The problem is not with intellectual capacity of one side or the other in the Evolution/Creation debate. I have known people of exceptional intelligence on both sides of the issue. There is no common ground that can be reached in this issue because the two sides operate on different bases for their beliefs.
Science is based on evidence and proof. I may come to you and say that I have found a new species, but until I show you by discounting all documented species you will not just merely take my word no matter how highly regarded I might be. If you do, then you begin to operate on FAITH.
Faith is the basis for religious dogma. Faith is a concept that makes evidence irrelevant and is influenced more by trust. The bible defines it as "belief in things unseen". If your foundation of belief is faith, then contradictory evidence is seen as a test of that faith.
As example, if someone comes to me with pictures of my wife with another man and tells me that she is unfaithful, if I truly have faith in her and she tells me that she is not cheating, then I will believe her regardless. Religious people will never believe in evolution or any theory that contradicts their belief system and to try to change that is purely a waste of effort.
It is feasable.
What about when people mix songs? Add a little bass backbeat in, a little synth in here and there and you can alter the profile of the song without actually harming the audible quality of the song. This is still infringing the copyright since the original music is still being used.
I have a question. When is the music no longer a copyrighted object? If I hear a song in the morning, and recall it during the day, is that not a copy of the intellectual content (stored in the memory cells of the brain)? By remembering the song, did I just infringe upon the copyright?
Where does the boundary of intellectual content lie with music, art, or invention? What is being protected: the intellectual property or the auditory content?
You have to be literate to use a library. In addition, I don't know that a library exists in Threeteeth, West Virginia. I think the library/civic center was destroyed during the "Beech Nut Free Chawin' Bakkur Night" stampede of 1974.
Free speech should not be used to safegaurd those whose acts are violent against the innocent.
Hey, its free speech, its not like words or images mean things.
So you say? I posted something where I gave my opinion on an issue. You replied and essentially called me a pedophile. That was pretty vicious and personal.
But, guess what? You have the right to do that because of the First Amendment. As long as you don't physically harm me or commit libel, you can launch unmerciful, mean-spirited attacks on me. Why? Because I am not real. I am a bunch of words on your screen. If I were real, my feelings would have been hurt by your accusations and I probably could have sued you for such libelous statements. It is easy to be cruel to a bunch of words on the screen, isn't it? You virtually libeled me on here. Hey, you know that might whet the appetite of someone and they might go libel someone? Maybe you should be arrested for this. Libel is illegal.
Oh, just fyi and because I like you so much, safeguard is spelled S-A-F-E-G-U-A-R-D. Also, "its" is a possessive and "it's" is abbreviated for it is. Finally, you committed a comma splice on the last statement that I quoted above. I am not trying to be picky, I just want the superior intellectual content of your posts to be accompanied by superior grammar.
You dare compare defending our constitutional rights with defending pedophilia... why don't you wake up!
I am all for protecting our children. I, however, want to make sure that they still have rights when they are old enough to enjoy them.
Benjamin Franklin said that a society that was willing to trade freedom for security deserved neither. Was he a pedophilia supporter?
I would rather my children die free than live in idealogical oppression.
BTW... if you must resort to personal attacks to make up for your lack of reason, please don't come on as Anonymous Coward. Be up-front.
How far do our rights have to be abridged before the self-righteous such as you are appeased? That is the relevant question.
The question here is not whether virtual child porn is morally corrupt or not. It is and very few people would argue that point. The issue is whether a computer-generated image that looks like child pornography can be prosecuted as such. Outlawing such may seem justifiable, but each tap of the chisel on the bedrock of the Bill of Rights weakens the structure. At some point, the entire lattice breaks apart.
This is a very touchy subject, but I am going to have to make a stand at this point and say that we could give up every goddamned right that we have and there will still be crime. The only way to stop crime is to motivate people not to commit them. Make the punishment so horrible that no-one will want to face it. You don't stop crime by censorship because, face it, the act is concieved in the perpetrator's mind and no-one can censor that. There was crime before film, radio, television, and virtual reality.
Oh, don't forget Tipper.
You know, Mrs. I-Am-Morally-Superior-To-All-of-You-So-I-Should-Te ll-You-What-You-Can-And-Cannot-View-or-Listen-To.
I think it is time to punish the person for the CRIME and stop trying to prevent the crime by taking everyone else's rights away. If cancer appears in an organ, you remove the affected cells in that organ. You don't remove all the organs because they MIGHT be affected in the future.
The main problem I have with this report is that the scientists (term loosely applied) that produced it arrogantly say that their data shows results that are independent from influence of solar activity and other natural forces.
How did they do this? Did they build a working model of our planet and then switch off the sun, volcanoes, ocean currents, atmospheric currents, etc...
It is a report that was prepared solely to support the conclusion that was already established; i.e. the horse being pushed by the buggy. The timing of release should make that abundantly clear.
It is sad that scientists are willing to whore themselves and their integrity for political purposes.
Here is an interesting article from Intellicast:
Recent Changes In The Sun Signal Climate Shift
I do not think aliens would use a laser to communicate. The laser would have to be fired directly at the target. A civilization that was located 100 light years away from our planet would be firing at a target 12000 miles in diameter from a distance of 586,971,360,000,000 miles. That means the laser would have a window of 2.64953E-05 arcseconds to actually be seen by anyone here. Factor in that we are moving at a great rate around the sun, which is also moving relative to the other stars in the local region and it would be almost impossible to effectively use the laser as a communication beacon. In contrast, radio waves propagate radially from the source. This means that with sufficient amplification they can be heard at any time after they are created. Also, a radio station can be operated for thousands of years on the amount of power that would be required to produce perhaps a dozen laser beams which were sufficient to be noticed at such a distance.
Slashdot Mirror
eheh!!!
