it is disconcerting for non-geek members of the internet community to have this news delivered instead of going out and browsing for it.
I don't think that's the case. Rather, I think that the average internet user is fond of the idea that he gets to choose when, where, and what he'll browse, in whatever order or fashion that pleases him. When using RSS the perception is that the news/whatever is being thrust on you by the site in question, at their convenience rather than yours. I know, this isn't how it works, but from my conversations with "average" users that's how it *appears* - and that's really all that matters to Joe and Jane User. RSS annoys them because it seems to demand their attention whether they're ready or willing to give that attention or not.
And frankly, I see it the same way. I used to RSS several sites (including Slashdot) but since I surf sporadically it just became freakin' annoying to have my computer inform of me updates when I wasn't at all interested that day or week in seeing the sites in question. My response was the same as Joe Users: "shut the fuck up! I'll get to you when I feel like it!"
So, no RSS for me anymore either. Browsing is more enjoyable without it.
"The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the "biogenic theory" of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.
In the 1950's, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.
This so-called "abiogenic" petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.
Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out."
So: do I take the word of some yahoo on Slashdot, or that of Dr. Nation, member of the AAPG? Not exactly a tough call.
The recent news concerning abiogenic oil is that it appears that at least some oil fields thought to be the product of biogenic processes are slowly filling back up again. The only way they could do that is if the source of the oil for these fields is abiogenic. Any mention of this possibility (despite the fact that abiogenic oil exists - no scientist questions this) makes the greenies shit a brick, despite the fact that no matter what the explanation oil is not a renewable resource within the timeline of a human civilization.
You think if a guy holds up a couple people in a back alley, knowledge of a stricter punishment for actually pulling the trigger won't make him hesitate just a bit more than if there were no such law?
No, I think that the possibility that the victims may be armed is far more of a deterrant than any law could be. It doesn't hurt to have a law punishing armed robbery, though, so long as the two guys being held up have the right to put a round or two in the criminals head in their own defense.
You think that the average checkout clerk wouldn't be just a bit more likely to skim a bit out of the register if there were no laws against theft and the worst that could happen would be they lose their job?
No, I don't. Of course, feel free to prove your point by providing a cite - say, an empirical study supporting your views published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal. That would mean a hell of a lot more than some average slashdotter claiming that everyone in the world is a criminal just waiting to happen.
Really, all that attitude convinces me of is that either a) you're one of the spineless little cowards who'd commit crimes if you thought you could get away with it, and hate the idea that other people aren't as equally spineless and criminally-inclined as yourself; or b) you think you're the moral superior of everyone around. *They* are all crooks who'd tear the world apart in a frenzy of violence given the chance, but YOU, now, you're special!
Let's hope the current crop of volcanologists don't decide to pay an en masse personal visit to St. Helens. The last time they did that at an active volcano the only phrase they had time to utter was "oh, shit!".
If you had any scientific knowledge you would know oil is not renewable because it is made of decomposed "fossils" (hence "fossil fuels").
A logical, but entirely unproven, theory. You state it as fact when it simply isn't; it's the best explanation we have for crude oil at this point.
And apparently not a very good one. Certain previously-dry oil fields are slowly filling back up again. That's an actual fact, and no one has an explanation for it. Now, before any enviro-loon gets his panties in a wad, the rate at which the apparent regeneration is occuring is so slow that it makes no difference whatsoever in calculating the depletion of oil reserves; but under the current theory the fact that regeneration is happening at all is impossible.
So something is clearly wrong with the theory. More research needs to be done. Again, it won't make any difference in reserve calculations but it does point to flaws that need to be addressed.
The "proper use" of my computer is whatever the fuck I say is its proper use. Being my property, no one else gets to decide that for me. Including you.
All it takes is one user to break corporate policy simply because they don't understand it, and hundreds or even thousands of other people are affected. Suddenly the IT support guys are working OT for a week because someone thought that they were smarter than the people who wrote the rules.
Taking a look at the average IT department, I'd say they're running about neck-and-neck in most places. It never ceases to amaze me just how many idiots become "IT staff" (using the word as loosely as possible) because they can geek-speak, or because they know a friend of a friend, or for some other reason which many times specifically precludes any real skill.
I spent years cleaning up after "IT personnel", most of which should never have been allowed anywhere near a computer. About the only job these schlocks were suited for was one where you'd regularly say "would you like fries with that?".
If laws didn't exist, and the only thing stopping me from killing you and taking your stuff was the fact that you may have a weapon, I could just hurl a grenade through your bedroom window while you slept, then walk in and take your car and whatever else I wanted.
