Ah we get to the root of you're tirade: you're against the Fairtax. The Fairtax is usually countered by two types of people. Those who favor taxation because they reap some benefit from it and the ignorant. Judging by your understanding of my points, you would be the latter.
That should read: "Idiot Lawmaker Proposes Music Download Tax" but that may be redundant. Besides the obvious fact that it would be very hard to police (esp. the pr0n) this would lead to more piracy. Only legitimate outlets would be effected.
"But his measure is being soundly criticized by Republicans, who are opposed to any tax increases to solve the deficit problem."
So if you're not FOR the tax, you don't want to lower the deficit!
" His bill, AB 1956, comes as Apple reports that its iTunes store has leap-frogged over Wal-Mart to become the top music retailer in the United States with more than 4 billion downloads sold."
Odds are this bill comes AS A RESULT of iTunes leapfrogging Wal-Mart.
That said, I am a podcaster and I never listen to any big media podcasts. If I'm into, say ESPN, I'll turn it on and watch it or listen on the radio. Extending big media staples via podcasting probably only extends the time existing listeners consume that product. My show is about cycling. I seriously doubt ESPN, for instance, has a single podcast about cycling. Granted the audience is small for my show but it's an audience that among this sport is relevant. It's meager numbers would not be relevant to ESPN. Hell, CYCLING isn't relevant to most sports media (despite the fact that recreational cycling outnumbers recreational golf by 3-to-1). So it's the age-old market for podcasting: the niche. At least, for the most part.
Much of this legislation has little to do with protecting children. It's largely a means by which to turn public sentiment to a particular party or candidate to reinforce power.
I smell a big Microsoft initiative for securing colleges and universities coming. Government contracts, proprietary model continues, and it's all for our children.
Microsoft has never been about attracting customers but rather leaveraging them. Hence, listening to customer feedback isn't really in their DNA. Yes, they will listen to an extent but largely they feel they can gain the same customers through other means so these squeaky wheels will come on board anyway. Let's worry about what our grand scheme is, stay on course, and people will follow out of perceived necessity.
What are the odds that their patent simply contains the phrase: "A mechanism for storing or recreating data created on a computer for later retrieval."
Well I would first point out that I didn't make a religious argument per se' so much as point out what to me is an interesting point about the state of science today. I contend that science is itself a system of faith. I say that because I believe "faith" and "belief" to be synonymous. Some would disagree. Science should be about collecting evidence, accepting the obvious, and making educated guesses and contemplation upon where that evidence leads. If time and more evidence leads logic elsewhere, the scientist goes there. He should be led, not kicking and screaming, but rather with his eyes open and with excitement.
It's funny that you would make this joke because many in the scientific community put the same kind of "faith" in researchers that haven't even so much as touched these objects. It always amazes me that when science has to change it's findings on anything it's reported with hardly a whisper. This finding is based largely on the assumption that these calcium deposits or strata are going to occur only in this manner from a given time-period. Assumptions...almost...religious-like.
I know I know, I'm daring to distrust the gods of research. I get it. Flamebait me now for my insurrection.
I have been convinced, and have said here many times, that Microsoft is inherently evil. Like kicking puppies. You feel this instinctively, inside. That said, I'm sure there are good people working there. Just as there are decent people sweating out an existence in some sweatshop in China longing for freedom. It is my belief that Microsoft doesn't want to be in the technology business it wants to be the technology business. And it wants this at the expense and in spite of every other technology business. Therefore I wouldn't trust them for anything under any condition. And yes I am quite smug and comfortable in my position.
Frankly, I simply cannot conjure up enough evil that would fittingly befall the company!
So yes, I support your effort and wish you luck! While Microsoft represents one extreme of my level of confidence, you, Bruce, represent the other!
Not to defend them but words like "fuck" and "ass" and "cunt" are societal taboos. Depicting Mohammed is a religious taboo so its focus is much narrower. Societal taboos change over time. Even now "ass" is becoming less a swear word and more a synonym for butt.
Exactly! Why do you think the "big media" has been so up in arms about blogging and podcasting? This is why I don't get too upset about the war in Iraq. I don't trust the media's coverage of it. You hear soldiers coming back and saying, "This is nothing like we see over there!" And so much other "media" coverage is just like that. How dare the vast unwashed start actually reporting what they really see!? Maybe because we constitute more eyes and ears than the media? Maybe because we're tired of being told that is interesting and what we should care about?
"A law that isn't enforceable is totally pointless"
Not entirely. You're assuming the intent is to actually enforce law. Many such laws are passed everyday and are designed simply to foster a sense of accomplishment and augment power. Most are then marketed as necessary "for the safety of our children." When election time comes guess who the vast unwashed are going to vote for?
"and such an event would unify the world as never before"
Osama: "My brothers. A wonderful thing has happened! The Americans, the British, Israel, and the rest of the world is preparing to launch a mission to Mars! Mars is one of Alla's creations! Alla be praised as we lay down our arms and send some of our brothers to assist in this glorious endeavor!"
