True musicians don't have to sign. But if some guy from nettwerk came to edmonton offered my friends band 250k loan to promote their band, my friend would be hard pressed to say no. He's an intelligent colledge student who knows the RIAA members want to fuck him and use him and rape him. But he's willing to risk playing with the devil for fame and fortune. And unfortunatly so are most bands regaurdless of their intelligence. They myopically belive this is their ticket to fame. They'll sign anything to be with the big labels.
Nettwerk isn't very bad I hear. But somebody liek interscope.... They'll sign you and shelve you just so no one else can have you and you can't compete with generic souless version of you.
It's very true they dont' have to sign. And if they were intelligent they'd have someone with some intelligence review the contracts. But your dealing with mostly young men who are obsessed with a dream. Hardly free-willed intelligent autonomous agents.
If the terms of the contract are going to fuck the artist, they shouldn't sign the contract?
Does anyone have a good rebuttal?
Right, I'm sure most garage bands have at least one qualified lawyer or business manager in it right? Most bands have high intelligence and a mature outlook on things right? Most bands aren't 16-25 and filled wiht mostly dumb stoners?
And then theres interscope. Who will sign a good band, shelve you, and promote another band with the same sound. Their notorious for this. They figure a couple grand to remove compitition is great. The music industry is preditory for the most part. So many sharks and so much chum too.
Some contracts actually state you owe them if your record doesn't make money. So the 250k advance is a 250 k load to promote your stuff anf make yrou record. If for some reason someone int he company doesn't like you, they can renege on a few things and destroy any chance for success. And then you owe. A negative number. a non zero sum.
... and pay to have those creations made, and cover the costs involved in marketing, selling and sistributing those creations.
MPAA maybe, but most members of the RIAA just "lend" the artist the money to create and promote their work and then collect it back after they sell records.... If the artist doesn't the artist owes. I know more then one artists getting fucked this way.
If we "fix" this whole aging thing, won't we also need to put a stop to this giving birth thing?
I don't think the Catholics are gonna like this very much.
It's not the giving birth thing, not in canada, the US or europe. It basically took care of itself. Humans pops seem to be self limiting in relation to wealth. The richer a country is the less they give birth. Education of women is also part of this. Ever country with gender equality and is developed has a near to replacement birth rate.
Living forever would just change it to be even more expensive to have children. Just imagine having to have 34 years of education to get job instead of the current 16-24.
Assembly code is faster if you hand optimize every single line and you throughly understand the machine. Otherwise machien optimized codes will be closer to optimal. And it also happens to be portable.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Easily observable, a pop of mostly black fish -> pop of mostly red fish due to some selective factor.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Also observed, some pops split into two sepcies that cannot intterbreed.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
This vaguely emcompasses what evolution is. buti's more a definition of what the word means and not the process.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
Readily observed in bacteria where their metabolism changes or the cell structure changes after succesive generatiosn of a stress. IT also speeds up if their is a mutagen prsent.
1 : a process of change in a certain direction (there has been much discussion as to... the possible evolution of benign adenomas into invasive carcinoma --Journal of the American Medical Association)
MEaningless, it's hand waving. It doesn't relate to the biological process just a old idea of what it meant. Evolution has no direction. It moves in all directions and lets selection generalize where. no Certain direction is required.
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)
End result of evolution, has been deduced through things liek fossils and phylogenetic trees as well as directly observed in short lived fast breeding species.
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
Again, again we have induced new traits in rapidly growing species such as fruit flies, all bacteria, ect...
Those are great "dectionary" definitions. Mostly accurate and all observed. Dictionary definitions are always a simplification of somethign and reflect more on how the word is used then what it's describing. I'm sure loaded words such as "Christ" has a different common meaning (often used as a mild expleitive) then a real meaning (son of god, savior of manking).
