"A very large number of children are born every day with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to (other then being alcoholics) perfectly sane, normal, intelligent people."
Point one - if they are alcoholics, they are NOT normal. That's like saying someone is in perfect health but for diabetes.
Point two - there is a large hereditary component to alcoholism. So, from a genetic standpoint, FAS definitely qualifies a a constraint for passing on the traits of alcoholism - while it didn't stop the alcoholic from breeding, it will definitely affect the number of grandchildren an alcoholic has.
It's not that people "deserve to die". The question is whether people deserve to be protected from their own stupidity, or from all of the vagaries that fate has dealt them. Very few people deserve death, but does that mean we, as a society, should spend whatever resources it takes to keep them from it?
It's a little more complicated than that. 2012 is more like Y2K - there's an actual event involved, and it's occurrence isn't in question. I knew the digits on my digital watch were going to change at that point in history, and I know that the Mayan calender ends it's cycle as well. It's the significance of those events that people wildly over estimate. The logically challenged have no problem believing that Independence Day was a fantasy because aliens are not established fact. But they have a problem with conditional logic: Someone presents them with "If A then B" and they think "OMG! A is true, then B must be true too!". Of course it ignores both logic and meaning, but it feels right.
"Science is one of the most poorly misunderstood subjects in schools today. One time I convinced a tech (with a college degree in electronics) that LED's also doubled as cameras. I didn't think anything more of it but a few months later I was over at this house and he had tiny bits of black electrical tape covering every LED in his house. If you are convincing enough (or evil), (not sure if I am convincing or evil) you can make many people who are normally rational, believe some of the most outrageous claims."
Some people don't need convincing, or convince themselves. Part of my job is dealing with refrigeration. We recently did a rebuild on a walk-in freezer because it frosted up too much - as in, locking up motors, etc. When we were finished, the freezer STILL iced up, though not as badly. When we went back and looked at the situation, we noticed that the surrounding area was very humid, and that's what was causing it. Nonsense, replied the maintenance staff - the freezer has a leak somewhere and is making the ice (preemptive note to wise-asses - not water cooled). In the half hour meeting that followed, nothing we said - no water lines near by, no freon leaks detected, occurrence tracks outdoor humidity - deterred them from the belief that the freezer was making the ice like an ice machine.
Until a member of our team (ex Navy chief)pointed to his bottle of Coke on the table. The cap was still sealed, and it was covered in water droplets, with a sizable puddle forming. He then asked where THAT water came from - perhaps it leaked through the plastic? The reason they were so unwilling to believe that the humidity in the area was too high was because then it would be THEIR problem, not the refrigeration installer's.
Unhelpful Truth: "Please do so, and take yourself out of the gene pool."
Helpful Truth: "I completely understand your position. Make an appointment with your doctor and just say you have some health concerns (no need for the staff to get into your business.) Then explain the situation to the doctor, and he can help you take the appropriate steps."
You misread - it wasn't "groundbreaking pop music" but "groundbreaking USE of pop music" It was the first TV show to use the actual rock and roll in the show. For instance, in one scene the station manager walks into the DJ booth during a Pink Floyd song, and asks the DJ if he hears dogs. The DJ, a crusty old 60's reject, says "Yes", which only confuses the manager more.
As for the rights holders keep in mind that, in a lot of cases, there's both the composition copyright and the performance copyright. And this was also the time when a lot of rock stars were dying and, had you mentioned "estate" to one of them before their death, you would have gotten a reply along the lines of "Oh, yeah - I've got one of those. It's where I keep my guitar collection."
While WKRP is probably a unique example, it does highlight the absurdities the current copyright system has spawned.
There are TV shows that can't be released in their original form due to music rights.
The factual way to state this is "there are TV shows that cannot be released in their original form because the parties cannot come to an agreement about how much the licensing will cost". Eventually, this ends up working out. See: Ally McBeal.
