Show them an HDTV next to VHS (or even DVD) and they'll care enough to gladly pay the extra price. You don't have to spend that much to get an HDTV these days - and it will make all your TV experiences more enjoyable... including porn:P I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I got a refurbished 30" CRT Philips widescreen HDTV for $600 from www.electronicsnation.com and I couldn't be happier about it. I've had it for over a year now, and I can't imagine going back to SD. No way. Xbox looks fantastic on it, even at the low end 480p which most games support.
If you're already spending $3-400 on an SD TV with limited adaptability for future use, why not save up another $2-300 and get a decent HDTV that will last you a lot longer (at least quality wise)?
Not all HDTVs are the $5.000 65" monstrosities you see at Best Buy... although I wouldn't mind having one...
Isn't removing a reference to God (like from the money) akin to supporting the athiest view of God?
This is interesting, if only to point out the inherent flaw in the reasoning.
No, this does not promote Atheism. This simply follows the 1st Amendment and keeps the government completely and utterly neutral when it comes to religion. Since there are so many religions, and since there are people who are not religious at all, the only way a government can remain neutral, is to never, ever address the issue in any way, shape or form. To you, not endorsing any religion means endorsing not having a religion. That's like saying I'm promoting that you don't drink alcohol at all, just because I can't recommend one particular drink over another.
The only way to remain neutral, is not to recommend anything. Including ANY religious symbol in government, is a de-facto endorsment of that religion. Since Atheism is a non-prophet organization and has no organized structure (being an Atheist simply means you do not believe in a god of any kind - atheist means no god, as opposed to monotheist which means one god or polytheist which means many gods), it's not considered a religion and thus the government would be well within the scope of the Constitution to endorse it if it chose to do so - but it hasn't.
As you said, The Constitution wasn't about banning religion, but neither is the ACLU and neither am I (although there are days when I think it would solve a lot of problems). It was about making sure there would never be a theocracy in this country - which can only be accomplished by removing all religion from government.
As far as I have been able to tell about the recent CA Medical Marijuana case, it wasn't as cynical as you seem to believe it was, and I believe you have it backwards. Liberals don't make decisions like what you described (didn't want to admit another state had the same right - this is a non-argument and assumes "liberal" judges care more about their personal views than they do about the constitution and the law).
Had states rights prevailed in this case, the law would have been confirmed. The reasoning used by the conservative judges to overturn it, was that it violated the Federal ban on marijuana. Technically, that's correct, but that is in itself a law that needs to be reviewed and repealed, as it is inherently unjust and violates states rights to legislate commerce by itself.
I expected the law to get overturned, and in fact expected them to use this argument, so it wasn't a surprise at all. I'm just glad it got to SCOTUS because it shows how overreaching and ridiculous a federal mandate on a controlled substance really is - because it supercedes states rights.
I'm a liberal, and I don't like the fact that conservatives have turned the word into a derogatory word. Being liberal is one of the best things you can be. I don't care where you stand fiscally, as long as you're socially liberal (meaning, you don't believe the government has the right to butt into your personal life). For the record, I'm a Libertarian, so I'm even more consistent in my views than most democrats and most republicans, as both those parties have a lot of wiggleroom in their ideals, which in most cases opens the door for massive hypocracy on a lot of issues.
The Boy Scout issue I also have an opinion on which is perfectly constisten with the foundation of my opinions. The Boy Scouts, as a private group, has the right to allow or disallow anybody they see fit, for any reason.. Don't like their hairdo? Fine. See if I care. However, that having been said, they using public funds, and they are using public parks. They have publicly stated that their organization won't allow gays on religious grounds - thus any support of that group by the government, is a de facto promotion of it. Promoting a group that limits its membership on religious grounds, amounts to promoting that religion (regardless of what that religion is) and would therefore be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Seeing as you think the ACLU is on the opposite side of religious freedom, I'm taking a wild stab and guessing you're a right wing christian, right?
Religious freedom includes the freedom NOT to be religious. Unfortunately, Christians have a problem with secularism and they have a problem with allowing others to choose their own religion - thus they usually tend to inject their religion into politics, a place where it most decidedly does not belong.
I'm also assuming you're thinking about how the ACLU backs the fight to remove Under God from the pledge of allegiance, to remove In God We Trust from our currency, to oppose prayer in public schools and the removal of the 10 Commandments from government buildings.
If you actually understood what religious freedom was, you'd back the ACLU on that.
You're right, the ACLU does have an agenda: To protect civil rights.
It's not about "their" interpretation, it's about the interpretation as put forth by numerous findings by SCOTUS. You know.. the ones we've been living by up to now. As far as I can see, the only ones who complain about an organization that fights for civil rights are right wingers - who of all people should be against government interference in our lives.
Also, the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." basically says that any right not specified, is considered the people's to decide, not the government's. This is indeed the very core of the states rights issue. Does a state have the right to make laws for itself? Yes, of course, unless those laws violate any other part of the Constitution. Oh, and unless of course the GOP politicians disagree with them. (e.g. Oregon assisted suicide laws, California medical Marijuana laws, etc.)
Apparently, Republicans are all for states rights, as long as they agree with what the states are doing.
RTFA. This makes the ISP a censoring agent of the government, as it is the government that is compelling the ISP to block certain content deemed indecent by the government. Does the ISP receive compensation for this offical activity? No. It gets fined if it doesn't.
If you don't want porn into your computer, then block it. There's plenty of tools out there.
Can I expect the government to order my ISP to block all the Christian spam I've been getting lately? I don't want religious bullshit in my inbox, but I don't go whining to the government about it. I just filter it out. Simple.
The first amendment is under assult any time you have the government ordering certain content filtered at the source based on whatever criteria it may be - it takes the control out of the hands of the end user (you can filter whatever you want, just don't expect the government to do it for you or by proxy, ordering the ISP to do it).
Exactly, this is about YOUR right to block porn from entering YOUR computer. Then how about YOU take the responsibility into YOUR hands and leave the government out of it?
I work for an ISP. Having the government tell us that we must block certain content based on qualifications made by a government official, makes us the de-facto censor on behalf of the government.
If you don't want porn, install Net-Nanny. Don't expect OTHERS to do FOR YOU what YOU WANT.
It's not that they don't like it, it's that they read the whole thing, as opposed to just the second part of it like the NRA does. I.e. the ACLU wants to protect the actual amendment, not just the biased, edited fringe version of it.