Is this the kind of unity you have in mind? Do you seriously think this is going to happen? Let's face it even Hillary, Obama, and many other politicians in this country would be beating down the door to CNN to either talk about what a waste of money it is or what a wonderful thing it is depending on what position their opponent takes.
How are we going to do that if we say "It's too complicated to understand...God must have done it."? That's what the supporters of "Intelligent Design" would like us to do. It's a passive, give-up position that has nothing except fear behind it.
Well I don't know that this is their intent. I think that's probably a mischaracterization. Although, it may be true for some advocates.
Well, the advancement of science is largely responsible for our unprecedented quality of life, including technological conveniences and modern medicine. When disingenuous politicians attempt to manipulate well-meaning religious people into undermining respect for science, people who appreciate science must speak up or watch their civilization go the way of Rome.
I think it's disingenuous to assume that religious people are not scientific and vice versa. We can certainly debate the premises of their arguments but I'm more disturbed that the vehemence comes far more from the so-called scientific. I don't see anyone from the religious right denying the strides that science has made for mankind. Why would science feel that their entire body of work rests on the premise of evolution theory in regards to origins? Sounds a lot like a religion arguing their entire body of work residing on the belief in a given deity, does it not? I'm just fascinated at how "religious" the non-religious are in this regard. The reality is "science" may very well find that some new evidence dispels their current "creed" of origins someday. That, my friend, IS science. You go where the evidence leads you even if it cuts against the grain.
You know science changes all the time. One day we may well find out evolution doesn't explain it all. This bill simply states:
'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.'
Sounds like someone's a little thin-skinned. It's entertaining, if not shocking, how many so-called "scientific" minded people take such a religious approach to defending their positions.
DHS: So what is it?
Boeing: It's a virtual border fence!
DHS: What does it do?
Boeing: Keeps out illegal immigrants, virtually.
DHS: As in virtual immigrants or virtual border control?
Boeing: Yes!
DHS: Does it control actual borders and illegal immigrants?
Boeing: Uh no.
DHS: Fsck it, let's give it a try!
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds good to me!
Ah we get to the root of you're tirade: you're against the Fairtax. The Fairtax is usually countered by two types of people. Those who favor taxation because they reap some benefit from it and the ignorant. Judging by your understanding of my points, you would be the latter.
That should read: "Idiot Lawmaker Proposes Music Download Tax" but that may be redundant. Besides the obvious fact that it would be very hard to police (esp. the pr0n) this would lead to more piracy. Only legitimate outlets would be effected.
"But his measure is being soundly criticized by Republicans, who are opposed to any tax increases to solve the deficit problem."
So if you're not FOR the tax, you don't want to lower the deficit!
" His bill, AB 1956, comes as Apple reports that its iTunes store has leap-frogged over Wal-Mart to become the top music retailer in the United States with more than 4 billion downloads sold."
Odds are this bill comes AS A RESULT of iTunes leapfrogging Wal-Mart.
Good point!
Money can't buy me love but apparently it can buy a standard! Microsoft is inherently evil. Like kicking puppies. Or raping a standards body!
That said, I am a podcaster and I never listen to any big media podcasts. If I'm into, say ESPN, I'll turn it on and watch it or listen on the radio. Extending big media staples via podcasting probably only extends the time existing listeners consume that product. My show is about cycling. I seriously doubt ESPN, for instance, has a single podcast about cycling. Granted the audience is small for my show but it's an audience that among this sport is relevant. It's meager numbers would not be relevant to ESPN. Hell, CYCLING isn't relevant to most sports media (despite the fact that recreational cycling outnumbers recreational golf by 3-to-1). So it's the age-old market for podcasting: the niche. At least, for the most part.
Much of this legislation has little to do with protecting children. It's largely a means by which to turn public sentiment to a particular party or candidate to reinforce power.
I smell a big Microsoft initiative for securing colleges and universities coming. Government contracts, proprietary model continues, and it's all for our children.
It's because Microsoft isn't concerned with attracting customers as much as it is leaveraging them. We're all commodities, Folks!
Dude...seriously...it was a joke. Beer!?
What I really wanna know is how quickly does it get you moving on the crapper?
Microsoft has never been about attracting customers but rather leaveraging them. Hence, listening to customer feedback isn't really in their DNA. Yes, they will listen to an extent but largely they feel they can gain the same customers through other means so these squeaky wheels will come on board anyway. Let's worry about what our grand scheme is, stay on course, and people will follow out of perceived necessity.
It was a joke, you know, homor?
but it's quite another to shriek at people just because they refuse to be communist."
I have NO idea what you meant. FWIW, I abhor communism.
What are the odds that their patent simply contains the phrase: "A mechanism for storing or recreating data created on a computer for later retrieval."