Evolution: Is the change in populations that lead to speciation. The core engine of this change is muation, substitution, mis translation, duplication, and recombination and rarly viral substitution. These result in new traits in a population and selection changes the frequency of these traits. Over times the collection of different traits makes one population un able to breed with a formly similiar pop. They are now two populations. Mutations cause new traits, selection changes the freq. of these traits n the pop. A drastic change in morphology require a change in the genome. The change in the genome can be small but the result is a change in a large pysical structure. (Think about how little change downs syndrome babies actually have in their genes and how different they are from us). If this change is hertitable (ie it's also changed in the sperm/ova) and it passes on, it gets introduced into the population. If it provides soem sort of benifit or a even just isn't really much of hindrance, it will grow to become some % of the pop.
Speciation occurs because soem change that becomes a universal trait of all of a population makes it unable to breed and have fertile ofspring with another population that was formly the same species.
We have observed all of this in many many many many case studies, try looking up evolution on www.nature.com (a august hournal). From bacteria to flies, many species we've fully sequenced end up with new sequences due
Mostly red fish -> mostly black fish is not evolution. It's adaptation by natural selection. That is, a redistribution of the frequency of an attribute already existing in a population due to a change in the population's environment.
Let me repeat myself. Please go to college and learn what evolution is and not what you define it as.
There's no evolutionary path that leads to something like this.
1-random collection of flexible protiens extrude from cell. 2-unstable protien structure at base of exstrusion forms and is sensitive to atp. 3-movement of the reactive structure causes extrusion to move. Happens to rotate.
In light of this, I think it is important that schools teach the importants of testing and evaluating ALL theories. A sticker on a textbook is certainly not the solution for that.
That said, there should also be some information taught about the plausibility of these theories. Creationism (high improbable), Evolution (veyr probably), I created a time machine and created all life when I sneezed at 2 billion bc (as pobably as creationism). And I too am a Christian. I object to how creationists deny facts and twist arguments. My christian faith is based on belief in God, Christ, and salvation. Not my beleif that god enjoys playing cruel pranks on use with fossil evidence, genome data, biology, and genology which creationists demand we believe.
as evoluation should choose the _simplest_ mechanisms to accomplish a goal.
Why is that? Simpliest? No evolution chooses the most convient (ie the one that happened to occure). Nowhere does it say it chooses the simplest. That would occam razor and thats logic not biology.
People have looked, and looked and looked. And not once has a crreationist ever turning into intelligent human being. It's changed - but it's always remained a dolt.
You have to remember that quick change in a creationist is NOT intelegence - creationist genes are programmed for rampant stupidity.
Creationism has never been observed under any scale. The only thing that's been observed is a mindless rhetoric becoming moreobvious. But actual thought in a creationist has never been seen.
Logical fallascy you used: Slothful Induction and a bit of Fallacy of Exclusion.
Pat yourself on the back, you just made yourself look stupid.
Pity we've never seen it happen. Evolution is not observable or testable because it happens over a period of time far, far greater than human life. All we can do is inspect the evidence, and construct theories around that evidence. That's closer to the study of history than science. Both science and history are methods of discerning truth, but they use very different mechanics. If you can't test something, or observe if, it's hard to form a scientific theory about it. You may use scientific techniques to find the evidence, but when it comes to interpreting it, all you can do is try and find an explanation that matches most of the facts you know about.
Please, please, please try taking a university biology course not offered by a "christian" college. You haven't the faintest clue what evolution is. It's not fish -> bird. it's mostly red fish -> mostly black fish.
You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.
Your confusing a real argument with a logical fallacy. I see a bit of false anology mixed in with hasty generalization and a heaping dose of recasting the argument.
This is an excellent point. Why are Creationist so defensive about their theory? Is there some dark secret that they don't want us to know? Theologins (and other light weight academics, for that matter) have come up with some seemingly ridiculous ideas in other areas and have been allowed to pursue them to the point that they became mainstream. Deconstruction was once considered ridiculous, now it's the standard in literary analysis.