If you're an evil, sociopathic motherfucker whose mother should've strangled you at birth, then yes, I guess that's true. Fortunately most people don't commit crimes because they think it's wrong, not because they fear retribution.
There's not a damn thing you or your gun could do to stop me.
Riiight. Tell me another, grenade-boy. I assume your superior intellect (or access to explosives) is just too much for the average Joe to handle. Perhaps we should bow down before *you*.
However, the fact that there's a legal system and a trained police force waiting to hunt such a criminal down after the fact deters a lot of people who might otherwise not be so hesitant.
In real life we call that "bullshit". Only 2% of the population is sociopathic; the rest are not. Just because you happen to be amongst that 2% is no reason to think the rest of us are fucked in the head.
It's a huge social pressure against that type of behavior which individual defense and vigilantism simply can't provide on their own.
You've confused "social pressure" with "legal accountability". The two aren't even close to being one and the same.
It doesn't matter for shit if a monoculture may or may not result in some mythical future 'superfamine'. Not if you're the guy watching his family starve to death.
Feed the people who're dying right now. After you do that *then* maybe I'll pay attention to your doom-and-gloom predictions. But until you do you have nothing of interest to say on the topic.
People can't see beyond the anarchocapitalist propaganda, which you lay on pretty bloody thick, Dada21. While I'm mostly libertarian even I am tempted to label you "loon" and stop reading your posts; they sound like the anarchist equivalent to religious tripe.
But if you can refrain from pouring on the verbage about how great anarchy is, you could concentrate on the relevent point in the argument - that being that Monsanto isn't solely to blame for this bullshit. Monsanto would have no claim whatsoever if government didn't give it a right to make that claim in the first place. And government can only give Monsanto that right if the people who supposedly elected that government allow it to.
So the blame for Monsantos evil deeds lies not only with Monsanto, but also with the government (in this case, the Canadian government) and the people who elected that government and allowed them to pass these bullshit laws in the first place (in this case, the Canadian people). All three are to blame for what occurred, although each group does its level best to avoid responsibility while passing it one to one of the other two groups.
It's a favorite game these days; everyone whines, but nobody wants to take responsibility. Every citizen is responsible for the actions of their government, yet people immediately duck and run whenever someone points this out, usually with the lame excuse "but waaaaah! I didn't vote for that guy!". Doesn't matter, of course; you live in the country, you're reponsible for what your country does. Period. You don't get a special pass, and no political church can absolve you of your sins.
Monsanto did evil; they deliberately made their crops so that they'd spread to non-Monsanto farmers, allowing them to "sue into existence" a new customer base. But the Canadian government did evil by allowing Monsanto to pursue this as a policy through law in the first place. And the Canadian people did evil by standing by and letting it happen - ALL Canadians because it's the government of EVERY Canadian.
So you're such a free-wheelin' cowboy type that you'd rather have an armed shootout in your home at 3 am than have a society that establishes laws which by-and-large prevent people from coming into your home trying to kill you and take your stuff?
This one needs an explanation. You're saying that laws PREVENT criminals from entering a persons home and taking their stuff? Newsflash, boy: we call them "criminals" because they make it a point to BREAK laws. They don't give a shit how many laws you pass, or indeed, what the penalties for breaking them are. If they did they wouldn't be criminals, now would they?
And just in case you've seen one too many cop shows on TV, the police arrive AFTER a crime has been committed more than 99.5% of the time. While they sometimes catch the criminal and prevent him from doing future harm to someone else, that doesn't help YOU - the purpose who's just been raped, robbed, or murdered. It doesn't help YOU one fucking bit. The only person who's going to help you is YOU. Society won't help you, the government won't help you, and sure as shit it's almost certain that the police won't help you. The only person standing between you and a criminal is YOU.
It's the same under every system of government. Personal defense, defense of your loved ones, and defense of your property is always YOUR responsibility. You can either buck up and be a man about it, or you can fall on your knees, beg for mercy, and let the criminal do whatever the hell he wants to you. Those are the only two choices you have.
The best music out there really tends to be not RIAA member published
That's precisely my point. You aren't the arbiter of what "the best music" is. It's purely a matter of taste, nothing more.
It's a more common statement from older people, and from people, in general, that have experienced music as art.
No, it's common of assholes who think they get to determine by fiat what's great and what sucks. Art is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, and you don't get any more of a vote than anyone else.
Perhaps you should consider that other people have their own opinions yourself?
