I'd pay 80c for a new release, 40c if it is older than 3 months, and 20c for older than 6 months - that's for lossless compressed audio; for lossy divide those numbers by 4. Old stuff should cost a lot less, they've had years to make money on it. Besides with infinite copyright they'll still be flogging it in the year 3000.
I don't have to buy music. There are lots of entertainment alternatives. And even if they manage to stomp on downloading they'll never have much success with hand to hand trading (the way we did it before the internet).
Being able to ignore those outside distractions is actually a positive thing - these are the people who when driving can tune out the conversation on the phone when required. Many people simply can't do that.
The dangerous driving regulation is all that is required. Besides some of us are more than capable of ignoring distractions when required - if I need to focus on something else I just stop listening. The fact is you rarely actually need to take a phone call while driving any more than you need to take a call in a cinema.
Driving stoned does not dramatically increase your chances of having an accident, except in cases of extreme intoxication or when combined with alcohol. People on THC typically drive slower and more cautiously, more so than needed to compensate for the minor impairment it induces - reflexes are only affected at high doses, tracking ability is marginally impaired at low to moderate doses. The roads would be lot safer if all the intoxicated drivers had just THC in their systems.
When talking on a phone there is a tendency to look down. So even someone who is competent to manage steering, changing gears and holding the phone stiil tends to take their eyes off the road. Now most people are barely competent to steer, nevermind having to handle complicated things like changing gears.
This is the same government that did nothing when they caught British American Tobacco smuggling cigarettes to avoid paying taxes and increase profits. The head of the company whispered in Tony's ear and the whole investigation suddenly went away. Admittedly there were other members pushing to go ahead and investigate the full extent of the crime, and carry through a prosecution.
This is just pathetic. Things go wrong. Life isn't perfect. Products have kinks. People who bring childish lawsuits should be sent to live on the sun. If they don't like the conditions there they can sue me.
One insisted that, since it was the most logical conclusion from the evidence, the car was not made by processes operating in the car
They don't say whether this car had fuel and was still operational? Fundamentally the laws of physics that went into the manufacture of that car would still be in operation. I assume these fleas researched materials, physics and chemistry. Where that car ultimately came from is however a philosophical not scientific question.
To propose a maker who could not now be seen, and a process of making that was no longer operating, was by definition unscientific
And a contradiction of the god postulated by Christianity. Christianity has always claimed a god that was everywhere, and always involved. What new evidence suggests this god has in fact left the building?
keeping in mind that the scientific method cannot ultimately prove or disprove matters related to origins because they involve the unrepeatable, unobservable past
True, so what does inventing a god add to our understanding? Especially a god we apparently can never understand. I say it was inter-dimensional garden gnomes (very short, but very powerful). The great gnome shall one day return to redeem us.
Fundamentally some people need there to be a god. They simply can't cope without such a thing existing. But if we can't know this god's plan or understand its workings in the universe then it is no better than any other fantasy we come up with to make ourselves feel better.
A God who is truth, who instituted the laws in the beginning,/i>
Let's say there is a god, how do we know it isn't a lying cheating used car salesman from another dimension? Sure he says he is truth and light, but so did the guy who sold me my car.
There is no supernatural. Anything that exists is natural, even a god, ghosts or whatever kicks your bucket.
One isn't a religion. Creationists present a god as an explanation for the ultimate origin of life as the answer. That however is no answer because we then have to ask who made this god? Evolution need not extend beyond the basic building blocks. We do wonder how those initial building blocks came about, but it is no way critical to evolution. Adding in a god just adds apparent certainty for the unthinking who are desperate to do away with the uncertainty of the world.
I don't have a problem with comparative religion being taught in schools. It should probably be mandatory so children can quickly realise that there are overlaps, religions steal each other's ideas and basically there is no one true religion. Drawing straws is as good a way as any to choose a religion.
The evidence is that all we observe, all events that occur, are as a result of the natural laws of the universe. There is no evidence that phenomena do not require a cause. Science does make use of assumptions, but the important difference between that and the beliefs of a religion is that those assumptions can be overturned by the facts, whereas a religion will cling to its notions in the face of evidence to the contrary - that's faith.
If someone wants to postulate a powerful being that is making things happen then they must present some evidence. And why must it be some god, what is the proof for that? Why not fairies? Or Santa Claus? An eternal god is no more plausible than any other outside force. Maybe the universe was created by the easter bunny.
And what does the notion of some outside force add to our understanding? Do we need this to create semiconductors, build aircraft, manufacture drugs?