It is to protect the 1st Amendment from abuse of power by the legislature - which is exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to do in the first place. The challenge is the function of the ACLU. That's what it does.
The 1st Amendment wasn't about porn, it was about political speech. The founding fathers didn't want a system where the ruling majority could deem something illegal just because it expressed a political viewpoint counter to their own (remind you of someone? the current majority accuses anyone they disagree with of being soft on terrorism and in some cases an outright traitor).
Protecting porn and other expressions of humanity deemed 'indecent' by the ruling majority, are simply a byproduct of the 1st Amendment. The ACLU fights to protect ALL civil liberties, including the 1st Amendment - so, that would include porn. I for one am glad they do, and they'll be getting a check from me this year.
So you have a viable alternative ready to go do you?
Herein lies the problem. As long as gas prices are kept artificially low (we bitch about paying $2 per gallon, while the rest of the world pays $6 per gallon), the development of viable alternatives won't be taken seriously.
However, there are viable alternatives available today - and please note, I'm only talking about cars here. For example: Greasel (vegetable oil used instead of diesel - you can make it at home, so no big corporate support). Bio-Diesel (vegetable oil mixed with methanol used instead of diesel - you can't make it at home, so this is the only thing corporations are even remotely interested in). Electric motors. Using smaller and lighter Lithium-Ion batteries that not only last longer but are also a lot safer than lead based batteries, you can have a full sized family sedan that has a powerful enough motor to reach 60 in 7 seconds, has a top speed of 120mph, yet only needs recharging every 8 hours or every 500 miles, so you could easily use it for all your city driving (even a few short trips outside the city). Lithium-Ion batteries also take less time to charge. And yes, I've been in a car like that. Works very well (the one I was in, was very light weight and could accellerate from 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds).
So, yes, there are alternatives to oil, at least when it comes to powering your car. The other uses of oil are a different story (e.g. rubber, paint, lubrication etc).
Soybean oil can be used for many of the things we currently use fossil oil, but not all. Some have been created which use synthetic materials, such as lubricants. But it will take a concentrated effort of all industries to deal with the absence of oil. However, since we know oil supply is finite, why should we wait until we run out before we develop alternatives? Many of them we already have but haven't developed for the proper uses yet.
Hey, you asked...
And yes, you're right. Propping up the Saudis is not a good idea. I used to say it would bite us in the ass eventually, but it already has, so now I'm just saying I told you so...
If fighting terrorism is going to be the gold standard by which all legislation is now measured, how about we stop importing oil? How about we stop pouring billions annually into financing the people who want to blow us up? That's how much we spend on oil from the middle east. How much of that is used to train terrorists and teach hatred for America?
If we're going to stop the flow of money, why pick only the little things? Let's plug the dyke where it leaks the most. Oil finances more terrorists than drugs, piracy and whatever else you can throw onto that bandwagon, combined.
Isn't it high time we replace these dumbfuck politicians with people who actually work for us, and not the corporations who paid for their campaigns? What is it going to take, America, before we wake up?
Actually, replace "alcohol" with "drugs" and you have a point. File swapping? No.
In one case you're talking about banning something that was legal to begin with. Having, selling, buying, giving or even swapping alcohol doesn't deny its creator payment - unless you stole the bottle, in which case it would be illegal anyway.
In the case of file swapping, even if it's legal, you can violate copyright laws if you're swapping files for which you do not have a distribution license. Not exactly the same thing as not being able to get booze.
But, as I said... that article fits drugs perfectly, and should be enough to show all but the densest people that the war on drugs is a complete failure, overloading our prison system and justice system. But that's off topic here...
You've been attacking me personally for a while now, so I simply felt I'd respond in kind.
I know you mentioned you were from Europe, but you should know that not every country in Europe has the same laws. Or is that news to you?
I believe I have plainly and clearly stated my case, asked provocative questions and posed relevant hypotheticals. Rather than explain WHY and HOW my posts were disagreeable and irrelevant, you continue to answer with "you are a rude jerk" and "you are a kid". See the logic here? You're asked to explain WHY you disagree with something, and you answer with "Because it's wrong, and it's childish". Anyone with an IQ over room temperature can tell you that is not an argument. And in case you were wondering, I have an IQ of 161 which has been repeatedly documented and tested.
You lost this argument after post #2 (it never really was one, as an argument requires reasoning and logic, not name calling and yelling) when you failed to grasp the point I set forth, and then failed to answer any of my questions. In fact, since that original post of yours, you've been too busy with personal attacks to do much of anything.
There's only one thing worse than ignorance, and that's ignorance mixed with arrogance.
You fit that description, and you are a classic example of a troll that will not go away.
Wow, I was wrong. You're not a troll, just an idiot. Do I say that to be mean or rude? Not at all.
Let me explain why I've come to this conclusion.
1. you fail to grasp the idea of analogies. Analogies are perfectly valid ways of explaining things, as it tends to put things in a different perspective that may cause people to rething their stance on a particular issue. 2. you repeatedly misunderstand my statement. I wasn't asking you why a certain law was a certain way. I wasn't even throwing that out as a hypothetical question. I was pointing out inconsistencies between laws already on the books, and laws lawmakers want to create. So when I ask "why is this legal and not this" it has to do with consistency of thought and logic, not why politicians compromised on that particular issue. 3. I never said downloading tv shows from torrent sites was legal. Please point me to the paragraph where I did. I said downloading from a friend is legal, according to the Fair Use clause of the US Copyright Act, provided the material in question was not recorded from a copy protected medium, and that the material was aired for free in your area. The end result is the same as if you had made the copy yourself. The only thing that could be questionable, is if your friend has the right to give you the copy, seeing as he doesn't have a distribution license for the material. 4. you think you're so smug and correct, that you automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you, or gets upset with your tone, has to be a child. 5. Where is 'here'? You've never once stated where you live. We are after all, talking about US Copyright laws here. 6. When you fail to follow analogies, you call them fairytales. I've already explained why analogies are valid, but let me do it again, and in a different way: When you're applying logic to something, you can use an analogy to simplify the explanation. An analogy uses the similarities between two apparently different subjects and applies the same logic to both. Based on the similarities, the outcome in both can be expected to be similar. Analogies are used on IQ tests and SAT tests (SATs are the US High School tests), so apparently someone other than me thinks they're useful. Just because you think they're "almost always wrong and valueless", doesn't mean they are. But of course, you can't possibly be wrong, can you? 7. your answer to almost everything is "that's how the law is" without giving it any thought. I'm not talking about if a given law is correct or not, just making the point that new laws have to take previous laws into account. They cannot be in contradiction lest they make the older laws obsolete. Here, the MPAA and the RIAA wants to make the new laws so that they contradict the older laws, because they don't like the older laws. The problem with that is, similar laws about OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCTS are in a screaming contradiction as well. So if you're going to accept the reasoning that it's good for one section of the corporate world, why is the same not good for another? Which of course is what begs the question I asked "what is the difference" to which you replied: "one is illega, not the other" which was such a complete demonstration of you missing the point that it was simply astounding. That's why I thought you were trolling, and just trying to get a rise out of me.
