"WHY? Why the hell should uploading or downloading stuff that you don't own be legal? Because you're fucking cheap and don't want to pay?"
Because in quite a lot of cases the artists themselves don't own the rights to the music either, the record companies do. Because for the most part CDs are hideously overpriced (look at allofmp3.com - selling megabytes of music for pennies, and they're still obviously turning a profit). Because record and movie companies have been profiteering off of bands like the Beatles for the past 20 years *at least*. Because record companies and the RIAA consider it to be illegal to buy used copies of CDs. I can find a whole load of reasons; these are just the first couple outta my head.
"Cheap" would be every single CD for sale for $5, not $15-$20 USD per CD, and more for older stuff that's not discounted by stores. I think that not paying these exhorbiant prices is *reasonable*, not "cheap."
My whole point is that the law is wrong. You're comparing bombers to uploaders (albeit indirectly) and creating the same connexion in people's minds as the media does between Arabs and terrorists. A more appropriate comparison would be "you don't sue the city who paves roads when somebody jaywalks, you go after the jaywalker."
How many uploaders are there in the US? How many people are calling in bomb threats? His example was totally flawed.
"He was making a point that the RIAA is doing the logically correct thing..." This is the first time I've ever heard somebody say that the RIAA is doing *anything* "correct." Yes, I'm obfusicating the point. The *point* is that uploading/downloading should not be illegal, and any comparison in ANY respect between uploaders and bombers is FUD.
Strawman, eh? How about your original post: "You don't go after the phone company to stop bomb threats. You *do* go after those calling in the bomb threat. How is this any different?"
You're comparing the uploading of files to terrorism, more or less. There's a huge difference between the two. And yes, laymen are interested in the distinction between jail time and fines.
"Copyright infringement is a crime. Downloading copyrighted material that you have not purchased is a crime. If you are commiting a crime, they *should* go after you."
Name one uploader who was threatened with jail time. Copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a civil matter, hence uploaders being sued for *money* and not being thrown in jail.
To be fair, I have modded it a tiny bit - I'm using YzDock, a now-defunct Apple-clone application bar, a tool that gets rid of the bar at the bottom, rainlendar, and style xp. When I'm not running anything all that's on the desktop is my wallpaper, the app bar, and rainlendar. It's extremely minimal and quite aesthetically beautiful, IMHO. The start menu is slimmed down to the bare necessitites, the colours are muted (I'm using a greyscale background right now - a b&w photo of a bunch of pumpkins, fitting in with the fall season), and msot of the default icons have been squashed. It's definitely not stock (but still extremely easy to do);)
I understand that our dear community here is linux-centric, but I would think that people would be more interested in quality than the economics surrounding a specific software package. You're all Marxists, Marxists I say!;)
Huh? Of course I'm serious about using XP on purpose. I'm not quite sure why I was modded flamebait, but I don't need a lot of intensive programs, and I prefer microsoft alternatives (MS office vs openoffice, windows vs linux, etc.) I'm not interested in building my OS from scratch, and I just feel like Windows XP is a more finished product than Linux (specifically, Mandrake & Red Hat). My computer isn't my hobby, it's my entertainment, and seriously, I've had zero to no problems with Windows XP.
Seriously, as long as there are still uploaders in Finland and Zaire, how exactly are they going to get rid of P2P? Heck, most of the popular P2P program's servers are in Europe.
And now to add some insightful: geeks, stop helping people fix their computers, because if you get busted your only defense is "I didn't know that l33ching would also give away the file thingies to other people!" (use "file thingies" in court to strengthen your case)
I'm using Windows XP by choice. Monopoly or not, Microsoft knows how to build a solid OS. I've used various distros of Linux and it's okay, but I keep on coming back to Microsoft because it's simply easy to use, looks good, and doesn't take too long to load up. That and games;) Just thought you'd like to know that some of us use Windows XP by choice and not by default.
Now internet explorer, on the other hand, I wouldn't touch with a 10 pica pole. I switched to Opera a few years ago and have been *much* happier.
