The confusion comes in because the traditional telcos are common carriers, but only so far as their phone service is concerned. So-called "data services" (even if provided by a telephone company) are exempt, as I understand it.
I don't particularly think God exists in any significantly religious way, and I think it trivializes the idea of God somewhat to equate it to the laws of physics, but the minute you start acting like it's impossible for reasonable people to disagree with you, you're being a fundamentalist.
Not at all. Both sides in this particular conflict will cop an attitude towards the other. The difference is that one side has all the guns, and the other doesn't have a used paperclip to share amongst all its proponents. Besides, science isn't in the business of trivializing God... science isn't in the God business at all. If science does, in the end, trivialize God it will be because God was less than we thought He was all along.
It's a mistake to assume that scientists have the onus of reasonableness upon them. They don't... they have the burden of validity upon them. Consequently, if one wishes to function in their world, understand that anyone who gets too far out of line will be nailed to the cross (scientifically speaking.) To be nice and give credence to ideas which have no place in science and are deliberately untestable by the scientific method (in spite of false claims to the contrary) is to violate the basic tenets of science itself. No self-respecting scientist would do that: the most reasonable answer he can give in that case is, "Bzzt! Thank you for playing!" Anything else would be a lie, and anyone who finds that offensive is out of his league.
More to the point, the scientific world is a harsh one, no less so to those within it. They don't cut themselves much slack, and see no reason to give anyone else a free pass. This should come as no surprise to the ID crowd: trying to pull the wool over the scientific community's collective eyes has always resulted in a severe and often public bitchslapping. It's the nature of the beast: by definition it has to be hard on anyone that makes any claim about the nature of reality, because to do otherwise is to step backwards. It is the reason we trust science to advance our understanding of the Universe.
This is a very binary proposition, meaning that either one has a valid, testable hypothesis than can be experimentally validated by others... or one does not. If a hypothesis is valid and it can be experimentally verified, it will eventually become part of orthodox science. Even if it's dead wrong, well, we'll still know something we didn't know before. It's not always easy, it's not always pretty, sometimes it's downright brutal... but the process does work. In fact, it is working better than anything any religion has ever had to offer in the way of true understanding, as opposed to just heartfelt wishing. So I would tell our Creationist and ID friends this: forget about being reasonable, forget about irascible scientists telling you to go pound sand. Instead, go back to the seventh grade and have your science teacher give you a quick refresher in scientific method. Think about what you've been saying. Then think again. See the problem? No? Well, then we can't help you.
Science allows room for disagreement (by it's very nature, it has, to otherwise it will become as dogmatic and useless as any of the aforementioned religions, and that actually is a problem in many fields today) but changing the mainstream understanding of Evolution or anything else will require some evidence, and some hard work. That's pretty damn fundamental to the whole thing, you know. It's a constraint that Creationism, "Intelligent" Design and the rest of the numerous fictions created by humankind to explain the world have never had placed upon them. With good reason, I might add, because they would all be found wanting.
They're wrong. The Second Amendment is about defending ourselves from our own government, they're dead-on about that. I disagree that it is solely about States being the only entities in need of protection from an errant central government. The reality is, we individual citizens might just as well find ourselves in conflict with our State governments. What makes them so especially trustworthy, compared to the Federal Government? That's a fiction in itself. The Founders wanted us, the Citizens of these United States, to be something more than sheep.
We like to think our governments (any of them) will never need replacing, and that we'll never need violent defense from them, but history is against us on that score. This article outlines how a proper defensive posture made by a well-armed civilian population can deter violence and save lives. That's something else that was very clearly understood by the people who fought the War for Independence, and eventually created our system of government.
This dangerous idea that individual citizens (who, are a collective in their own right, regardless of any State's desire to formally organize them into some Militia) have no legitimate use for deadly force is disingenuous at best. That's not even counting the value of firearms when it comes to defending ourselves from each other! No, the Second Amendment is in need of no polish or other adjustments. It serves the purpose for which it was intended very well, and truly our need of it is greater now than at any point in our history. Our government is rapidly extending its powers without much regard for the checks and balances the Founders put in place for us, and at some point, it may go too far. If we allow ourselves to be made defenseless by believing that it can't happen here, we may well come to regret our complacency.
