Absolute belief in "truth" is what starts so many of the religious wars in this silly world.
Why did you put the word 'religious' in there? Very, very many wars have been started under the pretense of a belief in truth. Religion does not hold sole claim to that distinction. I am always amused at the biases people unthinkingly show. Which do you hate: religion or war? If the latter...why make the distinction? If it's the former, of course, your choice of words makes sense, even though a leader would hardly publicly support a war for the actual reasons it was fought. If you believe either the Crusades or the Inquisition was about religion, you've not done enough homework.
Personally, I don't give a shit if people track what I buy. I mean, so what? The thing is, people act like they're the only ones that are going to be committing data to this new process. Let's be realistic. Think of how many things are sold each day. Then think of how many people buy them. People talk about 'oh what if I'm caught possessing porn!' Well, even if that started happening, so what? Point to the millions of other porn-possessors and say 'so what?' Oh no, people might know you bought sanka instead of jamaican coffee....OH NO! people might know that you bought 35 video games last year....who cares? There's going to be billions of tags to sort through, and anyone wanting to find information on your particular purchases is going to expend effort to find it. So someone might be able to (eventually) find out that you bought both chocolate AND peanut butter, and might send you an ad for reese's peanut butter cups. WHO CARES?! I don't pay attention to the junk mail I get now, why would I pay attention to any I get in the future, just because some corporate drone pulled my name out of a databse to send the 'why not try OUR brand of junk food/magazine/furniture/porn/whatever else? I'm not going to respond to junk mail, telemarketers, or spam, even if it contains a list of every product I've purchased my entire life. If you don't want people to be able to eventually perhaps hack into your grocery list, use the grey market. I'm sure people will sell food, drinks, clothes, and toilet paper with no rfids in them. It's doubtful that porn or sex toys would ever have rfids in them, and that seems to be what many people are afraid of being caught with. If you think you're the only person who buys porn, check out the revenue that industry generates. If you think you're the only person buying the latest pop crap, check the charts. You aren't. No one cares. If anyone out there has nothing better to do than to try to find patterns in my spending, have fun. If someone wants to rfid-scan my house to rob it, you can rest assured my 'home defense' would not show up on their scan. The point is, your house would not be the only one they'd scan...and here's a hint: casing a house is already an exact science. If you live in a ritzy neighborhood, you're more likely to be burglarized than if you live in the sticks. If you walk around your neighborhood flashing wads of cash and driving a mercedes, you're more likely to be robbed. Why would a burglar invest the money in a scanner and the time into scanning when the range isn't remarkable and they'd have a faster, easier, and less costly option already, because they'd be close enough to your house to...see it. If you have treasure in the projects, either everyone already knows or no one would be scanning your house anyhow. It's nonsense. I don't have any Picassos laying around, I wouldn't put an rfid tag on them if I did, and anything else is just stuff. Why do I care if people know what soda I drink, or what food I eat, or what clothes I wear or what furniture, toys, etc I buy? I'm not ashamed of my life, it's boring and repetitive and I like it that way. Anyone sifting through my purchases is more likely to fall victim to terminal ennui than to do anything that would embarass or upset me.
Re:Boycott RFID products
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
I suppose so long as there's strict legislation, for instance your 'tear off' tag idea, it won't be a privacy threat.
Yes, please make them on tear-off tags, and then make the checkout automated. That way, I can walk out of the store with a giant basketful of stuff and pay maybe 2 dollars. See, I'd leave the tags right on the shelf....
Re:Let's enforce a no-resale clause
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
If a manufacturer wants to stop resale of it's goods on the second hand market (think: CD, software, E-book) it says so on the packet and puts a unique RFID into every item.
Then it goes round the car boot sales and picks up the items (doesn't even need to buy/touch them - scan as they walk by), tie back to the original sale (you did pay by credit card didn't you ?) and hit you with a court case.
Result: more profit
What color is the tin foil in your world?
Once I buy a CD, I can sell that CD to someone else, even if it says 'not for sale' on the front. Why? Because it's my property. Unless you're licensing or leasing the CD, you are free to sell it. Ebooks, I dunno about, they may be some sort of lease/license...but if not, you can sell them too. Please note, this doesn't apply to making lots of copies and selling them (as they wouldn't have any rfid tags on them anyhow, and as selling copies of something you bought isn't the same as selling the thing you bought.)