That's very interesting. To me, a cohesive scientific theory would include a cause and effect, not just the effect, but as has been amply proved in this story (check my username for ample occurences of 0wnage) I'm not a scientist. I guess I can breathe a little easier tonight;)
"Now, take a non-sci theory... Say a god created the universe as it appears now, and gave a push. That doesn't help in predicting the temperature, does it? So there's no actual value other than pushing the explanation one level higher, to something that's by definition impossible to prove or disprove."
But what *caused* the Big Bang? Isn't that pushing the explanation one level higher, as you say? Or does that not concern scientists? I'm definitely not trolling here, genuinely interested. In person, sci-type people just roll their eyes and talk to you like a three year old when you say that you're a Christian; it's nice to actually talk to people who will talk *back* in a non-condescending manner;)
Hypocritical? You mean I can't accept one aspect of science while agreeing with other scientific concepts? You make it sound like "science" is one grand theory that needs to be accepted or thrown away.
What if I had said that cloning was one aspect of science that I could not accept? Not in terms of correct and incorrect, but in terms of right and wrong. Would I be hypocritical then?
Sagan says that "thousands and thousands" of Christians believe in the Big Bang? There are over 200 million Catholics in the world - just one denomination of Christianity (of which I'm not even a part). "Thousands and thousands," then, is just a tiny minority.
Hypocritical means saying one thing but practising another. I can assure you that my less-than-rock-solid belief in science is not in any way "hypocritical" (according to the definition of the word), buddy.
"There is nothing that stops from people like you to accept that Big Bang happened and it was GOD who made it happen, that it was the touch of his hand that made the first matter explode into the universe that we see today."
In my mind, the Big Bang is the first step. Next is evolution. I can see the poetic (I don't believe literal) words of Genesis 1 - "Let there be light" as another way of describing the big bang, but even if I concede that the majority of Genesis might be allegorical or poetical, there's a slight problem. The theory of natural selection (i.e. the death of creatures, among other things, before the existence of modern man) is in conflict with the idea that God created a perfect universe before the fall (whether it actually happened in Genesis 3 or not). The concept of the universe as perfect before the fall is a cornerstone of Christian faith and theology (why would God create a flawed world with death?) and cannot be reconciled with natural selection.
The Big Bang theory, as adopted by certain Christians, basically amounts to God setting the world in motion and leaving the rest up to chance. It just doesn't work. Christians believe in a God who was intimately involved with humanity and *didn't* leave things to chance, but instead guided us.
So, there's a theological problem here. That's why the big bang theory is irreconcilable with Christianity. That's why I argue against it. And that's why, as much as possible, I don't like to discuss or think about science (he says as he tapes the first two parts of the mini-series, to swing this behemoth of a tangent back on course). I love technology, I love the fact that we live better today than the kings and emperors of the 19th century, and I fully recognise the fact that science made it happen. BUT, there are some aspects of science that I cannot accept. Like I alluded to earlier, my spiritual experiences are much stronger than my scientific experiences;)
It's nice to have a conversation with a non-Christian who seems to actually read what I'm saying. Don't think I haven't appreciated this!
"I'm certainly not a creation scientist Don't sell yourself so short. You are every bit as obtuse and "scientifically-challenged" as any creation "scientists" I have ever met."
Bloody hell if you're not more fun than anybody else around here - anybody else would have denegrated into calling me a bible thumper and cursing at me, but now you've gone and proven that you've got a sense of humour;)
I've asked this in another thread: the theory you linked to mentions the red shift (3K), that everything is moving away from us. Surface of the balloon and all that (I *have* been educated). But can't this red shift be attributed to something else? It *has* to be the Big Bang, can't be anything else?
So let me get this straight: religious theory is a posteriori, whereas scientific theory is a priori? Hell ya they should be two different words;)
I understand the concepts of red shift and blue shift (university astronomy is coming back to me), but can't the red shift of 3K be attributed to something else? I know you scientists hate this analogy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day;)
"You obviously think the theory of relativity is more valid than the theory of big bang. Why? they both went through the same scientific process."
