As/if oil gets scarce, the price will go up naturally, and the market forces will dictate people drive more efficient cars or alternatively-fueled cars.
That is a nice, market-driven fantasy that I wish I could believe, but you need to consider the realistic implications of such a scenario. After all, we go to war now over oil, and we are not even at the point of crisis yet. When larger countries like China (which will soon pass us in oil consumption despite being at the beginning of its development phase!) begin staking their claim in the same way that we do now, it is not unreasonble to think that it might be in our best interest to act more decisively and not wait until our hand is forced. I realize that waiting for the market to handle the problem is a possibility... but is it the best one in this case? Compounding the problem with waiting to let the market sort it out is that the cost of oil is heavily subsidized by our government/military, which prolongs your proposed cycle... after all, it is difficult to let the market do its thing when you are keeping oil prices artificially low.
I feel that market-oriented fixes are often a great way of letting situations play themselves out naturally, but also feel that this is not one of those cases. Oil is a limited resource largely controlled by foreign, hostile nations. With competition escalating, it is not difficult to see why weaning ourselves off it should be made a national priority, and that acting sooner rather than later will pay dividends.
Rather than each individual user trying to create a nice set of filters, perhaps the people that work on adBlock could make it easy to get a "recommended" set of filters that they update. It could be as easy as clicking a button to "Update Filters" and the casual user would not have to muck around with URL filters... I know some power-users would still want to make their own filters, but I bet 90% of people would find this feature useful.
And what should my guess about the likelyhood of aliens coming to earth to feast on humans be based on? Should I wait for the hard data to come in from other galaxies before speculating?
I simply think its pretty logical that space-travelling societies have figured out how to secure food... I can think of some doomsday-like scenarious that might require them to venture out and seek new food... anything is possible. I simply think its far more likely that their contact with us would not be food related - and if it were food-related, that they could find much better sources on earth than humans. Of course, to take our food they would need to kill us... and since we are dead and laying around, they might as well feed us to their spacedogs... so perhaps my point is moot.:)
There is also no reason to think that they wouldn't find us TASTY!
I sort of doubt this... While I am generalizing and admit lack of experience in the matter (it's true... I have no actual experience dealing with other life forms), I feel that:
1. A natual progression of an advanced species is to grow food instead of relying on hunting it. Any species that is capable of receiving our signal and/or traveling here no doubt has long ago worked out the whole "food" problem.
2. Humans just aren't a great food source. We are too boney and don't have a lot of meat on us. Even aside from the obvious mental reason why we don't eat other humans, the fact remains that humans wouldn't be able to compete with other animals as a food source regardless. Chickens have a lot of meat on them for their size, can grow quickly, are comparitively easy to raise, keep and control, etc. If aliens were interested in getting food from earth, there is little reason why they too would not look to cows, chicken and fish as well.
* Jon Stewart is NOT brutally honest about politics"
* He would be funnier if he made fun of all sides equally, but he is definitely biased towards the left and has admitted as much
Do these two statements necessarily contradict each other?
Funny... you seem to be surprised that someone responded to your comment on a public messageboard. I realize, now, that we are not engaged in a debate - its hard to debate someone that doesn't bother posting any actual information. Cheers
Re-read what I said. I admitted fully to it being speculation - my only guide was what a google search could bring up regarding P&T's recycling episode, but I fully realized that that was not enough to base a case on. Hence, I asked for elaboration.
Do you honestly believe we could drastically reduce our military budget if only we stopped making new plastic bottles!?!?!?
By simply stopping making plastic bottles? Of course not... But if, as a national priority, we move towards being self-reliant and not dependant on foreign (and often hostile) nations for limited resources - absolutely we can drastically cut down our military budget. Half of our discretionary budget is absurd. Recycling and other conservation strategies would be but a part of such an initiative, but an important one. I meant only to say that there are costs associated with not being such a self-reliant society, and that often times people ignore such costs when making arguments such as the one I was countering.
My example was simplistic, yes, and I even admitted as much in my post ("quickly" and "for the sake of argument"... I'm at work, so I really don't have time to get into this, either;). I just wanted to know if that was the nature of Penn and Teller's argument - that it costs more resources to recycle than it takes to produce new products.
I see now that the proper way to respond your post would have been to simply direct you to go buy/rent a pro-recycling book/film, before commenting further. Sorry to bother you...
Please, as the other poster said, in the absense of the DVD, can you sum it up here?
I admit to not having seen the DVD, but if their argument is the typical "it uses more resources to recycle something than to make a new one", that is definitely something I can take argument with. It is the common anti-recycling argument, but one that is flawed.