Very little of the Founding Father's wisdom is as anachronistic as people think (we believe we are somehow fundamentally superior to our forebears but we're not) and if you look at many of the failings of our culture and legal system today, it is usually because we decided to ignore that wisdom.
so a secret court takes steps towards transparency. On the face of it, I kind of like that. Of course, the Bush Administration will fight this tooth and nail.
Exactly! People who claim that ad-blocking is wrong are, in effect, claiming that Web users should subsidize any site that wants to make money using advertising.
And to that I say: not on my nickel. It's my bandwidth, my Internet connection, and I'll use it any way I please. If you want me to watch your ads, do what Slashdot and Google do: be tasteful about it and give me some reason to visit your site. Otherwise I couldn't care less, and I'll block anything you throw at me. I see no reason to support sites that are of no interest or value to me.
I don't think the problem was Ad Block Plus, per se. I think it was the list provider that did it. Of course, who knows why he did it, or who asked him to.
Are you serious? Honestly, it seems like more and more paid trolls are invading Slashdot every day. That's the price of popularity, I suppose.
What on Earth are you talking about? Reciprocity? Contract? When did ABC, NBC and the rest start making viewers sign contracts? Contracts are about mutually-agreed upon conditions, usually with some kind of formal recording of said agreement. I think you're confusing the agreement between the content producers, advertisers, and their distributors (the networks and cable companies.) Any agreement between those parties is, well, between them. I am under no obligation to watch anything they spew at me, ad-related or otherwise. Any obligations are between them and don't involve me or any other viewer.
Broadcasters beam signals into the air and we pick them up... end of statement. What we do with those signals after that is none of their business. If I choose not to watch their goddamn advertising by looking elsewhere, reading a book, getting laid, taking a leak, or just pressing the fast-forward button, that's just too bad. There's no agreement on my part, implicit or otherwise, that says I have to watch any of it! They are just hoping we will, and hope that it will influence our purchasing decisions. But that's all they get when they plunk down those big advertising dollars: a hope. No guarantee, no agreement, no "reciprocity." I understand that these guys feel threatened by the ability of viewers to technologically avoid viewing commercial advertising, but again, that's just too bad. Not my problem. They don't have a right to force me to watch it, and I don't have any agreement with any broadcaster or network that says they do.
Why do people continue to buy into this idea that content providers (whether they be TV broadcasters, satellite/cable TV providers, game console makers, music studios, software houses or anyone else) have some intrinsic right to control the use of their products after they've left the distribution channel? They don't, dude, they never have. The mere fact that you are promoting this bizarreness indicates that you've bought into it (or are a part of it.) Really, it's weird and not in the consumers' best interest.
I can't tell you how many times I bought an album for the one hit song they may have had on the radio, only to find a treasure trove of really interesting music that they claim won't fly in Peoria.
I can't tell you how many times I bought an album for that one hit song, only to find a disc full of worthless filler. In my experience, that's been true more often than not. Very few artists (of any stripe, no matter how prolific) continuously produce topnotch material. If you can get one gem for very twenty tracks you're doing good.
It's only a Sword of Damocles if you are unaware of it. This isn't threat designed to teach someone the value of life (as Damocles did to his party guest) but a definite public threat instituted by a government that is either misinformed or misguided.
Not that Germany is doing any worse in that regard than the U.S. or England. None of them seem to have a clue when it comes to networks and the Internet, and genuinely seem to wish it would all just go away.
I know. Some people just don't get Monty Python though, even if they have seen it. Now, I'm American and I always enjoyed that show immensely, but I know that I don't get a lot of it. I've watched episodes of Monty Python with a couple of English people around to explain it to me, and there's a lot going on in that show that is over my head. Funny stuff.
Not over my head... I've been a Monty Python fan since PBS first began broadcasting it here some thirty years ago. Truthfully though, I've never seen Johann's name spelled out in it's entirety before.
Slashdot Mirror
The confusion comes in because the traditional telcos are common carriers, but only so far as their phone service is concerned. So-called "data services" (even if provided by a telephone company) are exempt, as I understand it.
I don't particularly think God exists in any significantly religious way, and I think it trivializes the idea of God somewhat to equate it to the laws of physics, but the minute you start acting like it's impossible for reasonable people to disagree with you, you're being a fundamentalist.
... science isn't in the God business at all. If science does, in the end, trivialize God it will be because God was less than we thought He was all along.