The intelligent design crowd dig themselves straight into a hole - they postulate an outside entity as the creator or progenitor of life on earth, but what created the outside entity? And what created the creator of the outside entity?
But I don't think any major religion has as a tenet "killing people that look different from you". You'll see various exhortions to kill people who believe in false gods / lure believers away from the true god
An exhortation to kill someone who is following a different religion, an allegedly false god, is no different. Those people look or act different, therefore they are valid targets. The Bible has multiple instances of the Jews slaughtering other nations at the supposed behest of their god.
What tests were carried out to demonstrate their existence?
Homosexuality as a mental illness
Medicine might be a sort of science, but there was never any evidence presented to support the notion that homsexuality is a mental illness.
Being non-conformist is still treated as a sign of some sort of mental defect by some quarters.
Freud's picture of the Psyche
Psychology/psychiatry is nowhere near being a science yet.
Alchemy
How was this ever a scientific theory?
Atomic Holocaust
No problem with the theory (was it helium though?), it made a prediction which could be relatively easily tested. The test demonstrated they were wrong.
It is a common misconception that scientific theories are never overturned. The basic requirement is that they be consistent with current observations, that they are testable and disprovable, and that they predict things we have not yet seen. The whole point is that science welcomes change and upheaval, while religion fights it. Religions are based entirely on the absolute requirement that their knowledge is perfect and unchanging. That has been their undoing, and exactly why they have tried so hard to suppress the spread of information and impede inquiry.
Even though these teenage street thugs are usually not particularly bright I think they may yet discover earplugs. Cheap foam ones will easily keep out the whine. Cheap musician plugs will even allow conversation - in fact they'll get more annoying because they'll talk louder.
I wouldn't put it past the intrusive UK government to try to implement some measure to keep earplugs out of the hands of the teens.
I don't even know if they had those pre-built sets when I was a child. I do know we didn't have much money so my parents just bought whatever Lego they could get secondhand. So we had a big box full of all kinds of Lego pieces which we turned into all manner of things from castles to giant robots. I think I first encountered the build-only-one-thing kits when I was about 12. Even those, once we had followed the instructions to build what was shown on the box, we ended up converting into various other things - I guess once you're used to making whatever you want you just can't resist warping their sets.
Lego was probably the greatest and most enduring toy of my childhood. I played with it from as young as I can remember until my early teens.
Another thing I enjoyed was Capsela. Perhaps more limited, but I also managed some hybrid Lego/Capsela monstrosities.
"You see real women wearing pigtails much past the age of about twelve"
Girls love it, especially when attending events like raves.
There's a lot of rough pornography. There are also a lot of women who love rough sex. It is impossible to pigeonhole human sexual behaviour, declare these things normal and good, but those things deviant and bad.
And who knows where pornography would go if instead of constantly trying to wipe it out, a pointless endeavour, it was distributed as acceptable entertainment. It may be the case that pornography is the way it is because of constant attempts to suppress it.
And you can't generalise about consumers of pornography.
"This petition shows the government just how many people really oppose this horrendous imagery,"
50,000. Out of how many people? I wonder how many refused to sign her petition?
So the guy was supposedly 'obsessed' - nevermind that anti-pornorgraphy types will define almost any viewing of pornography as being obsessed, just like anti-some-drugs types define any recreational use of illegal drugs as drug abuse - but is there any evidence that his viewing pornography resulted in him becoming a killer or did it perhaps actually delay his move into killing?
And I certainly wouldn't trust the British authorities to have any sort of rational attitude when it comes to what should or should not be banned.
Bizarre thing is that often people like her have some sort of religious affiliation. What they can't seem to explain is why they despise god's creation so much.
People who think nudity will harm children also can't offer even a remotely coherent argument to support the notion.
What it boils down to is that you can't shield your child from the world. Parents can try, but expecting to succeed is silly and ultimately succeeding isn't necessarily good for the child.
Let's not forget that there was a time when your childhood was over by the time you were ten. We've extended it, and invented the ludicrous notion that our children should remain 'innocent' until they're magically transported into adulthood at whatever arbitrary age reigns in your region.
We'd all be better off if parents put their time and energy into raising robust, independent, free-thinking children rather than sheltered automatons.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom does not equal privacy, privacy is one aspect of freedom. Freedom does not equal free speech, free speech is merely another aspect of freedom.
Is that you Mr Bush, or is it Mr Stalin posting?
The law is of course always right and should be obeyed to the letter.
I'd pay 80c for a new release, 40c if it is older than 3 months, and 20c for older than 6 months - that's for lossless compressed audio; for lossy divide those numbers by 4. Old stuff should cost a lot less, they've had years to make money on it. Besides with infinite copyright they'll still be flogging it in the year 3000.