Real quickly and for the sake of argument, lets say it takes 10 "units of energy" to recycle something, and 7 units to produce a new one. On the surface, it would seem that recyling is, in fact, Bullshit!.
Unfortunately, this argument begins to fail when you realize that nothing happens in a vacuum. Producing a new product means raw materials, and the quest to secure raw materials (most notably, oil) gets us into all kinds of trouble in the world. If you factor in our conquests in the middle easts and the subsequent costs (not only the billions fighting in the war, but other costs such as the loss of life, reactionary terrorism that we will suffer, etc) the cost of producing those new products instead of recyling them becomes much more expensive. Our military eats up half our discretionary federal budget - HALF - and you really don't think all of that is to spread freedom, do you?;) You need to look at the total costs of a particular action, not just the surface costs of the immediate moment. Using raw materials to the point of dependence is, in fact, incredibly expensive... the fact that the free market does not indicate this is irrelevant, because the free market is great at setting prices, but terrible at realizing costs.
Secondly, all "units of energy" in our example are not created equal. There is no reason that the 10 units used to recycle could not be derived from "green" means, while the 7 units used to produce the product are in some ways fixed. You will always have to mine the resources, and secure access to them (which typically means getting in bed with countries that we would otherwise desire not to).
All of this being said, I say again that I did not see the Penn and Teller special, so if they made a better argument than the one I am defending against, I truly am interested in hearing it. I have never heard a good anti-recycling argument that wasn't full of holes once scrutinized.
I'm no MS supporter, but do you think this might be because the new search engine has been crawling the web for a fraction of the length of time Yahoo and Google have been crawling the web?
Perhaps, but they still have been crawling the web for months... should be plenty of time.
Physics engines have moved generations beyond the simple demonstration you mentioned (which could be duplicated in DHTML and javascript;)
Imagine a game world where any object can be moved, pushed, pulled, rolled, or thrown. Each object has a specified weight and buoyancy. The typical example of this is that an empty barrel may float when pushed into the water, but if you start throwing rocks into it, it begins to sink.
Though it may not sound like it, advanced physics engines in games are more than just a novelty and really do make the game world much more realistic. Half Life 2 is the best example of a game that utilizes and benefits from such an engine.
Because films are easier, and people are passive, in many cases lazy, and attention spans are at an all time low. The reliance on TV and films will continue to decrease our attention spans, and some would argue, our ability to think critically.
It's because they can absorb an entertaining or informative experience in 2 hours rather than the 20+ hours it might take them to read the book.
Could not disagree more. You make it sound as if the two are equal, and that movies simply shorten the time it takes to deliver the same information/experience. In reality, the two experiences are extremely different from each other. If you read Lord of the Rings before the films came out, I think you would know what I mean. The films tell you how it is... the books coax you into almost creating a universe all your own. They are very different. Hell, even reading the books after seeing the films is not the same because you already have preconceived notions of how things are, what people look like, etc.
The way to avoid this is, of course, to fund the recording, producing, marketing and sales of your work yourself...
I think this is a very simplistic view of things, as you totally ignore the fact that the industry giants are also roadblocks in your path that you must overcome. They control the radio stations, many concert venues, etc. It would be nice if radio-play was based on merit, and in that world you would be perfectly correct. But, welcome to our world...
... In our world, the industry giants control the means of distribution (thats why all this internet file sharing is so dang scary to them). They will sometimes even give you airplay if you join them - but chances are remote if you remain independant of breaking through. The fact that the industry giants elevate a few select artists over the roadblocks that they themselves imposed is not enough to justify their existence, or to respect the model that they are imposing on the industry. The fact that some artists can exist independant and despite of these giants is reason enough to believe that the giants are ultimately unnecessary to the survival of music as a business and art-form.
They also spend millions in promotions, provide contacts, etc, which sadly enough, is worth more (in terms of cash) than the creation itself.
I never bought this argument. I can't think of a single band that I listen to (including those that have moved over to major labels) that has got a national promotion or any sort of advertising campaign. Sometimes a song or two will make it onto the radio, but that alone is not enough to praise the industry gods, as they are also the roadblock from getting onto radio in the first place. As it stands now, I still only come to find out if a band is touring through third-party music websites or if I go to the bands website to check it out myself.
As for the costs of producing the CDs - I know several local bands that have managed to produce CDs and also make it onto local stages here in my city. I think the industry as it stands now inflates a lot of these production costs to unnecessary levels, and spends the majority of its promoting on the chosen few artists who have been determined to be viable marketing platforms.
As for "providing contracts" - again, they are the roadblock. The fact that they open up their gates every once in a while to let some artists through is not a reason to support them. There are plenty of indy labels and artists that do just fine - and they do so *despite* the huge roadblocks that the industry giants impose on them, which keeps them off radio, etc.