... they have the burden of validity upon them. Consequently, if one wishes to function in their world, understand that anyone who gets too far out of line will be nailed to the cross (scientifically speaking.) To be nice and give credence to ideas which have no place in science and are deliberately untestable by the scientific method (in spite of false claims to the contrary) is to violate the basic tenets of science itself. No self-respecting scientist would do that: the most reasonable answer he can give in that case is, "Bzzt! Thank you for playing!" Anything else would be a lie, and anyone who finds that offensive is out of his league.
... or one does not. If a hypothesis is valid and it can be experimentally verified, it will eventually become part of orthodox science. Even if it's dead wrong, well, we'll still know something we didn't know before. It's not always easy, it's not always pretty, sometimes it's downright brutal ... but the process does work. In fact, it is working better than anything any religion has ever had to offer in the way of true understanding, as opposed to just heartfelt wishing. So I would tell our Creationist and ID friends this: forget about being reasonable, forget about irascible scientists telling you to go pound sand. Instead, go back to the seventh grade and have your science teacher give you a quick refresher in scientific method. Think about what you've been saying. Then think again. See the problem? No? Well, then we can't help you.
Not at all. Both sides in this particular conflict will cop an attitude towards the other. The difference is that one side has all the guns, and the other doesn't have a used paperclip to share amongst all its proponents. Besides, science isn't in the business of trivializing God
It's a mistake to assume that scientists have the onus of reasonableness upon them. They don't
More to the point, the scientific world is a harsh one, no less so to those within it. They don't cut themselves much slack, and see no reason to give anyone else a free pass. This should come as no surprise to the ID crowd: trying to pull the wool over the scientific community's collective eyes has always resulted in a severe and often public bitchslapping. It's the nature of the beast: by definition it has to be hard on anyone that makes any claim about the nature of reality, because to do otherwise is to step backwards. It is the reason we trust science to advance our understanding of the Universe.
This is a very binary proposition, meaning that either one has a valid, testable hypothesis than can be experimentally validated by others
Science allows room for disagreement (by it's very nature, it has, to otherwise it will become as dogmatic and useless as any of the aforementioned religions, and that actually is a problem in many fields today) but changing the mainstream understanding of Evolution or anything else will require some evidence, and some hard work. That's pretty damn fundamental to the whole thing, you know. It's a constraint that Creationism, "Intelligent" Design and the rest of the numerous fictions created by humankind to explain the world have never had placed upon them. With good reason, I might add, because they would all be found wanting.
So then, while God may be recursive, he doesn't have any end condition.
They're wrong. The Second Amendment is about defending ourselves from our own government, they're dead-on about that. I disagree that it is solely about States being the only entities in need of protection from an errant central government. The reality is, we individual citizens might just as well find ourselves in conflict with our State governments. What makes them so especially trustworthy, compared to the Federal Government? That's a fiction in itself. The Founders wanted us, the Citizens of these United States, to be something more than sheep.
We like to think our governments (any of them) will never need replacing, and that we'll never need violent defense from them, but history is against us on that score. This article outlines how a proper defensive posture made by a well-armed civilian population can deter violence and save lives. That's something else that was very clearly understood by the people who fought the War for Independence, and eventually created our system of government.
This dangerous idea that individual citizens (who, are a collective in their own right, regardless of any State's desire to formally organize them into some Militia) have no legitimate use for deadly force is disingenuous at best. That's not even counting the value of firearms when it comes to defending ourselves from each other! No, the Second Amendment is in need of no polish or other adjustments. It serves the purpose for which it was intended very well, and truly our need of it is greater now than at any point in our history. Our government is rapidly extending its powers without much regard for the checks and balances the Founders put in place for us, and at some point, it may go too far. If we allow ourselves to be made defenseless by believing that it can't happen here, we may well come to regret our complacency.
Very little of the Founding Father's wisdom is as anachronistic as people think (we believe we are somehow fundamentally superior to our forebears but we're not) and if you look at many of the failings of our culture and legal system today, it is usually because we decided to ignore that wisdom.
Right Bush ... wrong voice.
so a secret court takes steps towards transparency. On the face of it, I kind of like that. Of course, the Bush Administration will fight this tooth and nail.
Exactly! People who claim that ad-blocking is wrong are, in effect, claiming that Web users should subsidize any site that wants to make money using advertising.
And to that I say: not on my nickel. It's my bandwidth, my Internet connection, and I'll use it any way I please. If you want me to watch your ads, do what Slashdot and Google do: be tasteful about it and give me some reason to visit your site. Otherwise I couldn't care less, and I'll block anything you throw at me. I see no reason to support sites that are of no interest or value to me.