Geez, Sherlock, that's exactly what I said - along with making the point that YOUR opinion on the topic is no more noteworthy than that of any other person on this Earth. Try to keep that in mind.
A person can go his or her whole life without hearing the theory of evolution and still know that it's wrong to kill someone else to take their bread from them--even though 'survival of the fittest' would dictate otherwise...
You don't have the first fucking clue about evolution, do you? Try again when you've decided to educate yourself on the topic.
Still, something in your understandings and beliefs compels you to act civily, what is it?
The ability to empathize with other human beings. It's actually hardwired into the brain, a fact that was established decades ago. People without this particular wiring (about 2% of the population) are defective in this regard and grow up as sociopaths. A PET scan can identify if the area of the brain we identify as governing ethical conduct is working correctly or not.
If we have normal brains, we're born with the ability to empathize with other human beings, which motivates us to (at least some of the time) act in ways that minimize harm to them. Most of us see wanton cruelty as a bad thing for this very reason.
You didn't form your concepts of 'nice' (as everyone has so kindly put it) in a vacuum did you? Of course not...
I didn't get them from religion, either. Growing up I thought the religious were full of shit, especially concerning all that "god will punish you" crap. It seemed to me (and still does) that the religious are far more likely to use their faith as an excuse to do evil to others rather than good for them. I initially came to this conclusion at the ripe old age of 3, when a priest proclaimed that my parents were sinful and would go to hell, upon which I tried to bean the bastard with one of my shoes before the entire congregation.
Conscience, knowledge imparted to you, and experience has lead you to certain beliefs, have they not?
Being human is enough, assuming you don't have a miswired brain. Humans aren't blank slates, not even close.
The legislature here in Oregon has tried to pass a sales tax NINE times. You'd think they'd get the hint after the first three or four, wouldn't you? But no: any special interest group with enough money (in this case, transplanted Californians who think the lack of a sales tax is a sign of barbarism) can get this sort of shit sponsored over and over and over again.
It's non-stop. They think they'll eventually be able to wear you down enough to vote for them, or at the very least not vote against them. The only thing you can do, really, is to shoot them down at the polls every time they raise their ugly mugs.
It happens on both sides with equal frequency. Usually the leftie excuse is that the law is necessary for "the greater good", while the right claims they're acting "for the children". Although sometimes they swap positions when they get bored.
Please, no more college-boy "everything popular is shit" vomit. I've just about had it with self-righteous little pricks who rant on and on (and on and on...) about how any music produced under the aegis of the RIAA is "crap".
The RIAA is evil, true. The music is like any other: a matter of taste. Try to fathom that one, and then move on to the notion that perhaps YOUR judgement in the matter of taste isn't any more important than any other swinging dick in the world.
And it's my contention -- and I infer from the article its author's too -- that in most (read: almost all) circumstances copyright infringement IS wrong.
Thirty years ago I would've agreed with you. However, current copyright law far exceeds any remotely rational interpretation of the need for copyright, expressed right there in your very own Constitution.
Any law - any law at all - that exceeds the purpose as writ exceeds Constitutional authority. Which I do believe began several decades ago, and has escalated dramatically in recent years.
You confuse a general trust in the empirical method, which is falsifiable, with faith in things which are inherently unprovable. This is apples and oranges, by any stretch of the imagination. Trying to equate the two makes no logical sense.
Nothing does. I choose not to rape, torture, murder or steal because that's not the sort of way I want to behave. It's entirely up to me; no god gets a vote in that decision.
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Every time some religious type asks me this sort of question I get nervous, because the implication is that the only reason HE doesn't rape/torture/murder/steal is because he's afraid of being punished in some kind of mythical afterlife. Who wants to hang out with a guy who only refrains from evil acts out of fear of punishment?
Their faith is so unflinching that the scientists they worship do not loose any credibility in their eyes even when they suddenly completely contradict what they said earlier.
You might sound more credible if you could master the basics of English, such as the proper spelling of the word "lose". Here, I'll give you a helpful hint:
"Lose" is what you did with your keys when you can't find them. "Loose" is what your momma was, and why you're here today.
Slashdot Mirror
it is disconcerting for non-geek members of the internet community to have this news delivered instead of going out and browsing for it.
I don't think that's the case. Rather, I think that the average internet user is fond of the idea that he gets to choose when, where, and what he'll browse, in whatever order or fashion that pleases him. When using RSS the perception is that the news/whatever is being thrust on you by the site in question, at their convenience rather than yours. I know, this isn't how it works, but from my conversations with "average" users that's how it *appears* - and that's really all that matters to Joe and Jane User. RSS annoys them because it seems to demand their attention whether they're ready or willing to give that attention or not.
