1. It's legal to make copies of something you own for your own personal use (like mp3ing a CD you own).
2. Once you buy something, you're free to do pretty much as you please with it (Established when a foreign automaker bought a Ford and reverse-engineered much of it).
Therefore, it's perfectly all right for you to buy one of these disposable DVDs and copy it, because you are buying not renting it. If it were a rental situation, and you did not own it, the situation would be significantly different, because the DVD would not be yours to copy. However, the whole premise of this is that it does away with traditional rentals which you have to return. To conclude, it sounds like a very good idea - unless you're a studio trying to make a profit. Why buy a normal DVD when you can copy a "disposable" one?
Other major issues, already touched upon:
If it degrades when exposed to heat/light, wouldn't that mean that these things are inherently perishable? I seem to recall that one of the major advantages of digital technology was supposed to be its staying power...
And why, exactly do we need to throw everything away? Is it really that terrible to reuse things? Ever since environmentalism passed from the public eye, people seem to be rejoicing once more in expending non-renewable resources for silly things like saving a trip to the video store. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the fact remains: we're running out of resources. As far as something this lame being worth contributing to our eventual exhaustion of resources and whatever repercussions that entails, I don't buy it.
So, yeah, basically, this won't fly, and will probably just engender more DeCSS-type lawsuits as the company scrambles to try to _make_ it work. Whatever. ---sig---
Well, they won't be patening the gene itself, however the process by which it is created.
You can't patent a finger, but you can patent a process that will create fingers.
That's it, I'm patenting evolution!
(Or I'm patenting God, if you happen to be of that belief. Whatever, please no religious comments stemming from this)
Nobody else will be allowed to evolve, and any process that mimics natural selection (i.e. market economies) will all have to pay massive licensing fees.
Patenting is supposed to be for original inventions, correct? No prior art is supposed to exist, etc. Well, I've got a few million years of prior art going into this creation I call my body, so I'm not buying the idea of patenting any of it (save my irresistible charm;) ). Now that it's apparently okay to patent discoveries instead of inventions, I'm claiming fire, how about you? ---sig---
Re:Epistemological Ranting
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
The only exception I'd grant would be people who truly accept the scientific method, and the best they can say is that the existence of God is unproven.
I'd have to say I fall into this category. I cannot deny the existence of a God. I also cannot say that any credible evidence has been put forth that supports it.
You missed the point, though. The point of the example was to illustrate exactly what you said. Logically, one cannot deny the existence of a God, because a scenario could exist that provides for it. However, those who claim that something exists must support it. Science accepts nothing that is not supported, all things are essentially considered theory unless proven mathematically. The claim that "science and religion are both faith issues" is preposterous, because science has predictive value, religion does not.
Finally, the whole concept of science is that it is based on observation, not faith. The post I replied to was obviously not based on observation, was it?
So no, I can't disprove the existence of a God, but neither can I disprove the existence of a glowing octopus that steals children in the night. However, from the evidence presented, they are equally likely. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet that when I wake up in the morning, objects will be attracted to one another with a force equal to Gm1m2/R**2. There's evidence for that. ---sig---
You are blatantly employing a logical fallacy as the basis for your beliefs.
Logically, all conditions must be proven. I cannot disprove the existence of a shoe, because a shoe may exist outside my perception. Therefore, for logic to work at all, the person claiming the existence of a shoe must show me the shoe!
Now, you can claim that God is above all logic.
Then there is no rational basis for your beliefs, or any basis whatsoever, other than "faith," which I can find a million counterexamples to.
And when someone confronts you about this, you resort to semantics. Now, proper usage of a language is one thing. Semantics is another entirely.
Unless you have something worthwhile to say, don't say anything at all. And if you HAVE to say something, don't give it a +1. It might account for your lack of Karma. But you don't believe in Karma, do you?;) ---sig---
Okay, while I disagree with you from a strictly religious point of view, I think you raise an interesting point here.
First: It is true that science cannot necessarily account for the ultimate cause. On the other hand, it could. It all depends on what the answer turns out to be. If the universe turns out to be a steady-state phenomenon or something to that effect (anything lacking a beginning, including a recycling universe), science can essentially tell us that it's always been here and will always be here. If one demands that a primary cause exist, logically the burden of proof falls on their shoulders and they may come back with a positive proof of the existence of a God, plus a proof that there was a primary cause. If the "big bang" or a similar, finite system appears to be the case, then science is pretty much done, in that the existence of a beginning raises a strong likelihood of a cause (though not necessarily). In this case, all the theologian has to do is run with the existence of a primary cause and merely prove the existence of a God (burden of proof always falls on those who insist that a condition DOES exist, remember?).
Second: Either way, this has nothing to do with genetics. Genetics will not disprove the existence of a God, because it cannot be disproven. There is no way to logically do it. Period. However, as Katz points out, it may make religion a bit harder to sell, as many advancements in biology have done. But... if someone is brought up from birth believing something, biology classes aren't likely to have a profound effect on that belief. So it becomes a moot point. It will de-mystify life, but it won't damage the credibility of the church anywhere near as much as Katz predicts. Children simply aren't that skilled at reasoning.
Third: I like the joke.
Fourth: Following the first and second points, there is one effect that all this seems to be having. Interestingly enough, it seems that religion and science have been playing parallel roles. With the advent of "modern" religion, God was essentially relegated to the role of "Creator" and nothing more. Observe. "Primitive" religions (if you choose to call them that; include #disclaim.h) are mainly alike in that God or the gods played a strong role in everyday life. If something happened, those were the gods doing it. When Christianity and its bretheren came along, it was pretty much the same thing for a while. However, over time God was pushed further out of modern affairs. In other religions around the world a similar thing happened. Eventually religious doctrine became a mix of the disciplines of a "hands-on" God and a more deistic belief. Of course, at the same time, science was slowly developing. It is no coincidence that at the time of the scientific revolution, deism enjoyed the greatest surge in popularity in its history. Where is the parallel? Religion was removing God from everyday life, science was trying to kill him entirely. Why would they do this? Because modern culture found him to be inconvenient. It was this that Frederich Nietzche was commenting on when he wrote that "God is dead." Our modern culture believes two things: Man has the knowledge of right and wrong, and Man owns the Earth. The first can be found in most creation myths, the second as well. However, the second comes up against quite a bit of opposition from the "primitive" relgions (remember those? I brought those up for a reason). The "primitive" religions hold that we belong to the Earth, are transistory, etc. "Modern" religion tells us that we are the end product of creation, and that the Earth is rightfully ours. This is the worst kind of hubris. Man is the ultimate of all Creation and shall do as he pleases. Religion can't finish the job, however. It takes science, working alongside religion, to kick God in the nuts and tell him he's done. To tell him that Man now has the power to create, and that he can go home now. That's why I like the joke.
Fifth: More importantly, though, is the premise that man has ultimate knowledge of right and wrong. It is the premise that creates hot-headed debate over Jon Katz articles, it is the premise that allows us to justify our domination of the world. Culture has it all wrong. Culture says that man has the knowledge of right and wrong, but is weak. No, man has almost ultimate power over the universe. Man can manipulate the atom, will be able to create life. On the other hand, man has no idea what is going on, that is the dangerous thing. There is nothing more dangerous than a man who thinks he knows ultimate truth... other than a society of men who think they know it. This is where God comes in (remember God? We kicked him in the nuts a while back, and now he's pissed). I'm suggesting that man will never have the moral answers. Man can have all the power in the world, but that will never tell him how to use it. How about we just don't?