I don't think the problem was Ad Block Plus, per se. I think it was the list provider that did it. Of course, who knows why he did it, or who asked him to.
Are you serious? Honestly, it seems like more and more paid trolls are invading Slashdot every day. That's the price of popularity, I suppose.
... end of statement. What we do with those signals after that is none of their business. If I choose not to watch their goddamn advertising by looking elsewhere, reading a book, getting laid, taking a leak, or just pressing the fast-forward button, that's just too bad. There's no agreement on my part, implicit or otherwise, that says I have to watch any of it! They are just hoping we will, and hope that it will influence our purchasing decisions. But that's all they get when they plunk down those big advertising dollars: a hope. No guarantee, no agreement, no "reciprocity." I understand that these guys feel threatened by the ability of viewers to technologically avoid viewing commercial advertising, but again, that's just too bad. Not my problem. They don't have a right to force me to watch it, and I don't have any agreement with any broadcaster or network that says they do.
What on Earth are you talking about? Reciprocity? Contract? When did ABC, NBC and the rest start making viewers sign contracts? Contracts are about mutually-agreed upon conditions, usually with some kind of formal recording of said agreement. I think you're confusing the agreement between the content producers, advertisers, and their distributors (the networks and cable companies.) Any agreement between those parties is, well, between them. I am under no obligation to watch anything they spew at me, ad-related or otherwise. Any obligations are between them and don't involve me or any other viewer.
Broadcasters beam signals into the air and we pick them up
Why do people continue to buy into this idea that content providers (whether they be TV broadcasters, satellite/cable TV providers, game console makers, music studios, software houses or anyone else) have some intrinsic right to control the use of their products after they've left the distribution channel? They don't, dude, they never have. The mere fact that you are promoting this bizarreness indicates that you've bought into it (or are a part of it.) Really, it's weird and not in the consumers' best interest.
I can't tell you how many times I bought an album for the one hit song they may have had on the radio, only to find a treasure trove of really interesting music that they claim won't fly in Peoria.
I can't tell you how many times I bought an album for that one hit song, only to find a disc full of worthless filler. In my experience, that's been true more often than not. Very few artists (of any stripe, no matter how prolific) continuously produce topnotch material. If you can get one gem for very twenty tracks you're doing good.
A thing comes into being because it is its time.
Most of them don't have any talent, except for Madonna.
... then I read that.
At first, I thought this A.C. was being serious
He's defending themselves, so let the rookies take the helm, no need to waste our star lawyer on this one
Interesting. I didn't know that multiple-personality disorder was an advantage in the courtroom.
No more "invisible" than NSA wiretaps. Not that I want either of them, particularly.
"Everyone breaks the law"
Dead people don't.
They do if you don't bury them properly, or bury them in your back yard.
Maybe ... but what you've got here is one bunch of attorneys telling another bunch of attorneys "you're not getting paid."
The chum is in the water.
Just out of curiosity, what were you intending to rate it?
It's a battery. It's a capacitor. It's the battacitor!
Revolution
Yes, I have no doubt the Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
It's only a Sword of Damocles if you are unaware of it. This isn't threat designed to teach someone the value of life (as Damocles did to his party guest) but a definite public threat instituted by a government that is either misinformed or misguided.
Not that Germany is doing any worse in that regard than the U.S. or England. None of them seem to have a clue when it comes to networks and the Internet, and genuinely seem to wish it would all just go away.
I know. Some people just don't get Monty Python though, even if they have seen it. Now, I'm American and I always enjoyed that show immensely, but I know that I don't get a lot of it. I've watched episodes of Monty Python with a couple of English people around to explain it to me, and there's a lot going on in that show that is over my head. Funny stuff.
Not over my head ... I've been a Monty Python fan since PBS first began broadcasting it here some thirty years ago. Truthfully though, I've never seen Johann's name spelled out in it's entirety before.
Good list, but I'd add a couple more:
* V'ger
* Nomad
There are five Voltrons, it says, but there were originally only four:
... no-one knows we're robots and there's room for just one more!"
"One Banana, Two Banana, Three Banana, Four
US Spy Agencies See Bloggers as Journalists
I'd say "US Spy Agencies See Bloggers as Occasionally-Useful Sources of Intel(ligence.)"