If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire, then a state may also leave whenever they desire.
If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire
They can't.
Think about it - the people of former-Soviet-Georgia were were/are having their spat with Russia. Imagine they had a vote to join the US. Just for the sake of argument lets say it's even a unanimous vote of the population wanting to join the US. Now consider the US - the US isn't interested in admitting former-Soviet-Georgia to the union. The US isn't interested in a new state way off in the middle of Europe.
Can that state "enter the U.S. [] whenever they desire"?
No. They have no power to alter the makeup or borders of the country. That state has no power to expand nor to diminish the borders of the United States.
A state may ask to join the US, the majority population of that state may vote that they want to join the US, but only the US has the authority to admit territory to itself, or to release its own territory.
Imagine California wanted to buy X-square-miles of territory from Mexico, or California wanted to sell X-square-miles of itself to Mexico. California has no authority to expand nor diminish the US federal government's authority over that land. If California sold half of itself to Mexico, the California government may or may not be able to surrender its own powers over that territory and withdraw enforcement of its own laws over that territory, but it does not have the authority to rescind the jurisdiction and enforcement of federal laws over that territory.
When territory is admitted to the US, the Federal Government has sovereignty over certain matters. That includes the power to create federal law and to enforce federal law over the territory of the nation. That includes the authority to administer and regulate the borders of that federal jurisdiction.
Some people were unhappy with certain federal laws, mainly laws relating to slavery. They wanted to revoke federal authority to enforce those federal laws on that federal territory. Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but I do not think a state has the Constitutional Authority to unilaterally alter the borders of the nation. I do not think California has the authority to add territory to the nation by buying it from Mexico, nor to diminish national sovereignty over territory by selling it to Mexico. These people simply did not like Federal laws on slavery, so they wanted to revoke Federal authority and Federal laws over that territory. A state might be able to rescind itself and it's own jurisdiction, but fail to see how a state can unilaterally vote to alter the extent of the nation and the jurisdiction of Federal law. Can my town vote to secede from my state? Can my town vote to rescind the authority of state jurisdiction and state laws?
how the U.S. was formed
Under a purely legal view, those people were criminals under UK law. They fought the UK government to the point that the UK government chose to surrender sovereignty over the colonies.
In cases of civil war, one can sympathize with the cause and rightness of one side or the other, one can be for or against the rebels fighting to overthrow what they view as an unjust oppressive rule, but I fail to see how you can claim in either case that the rebels had authority-within-the-laws-of-that-rule to alter the borders of that territory. The US rebels did NOT have authority under UK law to alter the borders under which UK law was valid and enforced. The Southern rebels did not have authority under US law to alter the borders under which US Federal law was valid and enforced.
As far as I can see Secession was a just plain invalid argument. The borders of the nation are a subject of national authority. The extent and administration of Federal law falls under Federal jurisdiction.
Forcing the legality of gay marriage in Massachusetts (Mass. supreme court vs. majority of the state's voters, I believe.)
Some people are unfairly jumping on you for that. I agree that is a legitimate example for "the government worked against the will of the people". You merely inspire me to add an addition example where "the government worked against the will of the people".
1967, United States Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia.
Some might call it liberal "activist judges" "legislating from the bench", the Supreme Court imposed interracial marriage upon the entire nation, most definitely against the will of the people. Many states had democratic majority will laws prohibiting it, many states had constitutional bans prohibiting it, and public opinion was more than 73% opposed and less than 20% supporting it.
In fact "democratic majority will" did not reach 50% approval for interracial marriage until 1995 or 1996.
In the US the Constitution is considered to supersede the popular will of the people. The Government acts against the will of the people to protect the Constitutional Rights of the minority against violation by the Popular Will of the people.
Gay marriage is a Guaranteed Right under the US Constitution on the identical argument and identical legal basis as interracial marriage. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. The law cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion. In the interracial marriage court battles people did attempt to claim blacks and whites were treated equally under the law, that everyone had the identical right to marry others of their own race, and that backs and whites were equally restricted and equally punished for violating the law.
Laws banning interracial marriage are invalid under the Constitution because the law is not permitted to examine the races of marriage applicants and use that as a basis to discriminate different treatment under the law, to discriminate which marriage applications to approve and which to prohibit. It is impossible to draft any law granting marriages while excluding interracial marriages without the law examining the races of the marriage applicants. It is impossible to create any valid marriage law excluding interracial marriages.
Laws banning interfaith marriage are invalid under the Constitution because the law is not permitted to examine the religions of marriage applicants and use that as a basis to discriminate different treatment under the law, to discriminate which marriage applications to approve and which to prohibit. It is impossible to draft any law granting marriages while excluding interfaith marriages without the law examining the races of the marriage applicants. It is impossible to create any valid marriage law excluding interfaith marriages.
Laws banning same-sex marriage are invalid under the Constitution because the law is not permitted to examine the genders of marriage applicants and use that as a basis to discriminate different treatment under the law, to discriminate which marriage applications to approve and which to prohibit. It is impossible to draft any law granting marriages while excluding same-gender marriages without the law examining the genders of the marriage applicants. It is impossible to create any valid marriage law excluding same-gender marriages.
Interracial marriage was against the democratic popular will of the people, just as gay marriage is against the democratic popular will of the people. However gay marriage has far more public acceptance than interracial marriage did when it was "imposed" by the courts. Nationwide full acceptance of gay marriage is currently more than double what acceptance of interracial marriage was when it was established - it's now topping 40%. And if you drop the word "marriage" from the issue, two-thirds support equal gay marriage rights under the label "civil unions". Opposition to gay marriage is falling at a staggering rate - a couple of percent per year - many times faster than op
I see a bit of a clash between your affirmative view for asking about local churches and your warning that "Asking about local sports teams is useless unless you know for a fact that everyone on the board is going to deal with sports". It particularly clashes that you seem to so completely miss that issue for churches. Chuckle.
I red the law. Plenty of people have linked it on here.
The law says that people can send infringement accusation letters, and that these letters have official legal status. The law says that ISPs must institute a policy of terminating the repeatedly accused.
There is an unknown in that the law expects future regulations - currently undefined - for what information must be included in these letters. But that unknown doesn't much matter here. It's merely a list of what must be listed in the accusation letter.
It seems you are going according to the article, and the industry spin in that article, and I'm going according to what the law actually says. For example the industry spokesman says:
I agree with the proposition that users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence.
Well gee, that's nice. I might CARE, except nothing of the sort appears in the law.
Everything the industry spokesman said was a vacuous load of crap. For fun I'll run down the list of everything he said in the article.
Some people have suggested the new law would mean people keeping tabs on what internet sites people visit or monitoring people's email. That is not true.
Some people said that this would lead to the Anti-Christ and the apocalypse. Has anyone ever claimed any of those things? It's stupid and false. I've never heard anyone make such stupid complaints, and even if there does exist some idiot out there saying such a thing, they don't matter. It's a dirty lying tactic trying try to smear legitimate critics with legitimate complaints as loons with ridiculous complaints. I have never heard anyone object to this law with those crazy objections, and it doesn't matter if some idiot did. It's spin, it's a dirty smear tactic.
Others suggest that under the draft code of conduct designed to implement the law people will be summarily thrown off the internet for downloading a couple of unlicensed files. That is also not true.
The only way he can say it's "not true" is that he means they aren't planning on going after people just for "a couple of unlicensed files". That is what the law does, it just doesn't do it on the first accusation, and the music industry "merely" intend to go after people with the largest number of files and work their way down. The law absolutely does allow them to file notices against someone for single file infringement, he's just saying they aren't planning to actually use the law if it's just one or just a few.
What would happen is simple. Right holders could log on to public file-sharing sites, just as anyone can, and note which IP addresses are being used to upload pre-release music or films or large amounts of copyright-infringing material.