Is it too much to ask that politicians explain why they pass laws? Or should we just accept them on blind faith? Your "that's just how the law is" attitude seems to suggest that we should.
As I've said numerous times. I'm not complaining about existing laws, I'm trying to point out that new proposals include inconsistencies and contradictions when compared to existing laws on the same damn subject.
Also, I didn't want to pick on you before, but since you did it again, let me point out that 'illegal violation of copyright law' is redundant. Is there ever a legal violation of any law?
Oh, and calling an ignoramus ignorant, is not being rude. It's called pointing out the obvious. You know, like calling a spade a spade. Hey look, that was an analogy!
How was I being rude? By analysing your posting skills and deciding that since nobody can be this ignorant you had to be trolling? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just the logical deduction.
I asked you to explain your position, and you respond with "because one is illegal and the other is not", which did not even approach the subject.
I asked you to explain the difference between the two things I mentioned, and you responded that you just "didn't answer the way" I liked.
The only thing insulting in this thread, is your complete and utter lack of logic and reasoning. You have not responded to any of my questions, you've simply restated your point of view with no explanation whatsoever.
And then you have the balls to tell me you're correcting my miscomprehension?!? Exactly WHAT did you correct? NOTHING. Not a god damn thing.
Please answer the questions posed to you in an adult and logical manner, and not by restating your opinion without further explanation. Please don't evade answering by pretending to be insulted when someone calls you on your lack of reasoning.
Every answer from you seems to have been devised specifically to irritate and to avoid the subject at hand, using answers that don't tackle the question, but are rather devised to claim intellectual superiority by saying the questions are irrelevant. By definition this makes you a troll - or at the very least an extremely annoying person. Please prove me wrong by answering the questions posed to you, in an adult manner, using logic and reasoning and not attitude. Simplify your answers if you must (I usually try to make analogies that can make people see things from points of view they're not used to, hence the liquor license analogy, which you just brushed off without thinking, completely ignoring the fact that consumers are NOT held responsible for buying liquor from unlicensed vendors unless it can be proven that the consumer knew they were unlicensed before the purchase), but make sure you answer the questions.
Please prove that you're not a troll, by participating in this thread with logic and reasoning, and not arrogance and ignorance.
One is illegal, one is not. That's not an answer. Why is one illegal and not the other? What is the DIFFERENCE that makes one illegal and not the other?
So you're basically saying it's illegal for me to give a friend a VHS tape of last night's Desperate Housewives? She missed it, I have it on tape, and so for her that's just tough noogies that I'm not allowed to give her the tape? Please... If it's illegal to give her a digital copy via private ftp, then surely giving her an analog copy can't be legal either. The end result is the same.
You also conveniently ignored my liquor license comparison. What do you think about that? Should the consumer be held responsible for not having verified the validity of the vendor's liquor license? If no, then why should you be held responsible for having unknowingly purchased illegally distributed copyrighted material? What is it about copyrighted material that makes it more special than other purchases?
My original statement was referring to the act of making a backup copy of a show you've recorded off of TV. Either you, or he, or both, may think I was referring to the act of downloading from unlicensed sources. Perhaps I wasn't clear on that. The point I was making, was that while you have the right to make the copy, you're not violating copyright by having someone else do the legwork for you, when you yourself have the right to do said legwork (and so does the other guy). The only thing that is legally debatable here is whether or not you're allowed to help a friend out in that way (if he can do it legally and for free himself, why can't you do it legally and for free on his behalf?). Does that act make you a distributor, if the recipient had full free access to the same material but missed it? The downloading part of the equation, is still not morally wrong, and cannot even be considered stealing, if we're talking about broadcast TV (paid cable is different, at least morally, as you've paid for it, while he may not have). However, when you download or even get a copy from a friend, you're getting material from an unlicensed distributor, and that's the only legal issue at hand from the point of view of the recipient as far as I'm concerned, but then again IANAL.
What's the difference between me recording something on DVD off TV and giving a friend a copy of it, versus me recording it, making an Xvid and allowing a friend to ftp to my computer and download it directly? What is the difference?
Of course, the above scenario isn't really a fair one, as I'm not making it publicly available. However, if I were to do so, the only one violating copyright is me. Do you, as a consumer, have the legal responsibility to make sure the vendor you get your downloadable content from is a fully licensed vendor? Isn't that a bit like you being arrested for buying illegal booze from the corner liquor store if they're selling without a liquor license unbeknownst to you?
These things need to be debated and discussed. Otherwise, the MPAA will just ride roughshod over American consumers.
According to the ruling in the now infamous Sony vs. Universal (aka the Betamax case) in 1984, recording a TV broadcast for personal use is not copyright infringement, but fair use.
I don't know about the laws in many countries in Europe except the one where I was born, but here in the USA, recording shows off TV is not illegal.
How? Well, that's the core of this issue, isn't it?
If I have a DVD-Recorder, I can use that to make a perfect digital copy of a particular tv show. After having done so, I can legally make a backup copy of that digital recording for my personal use (it does not have any copy protection either, so there's no DMCA violation either). If I choose to compress that copy into a more managable format, such as Xvid, I have every right to do that. It works better on my Media Center and it uses less disk space.
Now, let's assume for sake of argument, that I either miss the show, or I forget to record it. I can call up a friend, who wastes gas getting in his car, driving to my place and handing me the DVD he made using his DVD-Recorder. Since the medium is exactly the same I would have used, I make a copy and he takes his copy home with him. Or, I can wander online and find a digital copy of the show I wanted to record. I download it, and add it to my Media Center. And my friend doesn't have to get out of his house.
What's the difference here? The end result is the same - me getting the copy onto my Media Center - so the only obvious difference is that your copy was made by someone other than you (either your friend, or some stranger in cyberspace). You simply skipped the steps of recording it and re-encoding and just downloaded it instead.