Many people have tried putting 'not labeled for individual sale' or 'not for resale' on products, but the only legal force it has is in the mind of the reader.
As long as you are willing to admit that you are irrational and believe in things without a shred of evidence, how could we possibly argue with you?
Boy, you're right. That's why it's too bad you don't know what agnostic means. I don't discount the possibility of some kind of creative force. The universe came from somewhere. However, I don't claim to understand, label, or know what it is. I just don't discount the possibility. It's as rational to me to believe in a bearded guy in the sky as to believe that everthing in existence sprung from nowhere. I could call that your 'magic appearing universe' theory if I wanted to be derogatory towards you.
You more or less admit that you believe in your magic daddy for no reason other than lots of others do and it makes you all warm and fuzzy thinking about HIM.
Actually, I stated very clearly that I did not know if there was indeed some form of god or not. I just don't think I know everything. Someday you might try comprehending what you read. It'll do wonders for you.
Your claim that this thing you can't explain exists is no different from my claim that a "rkhgsl" exists.
I'd equate it more closely with 'dark matter', 'quarks' and 'what happens in the heart of a black hole'. Those things we take on faith, yet you aren't deriding them. There's no difference, other than your opinion that taking some things on faith is okay, while taking other things on faith is not.
It really doesn't mean anything. It's just nonsensical gibberish to everyone but you (since only you can really know what you believe in but can't explain).
Actually, agnosticism is a very easy to understand concept, it is not gibberish unless you have no intelligence. You can understand something without agreeing with it.
Personally, I would be kind of embarrassed to admit to believing in something about which I know absolutely nothing.
Apparently not, as you obviously don't know anything about my beliefs, yet you had no problem spouting off about them.
Feel free to believe in anything you want.
Let me say this so you will understand it: I'm about to be very sarcastic.
Thanks for your permission. Dipshit.
We may make fun of your silly beliefs, but we would never persecute you for them or kill you for them as the Catholic church used to do to non-believers.
You don't even understand my beliefs, so how would you making fun of them matter? Agnostics aren't noted for Inquisitions. I realize you're too stupid to understand this, but agnostic does not equal catholic.
Frankly I find your creation tales rather uninteresting though.
I do too, since I don't have any. I'm agnostic. Dumbass.
I prefer the idea that the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle who then rests on the back of another giant turtle...
At least I don't have *any* creation tales. If I did, I certainly wouldn't rip them off. You're not only stupid, you're unoriginal as well.
You can't prove the non-existence of anything, there, Aristotle.
Yeah, that was...um...my point. Glad you missed it.
Can you prove that I am not God?
No, but since my religion isn't based on doing so (as atheism is to the nonexistence of god), it doesn't matter. I'm agnostic. I'd be surprised if you turned out to be god, but then, life's full of surprises.
Incidently, quarks have been (indirectly) observed many times. It's impossible to see one, due to the nature of light.
Impossible to see, yet there are indirect evidences for it. You have to take on faith that quarks exist. Why is that rational, but taking on faith that something created the universe isn't? (indirect proof of that would be...the universe existing. it's not direct proof, but neither is there direct proof for the existence of quarks. I'm not saying quarks don't exist, or that god does, I'm just asking why one is an 'okay' belief, the other isn't.)
Nope, bad TV is evil. Universal truth:)
Perhaps, but whose definition of 'bad' do we use? Some people might not like mcneil-lehrer...but that doesn't make it bad tv....
Methinks you are confusing complicated/confusing with deceptive.
Not at all. Look at nature. Many things are not what they appear (just as in physics). Empirical evidence has often shown to be incorrect, yet was taken as universal truth for many years. You mentioned the self-correcting nature of science...you are correct if the sciences allow for the possiblility that they could be wrong, which many are not willing to do on either side of the 'is there a god' debate.
What is a 'sexual intellectuals', please?
First: please note I was applying the term to the OP and others like the OP, not to your rational, well spoken replies.... a 'sexual intellectual' is a fucking know-it-all.
yeah but it's the 240 million that don't want pot around that are right.
What about the 250 million that didn't sign up for the DNC list? My point was based upon the quote, and its obvious lack of application in our society. I would also submit that to choose not to use drugs is in no way a statement that you do not want them around. Just to be nitpicky.
God: In order to have a reasonable belief in something, the standard is evidence. There is no objective evidence for the existence of a god. Therefore the issue is not 'you can't prove that there is not a god', but 'what proof is there that god exists?'. Since the one proposing a change from the accepted status must prove his point, the latter question is the only one relevant.