These kinds of changes have been stifled in Theology, History, etc. for decades because Theologins can't pose anything that undermines creationism without being excommunicated from the Church. Yes. Excommunicated. Gee, that's a religious term, isn't it?
If Theology is going to be this pure study of what's out there, then it needs to be sincerely open to study of many different ideas. Have you ever honestly looked at the evidence for a global flood of immense proportions? It's scary.
Oh, I don't mean in the strict sense. Science is a method for describing cosmic fact. Religion is a method for expressing cosmic meaning. I mean in the practical sense. All people need something to believe in, and frankly, for many people, science has BECOME their religion, a source of both fact AND meaning. Because of the fallibility of man, science (the religion, not the method) even has it's own dogmas now. Evolution has become one of those dogmas, but it's not the only one. I'm not saying that evolution is false, but it's not held to the same standard as other hard sciences. If cold fusion were held to the same standard, it'd be scientific canon by now.
Did you happen to miss the major upheaval and intense scrutiny that occured after Darwin published the original book? Not held to the same standard? How about the toss back and forth between the two scientific factiosn that occured for a hundred years after that? I think your making a pretty weak argument there.
And to this day there isn't any real evolution hapening in an observable rate
Lets see, Bacteria evolve at a observable rate. Interchangin shape/diet/metabolism ect at a alarmign rate. People exhibit it as well, tending to get taller more swarthy and eyes and hair gettign darker. We have plants that seems to be shifting population characteristics too. I see it everywhere, I think your reading the wrong theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't mean watching a slug turn into a andriod killing machine in 100 years, it's a population of mostly white swallows chanign into a population of mostly black swallows when some pressure kills off swallows that are white.
Did VCRs also spontaneously arise out of the primordial soup? A VCR is a far far simpler device than a self-reproducing automaton...
The watchmaker argument has always pissed me off. It masquerades as logic by claiming that an artifact requires an intelligent creator, something that agrees with human experience, but fails to continue the use of logic with regard to the origin of the creator itself. At best the watchmaker principle is a useless bit of sophistry.
I think the problem is while protiens and other organic bits that make a cell up tend to be more stable in a "cell" then in free ion states or in elemental forms, a bit of silicon and metal is just as stable as a VCR or as a lump of rock. So it's a interesting and cheap rhetorical argument it's a pretty stupid anology.
Sorry but you only have two choices. If it wasn't by chance. Then you must accept it was of divine origins. The 'third' option: life is alien to this world, is simply pushing back the debate chronologically because that alien life must have come into being somehow.. which brings you back to random or divine. Divine can cirumvent the alien paradox since it could plausibily be beyond time etc etc...
Wait can't I accept it was divine and random. God seems fairly unpredictable. I'm pretty sure he enjoys randomness and diversity. I beleive in both. My Christian god works in random and obscure ways.
The fact that Miller's experiments are still being used in Biology text books shows that the the Evolutionist movement will stop at nothing to prove their point, even if it is bad science.
yawn, someone proves under some circumstances something can occur is a proof of concept. It doesn't have to mean thats the way it happened. It's a stupid catchism, a simplification to illistrate an idea. A person like you makes a scarecrow arguments out of such things because you have no argument of real substance.
repeatitly take random electronics and recombine them in differnet ways, given 4 billion years you'll accidentally create a few thousand machiens that may operate as a vcr in different ways.
"Evolution is just a theory" is a religous catchism, and thus a religous statement. like "what would jesus do?" I have a friend named Jesus, he'd problbly say "well I'll fuck your sister". But it's a religous catchism referign to a specific idealized Jesus.
Theories don't change into laws through more "proving". Law and theory are just labels. You use law by tradition not because of a graduated namign convention.
Slashdot Mirror
True musicians don't have to sign. But if some guy from nettwerk came to edmonton offered my friends band 250k loan to promote their band, my friend would be hard pressed to say no. He's an intelligent colledge student who knows the RIAA members want to fuck him and use him and rape him. But he's willing to risk playing with the devil for fame and fortune. And unfortunatly so are most bands regaurdless of their intelligence. They myopically belive this is their ticket to fame. They'll sign anything to be with the big labels.