Ultimately, XBox gaming (if they make a profitable console next time around) will be much better for Microsoft than PC Gaming ever was.
I think the original poster's point was that PC gaming is a large reason why people felt tied to the Windows OS in the past. Now that it is shifting to XBox (a conclusion that I don't even agree with, by the way -- PC gaming is not "dead", nor will it die) he feels that he is free to switch OS's.
Wow. In my experience, that puts you in the minority. I get cut off by a 5'2" soccer mom on her cel phone who can't see over the dashboard of her Ford Excursion daily.
Be that as it may for you personally, men are something like three times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident on the road. Women get involved in slightly more accidents per mile than men, but only slightly more. Men are also more likely to drive while under the influence.
Who knows - maybe those stats have changed and women are now on par with men (if this is the case, I would love for someone to post a link - a quick googling didn't bring up any pages that state otherwise, and I don't have time to get into this right now). But this has always been what I have heard, and from personally looking at driving behavior on the road, I find these stats very believable. There are problems with both men and women drivers, sure, but men are more likely to get you killed.
I think the problems (generalizing here, of course) of men and women drivers are just different. I think men are probably typically better physical drivers, but men are also more confidently reckless as well - which is why they get into more serious accidents and insurance prices are adjusted accordingly.
Overall, I think I prefer women drivers... I rarely get cut off by some woman in a SUV going 85 while they are talking on a cellphone.
The laws we have are based on our theory of government and rights. If you believe that human rights come from sets of people, then you will produce very different laws than if you believe that human rights come from God.
Maybe, maybe not. We as a country (I am assuming you are American) got our "murder is bad" belief from Christian tradition. This same belief can be derived (and has been) from other sources long before Christianity existed. Whether those previous cultures came to that conclusion from the Sun God or Tree God or just plain logic seems rather arbitrary to me. Others think that such laws can be derived on a purely logical basis, simply by looking at what helps and what hurts society. I won't advocate that any one of these are correct - but neither would I say that Christianity is the only source of such laws when clearly it is not.
The implementation must derive from the foundation. If you do not understand the foundation, then you cannot completely understand the implementation.
The implementation is what it is. It can be perfectly understood regardless of one's religious background.
I believe that the preservation of our Liberty depends on the understanding of our people as to the theory behind our laws.
I agree - but I think the theory behind our laws is to not let anyone impose their beliefs on you:)
I don't, especially if it requires leaving the public ignorant of how we got where we are!
This is obviously the main point where we disagree. Yes, we got here because of X, but many implementations of X in the Old World were downright evil. Our founding fathers (despite being influenced by X) realized that society would benefit from not having religious beliefs imposed on its citizens. It's that simple... People are certainly free to practice X, just as they are free to practice Y. The point is that no one religous belief should be imposed on others... Such is a more advanced society than one that imposes X or Y or Z on its citizens.
Though there may be a few simular conclusions reached by various civilizations, none of them will reach all the same conclusions we hold dear, because they have different principles.
Civilizations are alike in some ways, different in others. In many ways, we have progressed. In others, we have not. But if you believe, as I do, that our society is more advanced than a theocracy, I struggle to see how you could credit our Christian tradition with that advancement, as Christian history has always been one of imperialism and expansion. There are certainly other factors at work here... Some advancements come from a different, more secular place, and I think our founding fathers respected this.
Wouldn't it be horrible to suffer under unjust laws? Does that mean that all laws should be disbanded?
Your logic does not follow, so I have to ignore the rest of your comment in this section. Yes, it is horrible to suffer unjust laws, and no, that of course does not mean all laws should be disbanded. That is some faulty logic if I have ever seen any...
We should also fight attempts to force a religious vacuum. Morality and law cannot exist in such a vacuum, as they are the expression of religious belief.
We do not exist in a religious vacuum - we just don't want to impose religious beliefs. There is a difference. People are free to teach their children and personally practice anything they want. They can enroll their children in strictly relgious schools. What we are talking about are public schools - the schools that are, in theory, for everyone. If you don't understand this concept, just try a simple reversal. What if your kid was being taught Buddhist beliefs in a public school?
I know enough history to know that the atrocities committed by various branches of Christianity were opposed by other branches of Christianity. Even in Roman Catholicism, there were those who opposed certain practices
In terms of a godless, natural-force-only Universe, statements such as the heart of the Declaration of Independence have no meaning. I could cite many more examples, but this one example is sufficient to show that you are incorrect.
