other. Get used to it.
Since I took a neodymium magnet to the stripe on my drivers license, there hasn't been a card reader yet that could pull any information out of it.
>these are people who demonstrably tried to kill hundreds of innocent people.
Even the ones who were recently set free because of lack of evidence? Keep in mind that an accusation does not equal guilt.
Well, a single mutation that developed a complete set of new fins would be highly unlikely, but a single mutation that re-enabled the leg building subroutine wouldn't be too hard...
There is already an amendment that deals with this, the fifth, and there is no way that the original intent of the it was to allow the government to take someone's property just to give it to someone else. "Public use" means just that - like building a road or a park.
Do prisons ever have internet connections? I'm being completely serious.
Quoting TFA:
"Then there is the issue of acceleration. Shawyer has calculated that as soon as the thruster starts to move, it will use up energy stored in the cavity, draining energy faster than it can be replaced. So while the thrust of a motionless emdrive is high, the faster the engine moves, the more the thrust falls."
>No. Once the government starts something, it is extremely difficult to stop it. Further, there is always the 'creep' factor. First it's supposed suspected terrorists, then it's a different group of suspected people, and so on and so forth.
I think the progession goes like this: terrorists->pedophiles->drug dealers->hackers->drug users->general public
>why do dj's still prefer vinyl?
Depends on what kind of music you're talking about. Almost all of the Psytrance DJs I know of have switched over to spinning CDs with CDJs.
>Ever heard 22kHz sound? Tons of distortion.
Eh? Almost nobody has heard 22kHz sound. Dogs maybe, but they don't complain too much about the distortion my cds have introduced into their listening.
>But here is a fact: A well mastered vinyl pressing will ALWAYS have MORE of the original audio signal than any CD will.
While that may be a fact, there isn't a player in the world that can reproduce that original audio signal in anywhere near the fidelity of a cheapo cd player. Every part of a record player, from the needle to the drive mechanism, introduce distortions to the music that will not be present when playing back from a cd. Yes, in theory, vinyl has the better ability to store audio, but in practice it is blown away by digital.
>A mathmatical computer algorithm does not know or care about this and just removes what has a statistical probability to not be noticed. Well it is noticable.
Strange how such noticable things disappear in ABX tests.
>does not mean what you think it does.
>
>It's not "thou shalt not search without a warrant", period, full stop.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Exceptions to the rule have been created by the Judicial branch, and yes, most of them are reasonable exceptions, but there is nothing to allow wholesale spying on American citizens by the president whether 'at war' or not.
And where does that mention that he can violate the other parts of the constitution in carrying out those duties? Even if only one half of the communication is from a US citizen, the president is still required to follow the constitution when spying on that person.
Not to mention that we are not at war, so the president has no wartime powers.
>I'm curious as to how the Fourth Ammendment protects you from having your international phone conversation tapped by agents from the other country you are talking to.
Ask yourself, if the framers had had telephones, would they have included them in the forth amendment or not? My thinking is that they absolutely would have, as the British would have been tapping them like crazy to get those 'Colonial Terrorists'.
The only way to keep the government from becoming a police state is to never give it the power to do so in the first place. You have to be insane to give this much authority over your life to the government. Will you trust it so much when Hillary is in control?
You are a coward. You can't deal with the fact that freedom means that danger is sometimes unavoidable.
I wonder if this guy can cite the recent WTO decision against the US as an argument that the federal government doesn't have any right to block international gambling?
>That's incorrect. We the public also gets to pay for your medical care, through higher insurance premiums or taxes going to Medicare/caid. Since not wearing a seat belt greatly increases those costs, you are harming others.
What crap!
By this line of thinking, the government should be able to prohibit *any* even slightly dangerous activity because you might harm yourself and increase insurance premiums for everyone else.
Water skiing? Gone. Skydiving? No more! Taking a shower? Forget about it...
There won't be any period of time when the field strength will be zero magnitude. It will just get increasingly sloppy, with local north and south poles popping up in random places until they reverse.
Nice simulation here!
I'll go one worse - Jesus worship is idolatry.
"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Putting Jesus ahead of God certainly sounds like a violation of Commandment Numero Uno to me! Of course now I'll get the excuse "but Jesus *is* God!" or some such nonsense.
On the video, they start talking about it around the 12:20 mark.