And frankly, I see it the same way. I used to RSS several sites (including Slashdot) but since I surf sporadically it just became freakin' annoying to have my computer inform of me updates when I wasn't at all interested that day or week in seeing the sites in question. My response was the same as Joe Users: "shut the fuck up! I'll get to you when I feel like it!"
So, no RSS for me anymore either. Browsing is more enjoyable without it.
Max
I'll do you one better. Here's a direct quote:
"The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the "biogenic theory" of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.
In the 1950's, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.
This so-called "abiogenic" petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.
Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out."
So: do I take the word of some yahoo on Slashdot, or that of Dr. Nation, member of the AAPG? Not exactly a tough call.
The recent news concerning abiogenic oil is that it appears that at least some oil fields thought to be the product of biogenic processes are slowly filling back up again. The only way they could do that is if the source of the oil for these fields is abiogenic. Any mention of this possibility (despite the fact that abiogenic oil exists - no scientist questions this) makes the greenies shit a brick, despite the fact that no matter what the explanation oil is not a renewable resource within the timeline of a human civilization.
Max
You think if a guy holds up a couple people in a back alley, knowledge of a stricter punishment for actually pulling the trigger won't make him hesitate just a bit more than if there were no such law?
No, I think that the possibility that the victims may be armed is far more of a deterrant than any law could be. It doesn't hurt to have a law punishing armed robbery, though, so long as the two guys being held up have the right to put a round or two in the criminals head in their own defense.
You think that the average checkout clerk wouldn't be just a bit more likely to skim a bit out of the register if there were no laws against theft and the worst that could happen would be they lose their job?
No, I don't. Of course, feel free to prove your point by providing a cite - say, an empirical study supporting your views published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal. That would mean a hell of a lot more than some average slashdotter claiming that everyone in the world is a criminal just waiting to happen.
Really, all that attitude convinces me of is that either a) you're one of the spineless little cowards who'd commit crimes if you thought you could get away with it, and hate the idea that other people aren't as equally spineless and criminally-inclined as yourself; or b) you think you're the moral superior of everyone around. *They* are all crooks who'd tear the world apart in a frenzy of violence given the chance, but YOU, now, you're special!
Heard it before. You aren't at all original.
Max
Let's hope the current crop of volcanologists don't decide to pay an en masse personal visit to St. Helens. The last time they did that at an active volcano the only phrase they had time to utter was "oh, shit!".
Max
What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true?
If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.
Max
If you had any scientific knowledge you would know oil is not renewable because it is made of decomposed "fossils" (hence "fossil fuels").
A logical, but entirely unproven, theory. You state it as fact when it simply isn't; it's the best explanation we have for crude oil at this point.
And apparently not a very good one. Certain previously-dry oil fields are slowly filling back up again. That's an actual fact, and no one has an explanation for it. Now, before any enviro-loon gets his panties in a wad, the rate at which the apparent regeneration is occuring is so slow that it makes no difference whatsoever in calculating the depletion of oil reserves; but under the current theory the fact that regeneration is happening at all is impossible.
So something is clearly wrong with the theory. More research needs to be done. Again, it won't make any difference in reserve calculations but it does point to flaws that need to be addressed.
Max
Also, a significant proportion of the population simply isn't smart enough to act in their own interests
Including the guy you see when you look in the mirror.
Max
The "proper use" of my computer is whatever the fuck I say is its proper use. Being my property, no one else gets to decide that for me. Including you.
Max
All it takes is one user to break corporate policy simply because they don't understand it, and hundreds or even thousands of other people are affected. Suddenly the IT support guys are working OT for a week because someone thought that they were smarter than the people who wrote the rules.
Taking a look at the average IT department, I'd say they're running about neck-and-neck in most places. It never ceases to amaze me just how many idiots become "IT staff" (using the word as loosely as possible) because they can geek-speak, or because they know a friend of a friend, or for some other reason which many times specifically precludes any real skill.
I spent years cleaning up after "IT personnel", most of which should never have been allowed anywhere near a computer. About the only job these schlocks were suited for was one where you'd regularly say "would you like fries with that?".
Max
If laws didn't exist, and the only thing stopping me from killing you and taking your stuff was the fact that you may have a weapon, I could just hurl a grenade through your bedroom window while you slept, then walk in and take your car and whatever else I wanted.