No, not quite, because the true meaning of the declaration of independance lies in our laws - not in this (admittedly beautiful) line. Again, the best thing about our founding fathers is that they seperated the foundation from the implementation. Yes, I agree that the basis of our laws is the Judeo/Christian tradition. That does not logically indicate that such belief systems should be instilled on the populace, if you believe in the seperation of church and state in public arenas, which I certainly do.
But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.
Not if you view the foundations as somewhat arbitrary. Yes, our foundations are X... but that does not mean that the same conclusions could not have been met if they weren't Y. Again, advanced civilizations have existed long before X;) Just because X played an important role in our (what I believe to be) somewhat advanced society does not mean X is the only path, and hence, should be instilled over the populace. I believe the founding fathers emphasized freedom of religion because they knew exactly how dangerous and horrible public enforcement of religion could be, and I am happy to take their word for it (our country was born from the need to escape from religious persecution, after all). Just as we should fight to protect freedom of religion, we should also fight to make sure no one attempts to instill a religious belief on us or our children.
Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati, etc.).
Wow, brush up on a bit of your history and I think you will find quite a few atrocities commited in the name of Christianity. As for regarding those civilizations as brutal and barbaric - I agree... and I also think that, unfortunately, not all that much as changed since then. I can think of a few brutal and barbaric practices that are being enforced by our goverment at this very instant.
Well, not to nitpick, but we are a Republic - not a Democracy. And I disagree wholeheartedly that, as such, a simple majority should be able to dictate religious beliefs in a public school. That is, in essence, a complete undermining of the freedom-of-religion pillar that we Americans hold so dear. If you agree that people of all sorts of faiths attend public school, I honestly do not see why it is so difficult to see why teaching any one creed over another violates that principle.
As you somewhat mentioned, we either have to teach all creeds with perfect equality (which is, of course, utterly impossible) or stick to testable, scientific methods to explain our existence.
The thought that a majority could simply outvote and instill their religious beliefs on my children in a public school scares the hell out of me - and if you support this, I don't think you really understand what freedom of (and from!) religion means.
It is impossible to understand our system of laws and human rights without understanding our Judeo-Christian foundation.
No, it isn't. And regardless, no matter what the foundation of our laws may indeed be, that does not mean you should require that those foundations be taught outright. Foundations are just that - foundations. A pagan society could also determine similar laws, even though the foundations may seem very different. And keep in mind that there were advanced civilizations long before Christianity.
I believe the only seperation the Founding Fathers intended was freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, not the extermination of religious beliefs from the public domain.
And this is not a case of an individual being denied that freedom, now is it? This is a public institution which, in theory at least, should strive to be as bias-free as possible. No creed should be put before another. I reiterate - no one should be denied religious expression, and we should all fight and die to protect that right if necessary -- but that is NOT what is at issue here.
That would be an argument for the elimination of the public school system.
I think this point is only valid if you do not see the difference between a religous belief and a scientific one. I think that the only groups that would oppose scientific teaching are those that fear scientific teaching - because they have something to lose. The great thing about science is that it is open to anyone. If you do not like the theory of evolution - by all means, dispute it. But do so in a manner that does not require others to share you faith. If it does require someone to share your faith, I am still not convinced why that should be taught in public schools.
I completely agree that this is a culture war. And in this case, I quite strongly side with the ACLU. What business does God have in any other class than a religious class? Do you not believe in the seperation of church and state? Parents can give their children all the religious education they want, or even send them to an outright religious school. But what is taught in public schools needs to be as bias-free as possible, no matter how widely accepted or (in the eyes of very many) very important those religious teachings may indeed be.
I can't say it better than this post did, so I will simply link to it.
If we want to have warning stickers attached to everything that is a theory (including gravity) then we can at least have a conversation about this - but this was clearly a case of trying to confuse and influence those reading the textbooks. In order to see it a different way, simply reverse the situation. What if, in San Francisco, they started putting stickers on textbooks that said the following:
This book makes references to God. There has been no testable proof that God or any other form of supreme being exists throughout human history.
Is it true? Yes. Would putting such a sticker on school's textbooks have a motive other than the simple conveying of a fact? Yes.
They are ruling creationist's stickers unconstitutional, though wierdly enough part of me feels like it is also "-1 Free Speech".:-/ I am kinda split if it is a good thing to make "keep open mind" stickers unconstitutional.
Not allowing stickers to be put on textbooks by education boards is not a free speech issue. Creationist stickers were not declared unconstitutional - putting them on student's textbooks is. There is a difference. Just as I am allowed to hang the ten commandments on my wall, I shouldn't be allowed to do so in school.
Slashdot Mirror
As/if oil gets scarce, the price will go up naturally, and the market forces will dictate people drive more efficient cars or alternatively-fueled cars.