Quick Summary for those who need it:
-We can't disprove the existence of a God -We also don't need to -It's a moot point either way, actually -Funny joke, I approve -Man has the powers of Gods (at least most) -Man will never know how to use them properly -Can we please not try to genetically engineer our species' future? ---sig---
Bruce Lee actually used to do that, but by hooking up electrodes to his pecs. If you've ever undergone electrotherapy (not the psych kind) for a muscular injury, you know what I'm talking about. It feels weird, to say the least. ---sig---
"Why the Government is Bad" "How to Control Your Neighbors Using a Modified Transmitter" "Why Businesses are Bad"
Plus, the heartwarming essay "Help, Help, I'm Being Oppressed!"
Seriously, though, I wonder what happens when two people with the same technology stand next to one another. If the devices are powered by the radio waves and are this small, they aren't likely to have half a million codes like garage door openers and the like. Will I be able to raise your hand in class? Force the dumb kids to answer questions? ---sig---
In the future, everyone might be attractive, healthy, and sociable. Oh, the horror! Only Jon Katz could complain about that. Get over it, for cryin' out loud.
Guess that eliminates most of the geeks I know... Bye Slashdot, bye "voices from the hellmouth"! ---sig---
It seems obvious that every time humans have developed technologies to do things like fight hunger, we then expand to the point where hunger is then a problem again.
You are incredibly accurate in stating that technology is not the answer -- after thousands of years developing it, the human race still suffers, just on a much grander scale.
Thank you for stating what I have been trying to say in a manner which is apparently more palatable to the average nerd than my posts to the same effect. I suggest the book Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, which does a remarkable job of making and expanding upon this argument (I've plugged it a million times in this discussion, no I don't even know the guy, it just happens to be extremely relevant).
I have to wonder if geeks seem to hold technology as so holy because it is the one area where they are truly a step ahead of everyone else. Everyone tends to justify their existence in some way, perhaps this is the manner in which many geeks do it... I say this because it seems that anything that could be construed as "anti-technology" or even not "pro-technology" is, for the most part, summarily rejected. Ah, well, everyone is flawed, even geeks;) ---sig---
"As good at surviving"??? No, they were all doing just fine until we started actively killing them. And I suppose you aren't looking at it biologically... there is no such thing as a dominant species. Or at least, without humans, there was no such thing. Why do humans, above all other creatures, deserve to live? Again, humans managed to co-exist with the other species for over a million years before we started being "dominant" (read: killing anything that retarded our expansion). Our continued existence is not reliant on our attempting to "dominate" the world, rather, in the long run it will be threatened by it.
We are living in a manner inconsistent with our origins because we have attempted to remove ourselves from evolutionary cycles. Australopithecus became Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens by evolving, and now we've decided that that's enough, we'll just change the rest of the world instead. That's how. Does the concept of dying offend you? Does it scare you? That's what it would seem. Have you studied any anthropology? You may find it interesting that primitive man and his ancestors actually had more free time than modern man does, and fewer social problems. It wasn't a time of suffering, as culture would have you believe. Furthermore, food was plentiful, and far fewer people starved (proportionally as well as numerically) than today. Check it out sometime, you may find it enlightening. And at no point did I claim that we should go sit in mud-floored caves. We can still have our central air and nice houses without attempting to dominate the world. The two are not mutually dependent.
And no, the Earth doesn't give a damn. I do, however, because it'll eventually mean the end of the human race and any possible species evolving from that, which doesn't paint a pretty picture. We're screwing ourselves. Also, the other inhabitants (the trillion or so of them) kindly ask you not to destroy all life in the process of destroying yourself.
And again, more existentialist crap. "We exist to perpetuate our own existence." If that isn't the weakest assignment of meaning I've ever encountered...
No, actually I explicitly stated that we are not living in a manner consistent with our origins because we fight evolution. If we would continue along that path, and continue evolving, we would be living just as we should. I think you Missed the Point (tm). I have to question the difference between battling and cutting off, but that's irrelevant... And I think you might find that a lot of people are bothered by the idea of destroying ourselves. Also, the other species killed in the process probably don't like it, either. I'm glad to see that you don't think it's a good thing, though. In that case, let's try something else, sound good?
Note: I'd say if you believe that someone's stance is bullshit, a good approach might be showing why it's bullshit, rather than just throwing out arguments you don't believe in. Doing that would qualify as "flamebait". ---sig---
Then you must subscribe to the theory that the purpose of a species is to expand as quickly and over as much are as possible so as to maximize survival of the species? If not then you shouldn't care whether we kill ourselves off or not because the earth will recover within a couple thousand years of our demise, if so then you should be happy that we are defeating nature and expanding beyond the surface of the planet.
No, actually that would be dead wrong. Take for example every other species on the face of the earth, including our own until the past six thousand years (which sounds like a lot, until you consider that we've been around over a thousand thousand years). None of these species have attempted to expand their populations by declaring war on other species. They may eat one another for food, but you will never observe one animal killing another except to eat it or to defend itself (or its young).
And as far as taking only a few thousand years to restore the Earth, I'd suggest a biology class. Higher-order species typically have generations spanning twenty years or more. This indicates that one thousand years is about fifty generations. In five thousand generations, or 100,000 years, only relatively minor genetic changes occur. It takes thousands upon thousands of generations to progress from the equivalent of a fish to the equivalent of an amphibian, let alone a lizard... this quickly adds up to millions of years.
Therefore, by expanding beyond the environment's capacity, we are not acting in accord with our "purpose" as you put it, and furthermore, we are damaging the world to such a great extent that it will not easily recover, and stands the possibility of never recovering.
Or you can be of the opinion that humanity is 'unnatural' which is silly, since everything that exists is natural, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
This is the silliest warping of an existentialist arguement that I have ever heard. "I exist, therefore I am natural." Natural does not mean "living in an environment," rather, it is better defined as "living in a manner consistent with one's origins." We exist due to processes that we have attempted to escape, therefore, we are not living in a manner consistent with our origins, therefore, we are not natural. Man became man because he evolved. We have battled our own evolution, which you will never observe another species doing. Why isn't their way good enough for us? ---sig---
in 1899, women had to bear many more children than now, no thanks to much higher infant mortality rates and the fact the average person in the developed countries (e.g., Europe and the USA) would be lucky to be able to live to 50 years old.
This is a good thing? Why did women have to bear more children? To keep the human race expanding at a rate where we have to irreversibly consume the world's resources in order to sustain ourselves?
The advances in medicine in the last 100 years has allowed people in the developed world to live at least 70 years or more.
Which is nice, unless you consider that it actually ends up weakening the human race in the long run by subverting natural selection. I'm nearsighted and have terrible allergies. Given a global disaster that removes the infrastructure I depend on, I will most likely be incapable of adapting and will die, along with the rest of the human race, simply because I have attempted to escape evolution. Sorry, but humans aren't the end-all, no matter how hard we try to be. Medicine on today's scale is an attempt at removing God or the gods or nature from the affairs of the world, relegating them to a back-seat position, and deifying our own species.
Finally, what would our food supply situation be like without modern food storage technology?
We would starve when we exceeded the ecosystem's capacity, keeping our population in check... I'm sorry, is there something wrong with that? It seems to work pretty well for a few million other species, and worked well for us until the past few thousand years, a tiny fraction of the time our species has been on this planet.
I don't buy the propaganda of progress.
Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It may very well be the most important book ever written. ---sig---
Come on... we constantly use technology without thinking of the consequences. Start with the agricultural revolution, the basis of all "modern" societies, and keep going.