While that may be true for that example, it's not the whole truth. WKRP in Cincinatti (ref. my sig) was delayed for years in being released to DVD, and cannot be found in reruns with the original music. Why? Because the producers literally couldn't FIND some of the rights holders to renew the licensing agreements. So a show that was groundbreaking for it's use of pop music, sometimes in the storyline itself, is almost impossible to see with that same music intact.
I'm not saying we should blow away the concept of copyright, but it needs some serious rethinking.
"If you want to have a communist society, just say so up front. That's what this argument is about, public ownership of private goods. All ownership is artificial, but it is also beneficial to some extent to society. To argue anything else without overthrowing all ownership is disingenuous.
(Personally, I could go this route...share and share alike works well for me...I moved out of a career that paid pretty fucking well, for one that pays practically nothing...what I do have is entirely based on the good will of those around me)."
And you're not bitter about that. Not one little bit.
Sue who? On what grounds? Who determines the value? By the time those questions are answered, you either get:
1) Work for hire (capitalist solution) 2) Government sponsorship (socialist solution) 3) Aristocratic patronage (subsistence/medieval economic solution)
We've already done all of them - what's novel about your solution? I mean, I can piss in the snow, scream out "ART!" and hold out my hand waiting for someone to give me money, but all that will get me is a frostbitten pecker.
Not exactly. There are things you can do to secure your rights to physical objects and land without resorting to enforcement of law - locks, fences, etc. For that matter,you can enforce some other rights in the same manner. You have a right to live and you can defend that right using means at your disposal. Likewise, a right to the integrity of your dwelling - reference the "castle" doctrine" in law.
In these instances one can physically stop a violation of the right. Likewise, one can physically protect a recording, master tape, etc. But how does one physically protect music? or a speech? By it's very nature it is realesed from the initiator's control.
Way to miss the point. EVERYTHING in your post is based on the idea that "copyright" is something innate or profound, existing outside of a legal structure. It is not. Copyright exists ONLY within a legal structure that decrees it so. The point of copyright is to encourage the creative arts by granting the creator a monopoly for a limited time, after that point others may use that art. Without that, and artist HAS NO RIGHTS to the product of their work. If you write and perform a song, what stops another musician from performing the same song the next night? Nothing except a law. Copyright is a mercantilist replacement for aristocratic patronage - it allows artists to make money within a capitalist system. But that's ALL it is.
I am not in favor of abolishing copyright - I believe, in the main, it does what it is intended to do. But the current terms of copyright are so outrageous as to encourage this bizarre idea of "ownership" of something that DOESN'T EXIST. I'm sure the Eagles worked their asses off thirty years ago to create that song, and I believe they should have been compensated for it. Then. and for some period of time thereafter. But thirty years later? I believe it is bad public policy, which is the only place that this "right" exists.
There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom, you know.
On another note, isn't this trading 1 stupidity for another? I mean, I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now. Period.
Your parents can't stand the fact that you can do something that they can't, and therefore have a measure of power and control over their lives. The belittlement is their way of pretending that's not true.
Buy a copy of Win7, reformat the drive, and then hand it to them and say "I'm not touching your computer anymore. You do it." And when they don't invite you to Thanksgiving, savor the sweet bliss of a holiday NOT fixing their machine.
You really don't get it. I BELIEVE Obama was born in Hawaii. And even if he wasn't, he's still president of the United States. Where have I called for his removal from office? Where have I said he is unqualified to serve?
Did you actually read your response? Are you seriously stating that Obama was certified by "local election officials" (and no, the ones in Hawaii aren't election officials), but that there is no record of this? I've looked, and I can't discover to what jurisdiction or what office this occurred. Can you? Or was that supposed to happen off the record?
As for McCain, Hilary, and the governor of Hawaii, so what? They are politicians - there goal is getting elected (or re-elected). I know people like to believe Republican politicians are retarded (or Machiavellian masterminds), but claiming that the governor of the bluest state in the Union would have declared Obama unqualified if only he could is tantamount to saying he's Forrest Gump. Same with McCain and Hillary
"Think man, think. Understand why you have chosen to believe what you do."