Firstly: why do you define the nonexistence of god to be the accepted state? There are more people in the world that believe in some form of diety than do not. I am not saying that their belief makes it true, however I would assert that the 'accepted' state would be the state most of the world is in, and has been for all of recorded history. It isn't enough to simply say that the state you prefer is the accepted state. The existence of god can be 'proven' by simply asserting that the universe exists. To one who doees not believe in god, this is not proof. To one who does, it is all the proof needed. We all must make that determination for ourselves, however to difinitively state 'there is (or is not) a god' is foolish. If god exists, he certainly does not need our belief in order to exist, and if there is no god, no amount of belief will change that. You claim that all that is needed to shift burden of proof is evidence, yet by the rules of logic negative evidence is not evidence. Thusly, there is no evidence on either side, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim of certainty. Certainly, the universe came from something; even the proponents of the big bang theory (and its more currently in fashion competitors) are uncertain as to where the universe came from. The phenomenon, then, exists, as the origin of the universe has not been explained. As to the will (if there is one) of god (if there is one), you are correct. Anyone wishing to convince me that they know the mind of god (if there is one) has the burden of proof.
Unfortunately people get convinced that the 'default position' is the presence of a god, although this kind of assumption is only considered valid in religion. No other field would allow such unfounded beliefs.
Do you really believe that? Consider the 'humours', if you will. Consider lobotomies for the 'treatment' of mentally ill persons. Consider the firm belief that the sound barrier was unbreakable, that humans can't exceed 16Gs under any conditions, that cancer can't be cured, and many other assumptions that other fields have held. Just because people are scientists or doctors or intellectuals does not mean that they do not make basic, unsupported assumptions. Have you ever seen a quark?
Astrology: Same case, Those arguing the existence of a phenomenon with no evidence have the burden of proof.
While true, it is important to remember that 'not proven' is not the same as 'not true.' I'm not saying that astrology works, only that keeping an open mind is extremely important. Had the OP said 'I don't believe in god or astrology, and I don't like the show 'friends',' I would have had no quarrel. It's when people state opinions as fact that I become upset.
Talking to the dead: Have fun, but no whining when they ignore you.
As I said, talking to the dead is not only possible but easily done; having the dead answer you when you talk to them is a different matter. Again, however, stating definitive knowledge that it can't ever be done is limiting. I don't believe that I'll ever see it happen, but that doesn't mean it cannot. People stated as fact that man would never fly, never get to the moon, never do a bunch of things that were not only 'impossible' but laughable...and yet they were done.
Friends: If there's a universal truth, it's that insipid TV is evil:) Write a book, found a religion on that:)
Funny, that what people said about Shakespeare in his own time. Perhaps elementary school children of the future will be watching 'friends' because they're mandated to
Does that mean we have now voted god into existence?
Does this mean that astrology is real?
Does this mean I can talk to the dead?
Does this mean that Friends is really a good show?
I think not. 50 million people can sometimes be real doofuses.
Can you prove the nonexistence of god? (note: please remember that negative evidence is not evidence under the rules of logic)
Can you prove that astrology is not real? (of course, there are charlatans, but can you prove that out of all the people on the planet, not one can gain insight from the stars?)
Many people talk to the dead, every day. I think what you left off was the 'and have them answer back.'
Why is your opinion about a tv show (which makes more money per episode than you will likely see in your entire life) better than anyone else's?
Please note that I have not given you any of my personal opinions, although you may believe that I have. Please refrain from assuming that your opinion is so valuable that your basic assumptions need not be questioned. At one time, considerably more than 50 million people believed the earth was flat, and from the tone of your post, you would not only have been one of them, but you would have heaped scorn upon the 'round-earth' crowd. While it is okay to have opinions, believing your opinions to be definitive statements is not only the height of hubris, but is as glaring as a bad toupee to those with a less rigid worldview.
For the record: I am agnostic, I don't believe that astrology works, I talk to the dead but I never expect them to answer, and while I catch Friends every now and then, it is by no means my favorite show. I just hate arrogant fuckwads who believe that their opinions define reality. I bet you consider yourself more 'open-minded' than most people, too.