You are right, technologies may very well be beneficial to humanity, but we use them in ways that are harmful to the world we live in. I'm not anti-technology (I'm writing this...), but I am obliged to point out that once we destroy the world around us, we have guaranteed our own destruction. Environmentalism can be a selfish thing.
Look at any major technological revolution; the agricultural revolution, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the post-industrial revolution; and you will see a pattern of expansion, consumption, destruction, as well as cultural ignorance.
Thankfully, I can't blame the internet for anything, as a matter of fact, I'd say that it is amazing simply because it is one of a select few revolutionary technologies (or collections thereof) that have had little to do with "conquering" the world.
All right... so the basic premise here is "technology isn't evil." I suppose I can't argue that. Technology is not by any means a "bad" thing, it will not end the world. More importantly, technology will not save it, either.
As a matter of fact, I'd argue that on the whole, humans have misused technology to the point where we are virtually ensuring global destruction.
Point one: Humans have isolated themselves from the natural environment. Given a global climatic change, all other species will do one of three things: move, adapt (evolve), or die. Humans will not move. We will attempt to continue to modify the environment we live in to suit our needs. In addition, we will not adapt. We may adapt the environment, but not ourselves.
Point two: Humans have employed technology not only to isolate themselves from the natural environment, but have declared war on it. As a fundamentally agrarian society, the first thing we do when we move into an area is "tame" it. We destroy anything that may encroach upon "our" fields and "our" crops. Anyone living without doing this (Native Americans) is viewed as inferior and/or dangerous, and is likewise declared an enemy to be destroyed. This is not the fault of the technology but of our culture, and what our culture tells us to do with the technology.
The point: Optimism about the future due to technology is due to our culture telling us that our developments will allow us to continue to expand without repercussions. We will continue to defy the laws of nature governing population size by conquering the planet. We will use genetically engineered crops to resist disease, to ensure a stable food supply-- without one, people would starve, and our population would decrease to a manageable level. This would mean death, however, an apparently unacceptable consequence of living in something resembling "harmony" with nature. In essence, technology will give us the neccessary tools with which we can bring all sorts of natural phenomena in check, to allow a continuation of the past few thousand years' worth of unacceptable behavior.
I need not point out that this is not a good thing, however much it may resemble one.
Read "Ishmael" by David Quinn, and stop visiting "thehungersite". If you continue to send food to starving nations, you perpetuate overpopulation, and in the end, only end up causing more people to suffer. It may sound cruel, but starvation is a natural process, and given a few generations, the population levels in those countries will shrink to a manageable level, ending starvation and the suffering it causes permanantly. It's a long-term solution that is morally and environmentally sound. Don't make people live in pain.
Personally, I remember my first run-in with PG back in the days of the BBS... it was a Taoist text in one of the download sections that had been created for PG. I also seem to remember a very lofty goal at the time, something like a billion downloads...?
At any rate, I think a few areas might provide support...
*Amazon (someone mentioned this) is a _bad_ idea. Profit motive and releasing free documents don't coincide well.
*The Palm computing platform is the big plus. To be able to read in such a convenient form is wonderful, and PG offers a large library of material for consumption. However, PG needs to _market_ to them, meaning convenient little formats, getting linked to, etc...
*Align with the OS movement more, there's plenty of talent that would likely work on such a task, but probably isn't even aware of it. Getting mentioned on/. is a huge start.
*Make better use of technology... I seem to recall very slow rates of progress, which lowers the level of excitement for those involved (it's sad that this is a factor, but very true)- can't many works simply be OCR'ed?
*The general public (Oprah Winfrey's audience, etc.) is most likely worthless. It seems as though most of the public rarely reads, let alone transcribes... The only thing they might be good for is cash to support the effort. Just my US$0.02
Apparently you're an absolute, unrelenting moron, and I'm wasting my time. But, you're a moron that challenged me, so I'm going to have a bit of fun here...
No self-respecting historian wastes time trying to predict alternate futures. Too many outside factors exist. At the same time, this can be said: The church at this time was squelching all opposing viewpoints (note: "The Church was... [attempting to control] any potentially questionable views held by its followers."). Maybe you need a lesson in the English language. Strong operators such as "any" or "all" mean just that. They do not mean "most."
had he did, his fate would have been a far different one.
As i said, it's stupid to attempt to suggest alternate futures. What if we hadn't entered WWII? What then? But in response, Galileo was friends with the pope. Galileo had his work approved by the inquisition. The church was attempting to elminate any opposing viewpoints, any including Galileo's. He played the system. It didn't work.
I honestly cannot tell how my response the previous time was inadequate, but I have yet to see you produce any prominent historian's viewpoint on the subject, so I consider you done.
Friday night is a holy time to Jews, so asking the state pass a law which helps in their religious observances is not really a big deal.
I see you miss the point again. The point I was making is that it's alright for legislation like that to be proposed.
Maybe it is the fact that you cannot properly use the English language that has caused this problem.
Phrases such as not really a big deal imply that the proposed legislation is not something for one to be concerned about. As in, whether it passes or not is a non-issue.
Please point me to the line where either Jon Katz or myself asked to restrict the freedom of speech of any opposing group.
Your argument is absolutely irrelevant to any part of this discussion.
A valid one? Then why don't you *support* it, rather than wasting bandwidth and server space to simply call me an idiot?
Go read a newspaper. Or, refer to the fundamentalist Christian-supported bill H 1501, in response to the Columbine shooting, an amendment to which provides for the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools... What do you want, an opinion poll? Start calling... As far as a waste of your time, I'm extremely sorry that I wasted your time. I wasted mine, as well, because you're obviously too thick to pull anything useful from a post that was somewhat more intelligent than any of the unsupported opinions you had to offer.
FYI, I'm not a "fundamentalist spokesman", dispite your best efforts. Hell, I'm not even christian. (Native american, Salinan tribe, registered California Indian.)
"despite" has an e, not an i. That wasn't my best effort. spokesman, n. One who speaks as the representative of another or others. Note: status as a "spokesman" does not require membership. And I didn't say that you were fundamentalist, either. Nice try, you fail.
Besides, it doesn't do a damned thing to my point, which is this: even the most rabid fundamentalist Christians I've known aren't anti-technology.
You mean to tell me that you shared a post consisting of five hundred nintey-one words, none of which contained the preceding phrase or any similar phrase to state the above? The closest you had to offer was this:
No, Mr. Katz, it's not technology that's being blaimed by fundamentalist Christians. It's technology, unchecked by moral guidance, which is being blaimed. This is no different from gun control advocates who are concerned that criminals and idiots may get ahold of a gun and misuse it.
First off, the above phrase qualifies you as a spokesman for fundamentalist Christians. Second, the answers many Christians have been offering (the CDA, etc) often have more to do with restricting access than providing moral guidance. Furthermore, as I stated, morality is something that cannot be legislated, so assuming we scratch that off the list... Third, it is completely different from gun control advocates. A computer is not a device designed to cause massive bodily harm. A gun is. As a matter of fact, a gun as little other practical use than physical force of the threat thereof. A computer, on the other hand, is quite awkward to wield in combat. I'd even venture to say that (here goes predicting the future) thirteen people wouldn't have died at Columbine if the two boys were armed with 486s. Fourth, you don't know all the same Christians I know. Meaning that your point is essentially unsupported. Could you please provide *support*? Fifth, obviously you don't know what a Christian Scientist is. Sixth, I'd like to waste bandwidth and server space to elucidate my opinion that you are an idiot (or at least acting like one).
