In the future, if personal force fields are the norm (aka StarTrek) - then why does anyone wear clothing? Think about it. All of those little green men/women don't wear clothing - no other creature on this planet wears clothing, and most other other-worldly creatures (that are not human looking) depicted in sci-fi films never wear clothing. Only humans wear clothing.
So - in the future (like if Superman appeared about the same time StarTrek would begin time-wise) would people still wear clothing? Would there even be a need to wear clothing if we are able to control the environment about us?
The prophecy is that the movie studios will do some kind of digital magic to reduce/remove any bulges that might show.
The falsehood is that he is extremely well endowed and viewers would be insulted/horrified/whatever from seeing him in tights on a gigantic screen.
The truth is that he doesn't look any more well endowed than many other men so unless you draw attention to that particular area no one would have even bothered with it in the first place.
The prophecy won't come true unless the falsehood (in this case) is made into truth. Which is part of the nature of a self-fulfilling prophecy as you pointed out.
As for the "Big Lie", I would take it that the "Big Lie" is a corollary to the self-fulfilling propecy (or maybe the other way around though I think the SFP is broader in its scope than the BL). That being that if you lie big enough you can change reality to fit your outlook whereas an SFP only requires a general concensus (which doesn't necessarily require you to lie about something).
Example: IBM PCs are better than Macintoshes. This has proven true in that IBM PCs are, in a general sense, better because they cost less (most manufacturers produce IBM PC compatible computers) to build, cost the consumers less, there is a broader group of products to choose from, and so on. But it wasn't so in the 1980s when this flame war began. In the 1980s Macs were better and (in some cases) cost less. But times have changed and what the IBM PCs couldn't do in the 1980s they now can do in the 2000s. So a lot has changed in twenty years and the SFP made in the 1980s about IBM PCs has come to pass.
Now! Before you go off about Macs and such - this is just an example. Are Macintoshes built better? Maybe. Is the OS better? At one time I would have said yes - now I have to say maybe. (After all, there have been several articles concerning the Mac's current OS and its past OSs and there have been problems in both just like there are problems with Windows and Linux and BeOS and [whatever]OS.) To me, it is a question now of whether to shell out a few thousand dollars for a Mac or whether to shell out a few hundred dollars for a PC. Since I am piss poor at the moment - my decision is to buy PCs. When I had money - I bought Macs. I can and do use both. In fact, I now have a system built with Windows, Linux, and Mac all three running at the same time (via Cygwin and BasiliskII). (And yes, I own several Macs of various lineage as well as several IBM PCs of various ages and they are all networked together. So I know my computers.:-) )
To bring this back to the topic at hand though, statistics form a large part of SFPs. For instance, you gather a large number of statistics on a horse and go to the track. Your predicition is that the horse who has won every other race it has been at is the one you are going to bet on. Even though the horse has never lost a race you are still trying to create a SFP because no one knows what the actual outcome will be. There are literally thousands of things that could go wrong yet your belief is that that one horse will finish first. If it does, then your SFP has come true. If it does not - then your SFP was false.
Weathermen are SFPs on a daily basis. If they say it is going to rain the next day and it does - everyone is happy (more or less) because their weatherman accurately prophesied what would happen. If he is wrong - he might get fired and another weatherperson will replace him. The weathermen work very hard to figure out what it is going to be like days in advance. Businessmen who give presentations to audiences of stockholders are prophesizing what the next year will be like. They then work towards those goals. They too are SFPs. Why do you think it is called making mojo sometimes? Or maybe the quip that "They are working their magic?" These all relate to SFPs because they are working to try to make their predictions come true.
It's called a Self Fullfilling Phrophecy. If you get enough people to believe what you are saying - then it becomes reality for everyone and everyone believes it. Like everyone saying that IBM PCs are better than Macintoshes. Pretty soon (if your advertising budget is large enough) you have everyone using IBM PCs and thinking Macs are crap whether or not it really is true.
There are a lot of cases where this happenes. The war in Iraq for example. "We have to attack Iraq because they have Weapons of Mass Destruction!" Never found any, costing us Billions each year - but the government got what it wanted - a war. Sadly, it has cost us quite a bit (both in money as well as in people [both us and them mind you]) and is going to continue to cost us a lot for years to come.
Back to the packaged deal. Two things:
1. My wife's brother and his bride to be were given a party to celebrate their pending union. I had know him for a few years. He was a jogger who was skinny as a rail. Well, before the party he had gone jogging and when he came back he was soaked (due to the humidity though and not because he had been jogging). I never realized just how endowed he was until then. It became the talk of the party in whispers since he didn't go directly and change clothes. Finally his dad and myself went over and whispered to him that he might want to change his clothes. When he asked why we were polite but firm in telling him about the situation. He quickly retreated inside and came out in clothes that didn't show anything off. Much to the relief of the ladies who were present. (And his bride to be that was very embarrassed on his part.)
2. Movie studios try whatever they can to raise awareness of their movies and to get people to go to them. Movies that they think will strike it big with audiences they just hype the movie itself. But movies that they think they are not going to make much money on at all they usually try to get things rolling by bringing up some controversial item. (As in the actor's package.) The more hype that surrounds a movie - the worse the movie usually is. The more they stick to just showing you small parts of the film - the better the movie usually is. This is not always true though. It is just a general rule of thumb because as with everything - there are always exceptions to the rule.
Do you even read what it is you type? Do you really think that Texas is in some kind of a vacuum? That it resides in its own universe? Or that Texas is some kind of golden boy country just because we happen to have someone from Texas in the White House? And do I really need to list the thousands of GOOGLED court cases that talk about the unusual methods used in our court systems?
Ok, you asked for it. Here are some Texas Jurisprudence instead of out of state stuff
You know - I could go on and on and on but I think you get the picture. Since you don't know what you are talking about I think I'm going to stop posting back. So say what you will but if I were you - I'd do a bit more reading first.
To quote you, go blow smoke up someone's ass, as mine's full of yours.
Tssk - Tssk - you really should take that pipe out of your mouth before you begin blowing smoke. Use some common sense next time. If something is happening in one state - it usually happens in all of the states in varying degrees.
Honestly I DO live in Texas and I already HAVE seen it in action in court. So fellow Texan - maybe you should get around more. And if you are a lawyer you would know that a judge is bound by certain rules and regulations but there is always some wiggle room for judges to apply their own methods.
And if you were a lawyer you'd know that judges "burrow" rulings from other states and even other countries to justify what they do when they do it. Otherwise, how would new trends ever develop? Do you think community service actions in court started because some legislature decided to put that in? It was started in the courts and made its way into the legislature. Why do you think some judgements are so controversial? Because the judge did something outside of the strict guidelines as written by the legislature. Some court cases call for such measures. Such as this one. Sony was involved in illegal activities and they need their hand slapped hard so they won't try this kind of a thing again. My money is on the judge not only awarding punitive damages but also slapping on some type of community service such as what I've already talked about.
So how about you go blow smoke up someone else's ass for a while, mine's already full of yours.
Statutory damages aren't given to the citizens directly; they're put into the state's coffers in their entirety.
Not in all cases. Only in some cases. It depends upon the judge's ruling. The judge has leniency to state where the money will go and the judge can say that Sony has to provide reimbursement to everyone who purchased a CD (or replacement as Sony is already doing).
This is slightly different than the other lawsuits- this is a FINE that is being assessed and if they're found guilty, they'll have to pay the same, or be barred from doing business in the state of Texas. Not quite the same thing as the tobacco settlements, etc.
I already understood that a fine would be levied against Sony but the judge (as I've already said) has some say so in where the money goes as well as how much is to be allocated to what. The AG does not have to bear the burden of redistributing the wealth - it would be Sony's problem to deal with. Further, the judge can require Sony to do various things such as replace anyone's computer that has been damaged by their actions, provide services to restore a person's computer to how it was before their XCP software damaged it, and so forth. When it is a case such as this where it is the people versus a company - the judge can do lots of things.