They intend to compile lists of addresses they think are guilty of infringement. We know for a fact and from experience that such lists contain errors. Read what he wrote - he is assuming guilt upon accusation.
They would then prepare evidence, complete with details of the names of the copyrighted files being uploaded, exact timestamps and the protocol used, and send it to the relevant ISP.
"Preparing evidence" sounds swell, but the entirety of the evidence they are talking about are their local data, we think we saw this address infringing this file at this time. And we know for a fact from experience that there are a huge number of problems and mistakes in that. Problems in their data collection, wrong addresses, completely innocent files with FILENAMES that trip their guilt-triggers, files that appear to be shared that are in fact not available, or even completely accurate "evidence" accusing someone in situations where in fact no infringement has been committed.
"Preparing evidence" amounts to little more than the accusation itself. We think we saw something that looked to us like infringement, and at our end it looked like filename X at time Y from I
First first, I want to give you a nod for "[theists] traded the problem of knowing what's good for the problem of knowing what God wants". I appreciate that level of insight and objectivity and reason. Most people who raise the atheism-morality question tend to be.... well lets just say they tend to be rather-less-than-humble about knowing what God wants:)
Let me start by summarizing the basic issue, as I see it.
Some people believe that good and evil, morality, that they are inextricably bound to God. There are various ways to try to define/describe the connection between God and Goodness/morality, but the key point being that without God it is either impossible to know what is good/moral, or that good/moral would cease to exist without God.
Some people believe that we cannot have or know a system of right and wrong if it is not given to us by God. That atheists cannot have such a system and cannot be moral, without getting that system from God. Some people even have the extreme position - and I'm specifically not accusing you here - some people even have the extreme position that atheists *cannot* be good and moral, even if the atheist's behavior happened to exactly match up with the morality-from-God.
I believe that all religions were created by humans. For example I believe Jesus almost certainly existed, and that he was a great philosopher and great teacher. That he taught much great wisdom and morality - of human origin. That while religions are fiction, they are woven with human truths and human wisdom and human teaching and human morality.
In the improbable case that some sort God God does exist, I believe that none of the warring religions on earth are holding His Magic Instruction Book. If a God did hand down that sort of divine scripture, I'm sure it would be self-evidently far above and beyond all of the false scriptures crafted by humans. The truly Divine scripture would quickly persuade people, and we wouldn't have all these religions squabbling endlessly. No religion on earth, no scripture on earth, has more than 33% of global population behind it. Any truly Divine scripture wouldn't be failing so badly as to be stuck at less than one-third when competing against the "mere fiction" of the false religions.
At this point I would like to point out that the various religions across the earth - from Christians to Native Americans to Buddhists to Wiccans to Hindus and on and on and on - they all come to largely the same agreement on morality. There are differences in detail, but they draw the same picture. They all come to basically the same set of criminal laws, and largely the same set of social values of honesty and kindness and generosity (vs lies cruelty geed), and on and on. And they are pretty well the same set atheists come to.
So even if one religion does have a Magic Instruction Book from God, it seems that humans inventing all of the other False religions managed to create basically the same definition of morality as well. It's not just atheists. Between reason and human nature, virtually all humans tend to generate the same basic morality framework.
I plan to come back and answer the questions you asked last post, but I neeeed sleeeeeep:)
But first let me leave you with a sort of puzzle to mull over. The puzzle actually holds some deep insights to answering your questions.
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. How should the prisoners act?
There are exceptions of course, but yeah, statistics show that rural-urban is by far the single physical trait most correlated with views. Whether you call it Red vs Blue, or Republican vs Democrat, or deeply-religious-worldview vs secular-worldview, it is very highly correlated with rural vs urban life. Even in the Bluest of states, the far rural areas "vote Red". Even in the Reddest of states, the biggest urban centers "vote Blue".
You can see the effect in this map for example. Population density is scaled as hight, and the 2004 presidential vote percentages are represented in red-purple-blue. Population-dense areas are consistently blue, population-sparse areas are consistently red. The biggest problem with the map is that the statistics are gathered at the county level. A dense city dominating a large sparse county will have the appearance of being sparse & blue.
I don't know much about the megachurches, but looking nationally the rural-urban factor is strong and fairly consistent.
No I didn't. I am no more "anti-Christian" than I am "anti-Jew".
Somehow you've turned freedom of religion into freedom from religion.
No I didn't.
You may not USE FORCE OR VIOLENCE to violate someone else's rights. You may not USE FORCE OR VIOLENCE to violate someone else's religious freedom. Freedom mean freedom from force and violence.
Go ahead, lets hear you be psychotic enough to disagree.
The only way that my my position can be read as "freedom from religion" is if your "religion" is to point guns at people trying to forcibly impose your religion upon them. And in that case you're a talibanabe. A Taliban-wannabe. Yes, I do claim "freedom from" violent asshats.
As you readily, but carelessly admit several times, if Native American religious practice were more common, you would be against that as well.
No I didn't.
I said *IF* Native Americans were to do something stupid like undermine public school class and attempt to insert Animal Spirit Guides in its place, that I would be against that.
I cannot say with certainty what Native Americans would or wouldn't do if they were the overwhelming majority of the population, but I would hope they would not try to use violence or force to impose their religion upon others, I would hope they would not want to undermine science. And if they don't do those things, then I don't really have a problem with them. I think animal spirit guides are *silly*, just as I expect you consider animal spirit guides silly, but in general people's odd hobbies are their own business. I don't have a problem with other people's odd personal beliefs and odd hobbies so long as those personal beliefs and odd hobbies do not involve the use of force against me.
I'll reiterate, I am not a Christian.
I didn't dispute it. Are you brain damaged?
Why are you repeating it? Why do you think it is even relevant? It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or Wiccan or anything else.
"Christian" has absolutely no special relevance to this entire subject, other than my point that in the US Christians happen to be the only ones in a democratic position to vote for the use of GOVERNMENT FORCE in ways that might violate the Constitutionally protected rights of others. If atheists were the overwhelming majority, they would be the ones in a position to vote for the use of government force in ways that might violate the Constitutionally protected rights of others. And if they did attempt it, I would expect the courts to smack it down just as the courts currently smack down governmental attempts to establish prayer in public schools.
Separation of Church and State means that a Christian public school principal cannot use his governmental power to promote prayer by students.
Separation of Church and State means that an atheist public school principal cannot use his governmental power to suppress prayer by students.
And of course it also means a Muslim public school principal cannot attempt to establish 5-times-a-day Islamic prayer schedule.
All of the above is true, no matter what religion you are. Are you seriously going to argue that the force of government CAN be wielded as a weapon for religious oppression, that the force of government can be wielded respecting establishment of a favored religion or favored religious beliefs or favored religious practice? Are you seriously going to argue some position other than the school prayer position above?
I did go to Catholic school, but it was a good school and they never force their beliefs on anyone. To the contrary, the religion class studied all the major religions. And, and, and not once were those religions portrayed in a negative light.
I don't understand what your point is in any of that.
The issue is when government officials violate people's rights. The issue is when people abuse the FORCE and powers of government for the pu
When you are discussing law, please don't go around making random shit up just because that is how you'd like to presume it should work.
I mainly know US copyright law so lets start there - in certain cases recognize an implied license. I'm I'm the copyright holder and I offer some content on the internet, there's generally an implied license for you to create a copy of it on your harddrive when I let you download it. However it would still be copyright infringement for you to create a derivative work from my content, it would still be copyright infringement for you to create and distribute new copies, and it would still be copyright infringement for you to engage in a public display / public performance of my work. So even if I post my content for download, even if I offer a torrent of it, I can still accuse you of infringing my work in a variety of ways. If I offered a torrent then there would likely be an implied license to redistribute, but derivative works and public performance would still be infringement.