Considering I don't even know who those people are, I'd say no. I barely watch TV, and get most of my news from NPR and the Express, which is a publication of the Washington Post. I've followed the elections and this particular item since well before the election. I have never seen a reference, ANYWHERE, regarding him presenting his qualifications to election officials. If he had, the campaign would have said so. And I'll bet you haven't seen a reference either.
I think your reply is reasonable, and you seem relatively open minded. I do want to emphasize that I see this as a matter of principle, not practicality. He's the President - period.
Another one of your points bears discussion: "if there were a good standing to this, I would think it would have been offered before now." You have a reasonable point - most of the "birther" opposition is based on racism. If Obama were white and was born in Ireland, 90% of the loudmouths wouldn't care. But there is a particular aspect to the Obama biography I find odd. Specifically, that his mother flew from Kenya to Honolulu immediately before his birth. At first glance, this seems unremarkable - pregnant women fly all of the time. But when Obama was born, pregnant women DIDN'T fly all of the time - especially long duration international flights. The medical establishment advised against it. As a matter of fact, if a woman showed up 9 months pregnant she probably would have been refused carriage. On the other hand, travelling with a babe in arms, even a newborn, was rare but SOP. So this raises a question - how, and more importantly WHY, would a young woman take such a risk when sh could have had the baby in Kenya?
There's plenty of reasons she may have wanted the child to be born in Hawaii, and they have nothing to do with a possible future presidency. But none of them play well in the bio - father dumped her, she was escaping him, Kenyan hospitals were unsafe, etc. So the reason WHY she came back is left nebulous - she just did. THAT is my root problem with the whole thing - there is this gap in his bio, at a critical time, and the official storyline just doesn't gibe to me.
Slashdot Mirror
"A very large number of children are born every day with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to (other then being alcoholics) perfectly sane, normal, intelligent people."
Point one - if they are alcoholics, they are NOT normal. That's like saying someone is in perfect health but for diabetes.
Point two - there is a large hereditary component to alcoholism. So, from a genetic standpoint, FAS definitely qualifies a a constraint for passing on the traits of alcoholism - while it didn't stop the alcoholic from breeding, it will definitely affect the number of grandchildren an alcoholic has.
You might want to pick a better example.
It's not that people "deserve to die". The question is whether people deserve to be protected from their own stupidity, or from all of the vagaries that fate has dealt them. Very few people deserve death, but does that mean we, as a society, should spend whatever resources it takes to keep them from it?
"Every day I'm not totally insane is a good day."
But your 99.999% partially insanity 100% is a real drag for the rest of us.
""Ignorant" is not the same as "stupid", and can be cured by means much less dramatic than death.
The problem is that we don't train people in the fine art of bullshit detection "
It would also change most "+5 Insightful" posts to "-1 blowhard".
Not referring to your post, of course - your level of ignorance is CLEARLY less than that of others.
"a complete nutjob (played very well by Woody Harrelson)"
That's redundant on so many levels...
(Although I did enjoy his work in Zombieland.)
It's a little more complicated than that. 2012 is more like Y2K - there's an actual event involved, and it's occurrence isn't in question. I knew the digits on my digital watch were going to change at that point in history, and I know that the Mayan calender ends it's cycle as well. It's the significance of those events that people wildly over estimate. The logically challenged have no problem believing that Independence Day was a fantasy because aliens are not established fact. But they have a problem with conditional logic: Someone presents them with "If A then B" and they think "OMG! A is true, then B must be true too!". Of course it ignores both logic and meaning, but it feels right.