To conclude:
You're still wrong, and even though I supported that statement the first time, you are incapable of understanding other people's writing. Furthermore, you need to relearn English. Third, attacking Jon Katz (or anyone else) in a roundabout attempt to state a point that you never actually get to is a bad idea.
Galileo was persecuted by the Church not because of his anti-religions, pro-technology beliefs, but because he upset the status quo of a church which was attempting to preserve it's eroding power base. Specifically, the Church never actually denied that Galileo's observations of the heavens were false; they only bitched because he presented his findings outside the context of the Church Hierarchy. Had Galileo "played politics" with the Church, his findings may have first been stamped with the approval of the Church hierarchy, and presented as compatable with Roman Catholic Theology.
If you were awake in history class, you would have noted something quite significant:
You are wrong. Theodore K. Rabb, in The Western Experience, states: "The Church was... [attempting to control] any potentially questionable views held by its followers." He then proceeds to note that Galileo was, in fact, a friend of the pope at the time, and that his masterpiece, the Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, was approved by the inquisition. Interesting... Furthermore, R. R. Palmer, in A History of the Modern World, echoes the same sentiments, and Leo Tolstoy, a prominent scholar of his time, states at the end of the second epiloque of War and Peace (were you awake during English class?): "To the men who fought against the rising truths of physical philosophy, it seemed that if they admitted that truth it would destroy faith in God, in the creation of the firmament..."
Is it even worth mentioning that it is not a religion's duty to censor science?
As to the Orthodox Jews demanding that cinemas be closed in Israel on Friday, that is no worse than any temperance law in the United States which prohibits the sale of alcohol on Sunday.
You are absolutely right. Those temperance laws are every bit the infringement upon individual rights the the movie laws are.
Friday night is a holy time to Jews, so asking the state pass a law which helps in their religious observances is not really a big deal.
Frankly, I don't understand why you need a law prohibiting other people from taking part in an activity because you choose not to. It is not your right to legislate your beliefs upon others. Is it okay for me to regulate when you may go to church?
Remember: freedom also means the freedom of one sect of folks to ask for laws from their nation, no matter how odd we may think those laws are. Or are you next going to complain that in some States, it is illegal for an employer to demand without signific notice that an employee work on Sunday?
Freedom ends where it infringes upon another individual's freedom. Just as an employer does not have the right to interfere with an employee's religious observation, a citizen does not have the right to impose those observations upon others. That protection is built into our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In short, your argument in this case is warped, and in fact, your examples aid in rebuttal of your own case.
Technology, from film to TV to the Web, is often blamed for triggering spiritual failings and degradations.
No, Mr. Katz, it's not technology that's being blaimed by fundamentalist Christians.
Oops. He didn't say "fundamentalist Christians," did he? The author made an observation, a rather valid one, and because it did not agree with your view as a spokesman for "fundamentalist Christians," you rejected his observation as wrong.
It is evident that your bias has interfered with your ability to construct an argument.
My grandfather was an agent of the NSA, and so I know a little bit about it, but most of my knowledge comes from everyone but him. He never really talks about it, but I have to wonder what a WWII vet and a NSA employee would think of Cryptonomicon. I know for a fact that he's good with simple cryptosystems, even though we have no knowledge of him ever working in that field. We (family members) believe that at later stages, he was mostly administrative, working on intercepting transmissions.
The NSA is really an outgrowth of what was known as the Army Security Agency, in which he spent a lot of time doing something involving lots of radios and the Philippines [intercepting foreign communications]. The NSA and ASA both exist now, but apparently the NSA is essentially a workhorse agency, taking orders [more like kind requests] from the other cloak-and-dagger types. They have two basic functions, those being to monitor the world's radio traffic [if one visits Fort Meade, Maryland, they will note the large geodesic bubbles on the tops of buildings; apparently the purpose is to obscure the directions their satellite dishes point, for obvious reasons], and the other being to decrypt everything in sight. At the same time, they do advise the rest of the Executive Branch on matters of systems security and in the past, have worked on developing secure cryptosystems ["in the past" because one has to wonder whether the private sector is outpacing them in that respect and rendering those efforts outdated] and implementing them.
As far as what the "real" NSA is like, I suppose it's always been a very real phenomenon for me, and I have never really had any illusions about what they do... it appears to all simple inspections that what they do is exactly what they claim to do, except that now, they have been forced to react to the internet, and have thus extended their resources in that direction. However, at least as far as bursting in anywhere, guns blazing, I think that's most likely the last thing they've ever been involved in. The most clandestine thing I can see the NSA doing is setting up big radio antennae inside sketchy little huts in the jungle. Fun:)
I doubt that Maine is special, but I've never been there...
Article I, Section IX:
5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.
That one is pretty straightforward...
Article I, Section X:
2. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts; laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
This one is a bit more obscure, but indicates that States don't have the right to tax goods coming from other states, except to fund inspection, and that any amount in excess of that spent inspecting goods must be turned over to the Federal Government. I don't know what your employer is doing, but over here in Michigan, even when purchasing wholesale goods (bike parts, in my case), we don't have to pay sales tax if the company is out of state. So unfortunately, I cannot speak for that specific case, but overall, I believe you may find your case to be an exception.
I apologize if ambiguous I was in stating the limitations on the Federal Government in regulating interstate commerce. It is true that the right to regulate interstate commerce is reserved for the Federal Government, but limitations to this DO exist. Your example of long distance phone calls is inapplicable to the situation, because it actually involves a form of rate control, NOT taxation. I find it rather amusing that you imply that an injustice occurs every time you pick up the phone and the government makes your call cheaper...
As a matter of fact, if you would care to read the Constitution, you may find this line from Article I, Section IX amusing and/or enlightening:
"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
Which is why you couldn't find an example that applies to the topic of interstate sales tax.
I encourage you to carefully consider the context in which comments are made, to avoid jumping on someone for a comment that was correct, so long as you don't attempt to interpret it beyond the bounds of the discussion at hand.
A number of basic precedents will guide the hand of the government in taxing internet sales...
1. A number of historic decisions exist that state that the Federal government cannot restrict or otherwise regulate interstate commerce. These decisions actually hampered the passage of antitrust acts around the turn of the century... the origins of this lie in early American history, when state-to-state trade was taxed-- the Antifederalists resisted any movement to give the Feds power to regulate in this manner.
Because of this, only States have been able to tax sales, and only those within their own state. Thus, it can be expected that internet sales will follow the course of mail-order. You'll only be taxed if you are in the same State as the provider of the goods.
2. As far as internet auctions, I have no idea. I don't _believe_ (not exactly sure here) that auction items are taxed at physical auctions, so it can be expected that the same laws will apply.
The easiest way to predict in what way things will be regulated in the future is to look at the past. It is rare for judges to create new precedent, even when dealing with new situations, because they are expected to administer justice on a solid basis. It can be expected that rather than attempt to create a new system, the legislative and judicial bodies of this land will merely apply old law.
Also, why is everyone under the impression that internet sales are so revolutionary? They are, in effect, only an extremely fancy version of mail (or phone) order, and will likely be treated as such. Granted, the internet and its ramifications are astounding, but in this case, not much has really changed...
As another user has stated, ping flooding is a denial of service attack. As I am now stating, Dreamcast doesn't use an out-of the box, stock release of any OS, meaning that "exploits" aren't known yet. Therefore, if you're going to hack it, you'd better be more than a script kiddie who has no idea what they're doing other than hitting buttons that say "p1ng fl00d" or the like...