That previous poster either didn't attend college or lived off daddy's stipend.
I guess that if I had used his criterion pertaining to food, then I would have starved.
Too bad that everyone can't shop at Saks, eh?
The problem is not with intellectual capacity of one side or the other in the Evolution/Creation debate. I have known people of exceptional intelligence on both sides of the issue. There is no common ground that can be reached in this issue because the two sides operate on different bases for their beliefs.
Science is based on evidence and proof. I may come to you and say that I have found a new species, but until I show you by discounting all documented species you will not just merely take my word no matter how highly regarded I might be. If you do, then you begin to operate on FAITH.
Faith is the basis for religious dogma. Faith is a concept that makes evidence irrelevant and is influenced more by trust. The bible defines it as "belief in things unseen". If your foundation of belief is faith, then contradictory evidence is seen as a test of that faith.
As example, if someone comes to me with pictures of my wife with another man and tells me that she is unfaithful, if I truly have faith in her and she tells me that she is not cheating, then I will believe her regardless. Religious people will never believe in evolution or any theory that contradicts their belief system and to try to change that is purely a waste of effort.
It is feasable.
What about when people mix songs? Add a little bass backbeat in, a little synth in here and there and you can alter the profile of the song without actually harming the audible quality of the song. This is still infringing the copyright since the original music is still being used.
I have a question. When is the music no longer a copyrighted object? If I hear a song in the morning, and recall it during the day, is that not a copy of the intellectual content (stored in the memory cells of the brain)? By remembering the song, did I just infringe upon the copyright?
Where does the boundary of intellectual content lie with music, art, or invention? What is being protected: the intellectual property or the auditory content?
I'm glad you are not my P-A-R-A-N-T. I would never had learned to spell correctly. :-)... just poking fun at ya
You have to be literate to use a library. In addition, I don't know that a library exists in Threeteeth, West Virginia. I think the library/civic center was destroyed during the "Beech Nut Free Chawin' Bakkur Night" stampede of 1974.
But, guess what? You have the right to do that because of the First Amendment. As long as you don't physically harm me or commit libel, you can launch unmerciful, mean-spirited attacks on me. Why? Because I am not real. I am a bunch of words on your screen. If I were real, my feelings would have been hurt by your accusations and I probably could have sued you for such libelous statements. It is easy to be cruel to a bunch of words on the screen, isn't it? You virtually libeled me on here. Hey, you know that might whet the appetite of someone and they might go libel someone? Maybe you should be arrested for this. Libel is illegal.
Oh, just fyi and because I like you so much, safeguard is spelled S-A-F-E-G-U-A-R-D. Also, "its" is a possessive and "it's" is abbreviated for it is. Finally, you committed a comma splice on the last statement that I quoted above. I am not trying to be picky, I just want the superior intellectual content of your posts to be accompanied by superior grammar.
You dare compare defending our constitutional rights with defending pedophilia... why don't you wake up! I am all for protecting our children. I, however, want to make sure that they still have rights when they are old enough to enjoy them. Benjamin Franklin said that a society that was willing to trade freedom for security deserved neither. Was he a pedophilia supporter? I would rather my children die free than live in idealogical oppression. BTW... if you must resort to personal attacks to make up for your lack of reason, please don't come on as Anonymous Coward. Be up-front.
How far do our rights have to be abridged before the self-righteous such as you are appeased? That is the relevant question. The question here is not whether virtual child porn is morally corrupt or not. It is and very few people would argue that point. The issue is whether a computer-generated image that looks like child pornography can be prosecuted as such. Outlawing such may seem justifiable, but each tap of the chisel on the bedrock of the Bill of Rights weakens the structure. At some point, the entire lattice breaks apart. This is a very touchy subject, but I am going to have to make a stand at this point and say that we could give up every goddamned right that we have and there will still be crime. The only way to stop crime is to motivate people not to commit them. Make the punishment so horrible that no-one will want to face it. You don't stop crime by censorship because, face it, the act is concieved in the perpetrator's mind and no-one can censor that. There was crime before film, radio, television, and virtual reality.
Oh, don't forget Tipper. You know, Mrs. I-Am-Morally-Superior-To-All-of-You-So-I-Should-Te ll-You-What-You-Can-And-Cannot-View-or-Listen-To.
I think it is time to punish the person for the CRIME and stop trying to prevent the crime by taking everyone else's rights away. If cancer appears in an organ, you remove the affected cells in that organ. You don't remove all the organs because they MIGHT be affected in the future.
The main problem I have with this report is that the scientists (term loosely applied) that produced it arrogantly say that their data shows results that are independent from influence of solar activity and other natural forces. How did they do this? Did they build a working model of our planet and then switch off the sun, volcanoes, ocean currents, atmospheric currents, etc... It is a report that was prepared solely to support the conclusion that was already established; i.e. the horse being pushed by the buggy. The timing of release should make that abundantly clear. It is sad that scientists are willing to whore themselves and their integrity for political purposes. Here is an interesting article from Intellicast: Recent Changes In The Sun Signal Climate Shift
I do not think aliens would use a laser to communicate. The laser would have to be fired directly at the target. A civilization that was located 100 light years away from our planet would be firing at a target 12000 miles in diameter from a distance of 586,971,360,000,000 miles. That means the laser would have a window of 2.64953E-05 arcseconds to actually be seen by anyone here. Factor in that we are moving at a great rate around the sun, which is also moving relative to the other stars in the local region and it would be almost impossible to effectively use the laser as a communication beacon. In contrast, radio waves propagate radially from the source. This means that with sufficient amplification they can be heard at any time after they are created. Also, a radio station can be operated for thousands of years on the amount of power that would be required to produce perhaps a dozen laser beams which were sufficient to be noticed at such a distance.