That is a nice, market-driven fantasy that I wish I could believe, but you need to consider the realistic implications of such a scenario. After all, we go to war now over oil, and we are not even at the point of crisis yet. When larger countries like China (which will soon pass us in oil consumption despite being at the beginning of its development phase!) begin staking their claim in the same way that we do now, it is not unreasonble to think that it might be in our best interest to act more decisively and not wait until our hand is forced. I realize that waiting for the market to handle the problem is a possibility... but is it the best one in this case? Compounding the problem with waiting to let the market sort it out is that the cost of oil is heavily subsidized by our government/military, which prolongs your proposed cycle... after all, it is difficult to let the market do its thing when you are keeping oil prices artificially low.
I feel that market-oriented fixes are often a great way of letting situations play themselves out naturally, but also feel that this is not one of those cases. Oil is a limited resource largely controlled by foreign, hostile nations. With competition escalating, it is not difficult to see why weaning ourselves off it should be made a national priority, and that acting sooner rather than later will pay dividends.
Rather than each individual user trying to create a nice set of filters, perhaps the people that work on adBlock could make it easy to get a "recommended" set of filters that they update. It could be as easy as clicking a button to "Update Filters" and the casual user would not have to muck around with URL filters... I know some power-users would still want to make their own filters, but I bet 90% of people would find this feature useful.
Based on incomplete observation of one species?
:)
And what should my guess about the likelyhood of aliens coming to earth to feast on humans be based on? Should I wait for the hard data to come in from other galaxies before speculating?
I simply think its pretty logical that space-travelling societies have figured out how to secure food... I can think of some doomsday-like scenarious that might require them to venture out and seek new food... anything is possible. I simply think its far more likely that their contact with us would not be food related - and if it were food-related, that they could find much better sources on earth than humans. Of course, to take our food they would need to kill us... and since we are dead and laying around, they might as well feed us to their spacedogs... so perhaps my point is moot.
There is also no reason to think that they wouldn't find us TASTY!
I sort of doubt this... While I am generalizing and admit lack of experience in the matter (it's true... I have no actual experience dealing with other life forms), I feel that:
1. A natual progression of an advanced species is to grow food instead of relying on hunting it. Any species that is capable of receiving our signal and/or traveling here no doubt has long ago worked out the whole "food" problem.
2. Humans just aren't a great food source. We are too boney and don't have a lot of meat on us. Even aside from the obvious mental reason why we don't eat other humans, the fact remains that humans wouldn't be able to compete with other animals as a food source regardless. Chickens have a lot of meat on them for their size, can grow quickly, are comparitively easy to raise, keep and control, etc. If aliens were interested in getting food from earth, there is little reason why they too would not look to cows, chicken and fish as well.
Just my $0.02...
* Jon Stewart is NOT brutally honest about politics"
* He would be funnier if he made fun of all sides equally, but he is definitely biased towards the left and has admitted as much
Do these two statements necessarily contradict each other?
Funny... you seem to be surprised that someone responded to your comment on a public messageboard. I realize, now, that we are not engaged in a debate - its hard to debate someone that doesn't bother posting any actual information. Cheers
Instead, you say nothing at all.
Re-read what I said. I admitted fully to it being speculation - my only guide was what a google search could bring up regarding P&T's recycling episode, but I fully realized that that was not enough to base a case on. Hence, I asked for elaboration.
Do you honestly believe we could drastically reduce our military budget if only we stopped making new plastic bottles!?!?!?
;). I just wanted to know if that was the nature of Penn and Teller's argument - that it costs more resources to recycle than it takes to produce new products.
By simply stopping making plastic bottles? Of course not... But if, as a national priority, we move towards being self-reliant and not dependant on foreign (and often hostile) nations for limited resources - absolutely we can drastically cut down our military budget. Half of our discretionary budget is absurd. Recycling and other conservation strategies would be but a part of such an initiative, but an important one. I meant only to say that there are costs associated with not being such a self-reliant society, and that often times people ignore such costs when making arguments such as the one I was countering.
My example was simplistic, yes, and I even admitted as much in my post ("quickly" and "for the sake of argument"... I'm at work, so I really don't have time to get into this, either
I see now that the proper way to respond your post would have been to simply direct you to go buy/rent a pro-recycling book/film, before commenting further. Sorry to bother you...
Please, as the other poster said, in the absense of the DVD, can you sum it up here?
;) You need to look at the total costs of a particular action, not just the surface costs of the immediate moment. Using raw materials to the point of dependence is, in fact, incredibly expensive... the fact that the free market does not indicate this is irrelevant, because the free market is great at setting prices, but terrible at realizing costs.