And here's a fun note - lets say I have an icon on my website. Someone from the Slashdot staff comes across it, likes it, and uses it as one of the section icons on the main Slashdot webpage. You then browse Slashdot, and wind up making a copy of it on your harddrive. Under US law I can sue you for infringement. You could put up a defense that you are an "innocent infringer", and the burden is upon you to prove your "innocent infringer" status in court, and if you do prove that status then the court is permitted to lower the damages to $200 per infringement. If Slashdot had copied a dozen icons from me, you as an "innocent infringer" would by law be subject to $2400 minimum in damages to me. Yes, that is as broken as it sounds. Copyright law is seriously fuxored, millions of people every day are technically subject to billions in "innocent infringer" damages for the routine webbrowsing and trivial incidental infringements that may exist in websites. In fact most other countries' copyright laws are technically even more fuxored that US copyright law. The only reason existing copyright law is tolerated is because it is virtually never actually enforced. If existing US copyright law were strictly enforced, not only would we all be subject to staggering damages for "innocent infringer" infringements, but in fact tens of millions of ordinary Americans would be in prison on felony criminal copyright infringement. Under the NET Act essentially everyone who has ever touched P2P, and more, are technically subject to felony criminal copyright infringement. The NET act carries a sneaky clause that takes tens of millions of ordinary non-commercial individuals, and slams them into the commercial copyright infringement criminal category.
So, back to the original point about this New Zealand law. As I indicated above someone can send you a file and still accuse you of derivative-work-infringement or accuse you of public-performance-infringement, or accuse you of redistribution-infringement. However both US takedown-notice law and New Zealand ISP-cutoff-notice law are even worse than that. It doesn't matter if you you even have my file or not. I can write a poem and I can accuse you of infringing my copyright in that poem, and it doesn't matter that you aren't infringing my copyright. It doesn't matter that the files you are distributing are actually photos of your children. It doesn't matter that you have never even seen my poem. Under US law I can truthfully assert under penalty of perjury that I am indeed the copyright holder, and my accusation that you are infringing my copyright is *NOT* under penalty of perjury or anything else. Under US law I can truthfully claim a copyright on my poem, and have your website taken down with a completely bogus claim of infringement. The New Zealand law still needs to have some regulatory details filled in, but yeah, I can make a totally bogus claim that you are infringing the copyright in my poem, and get your internet cut off.
what precautions there are in the law against abuse? If I complain that I saw Mr. Smith sharing stuff copyrighted by me, what would be the consequences?
I'm not a lawyer, but reading copyright law and reading court rulings is a geek-hobby of mine. The law contains absolutely no penalty at all.
Section 92D(a) indicates that some additional regulations will need to be written to supplement this law, regulations detailing what information must be included in a notice of infringement. It is possible that some of the required information may implicitly carry a penalty for falsification. For example under US law certain portions of comparable notices require a statement indicating truth under penalty of perjury. I can't say for certain, but it might be possible to for the future regulations to specify that sort of thing as one of the "pieces of information" that must be included in a notice.
Note however that even if they were to write such a detail into the those future regulations, it would almost certainly be done in a manner equivalent to the the US notice requirements. Remember how I said in US law some portions of the notice are must be affirmed true under penalty of perjury? Well, it's the statement that you *are* the copyright holder on *something*. For example if I claimed to be the copyright holder on the movie Star Wars and that you were distributing files infringing my copyright, I would be in deep perjury do-do for falsely claiming I had the copyright on Star Wars. However the perjury penalty does *NOT* apply to the portion where I accuse you of violating my copyright. In fact the files you are distributing Star Wars. Your files could be photos of your infant son. Or you might not even be distributing any files at all.
So under US law I have to truthfully assert a copyright on something. For example I could assert my copyright on this very text. That assertion is under penalty of perjury, and it is absolutely true. I can then accuse you of infringing this copyrighted text - totally bogus. That allegation is *NOT* under any penalty of law. In fact it doesn't matter if you've never seen this text and never even come within a hundred miles of it. I could leave this text sitting on my harddrive un-posted, and I could send of a notice accusing Barack Obama's website of infringing this text.
Securing your wireless connection from abuse by your neighbors is just common sense.
That's impossible. You can deny your neighbors any use of your wireless connection at all, but if there were some way to just secure it against abuse then your ISP could just do exactly the same thing in the first place and secure your internet connection against abuse.
As far as I know, copyright infringement is not a crime yet in any country.
Does US law count?
Our copyright laws are literally being written by lawyers working for the publishing industry. As if congress wasn't already enough in the pocket of industry passing whatever they want, the industry lawyers drop trick clauses into bills to snatch even more than congress already gives them. The NET Act was presented as updating copyright law for the digital age, and criminalizing digital commercial copyright infringement. (Commercial copyright infringement has pretty well always had criminal penalties). They slipped in a trick clause slamming tens of millions of non-commercial individuals under the criminal statutes:
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: (a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either-- "(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain
The NET act also adds an interesting new redefinition to copyright law: The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Abracadabra, presto chango! Effectively everyone who has ever used P2P, and more, are are all FELONS!
I think torrents are a great innovation, but there should be some checks on it to ensure what you get is quality and for intended use. Like a moderated torrent system that removes copyright works and malware etc. and leaves only the good stuff that is intended to be shared.
I think a torrent distribution license would be ideal.
I agree.
In fact I think books, newspapers, the whole printing thing is a great innovation, but there should be some checks on it to ensure what you get is quality and for intended use. Like a moderated publishing system.
One can carry on an interveiw and not look like an ass, even when it's been edited.
I think you underestimate the depth of Expelled's dishonesty. Their "editing" did not merely trim things down in a deceptive manner - they literally fabricated question-response combinations. They literally went from one question and cut to the answer from a different question.
Interview: Q: Would you like some tea? Coffee maybe? A: No, but thanks (smile). Q: Are you a homosexual? A: No. Q: How would you define 'homosexual'? A: Having sex with other men. Q: What s your favorite hobby? A: Bowling. Q: Your wife looks like she got hit in the face with a bowling ball. A: Fuck you, you motherfucking asshole.
Editing, Expelled style: Q: What is your favorite hobby? A: Having sex with other men. Q: Would you like some tea? Coffee maybe? A: Fuck you, you motherfucking asshole.
the only way one position or the other can be privileged except by convention is if some source of omnscience exists, and somehow I don't think that such a source would be an athiest unless the source also holds to its own non-existence.
Oh, I exist alright. I just decline to prove my omniscience. I insist you have faith in me. If you don't, I'm going to torture you for all eternity. Yeah, I'm a sadist. I like it when people disbelieve me. More people for me to torture. Torture is cool.
Uh, how can you have data supporting the non-existence of God?
I haven't read the God Delusion so I don't know what specifically the other poster was referring to, but at least one answer to your question occurs to me.
You can have the same sort of data supporting the non-existence of God as for the non-existence of Superman. Specifically, you can come up with data identifying Superman as a specifically fictional concept created by one-or-more people. That of obviously does not prove a Superman doesn't exist somewhere, but yeah, evidence supporting it being a construct originating in human fiction is pretty dang good evidence for non-existence.
Which of course leads to the question of quantity and quality of data indicating God being of human-fictional origin. Maybe you should take a look in The God Delusion. Maybe I should take a look in The God Delusion.
I don't need to pay $9.95
You're right. Our local libraries probably both carry copies, chuckle.
If you are familiar with the concept of memes, is it interesting to consider science as a belief system. It is an extremely functional, extremely successfully, extremely valuable system of beliefs. It is a system of beliefs that values evidence and logic and reason and analysis. It values the expert peer review system, and it places trust (or faith) in the the results of expert adversarial peer review. Some areas of science I trust (have faith) in because of my personal examination and understanding according to the principals of the science system. I trust (have faith in) other areas of science because of the open invitation to examine them and the repetitive success of every every area I have explored, and because of my trust (faith) in the science system creating and validating and correcting those other fields of science. And of course I have trust (faith) in the science system in general because of the awesome success of the practical application of that system.