Slashdot Mirror
Two major points of law:
1. It's legal to make copies of something you own for your own personal use (like mp3ing a CD you own).
2. Once you buy something, you're free to do pretty much as you please with it (Established when a foreign automaker bought a Ford and reverse-engineered much of it).
Therefore, it's perfectly all right for you to buy one of these disposable DVDs and copy it, because you are buying not renting it. If it were a rental situation, and you did not own it, the situation would be significantly different, because the DVD would not be yours to copy. However, the whole premise of this is that it does away with traditional rentals which you have to return. To conclude, it sounds like a very good idea - unless you're a studio trying to make a profit. Why buy a normal DVD when you can copy a "disposable" one?
Other major issues, already touched upon:
If it degrades when exposed to heat/light, wouldn't that mean that these things are inherently perishable? I seem to recall that one of the major advantages of digital technology was supposed to be its staying power...
And why, exactly do we need to throw everything away? Is it really that terrible to reuse things? Ever since environmentalism passed from the public eye, people seem to be rejoicing once more in expending non-renewable resources for silly things like saving a trip to the video store. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the fact remains: we're running out of resources. As far as something this lame being worth contributing to our eventual exhaustion of resources and whatever repercussions that entails, I don't buy it.
So, yeah, basically, this won't fly, and will probably just engender more DeCSS-type lawsuits as the company scrambles to try to _make_ it work. Whatever.
---sig---
Well, they won't be patening the gene itself, however the process by which it is created.
You can't patent a finger, but you can patent a process that will create fingers.
That's it, I'm patenting evolution!
(Or I'm patenting God, if you happen to be of that belief. Whatever, please no religious comments stemming from this)
Nobody else will be allowed to evolve, and any process that mimics natural selection (i.e. market economies) will all have to pay massive licensing fees.
---sig---
Patenting is supposed to be for original inventions, correct? No prior art is supposed to exist, etc. Well, I've got a few million years of prior art going into this creation I call my body, so I'm not buying the idea of patenting any of it (save my irresistible charm ;) ). Now that it's apparently okay to patent discoveries instead of inventions, I'm claiming fire, how about you?
---sig---
The only exception I'd grant would be people who truly accept the scientific method, and the best they can say is that the existence of God is unproven.
I'd have to say I fall into this category. I cannot deny the existence of a God. I also cannot say that any credible evidence has been put forth that supports it.
You missed the point, though. The point of the example was to illustrate exactly what you said. Logically, one cannot deny the existence of a God, because a scenario could exist that provides for it. However, those who claim that something exists must support it. Science accepts nothing that is not supported, all things are essentially considered theory unless proven mathematically. The claim that "science and religion are both faith issues" is preposterous, because science has predictive value, religion does not.
Finally, the whole concept of science is that it is based on observation, not faith. The post I replied to was obviously not based on observation, was it?
So no, I can't disprove the existence of a God, but neither can I disprove the existence of a glowing octopus that steals children in the night. However, from the evidence presented, they are equally likely. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet that when I wake up in the morning, objects will be attracted to one another with a force equal to Gm1m2/R**2. There's evidence for that.
---sig---
My God, this is really disappointing.
;)
You are blatantly employing a logical fallacy as the basis for your beliefs.
Logically, all conditions must be proven. I cannot disprove the existence of a shoe, because a shoe may exist outside my perception. Therefore, for logic to work at all, the person claiming the existence of a shoe must show me the shoe!
Now, you can claim that God is above all logic.
Then there is no rational basis for your beliefs, or any basis whatsoever, other than "faith," which I can find a million counterexamples to.
And when someone confronts you about this, you resort to semantics. Now, proper usage of a language is one thing. Semantics is another entirely.
Unless you have something worthwhile to say, don't say anything at all. And if you HAVE to say something, don't give it a +1. It might account for your lack of Karma. But you don't believe in Karma, do you?
---sig---
Okay, while I disagree with you from a strictly religious point of view, I think you raise an interesting point here.
First: It is true that science cannot necessarily account for the ultimate cause. On the other hand, it could. It all depends on what the answer turns out to be. If the universe turns out to be a steady-state phenomenon or something to that effect (anything lacking a beginning, including a recycling universe), science can essentially tell us that it's always been here and will always be here. If one demands that a primary cause exist, logically the burden of proof falls on their shoulders and they may come back with a positive proof of the existence of a God, plus a proof that there was a primary cause. If the "big bang" or a similar, finite system appears to be the case, then science is pretty much done, in that the existence of a beginning raises a strong likelihood of a cause (though not necessarily). In this case, all the theologian has to do is run with the existence of a primary cause and merely prove the existence of a God (burden of proof always falls on those who insist that a condition DOES exist, remember?).
Second: Either way, this has nothing to do with genetics. Genetics will not disprove the existence of a God, because it cannot be disproven. There is no way to logically do it. Period. However, as Katz points out, it may make religion a bit harder to sell, as many advancements in biology have done. But... if someone is brought up from birth believing something, biology classes aren't likely to have a profound effect on that belief. So it becomes a moot point. It will de-mystify life, but it won't damage the credibility of the church anywhere near as much as Katz predicts. Children simply aren't that skilled at reasoning.
Third: I like the joke.
Fourth: Following the first and second points, there is one effect that all this seems to be having. Interestingly enough, it seems that religion and science have been playing parallel roles. With the advent of "modern" religion, God was essentially relegated to the role of "Creator" and nothing more. Observe. "Primitive" religions (if you choose to call them that; include #disclaim.h) are mainly alike in that God or the gods played a strong role in everyday life. If something happened, those were the gods doing it. When Christianity and its bretheren came along, it was pretty much the same thing for a while. However, over time God was pushed further out of modern affairs. In other religions around the world a similar thing happened. Eventually religious doctrine became a mix of the disciplines of a "hands-on" God and a more deistic belief. Of course, at the same time, science was slowly developing. It is no coincidence that at the time of the scientific revolution, deism enjoyed the greatest surge in popularity in its history. Where is the parallel? Religion was removing God from everyday life, science was trying to kill him entirely. Why would they do this? Because modern culture found him to be inconvenient. It was this that Frederich Nietzche was commenting on when he wrote that "God is dead." Our modern culture believes two things: Man has the knowledge of right and wrong, and Man owns the Earth. The first can be found in most creation myths, the second as well. However, the second comes up against quite a bit of opposition from the "primitive" relgions (remember those? I brought those up for a reason). The "primitive" religions hold that we belong to the Earth, are transistory, etc. "Modern" religion tells us that we are the end product of creation, and that the Earth is rightfully ours. This is the worst kind of hubris. Man is the ultimate of all Creation and shall do as he pleases. Religion can't finish the job, however. It takes science, working alongside religion, to kick God in the nuts and tell him he's done. To tell him that Man now has the power to create, and that he can go home now. That's why I like the joke.
Fifth: More importantly, though, is the premise that man has ultimate knowledge of right and wrong. It is the premise that creates hot-headed debate over Jon Katz articles, it is the premise that allows us to justify our domination of the world. Culture has it all wrong. Culture says that man has the knowledge of right and wrong, but is weak. No, man has almost ultimate power over the universe. Man can manipulate the atom, will be able to create life. On the other hand, man has no idea what is going on, that is the dangerous thing. There is nothing more dangerous than a man who thinks he knows ultimate truth... other than a society of men who think they know it. This is where God comes in (remember God? We kicked him in the nuts a while back, and now he's pissed). I'm suggesting that man will never have the moral answers. Man can have all the power in the world, but that will never tell him how to use it. How about we just don't?