I admit to not having seen the DVD, but if their argument is the typical "it uses more resources to recycle something than to make a new one", that is definitely something I can take argument with. It is the common anti-recycling argument, but one that is flawed.
Real quickly and for the sake of argument, lets say it takes 10 "units of energy" to recycle something, and 7 units to produce a new one. On the surface, it would seem that recyling is, in fact, Bullshit!.
Unfortunately, this argument begins to fail when you realize that nothing happens in a vacuum. Producing a new product means raw materials, and the quest to secure raw materials (most notably, oil) gets us into all kinds of trouble in the world. If you factor in our conquests in the middle easts and the subsequent costs (not only the billions fighting in the war, but other costs such as the loss of life, reactionary terrorism that we will suffer, etc) the cost of producing those new products instead of recyling them becomes much more expensive. Our military eats up half our discretionary federal budget - HALF - and you really don't think all of that is to spread freedom, do you?
Secondly, all "units of energy" in our example are not created equal. There is no reason that the 10 units used to recycle could not be derived from "green" means, while the 7 units used to produce the product are in some ways fixed. You will always have to mine the resources, and secure access to them (which typically means getting in bed with countries that we would otherwise desire not to).
All of this being said, I say again that I did not see the Penn and Teller special, so if they made a better argument than the one I am defending against, I truly am interested in hearing it. I have never heard a good anti-recycling argument that wasn't full of holes once scrutinized.
I'm no MS supporter, but do you think this might be because the new search engine has been crawling the web for a fraction of the length of time Yahoo and Google have been crawling the web?
Perhaps, but they still have been crawling the web for months... should be plenty of time.
Physics engines have moved generations beyond the simple demonstration you mentioned (which could be duplicated in DHTML and javascript ;)
Imagine a game world where any object can be moved, pushed, pulled, rolled, or thrown. Each object has a specified weight and buoyancy. The typical example of this is that an empty barrel may float when pushed into the water, but if you start throwing rocks into it, it begins to sink.
Though it may not sound like it, advanced physics engines in games are more than just a novelty and really do make the game world much more realistic. Half Life 2 is the best example of a game that utilizes and benefits from such an engine.
Why do LOTS of people prefer movies over books?
Because films are easier, and people are passive, in many cases lazy, and attention spans are at an all time low. The reliance on TV and films will continue to decrease our attention spans, and some would argue, our ability to think critically.
It's because they can absorb an entertaining or informative experience in 2 hours rather than the 20+ hours it might take them to read the book.
Could not disagree more. You make it sound as if the two are equal, and that movies simply shorten the time it takes to deliver the same information/experience. In reality, the two experiences are extremely different from each other. If you read Lord of the Rings before the films came out, I think you would know what I mean. The films tell you how it is... the books coax you into almost creating a universe all your own. They are very different. Hell, even reading the books after seeing the films is not the same because you already have preconceived notions of how things are, what people look like, etc.
The way to avoid this is, of course, to fund the recording, producing, marketing and sales of your work yourself...
... In our world, the industry giants control the means of distribution (thats why all this internet file sharing is so dang scary to them). They will sometimes even give you airplay if you join them - but chances are remote if you remain independant of breaking through. The fact that the industry giants elevate a few select artists over the roadblocks that they themselves imposed is not enough to justify their existence, or to respect the model that they are imposing on the industry. The fact that some artists can exist independant and despite of these giants is reason enough to believe that the giants are ultimately unnecessary to the survival of music as a business and art-form.
I think this is a very simplistic view of things, as you totally ignore the fact that the industry giants are also roadblocks in your path that you must overcome. They control the radio stations, many concert venues, etc. It would be nice if radio-play was based on merit, and in that world you would be perfectly correct. But, welcome to our world...
They also spend millions in promotions, provide contacts, etc, which sadly enough, is worth more (in terms of cash) than the creation itself.
I never bought this argument. I can't think of a single band that I listen to (including those that have moved over to major labels) that has got a national promotion or any sort of advertising campaign. Sometimes a song or two will make it onto the radio, but that alone is not enough to praise the industry gods, as they are also the roadblock from getting onto radio in the first place. As it stands now, I still only come to find out if a band is touring through third-party music websites or if I go to the bands website to check it out myself.
As for the costs of producing the CDs - I know several local bands that have managed to produce CDs and also make it onto local stages here in my city. I think the industry as it stands now inflates a lot of these production costs to unnecessary levels, and spends the majority of its promoting on the chosen few artists who have been determined to be viable marketing platforms.