Technically, what you have done is not wrong and does not violate copyright, as it is still for your personal use. However - and here is where you're right - since there are no legal sources to do this online, you've violated copyright by aquiring the material from an unlicensed source (whether it's from your friend or an online source). The downloading and storing isn't what's illegal. It's where you got it.
Which brings me to my point.
Until the asshats who run these businesses offer us a viable alternative to piracy (and no, I don't mean releasing DVDs a year after the show airs), we (people) will continue downloading.
The film and tv industry better learn a lesson from the music industry. They sat on their hands for years while people shared music online. Today, they're making millions on online music stores like iTunes and others. If only they'd done that sooner... then again, if they had, they wouldn't have had all the free publicity that came with the Napster case.
The same thing seems to be happening with film and tv. Copyright owners are so scared that people will pirate their digital copies, they sit by and sell nothing, while people pirate their digital copies! Makes no sense. If you offer your food for sale rather than sit on it, almost all will stop stealing it. But the demand will always be there. Theft will still continue, but you'll be making millions... you can't lose. But of course, you're greedy, so you want all of it. Meanwhile, you're not getting any of it. How does that mentality make sense to anyone with even the slightest understanding of marketing and basic economics?
If the networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) offered their shows on demand through subsription cable systems or for download for a flat monthly fee, the majority of fans would gladly pay a few bucks to get perfect and LEGAL copies of their favorite shows at their leisure (they're already paying upwards of $10 a month for DVRs so spending to watch at your leisure is not a problem).
There will always be piracy. The best the suits can do is stop moping, stop suing and get in on the business model of the future - instant home delivery of entertainment on demand. The only way to fight the pirates, is to meet the demand the pirates are meeting. This is exactly why prohibition didn't work... when people don't get their fix legally, they look elsewhere. But they will get their fix of whatever it is they want, whether it's alcohol, cigarettes, porn or Battlestar Galactica.
I hate to be a prick, but this has to be said... Nothing personal, just pet peeves of mine:
"THERE" refers to a location, as in 'over there'. "THEIR" refers to something which belongs to someone, as in 'their house'.
So, it's not 'there games', it's "their games", and it's not "there house", it's "their house".
And since I'm on the subject, "they're" means "they are", although you didn't make that mistake, but anyone who confuses their and there, will probably mess this one up as well.
Also, ACCEPT means to take something, as in "I accept this gift". It was also a great 80's Metal band. EXCEPT refers to something which differs from the whole, as in "they all died, except one."
Actually, I think Tina Fey on SNL put it best when she said: "If nobody from the future shows up, it's because they already know it sucked."
As far as the multiple timelines vs. single unique timeline argument... I for one favor the multiple timelines theory for one simple reason: A single timeline means everything is predetermined... and I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my own destiny. I'm not saying it's not a valid theory, it is... I just don't like its implications.
Exactly. We're so stuck in our perspective of the universe. We see the world from this tiny little speck of dust in the universe, and we think the rest of the world must behave exactly the same as what we see. Something is moving, thus someone must have pushed it. That's the general consensus among Intelligent Design advocates. So, basically, they're thinking backwards from what we can do. We design complex things, thus all complex things must have a designer.
The Universe is far more complex than any of us will ever even realize simply because there are things we can never see or measure. We'll never figure it out if we continue to measure everything against what we already know and accept as the 'norm'. Well, accepting the norm is what lead us to believe the world was flat. Challenging the norm is what proved it isn't. Abstract thinking is what leads to breakthroughs... thinking inside the box only limits you to what's already in the box.
Basically, the problem I see with creationists, beside the horrific implications of an impending theocracy, is the fact that they're not open to new ideas or reasoning. They start out with a preconceived notion, and then work their way backwards - kinda like Ken Starr.
Scratch an Intelligent Design advocate, and you'll find a devoutly religious creationist whose idea of "supernatural creator" is almost always the judeo-christian God of The Bible.
Thus, they start out from that idea, and since science has proven them wrong on pretty much everything else, they hold on for dear life to the only thing that can't been explained or observed: "the beginning" - that immeasurable moment in which the atoms of the universe started moving.
Of course, it is beyond our comprehension to even imagine something without a beginning or an end. The problem with that is, we tend to ask questions like "what happened before the big bang?". Well, if time is an abstract idea thought up by mankind, in order to explain the relationship between the movements of atomic particles, then we can safely say that there was no "before" before the big bang. Without atomic movement, there is no time. Thus, the question itself is irrelevant and only serves to distract us from explaining what happened afterwards, i.e. evolution (of the world, not just species). When we accept that notion, realizing that something can start by itself without outside influence, is not such a big leap.
I strongly suggest anyone here who has even the slightest interest in the evolution vs. creation argument buy a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine. There have been many great articles about the misconceived notions of evolution, the myths and half-truths about it, and of course, the utter fallacy of creationism.
As you, and others pointed out, anything capable of creating something as complex as the universe, must itself be complex enough to need a designer, setting in motion an endless loop of creations, leaving us no closer to an answer - and probably further from it as our attention has been diverted. ID and creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a disguised attempt to get the book of Genesis back into the public school system. Anything which relies on a catch-all explanation such as a supernatural creator, by definition is not a scientific theory, as the catch-all is an easy out from a situation you cannot explain through other means.
I went back and read through the thread, and I did indeed confuse you with ErikTheRed, who was the one who started the name calling (in a response that came at around the same time as yours). I responded to his first, miffed at his attitude, and then reading your post, which had a condescending know-it-all tone (I've been guilty of the same from time to time), so I kept fuming. Anyway, I apologize for that. I shouldn't let guys like him get to me, but stupidity mixed with a lousy attitude tends to annoy me.
However, I will accept your challenge, since I know I'm right (that's not to say you don't have a valid viewpoint). Look for my answer tomorrow. It's rather late now, so I'm calling it a night.
Slashdot Mirror
Show them an HDTV next to VHS (or even DVD) and they'll care enough to gladly pay the extra price. :P
You don't have to spend that much to get an HDTV these days - and it will make all your TV experiences more enjoyable... including porn
I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I got a refurbished 30" CRT Philips widescreen HDTV for $600 from www.electronicsnation.com and I couldn't be happier about it. I've had it for over a year now, and I can't imagine going back to SD. No way. Xbox looks fantastic on it, even at the low end 480p which most games support.
