However, over the years I have 'forgotten' that the RIAA is just a trade organization, comprised of many different companies.
How is it that this 'trade' organization isn't illegal? I can understand an industry organization that sets technical standards, but the RIAA goes much further than that and sets prices, colludes on market objectives, and prosecutes customers.
Al Gore didn't invent the Transmission Control, he invented the Internet.
Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. That's just a Republican spin on relatively accurate statements that Gore Made. What Al Gore invented is Algorithms. That's why they are called that!
I am simply advocating that people accept that possibility and stop claiming that the evidence indicates that he does not exist. There is no such evidence.
Perhaps I should mention that I am an Atheistic Agnostic, so I agree with this statement. There is no credible evidence either way. However, given all that we understand about the nature of reality, God is not necessary; it is an extraneous and superfluous invention that matches nothing that we understand about reality. Perhaps you are a Theistic Agnostic, like perhaps the majority of the Western population (though most would not admit it).
Advocates of what I consider to be the "science" religion, prefer to take the existing evidence and take a very non-scientific, non-logical approach to it.
I guess these people might be called Antitheists, and I agree that it's illogical to draw hard conclusions from no evidence.
The evidence shows that God could exist.
Of course, this is a logical quagmire. Any of an infinite number of things utterly disconnected from reality *could* exist, including FSM, giant turtles, etc. Therefore, one could conclude, that the probability of the Christian God being the correct description is 1/infinity. This line of thinking is as meaningless as it is useless.
Beyond that, various religions and schools of thought have formed ideas about the nature of God.
Here, you run into a problem. If you examine the history of religion, you will see how it started, evolved, and mixed with other mythologies. Combine this with ancient communication technology (oral) and human nature, and you can see how it is all fabricated both by those who wish to deceive and those who suffered psychotic breaks from reality (the so-called prophets).
I don't see a giant chasm (or understand why it might exist) between a scientific viewpoint and the idea that God could exist.
As an Agnostic, I can mostly agree with you. This big problem is that so many people are of the opinion that God *does* exist in absolute reality. Scientifically, these people suffer from schizophrenia.
It isn't really a big jump from there to accept that a "God" might exist.
It is a big step, a really big step to anyone who has a rational mind and understands the history of religion (hint: it's all made up). I'd much sooner believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe five minutes ago because the FSM mythology is at least internally consistent.
Going beyond that and saying that God does exist, likes to wear beat up sneakers,...
Wrong again. The giant chasm is accepting that God exists. If I did accept that, then it would be a small step to believe that he is eccentric.
I firmly believe that type of religion in schools should be mandatory.
I can't see how religious parents would ever tolerate it. It defeats the "my religion can beat up your religion" meme that is central to organized religion.
most southern baptist preachers didn't have any formal religious instruction at all, and were perfectly free to preach their own version of the baptist faith
You may have been assuming that they are True Believers rather than petty tyrants who recognize a good scam when they see one. The Le-hord commands you to send me money!
Godel essentially said that mathematical equivalent of "This statement is false". I don't consider it to be particularly insightful, but it does show a contradiction that cannot be resolved logically.
Probably as high as 60% of the population. This is one of the truths that cannot be proven
This sounds like something a statistical analysis can resolve quite handily.
there is no finite algorithm that will ever find all truths that CAN be proven (I'm not sure where exactly this comes from)
Sounds like the Halting Problem: no algorithm can determine in a finite time whether any arbitrary other algorithm will ever halt its computation.
the most "anti-God" theory (according to... let's call this abomination "conventional wisdom"
I prefer the way that the Creationism Museum frames this: "Human Reason" vs. "His Word".
So let's look at how humans should behave according to darwin... they should be trying to steal and kill from eachother... and we all know what that leads to.
You're misinterpreting a very general concept. The fittest to survive is not necessarily the most aggressive. There is a type of sheep that freezes up and falls over when it is frightened. This is a very poor defensive strategy and would lead to the breed's extinction in the wild. However, the breed continues to survive because farmers protect the sheep from wild predators and find them easy to round up.
With humans, it's not necessarily wealth, looks, or aggressiveness that leads to reproduction. Frequently, it's culture, poverty and carelessness.
Now when you start "fixing" darwinism with allowing explanations, first for nepotism (allowing groups to survive as one), then more general for altruism, you start getting closer and closer to the points Jesus makes in the new testament.