If you're an evil, sociopathic motherfucker whose mother should've strangled you at birth, then yes, I guess that's true. Fortunately most people don't commit crimes because they think it's wrong, not because they fear retribution.
There's not a damn thing you or your gun could do to stop me.
Riiight. Tell me another, grenade-boy. I assume your superior intellect (or access to explosives) is just too much for the average Joe to handle. Perhaps we should bow down before *you*.
However, the fact that there's a legal system and a trained police force waiting to hunt such a criminal down after the fact deters a lot of people who might otherwise not be so hesitant.
In real life we call that "bullshit". Only 2% of the population is sociopathic; the rest are not. Just because you happen to be amongst that 2% is no reason to think the rest of us are fucked in the head.
It's a huge social pressure against that type of behavior which individual defense and vigilantism simply can't provide on their own.
You've confused "social pressure" with "legal accountability". The two aren't even close to being one and the same.
Max
It doesn't matter for shit if a monoculture may or may not result in some mythical future 'superfamine'. Not if you're the guy watching his family starve to death.
Feed the people who're dying right now. After you do that *then* maybe I'll pay attention to your doom-and-gloom predictions. But until you do you have nothing of interest to say on the topic.
Max
People can't see beyond the anarchocapitalist propaganda, which you lay on pretty bloody thick, Dada21. While I'm mostly libertarian even I am tempted to label you "loon" and stop reading your posts; they sound like the anarchist equivalent to religious tripe.
But if you can refrain from pouring on the verbage about how great anarchy is, you could concentrate on the relevent point in the argument - that being that Monsanto isn't solely to blame for this bullshit. Monsanto would have no claim whatsoever if government didn't give it a right to make that claim in the first place. And government can only give Monsanto that right if the people who supposedly elected that government allow it to.
So the blame for Monsantos evil deeds lies not only with Monsanto, but also with the government (in this case, the Canadian government) and the people who elected that government and allowed them to pass these bullshit laws in the first place (in this case, the Canadian people). All three are to blame for what occurred, although each group does its level best to avoid responsibility while passing it one to one of the other two groups.
It's a favorite game these days; everyone whines, but nobody wants to take responsibility. Every citizen is responsible for the actions of their government, yet people immediately duck and run whenever someone points this out, usually with the lame excuse "but waaaaah! I didn't vote for that guy!". Doesn't matter, of course; you live in the country, you're reponsible for what your country does. Period. You don't get a special pass, and no political church can absolve you of your sins.
Monsanto did evil; they deliberately made their crops so that they'd spread to non-Monsanto farmers, allowing them to "sue into existence" a new customer base. But the Canadian government did evil by allowing Monsanto to pursue this as a policy through law in the first place. And the Canadian people did evil by standing by and letting it happen - ALL Canadians because it's the government of EVERY Canadian.
Max
So you're such a free-wheelin' cowboy type that you'd rather have an armed shootout in your home at 3 am than have a society that establishes laws which by-and-large prevent people from coming into your home trying to kill you and take your stuff?
This one needs an explanation. You're saying that laws PREVENT criminals from entering a persons home and taking their stuff? Newsflash, boy: we call them "criminals" because they make it a point to BREAK laws. They don't give a shit how many laws you pass, or indeed, what the penalties for breaking them are. If they did they wouldn't be criminals, now would they?
And just in case you've seen one too many cop shows on TV, the police arrive AFTER a crime has been committed more than 99.5% of the time. While they sometimes catch the criminal and prevent him from doing future harm to someone else, that doesn't help YOU - the purpose who's just been raped, robbed, or murdered. It doesn't help YOU one fucking bit. The only person who's going to help you is YOU. Society won't help you, the government won't help you, and sure as shit it's almost certain that the police won't help you. The only person standing between you and a criminal is YOU.
It's the same under every system of government. Personal defense, defense of your loved ones, and defense of your property is always YOUR responsibility. You can either buck up and be a man about it, or you can fall on your knees, beg for mercy, and let the criminal do whatever the hell he wants to you. Those are the only two choices you have.
Max
The best music out there really tends to be not RIAA member published
That's precisely my point. You aren't the arbiter of what "the best music" is. It's purely a matter of taste, nothing more.
It's a more common statement from older people, and from people, in general, that have experienced music as art.
No, it's common of assholes who think they get to determine by fiat what's great and what sucks. Art is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, and you don't get any more of a vote than anyone else.
Perhaps you should consider that other people have their own opinions yourself?