For instance, a couple of years ago I was reading on the DOJ site that they took a company to court because they made deals where all (or most) of the smaller bakeries in the state (California I believe but I might be remembering which state incorrectly) were producing just their goods. Using tactics similar to Microsoft's the company had a strangle hold on the baking industry in that state and had begun moving into other states doing the same thing. The resulting judgement from the case levied fines and required the company to give up the baking units they had bought and installed into the various bakeries.
(The article I was reading dealt with the fact that the company who had had to give up the baking units had tried to get the units back after five or so years. The new judge in the case stated that the units were the property of the independent bakeries and no longer of the originating company and the originatng company was fined yet again for attempting to regain control of the baking units.)
Just as in the State of Texas vs Sony Entertainment Corporation, this trial will be read and watched by hundreds, thousands, and possibly millions of people who, like myself, are not a lawyer but love to read cases and try to keep abreast of the various laws. Yet that doesn't mean, just because we do not have degrees in law, that we do not understand the law. For my part, I have stood my ground in a court of law against lawyers and won on my own - so I know a little bit about the law. I may not know all of the ins and outs of the law but.... Now this is not to say I'm perfect - but I do know what a judge can do in these types of cases. Not totally - but in a general sense. Which is to say what I have already said.
Now it is true also that the judge can just say X amount of money, thank you very much, later. But if the judge is halfway decent they will also put in something for the people that Sony also has to do so that the state is not the only one who gains from this action. Just like in the US vs Microsoft case, just like in many other cases. The fines may or may not just go to the state but the case is being brought on behalf of the people in the state so, in order to actually make the company help those it hurt the judges usually make them do something that directly helps the people. In the Microsoft case, Microsoft had to buy computers for schools (as well as do a few other things). The computers were because Microsoft doesn't directly make computers so they'd have to spend at least a little money. (Would have been better IMHO if the top executives would have had to be the ones who delivered the computers and helped to set them up - but what can I say? At least the
Granted that $440 Million dollars is not even 1% of $368.5 Billion dollars, but you do have to realize that that is $368.5B over a 25 year period and so really it is $440M from ($368.5B/25)= $14.74B which makes it $440M/$14.74B = 2.9% of the first year's settlement. I'm sure that there was some cap that was put on to the amount since everyone knew up front that the settlement would probably be in the billions of dollars. So yes - it isn't 33% but then, in smaller cases the percentage would be larger.
(Which I think >I could live on $440M quite easily thank you!)
Well, as I said in my first response - it takes an idiot to know one.
The AG is the state's representative and yes, it is not the AG who would pocket the money. However, as the state's representative it can be said that he did do so. As in "The AG won X millions in this case." Therefore, in English, it could be taken as the AG absconded with X millions but in truth - the state got the money.
Now, as far as the 33% goes - the state MAY get that much and they MAY not get that much. But! If they hire a private practice lawyer - you can rest assured that that lawyer will get their money and it won't be a take-home paycheck either. Should the state hire a private practice lawyer because of his expertise in this field, then it is very likely that the 33% amount will be reached.
My example of the above happening, as I've already pointed out three times - is the Feds vs The Tobacco Industry where the lawyers in that case were private practice lawyers along with the Federal Government lawyers. And as I've already said - If I remember correctly the Tabacco Industry took the lawyers back to court because they felt that the amount of money being paid to the lawyers was a bit excessive.
Got it? Good - go drool on someone else for a while. Thanks.
See my response to the other person - minus the idiot remarks. It isn't that the AG will get a wonderful commission - the state gets a wonderful commission for taking the company to court (The AG is just the representative of the State so you could say he/she IS getting a great commission if you wanted to but really it is the state that would get the money). However, there is always the possibility that the State of Texas (just like the Federal Government) may hire a private practice lawyer to represent them because they need the expertise of that lawyer.
That lawyer works on a commission basis and would have to be paid before any money is distributed. Further, the state would take any/all monies out for their work before any monies are distributed. (This, of course, includes anything they had to make use of in order to prosecute the case. Which would include clerks, expert witnesses, the time spent preparing the case, etc....)
My example of this happening is the Feds vs The Tabacco Industry where a private practice firm was retained to help prosecute the Tabacco Industry. They were paid millions (and in fact if I remember correctly, the Tabacco Industry went back to court because they felt that the commissions were exorbitant).
Well it takes an idiot to know an idiot I'm told. So hi - nice to meet you.
As per my post - the states and federal government sometimes retains a PRIVATE PRACTICE LAWYER(s) for lawsuits in certain cases. (As in my example of the Federal Government taking the Cigarette Industry to court.) These PRIVATE PRACTICE LAWYERS are paid just as if any client had come to them with a problem they wanted taken to court.
Therefore - IF THE STATE RETAINS A PRIVATE PRACTICE LAWYER - then they will have to pay them just like any other private practice lawyer gets paid. Which, true, doesn't mean an automatic 33% - but that is what it usually works out to be because of all of the money the private practice lawyers have to spend. Sometimes it is put (since we are idiots here) as a 14% PLUS EXPENSES. Those expenses can get to be pretty high. Sometimes as high as *gasp* 33%!
Even in the case where just the AG takes on the case and the state pays for everything - it is THE STATE who gets the lion's portion of the money because they are trying to recoup their investment in taking the company to court. Thus, and therefore, they may still take 33% before diviing out the rest to John Q. Public.
SO - THE GUY SPOKE THE TRUTH! The lawyers - whether they be of/by/for the state or private practice lawyers - will get most of the money.
Why do you think, in all of these types of lawsuits, you only get a $1.00, $0.50, or maybe something else along a similar vein? It's because, when the money is handed out, the lawyers get their take first, then you get some of what is left. Not the other way around unless they are doing it Pro-Bono and they haven't said they are doing it like that. So the lawyers - no matter who they are - take their share first; THEN the rest is given out.
And here's a shock for you! Sometimes you get NOTHING! Like Yeah! We win! Eh? What do you mean I get a hearty handshake and that's all? - that kind of a thing. Warm fuzzies are nice - but seeing some lawyer walk off with a lot of money and you get nothing really sucks. Been there - done that!
I would like to reply not to the message, but to the Troll rating the message received.
There is a difference between "Troll" and "Truth" and just because someone may not like the "Truth" to something doesn't make it a "Troll". A "Troll" is an inflamatory statement which is usually baseless and is meant to invoke long hours of needless replies.
But the same can be said for the "Truth" somethings. Which is why it is said that the truth hurts. Because it is usually very painfull to listen to the truth. Thus when someone speaks or writes the truth we should not label it as a troll just because it's not something you want to hear.
This person has spoken the truth. The lawyers will probably get 33% off the top for their services. This means if $100 million dollars is awarded to everyone then the lawyers could get $33 million dollars. (Remember the cigarette industry court case? Those lawyers got a lot of money after that trial.) The remaining $67 million dollars will be spread out amount the millions of people across the state. So the poster was correct. Most people will get some chump change (like maybe $5.00-$30.00) because the rest of the money will go to pay for the stamps, the envelopes, the people who have to sort through the envelopes (The US Mail requires everyone to group all letters going to a particular zipcode into their individual piles rubberbanded together, properly closed, and clearly marked - can ya tell I've had to do this before?), the printing costs, etc....
Had one or more people brought this action before the court, then those people would have gotten a major amount of money before the rest was divided up among everyone. But the state brought the suit to court so the state (and its lawyers) get the majority of the money. Mainly to pay back the state for having to take the company to court, but also to pay any/all private lawyer fees that were caused by the case.
So you know - marking things that you don't like to hear said as "Troll" has the same chilling effect as what all of those other nasty people are doing when they try to suppress what people can or will say. So how about we leave the "Troll" markers where they deserve to be left. For those people who are flagrantly being trolls and not when someone just says something you don't happen to personally agree with.