If you're already spending $3-400 on an SD TV with limited adaptability for future use, why not save up another $2-300 and get a decent HDTV that will last you a lot longer (at least quality wise)?
Not all HDTVs are the $5.000 65" monstrosities you see at Best Buy... although I wouldn't mind having one...
I stand corrected... or sit actually.
But I don't think it has anything to do with them not wanting to open the door for other states to do the opposite.
Besides, none of the Supreme Court Justices are 'liberal'. They're just various shades of conservative.
Isn't removing a reference to God (like from the money) akin to supporting the athiest view of God?
This is interesting, if only to point out the inherent flaw in the reasoning.
No, this does not promote Atheism. This simply follows the 1st Amendment and keeps the government completely and utterly neutral when it comes to religion. Since there are so many religions, and since there are people who are not religious at all, the only way a government can remain neutral, is to never, ever address the issue in any way, shape or form.
To you, not endorsing any religion means endorsing not having a religion.
That's like saying I'm promoting that you don't drink alcohol at all, just because I can't recommend one particular drink over another.
The only way to remain neutral, is not to recommend anything. Including ANY religious symbol in government, is a de-facto endorsment of that religion.
Since Atheism is a non-prophet organization and has no organized structure (being an Atheist simply means you do not believe in a god of any kind - atheist means no god, as opposed to monotheist which means one god or polytheist which means many gods), it's not considered a religion and thus the government would be well within the scope of the Constitution to endorse it if it chose to do so - but it hasn't.
As you said, The Constitution wasn't about banning religion, but neither is the ACLU and neither am I (although there are days when I think it would solve a lot of problems). It was about making sure there would never be a theocracy in this country - which can only be accomplished by removing all religion from government.
As far as I have been able to tell about the recent CA Medical Marijuana case, it wasn't as cynical as you seem to believe it was, and I believe you have it backwards. Liberals don't make decisions like what you described (didn't want to admit another state had the same right - this is a non-argument and assumes "liberal" judges care more about their personal views than they do about the constitution and the law).
Had states rights prevailed in this case, the law would have been confirmed. The reasoning used by the conservative judges to overturn it, was that it violated the Federal ban on marijuana.
Technically, that's correct, but that is in itself a law that needs to be reviewed and repealed, as it is inherently unjust and violates states rights to legislate commerce by itself.
I expected the law to get overturned, and in fact expected them to use this argument, so it wasn't a surprise at all. I'm just glad it got to SCOTUS because it shows how overreaching and ridiculous a federal mandate on a controlled substance really is - because it supercedes states rights.
I'm a liberal, and I don't like the fact that conservatives have turned the word into a derogatory word. Being liberal is one of the best things you can be.
I don't care where you stand fiscally, as long as you're socially liberal (meaning, you don't believe the government has the right to butt into your personal life).
For the record, I'm a Libertarian, so I'm even more consistent in my views than most democrats and most republicans, as both those parties have a lot of wiggleroom in their ideals, which in most cases opens the door for massive hypocracy on a lot of issues.
The Boy Scout issue I also have an opinion on which is perfectly constisten with the foundation of my opinions.
The Boy Scouts, as a private group, has the right to allow or disallow anybody they see fit, for any reason.. Don't like their hairdo? Fine. See if I care.
However, that having been said, they using public funds, and they are using public parks. They have publicly stated that their organization won't allow gays on religious grounds - thus any support of that group by the government, is a de facto promotion of it. Promoting a group that limits its membership on religious grounds, amounts to promoting that religion (regardless of what that religion is) and would therefore be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment.
At least in my opinion.
Seeing as you think the ACLU is on the opposite side of religious freedom, I'm taking a wild stab and guessing you're a right wing christian, right?
Religious freedom includes the freedom NOT to be religious. Unfortunately, Christians have a problem with secularism and they have a problem with allowing others to choose their own religion - thus they usually tend to inject their religion into politics, a place where it most decidedly does not belong.
I'm also assuming you're thinking about how the ACLU backs the fight to remove Under God from the pledge of allegiance, to remove In God We Trust from our currency, to oppose prayer in public schools and the removal of the 10 Commandments from government buildings.
If you actually understood what religious freedom was, you'd back the ACLU on that.
You're right, the ACLU does have an agenda: To protect civil rights.
It's not about "their" interpretation, it's about the interpretation as put forth by numerous findings by SCOTUS. You know.. the ones we've been living by up to now.
As far as I can see, the only ones who complain about an organization that fights for civil rights are right wingers - who of all people should be against government interference in our lives.
Also, the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." basically says that any right not specified, is considered the people's to decide, not the government's. This is indeed the very core of the states rights issue. Does a state have the right to make laws for itself? Yes, of course, unless those laws violate any other part of the Constitution.
Oh, and unless of course the GOP politicians disagree with them. (e.g. Oregon assisted suicide laws, California medical Marijuana laws, etc.)
Apparently, Republicans are all for states rights, as long as they agree with what the states are doing.
RTFA.
This makes the ISP a censoring agent of the government, as it is the government that is compelling the ISP to block certain content deemed indecent by the government. Does the ISP receive compensation for this offical activity? No. It gets fined if it doesn't.
If you don't want porn into your computer, then block it. There's plenty of tools out there.
Can I expect the government to order my ISP to block all the Christian spam I've been getting lately? I don't want religious bullshit in my inbox, but I don't go whining to the government about it. I just filter it out. Simple.
The first amendment is under assult any time you have the government ordering certain content filtered at the source based on whatever criteria it may be - it takes the control out of the hands of the end user (you can filter whatever you want, just don't expect the government to do it for you or by proxy, ordering the ISP to do it).
Exactly, this is about YOUR right to block porn from entering YOUR computer.
Then how about YOU take the responsibility into YOUR hands and leave the government out of it?
I work for an ISP. Having the government tell us that we must block certain content based on qualifications made by a government official, makes us the de-facto censor on behalf of the government.
If you don't want porn, install Net-Nanny.
Don't expect OTHERS to do FOR YOU what YOU WANT.
They don't like the Second at all.
Really?
I suggest you read the ACLU's take on it.
It's not that they don't like it, it's that they read the whole thing, as opposed to just the second part of it like the NRA does. I.e. the ACLU wants to protect the actual amendment, not just the biased, edited fringe version of it.
What good is the ACLU challenge?
It is to protect the 1st Amendment from abuse of power by the legislature - which is exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to do in the first place. The challenge is the function of the ACLU. That's what it does.