As for "providing contracts" - again, they are the roadblock. The fact that they open up their gates every once in a while to let some artists through is not a reason to support them. There are plenty of indy labels and artists that do just fine - and they do so *despite* the huge roadblocks that the industry giants impose on them, which keeps them off radio, etc.
Ultimately, XBox gaming (if they make a profitable console next time around) will be much better for Microsoft than PC Gaming ever was.
I think the original poster's point was that PC gaming is a large reason why people felt tied to the Windows OS in the past. Now that it is shifting to XBox (a conclusion that I don't even agree with, by the way -- PC gaming is not "dead", nor will it die) he feels that he is free to switch OS's.
Wow. In my experience, that puts you in the minority. I get cut off by a 5'2" soccer mom on her cel phone who can't see over the dashboard of her Ford Excursion daily.
Be that as it may for you personally, men are something like three times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident on the road. Women get involved in slightly more accidents per mile than men, but only slightly more. Men are also more likely to drive while under the influence.
Who knows - maybe those stats have changed and women are now on par with men (if this is the case, I would love for someone to post a link - a quick googling didn't bring up any pages that state otherwise, and I don't have time to get into this right now). But this has always been what I have heard, and from personally looking at driving behavior on the road, I find these stats very believable. There are problems with both men and women drivers, sure, but men are more likely to get you killed.
I think the problems (generalizing here, of course) of men and women drivers are just different. I think men are probably typically better physical drivers, but men are also more confidently reckless as well - which is why they get into more serious accidents and insurance prices are adjusted accordingly.
Overall, I think I prefer women drivers... I rarely get cut off by some woman in a SUV going 85 while they are talking on a cellphone.
The laws we have are based on our theory of government and rights. If you believe that human rights come from sets of people, then you will produce very different laws than if you believe that human rights come from God.
:)
Maybe, maybe not. We as a country (I am assuming you are American) got our "murder is bad" belief from Christian tradition. This same belief can be derived (and has been) from other sources long before Christianity existed. Whether those previous cultures came to that conclusion from the Sun God or Tree God or just plain logic seems rather arbitrary to me. Others think that such laws can be derived on a purely logical basis, simply by looking at what helps and what hurts society. I won't advocate that any one of these are correct - but neither would I say that Christianity is the only source of such laws when clearly it is not.
The implementation must derive from the foundation. If you do not understand the foundation, then you cannot completely understand the implementation.
The implementation is what it is. It can be perfectly understood regardless of one's religious background.
I believe that the preservation of our Liberty depends on the understanding of our people as to the theory behind our laws.
I agree - but I think the theory behind our laws is to not let anyone impose their beliefs on you
I don't, especially if it requires leaving the public ignorant of how we got where we are!
This is obviously the main point where we disagree. Yes, we got here because of X, but many implementations of X in the Old World were downright evil. Our founding fathers (despite being influenced by X) realized that society would benefit from not having religious beliefs imposed on its citizens. It's that simple... People are certainly free to practice X, just as they are free to practice Y. The point is that no one religous belief should be imposed on others... Such is a more advanced society than one that imposes X or Y or Z on its citizens.
Though there may be a few simular conclusions reached by various civilizations, none of them will reach all the same conclusions we hold dear, because they have different principles.
Civilizations are alike in some ways, different in others. In many ways, we have progressed. In others, we have not. But if you believe, as I do, that our society is more advanced than a theocracy, I struggle to see how you could credit our Christian tradition with that advancement, as Christian history has always been one of imperialism and expansion. There are certainly other factors at work here... Some advancements come from a different, more secular place, and I think our founding fathers respected this.
Wouldn't it be horrible to suffer under unjust laws? Does that mean that all laws should be disbanded?
Your logic does not follow, so I have to ignore the rest of your comment in this section. Yes, it is horrible to suffer unjust laws, and no, that of course does not mean all laws should be disbanded. That is some faulty logic if I have ever seen any...
We should also fight attempts to force a religious vacuum. Morality and law cannot exist in such a vacuum, as they are the expression of religious belief.
We do not exist in a religious vacuum - we just don't want to impose religious beliefs. There is a difference. People are free to teach their children and personally practice anything they want. They can enroll their children in strictly relgious schools. What we are talking about are public schools - the schools that are, in theory, for everyone. If you don't understand this concept, just try a simple reversal. What if your kid was being taught Buddhist beliefs in a public school? I know enough history to know that the atrocities committed by various branches of Christianity were opposed by other branches of Christianity. Even in Roman Catholicism, there were those who opposed certain practices
In terms of a godless, natural-force-only Universe, statements such as the heart of the Declaration of Independence have no meaning. I could cite many more examples, but this one example is sufficient to show that you are incorrect.