Because, as you pointed out, the theory of relativity can be used on a daily basis. Honestly, I'm hardwired to not accept the Big Bang as truth. I'm more open-minded than most of my Christian bretheren (TRUST ME, I'm in a church that's full of creation scientists, which we hear about all the fricking time), but to admit the possiblity that the big bang happened is to admit that God might not exist. It's more than just a theory to me, it's paradigm shifting without a clutch. Which is why I want *absolute proof* for me to even approach believing in the Big Bang.
Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. And I'm young! Imagine fifty or sixty-year olds being forced to face such a reality!
But then again, it's vaguely possible that God used the Big Bang to bring about life on Earth. You say that the Big Bang is a conclusive theory - do you (does anybody, i mean) know what caused it? Is there hope;)
For me, the Big Bang isn't a matter of science, it's a matter of faith. So you'll forgive me when, in my small mind, I will not (and probably cannot) cede the possibility that the Big Bang is true until it is 100% conclusively proven. I'm not an idiot, but when it comes to science I refuse to blindly believe. (If it makes you feel better, I don't blindly believe in Christianity either, but here is neither the time nor the place to share my spiritual experiences with you;) )
Dot matrix is too horrible to imagine: a million printers chattering in unison, their screams overtaking the cries of anguish should win. It will be a tragedy like no other.
Well, we *are* talking about huge underground plates here, not the weather. I mean, come on, they can't even get the *weather* right where I'm from! Even though he missed it by three weeks, I'm still impressed. Hopefully this line of research can be focused so that scientists can say "Get the hell out of SF before 5pm tonight!" and save some lives, you know?
Never heard of this either. Mind you, Windows has had its own release songs - that's the song that first plays when you launch Media player. Kinda like Winamp's launch song that they've been using for the last couple of years, though I'd call it more like rap than anything else.
"Well, now, Winamp's here and you gotta *stop* It really kicks the llama's.... HMMMMMM, ass?" (Beastie Boys on the brain tonight)
You're also forgetting several Canadian provinces, you know, the blacked out part at the top of your USA maps?:) (polite jab at USians, don't hate me - I order all my stuff from the US, I promise!/waves flag)
One more thing: you and I both agree that the Big Bang is an important theory that would affect a huge number of people in society, religion, and science. Don't you think that, before you call it "fact," it should have a little more than the most conclusive evidence possible? For something this important, I want to see it *proven* and replicated or observed. I'm sure you'd want this too, if only so that people like me would shut up;) I'm not angry, I'm not hyper-militant about my faith, and I'm certainly not a creation scientist, but before people tell me that the big bang is a proven theory I want to *know* it's a *proven theory* as we laypeople would call it instead of a "mostly proven theory."
Slashdot Mirror
Besides the fact that the linked article doesn't work, are they just being fancy-schmancy or aren't you supposed to spell "author" like this?
Because in quite a lot of cases the artists themselves don't own the rights to the music either, the record companies do. Because for the most part CDs are hideously overpriced (look at allofmp3.com - selling megabytes of music for pennies, and they're still obviously turning a profit). Because record and movie companies have been profiteering off of bands like the Beatles for the past 20 years *at least*. Because record companies and the RIAA consider it to be illegal to buy used copies of CDs. I can find a whole load of reasons; these are just the first couple outta my head.
"Cheap" would be every single CD for sale for $5, not $15-$20 USD per CD, and more for older stuff that's not discounted by stores. I think that not paying these exhorbiant prices is *reasonable*, not "cheap."
My whole point is that the law is wrong. You're comparing bombers to uploaders (albeit indirectly) and creating the same connexion in people's minds as the media does between Arabs and terrorists. A more appropriate comparison would be "you don't sue the city who paves roads when somebody jaywalks, you go after the jaywalker."