Quick Summary for those who need it:
-We can't disprove the existence of a God
-We also don't need to
-It's a moot point either way, actually
-Funny joke, I approve
-Man has the powers of Gods (at least most)
-Man will never know how to use them properly
-Can we please not try to genetically engineer our species' future?
---sig---
Bruce Lee actually used to do that, but by hooking up electrodes to his pecs. If you've ever undergone electrotherapy (not the psych kind) for a muscular injury, you know what I'm talking about. It feels weird, to say the least.
---sig---
I can't wait for the latest 2600:
"Why the Government is Bad"
"How to Control Your Neighbors Using a Modified Transmitter"
"Why Businesses are Bad"
Plus, the heartwarming essay
"Help, Help, I'm Being Oppressed!"
Seriously, though, I wonder what happens when two people with the same technology stand next to one another. If the devices are powered by the radio waves and are this small, they aren't likely to have half a million codes like garage door openers and the like. Will I be able to raise your hand in class? Force the dumb kids to answer questions?
---sig---
In the future, everyone might be attractive, healthy, and sociable. Oh, the horror! Only Jon Katz could complain about that. Get over it, for cryin' out loud.
Guess that eliminates most of the geeks I know...
Bye Slashdot, bye "voices from the hellmouth"!
---sig---
Applause!
;)
It seems obvious that every time humans have developed technologies to do things like fight hunger, we then expand to the point where hunger is then a problem again.
You are incredibly accurate in stating that technology is not the answer -- after thousands of years developing it, the human race still suffers, just on a much grander scale.
Thank you for stating what I have been trying to say in a manner which is apparently more palatable to the average nerd than my posts to the same effect. I suggest the book Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, which does a remarkable job of making and expanding upon this argument (I've plugged it a million times in this discussion, no I don't even know the guy, it just happens to be extremely relevant).
I have to wonder if geeks seem to hold technology as so holy because it is the one area where they are truly a step ahead of everyone else. Everyone tends to justify their existence in some way, perhaps this is the manner in which many geeks do it... I say this because it seems that anything that could be construed as "anti-technology" or even not "pro-technology" is, for the most part, summarily rejected. Ah, well, everyone is flawed, even geeks
---sig---
In response to post #155 chronologically:
"As good at surviving"??? No, they were all doing just fine until we started actively killing them. And I suppose you aren't looking at it biologically... there is no such thing as a dominant species. Or at least, without humans, there was no such thing. Why do humans, above all other creatures, deserve to live? Again, humans managed to co-exist with the other species for over a million years before we started being "dominant" (read: killing anything that retarded our expansion). Our continued existence is not reliant on our attempting to "dominate" the world, rather, in the long run it will be threatened by it.
We are living in a manner inconsistent with our origins because we have attempted to remove ourselves from evolutionary cycles. Australopithecus became Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens by evolving, and now we've decided that that's enough, we'll just change the rest of the world instead. That's how. Does the concept of dying offend you? Does it scare you? That's what it would seem. Have you studied any anthropology? You may find it interesting that primitive man and his ancestors actually had more free time than modern man does, and fewer social problems. It wasn't a time of suffering, as culture would have you believe. Furthermore, food was plentiful, and far fewer people starved (proportionally as well as numerically) than today. Check it out sometime, you may find it enlightening. And at no point did I claim that we should go sit in mud-floored caves. We can still have our central air and nice houses without attempting to dominate the world. The two are not mutually dependent.
And no, the Earth doesn't give a damn. I do, however, because it'll eventually mean the end of the human race and any possible species evolving from that, which doesn't paint a pretty picture. We're screwing ourselves. Also, the other inhabitants (the trillion or so of them) kindly ask you not to destroy all life in the process of destroying yourself.
And again, more existentialist crap. "We exist to perpetuate our own existence." If that isn't the weakest assignment of meaning I've ever encountered...
No, actually I explicitly stated that we are not living in a manner consistent with our origins because we fight evolution. If we would continue along that path, and continue evolving, we would be living just as we should. I think you Missed the Point (tm). I have to question the difference between battling and cutting off, but that's irrelevant... And I think you might find that a lot of people are bothered by the idea of destroying ourselves. Also, the other species killed in the process probably don't like it, either. I'm glad to see that you don't think it's a good thing, though. In that case, let's try something else, sound good?
Note: I'd say if you believe that someone's stance is bullshit, a good approach might be showing why it's bullshit, rather than just throwing out arguments you don't believe in. Doing that would qualify as "flamebait".
---sig---
Then you must subscribe to the theory that the purpose of a species is to expand as quickly and over as much are as possible so as to maximize survival of the species? If not then you shouldn't care whether we kill ourselves off or not because the earth will recover within a couple thousand years of our demise, if so then you should be happy that we are defeating nature and expanding beyond the surface of the planet.
No, actually that would be dead wrong. Take for example every other species on the face of the earth, including our own until the past six thousand years (which sounds like a lot, until you consider that we've been around over a thousand thousand years). None of these species have attempted to expand their populations by declaring war on other species. They may eat one another for food, but you will never observe one animal killing another except to eat it or to defend itself (or its young).
And as far as taking only a few thousand years to restore the Earth, I'd suggest a biology class. Higher-order species typically have generations spanning twenty years or more. This indicates that one thousand years is about fifty generations. In five thousand generations, or 100,000 years, only relatively minor genetic changes occur. It takes thousands upon thousands of generations to progress from the equivalent of a fish to the equivalent of an amphibian, let alone a lizard... this quickly adds up to millions of years.
Therefore, by expanding beyond the environment's capacity, we are not acting in accord with our "purpose" as you put it, and furthermore, we are damaging the world to such a great extent that it will not easily recover, and stands the possibility of never recovering.
Or you can be of the opinion that humanity is 'unnatural' which is silly, since everything that exists is natural, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
This is the silliest warping of an existentialist arguement that I have ever heard. "I exist, therefore I am natural." Natural does not mean "living in an environment," rather, it is better defined as "living in a manner consistent with one's origins." We exist due to processes that we have attempted to escape, therefore, we are not living in a manner consistent with our origins, therefore, we are not natural. Man became man because he evolved. We have battled our own evolution, which you will never observe another species doing. Why isn't their way good enough for us?
---sig---
in 1899, women had to bear many more children than now, no thanks to much higher infant mortality rates and the fact the average person in the developed countries (e.g., Europe and the USA) would be lucky to be able to live to 50 years old.
This is a good thing? Why did women have to bear more children? To keep the human race expanding at a rate where we have to irreversibly consume the world's resources in order to sustain ourselves?
The advances in medicine in the last 100 years has allowed people in the developed world to live at least 70 years or more.
Which is nice, unless you consider that it actually ends up weakening the human race in the long run by subverting natural selection. I'm nearsighted and have terrible allergies. Given a global disaster that removes the infrastructure I depend on, I will most likely be incapable of adapting and will die, along with the rest of the human race, simply because I have attempted to escape evolution. Sorry, but humans aren't the end-all, no matter how hard we try to be. Medicine on today's scale is an attempt at removing God or the gods or nature from the affairs of the world, relegating them to a back-seat position, and deifying our own species.
Finally, what would our food supply situation be like without modern food storage technology?
We would starve when we exceeded the ecosystem's capacity, keeping our population in check... I'm sorry, is there something wrong with that? It seems to work pretty well for a few million other species, and worked well for us until the past few thousand years, a tiny fraction of the time our species has been on this planet.
I don't buy the propaganda of progress.
Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It may very well be the most important book ever written.
---sig---
Come on... we constantly use technology without thinking of the consequences. Start with the agricultural revolution, the basis of all "modern" societies, and keep going.