Science is itself a tapestry of memes. One of the critical requirements of a successful meme system is that it incorporate self-replication memes. And yes, science clearly does include such ideas, the ideas that all children should be taught science in school, and that directly opposing claims and systems should be discredited.
Science as a memetic belief system is generally tolerant and compatible with religion, however science is well armed for battle with any other system - religious or otherwise - that hostilely intrudes on science's turf.
I only have a remote knowledge of what exactly Dawkins said, but as I understand it he's arguing that all religion is fictional mythology, that all religions are fundamentally crafted to brainwash people in how to accept absurdities and falsehoods.
I'm sure you'll object to that characterization, but allow me to elaborate. All religions are fundamentally systems of Faith. They are dedicated to creating Faith, preserving Faith, how to thinking about Faith, and how to answer questions of Faith, and how to resolve challenges of Faith.
If something can be proven, if something can be reached based on evidence and logic and reason, then that thing does not require Faith. Faith is essentially by definition believing in those things that cannot be proven, that are not established by evidence, that do not follow from logic and reason. Now plug that into my above statements about religions and Faith.
All religions are systems dedicated to creating belief in things without evidence, creating belief in things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to preserving belief in things without evidence, preserving belief in things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to thinking about things without evidence, thinking about things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to how to answer questions of things without evidence, answering questions about things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to how to resolve challenges of things without evidence, how to resolve challenges things that do not follow from logic and reason.
Religions are elaborate systems of training people how to believe things without evidence and without logic and without evidence, and in fact they are training in how to believe and preserve beliefs even in the face of challenges from contrary evidence and contrary logic and contrary reason. They are training in how to believe absurdities, and how to steadfastly maintain that Faith when challenged on those absurdities. They are training in how to avoid thinking about conflicts and challenges to that Faith, training in how to evade evidence and logic and reason based questions against that Faith.
Just to cite a single and typical example, theres the cliche "God works in mysterious ways". That line is a religious psychological tool - it is a catch-all psychological technique to SQUASH all further thought and all further logic and reason. It's God... it's religion... it doesn't have to make sense... you're not supposed to be able to understand it. It's a psychological tool to protect and preserve Faith when logic and reason fail. It's a technique to protect Faith when overwhelming logic and reason threaten to refute and destroy that Faith. It is a psychological technique to terminate thought that threatens the irrational belief.
Consider this honestly... if someone were to come to you today and tell you a story about a Talking Snake and a Magic Apple... isn't the obvious reasonable rational reaction to consider that story silly? To call that story an absurdity? Talking snakes and magic apples are absurdities. But when religion tells stories about talking snakes and magic apples, we are supposed to ignore how absurd it is. We are supposed to accept that absurdity unquestioningly, and we are supposed to take offense and become angry at anyone who calls that story silly. Can you honestly blame me for saying the Muslim Koran is silly and absurd for telling stories about talking snakes and magic apples? Can you honestly blame me for saying the Jewish Torah is silly and absurd for telling stories about talking snakes and magic apples? Can you honestly blame me for saying the Christian Bible is silly and absurd for telling stories about talking snakes and magic apples?
Religion is a tapestry of ideas, and if you look closely it threaded through with many many examples of such psychological techniques. Religion is training, indoctrination, into how t
All in all it's a pretty lame attempt to refute the Bible.
I looked up the Applied Optics analysis you referred to, and they misinterpreted the Bible and used invalid assumptions to get their "science" result. They cite Isaiah 30:26: The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days
They take that as moonlight = current sunlight, plus 7 * 7 * the sun = 50 suns shining on Heaven. The moon part is fine, but Isaiah says "the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days". Seven times brighter is LIKE the light of seven days. The two mentions of "seven" are clearly repetitive and redundant, NOT multiplicative. It should be the one full sun for the moon, plus 7 suns for the sun, for 8 suns. That math yields a temperature of 231C (449F) for the temperature of Heaven. That is rather toasty, but it is well below the Hell result.
It's also possible that God has installed a huge active airconditioning system throughout Heaven, totally invalidating the assumption of thermodynamic equilibrium behind the calculations. It's just Bad Science trying to refute the Bible like that.
I don't need your pseudoscience mumbojumbo. I'll just stick with the fact that Talking Snakes and Magic Apples are Just Plain Silly, thankyouverymuch;)
I've had many discussions with atheists where I am consistently asked to defend literal interpretations of the bible
For what it's worth, I think you'll find things often go much better if you make some early and clear comment separating yourself from the loony fundies. If an atheist is arguing with a "bible-thumping" "christian idiot" (as you called them in another post), and you just jump in apparently on their side, you are likely to get tarred with the same brush, even if you were only supporting a reasonable and more limited version of one of the Thumper's points, or even if you were reasonably and correctly focusing on a particular problem with the atheist's argument. Fundies can be irrational in the extreme, unreasonable in the extreme, and infuriating in the extreme. At times it can be had to keep hostility from bleeding over onto anyone who even appears to stand with them.
If you mention one of "fundie" "bible-thumper" "christian idiot" or anything of the sort early on, I think you'll find atheists at times eagerly taking you as an ally on many issues. When arguing evolution I often do so from an actively Christianity+evolution perspective. On school prayer I try get people to understand that the ACLU position and all of these court cases are in fact the fair and reasonable "compromise" position - that students do in fact have a Constitutionally protected right to pray in school. The ACLU position and all of the court cases come down that the force and powers of government cannot be used to infringe upon the students' protected religious freedom - that the legislature and school principals and teachers cannot abuse their government power to favor nor oppress any religion. That they cannot abuse their powers to promote nor suppress prayer by students. The theocrat-wannabe wing tries to cast these cases as attacking prayer and attacking religion, ad it's just untrue. Separation of Church and state, and the school prayer court cases are about protecting religious freedom. Protecting individual liberty against the force of government. The theocrat wing wants to forcibly impose their religion on others, they think it *is* the government's business to establish official prayer by students in school, and they go on an insane lying rant that they are being attacked and they are being oppressed if someone sues to deny them the ability to use the force of government against other people's children.
I view all religions and supernatural ideas roughly equally silly, probably about the same way you likely view Native American animal spirit guides. But I don't much care about your personal beliefs and odd hobbies so long as your personal belief and odd hobby isn't to use physical-force/legal-force to attack me or my odd hobbies:) As long as you're a good, reasonable, rational person when it comes to material matters like science and schools and government, I am more than happy to consider you an ally against the hateful/theocratic/anti-science Taliban-wanna-be-s trying to take control of American government and elsewhere.
Please take care to not condemn all religious people
True, but also take care in interpretation.
I participate in many many internet discussions on evolution and the like, and I think I've seen quite a few miscommunications of that sort. Ambiguities can particularly creep into angry speech. A group of idiots-who-happen-to-be-Christian do something like tring to cram their Biblical Literalist Creationist crap into a public highschool science class, and someone will write harsh words directed at that sub-group engaging in that bad behavior. They may use a phrase like "idiot Christians" with the intent that "idiot" be a specifier rather than a describer - that "idiot Christians" is intended to say which Christians he's talking about rather than a smear on all Christians. The interpretation of much of the speech can be seriously colored by the mindset of the reader - it can be strongly colored by the "who" you think the writer is refe
Slashdot Mirror
If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire, then a state may also leave whenever they desire.
If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire
If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire
They can't.
Think about it - the people of former-Soviet-Georgia were were/are having their spat with Russia. Imagine they had a vote to join the US. Just for the sake of argument lets say it's even a unanimous vote of the population wanting to join the US. Now consider the US - the US isn't interested in admitting former-Soviet-Georgia to the union. The US isn't interested in a new state way off in the middle of Europe.
Can that state "enter the U.S. [] whenever they desire"?
No. They have no power to alter the makeup or borders of the country. That state has no power to expand nor to diminish the borders of the United States.