"He was making a point that the RIAA is doing the logically correct thing..." This is the first time I've ever heard somebody say that the RIAA is doing *anything* "correct." Yes, I'm obfusicating the point. The *point* is that uploading/downloading should not be illegal, and any comparison in ANY respect between uploaders and bombers is FUD.
You're comparing the uploading of files to terrorism, more or less. There's a huge difference between the two. And yes, laymen are interested in the distinction between jail time and fines.
Name one uploader who was threatened with jail time. Copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a civil matter, hence uploaders being sued for *money* and not being thrown in jail.
To be fair, I have modded it a tiny bit - I'm using YzDock, a now-defunct Apple-clone application bar, a tool that gets rid of the bar at the bottom, rainlendar, and style xp. When I'm not running anything all that's on the desktop is my wallpaper, the app bar, and rainlendar. It's extremely minimal and quite aesthetically beautiful, IMHO. The start menu is slimmed down to the bare necessitites, the colours are muted (I'm using a greyscale background right now - a b&w photo of a bunch of pumpkins, fitting in with the fall season), and msot of the default icons have been squashed. It's definitely not stock (but still extremely easy to do) ;)
I understand that our dear community here is linux-centric, but I would think that people would be more interested in quality than the economics surrounding a specific software package. You're all Marxists, Marxists I say! ;)
Huh? Of course I'm serious about using XP on purpose. I'm not quite sure why I was modded flamebait, but I don't need a lot of intensive programs, and I prefer microsoft alternatives (MS office vs openoffice, windows vs linux, etc.) I'm not interested in building my OS from scratch, and I just feel like Windows XP is a more finished product than Linux (specifically, Mandrake & Red Hat). My computer isn't my hobby, it's my entertainment, and seriously, I've had zero to no problems with Windows XP.
Seriously, as long as there are still uploaders in Finland and Zaire, how exactly are they going to get rid of P2P? Heck, most of the popular P2P program's servers are in Europe.
And now to add some insightful: geeks, stop helping people fix their computers, because if you get busted your only defense is "I didn't know that l33ching would also give away the file thingies to other people!" (use "file thingies" in court to strengthen your case)
Now internet explorer, on the other hand, I wouldn't touch with a 10 pica pole. I switched to Opera a few years ago and have been *much* happier.
That's very interesting. To me, a cohesive scientific theory would include a cause and effect, not just the effect, but as has been amply proved in this story (check my username for ample occurences of 0wnage) I'm not a scientist. I guess I can breathe a little easier tonight ;)
But what *caused* the Big Bang? Isn't that pushing the explanation one level higher, as you say? Or does that not concern scientists? I'm definitely not trolling here, genuinely interested. In person, sci-type people just roll their eyes and talk to you like a three year old when you say that you're a Christian; it's nice to actually talk to people who will talk *back* in a non-condescending manner ;)
What if I had said that cloning was one aspect of science that I could not accept? Not in terms of correct and incorrect, but in terms of right and wrong. Would I be hypocritical then?
Sagan says that "thousands and thousands" of Christians believe in the Big Bang? There are over 200 million Catholics in the world - just one denomination of Christianity (of which I'm not even a part). "Thousands and thousands," then, is just a tiny minority.
Hypocritical means saying one thing but practising another. I can assure you that my less-than-rock-solid belief in science is not in any way "hypocritical" (according to the definition of the word), buddy.
In my mind, the Big Bang is the first step. Next is evolution. I can see the poetic (I don't believe literal) words of Genesis 1 - "Let there be light" as another way of describing the big bang, but even if I concede that the majority of Genesis might be allegorical or poetical, there's a slight problem. The theory of natural selection (i.e. the death of creatures, among other things, before the existence of modern man) is in conflict with the idea that God created a perfect universe before the fall (whether it actually happened in Genesis 3 or not). The concept of the universe as perfect before the fall is a cornerstone of Christian faith and theology (why would God create a flawed world with death?) and cannot be reconciled with natural selection.