I don't have to buy music. There are lots of entertainment alternatives. And even if they manage to stomp on downloading they'll never have much success with hand to hand trading (the way we did it before the internet).
I'll never understand why anyone would pay anything for a stupid ringtone, nevermind $3. There are definitely a lot of very stupid suckers out there.
I don't know where you live, but here you don't have to prove competence to own more than one computer.
For a movie like that the studio should be paying us compensation for pain, suffering and hardship.
What's the right term for someone who uses computers, but knows basically nothing about them?
Being able to ignore those outside distractions is actually a positive thing - these are the people who when driving can tune out the conversation on the phone when required. Many people simply can't do that.
The dangerous driving regulation is all that is required. Besides some of us are more than capable of ignoring distractions when required - if I need to focus on something else I just stop listening. The fact is you rarely actually need to take a phone call while driving any more than you need to take a call in a cinema.
Driving stoned does not dramatically increase your chances of having an accident, except in cases of extreme intoxication or when combined with alcohol. People on THC typically drive slower and more cautiously, more so than needed to compensate for the minor impairment it induces - reflexes are only affected at high doses, tracking ability is marginally impaired at low to moderate doses. The roads would be lot safer if all the intoxicated drivers had just THC in their systems.
When talking on a phone there is a tendency to look down. So even someone who is competent to manage steering, changing gears and holding the phone stiil tends to take their eyes off the road. Now most people are barely competent to steer, nevermind having to handle complicated things like changing gears.
That's cause a Slashdotter don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose
I'm not much for arm-pulling. I find a bullet to the base of the brain quite effective though.
Negotiating axes also come in handy...to make it clear my terms are quite reasonable.
This is the same government that did nothing when they caught British American Tobacco smuggling cigarettes to avoid paying taxes and increase profits. The head of the company whispered in Tony's ear and the whole investigation suddenly went away. Admittedly there were other members pushing to go ahead and investigate the full extent of the crime, and carry through a prosecution.
It is rather pathetic. Did he run crying to his mommy about the bad children in New Orleans?
This is just pathetic. Things go wrong. Life isn't perfect. Products have kinks. People who bring childish lawsuits should be sent to live on the sun. If they don't like the conditions there they can sue me.
One insisted that, since it was the most logical conclusion from the evidence, the car was not made by processes operating in the car
They don't say whether this car had fuel and was still operational? Fundamentally the laws of physics that went into the manufacture of that car would still be in operation. I assume these fleas researched materials, physics and chemistry. Where that car ultimately came from is however a philosophical not scientific question.
To propose a maker who could not now be seen, and a process of making that was no longer operating, was by definition unscientific
And a contradiction of the god postulated by Christianity. Christianity has always claimed a god that was everywhere, and always involved. What new evidence suggests this god has in fact left the building?
keeping in mind that the scientific method cannot ultimately prove or disprove matters related to origins because they involve the unrepeatable, unobservable past
True, so what does inventing a god add to our understanding? Especially a god we apparently can never understand. I say it was inter-dimensional garden gnomes (very short, but very powerful). The great gnome shall one day return to redeem us.
Fundamentally some people need there to be a god. They simply can't cope without such a thing existing. But if we can't know this god's plan or understand its workings in the universe then it is no better than any other fantasy we come up with to make ourselves feel better.
A God who is truth, who instituted the laws in the beginning,/i>
Let's say there is a god, how do we know it isn't a lying cheating used car salesman from another dimension? Sure he says he is truth and light, but so did the guy who sold me my car.
There is no supernatural. Anything that exists is natural, even a god, ghosts or whatever kicks your bucket.
One isn't a religion. Creationists present a god as an explanation for the ultimate origin of life as the answer. That however is no answer because we then have to ask who made this god? Evolution need not extend beyond the basic building blocks. We do wonder how those initial building blocks came about, but it is no way critical to evolution. Adding in a god just adds apparent certainty for the unthinking who are desperate to do away with the uncertainty of the world.
I don't have a problem with comparative religion being taught in schools. It should probably be mandatory so children can quickly realise that there are overlaps, religions steal each other's ideas and basically there is no one true religion. Drawing straws is as good a way as any to choose a religion.
The evidence is that all we observe, all events that occur, are as a result of the natural laws of the universe. There is no evidence that phenomena do not require a cause. Science does make use of assumptions, but the important difference between that and the beliefs of a religion is that those assumptions can be overturned by the facts, whereas a religion will cling to its notions in the face of evidence to the contrary - that's faith.