(Slowly I put the freshly printed page down...)
Well I would first point out that I didn't make a religious argument per se' so much as point out what to me is an interesting point about the state of science today. I contend that science is itself a system of faith. I say that because I believe "faith" and "belief" to be synonymous. Some would disagree. Science should be about collecting evidence, accepting the obvious, and making educated guesses and contemplation upon where that evidence leads. If time and more evidence leads logic elsewhere, the scientist goes there. He should be led, not kicking and screaming, but rather with his eyes open and with excitement.
It's funny that you would make this joke because many in the scientific community put the same kind of "faith" in researchers that haven't even so much as touched these objects. It always amazes me that when science has to change it's findings on anything it's reported with hardly a whisper. This finding is based largely on the assumption that these calcium deposits or strata are going to occur only in this manner from a given time-period. Assumptions...almost...religious-like.
I know I know, I'm daring to distrust the gods of research. I get it. Flamebait me now for my insurrection.
I have been convinced, and have said here many times, that Microsoft is inherently evil. Like kicking puppies. You feel this instinctively, inside. That said, I'm sure there are good people working there. Just as there are decent people sweating out an existence in some sweatshop in China longing for freedom. It is my belief that Microsoft doesn't want to be in the technology business it wants to be the technology business. And it wants this at the expense and in spite of every other technology business. Therefore I wouldn't trust them for anything under any condition. And yes I am quite smug and comfortable in my position.
Frankly, I simply cannot conjure up enough evil that would fittingly befall the company!
So yes, I support your effort and wish you luck! While Microsoft represents one extreme of my level of confidence, you, Bruce, represent the other!
Not to defend them but words like "fuck" and "ass" and "cunt" are societal taboos. Depicting Mohammed is a religious taboo so its focus is much narrower. Societal taboos change over time. Even now "ass" is becoming less a swear word and more a synonym for butt.
Exactly! Why do you think the "big media" has been so up in arms about blogging and podcasting? This is why I don't get too upset about the war in Iraq. I don't trust the media's coverage of it. You hear soldiers coming back and saying, "This is nothing like we see over there!" And so much other "media" coverage is just like that. How dare the vast unwashed start actually reporting what they really see!? Maybe because we constitute more eyes and ears than the media? Maybe because we're tired of being told that is interesting and what we should care about?
"A law that isn't enforceable is totally pointless"
Not entirely. You're assuming the intent is to actually enforce law. Many such laws are passed everyday and are designed simply to foster a sense of accomplishment and augment power. Most are then marketed as necessary "for the safety of our children." When election time comes guess who the vast unwashed are going to vote for?
A better question is: Do scientists really want to shrink an already small number of people that would consider boning them!?
"and such an event would unify the world as never before"
Osama: "My brothers. A wonderful thing has happened! The Americans, the British, Israel, and the rest of the world is preparing to launch a mission to Mars! Mars is one of Alla's creations! Alla be praised as we lay down our arms and send some of our brothers to assist in this glorious endeavor!"
Is this the kind of unity you have in mind? Do you seriously think this is going to happen? Let's face it even Hillary, Obama, and many other politicians in this country would be beating down the door to CNN to either talk about what a waste of money it is or what a wonderful thing it is depending on what position their opponent takes.
Well I don't know that this is their intent. I think that's probably a mischaracterization. Although, it may be true for some advocates. Well, the advancement of science is largely responsible for our unprecedented quality of life, including technological conveniences and modern medicine. When disingenuous politicians attempt to manipulate well-meaning religious people into undermining respect for science, people who appreciate science must speak up or watch their civilization go the way of Rome.
I think it's disingenuous to assume that religious people are not scientific and vice versa. We can certainly debate the premises of their arguments but I'm more disturbed that the vehemence comes far more from the so-called scientific. I don't see anyone from the religious right denying the strides that science has made for mankind. Why would science feel that their entire body of work rests on the premise of evolution theory in regards to origins? Sounds a lot like a religion arguing their entire body of work residing on the belief in a given deity, does it not? I'm just fascinated at how "religious" the non-religious are in this regard. The reality is "science" may very well find that some new evidence dispels their current "creed" of origins someday. That, my friend, IS science. You go where the evidence leads you even if it cuts against the grain.
You know science changes all the time. One day we may well find out evolution doesn't explain it all. This bill simply states:
'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.'
Sounds like someone's a little thin-skinned. It's entertaining, if not shocking, how many so-called "scientific" minded people take such a religious approach to defending their positions.
Someone's been ideating, ala IBM's commercials!
DHS: So what is it?
Boeing: It's a virtual border fence!
DHS: What does it do?
Boeing: Keeps out illegal immigrants, virtually.
DHS: As in virtual immigrants or virtual border control?
Boeing: Yes!
DHS: Does it control actual borders and illegal immigrants?
Boeing: Uh no.
DHS: Fsck it, let's give it a try!