The 1st Amendment wasn't about porn, it was about political speech. The founding fathers didn't want a system where the ruling majority could deem something illegal just because it expressed a political viewpoint counter to their own (remind you of someone? the current majority accuses anyone they disagree with of being soft on terrorism and in some cases an outright traitor).
Protecting porn and other expressions of humanity deemed 'indecent' by the ruling majority, are simply a byproduct of the 1st Amendment.
The ACLU fights to protect ALL civil liberties, including the 1st Amendment - so, that would include porn.
I for one am glad they do, and they'll be getting a check from me this year.
So you have a viable alternative ready to go do you?
Herein lies the problem.
As long as gas prices are kept artificially low (we bitch about paying $2 per gallon, while the rest of the world pays $6 per gallon), the development of viable alternatives won't be taken seriously.
However, there are viable alternatives available today - and please note, I'm only talking about cars here.
For example:
Greasel (vegetable oil used instead of diesel - you can make it at home, so no big corporate support).
Bio-Diesel (vegetable oil mixed with methanol used instead of diesel - you can't make it at home, so this is the only thing corporations are even remotely interested in).
Electric motors. Using smaller and lighter Lithium-Ion batteries that not only last longer but are also a lot safer than lead based batteries, you can have a full sized family sedan that has a powerful enough motor to reach 60 in 7 seconds, has a top speed of 120mph, yet only needs recharging every 8 hours or every 500 miles, so you could easily use it for all your city driving (even a few short trips outside the city). Lithium-Ion batteries also take less time to charge. And yes, I've been in a car like that. Works very well (the one I was in, was very light weight and could accellerate from 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds).
So, yes, there are alternatives to oil, at least when it comes to powering your car. The other uses of oil are a different story (e.g. rubber, paint, lubrication etc).
Soybean oil can be used for many of the things we currently use fossil oil, but not all. Some have been created which use synthetic materials, such as lubricants. But it will take a concentrated effort of all industries to deal with the absence of oil.
However, since we know oil supply is finite, why should we wait until we run out before we develop alternatives? Many of them we already have but haven't developed for the proper uses yet.
Hey, you asked...
And yes, you're right. Propping up the Saudis is not a good idea. I used to say it would bite us in the ass eventually, but it already has, so now I'm just saying I told you so...
If fighting terrorism is going to be the gold standard by which all legislation is now measured, how about we stop importing oil?
How about we stop pouring billions annually into financing the people who want to blow us up? That's how much we spend on oil from the middle east. How much of that is used to train terrorists and teach hatred for America?
If we're going to stop the flow of money, why pick only the little things? Let's plug the dyke where it leaks the most. Oil finances more terrorists than drugs, piracy and whatever else you can throw onto that bandwagon, combined.
Isn't it high time we replace these dumbfuck politicians with people who actually work for us, and not the corporations who paid for their campaigns? What is it going to take, America, before we wake up?
I was referring to stealing.
Actually, replace "alcohol" with "drugs" and you have a point.
File swapping? No.
In one case you're talking about banning something that was legal to begin with. Having, selling, buying, giving or even swapping alcohol doesn't deny its creator payment - unless you stole the bottle, in which case it would be illegal anyway.
In the case of file swapping, even if it's legal, you can violate copyright laws if you're swapping files for which you do not have a distribution license. Not exactly the same thing as not being able to get booze.
But, as I said... that article fits drugs perfectly, and should be enough to show all but the densest people that the war on drugs is a complete failure, overloading our prison system and justice system. But that's off topic here...
Listen, Mr. Smarty Pants.
You've been attacking me personally for a while now, so I simply felt I'd respond in kind.
I know you mentioned you were from Europe, but you should know that not every country in Europe has the same laws. Or is that news to you?
I believe I have plainly and clearly stated my case, asked provocative questions and posed relevant hypotheticals.
Rather than explain WHY and HOW my posts were disagreeable and irrelevant, you continue to answer with "you are a rude jerk" and "you are a kid". See the logic here? You're asked to explain WHY you disagree with something, and you answer with "Because it's wrong, and it's childish". Anyone with an IQ over room temperature can tell you that is not an argument.
And in case you were wondering, I have an IQ of 161 which has been repeatedly documented and tested.
You lost this argument after post #2 (it never really was one, as an argument requires reasoning and logic, not name calling and yelling) when you failed to grasp the point I set forth, and then failed to answer any of my questions. In fact, since that original post of yours, you've been too busy with personal attacks to do much of anything.
There's only one thing worse than ignorance, and that's ignorance mixed with arrogance.
You fit that description, and you are a classic example of a troll that will not go away.
Anyway... Go fuck yourself.
Wow, I was wrong. You're not a troll, just an idiot.
Do I say that to be mean or rude? Not at all.
Let me explain why I've come to this conclusion.
1. you fail to grasp the idea of analogies. Analogies are perfectly valid ways of explaining things, as it tends to put things in a different perspective that may cause people to rething their stance on a particular issue.
2. you repeatedly misunderstand my statement. I wasn't asking you why a certain law was a certain way. I wasn't even throwing that out as a hypothetical question. I was pointing out inconsistencies between laws already on the books, and laws lawmakers want to create. So when I ask "why is this legal and not this" it has to do with consistency of thought and logic, not why politicians compromised on that particular issue.
3. I never said downloading tv shows from torrent sites was legal. Please point me to the paragraph where I did. I said downloading from a friend is legal, according to the Fair Use clause of the US Copyright Act, provided the material in question was not recorded from a copy protected medium, and that the material was aired for free in your area. The end result is the same as if you had made the copy yourself. The only thing that could be questionable, is if your friend has the right to give you the copy, seeing as he doesn't have a distribution license for the material.
4. you think you're so smug and correct, that you automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you, or gets upset with your tone, has to be a child.
5. Where is 'here'? You've never once stated where you live. We are after all, talking about US Copyright laws here.
6. When you fail to follow analogies, you call them fairytales. I've already explained why analogies are valid, but let me do it again, and in a different way: When you're applying logic to something, you can use an analogy to simplify the explanation. An analogy uses the similarities between two apparently different subjects and applies the same logic to both. Based on the similarities, the outcome in both can be expected to be similar. Analogies are used on IQ tests and SAT tests (SATs are the US High School tests), so apparently someone other than me thinks they're useful. Just because you think they're "almost always wrong and valueless", doesn't mean they are. But of course, you can't possibly be wrong, can you?