Geez, Sherlock, that's exactly what I said - along with making the point that YOUR opinion on the topic is no more noteworthy than that of any other person on this Earth. Try to keep that in mind.
Max
A person can go his or her whole life without hearing the theory of evolution and still know that it's wrong to kill someone else to take their bread from them--even though 'survival of the fittest' would dictate otherwise...
You don't have the first fucking clue about evolution, do you? Try again when you've decided to educate yourself on the topic.
Max
How can anyone claim that capitalism is the best form of government when it allows so many people to suffer.
Capitalism isn't a form of government. Get back to me when you actually understand the terms you're bandying about.
Max
Still, something in your understandings and beliefs compels you to act civily, what is it?
The ability to empathize with other human beings. It's actually hardwired into the brain, a fact that was established decades ago. People without this particular wiring (about 2% of the population) are defective in this regard and grow up as sociopaths. A PET scan can identify if the area of the brain we identify as governing ethical conduct is working correctly or not.
If we have normal brains, we're born with the ability to empathize with other human beings, which motivates us to (at least some of the time) act in ways that minimize harm to them. Most of us see wanton cruelty as a bad thing for this very reason.
You didn't form your concepts of 'nice' (as everyone has so kindly put it) in a vacuum did you? Of course not...
I didn't get them from religion, either. Growing up I thought the religious were full of shit, especially concerning all that "god will punish you" crap. It seemed to me (and still does) that the religious are far more likely to use their faith as an excuse to do evil to others rather than good for them. I initially came to this conclusion at the ripe old age of 3, when a priest proclaimed that my parents were sinful and would go to hell, upon which I tried to bean the bastard with one of my shoes before the entire congregation.
Conscience, knowledge imparted to you, and experience has lead you to certain beliefs, have they not?
Being human is enough, assuming you don't have a miswired brain. Humans aren't blank slates, not even close.
Max
The legislature here in Oregon has tried to pass a sales tax NINE times. You'd think they'd get the hint after the first three or four, wouldn't you? But no: any special interest group with enough money (in this case, transplanted Californians who think the lack of a sales tax is a sign of barbarism) can get this sort of shit sponsored over and over and over again.
It's non-stop. They think they'll eventually be able to wear you down enough to vote for them, or at the very least not vote against them. The only thing you can do, really, is to shoot them down at the polls every time they raise their ugly mugs.
Max
It happens on both sides with equal frequency. Usually the leftie excuse is that the law is necessary for "the greater good", while the right claims they're acting "for the children". Although sometimes they swap positions when they get bored.
Max
Please, no more college-boy "everything popular is shit" vomit. I've just about had it with self-righteous little pricks who rant on and on (and on and on...) about how any music produced under the aegis of the RIAA is "crap".
The RIAA is evil, true. The music is like any other: a matter of taste. Try to fathom that one, and then move on to the notion that perhaps YOUR judgement in the matter of taste isn't any more important than any other swinging dick in the world.
Max
And it's my contention -- and I infer from the article its author's too -- that in most (read: almost all) circumstances copyright infringement IS wrong.
Thirty years ago I would've agreed with you. However, current copyright law far exceeds any remotely rational interpretation of the need for copyright, expressed right there in your very own Constitution.
Any law - any law at all - that exceeds the purpose as writ exceeds Constitutional authority. Which I do believe began several decades ago, and has escalated dramatically in recent years.
Max
You confuse a general trust in the empirical method, which is falsifiable, with faith in things which are inherently unprovable. This is apples and oranges, by any stretch of the imagination. Trying to equate the two makes no logical sense.
Max
What compels you to be nice?
Nothing does. I choose not to rape, torture, murder or steal because that's not the sort of way I want to behave. It's entirely up to me; no god gets a vote in that decision.
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Every time some religious type asks me this sort of question I get nervous, because the implication is that the only reason HE doesn't rape/torture/murder/steal is because he's afraid of being punished in some kind of mythical afterlife. Who wants to hang out with a guy who only refrains from evil acts out of fear of punishment?
Max
Their faith is so unflinching that the scientists they worship do not loose any credibility in their eyes even when they suddenly completely contradict what they said earlier.
You might sound more credible if you could master the basics of English, such as the proper spelling of the word "lose". Here, I'll give you a helpful hint:
"Lose" is what you did with your keys when you can't find them. "Loose" is what your momma was, and why you're here today.
HTH.
Max
But I am not sure how killing babies has anything to do with where man originated.
And I don't see what abortion has to do with killing babies. Last I checked post-natal abortion was illegal (sadly, in the case of Congress).
Max