If someone wants to postulate a powerful being that is making things happen then they must present some evidence. And why must it be some god, what is the proof for that? Why not fairies? Or Santa Claus? An eternal god is no more plausible than any other outside force. Maybe the universe was created by the easter bunny.
And what does the notion of some outside force add to our understanding? Do we need this to create semiconductors, build aircraft, manufacture drugs?
The intelligent design crowd dig themselves straight into a hole - they postulate an outside entity as the creator or progenitor of life on earth, but what created the outside entity? And what created the creator of the outside entity?
But I don't think any major religion has as a tenet "killing people that look different from you". You'll see various exhortions to kill people who believe in false gods / lure believers away from the true god
An exhortation to kill someone who is following a different religion, an allegedly false god, is no different. Those people look or act different, therefore they are valid targets. The Bible has multiple instances of the Jews slaughtering other nations at the supposed behest of their god.
Humors
What tests were carried out to demonstrate their existence?
Homosexuality as a mental illness
Medicine might be a sort of science, but there was never any evidence presented to support the notion that homsexuality is a mental illness.
Being non-conformist is still treated as a sign of some sort of mental defect by some quarters.
Freud's picture of the Psyche
Psychology/psychiatry is nowhere near being a science yet.
Alchemy
How was this ever a scientific theory?
Atomic Holocaust
No problem with the theory (was it helium though?), it made a prediction which could be relatively easily tested. The test demonstrated they were wrong.
It is a common misconception that scientific theories are never overturned. The basic requirement is that they be consistent with current observations, that they are testable and disprovable, and that they predict things we have not yet seen. The whole point is that science welcomes change and upheaval, while religion fights it. Religions are based entirely on the absolute requirement that their knowledge is perfect and unchanging. That has been their undoing, and exactly why they have tried so hard to suppress the spread of information and impede inquiry.
Even though these teenage street thugs are usually not particularly bright I think they may yet discover earplugs. Cheap foam ones will easily keep out the whine. Cheap musician plugs will even allow conversation - in fact they'll get more annoying because they'll talk louder.
I wouldn't put it past the intrusive UK government to try to implement some measure to keep earplugs out of the hands of the teens.
I don't even know if they had those pre-built sets when I was a child. I do know we didn't have much money so my parents just bought whatever Lego they could get secondhand. So we had a big box full of all kinds of Lego pieces which we turned into all manner of things from castles to giant robots. I think I first encountered the build-only-one-thing kits when I was about 12. Even those, once we had followed the instructions to build what was shown on the box, we ended up converting into various other things - I guess once you're used to making whatever you want you just can't resist warping their sets.
Lego was probably the greatest and most enduring toy of my childhood. I played with it from as young as I can remember until my early teens.
Another thing I enjoyed was Capsela. Perhaps more limited, but I also managed some hybrid Lego/Capsela monstrosities.
International adult sites not subject to US laws
There is no world outside the US. It is a myth.
"You see real women wearing pigtails much past the age of about twelve"
Girls love it, especially when attending events like raves.
There's a lot of rough pornography. There are also a lot of women who love rough sex. It is impossible to pigeonhole human sexual behaviour, declare these things normal and good, but those things deviant and bad.
And who knows where pornography would go if instead of constantly trying to wipe it out, a pointless endeavour, it was distributed as acceptable entertainment. It may be the case that pornography is the way it is because of constant attempts to suppress it.
And you can't generalise about consumers of pornography.
"This petition shows the government just how many people really oppose this horrendous imagery,"
50,000. Out of how many people? I wonder how many refused to sign her petition?
So the guy was supposedly 'obsessed' - nevermind that anti-pornorgraphy types will define almost any viewing of pornography as being obsessed, just like anti-some-drugs types define any recreational use of illegal drugs as drug abuse - but is there any evidence that his viewing pornography resulted in him becoming a killer or did it perhaps actually delay his move into killing?
And I certainly wouldn't trust the British authorities to have any sort of rational attitude when it comes to what should or should not be banned.
Bizarre thing is that often people like her have some sort of religious affiliation. What they can't seem to explain is why they despise god's creation so much.
People who think nudity will harm children also can't offer even a remotely coherent argument to support the notion.
What it boils down to is that you can't shield your child from the world. Parents can try, but expecting to succeed is silly and ultimately succeeding isn't necessarily good for the child.
Let's not forget that there was a time when your childhood was over by the time you were ten. We've extended it, and invented the ludicrous notion that our children should remain 'innocent' until they're magically transported into adulthood at whatever arbitrary age reigns in your region.
We'd all be better off if parents put their time and energy into raising robust, independent, free-thinking children rather than sheltered automatons.