The Big Bang theory, as adopted by certain Christians, basically amounts to God setting the world in motion and leaving the rest up to chance. It just doesn't work. Christians believe in a God who was intimately involved with humanity and *didn't* leave things to chance, but instead guided us.
So, there's a theological problem here. That's why the big bang theory is irreconcilable with Christianity. That's why I argue against it. And that's why, as much as possible, I don't like to discuss or think about science (he says as he tapes the first two parts of the mini-series, to swing this behemoth of a tangent back on course). I love technology, I love the fact that we live better today than the kings and emperors of the 19th century, and I fully recognise the fact that science made it happen. BUT, there are some aspects of science that I cannot accept. Like I alluded to earlier, my spiritual experiences are much stronger than my scientific experiences ;)
It's nice to have a conversation with a non-Christian who seems to actually read what I'm saying. Don't think I haven't appreciated this!
Bloody hell if you're not more fun than anybody else around here - anybody else would have denegrated into calling me a bible thumper and cursing at me, but now you've gone and proven that you've got a sense of humour ;)
I've asked this in another thread: the theory you linked to mentions the red shift (3K), that everything is moving away from us. Surface of the balloon and all that (I *have* been educated). But can't this red shift be attributed to something else? It *has* to be the Big Bang, can't be anything else?
I understand the concepts of red shift and blue shift (university astronomy is coming back to me), but can't the red shift of 3K be attributed to something else? I know you scientists hate this analogy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day ;)
Don't we all? I've been burning it all night ;)
Because, as you pointed out, the theory of relativity can be used on a daily basis. Honestly, I'm hardwired to not accept the Big Bang as truth. I'm more open-minded than most of my Christian bretheren (TRUST ME, I'm in a church that's full of creation scientists, which we hear about all the fricking time), but to admit the possiblity that the big bang happened is to admit that God might not exist. It's more than just a theory to me, it's paradigm shifting without a clutch. Which is why I want *absolute proof* for me to even approach believing in the Big Bang.
Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. And I'm young! Imagine fifty or sixty-year olds being forced to face such a reality!
But then again, it's vaguely possible that God used the Big Bang to bring about life on Earth. You say that the Big Bang is a conclusive theory - do you (does anybody, i mean) know what caused it? Is there hope ;)
For me, the Big Bang isn't a matter of science, it's a matter of faith. So you'll forgive me when, in my small mind, I will not (and probably cannot) cede the possibility that the Big Bang is true until it is 100% conclusively proven. I'm not an idiot, but when it comes to science I refuse to blindly believe. (If it makes you feel better, I don't blindly believe in Christianity either, but here is neither the time nor the place to share my spiritual experiences with you ;) )
Dot matrix is too horrible to imagine: a million printers chattering in unison, their screams overtaking the cries of anguish should win. It will be a tragedy like no other.
Well, we *are* talking about huge underground plates here, not the weather. I mean, come on, they can't even get the *weather* right where I'm from! Even though he missed it by three weeks, I'm still impressed. Hopefully this line of research can be focused so that scientists can say "Get the hell out of SF before 5pm tonight!" and save some lives, you know?
"Well, now, Winamp's here and you gotta *stop* It really kicks the llama's.... HMMMMMM, ass?" (Beastie Boys on the brain tonight)
You're also forgetting several Canadian provinces, you know, the blacked out part at the top of your USA maps? :) (polite jab at USians, don't hate me - I order all my stuff from the US, I promise! /waves flag)
One more thing: you and I both agree that the Big Bang is an important theory that would affect a huge number of people in society, religion, and science. Don't you think that, before you call it "fact," it should have a little more than the most conclusive evidence possible? For something this important, I want to see it *proven* and replicated or observed. I'm sure you'd want this too, if only so that people like me would shut up ;) I'm not angry, I'm not hyper-militant about my faith, and I'm certainly not a creation scientist, but before people tell me that the big bang is a proven theory I want to *know* it's a *proven theory* as we laypeople would call it instead of a "mostly proven theory."