It's because the public has been conditioned to think that no one is getting screwed, when in fact the creators are getting screwed. Actually, I think realize that the creators of the music are getting scrwed and the consumers are of the music are getting screwed. The RIAA likes to give it to both ends.
That's their right, it's still a good step. Most companies hold onto the source of their software far after it's making them any profits. Most companies don't even release their source even after they stop distributing it. I guess they think it's better for it to rot on a shelf somewhere than to give it away.
If the world has really progressed to the point where sharing simple knowledge is no longer safe, then we have a worse problem than simply being locked out of the content of some video disks. You must be new here. Welcome to out planet.
Yeah, sadly we do have many much worse problems than being locked out of the content of some video disks. That's just another small symptom of how truly far we've come from the enlightened government our founders intended for us to have.
Since we know that our hydrocarbon economy is bad because of Carbon Dioxide, does that then disprove the abiogenic oil theory?
Also coral can't be a mechanism in the abiogenic theory for sequestering carbon in the ocean because that coral is biological and hence any theory using it would be biogenic.
I'd say it's a little more than a technicality. If the RIAA can't be bothered to gather the appropriate evidence before raising allegations against someone then the case should be thrown out. The burden of evidence is on them to prove any wrongdoing was committed.
So where is the option for us to upgrade to a service that doesn't block other apps? The $30 internet plan available for smartphone's is given as an option for my Razr. Yeah, the T-Zones service is cheap and I'd gladly pay more some more for a less restrictive plan, but they aren't offering one.
Up until last week Google maps and Gmail both worked on my T-Mobile branded phone. Now they don't. No FUD, they really didn't just start blocking this stuff.
I just switched from Verizon to T-Mobile three weeks ago to get away from bullshit like this. Fuck them. I though they were supposed to be the US carrier that sucked the least, now who can you go to?
Who said anything about having no evidence? Me. I will continue to say it until any evidence is presented.
If a god can exist who can speak in a trustworthy manner, then it is possible for revelation to be rational. Sure it's possible for it to be rational, but you can't actually say it is rational unless you can prove that that god exists. Would it be rational for someone to believe me if I said that the FSM has revealed to me the recipe for the best tomato sauce in the universe? If you can't prove that the FSM doesn't exist then you have to admit it's possible for that revelation to be rational, right?
I do believe that such a God exists and that therefore revelation is definitely rational when it is received from him If you believe God exists instead of objectively knowing it, doesn't that conflict with it being a rational belief? Now not everything has to be rational, humans are emotional beings. But just don't try and say something is rational when it's not. For instance I'll be the first to admit I behave like an irrational fool when it comes to certain women. It may be far from my ideal of how I should be, but I accept it nevertheless.
Your lack of trust...is a poor decision as it rests on the unfounded assumption that the existence of spiritual beings cannot and will not be supported by evidence. It is enough to know that people aren't always reliable to entirely discount one individuals word as the extraordinary evidence required to prove an extraordinary claim such as that a spirtual being is communicating with them. And yes, it is an extraordinary claim until you present some objective evidence that the the spiritual beings exist.
The Christian position is that we trust the Bible to be revealed word of God because Jesus Christ declared it to be so and he himself is a trustworthy source I understand the concept of Biblical infallibility, I grew up in a fundamentalist household and practiced the faith until my early 20's. The claim of infallibility is what is know as begging the question. Let's say I claim to be infallible. Would you believe me? If not, why not? Obviously because I'm infallible it must be true. See any problems with that argument? It's the same with the Bible, sure it claims to be infallible but what if the verse that makes that claim was a mistake?
Once again, you pose a false dichotomy. I can attest to the truth of revelation if I know the revealer to be both trustworthy and knowledgeable, regardless of my own ability to vary the revelation independently. Revelation can sometimes be varified independently, but it is not a pre-requisite for it.
How many biblical prophets do you know well enough that you can trust their revelations to be true? Of course you need to equally trust anyone who has copied or translated their revelations on the way to the book on your nightstand. That's not the biggest problem with your argument however.