Nettwerk isn't very bad I hear. But somebody liek interscope.... They'll sign you and shelve you just so no one else can have you and you can't compete with generic souless version of you.
It's very true they dont' have to sign. And if they were intelligent they'd have someone with some intelligence review the contracts. But your dealing with mostly young men who are obsessed with a dream. Hardly free-willed intelligent autonomous agents.
If the terms of the contract are going to fuck the artist, they shouldn't sign the contract?
Does anyone have a good rebuttal?
Right, I'm sure most garage bands have at least one qualified lawyer or business manager in it right? Most bands have high intelligence and a mature outlook on things right? Most bands aren't 16-25 and filled wiht mostly dumb stoners?
And then theres interscope. Who will sign a good band, shelve you, and promote another band with the same sound. Their notorious for this. They figure a couple grand to remove compitition is great. The music industry is preditory for the most part. So many sharks and so much chum too.
big fat ZERO
Some contracts actually state you owe them if your record doesn't make money. So the 250k advance is a 250 k load to promote your stuff anf make yrou record. If for some reason someone int he company doesn't like you, they can renege on a few things and destroy any chance for success. And then you owe. A negative number. a non zero sum.
... and pay to have those creations made, and cover the costs involved in marketing, selling and sistributing those creations.
MPAA maybe, but most members of the RIAA just "lend" the artist the money to create and promote their work and then collect it back after they sell records.... If the artist doesn't the artist owes. I know more then one artists getting fucked this way.
If we "fix" this whole aging thing, won't we also need to put a stop to this giving birth thing?
I don't think the Catholics are gonna like this very much.
It's not the giving birth thing, not in canada, the US or europe. It basically took care of itself. Humans pops seem to be self limiting in relation to wealth. The richer a country is the less they give birth. Education of women is also part of this. Ever country with gender equality and is developed has a near to replacement birth rate.
Living forever would just change it to be even more expensive to have children. Just imagine having to have 34 years of education to get job instead of the current 16-24.
Seems a bit silly. All the information that we'd collect could be collected other ways, far cheaper and with far better results.
Pray tell, how can we gather more info about titan from here at less expense?
Assembly code is faster if you hand optimize every single line and you throughly understand the machine. Otherwise machien optimized codes will be closer to optimal. And it also happens to be portable.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
... the possible evolution of benign adenomas into invasive carcinoma --Journal of the American Medical Association)
Easily observable, a pop of mostly black fish -> pop of mostly red fish due to some selective factor.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Also observed, some pops split into two sepcies that cannot intterbreed.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
This vaguely emcompasses what evolution is. buti's more a definition of what the word means and not the process.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
Readily observed in bacteria where their metabolism changes or the cell structure changes after succesive generatiosn of a stress. IT also speeds up if their is a mutagen prsent.
1 : a process of change in a certain direction (there has been much discussion as to
MEaningless, it's hand waving. It doesn't relate to the biological process just a old idea of what it meant. Evolution has no direction. It moves in all directions and lets selection generalize where. no Certain direction is required.
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)
End result of evolution, has been deduced through things liek fossils and phylogenetic trees as well as directly observed in short lived fast breeding species.
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
Again, again we have induced new traits in rapidly growing species such as fruit flies, all bacteria, ect...
Those are great "dectionary" definitions. Mostly accurate and all observed. Dictionary definitions are always a simplification of somethign and reflect more on how the word is used then what it's describing. I'm sure loaded words such as "Christ" has a different common meaning (often used as a mild expleitive) then a real meaning (son of god, savior of manking).