(Although the second site is predicting an upturn in growth rate once the third world countries have become more moderized and then there is a sharp drop off in growth rate once 10 billion people are on the earth. I would think, given that people still only live to be around 80 or 90 that at some point there will be as many people dying as there are being born.
Even though we do have a lot of people on the planet; I seem to recall that the population on the planet actually declined in the last 10 years.
A friend of mine has repeatedly stated (not that that makes it true mind you) that within twenty years the human race will decline dramatically due to robotics taking over every aspect of our lives. Without anything to do, he postulates, man will cease to have any reason to live. Thus, through apathy and despair we will begin dying out.
Personally - I don't think so. But he does have a point. That being: If mankind becomes subservient to robots would robots eventually either absorb mankind into itself or superceed mankind in favor of itself? Basically, would we become the Borg or just die out? We are already on the road to becoming the Borg. Artifical hands, feet, and hearts are just some of the things now done by robotic or (at least electrical/mechanical) items. One doctor is already experimenting on himself by planting electrodes directly into his nerves so he can have a computer store all of his movements. The robot manufacturers overseas already have robots that can wash dishes, vacuum, and even play soccer. We now have computer cpus that can build connections like the human mind builds neuro pathways.
Will we soon see the capability to download an entire human mind into computer circuitry? It is just a matter of size to store everything you know and it may not be long before what we call a soul is disected, cataloged, and possibly stored in a computer.
Of course, in my case, they'd probably download my mind and then have a hardware crash.;-)
I know some others have touched upon how slavery used to be (although "used to be" really is misleading since there are still people being bought and sold as slaves even today - see some of the various articles about women being bought and sold as slaves in America as well as other countries. And yes, they do get shut down but these trades do also seem to pop back up after a few years.).
My take though is that copyright is more akin to slavery than monopoly. Not that it didn't use to be more like a monopoly - only that now it is more like slavery. In the article, it is talked about how Larry Lessig and John Ashcroft talked about copyright in terms of ownership versus rights. I believe that if Mr. Lessig had approached the entire copyright issue as slavery of the America people versus the needs of the copyright owners that, just as "rights" and "ownership" have certain connotations, the connotations of slavery would have thrown copyright into the evil aspect that the founding fathers saw it as and might have swayed the justices more in Mr. Lessig's favor.
Ok, so why would anyone say copyright is like slavery? Well, it shackles us in that it restricts our usage of a given item. It forces rules and regulations upon us that otherwise would not exist. It impedes our ability to do as we please. And it punishes us even if we were unaware that we were doing something wrong in the first place. It can even force us to do things we would otherwise not want to do. It takes away our freedom. Can be used to destroy our ability to invent and create new items. (All of which is collectively known as the "Chill Factor".) Copyright, therefore, has come to mean evil, unscrupulousness, hoarding, bullying, and other evil things because we have let it become evil. What used to be a law to help protect the copyright owner has become a law used to inflict pain and suffering on others.
The founding fathers set the number of years to be fourteen with a single extension of fourteen years. They set it to be that way because (as their writings say) copyright is an unbearable condition to the very foundations of American society. A form of slavery not to be kept in place but allowed to fall from the shoulders like a heavy burden is released after having to carry it for a long while. They knew that people detested having to give up any kind of freedom. Especially after having fought for it for so long and so hard. So they made it so the people of the United States would not have to carry this burden with them all of their lives. Only for a limited time. It wasn't until the founding fathers were all dead and gone that the merchants, like in biblical times, began to gnaw away at these foundations. Lesser people who came into offices of importance decided that money was worth more than the very people they had been voted into office to protect and help. Protecting, they said, meant increasing the duration of copyright. But protection for whom? Not the masses since copyright has nothing to do with the masses and everything to do with individuals. So for whom were the extensions for? That is right. Greedy merchants and greedy individuals who, once granted a copyright, fight tooth and nail to retain that copyright so they may inflict their wants and needs onto others. (Look at the recent Lego versus Mega Bloc court case where Lego, who's patents had all expired by 1988, attempted to force the Mega Bloc company to stop selling toys which looked like Legos.) This all or nothing attitude is the stumbling block to our society and like J.R.R Tolkien's poem about the One Ring. You could say:
Eternity for copyrights. Eternity for patents. Eternity for all things mine. And nothing for the masses. In the land where the laws are made. One rule to gather it all, One rule to hoard it. One rule to covet it all, and make the laws that bind it. In the land where the laws are made.
Our government is mandated against the creation of monopolies, kingdoms, and other forms of total control ye
Nah! That would be more along the lines of "The Priceless Pearl" adventure.
The Priceless Pearl Adventure:
Once upon a time, in the land of adventurers, there were greedy people playing and adventuring. They were so greedy that no matter how much treasure was given to them they always thirsted after more. So one day a sage asked them to retrieve "The Priceless Pearl". Of course, the greedy people decided that a pearl worth that much was something that they should keep rather than share with the sage.
So off they went. La-la-la...high....low....here....there. Always searching for The Priceless Pearl. Finally, after months of searching (and many adventures) they came upon the lair of an ancient dragon who was said to have The Priceless Pearl. The brave, but very greedy adventurers went in to the lair and fought bravely. Finally the dragon pleaded for it's life and gave the party (altogether now!)The Priceless Pearl. The party killed the dragon anyway. When they did, all of the treasure except The Priceless Pearl disappeared (and the Dragon also disappeared [who was the sage it turned out]) . So the party left with The Pricelss Pearl and returned home.
Once there, they tried to sell The Priceless Pearl but the first person they tried to sell The Priceless Pearl to said they just didn't have enough money to buy such a wonderful item. So they went to another buyer, and another, and another and....well, no matter what city they went to, no matter whom they brought The Priceless Pearl to - there just was never enough money to buy The Priceless Pearl. However, all manner of thieves, cutthroats, and brigands did manage to find their way to where ever the party decided to camp out and they were attacked countless times by many, many other very greedy individuals.
Needless to say, the time finally came when it sank in that they were being a bit too greedy. I heard that they gave The Priceless Pearl to some small kid in a rinky-dink town. The kid was attacked and killed a few minutes later and some other group ran off with.......you guessed it -> THE PRICELESS PEARL!!!!!
Yet another happy ending.:-P
(And no - I was neither the DM nor a player. I heard this one second hand.)
Re:The games may be going strong, but...
on
Dungeons and Shadows
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I felt that I had to say something here.
A friend of mine plays D&D and he used to live in Corpus Christi, Texas. One thing about CC was that there were a lot of people who wanted to play D&D et al but there really wasn't anyplace for them to meet and play. Further, it was only a few people who wanted to get together at the time and they didn't want to meet in some place where they would have to put up with all of the screaming and yelling and other problems which occur when you play in a game shop's back room or floor.
Their solution was this:
Get a group together and go find a cheap unused shopping strip and talk with the owners. Tell them their problem and see if the owner would be willing to rent some of the space out to them on the weekend so they could have some place to gather and play. They started out with a place that cost them $100.00 a month. It was in a bad neighborhood but there was plenty of parking because no one ever came to the shopping strip. (When I visited him there was only one shop open there for some small company.) They only used the place on the weekends and always left it cleaned up so if the owner got someone they could move in without any problems. Well, first thing they did was to pool their money to buy a small refrigerator (one of those $50.00-$100.00 models) so everyone could bring their drinks and keep them cool. Then they decided that each person would donate $0.50 for each drink so they could use the money to pay for the place. Then someone decided to buy boxes of candy and bring that. Since each drink cost about $0.25 and each candy bar only cost around $0.30 each (they sold them to themselves for $1.00 each), the club made enough money each month to pay the owner and have quite a bit left over. This allowed them to rent the space for the entire month - which they did.