The best way to "fix" Darwinism is to actually understand it. Technology and co-operation also contribute to modern society's ability to produce more babies. Our selfish genes may demand that we help each other out, family first, to produce more babies in the future.
Which is why you would never be on the jury, because you have already made up your mind about the outcome.
Reminds me of a Houseism: "Why do they even bother putting an age restriction on these things when all you have to do is click 'yes—I am 18!' Even a seventeen year-old could figure that out."
You just click "No—I have not prejudged the case". Even a 40 year-old could figure that out.
but as we all know the world of computer technology is huge and what is often required to intelligently review a patent is not just technical literacy
This is why I think the patent process should be a direct analogue of the peer-reviewed refereed scientific journal process—so that it is a panel of field experts that make the decisions about what is significant and what is not. Patents should be of a quality that would be accepted for publication in such a journal. This would eliminate about 99% of all software-patent applications. The new public review process is a first step in this direction. Next, it needs to be made mandatory for all patent applications. Finally, the patent employees need to be made administrators of the process rather than arbiters of what is significant. (Actually, this would be no change from what they do now.)
However, a trip of any useful length will require your tires to rotate significantly more than 360 degrees. Perhaps someday these research cars will be able to travel more than 47 inches.
He gave evidence, linked to sources in the mainstream media, government reports, interviews, and other verifiable sources. He pointed out stuff that looked fishy as hell, that anyone using just their common sense, rather than their political loyalties, would want to think about a bit.
My problem with F911 was that he makes big conspiracies out of things that are expected—Oh, you mean mega-rich people know each other and do deals together!? Oh noes!!
Overall, I found his film-making quite amateurish. If you want to see an 9-11/anti-neo-con documentary that is more professionally done, check out The Power of Nightmares.
I've spoken with a number of Canadians who have had to travel to the US or elsewhere to get an MRI, because the only other option was to wait 6 months. Frankly, I'd rather pay a large chunk of my salary than have to wait half a year for medical services.
You seem to be forgetting that Canadians get both options. You can wait and get treated for 'free', or you can go to the US, blow half your salary and get treated quickly. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Sure, but I'm talking about countries, not about individuals.
The Foreign-Exchange Market trades the equivalent of almost US$2-trillion per day. That's trillion with a 'T' and day with a 'D'. Admittedly, as an individual I go through a couple of levels of brokers, but the big players, including governments, use it directly every day whenever they want foreign currency. There are lots of factors which influence the exchange rate, admittedly including the exchange of goods, but the amount of the exchange dwarfs global trade (and the global GDP) by many times over. I'd say that market speculation is a dramatically more potent force on your ability to get US dollars than any exchange of goods.
How do they do obtain US dollars? Well, the US government doesn't give US dollars to other countries for free, to get some they must sell goods to USA.
Um, if you want US dollars, you can buy it with your own currency through a foreign exchange market. That's what I do.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it that this 'trade' organization isn't illegal? I can understand an industry organization that sets technical standards, but the RIAA goes much further than that and sets prices, colludes on market objectives, and prosecutes customers.
Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. That's just a Republican spin on relatively accurate statements that Gore Made. What Al Gore invented is Algorithms. That's why they are called that!
They should have called it W.O.P.R.
And here I thought the North Pole was a single infinitely small point.
When will Microsoft be issuing an apology for Vista? "Yep, Vista is a turd. Our bad."
Should these guys really be calling attention to the illegal actions an illegal monopoly may be taking in the future?
Price fixing is illegal. These people should crack open a law book.
Turns out that it wasn't murder; he died from natural causes.
Perhaps I should mention that I am an Atheistic Agnostic, so I agree with this statement. There is no credible evidence either way. However, given all that we understand about the nature of reality, God is not necessary; it is an extraneous and superfluous invention that matches nothing that we understand about reality. Perhaps you are a Theistic Agnostic, like perhaps the majority of the Western population (though most would not admit it).
I guess these people might be called Antitheists, and I agree that it's illogical to draw hard conclusions from no evidence.
Of course, this is a logical quagmire. Any of an infinite number of things utterly disconnected from reality *could* exist, including FSM, giant turtles, etc. Therefore, one could conclude, that the probability of the Christian God being the correct description is 1/infinity. This line of thinking is as meaningless as it is useless.