7. your answer to almost everything is "that's how the law is" without giving it any thought. I'm not talking about if a given law is correct or not, just making the point that new laws have to take previous laws into account. They cannot be in contradiction lest they make the older laws obsolete. Here, the MPAA and the RIAA wants to make the new laws so that they contradict the older laws, because they don't like the older laws. The problem with that is, similar laws about OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCTS are in a screaming contradiction as well. So if you're going to accept the reasoning that it's good for one section of the corporate world, why is the same not good for another? Which of course is what begs the question I asked "what is the difference" to which you replied: "one is illega, not the other" which was such a complete demonstration of you missing the point that it was simply astounding. That's why I thought you were trolling, and just trying to get a rise out of me.
Is it too much to ask that politicians explain why they pass laws? Or should we just accept them on blind faith? Your "that's just how the law is" attitude seems to suggest that we should.
As I've said numerous times. I'm not complaining about existing laws, I'm trying to point out that new proposals include inconsistencies and contradictions when compared to existing laws on the same damn subject.
Also, I didn't want to pick on you before, but since you did it again, let me point out that 'illegal violation of copyright law' is redundant. Is there ever a legal violation of any law?
Oh, and calling an ignoramus ignorant, is not being rude. It's called pointing out the obvious. You know, like calling a spade a spade. Hey look, that was an analogy!
How was I being rude? By analysing your posting skills and deciding that since nobody can be this ignorant you had to be trolling? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just the logical deduction.
I asked you to explain your position, and you respond with "because one is illegal and the other is not", which did not even approach the subject.
I asked you to explain the difference between the two things I mentioned, and you responded that you just "didn't answer the way" I liked.
The only thing insulting in this thread, is your complete and utter lack of logic and reasoning. You have not responded to any of my questions, you've simply restated your point of view with no explanation whatsoever.
And then you have the balls to tell me you're correcting my miscomprehension?!? Exactly WHAT did you correct? NOTHING. Not a god damn thing.
Please answer the questions posed to you in an adult and logical manner, and not by restating your opinion without further explanation. Please don't evade answering by pretending to be insulted when someone calls you on your lack of reasoning.
Every answer from you seems to have been devised specifically to irritate and to avoid the subject at hand, using answers that don't tackle the question, but are rather devised to claim intellectual superiority by saying the questions are irrelevant. By definition this makes you a troll - or at the very least an extremely annoying person.
Please prove me wrong by answering the questions posed to you, in an adult manner, using logic and reasoning and not attitude. Simplify your answers if you must (I usually try to make analogies that can make people see things from points of view they're not used to, hence the liquor license analogy, which you just brushed off without thinking, completely ignoring the fact that consumers are NOT held responsible for buying liquor from unlicensed vendors unless it can be proven that the consumer knew they were unlicensed before the purchase), but make sure you answer the questions.
Please prove that you're not a troll, by participating in this thread with logic and reasoning, and not arrogance and ignorance.
It's clear to me that either you're monumentally ignorant on the subject, or you're just trolling.
Seeing how you answer with "just because" and no reasoning whatsoever, I'm going to assume the latter.
Either way, I'm not going to waste more of my time discussing this with you.
One is illegal, one is not.
That's not an answer.
Why is one illegal and not the other?
What is the DIFFERENCE that makes one illegal and not the other?
So you're basically saying it's illegal for me to give a friend a VHS tape of last night's Desperate Housewives? She missed it, I have it on tape, and so for her that's just tough noogies that I'm not allowed to give her the tape?
Please...
If it's illegal to give her a digital copy via private ftp, then surely giving her an analog copy can't be legal either. The end result is the same.
You also conveniently ignored my liquor license comparison. What do you think about that? Should the consumer be held responsible for not having verified the validity of the vendor's liquor license?
If no, then why should you be held responsible for having unknowingly purchased illegally distributed copyrighted material? What is it about copyrighted material that makes it more special than other purchases?
I think this may be a case of misunderstanding.
My original statement was referring to the act of making a backup copy of a show you've recorded off of TV.
Either you, or he, or both, may think I was referring to the act of downloading from unlicensed sources. Perhaps I wasn't clear on that.
The point I was making, was that while you have the right to make the copy, you're not violating copyright by having someone else do the legwork for you, when you yourself have the right to do said legwork (and so does the other guy).
The only thing that is legally debatable here is whether or not you're allowed to help a friend out in that way (if he can do it legally and for free himself, why can't you do it legally and for free on his behalf?). Does that act make you a distributor, if the recipient had full free access to the same material but missed it?
The downloading part of the equation, is still not morally wrong, and cannot even be considered stealing, if we're talking about broadcast TV (paid cable is different, at least morally, as you've paid for it, while he may not have).
However, when you download or even get a copy from a friend, you're getting material from an unlicensed distributor, and that's the only legal issue at hand from the point of view of the recipient as far as I'm concerned, but then again IANAL.
What's the difference between me recording something on DVD off TV and giving a friend a copy of it, versus me recording it, making an Xvid and allowing a friend to ftp to my computer and download it directly?
What is the difference?
Of course, the above scenario isn't really a fair one, as I'm not making it publicly available. However, if I were to do so, the only one violating copyright is me.
Do you, as a consumer, have the legal responsibility to make sure the vendor you get your downloadable content from is a fully licensed vendor? Isn't that a bit like you being arrested for buying illegal booze from the corner liquor store if they're selling without a liquor license unbeknownst to you?
These things need to be debated and discussed. Otherwise, the MPAA will just ride roughshod over American consumers.
According to the ruling in the now infamous Sony vs. Universal (aka the Betamax case) in 1984, recording a TV broadcast for personal use is not copyright infringement, but fair use.
I don't know about the laws in many countries in Europe except the one where I was born, but here in the USA, recording shows off TV is not illegal.
Well, you're right, and you're wrong.
How? Well, that's the core of this issue, isn't it?
If I have a DVD-Recorder, I can use that to make a perfect digital copy of a particular tv show.
After having done so, I can legally make a backup copy of that digital recording for my personal use (it does not have any copy protection either, so there's no DMCA violation either).
If I choose to compress that copy into a more managable format, such as Xvid, I have every right to do that. It works better on my Media Center and it uses less disk space.
Now, let's assume for sake of argument, that I either miss the show, or I forget to record it.
I can call up a friend, who wastes gas getting in his car, driving to my place and handing me the DVD he made using his DVD-Recorder. Since the medium is exactly the same I would have used, I make a copy and he takes his copy home with him.