Once they'd begun renting the space for the entire month they went about getting more people to come to the club. The rules were simple. No outside food or drinks. If you wanted something more substantial than soda and candy you either left and ate outside of the club or made a suggestion on what the club should provide. But, if you suggested something, they bought it, and then no one ate it, it was then put on a list (white board by that time) of things tried and found to be not a good thing for the club to buy. This eliminated a lot of the problems and the club prospered. When I went to visit the club again, it had over 100 people in it, maintained a list of who wanted to use the club when, had a BBS set up to handle reservations and annoucements, and the club's size was well over 6000sq ft of space. It was costing them around $500.00 a month for usage and they were even thinking of moving to somewhere a bit fancier. The walls had been hand painted by the club members with pictures of dragons, castles, treasure, and what-not. They were having contests like the greatest amount of treasure obtained in a game, the highest level, and so forth. They were talking of moving to a new location that would allow them to have glassed in areas so that each of the groups didn't disturb the others while playing yet still allowing everyone to see everyone else playing and having a good time.
And this all started with just four people who wanted to play D&D.
Yeah, I went "Say what?" when they said 4 METERS! The Smithsonian had a snake on display one time that wound through four rooms and was large enough to eat an elephant whole. THAT was large! (And a bit scary too!) Made me nervous just seeing how large it was and thinking what I'd do if I met such a creature (like mess my pants and run like crazy!).
But then, if you have never gone to Washington D.C. and gone to the Smithsonian - you need to make the trip. The natural sciences building has all sorts of fantastic things on display. They had a wooly mammoth on display when I was there as well. Huge beast. But no where near as scary as that giant snake.
The got'cha was the skeleton of the T-Rex they had hidden behind a turn. You came around the turn and there it was with it's mouth open ready to bite you in half. I heard several people make half-screams (those little eeps!) when they came to it. Strangely my first reaction was to sock the thing one until I realized it was just a skeleton. I guess the old fight or flight thing was in overdrive after having been shocked with the snake.
Getting input from the Jewish COMMUNITY on a vote-buying memorial is not the same as consulting the Jewish Church (Temple, or whatever, I admit to not knowing the details) in the GOVERNANCE of the country.
I guess you are just being dense. After all, you didn't say FOR WHAT PURPOSE they asked for guidance. Just that they have never asked anyone outside of their own religious preferences for guidance in ANY area of need.
Now that's quite an assumption that all Blacks are Southern Baptist. Not even close. News flash: race does not imply religious affiliation.
No said that ALL BLACKS ARE SOUTHERN BAPTIST but there are many Southern Baptists and many of them are blacks. We have a very fine church right across the street from us in fact!
They didn't WIN the right to do their own thing. They were GUARANTEED to the right to do their own thing by the US Constitution
Your original statement:What particular church would you "call in to lend guidance?" Oh, the one you belong to - what a surprise.
Stated your belief that only the type of church gone to (by me) would be called in for guidance. My reply was to try to show you how wrong you were. You are now trying to say it wasn't a WIN thing but a GUARANTEED right. Well, I got news for you. There is NO SUCH THING AS A GUARANTEED RIGHT. Even if it is in the Constitution it is not guaranteed unless you are willing to stand up and fight for it. Therefore, they did WIN the right to believe as they wished (in a court of law) and to worship as they wish (in a court of law) whether or not I, personally, like their beliefs or religion.
So he spoke with the Dalai Lama. Big frigging whoop. None of your examples show "guidance" by other churches. Acknowleding their existance is not guidance.
Look, I know you are slow in the uptake here - but just what exactly do you think a church would do as a way of guiding someone? Take a gun and put it to their head? Twist their arm until it breaks? THEY TALK TO THEM!.
Of course LEGAL terms are used for marriage/separation/divorce. That has NOTHING to do with my assertion that the founding fathers weren't using metaphors of marriage/separation/divorce in writing the constitution - Non-sequitur, dude.
Yeah, right. YOU DIDN'T READ IT DID YOU? THE LAW.COM REFERENCE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS JUST FOR MARRIAGE. The term "separation" is just a standard legal term. Throw out the word "marriage" and put "church and state" in it's place. It means the same thing.
Gah! You are not worth talking to. Go beat your head against a brick wall somewhere. I've got better things to do than to talk with someone as thick as you.
What particular church would you "call in to lend guidance? Oh, the one you belong to - what a surprise."
Well, let's see: The Jewish community was called in to consult with the Bush administration over the Holocaust memorial. George hasn't changed religious preferences has he? Anyone know if he's converted over lately?
What about Black history month? Did everyone suddenly become Southern Baptist?
Oh yeah, and even when the Satanist's won the right to do their own thing did everyone in government suddenly convert to Satanism?
Hedonism anyone? Druid? Budda? Didn't the president (OH MY!) see the Dalai Lama? Oh my god! Now he must be one-a those-there feriners!
And all because they lent their guidance to our government.
For shame on you! Spouting off about our government not listening to any church. Why, from where I sit - he listens to them all. And the important point is - they aren't even his church! My, what a surprise.
As to: The founding fathers were not using metaphors of marriage when they were writing the constitution.
Actually, marriage uses the LEGAL terms separation and divorce. Please note the part (in separation) where it states For people who want to avoid the supposed stigma of divorce, who hold strong religious objections to divorce or who hope to save a marriage, legal separation is an apparent solution. Sound familiar? Separation is NOT divorce.
Now, for those of you who go HUH?
You are a citizen of a country. Therefore you are a child of that country. Your governmental bodies are (in one sense) your parents. Not your biological parents - but as your parent in a legal sense in that it is the governmental bodies that give you the rules and regulations underwhich you have to abide so long as you are in your particular house->street->community->city->state->federal->Co untry. Which is to say you have the rules that you abide by at your house, on your street, in your community, in your city, state, federal, and country level. Most rules outside of your house are in (hopefully) harmony with each other. That is to say that if the federal government passes a law that says you have to wear your seatbelts they hope that the states will also pass a similar law and that your city will do the same. It is unlikely that your community, street, or even you in your house will pass any laws regulating your wearing of seatbelts so the cities and states take on the burden of enforcing the laws. Therefore, in a sense, they act as your surrogate parents once you are considered an adult and if you do wrong they take action against you by throwing you in jail or levying fines. Until you are an adult - it is the responsibility of your biological parents to take action against you and it is your parents that suffer any consequences due to your actions.
Which is why (as an example), when a kid shoots someone, the law attempts to convince a judge to prosecute them as an adult rather than a child. So it isn't the parents who suffer. (Although that is really putting things simply and the adults do still have to accept some of the burden of what their kid has done - it gets the point across I hope.)
I bet you have discovered where ID originally started out. Someone else probably read Carl Sagan's book and went "I really like that idea! Think I'll start a religon based on that!"
Stranger things than that have happened. Look at all of the quasi-religious items that get sold on eBay. Old cheese sandwiches, pretzels, turtles....
Slashdot Mirror
Ok! Here is a question to go with:
In the future, if personal force fields are the norm (aka StarTrek) - then why does anyone wear clothing? Think about it. All of those little green men/women don't wear clothing - no other creature on this planet wears clothing, and most other other-worldly creatures (that are not human looking) depicted in sci-fi films never wear clothing. Only humans wear clothing.
So - in the future (like if Superman appeared about the same time StarTrek would begin time-wise) would people still wear clothing? Would there even be a need to wear clothing if we are able to control the environment about us?
Ummmmmmmmm....yes.
:-) )
The prophecy is that the movie studios will do some kind of digital magic to reduce/remove any bulges that might show.
The falsehood is that he is extremely well endowed and viewers would be insulted/horrified/whatever from seeing him in tights on a gigantic screen.
The truth is that he doesn't look any more well endowed than many other men so unless you draw attention to that particular area no one would have even bothered with it in the first place.
The prophecy won't come true unless the falsehood (in this case) is made into truth. Which is part of the nature of a self-fulfilling prophecy as you pointed out.