Some people don't need convincing, or convince themselves. Part of my job is dealing with refrigeration. We recently did a rebuild on a walk-in freezer because it frosted up too much - as in, locking up motors, etc. When we were finished, the freezer STILL iced up, though not as badly. When we went back and looked at the situation, we noticed that the surrounding area was very humid, and that's what was causing it. Nonsense, replied the maintenance staff - the freezer has a leak somewhere and is making the ice (preemptive note to wise-asses - not water cooled). In the half hour meeting that followed, nothing we said - no water lines near by, no freon leaks detected, occurrence tracks outdoor humidity - deterred them from the belief that the freezer was making the ice like an ice machine.
Until a member of our team (ex Navy chief)pointed to his bottle of Coke on the table. The cap was still sealed, and it was covered in water droplets, with a sizable puddle forming. He then asked where THAT water came from - perhaps it leaked through the plastic? The reason they were so unwilling to believe that the humidity in the area was too high was because then it would be THEIR problem, not the refrigeration installer's.
Unhelpful Truth: "Please do so, and take yourself out of the gene pool."
Helpful Truth: "I completely understand your position. Make an appointment with your doctor and just say you have some health concerns (no need for the staff to get into your business.) Then explain the situation to the doctor, and he can help you take the appropriate steps."
You misread - it wasn't "groundbreaking pop music" but "groundbreaking USE of pop music" It was the first TV show to use the actual rock and roll in the show. For instance, in one scene the station manager walks into the DJ booth during a Pink Floyd song, and asks the DJ if he hears dogs. The DJ, a crusty old 60's reject, says "Yes", which only confuses the manager more.
As for the rights holders keep in mind that, in a lot of cases, there's both the composition copyright and the performance copyright. And this was also the time when a lot of rock stars were dying and, had you mentioned "estate" to one of them before their death, you would have gotten a reply along the lines of "Oh, yeah - I've got one of those. It's where I keep my guitar collection."
While WKRP is probably a unique example, it does highlight the absurdities the current copyright system has spawned.
But...but... they aren't artists.
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1529
While that may be true for that example, it's not the whole truth. WKRP in Cincinatti (ref. my sig) was delayed for years in being released to DVD, and cannot be found in reruns with the original music. Why? Because the producers literally couldn't FIND some of the rights holders to renew the licensing agreements. So a show that was groundbreaking for it's use of pop music, sometimes in the storyline itself, is almost impossible to see with that same music intact.
I'm not saying we should blow away the concept of copyright, but it needs some serious rethinking.
And you're not bitter about that. Not one little bit.
Sue who? On what grounds? Who determines the value? By the time those questions are answered, you either get:
1) Work for hire (capitalist solution)
2) Government sponsorship (socialist solution)
3) Aristocratic patronage (subsistence/medieval economic solution)
We've already done all of them - what's novel about your solution? I mean, I can piss in the snow, scream out "ART!" and hold out my hand waiting for someone to give me money, but all that will get me is a frostbitten pecker.
Not exactly. There are things you can do to secure your rights to physical objects and land without resorting to enforcement of law - locks, fences, etc. For that matter,you can enforce some other rights in the same manner. You have a right to live and you can defend that right using means at your disposal. Likewise, a right to the integrity of your dwelling - reference the "castle" doctrine" in law.
In these instances one can physically stop a violation of the right. Likewise, one can physically protect a recording, master tape, etc. But how does one physically protect music? or a speech? By it's very nature it is realesed from the initiator's control.
"Odious. Simply odious. Why do you yanks have this sort of nonsense?"
It's a natural progression of the English system of law and mercantilist power. You're shocked that we didn't put it to a more palatable use?
Way to miss the point. EVERYTHING in your post is based on the idea that "copyright" is something innate or profound, existing outside of a legal structure. It is not. Copyright exists ONLY within a legal structure that decrees it so. The point of copyright is to encourage the creative arts by granting the creator a monopoly for a limited time, after that point others may use that art. Without that, and artist HAS NO RIGHTS to the product of their work. If you write and perform a song, what stops another musician from performing the same song the next night? Nothing except a law. Copyright is a mercantilist replacement for aristocratic patronage - it allows artists to make money within a capitalist system. But that's ALL it is.