A state may ask to join the US, the majority population of that state may vote that they want to join the US, but only the US has the authority to admit territory to itself, or to release its own territory.
Imagine California wanted to buy X-square-miles of territory from Mexico, or California wanted to sell X-square-miles of itself to Mexico. California has no authority to expand nor diminish the US federal government's authority over that land. If California sold half of itself to Mexico, the California government may or may not be able to surrender its own powers over that territory and withdraw enforcement of its own laws over that territory, but it does not have the authority to rescind the jurisdiction and enforcement of federal laws over that territory.
When territory is admitted to the US, the Federal Government has sovereignty over certain matters. That includes the power to create federal law and to enforce federal law over the territory of the nation. That includes the authority to administer and regulate the borders of that federal jurisdiction.
Some people were unhappy with certain federal laws, mainly laws relating to slavery. They wanted to revoke federal authority to enforce those federal laws on that federal territory. Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but I do not think a state has the Constitutional Authority to unilaterally alter the borders of the nation. I do not think California has the authority to add territory to the nation by buying it from Mexico, nor to diminish national sovereignty over territory by selling it to Mexico. These people simply did not like Federal laws on slavery, so they wanted to revoke Federal authority and Federal laws over that territory. A state might be able to rescind itself and it's own jurisdiction, but fail to see how a state can unilaterally vote to alter the extent of the nation and the jurisdiction of Federal law. Can my town vote to secede from my state? Can my town vote to rescind the authority of state jurisdiction and state laws?
how the U.S. was formed
Under a purely legal view, those people were criminals under UK law.
They fought the UK government to the point that the UK government chose to surrender sovereignty over the colonies.
In cases of civil war, one can sympathize with the cause and rightness of one side or the other, one can be for or against the rebels fighting to overthrow what they view as an unjust oppressive rule, but I fail to see how you can claim in either case that the rebels had authority-within-the-laws-of-that-rule to alter the borders of that territory. The US rebels did NOT have authority under UK law to alter the borders under which UK law was valid and enforced. The Southern rebels did not have authority under US law to alter the borders under which US Federal law was valid and enforced.
As far as I can see Secession was a just plain invalid argument. The borders of the nation are a subject of national authority. The extent and administration of Federal law falls under Federal jurisdiction.
Some people didn't like federal laws - some wer
Forcing the legality of gay marriage in Massachusetts (Mass. supreme court vs. majority of the state's voters, I believe.)
Some people are unfairly jumping on you for that. I agree that is a legitimate example for "the government worked against the will of the people". You merely inspire me to add an addition example where "the government worked against the will of the people".
1967, United States Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia.
Some might call it liberal "activist judges" "legislating from the bench", the Supreme Court imposed interracial marriage upon the entire nation, most definitely against the will of the people. Many states had democratic majority will laws prohibiting it, many states had constitutional bans prohibiting it, and public opinion was more than 73% opposed and less than 20% supporting it.
In fact "democratic majority will" did not reach 50% approval for interracial marriage until 1995 or 1996.
In the US the Constitution is considered to supersede the popular will of the people. The Government acts against the will of the people to protect the Constitutional Rights of the minority against violation by the Popular Will of the people.
Gay marriage is a Guaranteed Right under the US Constitution on the identical argument and identical legal basis as interracial marriage. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. The law cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion. In the interracial marriage court battles people did attempt to claim blacks and whites were treated equally under the law, that everyone had the identical right to marry others of their own race, and that backs and whites were equally restricted and equally punished for violating the law.
Laws banning interracial marriage are invalid under the Constitution because the law is not permitted to examine the races of marriage applicants and use that as a basis to discriminate different treatment under the law, to discriminate which marriage applications to approve and which to prohibit. It is impossible to draft any law granting marriages while excluding interracial marriages without the law examining the races of the marriage applicants. It is impossible to create any valid marriage law excluding interracial marriages.
Laws banning interfaith marriage are invalid under the Constitution because the law is not permitted to examine the religions of marriage applicants and use that as a basis to discriminate different treatment under the law, to discriminate which marriage applications to approve and which to prohibit. It is impossible to draft any law granting marriages while excluding interfaith marriages without the law examining the races of the marriage applicants. It is impossible to create any valid marriage law excluding interfaith marriages.
Laws banning same-sex marriage are invalid under the Constitution because the law is not permitted to examine the genders of marriage applicants and use that as a basis to discriminate different treatment under the law, to discriminate which marriage applications to approve and which to prohibit. It is impossible to draft any law granting marriages while excluding same-gender marriages without the law examining the genders of the marriage applicants. It is impossible to create any valid marriage law excluding same-gender marriages.
Interracial marriage was against the democratic popular will of the people, just as gay marriage is against the democratic popular will of the people. However gay marriage has far more public acceptance than interracial marriage did when it was "imposed" by the courts. Nationwide full acceptance of gay marriage is currently more than double what acceptance of interracial marriage was when it was established - it's now topping 40%. And if you drop the word "marriage" from the issue, two-thirds support equal gay marriage rights under the label "civil unions". Opposition to gay marriage is falling at a staggering rate - a couple of percent per year - many times faster than op
I see a bit of a clash between your affirmative view for asking about local churches and your warning that "Asking about local sports teams is useless unless you know for a fact that everyone on the board is going to deal with sports ". It particularly clashes that you seem to so completely miss that issue for churches. Chuckle.
-
Now you're making things up
I red the law. Plenty of people have linked it on here.
The law says that people can send infringement accusation letters, and that these letters have official legal status.
The law says that ISPs must institute a policy of terminating the repeatedly accused.
There is an unknown in that the law expects future regulations - currently undefined - for what information must be included in these letters. But that unknown doesn't much matter here. It's merely a list of what must be listed in the accusation letter.
It seems you are going according to the article, and the industry spin in that article, and I'm going according to what the law actually says. For example the industry spokesman says:
I agree with the proposition that users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence.
Well gee, that's nice. I might CARE, except nothing of the sort appears in the law.
Everything the industry spokesman said was a vacuous load of crap. For fun I'll run down the list of everything he said in the article.
Some people have suggested the new law would mean people keeping tabs on what internet sites people visit or monitoring people's email. That is not true.
Some people said that this would lead to the Anti-Christ and the apocalypse. Has anyone ever claimed any of those things? It's stupid and false. I've never heard anyone make such stupid complaints, and even if there does exist some idiot out there saying such a thing, they don't matter. It's a dirty lying tactic trying try to smear legitimate critics with legitimate complaints as loons with ridiculous complaints. I have never heard anyone object to this law with those crazy objections, and it doesn't matter if some idiot did. It's spin, it's a dirty smear tactic.
Others suggest that under the draft code of conduct designed to implement the law people will be summarily thrown off the internet for downloading a couple of unlicensed files. That is also not true.
The only way he can say it's "not true" is that he means they aren't planning on going after people just for "a couple of unlicensed files". That is what the law does, it just doesn't do it on the first accusation, and the music industry "merely" intend to go after people with the largest number of files and work their way down. The law absolutely does allow them to file notices against someone for single file infringement, he's just saying they aren't planning to actually use the law if it's just one or just a few.
What would happen is simple. Right holders could log on to public file-sharing sites, just as anyone can, and note which IP addresses are being used to upload pre-release music or films or large amounts of copyright-infringing material.
They intend to compile lists of addresses they think are guilty of infringement. We know for a fact and from experience that such lists contain errors. Read what he wrote - he is assuming guilt upon accusation.
They would then prepare evidence, complete with details of the names of the copyrighted files being uploaded, exact timestamps and the protocol used, and send it to the relevant ISP.
"Preparing evidence" sounds swell, but the entirety of the evidence they are talking about are their local data, we think we saw this address infringing this file at this time. And we know for a fact from experience that there are a huge number of problems and mistakes in that. Problems in their data collection, wrong addresses, completely innocent files with FILENAMES that trip their guilt-triggers, files that appear to be shared that are in fact not available, or even completely accurate "evidence" accusing someone in situations where in fact no infringement has been committed.