You are right, technologies may very well be beneficial to humanity, but we use them in ways that are harmful to the world we live in. I'm not anti-technology (I'm writing this...), but I am obliged to point out that once we destroy the world around us, we have guaranteed our own destruction. Environmentalism can be a selfish thing.
Look at any major technological revolution; the agricultural revolution, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the post-industrial revolution; and you will see a pattern of expansion, consumption, destruction, as well as cultural ignorance.
Thankfully, I can't blame the internet for anything, as a matter of fact, I'd say that it is amazing simply because it is one of a select few revolutionary technologies (or collections thereof) that have had little to do with "conquering" the world.
---sig---
All right... so the basic premise here is "technology isn't evil." I suppose I can't argue that. Technology is not by any means a "bad" thing, it will not end the world. More importantly, technology will not save it, either.
As a matter of fact, I'd argue that on the whole, humans have misused technology to the point where we are virtually ensuring global destruction.
Point one: Humans have isolated themselves from the natural environment. Given a global climatic change, all other species will do one of three things: move, adapt (evolve), or die. Humans will not move. We will attempt to continue to modify the environment we live in to suit our needs. In addition, we will not adapt. We may adapt the environment, but not ourselves.
Point two: Humans have employed technology not only to isolate themselves from the natural environment, but have declared war on it. As a fundamentally agrarian society, the first thing we do when we move into an area is "tame" it. We destroy anything that may encroach upon "our" fields and "our" crops. Anyone living without doing this (Native Americans) is viewed as inferior and/or dangerous, and is likewise declared an enemy to be destroyed. This is not the fault of the technology but of our culture, and what our culture tells us to do with the technology.
The point: Optimism about the future due to technology is due to our culture telling us that our developments will allow us to continue to expand without repercussions. We will continue to defy the laws of nature governing population size by conquering the planet. We will use genetically engineered crops to resist disease, to ensure a stable food supply-- without one, people would starve, and our population would decrease to a manageable level. This would mean death, however, an apparently unacceptable consequence of living in something resembling "harmony" with nature. In essence, technology will give us the neccessary tools with which we can bring all sorts of natural phenomena in check, to allow a continuation of the past few thousand years' worth of unacceptable behavior.
I need not point out that this is not a good thing, however much it may resemble one.
Read "Ishmael" by David Quinn, and stop visiting "thehungersite". If you continue to send food to starving nations, you perpetuate overpopulation, and in the end, only end up causing more people to suffer. It may sound cruel, but starvation is a natural process, and given a few generations, the population levels in those countries will shrink to a manageable level, ending starvation and the suffering it causes permanantly. It's a long-term solution that is morally and environmentally sound. Don't make people live in pain.
---sig---
Personally, I remember my first run-in with PG back in the days of the BBS... it was a Taoist text in one of the download sections that had been created for PG. I also seem to remember a very lofty goal at the time, something like a billion downloads...?
/. is a huge start.
At any rate, I think a few areas might provide support...
*Amazon (someone mentioned this) is a _bad_ idea. Profit motive and releasing free documents don't coincide well.
*The Palm computing platform is the big plus. To be able to read in such a convenient form is wonderful, and PG offers a large library of material for consumption. However, PG needs to _market_ to them, meaning convenient little formats, getting linked to, etc...
*Align with the OS movement more, there's plenty of talent that would likely work on such a task, but probably isn't even aware of it. Getting mentioned on
*Make better use of technology... I seem to recall very slow rates of progress, which lowers the level of excitement for those involved (it's sad that this is a factor, but very true)- can't many works simply be OCR'ed?
*The general public (Oprah Winfrey's audience, etc.) is most likely worthless. It seems as though most of the public rarely reads, let alone transcribes... The only thing they might be good for is cash to support the effort.
Just my US$0.02
Apparently you're an absolute, unrelenting moron, and I'm wasting my time. But, you're a moron that challenged me, so I'm going to have a bit of fun here...
No self-respecting historian wastes time trying to predict alternate futures. Too many outside factors exist. At the same time, this can be said: The church at this time was squelching all opposing viewpoints (note: "The Church was... [attempting to control] any potentially questionable views held by its followers."). Maybe you need a lesson in the English language. Strong operators such as "any" or "all" mean just that. They do not mean "most."
had he did, his fate would have been a far different one.
As i said, it's stupid to attempt to suggest alternate futures. What if we hadn't entered WWII? What then? But in response, Galileo was friends with the pope. Galileo had his work approved by the inquisition. The church was attempting to elminate any opposing viewpoints, any including Galileo's. He played the system. It didn't work.
I honestly cannot tell how my response the previous time was inadequate, but I have yet to see you produce any prominent historian's viewpoint on the subject, so I consider you done.
Friday night is a holy time to Jews, so asking the state pass a law which helps in their religious observances is not really a big deal.
I see you miss the point again. The point I was making is that it's alright for legislation like that to be proposed.
Maybe it is the fact that you cannot properly use the English language that has caused this problem.
Phrases such as not really a big deal imply that the proposed legislation is not something for one to be concerned about. As in, whether it passes or not is a non-issue.
Please point me to the line where either Jon Katz or myself asked to restrict the freedom of speech of any opposing group.
Your argument is absolutely irrelevant to any part of this discussion.
A valid one? Then why don't you *support* it, rather than wasting bandwidth and server space to simply call me an idiot?
Go read a newspaper. Or, refer to the fundamentalist Christian-supported bill H 1501, in response to the Columbine shooting, an amendment to which provides for the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools... What do you want, an opinion poll? Start calling... As far as a waste of your time, I'm extremely sorry that I wasted your time. I wasted mine, as well, because you're obviously too thick to pull anything useful from a post that was somewhat more intelligent than any of the unsupported opinions you had to offer.
FYI, I'm not a "fundamentalist spokesman", dispite your best efforts. Hell, I'm not even christian. (Native american, Salinan tribe, registered California Indian.)
"despite" has an e, not an i. That wasn't my best effort. spokesman, n. One who speaks as the representative of another or others. Note: status as a "spokesman" does not require membership. And I didn't say that you were fundamentalist, either. Nice try, you fail.
Besides, it doesn't do a damned thing to my point, which is this: even the most rabid fundamentalist Christians I've known aren't anti-technology.
You mean to tell me that you shared a post consisting of five hundred nintey-one words, none of which contained the preceding phrase or any similar phrase to state the above? The closest you had to offer was this:
No, Mr. Katz, it's not technology that's being blaimed by fundamentalist Christians. It's technology, unchecked by moral guidance, which is being blaimed. This is no different from gun control advocates who are concerned that criminals and idiots may get ahold of a gun and misuse it.
First off, the above phrase qualifies you as a spokesman for fundamentalist Christians. Second, the answers many Christians have been offering (the CDA, etc) often have more to do with restricting access than providing moral guidance. Furthermore, as I stated, morality is something that cannot be legislated, so assuming we scratch that off the list... Third, it is completely different from gun control advocates. A computer is not a device designed to cause massive bodily harm. A gun is. As a matter of fact, a gun as little other practical use than physical force of the threat thereof. A computer, on the other hand, is quite awkward to wield in combat. I'd even venture to say that (here goes predicting the future) thirteen people wouldn't have died at Columbine if the two boys were armed with 486s. Fourth, you don't know all the same Christians I know. Meaning that your point is essentially unsupported. Could you please provide *support*? Fifth, obviously you don't know what a Christian Scientist is. Sixth, I'd like to waste bandwidth and server space to elucidate my opinion that you are an idiot (or at least acting like one).