As for the "Big Lie", I would take it that the "Big Lie" is a corollary to the self-fulfilling propecy (or maybe the other way around though I think the SFP is broader in its scope than the BL). That being that if you lie big enough you can change reality to fit your outlook whereas an SFP only requires a general concensus (which doesn't necessarily require you to lie about something).
Example: IBM PCs are better than Macintoshes. This has proven true in that IBM PCs are, in a general sense, better because they cost less (most manufacturers produce IBM PC compatible computers) to build, cost the consumers less, there is a broader group of products to choose from, and so on. But it wasn't so in the 1980s when this flame war began. In the 1980s Macs were better and (in some cases) cost less. But times have changed and what the IBM PCs couldn't do in the 1980s they now can do in the 2000s. So a lot has changed in twenty years and the SFP made in the 1980s about IBM PCs has come to pass.
Now! Before you go off about Macs and such - this is just an example. Are Macintoshes built better? Maybe. Is the OS better? At one time I would have said yes - now I have to say maybe. (After all, there have been several articles concerning the Mac's current OS and its past OSs and there have been problems in both just like there are problems with Windows and Linux and BeOS and [whatever]OS.) To me, it is a question now of whether to shell out a few thousand dollars for a Mac or whether to shell out a few hundred dollars for a PC. Since I am piss poor at the moment - my decision is to buy PCs. When I had money - I bought Macs. I can and do use both. In fact, I now have a system built with Windows, Linux, and Mac all three running at the same time (via Cygwin and BasiliskII). (And yes, I own several Macs of various lineage as well as several IBM PCs of various ages and they are all networked together. So I know my computers.
To bring this back to the topic at hand though, statistics form a large part of SFPs. For instance, you gather a large number of statistics on a horse and go to the track. Your predicition is that the horse who has won every other race it has been at is the one you are going to bet on. Even though the horse has never lost a race you are still trying to create a SFP because no one knows what the actual outcome will be. There are literally thousands of things that could go wrong yet your belief is that that one horse will finish first. If it does, then your SFP has come true. If it does not - then your SFP was false.
Weathermen are SFPs on a daily basis. If they say it is going to rain the next day and it does - everyone is happy (more or less) because their weatherman accurately prophesied what would happen. If he is wrong - he might get fired and another weatherperson will replace him. The weathermen work very hard to figure out what it is going to be like days in advance. Businessmen who give presentations to audiences of stockholders are prophesizing what the next year will be like. They then work towards those goals. They too are SFPs. Why do you think it is called making mojo sometimes? Or maybe the quip that "They are working their magic?" These all relate to SFPs because they are working to try to make their predictions come true.
Yeah! That too! :-P Wish I had points to award. :-/ I'd mark your response up. :-)
It's called a Self Fullfilling Phrophecy. If you get enough people to believe what you are saying - then it becomes reality for everyone and everyone believes it. Like everyone saying that IBM PCs are better than Macintoshes. Pretty soon (if your advertising budget is large enough) you have everyone using IBM PCs and thinking Macs are crap whether or not it really is true.
There are a lot of cases where this happenes. The war in Iraq for example. "We have to attack Iraq because they have Weapons of Mass Destruction!" Never found any, costing us Billions each year - but the government got what it wanted - a war. Sadly, it has cost us quite a bit (both in money as well as in people [both us and them mind you]) and is going to continue to cost us a lot for years to come.
Back to the packaged deal. Two things:
1. My wife's brother and his bride to be were given a party to celebrate their pending union. I had know him for a few years. He was a jogger who was skinny as a rail. Well, before the party he had gone jogging and when he came back he was soaked (due to the humidity though and not because he had been jogging). I never realized just how endowed he was until then. It became the talk of the party in whispers since he didn't go directly and change clothes. Finally his dad and myself went over and whispered to him that he might want to change his clothes. When he asked why we were polite but firm in telling him about the situation. He quickly retreated inside and came out in clothes that didn't show anything off. Much to the relief of the ladies who were present. (And his bride to be that was very embarrassed on his part.)
2. Movie studios try whatever they can to raise awareness of their movies and to get people to go to them. Movies that they think will strike it big with audiences they just hype the movie itself. But movies that they think they are not going to make much money on at all they usually try to get things rolling by bringing up some controversial item. (As in the actor's package.) The more hype that surrounds a movie - the worse the movie usually is. The more they stick to just showing you small parts of the film - the better the movie usually is. This is not always true though. It is just a general rule of thumb because as with everything - there are always exceptions to the rule.
Do you even read what it is you type? Do you really think that Texas is in some kind of a vacuum? That it resides in its own universe? Or that Texas is some kind of golden boy country just because we happen to have someone from Texas in the White House? And do I really need to list the thousands of GOOGLED court cases that talk about the unusual methods used in our court systems?
Ok, you asked for it. Here are some Texas Jurisprudence instead of out of state stuff
Example #1: Texas courts affecting, or in this case, not affecting other country's courts:For example, in Agar Corp. Inc. v. Multi-Fluid, Inc. a Texas court held that a Norway-based company was not subject to suit in Texas because its products could not be purchased and contractual relations could not be made through its website.
Notes: The thing to notice here is that a Texas court feels it has the power to affect things that are going on in other countries. Especially if money is exchanged. I would have thought that Texas courts could only affect things that went on in Texas or maybe the United States itself - but certainly not in places like Norway.
Example #2:This week's analysis focuses on the offensive use of the Texas Attorney General's concession in Saldano v. Texas that the application of the death penalty in some cases in Texas has been impermissible infected with racial animus.
Notes: Using race to make or apply laws was outlawed years ago yet - here it is!
Example #3:With respect to the sentencing issues, the Court conludes that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland when it concluded that Lowe had not been ineffective when he failed to object to the introduction of lots of prejudicial evidence.
Notes: Usage of laws written outside of Texas by the courts in Texas.
You know - I could go on and on and on but I think you get the picture. Since you don't know what you are talking about I think I'm going to stop posting back. So say what you will but if I were you - I'd do a bit more reading first.
To quote you, go blow smoke up someone's ass, as mine's full of yours.
Tssk - Tssk - you really should take that pipe out of your mouth before you begin blowing smoke. Use some common sense next time. If something is happening in one state - it usually happens in all of the states in varying degrees.
Honestly I DO live in Texas and I already HAVE seen it in action in court. So fellow Texan - maybe you should get around more. And if you are a lawyer you would know that a judge is bound by certain rules and regulations but there is always some wiggle room for judges to apply their own methods.
And if you were a lawyer you'd know that judges "burrow" rulings from other states and even other countries to justify what they do when they do it. Otherwise, how would new trends ever develop? Do you think community service actions in court started because some legislature decided to put that in? It was started in the courts and made its way into the legislature. Why do you think some judgements are so controversial? Because the judge did something outside of the strict guidelines as written by the legislature. Some court cases call for such measures. Such as this one. Sony was involved in illegal activities and they need their hand slapped hard so they won't try this kind of a thing again. My money is on the judge not only awarding punitive damages but also slapping on some type of community service such as what I've already talked about.
So how about you go blow smoke up someone else's ass for a while, mine's already full of yours.
Yeah and I'm being marked as Flamebait and Trolls. It's a sick-sick world out there. ;-)
Statutory damages aren't given to the citizens directly; they're put into the state's coffers in their entirety.
Not in all cases. Only in some cases. It depends upon the judge's ruling. The judge has leniency to state where the money will go and the judge can say that Sony has to provide reimbursement to everyone who purchased a CD (or replacement as Sony is already doing).
This is slightly different than the other lawsuits- this is a FINE that is being assessed and if they're found guilty, they'll have to pay the same, or be barred from doing business in the state of Texas. Not quite the same thing as the tobacco settlements, etc.