"Preparing evidence" amounts to little more than the accusation itself. We think we saw something that looked to us like infringement, and at our end it looked like filename X at time Y from I
First first, I want to give you a nod for "[theists] traded the problem of knowing what's good for the problem of knowing what God wants". I appreciate that level of insight and objectivity and reason. Most people who raise the atheism-morality question tend to be.... well lets just say they tend to be rather-less-than-humble about knowing what God wants :)
Let me start by summarizing the basic issue, as I see it.
Some people believe that good and evil, morality, that they are inextricably bound to God. There are various ways to try to define/describe the connection between God and Goodness/morality, but the key point being that without God it is either impossible to know what is good/moral, or that good/moral would cease to exist without God.
Some people believe that we cannot have or know a system of right and wrong if it is not given to us by God. That atheists cannot have such a system and cannot be moral, without getting that system from God. Some people even have the extreme position - and I'm specifically not accusing you here - some people even have the extreme position that atheists *cannot* be good and moral, even if the atheist's behavior happened to exactly match up with the morality-from-God.
I believe that all religions were created by humans. For example I believe Jesus almost certainly existed, and that he was a great philosopher and great teacher. That he taught much great wisdom and morality - of human origin. That while religions are fiction, they are woven with human truths and human wisdom and human teaching and human morality.
In the improbable case that some sort God God does exist, I believe that none of the warring religions on earth are holding His Magic Instruction Book. If a God did hand down that sort of divine scripture, I'm sure it would be self-evidently far above and beyond all of the false scriptures crafted by humans. The truly Divine scripture would quickly persuade people, and we wouldn't have all these religions squabbling endlessly. No religion on earth, no scripture on earth, has more than 33% of global population behind it. Any truly Divine scripture wouldn't be failing so badly as to be stuck at less than one-third when competing against the "mere fiction" of the false religions.
At this point I would like to point out that the various religions across the earth - from Christians to Native Americans to Buddhists to Wiccans to Hindus and on and on and on - they all come to largely the same agreement on morality. There are differences in detail, but they draw the same picture. They all come to basically the same set of criminal laws, and largely the same set of social values of honesty and kindness and generosity (vs lies cruelty geed), and on and on. And they are pretty well the same set atheists come to.
So even if one religion does have a Magic Instruction Book from God, it seems that humans inventing all of the other False religions managed to create basically the same definition of morality as well. It's not just atheists. Between reason and human nature, virtually all humans tend to generate the same basic morality framework.
I plan to come back and answer the questions you asked last post, but I neeeed sleeeeeep :)
But first let me leave you with a sort of puzzle to mull over. The puzzle actually holds some deep insights to answering your questions.
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. How should the prisoners act?
Not
There are exceptions of course, but yeah, statistics show that rural-urban is by far the single physical trait most correlated with views. Whether you call it Red vs Blue, or Republican vs Democrat, or deeply-religious-worldview vs secular-worldview, it is very highly correlated with rural vs urban life. Even in the Bluest of states, the far rural areas "vote Red". Even in the Reddest of states, the biggest urban centers "vote Blue".
You can see the effect in this map for example. Population density is scaled as hight, and the 2004 presidential vote percentages are represented in red-purple-blue. Population-dense areas are consistently blue, population-sparse areas are consistently red. The biggest problem with the map is that the statistics are gathered at the county level. A dense city dominating a large sparse county will have the appearance of being sparse & blue.
I don't know much about the megachurches, but looking nationally the rural-urban factor is strong and fairly consistent.
-
At least you admit you are anti-Christian.
No I didn't.
I am no more "anti-Christian" than I am "anti-Jew".
Somehow you've turned freedom of religion into freedom from religion.
No I didn't.
You may not USE FORCE OR VIOLENCE to violate someone else's rights.
You may not USE FORCE OR VIOLENCE to violate someone else's religious freedom.
Freedom mean freedom from force and violence.
Go ahead, lets hear you be psychotic enough to disagree.
The only way that my my position can be read as "freedom from religion" is if your "religion" is to point guns at people trying to forcibly impose your religion upon them. And in that case you're a talibanabe. A Taliban-wannabe. Yes, I do claim "freedom from" violent asshats.
As you readily, but carelessly admit several times, if Native American religious practice were more common, you would be against that as well.
No I didn't.
I said *IF* Native Americans were to do something stupid like undermine public school class and attempt to insert Animal Spirit Guides in its place, that I would be against that.
I cannot say with certainty what Native Americans would or wouldn't do if they were the overwhelming majority of the population, but I would hope they would not try to use violence or force to impose their religion upon others, I would hope they would not want to undermine science. And if they don't do those things, then I don't really have a problem with them. I think animal spirit guides are *silly*, just as I expect you consider animal spirit guides silly, but in general people's odd hobbies are their own business. I don't have a problem with other people's odd personal beliefs and odd hobbies so long as those personal beliefs and odd hobbies do not involve the use of force against me.
I'll reiterate, I am not a Christian.
I didn't dispute it.
Are you brain damaged?
Why are you repeating it? Why do you think it is even relevant?
It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or Wiccan or anything else.
"Christian" has absolutely no special relevance to this entire subject, other than my point that in the US Christians happen to be the only ones in a democratic position to vote for the use of GOVERNMENT FORCE in ways that might violate the Constitutionally protected rights of others. If atheists were the overwhelming majority, they would be the ones in a position to vote for the use of government force in ways that might violate the Constitutionally protected rights of others. And if they did attempt it, I would expect the courts to smack it down just as the courts currently smack down governmental attempts to establish prayer in public schools.
Separation of Church and State means that a Christian public school principal cannot use his governmental power to promote prayer by students.
Separation of Church and State means that an atheist public school principal cannot use his governmental power to suppress prayer by students.
And of course it also means a Muslim public school principal cannot attempt to establish 5-times-a-day Islamic prayer schedule.
All of the above is true, no matter what religion you are.
Are you seriously going to argue that the force of government CAN be wielded as a weapon for religious oppression, that the force of government can be wielded respecting establishment of a favored religion or favored religious beliefs or favored religious practice? Are you seriously going to argue some position other than the school prayer position above?
I did go to Catholic school, but it was a good school and they never force their beliefs on anyone. To the contrary, the religion class studied all the major religions. And, and, and not once were those religions portrayed in a negative light.
I don't understand what your point is in any of that.
The issue is when government officials violate people's rights. The issue is when people abuse the FORCE and powers of government for the pu
When you are discussing law, please don't go around making random shit up just because that is how you'd like to presume it should work.
I mainly know US copyright law so lets start there - in certain cases recognize an implied license. I'm I'm the copyright holder and I offer some content on the internet, there's generally an implied license for you to create a copy of it on your harddrive when I let you download it. However it would still be copyright infringement for you to create a derivative work from my content, it would still be copyright infringement for you to create and distribute new copies, and it would still be copyright infringement for you to engage in a public display / public performance of my work. So even if I post my content for download, even if I offer a torrent of it, I can still accuse you of infringing my work in a variety of ways. If I offered a torrent then there would likely be an implied license to redistribute, but derivative works and public performance would still be infringement.