Evolution: Is the change in populations that lead to speciation. The core engine of this change is muation, substitution, mis translation, duplication, and recombination and rarly viral substitution. These result in new traits in a population and selection changes the frequency of these traits. Over times the collection of different traits makes one population un able to breed with a formly similiar pop. They are now two populations. Mutations cause new traits, selection changes the freq. of these traits n the pop. A drastic change in morphology require a change in the genome. The change in the genome can be small but the result is a change in a large pysical structure. (Think about how little change downs syndrome babies actually have in their genes and how different they are from us). If this change is hertitable (ie it's also changed in the sperm/ova) and it passes on, it gets introduced into the population. If it provides soem sort of benifit or a even just isn't really much of hindrance, it will grow to become some % of the pop.
Speciation occurs because soem change that becomes a universal trait of all of a population makes it unable to breed and have fertile ofspring with another population that was formly the same species.
We have observed all of this in many many many many case studies, try looking up evolution on www.nature.com (a august hournal). From bacteria to flies, many species we've fully sequenced end up with new sequences due
Mostly red fish -> mostly black fish is not evolution. It's adaptation by natural selection. That is, a redistribution of the frequency of an attribute already existing in a population due to a change in the population's environment.
Let me repeat myself. Please go to college and learn what evolution is and not what you define it as.
It's not like I'm a creationist or anything, but evolution still can't explain flagella motors.
e /e ssays/flagella.htm
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrav
There's no evolutionary path that leads to something like this.
1-random collection of flexible protiens extrude from cell.
2-unstable protien structure at base of exstrusion forms and is sensitive to atp.
3-movement of the reactive structure causes extrusion to move. Happens to rotate.
not too much there.
In light of this, I think it is important that schools teach the importants of testing and evaluating ALL theories. A sticker on a textbook is certainly not the solution for that.
That said, there should also be some information taught about the plausibility of these theories. Creationism (high improbable), Evolution (veyr probably), I created a time machine and created all life when I sneezed at 2 billion bc (as pobably as creationism). And I too am a Christian. I object to how creationists deny facts and twist arguments. My christian faith is based on belief in God, Christ, and salvation. Not my beleif that god enjoys playing cruel pranks on use with fossil evidence, genome data, biology, and genology which creationists demand we believe.
as evoluation should choose the _simplest_ mechanisms to accomplish a goal.
Why is that? Simpliest? No evolution chooses the most convient (ie the one that happened to occure). Nowhere does it say it chooses the simplest. That would occam razor and thats logic not biology.
People have looked, and looked and looked. And not once has a crreationist ever turning into intelligent human being. It's changed - but it's always remained a dolt.
You have to remember that quick change in a creationist is NOT intelegence - creationist genes are programmed for rampant stupidity.
Creationism has never been observed under any scale. The only thing that's been observed is a mindless rhetoric becoming moreobvious. But actual thought in a creationist has never been seen.
Logical fallascy you used: Slothful Induction and a bit of Fallacy of Exclusion.
Pat yourself on the back, you just made yourself look stupid.
Pity we've never seen it happen. Evolution is not observable or testable because it happens over a period of time far, far greater than human life. All we can do is inspect the evidence, and construct theories around that evidence. That's closer to the study of history than science. Both science and history are methods of discerning truth, but they use very different mechanics. If you can't test something, or observe if, it's hard to form a scientific theory about it. You may use scientific techniques to find the evidence, but when it comes to interpreting it, all you can do is try and find an explanation that matches most of the facts you know about.
Please, please, please try taking a university biology course not offered by a "christian" college. You haven't the faintest clue what evolution is. It's not fish -> bird. it's mostly red fish -> mostly black fish.
What's funny is that your statement is only a theory as well with no proof to substantiate the claim.
What's funny is that your statement is only a catchism as well with no argument to substantiate the claim.
Evolution is a fact. It's been observed.
You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.
Your confusing a real argument with a logical fallacy. I see a bit of false anology mixed in with hasty generalization and a heaping dose of recasting the argument.