I already understood that a fine would be levied against Sony but the judge (as I've already said) has some say so in where the money goes as well as how much is to be allocated to what. The AG does not have to bear the burden of redistributing the wealth - it would be Sony's problem to deal with. Further, the judge can require Sony to do various things such as replace anyone's computer that has been damaged by their actions, provide services to restore a person's computer to how it was before their XCP software damaged it, and so forth. When it is a case such as this where it is the people versus a company - the judge can do lots of things.
For instance, a couple of years ago I was reading on the DOJ site that they took a company to court because they made deals where all (or most) of the smaller bakeries in the state (California I believe but I might be remembering which state incorrectly) were producing just their goods. Using tactics similar to Microsoft's the company had a strangle hold on the baking industry in that state and had begun moving into other states doing the same thing. The resulting judgement from the case levied fines and required the company to give up the baking units they had bought and installed into the various bakeries.
(The article I was reading dealt with the fact that the company who had had to give up the baking units had tried to get the units back after five or so years. The new judge in the case stated that the units were the property of the independent bakeries and no longer of the originating company and the originatng company was fined yet again for attempting to regain control of the baking units.)
Just as in the State of Texas vs Sony Entertainment Corporation, this trial will be read and watched by hundreds, thousands, and possibly millions of people who, like myself, are not a lawyer but love to read cases and try to keep abreast of the various laws. Yet that doesn't mean, just because we do not have degrees in law, that we do not understand the law. For my part, I have stood my ground in a court of law against lawyers and won on my own - so I know a little bit about the law. I may not know all of the ins and outs of the law but.... Now this is not to say I'm perfect - but I do know what a judge can do in these types of cases. Not totally - but in a general sense. Which is to say what I have already said.
Now it is true also that the judge can just say X amount of money, thank you very much, later. But if the judge is halfway decent they will also put in something for the people that Sony also has to do so that the state is not the only one who gains from this action. Just like in the US vs Microsoft case, just like in many other cases. The fines may or may not just go to the state but the case is being brought on behalf of the people in the state so, in order to actually make the company help those it hurt the judges usually make them do something that directly helps the people. In the Microsoft case, Microsoft had to buy computers for schools (as well as do a few other things). The computers were because Microsoft doesn't directly make computers so they'd have to spend at least a little money. (Would have been better IMHO if the top executives would have had to be the ones who delivered the computers and helped to set them up - but what can I say? At least the
Please see my three other posts as repsonses to the other people who don't think I know what I am talking about. Here is a quote...
...pay out $440 million in fees to the private attorneys who represented the plaintiffs.
Quote:
And here is where you can read all about it:
Web Page: THE MULTISTATE MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE FUTURE OF STATE AND LOCAL TOBACCO CONTROL:
Granted that $440 Million dollars is not even 1% of $368.5 Billion dollars, but you do have to realize that that is $368.5B over a 25 year period and so really it is $440M from ($368.5B/25)= $14.74B which makes it $440M/$14.74B = 2.9% of the first year's settlement. I'm sure that there was some cap that was put on to the amount since everyone knew up front that the settlement would probably be in the billions of dollars. So yes - it isn't 33% but then, in smaller cases the percentage would be larger.
(Which I think >I could live on $440M quite easily thank you!)
Well, as I said in my first response - it takes an idiot to know one.
The AG is the state's representative and yes, it is not the AG who would pocket the money. However, as the state's representative it can be said that he did do so. As in "The AG won X millions in this case." Therefore, in English, it could be taken as the AG absconded with X millions but in truth - the state got the money.
Now, as far as the 33% goes - the state MAY get that much and they MAY not get that much. But! If they hire a private practice lawyer - you can rest assured that that lawyer will get their money and it won't be a take-home paycheck either. Should the state hire a private practice lawyer because of his expertise in this field, then it is very likely that the 33% amount will be reached.
My example of the above happening, as I've already pointed out three times - is the Feds vs The Tobacco Industry where the lawyers in that case were private practice lawyers along with the Federal Government lawyers. And as I've already said - If I remember correctly the Tabacco Industry took the lawyers back to court because they felt that the amount of money being paid to the lawyers was a bit excessive.
Got it? Good - go drool on someone else for a while. Thanks.
See my response to the other person - minus the idiot remarks. It isn't that the AG will get a wonderful commission - the state gets a wonderful commission for taking the company to court (The AG is just the representative of the State so you could say he/she IS getting a great commission if you wanted to but really it is the state that would get the money). However, there is always the possibility that the State of Texas (just like the Federal Government) may hire a private practice lawyer to represent them because they need the expertise of that lawyer.
That lawyer works on a commission basis and would have to be paid before any money is distributed. Further, the state would take any/all monies out for their work before any monies are distributed. (This, of course, includes anything they had to make use of in order to prosecute the case. Which would include clerks, expert witnesses, the time spent preparing the case, etc....)
My example of this happening is the Feds vs The Tabacco Industry where a private practice firm was retained to help prosecute the Tabacco Industry. They were paid millions (and in fact if I remember correctly, the Tabacco Industry went back to court because they felt that the commissions were exorbitant).
Well it takes an idiot to know an idiot I'm told. So hi - nice to meet you.
As per my post - the states and federal government sometimes retains a PRIVATE PRACTICE LAWYER(s) for lawsuits in certain cases. (As in my example of the Federal Government taking the Cigarette Industry to court.) These PRIVATE PRACTICE LAWYERS are paid just as if any client had come to them with a problem they wanted taken to court.
Therefore - IF THE STATE RETAINS A PRIVATE PRACTICE LAWYER - then they will have to pay them just like any other private practice lawyer gets paid. Which, true, doesn't mean an automatic 33% - but that is what it usually works out to be because of all of the money the private practice lawyers have to spend. Sometimes it is put (since we are idiots here) as a 14% PLUS EXPENSES. Those expenses can get to be pretty high. Sometimes as high as *gasp* 33%!
Even in the case where just the AG takes on the case and the state pays for everything - it is THE STATE who gets the lion's portion of the money because they are trying to recoup their investment in taking the company to court. Thus, and therefore, they may still take 33% before diviing out the rest to John Q. Public.
SO - THE GUY SPOKE THE TRUTH! The lawyers - whether they be of/by/for the state or private practice lawyers - will get most of the money.
Why do you think, in all of these types of lawsuits, you only get a $1.00, $0.50, or maybe something else along a similar vein? It's because, when the money is handed out, the lawyers get their take first, then you get some of what is left. Not the other way around unless they are doing it Pro-Bono and they haven't said they are doing it like that. So the lawyers - no matter who they are - take their share first; THEN the rest is given out.
And here's a shock for you! Sometimes you get NOTHING! Like Yeah! We win! Eh? What do you mean I get a hearty handshake and that's all? - that kind of a thing. Warm fuzzies are nice - but seeing some lawyer walk off with a lot of money and you get nothing really sucks. Been there - done that!
Gah! Talk about idiots!
I would like to reply not to the message, but to the Troll rating the message received.
There is a difference between "Troll" and "Truth" and just because someone may not like the "Truth" to something doesn't make it a "Troll". A "Troll" is an inflamatory statement which is usually baseless and is meant to invoke long hours of needless replies.
But the same can be said for the "Truth" somethings. Which is why it is said that the truth hurts. Because it is usually very painfull to listen to the truth. Thus when someone speaks or writes the truth we should not label it as a troll just because it's not something you want to hear.
This person has spoken the truth. The lawyers will probably get 33% off the top for their services. This means if $100 million dollars is awarded to everyone then the lawyers could get $33 million dollars. (Remember the cigarette industry court case? Those lawyers got a lot of money after that trial.) The remaining $67 million dollars will be spread out amount the millions of people across the state. So the poster was correct. Most people will get some chump change (like maybe $5.00-$30.00) because the rest of the money will go to pay for the stamps, the envelopes, the people who have to sort through the envelopes (The US Mail requires everyone to group all letters going to a particular zipcode into their individual piles rubberbanded together, properly closed, and clearly marked - can ya tell I've had to do this before?), the printing costs, etc....