I am not in favor of abolishing copyright - I believe, in the main, it does what it is intended to do. But the current terms of copyright are so outrageous as to encourage this bizarre idea of "ownership" of something that DOESN'T EXIST. I'm sure the Eagles worked their asses off thirty years ago to create that song, and I believe they should have been compensated for it. Then. and for some period of time thereafter. But thirty years later? I believe it is bad public policy, which is the only place that this "right" exists.
There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom, you know.
On another note, isn't this trading 1 stupidity for another? I mean, I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now. Period.
I read it as "the 14th haddock dot com." Just thought you'd like to know."
"Words convey meaning, folks."
Absolutely, and your convey a great deal about your personality.
Lighten up, Francis.
It's good to know that they can still be used to kill your nemesis and NOT destroy the Earth (or Mars).
Your parents can't stand the fact that you can do something that they can't, and therefore have a measure of power and control over their lives. The belittlement is their way of pretending that's not true.
Buy a copy of Win7, reformat the drive, and then hand it to them and say "I'm not touching your computer anymore. You do it." And when they don't invite you to Thanksgiving, savor the sweet bliss of a holiday NOT fixing their machine.
Don't pat me on the back yet - that may be a speculation I swallowed as fact. Checking google now...
You really don't get it. I BELIEVE Obama was born in Hawaii. And even if he wasn't, he's still president of the United States. Where have I called for his removal from office? Where have I said he is unqualified to serve?
Did you actually read your response? Are you seriously stating that Obama was certified by "local election officials" (and no, the ones in Hawaii aren't election officials), but that there is no record of this? I've looked, and I can't discover to what jurisdiction or what office this occurred. Can you? Or was that supposed to happen off the record?
As for McCain, Hilary, and the governor of Hawaii, so what? They are politicians - there goal is getting elected (or re-elected). I know people like to believe Republican politicians are retarded (or Machiavellian masterminds), but claiming that the governor of the bluest state in the Union would have declared Obama unqualified if only he could is tantamount to saying he's Forrest Gump. Same with McCain and Hillary
"Think man, think. Understand why you have chosen to believe what you do."
Considering I don't even know who those people are, I'd say no. I barely watch TV, and get most of my news from NPR and the Express, which is a publication of the Washington Post. I've followed the elections and this particular item since well before the election. I have never seen a reference, ANYWHERE, regarding him presenting his qualifications to election officials. If he had, the campaign would have said so. And I'll bet you haven't seen a reference either.
I think your reply is reasonable, and you seem relatively open minded. I do want to emphasize that I see this as a matter of principle, not practicality. He's the President - period.
Another one of your points bears discussion: "if there were a good standing to this, I would think it would have been offered before now." You have a reasonable point - most of the "birther" opposition is based on racism. If Obama were white and was born in Ireland, 90% of the loudmouths wouldn't care. But there is a particular aspect to the Obama biography I find odd. Specifically, that his mother flew from Kenya to Honolulu immediately before his birth. At first glance, this seems unremarkable - pregnant women fly all of the time. But when Obama was born, pregnant women DIDN'T fly all of the time - especially long duration international flights. The medical establishment advised against it. As a matter of fact, if a woman showed up 9 months pregnant she probably would have been refused carriage. On the other hand, travelling with a babe in arms, even a newborn, was rare but SOP. So this raises a question - how, and more importantly WHY, would a young woman take such a risk when sh could have had the baby in Kenya?
There's plenty of reasons she may have wanted the child to be born in Hawaii, and they have nothing to do with a possible future presidency. But none of them play well in the bio - father dumped her, she was escaping him, Kenyan hospitals were unsafe, etc. So the reason WHY she came back is left nebulous - she just did. THAT is my root problem with the whole thing - there is this gap in his bio, at a critical time, and the official storyline just doesn't gibe to me.