This is an excellent point. Why are Creationist so defensive about their theory? Is there some dark secret that they don't want us to know? Theologins (and other light weight academics, for that matter) have come up with some seemingly ridiculous ideas in other areas and have been allowed to pursue them to the point that they became mainstream. Deconstruction was once considered ridiculous, now it's the standard in literary analysis.
These kinds of changes have been stifled in Theology, History, etc. for decades because Theologins can't pose anything that undermines creationism without being excommunicated from the Church. Yes. Excommunicated. Gee, that's a religious term, isn't it?
If Theology is going to be this pure study of what's out there, then it needs to be sincerely open to study of many different ideas. Have you ever honestly looked at the evidence for a global flood of immense proportions? It's scary.
Oh, I don't mean in the strict sense. Science is a method for describing cosmic fact. Religion is a method for expressing cosmic meaning. I mean in the practical sense. All people need something to believe in, and frankly, for many people, science has BECOME their religion, a source of both fact AND meaning. Because of the fallibility of man, science (the religion, not the method) even has it's own dogmas now. Evolution has become one of those dogmas, but it's not the only one. I'm not saying that evolution is false, but it's not held to the same standard as other hard sciences. If cold fusion were held to the same standard, it'd be scientific canon by now.
Did you happen to miss the major upheaval and intense scrutiny that occured after Darwin published the original book? Not held to the same standard? How about the toss back and forth between the two scientific factiosn that occured for a hundred years after that? I think your making a pretty weak argument there.
And to this day there isn't any real evolution hapening in an observable rate
Lets see, Bacteria evolve at a observable rate. Interchangin shape/diet/metabolism ect at a alarmign rate. People exhibit it as well, tending to get taller more swarthy and eyes and hair gettign darker. We have plants that seems to be shifting population characteristics too. I see it everywhere, I think your reading the wrong theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't mean watching a slug turn into a andriod killing machine in 100 years, it's a population of mostly white swallows chanign into a population of mostly black swallows when some pressure kills off swallows that are white.
Did VCRs also spontaneously arise out of the primordial soup? A VCR is a far far simpler device than a self-reproducing automaton...
The watchmaker argument has always pissed me off. It masquerades as logic by claiming that an artifact requires an intelligent creator, something that agrees with human experience, but fails to continue the use of logic with regard to the origin of the creator itself. At best the watchmaker principle is a useless bit of sophistry.
I think the problem is while protiens and other organic bits that make a cell up tend to be more stable in a "cell" then in free ion states or in elemental forms, a bit of silicon and metal is just as stable as a VCR or as a lump of rock. So it's a interesting and cheap rhetorical argument it's a pretty stupid anology.
Sorry but you only have two choices. If it wasn't by chance. Then you must accept it was of divine origins. The 'third' option: life is alien to this world, is simply pushing back the debate chronologically because that alien life must have come into being somehow.. which brings you back to random or divine. Divine can cirumvent the alien paradox since it could plausibily be beyond time etc etc...
Wait can't I accept it was divine and random. God seems fairly unpredictable. I'm pretty sure he enjoys randomness and diversity. I beleive in both. My Christian god works in random and obscure ways.
The fact that Miller's experiments are still being used in Biology text books shows that the the Evolutionist movement will stop at nothing to prove their point, even if it is bad science.
yawn, someone proves under some circumstances something can occur is a proof of concept. It doesn't have to mean thats the way it happened. It's a stupid catchism, a simplification to illistrate an idea. A person like you makes a scarecrow arguments out of such things because you have no argument of real substance.
repeatitly take random electronics and recombine them in differnet ways, given 4 billion years you'll accidentally create a few thousand machiens that may operate as a vcr in different ways.
"Evolution is just a theory" is a religous catchism, and thus a religous statement. like "what would jesus do?" I have a friend named Jesus, he'd problbly say "well I'll fuck your sister". But it's a religous catchism referign to a specific idealized Jesus.
Theories don't change into laws through more "proving". Law and theory are just labels. You use law by tradition not because of a graduated namign convention.