Had one or more people brought this action before the court, then those people would have gotten a major amount of money before the rest was divided up among everyone. But the state brought the suit to court so the state (and its lawyers) get the majority of the money. Mainly to pay back the state for having to take the company to court, but also to pay any/all private lawyer fees that were caused by the case.
So you know - marking things that you don't like to hear said as "Troll" has the same chilling effect as what all of those other nasty people are doing when they try to suppress what people can or will say. So how about we leave the "Troll" markers where they deserve to be left. For those people who are flagrantly being trolls and not when someone just says something you don't happen to personally agree with.
Sorry! You are right. It is an over all decline in the growth rate - not population. Population is still increasing but growth rate has decreased.
See:Growth Rate for the United States and World Population
My bad.
(Although the second site is predicting an upturn in growth rate once the third world countries have become more moderized and then there is a sharp drop off in growth rate once 10 billion people are on the earth. I would think, given that people still only live to be around 80 or 90 that at some point there will be as many people dying as there are being born.
Even though we do have a lot of people on the planet; I seem to recall that the population on the planet actually declined in the last 10 years.
;-)
A friend of mine has repeatedly stated (not that that makes it true mind you) that within twenty years the human race will decline dramatically due to robotics taking over every aspect of our lives. Without anything to do, he postulates, man will cease to have any reason to live. Thus, through apathy and despair we will begin dying out.
Personally - I don't think so. But he does have a point. That being: If mankind becomes subservient to robots would robots eventually either absorb mankind into itself or superceed mankind in favor of itself? Basically, would we become the Borg or just die out? We are already on the road to becoming the Borg. Artifical hands, feet, and hearts are just some of the things now done by robotic or (at least electrical/mechanical) items. One doctor is already experimenting on himself by planting electrodes directly into his nerves so he can have a computer store all of his movements. The robot manufacturers overseas already have robots that can wash dishes, vacuum, and even play soccer. We now have computer cpus that can build connections like the human mind builds neuro pathways.
Will we soon see the capability to download an entire human mind into computer circuitry? It is just a matter of size to store everything you know and it may not be long before what we call a soul is disected, cataloged, and possibly stored in a computer.
Of course, in my case, they'd probably download my mind and then have a hardware crash.
I know some others have touched upon how slavery used to be (although "used to be" really is misleading since there are still people being bought and sold as slaves even today - see some of the various articles about women being bought and sold as slaves in America as well as other countries. And yes, they do get shut down but these trades do also seem to pop back up after a few years.).
My take though is that copyright is more akin to slavery than monopoly. Not that it didn't use to be more like a monopoly - only that now it is more like slavery. In the article, it is talked about how Larry Lessig and John Ashcroft talked about copyright in terms of ownership versus rights. I believe that if Mr. Lessig had approached the entire copyright issue as slavery of the America people versus the needs of the copyright owners that, just as "rights" and "ownership" have certain connotations, the connotations of slavery would have thrown copyright into the evil aspect that the founding fathers saw it as and might have swayed the justices more in Mr. Lessig's favor.
Ok, so why would anyone say copyright is like slavery? Well, it shackles us in that it restricts our usage of a given item. It forces rules and regulations upon us that otherwise would not exist. It impedes our ability to do as we please. And it punishes us even if we were unaware that we were doing something wrong in the first place. It can even force us to do things we would otherwise not want to do. It takes away our freedom. Can be used to destroy our ability to invent and create new items. (All of which is collectively known as the "Chill Factor".) Copyright, therefore, has come to mean evil, unscrupulousness, hoarding, bullying, and other evil things because we have let it become evil. What used to be a law to help protect the copyright owner has become a law used to inflict pain and suffering on others.
The founding fathers set the number of years to be fourteen with a single extension of fourteen years. They set it to be that way because (as their writings say) copyright is an unbearable condition to the very foundations of American society. A form of slavery not to be kept in place but allowed to fall from the shoulders like a heavy burden is released after having to carry it for a long while. They knew that people detested having to give up any kind of freedom. Especially after having fought for it for so long and so hard. So they made it so the people of the United States would not have to carry this burden with them all of their lives. Only for a limited time. It wasn't until the founding fathers were all dead and gone that the merchants, like in biblical times, began to gnaw away at these foundations. Lesser people who came into offices of importance decided that money was worth more than the very people they had been voted into office to protect and help. Protecting, they said, meant increasing the duration of copyright. But protection for whom? Not the masses since copyright has nothing to do with the masses and everything to do with individuals. So for whom were the extensions for? That is right. Greedy merchants and greedy individuals who, once granted a copyright, fight tooth and nail to retain that copyright so they may inflict their wants and needs onto others. (Look at the recent Lego versus Mega Bloc court case where Lego, who's patents had all expired by 1988, attempted to force the Mega Bloc company to stop selling toys which looked like Legos.) This all or nothing attitude is the stumbling block to our society and like J.R.R Tolkien's poem about the One Ring. You could say:
Eternity for copyrights.
Eternity for patents.
Eternity for all things mine.
And nothing for the masses.
In the land where the laws are made.
One rule to gather it all, One rule to hoard it.
One rule to covet it all, and make the laws that bind it.
In the land where the laws are made.
Our government is mandated against the creation of monopolies, kingdoms, and other forms of total control ye
Nah! That would be more along the lines of "The Priceless Pearl" adventure.
...you guessed it -> THE PRICELESS PEARL!!!!!
:-P
The Priceless Pearl Adventure:
Once upon a time, in the land of adventurers, there were greedy people playing and adventuring. They were so greedy that no matter how much treasure was given to them they always thirsted after more. So one day a sage asked them to retrieve "The Priceless Pearl". Of course, the greedy people decided that a pearl worth that much was something that they should keep rather than share with the sage.
So off they went. La-la-la...high....low....here....there. Always searching for The Priceless Pearl. Finally, after months of searching (and many adventures) they came upon the lair of an ancient dragon who was said to have The Priceless Pearl. The brave, but very greedy adventurers went in to the lair and fought bravely. Finally the dragon pleaded for it's life and gave the party (altogether now!)The Priceless Pearl. The party killed the dragon anyway. When they did, all of the treasure except The Priceless Pearl disappeared (and the Dragon also disappeared [who was the sage it turned out]) . So the party left with The Pricelss Pearl and returned home.
Once there, they tried to sell The Priceless Pearl but the first person they tried to sell The Priceless Pearl to said they just didn't have enough money to buy such a wonderful item. So they went to another buyer, and another, and another and....well, no matter what city they went to, no matter whom they brought The Priceless Pearl to - there just was never enough money to buy The Priceless Pearl. However, all manner of thieves, cutthroats, and brigands did manage to find their way to where ever the party decided to camp out and they were attacked countless times by many, many other very greedy individuals.
Needless to say, the time finally came when it sank in that they were being a bit too greedy. I heard that they gave The Priceless Pearl to some small kid in a rinky-dink town. The kid was attacked and killed a few minutes later and some other group ran off with....
Yet another happy ending.
(And no - I was neither the DM nor a player. I heard this one second hand.)
I felt that I had to say something here.
A friend of mine plays D&D and he used to live in Corpus Christi, Texas. One thing about CC was that there were a lot of people who wanted to play D&D et al but there really wasn't anyplace for them to meet and play. Further, it was only a few people who wanted to get together at the time and they didn't want to meet in some place where they would have to put up with all of the screaming and yelling and other problems which occur when you play in a game shop's back room or floor.