Revealed knowledge cannot necessarily be arrived at by means of deductive reasoning, but that doesn't make it irrational.
You'll have a hard time arguing that it is rational to believe someone when they claim to have received communication from a spiritual being which they can offer no evidence of.
I would not trust someone who claimed to have received a spiritual revelation no matter how much I trust them. Humans are provably unreliable. The difference between what we sense as external perceptions as opposed to fabrications of our mind can at times be razor thin if that. This is not the case only for so called unreliable people, it's just a result of the way a normal mind works.
Not so hard to find, there's one living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC. Check in with him & his boss, Dick. Bush I believe, but most of them are only interested in Christianity as a tool to manipulate their base.
And that is completely aside from the point. The reason land lines are on their way out is because of the convenience of cell phones, not because of the closed cell phone networks.
True, but they couldn't have made a useful network without the government's assistance. If everyone was able to their own radio devices and broadcast one whatever frequencies they wanted then the airwaves would be a useless mess. The government has put regulations in place in order for radio to be a usable medium and exchange people and companies who are given license to broadcast on part of the spectrum have to play by the governments rules. It's a fair trade I'd say.
I'm familiar with Bugs bunny and that's not what I'm talking about. My source is my Muslim coworker, it came up in conversation just last week. Regardless about two minutes of googling will reveal plenty of verifcation such as here, here, here, here, and here.
The cartoon depiction of angels on our shoulders did come to my mind when we were discussing it. The popular notion is not the same as in Islam since they are influencing your actions, not recording them. However Islam has been around for a long time, it may well be the source of that cartoon cliche.
HD video and surround sound in a book format? I'm not so sure about that.
Interestingly enough Islam is as amazingly prophetic as Christianity by your standards. Islam tradition features a similar concept where you have an angel on each shoulder, one who records all your good deeds and one that records all your bad deeds. At the end of your life the notes are put on a balance to judge you.
I would imagine the concept of recording your life is common in any religion which features some sort of end of the life judgment. Without such a thing, where would the evidence come from that you are being judged on?
I respect your opinion, I don't really think people aren't entitled to differing opinions. If there was no dissent then progress would never be made because new ideas would never be put forward. I just tend to have little patience with the global warming nay-sayers because it seems like almost all of them are dissenting because it benefits them economically or politically, not because of any factual merits of their position. Maybe I just follow the news to much. I agree there is obviously room, and in fact a need for well backed scientific dissent. Even if it's wrong, we all gain from the criticism. Sadly the politically motivated dissenters benefit no one but themselves.
That's my position, sorry if I came across a bit ornery.
One could say the same about Unix derivatives. New == Good is a fallacy. I thought he was talking about Unix derivatives. OS X being the slick new interface.
This is what Occam's Razor is for. True, something either a universe or a god exists without a creator. That being said the universe exists and we can prove it, god's existence we can't prove. Therefore until we have reason to believe otherwise, the sensible assumption is that the universe had no creator.
Slashdot Mirror
That's their right, it's still a good step. Most companies hold onto the source of their software far after it's making them any profits. Most companies don't even release their source even after they stop distributing it. I guess they think it's better for it to rot on a shelf somewhere than to give it away.
Yeah, sadly we do have many much worse problems than being locked out of the content of some video disks. That's just another small symptom of how truly far we've come from the enlightened government our founders intended for us to have.
Since we know that our hydrocarbon economy is bad because of Carbon Dioxide, does that then disprove the abiogenic oil theory?
Also coral can't be a mechanism in the abiogenic theory for sequestering carbon in the ocean because that coral is biological and hence any theory using it would be biogenic.
I don't get it, how would it constitute copyright infringement? If it's on the net then it is free for anyone to download.
I'd say it's a little more than a technicality. If the RIAA can't be bothered to gather the appropriate evidence before raising allegations against someone then the case should be thrown out. The burden of evidence is on them to prove any wrongdoing was committed.
Thanks for the tips! I'll look into that.