;) Just because X played an important role in our (what I believe to be) somewhat advanced society does not mean X is the only path, and hence, should be instilled over the populace. I believe the founding fathers emphasized freedom of religion because they knew exactly how dangerous and horrible public enforcement of religion could be, and I am happy to take their word for it (our country was born from the need to escape from religious persecution, after all). Just as we should fight to protect freedom of religion, we should also fight to make sure no one attempts to instill a religious belief on us or our children.
No, not quite, because the true meaning of the declaration of independance lies in our laws - not in this (admittedly beautiful) line. Again, the best thing about our founding fathers is that they seperated the foundation from the implementation. Yes, I agree that the basis of our laws is the Judeo/Christian tradition. That does not logically indicate that such belief systems should be instilled on the populace, if you believe in the seperation of church and state in public arenas, which I certainly do.
But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.
Not if you view the foundations as somewhat arbitrary. Yes, our foundations are X... but that does not mean that the same conclusions could not have been met if they weren't Y. Again, advanced civilizations have existed long before X
Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati, etc.).
Wow, brush up on a bit of your history and I think you will find quite a few atrocities commited in the name of Christianity. As for regarding those civilizations as brutal and barbaric - I agree... and I also think that, unfortunately, not all that much as changed since then. I can think of a few brutal and barbaric practices that are being enforced by our goverment at this very instant.
Well, not to nitpick, but we are a Republic - not a Democracy. And I disagree wholeheartedly that, as such, a simple majority should be able to dictate religious beliefs in a public school. That is, in essence, a complete undermining of the freedom-of-religion pillar that we Americans hold so dear. If you agree that people of all sorts of faiths attend public school, I honestly do not see why it is so difficult to see why teaching any one creed over another violates that principle.
As you somewhat mentioned, we either have to teach all creeds with perfect equality (which is, of course, utterly impossible) or stick to testable, scientific methods to explain our existence.
The thought that a majority could simply outvote and instill their religious beliefs on my children in a public school scares the hell out of me - and if you support this, I don't think you really understand what freedom of (and from!) religion means.
It is impossible to understand our system of laws and human rights without understanding our Judeo-Christian foundation.
No, it isn't. And regardless, no matter what the foundation of our laws may indeed be, that does not mean you should require that those foundations be taught outright. Foundations are just that - foundations. A pagan society could also determine similar laws, even though the foundations may seem very different. And keep in mind that there were advanced civilizations long before Christianity.
I believe the only seperation the Founding Fathers intended was freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, not the extermination of religious beliefs from the public domain.
And this is not a case of an individual being denied that freedom, now is it? This is a public institution which, in theory at least, should strive to be as bias-free as possible. No creed should be put before another. I reiterate - no one should be denied religious expression, and we should all fight and die to protect that right if necessary -- but that is NOT what is at issue here.
That would be an argument for the elimination of the public school system.
I think this point is only valid if you do not see the difference between a religous belief and a scientific one. I think that the only groups that would oppose scientific teaching are those that fear scientific teaching - because they have something to lose. The great thing about science is that it is open to anyone. If you do not like the theory of evolution - by all means, dispute it. But do so in a manner that does not require others to share you faith. If it does require someone to share your faith, I am still not convinced why that should be taught in public schools.
I completely agree that this is a culture war. And in this case, I quite strongly side with the ACLU. What business does God have in any other class than a religious class? Do you not believe in the seperation of church and state? Parents can give their children all the religious education they want, or even send them to an outright religious school. But what is taught in public schools needs to be as bias-free as possible, no matter how widely accepted or (in the eyes of very many) very important those religious teachings may indeed be.
I can't say it better than this post did, so I will simply link to it.
If we want to have warning stickers attached to everything that is a theory (including gravity) then we can at least have a conversation about this - but this was clearly a case of trying to confuse and influence those reading the textbooks. In order to see it a different way, simply reverse the situation. What if, in San Francisco, they started putting stickers on textbooks that said the following:
This book makes references to God. There has been no testable proof that God or any other form of supreme being exists throughout human history.
Is it true? Yes. Would putting such a sticker on school's textbooks have a motive other than the simple conveying of a fact? Yes.
Wow... my first "mod parent up" post. I feel so dirty... it feels... good...
They are ruling creationist's stickers unconstitutional, though wierdly enough part of me feels like it is also "-1 Free Speech". :-/ I am kinda split if it is a good thing to make "keep open mind" stickers unconstitutional.
Not allowing stickers to be put on textbooks by education boards is not a free speech issue. Creationist stickers were not declared unconstitutional - putting them on student's textbooks is. There is a difference. Just as I am allowed to hang the ten commandments on my wall, I shouldn't be allowed to do so in school.