Their solution was this:
Get a group together and go find a cheap unused shopping strip and talk with the owners. Tell them their problem and see if the owner would be willing to rent some of the space out to them on the weekend so they could have some place to gather and play. They started out with a place that cost them $100.00 a month. It was in a bad neighborhood but there was plenty of parking because no one ever came to the shopping strip. (When I visited him there was only one shop open there for some small company.) They only used the place on the weekends and always left it cleaned up so if the owner got someone they could move in without any problems. Well, first thing they did was to pool their money to buy a small refrigerator (one of those $50.00-$100.00 models) so everyone could bring their drinks and keep them cool. Then they decided that each person would donate $0.50 for each drink so they could use the money to pay for the place. Then someone decided to buy boxes of candy and bring that. Since each drink cost about $0.25 and each candy bar only cost around $0.30 each (they sold them to themselves for $1.00 each), the club made enough money each month to pay the owner and have quite a bit left over. This allowed them to rent the space for the entire month - which they did.
Once they'd begun renting the space for the entire month they went about getting more people to come to the club. The rules were simple. No outside food or drinks. If you wanted something more substantial than soda and candy you either left and ate outside of the club or made a suggestion on what the club should provide. But, if you suggested something, they bought it, and then no one ate it, it was then put on a list (white board by that time) of things tried and found to be not a good thing for the club to buy. This eliminated a lot of the problems and the club prospered. When I went to visit the club again, it had over 100 people in it, maintained a list of who wanted to use the club when, had a BBS set up to handle reservations and annoucements, and the club's size was well over 6000sq ft of space. It was costing them around $500.00 a month for usage and they were even thinking of moving to somewhere a bit fancier. The walls had been hand painted by the club members with pictures of dragons, castles, treasure, and what-not. They were having contests like the greatest amount of treasure obtained in a game, the highest level, and so forth. They were talking of moving to a new location that would allow them to have glassed in areas so that each of the groups didn't disturb the others while playing yet still allowing everyone to see everyone else playing and having a good time.
And this all started with just four people who wanted to play D&D.
Hey! No one ever said fight or flight was rational. :-)
Yeah, I went "Say what?" when they said 4 METERS! The Smithsonian had a snake on display one time that wound through four rooms and was large enough to eat an elephant whole. THAT was large! (And a bit scary too!) Made me nervous just seeing how large it was and thinking what I'd do if I met such a creature (like mess my pants and run like crazy!).
But then, if you have never gone to Washington D.C. and gone to the Smithsonian - you need to make the trip. The natural sciences building has all sorts of fantastic things on display. They had a wooly mammoth on display when I was there as well. Huge beast. But no where near as scary as that giant snake.
The got'cha was the skeleton of the T-Rex they had hidden behind a turn. You came around the turn and there it was with it's mouth open ready to bite you in half. I heard several people make half-screams (those little eeps!) when they came to it. Strangely my first reaction was to sock the thing one until I realized it was just a skeleton. I guess the old fight or flight thing was in overdrive after having been shocked with the snake.
Yeah, but real problem is that pretty soon you won't be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. So then who will protect us from the good guys?
Sounds like the State Department is getting into the virus philosophy.
Getting input from the Jewish COMMUNITY on a vote-buying memorial is not the same as consulting the Jewish Church (Temple, or whatever, I admit to not knowing the details) in the GOVERNANCE of the country.
I guess you are just being dense. After all, you didn't say FOR WHAT PURPOSE they asked for guidance. Just that they have never asked anyone outside of their own religious preferences for guidance in ANY area of need.
Now that's quite an assumption that all Blacks are Southern Baptist. Not even close. News flash: race does not imply religious affiliation.
No said that ALL BLACKS ARE SOUTHERN BAPTIST but there are many Southern Baptists and many of them are blacks. We have a very fine church right across the street from us in fact!
They didn't WIN the right to do their own thing. They were GUARANTEED to the right to do their own thing by the US Constitution
Your original statement:What particular church would you "call in to lend guidance?" Oh, the one you belong to - what a surprise.
Stated your belief that only the type of church gone to (by me) would be called in for guidance. My reply was to try to show you how wrong you were. You are now trying to say it wasn't a WIN thing but a GUARANTEED right. Well, I got news for you. There is NO SUCH THING AS A GUARANTEED RIGHT. Even if it is in the Constitution it is not guaranteed unless you are willing to stand up and fight for it. Therefore, they did WIN the right to believe as they wished (in a court of law) and to worship as they wish (in a court of law) whether or not I, personally, like their beliefs or religion.
So he spoke with the Dalai Lama. Big frigging whoop. None of your examples show "guidance" by other churches. Acknowleding their existance is not guidance.
Look, I know you are slow in the uptake here - but just what exactly do you think a church would do as a way of guiding someone? Take a gun and put it to their head? Twist their arm until it breaks? THEY TALK TO THEM!.
Of course LEGAL terms are used for marriage/separation/divorce. That has NOTHING to do with my assertion that the founding fathers weren't using metaphors of marriage/separation/divorce in writing the constitution - Non-sequitur, dude.
Yeah, right. YOU DIDN'T READ IT DID YOU? THE LAW.COM REFERENCE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS JUST FOR MARRIAGE. The term "separation" is just a standard legal term. Throw out the word "marriage" and put "church and state" in it's place. It means the same thing.
Gah! You are not worth talking to. Go beat your head against a brick wall somewhere. I've got better things to do than to talk with someone as thick as you.
What particular church would you "call in to lend guidance? Oh, the one you belong to - what a surprise."
o untry. Which is to say you have the rules that you abide by at your house, on your street, in your community, in your city, state, federal, and country level. Most rules outside of your house are in (hopefully) harmony with each other. That is to say that if the federal government passes a law that says you have to wear your seatbelts they hope that the states will also pass a similar law and that your city will do the same. It is unlikely that your community, street, or even you in your house will pass any laws regulating your wearing of seatbelts so the cities and states take on the burden of enforcing the laws. Therefore, in a sense, they act as your surrogate parents once you are considered an adult and if you do wrong they take action against you by throwing you in jail or levying fines. Until you are an adult - it is the responsibility of your biological parents to take action against you and it is your parents that suffer any consequences due to your actions.
Well, let's see: The Jewish community was called in to consult with the Bush administration over the Holocaust memorial. George hasn't changed religious preferences has he? Anyone know if he's converted over lately?
What about Black history month? Did everyone suddenly become Southern Baptist?
Oh yeah, and even when the Satanist's won the right to do their own thing did everyone in government suddenly convert to Satanism?
Hedonism anyone? Druid? Budda? Didn't the president (OH MY!) see the Dalai Lama? Oh my god! Now he must be one-a those-there feriners!
And all because they lent their guidance to our government.
For shame on you! Spouting off about our government not listening to any church. Why, from where I sit - he listens to them all. And the important point is - they aren't even his church! My, what a surprise.
As to: The founding fathers were not using metaphors of marriage when they were writing the constitution.
Actually, marriage uses the LEGAL terms separation and divorce. Please note the part (in separation) where it states For people who want to avoid the supposed stigma of divorce, who hold strong religious objections to divorce or who hope to save a marriage, legal separation is an apparent solution. Sound familiar? Separation is NOT divorce.
Now, for those of you who go HUH?
You are a citizen of a country. Therefore you are a child of that country. Your governmental bodies are (in one sense) your parents. Not your biological parents - but as your parent in a legal sense in that it is the governmental bodies that give you the rules and regulations underwhich you have to abide so long as you are in your particular house->street->community->city->state->federal->C
Which is why (as an example), when a kid shoots someone, the law attempts to convince a judge to prosecute them as an adult rather than a child. So it isn't the parents who suffer. (Although that is really putting things simply and the adults do still have to accept some of the burden of what their kid has done - it gets the point across I hope.)
I bet you have discovered where ID originally started out. Someone else probably read Carl Sagan's book and went "I really like that idea! Think I'll start a religon based on that!"
:-/
Stranger things than that have happened. Look at all of the quasi-religious items that get sold on eBay. Old cheese sandwiches, pretzels, turtles....
Me thinks people are looking too hard for God.