So where is the option for us to upgrade to a service that doesn't block other apps? The $30 internet plan available for smartphone's is given as an option for my Razr. Yeah, the T-Zones service is cheap and I'd gladly pay more some more for a less restrictive plan, but they aren't offering one.
Up until last week Google maps and Gmail both worked on my T-Mobile branded phone. Now they don't. No FUD, they really didn't just start blocking this stuff.
It started last Wednesday, at least that's when my gmail and google maps last worked.
I just switched from Verizon to T-Mobile three weeks ago to get away from bullshit like this. Fuck them. I though they were supposed to be the US carrier that sucked the least, now who can you go to?
Once again, you pose a false dichotomy. I can attest to the truth of revelation if I know the revealer to be both trustworthy and knowledgeable, regardless of my own ability to vary the revelation independently. Revelation can sometimes be varified independently, but it is not a pre-requisite for it.
How many biblical prophets do you know well enough that you can trust their revelations to be true? Of course you need to equally trust anyone who has copied or translated their revelations on the way to the book on your nightstand. That's not the biggest problem with your argument however.Revealed knowledge cannot necessarily be arrived at by means of deductive reasoning, but that doesn't make it irrational.
You'll have a hard time arguing that it is rational to believe someone when they claim to have received communication from a spiritual being which they can offer no evidence of.I would not trust someone who claimed to have received a spiritual revelation no matter how much I trust them. Humans are provably unreliable. The difference between what we sense as external perceptions as opposed to fabrications of our mind can at times be razor thin if that. This is not the case only for so called unreliable people, it's just a result of the way a normal mind works.
You're not wrong. Some are true believers but most who use religion to gain influence probably aren't, that's pretty much what I was getting at.
And that is completely aside from the point. The reason land lines are on their way out is because of the convenience of cell phones, not because of the closed cell phone networks.
True, but they couldn't have made a useful network without the government's assistance. If everyone was able to their own radio devices and broadcast one whatever frequencies they wanted then the airwaves would be a useless mess. The government has put regulations in place in order for radio to be a usable medium and exchange people and companies who are given license to broadcast on part of the spectrum have to play by the governments rules. It's a fair trade I'd say.
What if your only choicies are a Ford and Ford gas or a Chevy and Chevy gas?
I'm sure they thought of that and put an EULA on the website that says you agree to not let anyone watch while you vote.
I'm familiar with Bugs bunny and that's not what I'm talking about. My source is my Muslim coworker, it came up in conversation just last week. Regardless about two minutes of googling will reveal plenty of verifcation such as here, here, here, here, and here.
The cartoon depiction of angels on our shoulders did come to my mind when we were discussing it. The popular notion is not the same as in Islam since they are influencing your actions, not recording them. However Islam has been around for a long time, it may well be the source of that cartoon cliche.
HD video and surround sound in a book format? I'm not so sure about that.
Interestingly enough Islam is as amazingly prophetic as Christianity by your standards. Islam tradition features a similar concept where you have an angel on each shoulder, one who records all your good deeds and one that records all your bad deeds. At the end of your life the notes are put on a balance to judge you.
I would imagine the concept of recording your life is common in any religion which features some sort of end of the life judgment. Without such a thing, where would the evidence come from that you are being judged on?
I respect your opinion, I don't really think people aren't entitled to differing opinions. If there was no dissent then progress would never be made because new ideas would never be put forward. I just tend to have little patience with the global warming nay-sayers because it seems like almost all of them are dissenting because it benefits them economically or politically, not because of any factual merits of their position. Maybe I just follow the news to much. I agree there is obviously room, and in fact a need for well backed scientific dissent. Even if it's wrong, we all gain from the criticism. Sadly the politically motivated dissenters benefit no one but themselves.
That's my position, sorry if I came across a bit ornery.
Because they all suck, just in different ways. They are a necessary evil however because people still want to have a cell phone.
This is what Occam's Razor is for. True, something either a universe or a god exists without a creator. That being said the universe exists and we can prove it, god's existence we can't prove. Therefore until we have reason to believe otherwise, the sensible assumption is that the universe had no creator.