Here, you run into a problem. If you examine the history of religion, you will see how it started, evolved, and mixed with other mythologies. Combine this with ancient communication technology (oral) and human nature, and you can see how it is all fabricated both by those who wish to deceive and those who suffered psychotic breaks from reality (the so-called prophets).
As an Agnostic, I can mostly agree with you. This big problem is that so many people are of the opinion that God *does* exist in absolute reality. Scientifically, these people suffer from schizophrenia.
It might be more useful for marketing: Fly the new 787—you can bend the wing into a frikkin' pretzel before it breaks!
I can accept that.
It is a big step, a really big step to anyone who has a rational mind and understands the history of religion (hint: it's all made up). I'd much sooner believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe five minutes ago because the FSM mythology is at least internally consistent.
Wrong again. The giant chasm is accepting that God exists. If I did accept that, then it would be a small step to believe that he is eccentric.
I can't see how religious parents would ever tolerate it. It defeats the "my religion can beat up your religion" meme that is central to organized religion.
Say there hasn't been a murder. Question 1: Who did it?
Evidence such as what? I'm sure there are millions of scientists out there hungering for any crumb of credible evidence.
I have seen a human before.
You may have been assuming that they are True Believers rather than petty tyrants who recognize a good scam when they see one. The Le-hord commands you to send me money!
Godel essentially said that mathematical equivalent of "This statement is false". I don't consider it to be particularly insightful, but it does show a contradiction that cannot be resolved logically.
This sounds like something a statistical analysis can resolve quite handily.
Sounds like the Halting Problem: no algorithm can determine in a finite time whether any arbitrary other algorithm will ever halt its computation.
I prefer the way that the Creationism Museum frames this: "Human Reason" vs. "His Word".
You're misinterpreting a very general concept. The fittest to survive is not necessarily the most aggressive. There is a type of sheep that freezes up and falls over when it is frightened. This is a very poor defensive strategy and would lead to the breed's extinction in the wild. However, the breed continues to survive because farmers protect the sheep from wild predators and find them easy to round up.
With humans, it's not necessarily wealth, looks, or aggressiveness that leads to reproduction. Frequently, it's culture, poverty and carelessness.
The best way to "fix" Darwinism is to actually understand it. Technology and co-operation also contribute to modern society's ability to produce more babies. Our selfish genes may demand that we help each other out, family first, to produce more babies in the future.
Sounds like this lady is packin' a Street Sweeper.
Reminds me of a Houseism: "Why do they even bother putting an age restriction on these things when all you have to do is click 'yes—I am 18!' Even a seventeen year-old could figure that out."
You just click "No—I have not prejudged the case". Even a 40 year-old could figure that out.
Perhaps she expects the RIAA to crap their pants and write her a big fat cheque to go away.
Why do they sample for a frequency twice as high as a dog could hear?
This is why I think the patent process should be a direct analogue of the peer-reviewed refereed scientific journal process—so that it is a panel of field experts that make the decisions about what is significant and what is not. Patents should be of a quality that would be accepted for publication in such a journal. This would eliminate about 99% of all software-patent applications. The new public review process is a first step in this direction. Next, it needs to be made mandatory for all patent applications. Finally, the patent employees need to be made administrators of the process rather than arbiters of what is significant. (Actually, this would be no change from what they do now.)
However, a trip of any useful length will require your tires to rotate significantly more than 360 degrees. Perhaps someday these research cars will be able to travel more than 47 inches.
My problem with F911 was that he makes big conspiracies out of things that are expected—Oh, you mean mega-rich people know each other and do deals together!? Oh noes!!
Overall, I found his film-making quite amateurish. If you want to see an 9-11/anti-neo-con documentary that is more professionally done, check out The Power of Nightmares.
You seem to be forgetting that Canadians get both options. You can wait and get treated for 'free', or you can go to the US, blow half your salary and get treated quickly. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
The Foreign-Exchange Market trades the equivalent of almost US$2-trillion per day. That's trillion with a 'T' and day with a 'D'. Admittedly, as an individual I go through a couple of levels of brokers, but the big players, including governments, use it directly every day whenever they want foreign currency. There are lots of factors which influence the exchange rate, admittedly including the exchange of goods, but the amount of the exchange dwarfs global trade (and the global GDP) by many times over. I'd say that market speculation is a dramatically more potent force on your ability to get US dollars than any exchange of goods.
Um, if you want US dollars, you can buy it with your own currency through a foreign exchange market. That's what I do.