To conclude:
You're still wrong, and even though I supported that statement the first time, you are incapable of understanding other people's writing. Furthermore, you need to relearn English. Third, attacking Jon Katz (or anyone else) in a roundabout attempt to state a point that you never actually get to is a bad idea.
I love you.
Galileo was persecuted by the Church not because of his anti-religions, pro-technology beliefs, but because he upset the status quo of a church which was attempting to preserve it's eroding power base. Specifically, the Church never actually denied that Galileo's observations of the heavens were false; they only bitched because he presented his findings outside the context of the Church Hierarchy. Had Galileo "played politics" with the Church, his findings may have first been stamped with the approval of the Church hierarchy, and presented as compatable with Roman Catholic Theology.
If you were awake in history class, you would have noted something quite significant:
You are wrong. Theodore K. Rabb, in The Western Experience, states: "The Church was... [attempting to control] any potentially questionable views held by its followers." He then proceeds to note that Galileo was, in fact, a friend of the pope at the time, and that his masterpiece, the Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, was approved by the inquisition. Interesting... Furthermore, R. R. Palmer, in A History of the Modern World, echoes the same sentiments, and Leo Tolstoy, a prominent scholar of his time, states at the end of the second epiloque of War and Peace (were you awake during English class?): "To the men who fought against the rising truths of physical philosophy, it seemed that if they admitted that truth it would destroy faith in God, in the creation of the firmament..."
Is it even worth mentioning that it is not a religion's duty to censor science?
As to the Orthodox Jews demanding that cinemas be closed in Israel on Friday, that is no worse than any temperance law in the United States which prohibits the sale of alcohol on Sunday.
You are absolutely right. Those temperance laws are every bit the infringement upon individual rights the the movie laws are.
Friday night is a holy time to Jews, so asking the state pass a law which helps in their religious observances is not really a big deal.
Frankly, I don't understand why you need a law prohibiting other people from taking part in an activity because you choose not to. It is not your right to legislate your beliefs upon others. Is it okay for me to regulate when you may go to church?
Remember: freedom also means the freedom of one sect of folks to ask for laws from their nation, no matter how odd we may think those laws are. Or are you next going to complain that in some States, it is illegal for an employer to demand without signific notice that an employee work on Sunday?
Freedom ends where it infringes upon another individual's freedom. Just as an employer does not have the right to interfere with an employee's religious observation, a citizen does not have the right to impose those observations upon others. That protection is built into our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In short, your argument in this case is warped, and in fact, your examples aid in rebuttal of your own case.
Technology, from film to TV to the Web, is often blamed for triggering spiritual failings and degradations.
No, Mr. Katz, it's not technology that's being blaimed by fundamentalist Christians.
Oops. He didn't say "fundamentalist Christians," did he? The author made an observation, a rather valid one, and because it did not agree with your view as a spokesman for "fundamentalist Christians," you rejected his observation as wrong.
It is evident that your bias has interfered with your ability to construct an argument.
My grandfather was an agent of the NSA, and so I know a little bit about it, but most of my knowledge comes from everyone but him. He never really talks about it, but I have to wonder what a WWII vet and a NSA employee would think of Cryptonomicon. I know for a fact that he's good with simple cryptosystems, even though we have no knowledge of him ever working in that field. We (family members) believe that at later stages, he was mostly administrative, working on intercepting transmissions.
:)
The NSA is really an outgrowth of what was known as the Army Security Agency, in which he spent a lot of time doing something involving lots of radios and the Philippines [intercepting foreign communications]. The NSA and ASA both exist now, but apparently the NSA is essentially a workhorse agency, taking orders [more like kind requests] from the other cloak-and-dagger types. They have two basic functions, those being to monitor the world's radio traffic [if one visits Fort Meade, Maryland, they will note the large geodesic bubbles on the tops of buildings; apparently the purpose is to obscure the directions their satellite dishes point, for obvious reasons], and the other being to decrypt everything in sight. At the same time, they do advise the rest of the Executive Branch on matters of systems security and in the past, have worked on developing secure cryptosystems ["in the past" because one has to wonder whether the private sector is outpacing them in that respect and rendering those efforts outdated] and implementing them.
As far as what the "real" NSA is like, I suppose it's always been a very real phenomenon for me, and I have never really had any illusions about what they do... it appears to all simple inspections that what they do is exactly what they claim to do, except that now, they have been forced to react to the internet, and have thus extended their resources in that direction. However, at least as far as bursting in anywhere, guns blazing, I think that's most likely the last thing they've ever been involved in. The most clandestine thing I can see the NSA doing is setting up big radio antennae inside sketchy little huts in the jungle. Fun
I doubt that Maine is special, but I've never been there...
Article I, Section IX:
5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.
That one is pretty straightforward...
Article I, Section X:
2. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts; laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
This one is a bit more obscure, but indicates that States don't have the right to tax goods coming from other states, except to fund inspection, and that any amount in excess of that spent inspecting goods must be turned over to the Federal Government. I don't know what your employer is doing, but over here in Michigan, even when purchasing wholesale goods (bike parts, in my case), we don't have to pay sales tax if the company is out of state. So unfortunately, I cannot speak for that specific case, but overall, I believe you may find your case to be an exception.
I apologize if ambiguous I was in stating the limitations on the Federal Government in regulating interstate commerce. It is true that the right to regulate interstate commerce is reserved for the Federal Government, but limitations to this DO exist. Your example of long distance phone calls is inapplicable to the situation, because it actually involves a form of rate control, NOT taxation. I find it rather amusing that you imply that an injustice occurs every time you pick up the phone and the government makes your call cheaper...
As a matter of fact, if you would care to read the Constitution, you may find this line from Article I, Section IX amusing and/or enlightening:
"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
Which is why you couldn't find an example that applies to the topic of interstate sales tax.
I encourage you to carefully consider the context in which comments are made, to avoid jumping on someone for a comment that was correct, so long as you don't attempt to interpret it beyond the bounds of the discussion at hand.
A number of basic precedents will guide the hand of the government in taxing internet sales...
1. A number of historic decisions exist that state that the Federal government cannot restrict or otherwise regulate interstate commerce. These decisions actually hampered the passage of antitrust acts around the turn of the century... the origins of this lie in early American history, when state-to-state trade was taxed-- the Antifederalists resisted any movement to give the Feds power to regulate in this manner.
Because of this, only States have been able to tax sales, and only those within their own state. Thus, it can be expected that internet sales will follow the course of mail-order. You'll only be taxed if you are in the same State as the provider of the goods.
2. As far as internet auctions, I have no idea. I don't _believe_ (not exactly sure here) that auction items are taxed at physical auctions, so it can be expected that the same laws will apply.
The easiest way to predict in what way things will be regulated in the future is to look at the past. It is rare for judges to create new precedent, even when dealing with new situations, because they are expected to administer justice on a solid basis. It can be expected that rather than attempt to create a new system, the legislative and judicial bodies of this land will merely apply old law.
Also, why is everyone under the impression that internet sales are so revolutionary? They are, in effect, only an extremely fancy version of mail (or phone) order, and will likely be treated as such. Granted, the internet and its ramifications are astounding, but in this case, not much has really changed...
As another user has stated, ping flooding is a denial of service attack. As I am now stating, Dreamcast doesn't use an out-of the box, stock release of any OS, meaning that "exploits" aren't known yet. Therefore, if you're going to hack it, you'd better be more than a script kiddie who has no idea what they're doing other than hitting buttons that say "p1ng fl00d" or the like...