And here's a fun note - lets say I have an icon on my website. Someone from the Slashdot staff comes across it, likes it, and uses it as one of the section icons on the main Slashdot webpage. You then browse Slashdot, and wind up making a copy of it on your harddrive. Under US law I can sue you for infringement. You could put up a defense that you are an "innocent infringer", and the burden is upon you to prove your "innocent infringer" status in court, and if you do prove that status then the court is permitted to lower the damages to $200 per infringement. If Slashdot had copied a dozen icons from me, you as an "innocent infringer" would by law be subject to $2400 minimum in damages to me. Yes, that is as broken as it sounds. Copyright law is seriously fuxored, millions of people every day are technically subject to billions in "innocent infringer" damages for the routine webbrowsing and trivial incidental infringements that may exist in websites. In fact most other countries' copyright laws are technically even more fuxored that US copyright law. The only reason existing copyright law is tolerated is because it is virtually never actually enforced. If existing US copyright law were strictly enforced, not only would we all be subject to staggering damages for "innocent infringer" infringements, but in fact tens of millions of ordinary Americans would be in prison on felony criminal copyright infringement. Under the NET Act essentially everyone who has ever touched P2P, and more, are technically subject to felony criminal copyright infringement. The NET act carries a sneaky clause that takes tens of millions of ordinary non-commercial individuals, and slams them into the commercial copyright infringement criminal category.
So, back to the original point about this New Zealand law. As I indicated above someone can send you a file and still accuse you of derivative-work-infringement or accuse you of public-performance-infringement, or accuse you of redistribution-infringement. However both US takedown-notice law and New Zealand ISP-cutoff-notice law are even worse than that. It doesn't matter if you you even have my file or not. I can write a poem and I can accuse you of infringing my copyright in that poem, and it doesn't matter that you aren't infringing my copyright. It doesn't matter that the files you are distributing are actually photos of your children. It doesn't matter that you have never even seen my poem. Under US law I can truthfully assert under penalty of perjury that I am indeed the copyright holder, and my accusation that you are infringing my copyright is *NOT* under penalty of perjury or anything else. Under US law I can truthfully claim a copyright on my poem, and have your website taken down with a completely bogus claim of infringement. The New Zealand law still needs to have some regulatory details filled in, but yeah, I can make a totally bogus claim that you are infringing the copyright in my poem, and get your internet cut off.
It's not merely bad law, it's abso
what precautions there are in the law against abuse?
If I complain that I saw Mr. Smith sharing stuff copyrighted by me, what would be the consequences?
Here is the text of the proposed law.
I'm not a lawyer, but reading copyright law and reading court rulings is a geek-hobby of mine. The law contains absolutely no penalty at all.
Section 92D(a) indicates that some additional regulations will need to be written to supplement this law, regulations detailing what information must be included in a notice of infringement. It is possible that some of the required information may implicitly carry a penalty for falsification. For example under US law certain portions of comparable notices require a statement indicating truth under penalty of perjury. I can't say for certain, but it might be possible to for the future regulations to specify that sort of thing as one of the "pieces of information" that must be included in a notice.
Note however that even if they were to write such a detail into the those future regulations, it would almost certainly be done in a manner equivalent to the the US notice requirements. Remember how I said in US law some portions of the notice are must be affirmed true under penalty of perjury? Well, it's the statement that you *are* the copyright holder on *something*. For example if I claimed to be the copyright holder on the movie Star Wars and that you were distributing files infringing my copyright, I would be in deep perjury do-do for falsely claiming I had the copyright on Star Wars. However the perjury penalty does *NOT* apply to the portion where I accuse you of violating my copyright. In fact the files you are distributing Star Wars. Your files could be photos of your infant son. Or you might not even be distributing any files at all.
So under US law I have to truthfully assert a copyright on something. For example I could assert my copyright on this very text. That assertion is under penalty of perjury, and it is absolutely true. I can then accuse you of infringing this copyrighted text - totally bogus. That allegation is *NOT* under any penalty of law. In fact it doesn't matter if you've never seen this text and never even come within a hundred miles of it. I could leave this text sitting on my harddrive un-posted, and I could send of a notice accusing Barack Obama's website of infringing this text.
-
Securing your wireless connection from abuse by your neighbors is just common sense.
That's impossible.
You can deny your neighbors any use of your wireless connection at all, but if there were some way to just secure it against abuse then your ISP could just do exactly the same thing in the first place and secure your internet connection against abuse.
-
I went to New Zealand last year and went to a movie in Christchurch. It was a pretty odd experience. It had assigned seating.
We tried that in the US, but it was really unpleasant and the movies all started hours late.
The TSA guys checking tickets kept forcing women to put all their makeup in a 1 quart plastic bag.
-
How the hell am I supposed to be able to watch the movie then?
I see infrared, you insensitive clod!
-
The only reasons I can imagine for Hulu to wat to block Boxee are (1)... (2)...
You missed (3) anything less than 30 years old is like the Boston Strangler.
-
Doesn't bother me, I've managed to survive this long without it.
Kent, the doctor's office is on the phone with your lab results.
-
As far as I know, copyright infringement is not a crime yet in any country.
Does US law count?
Our copyright laws are literally being written by lawyers working for the publishing industry. As if congress wasn't already enough in the pocket of industry passing whatever they want, the industry lawyers drop trick clauses into bills to snatch even more than congress already gives them. The NET Act was presented as updating copyright law for the digital age, and criminalizing digital commercial copyright infringement. (Commercial copyright infringement has pretty well always had criminal penalties). They slipped in a trick clause slamming tens of millions of non-commercial individuals under the criminal statutes:
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain
The NET act also adds an interesting new redefinition to copyright law:
The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Abracadabra, presto chango!
Effectively everyone who has ever used P2P, and more, are are all FELONS!
-
I don't like your analogy; it needs to be a car.
-
I think torrents are a great innovation, but there should be some checks on it to ensure what you get is quality and for intended use. Like a moderated torrent system that removes copyright works and malware etc. and leaves only the good stuff that is intended to be shared.
I think a torrent distribution license would be ideal.
I agree.
In fact I think books, newspapers, the whole printing thing is a great innovation, but there should be some checks on it to ensure what you get is quality and for intended use. Like a moderated publishing system.
I think a press license would be ideal.
-
One can carry on an interveiw and not look like an ass, even when it's been edited.
I think you underestimate the depth of Expelled's dishonesty.
Their "editing" did not merely trim things down in a deceptive manner - they literally fabricated question-response combinations. They literally went from one question and cut to the answer from a different question.
Interview:
Q: Would you like some tea? Coffee maybe?
A: No, but thanks (smile).
Q: Are you a homosexual?
A: No.
Q: How would you define 'homosexual'?
A: Having sex with other men.
Q: What s your favorite hobby?
A: Bowling.
Q: Your wife looks like she got hit in the face with a bowling ball.
A: Fuck you, you motherfucking asshole.
Editing, Expelled style:
Q: What is your favorite hobby?
A: Having sex with other men.
Q: Would you like some tea? Coffee maybe?
A: Fuck you, you motherfucking asshole.
-
Their definition of school leaders included, I shit you not, head Cheerleaders and the captain of the football team.
I was captain of my high school chess team.
Does that mean I get to lead a Satanic Prayer?
-
the only way one position or the other can be privileged except by convention is if some source of omnscience exists, and somehow I don't think that such a source would be an athiest unless the source also holds to its own non-existence.
Oh, I exist alright.
I just decline to prove my omniscience.
I insist you have faith in me.
If you don't, I'm going to torture you for all eternity.
Yeah, I'm a sadist.
I like it when people disbelieve me.
More people for me to torture.
Torture is cool.
-
Uh, how can you have data supporting the non-existence of God?
I haven't read the God Delusion so I don't know what specifically the other poster was referring to, but at least one answer to your question occurs to me.
You can have the same sort of data supporting the non-existence of God as for the non-existence of Superman. Specifically, you can come up with data identifying Superman as a specifically fictional concept created by one-or-more people. That of obviously does not prove a Superman doesn't exist somewhere, but yeah, evidence supporting it being a construct originating in human fiction is pretty dang good evidence for non-existence.
Which of course leads to the question of quantity and quality of data indicating God being of human-fictional origin. Maybe you should take a look in The God Delusion. Maybe I should take a look in The God Delusion.
I don't need to pay $9.95
You're right. Our local libraries probably both carry copies, chuckle.