Or, I can wander online and find a digital copy of the show I wanted to record. I download it, and add it to my Media Center. And my friend doesn't have to get out of his house.
What's the difference here? The end result is the same - me getting the copy onto my Media Center - so the only obvious difference is that your copy was made by someone other than you (either your friend, or some stranger in cyberspace). You simply skipped the steps of recording it and re-encoding and just downloaded it instead.
Technically, what you have done is not wrong and does not violate copyright, as it is still for your personal use.
However - and here is where you're right - since there are no legal sources to do this online, you've violated copyright by aquiring the material from an unlicensed source (whether it's from your friend or an online source). The downloading and storing isn't what's illegal. It's where you got it.
Which brings me to my point.
Until the asshats who run these businesses offer us a viable alternative to piracy (and no, I don't mean releasing DVDs a year after the show airs), we (people) will continue downloading.
The film and tv industry better learn a lesson from the music industry. They sat on their hands for years while people shared music online. Today, they're making millions on online music stores like iTunes and others. If only they'd done that sooner... then again, if they had, they wouldn't have had all the free publicity that came with the Napster case.
The same thing seems to be happening with film and tv. Copyright owners are so scared that people will pirate their digital copies, they sit by and sell nothing, while people pirate their digital copies! Makes no sense.
If you offer your food for sale rather than sit on it, almost all will stop stealing it. But the demand will always be there. Theft will still continue, but you'll be making millions... you can't lose. But of course, you're greedy, so you want all of it. Meanwhile, you're not getting any of it. How does that mentality make sense to anyone with even the slightest understanding of marketing and basic economics?
If the networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) offered their shows on demand through subsription cable systems or for download for a flat monthly fee, the majority of fans would gladly pay a few bucks to get perfect and LEGAL copies of their favorite shows at their leisure (they're already paying upwards of $10 a month for DVRs so spending to watch at your leisure is not a problem).
There will always be piracy. The best the suits can do is stop moping, stop suing and get in on the business model of the future - instant home delivery of entertainment on demand.
The only way to fight the pirates, is to meet the demand the pirates are meeting. This is exactly why prohibition didn't work... when people don't get their fix legally, they look elsewhere. But they will get their fix of whatever it is they want, whether it's alcohol, cigarettes, porn or Battlestar Galactica.
--rant off--
Actually it did, and it unfortunately still does.
As long as people keep making that remarkably stupid mistake, it does indeed need to be mentioned.
I hate to be a prick, but this has to be said...
Nothing personal, just pet peeves of mine:
"THERE" refers to a location, as in 'over there'.
"THEIR" refers to something which belongs to someone, as in 'their house'.
So, it's not 'there games', it's "their games", and it's not "there house", it's "their house".
And since I'm on the subject, "they're" means "they are", although you didn't make that mistake, but anyone who confuses their and there, will probably mess this one up as well.
Also, ACCEPT means to take something, as in "I accept this gift". It was also a great 80's Metal band.
EXCEPT refers to something which differs from the whole, as in "they all died, except one."
That having been said... funny post.
Actually, I think Tina Fey on SNL put it best when she said:
"If nobody from the future shows up, it's because they already know it sucked."
As far as the multiple timelines vs. single unique timeline argument... I for one favor the multiple timelines theory for one simple reason:
A single timeline means everything is predetermined... and I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my own destiny.
I'm not saying it's not a valid theory, it is... I just don't like its implications.
Exactly. We're so stuck in our perspective of the universe. We see the world from this tiny little speck of dust in the universe, and we think the rest of the world must behave exactly the same as what we see.
Something is moving, thus someone must have pushed it. That's the general consensus among Intelligent Design advocates. So, basically, they're thinking backwards from what we can do. We design complex things, thus all complex things must have a designer.
The Universe is far more complex than any of us will ever even realize simply because there are things we can never see or measure. We'll never figure it out if we continue to measure everything against what we already know and accept as the 'norm'.
Well, accepting the norm is what lead us to believe the world was flat. Challenging the norm is what proved it isn't.
Abstract thinking is what leads to breakthroughs... thinking inside the box only limits you to what's already in the box.
Basically, the problem I see with creationists, beside the horrific implications of an impending theocracy, is the fact that they're not open to new ideas or reasoning. They start out with a preconceived notion, and then work their way backwards - kinda like Ken Starr.
Scratch an Intelligent Design advocate, and you'll find a devoutly religious creationist whose idea of "supernatural creator" is almost always the judeo-christian God of The Bible.
Thus, they start out from that idea, and since science has proven them wrong on pretty much everything else, they hold on for dear life to the only thing that can't been explained or observed: "the beginning" - that immeasurable moment in which the atoms of the universe started moving.
Of course, it is beyond our comprehension to even imagine something without a beginning or an end. The problem with that is, we tend to ask questions like "what happened before the big bang?".
Well, if time is an abstract idea thought up by mankind, in order to explain the relationship between the movements of atomic particles, then we can safely say that there was no "before" before the big bang. Without atomic movement, there is no time. Thus, the question itself is irrelevant and only serves to distract us from explaining what happened afterwards, i.e. evolution (of the world, not just species).
When we accept that notion, realizing that something can start by itself without outside influence, is not such a big leap.
I strongly suggest anyone here who has even the slightest interest in the evolution vs. creation argument buy a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine. There have been many great articles about the misconceived notions of evolution, the myths and half-truths about it, and of course, the utter fallacy of creationism.
As you, and others pointed out, anything capable of creating something as complex as the universe, must itself be complex enough to need a designer, setting in motion an endless loop of creations, leaving us no closer to an answer - and probably further from it as our attention has been diverted.
ID and creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a disguised attempt to get the book of Genesis back into the public school system.
Anything which relies on a catch-all explanation such as a supernatural creator, by definition is not a scientific theory, as the catch-all is an easy out from a situation you cannot explain through other means.
I went back and read through the thread, and I did indeed confuse you with ErikTheRed, who was the one who started the name calling (in a response that came at around the same time as yours).
I responded to his first, miffed at his attitude, and then reading your post, which had a condescending know-it-all tone (I've been guilty of the same from time to time), so I kept fuming.
Anyway, I apologize for that. I shouldn't let guys like him get to me, but stupidity mixed with a lousy attitude tends to annoy me.
However, I will accept your challenge, since I know I'm right (that's not to say you don't have a valid viewpoint).
Look for my answer tomorrow. It's rather late now, so I'm calling it a night.
To be continued...