-
If you are familiar with the concept of memes, is it interesting to consider science as a belief system. It is an extremely functional, extremely successfully, extremely valuable system of beliefs. It is a system of beliefs that values evidence and logic and reason and analysis. It values the expert peer review system, and it places trust (or faith) in the the results of expert adversarial peer review. Some areas of science I trust (have faith) in because of my personal examination and understanding according to the principals of the science system. I trust (have faith in) other areas of science because of the open invitation to examine them and the repetitive success of every every area I have explored, and because of my trust (faith) in the science system creating and validating and correcting those other fields of science. And of course I have trust (faith) in the science system in general because of the awesome success of the practical application of that system.
Science is itself a tapestry of memes. One of the critical requirements of a successful meme system is that it incorporate self-replication memes. And yes, science clearly does include such ideas, the ideas that all children should be taught science in school, and that directly opposing claims and systems should be discredited.
Science as a memetic belief system is generally tolerant and compatible with religion, however science is well armed for battle with any other system - religious or otherwise - that hostilely intrudes on science's turf.
-
I only have a remote knowledge of what exactly Dawkins said, but as I understand it he's arguing that all religion is fictional mythology, that all religions are fundamentally crafted to brainwash people in how to accept absurdities and falsehoods.
I'm sure you'll object to that characterization, but allow me to elaborate. All religions are fundamentally systems of Faith. They are dedicated to creating Faith, preserving Faith, how to thinking about Faith, and how to answer questions of Faith, and how to resolve challenges of Faith.
If something can be proven, if something can be reached based on evidence and logic and reason, then that thing does not require Faith. Faith is essentially by definition believing in those things that cannot be proven, that are not established by evidence, that do not follow from logic and reason. Now plug that into my above statements about religions and Faith.
All religions are systems dedicated to creating belief in things without evidence, creating belief in things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to preserving belief in things without evidence, preserving belief in things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to thinking about things without evidence, thinking about things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to how to answer questions of things without evidence, answering questions about things that do not follow from logic and reason. All religions are dedicated to how to resolve challenges of things without evidence, how to resolve challenges things that do not follow from logic and reason.
Religions are elaborate systems of training people how to believe things without evidence and without logic and without evidence, and in fact they are training in how to believe and preserve beliefs even in the face of challenges from contrary evidence and contrary logic and contrary reason. They are training in how to believe absurdities, and how to steadfastly maintain that Faith when challenged on those absurdities. They are training in how to avoid thinking about conflicts and challenges to that Faith, training in how to evade evidence and logic and reason based questions against that Faith.
Just to cite a single and typical example, theres the cliche "God works in mysterious ways". That line is a religious psychological tool - it is a catch-all psychological technique to SQUASH all further thought and all further logic and reason. It's God... it's religion... it doesn't have to make sense... you're not supposed to be able to understand it. It's a psychological tool to protect and preserve Faith when logic and reason fail. It's a technique to protect Faith when overwhelming logic and reason threaten to refute and destroy that Faith. It is a psychological technique to terminate thought that threatens the irrational belief.
Consider this honestly... if someone were to come to you today and tell you a story about a Talking Snake and a Magic Apple... isn't the obvious reasonable rational reaction to consider that story silly? To call that story an absurdity? Talking snakes and magic apples are absurdities. But when religion tells stories about talking snakes and magic apples, we are supposed to ignore how absurd it is. We are supposed to accept that absurdity unquestioningly, and we are supposed to take offense and become angry at anyone who calls that story silly. Can you honestly blame me for saying the Muslim Koran is silly and absurd for telling stories about talking snakes and magic apples? Can you honestly blame me for saying the Jewish Torah is silly and absurd for telling stories about talking snakes and magic apples? Can you honestly blame me for saying the Christian Bible is silly and absurd for telling stories about talking snakes and magic apples?
Religion is a tapestry of ideas, and if you look closely it threaded through with many many examples of such psychological techniques. Religion is training, indoctrination, into how t
All in all it's a pretty lame attempt to refute the Bible.
I looked up the Applied Optics analysis you referred to, and they misinterpreted the Bible and used invalid assumptions to get their "science" result. They cite Isaiah 30:26:
The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days
They take that as moonlight = current sunlight, plus 7 * 7 * the sun = 50 suns shining on Heaven. The moon part is fine, but Isaiah says "the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days". Seven times brighter is LIKE the light of seven days. The two mentions of "seven" are clearly repetitive and redundant, NOT multiplicative. It should be the one full sun for the moon, plus 7 suns for the sun, for 8 suns. That math yields a temperature of 231C (449F) for the temperature of Heaven. That is rather toasty, but it is well below the Hell result.
It's also possible that God has installed a huge active airconditioning system throughout Heaven, totally invalidating the assumption of thermodynamic equilibrium behind the calculations. It's just Bad Science trying to refute the Bible like that.
I don't need your pseudoscience mumbojumbo. I'll just stick with the fact that Talking Snakes and Magic Apples are Just Plain Silly, thankyouverymuch ;)
-
I've had many discussions with atheists where I am consistently asked to defend literal interpretations of the bible
For what it's worth, I think you'll find things often go much better if you make some early and clear comment separating yourself from the loony fundies. If an atheist is arguing with a "bible-thumping" "christian idiot" (as you called them in another post), and you just jump in apparently on their side, you are likely to get tarred with the same brush, even if you were only supporting a reasonable and more limited version of one of the Thumper's points, or even if you were reasonably and correctly focusing on a particular problem with the atheist's argument. Fundies can be irrational in the extreme, unreasonable in the extreme, and infuriating in the extreme. At times it can be had to keep hostility from bleeding over onto anyone who even appears to stand with them.
If you mention one of "fundie" "bible-thumper" "christian idiot" or anything of the sort early on, I think you'll find atheists at times eagerly taking you as an ally on many issues. When arguing evolution I often do so from an actively Christianity+evolution perspective. On school prayer I try get people to understand that the ACLU position and all of these court cases are in fact the fair and reasonable "compromise" position - that students do in fact have a Constitutionally protected right to pray in school. The ACLU position and all of the court cases come down that the force and powers of government cannot be used to infringe upon the students' protected religious freedom - that the legislature and school principals and teachers cannot abuse their government power to favor nor oppress any religion. That they cannot abuse their powers to promote nor suppress prayer by students. The theocrat-wannabe wing tries to cast these cases as attacking prayer and attacking religion, ad it's just untrue. Separation of Church and state, and the school prayer court cases are about protecting religious freedom. Protecting individual liberty against the force of government. The theocrat wing wants to forcibly impose their religion on others, they think it *is* the government's business to establish official prayer by students in school, and they go on an insane lying rant that they are being attacked and they are being oppressed if someone sues to deny them the ability to use the force of government against other people's children.
I view all religions and supernatural ideas roughly equally silly, probably about the same way you likely view Native American animal spirit guides. But I don't much care about your personal beliefs and odd hobbies so long as your personal belief and odd hobby isn't to use physical-force/legal-force to attack me or my odd hobbies :) As long as you're a good, reasonable, rational person when it comes to material matters like science and schools and government, I am more than happy to consider you an ally against the hateful/theocratic/anti-science Taliban-wanna-be-s trying to take control of American government and elsewhere.
Please take care to not condemn all religious people
True, but also take care in interpretation.
I participate in many many internet discussions on evolution and the like, and I think I've seen quite a few miscommunications of that sort. Ambiguities can particularly creep into angry speech. A group of idiots-who-happen-to-be-Christian do something like tring to cram their Biblical Literalist Creationist crap into a public highschool science class, and someone will write harsh words directed at that sub-group engaging in that bad behavior. They may use a phrase like "idiot Christians" with the intent that "idiot" be a specifier rather than a describer - that "idiot Christians" is intended to say which Christians he's talking about rather than a smear on all Christians. The interpretation of much of the speech can be seriously colored by the mindset of the reader - it can be strongly colored by the "who" you think the writer is refe