That's funny, I seem to remember the US government putting out a PSA saying 'only 20% of americans smoke weed.' Well, if we have around 300 mil americans, that means around 60 mil weed smokers, right? Yet I don't see congress saying that those 60 million americans aren't wrong. Not that more proof of government hypocrisy was needed, but there it is anyway.
'remote control ' is not a device, it is a function, and this couch would be implementing it.
Yes, as we all know, there is no such concept as a word (or phrase) which may function as more than one part of speech. For example, it is impossible to use a device (say a 'cane') for a function named after it. (let's say...caning)
remote control - concept a remote controller (sometimes called 'a remote' for short) - device remotely controlling - action
I think I would like to see a version of a game like this where, rather than just a threat level, actual charges were accumulated where evidence was available and if caught there was some sort of interactive legal battle. Choose defenses, bribe evidence clerks, murder witnesses, etc.
Ahh. Most people might think its boring I guess.. But I'm a huge Law and Order fan.
Personally, I'd pay for that game. Especially if I could use the 'I'm a celebrity' card, or the Johnny 'if the glove don't fit you must acquit' Cochran card.
I'd like to see a game that takes you through the criminal justice system as a poor young adult, barely too old for juvie court, of whatever color, and the object is to be found 'not guilty'. You'd have to avoid having evidence planted or falsified, choose a public defender from the ranks of failed private practitioners and extremely recent graduates, and watch as a judge tells you that you shoulda gotten a job instead of joining a gang, even though he/she has never stepped foot into a cipher.
If you hadn't noticed, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the U.S.'s reputation for invading other countries, particularly the current situation in Iraq, and hence not understanding the concept of peace.
Apparently you lack understanding as to the meaning of 'invade', as well.
That doesn't mean there isn't some validity to the reputation, as shown by the fact that you immediately attacked the idea of using military for peaceful purposes (including maintaining the peace).
No, I simply attacked the notion that one army is more 'peaceful' than another. They're armies. They do the same things, and one army is no better or worse than another. Look to the commanders in chief for that.
I agree that young children should not be playing this game, but that's what parents are for. If a parent decides to let a child play, that's sad, but their choice. We all know that parents are not receiving the blame they deserve, but that trend is nothing new.
I understand that those actions are technically soliciting prostitution, public lewdness, intent to fraud, fraud, attempted murder, and murder robbery. But believe me, there isn't a DA in this country that wouldn't add rape to that charge.
Why would they? I mean, I'm not doubting that they would, considering some of the things that DAs have done to friends of mine, but they really shouldn't. I'm not saying prostitutes can't be raped, merely that killing one after successfully concluding a business arragement wouldn't constitute rape.
Hah! I'd forgotten about "Dr" Laura. All the Chicago area stations stopped carrying her show several years ago after numerous complaints. Apparently her schlock sells better in more conservative, rural areas.
That pretty much describes where I live. I don't agree with her position on a vast array of items, but her ideas on child-rearing are surprisingly sensible (unless you believe in letting children do whatever they want whenever they want because you're afraid to discipline them).
Mr. Lif makes good music. I doubt anyone else who posts here would have heard of him, though.
well, the rules of logic tell me that from one Mr. Lif fan and/. poster, you cannot logically assume more, however with now 2/. posters that like him, we're allowed to theorize the existence of a third....that gives me hope, because Mr. Lif is awesome. If you are looking for some unsigned (as yet) but talented guys doing hip-hop, I recommend www.nibb.net.
I was reading this article right as 'i Phantom' by Mr. Lif came on. Coincidence, or evidence that this console is for reals on the psychic level, yo? You decide.
OK Maybe I considered it a rape sequence because I bought the car-rocking and then beat up the girl to get the money back.... I think the implication of sex was pretty obvious. And if you did that in real life and then murdered the whore, you would be charged with rape and murder. Death penalty here in Texas.
Nothing in the game forced you to kill the hooker for her money after the car rocked a bit. Also, technically, prostitution isn't rape. Killing a prostitute after your 'business' is concluded also isn't rape, nor is it the norm in such dealings. Please remember, video games provide a platform for doing things you wouldn't do in real life, such as flying a spaceship, brawling with mafia thugs, manipulating constantly descending colorful objects, etc. You'd get in trouble for doing a lot of the things you see in video games and on tv, or read in books and magazines. For example, if you went around knocking down trees and shrubs like in Legend of Zelda, you'd be charged with vandalism and/or criminal mischief. That's one reason video games are so cool; you can experience things virtually that you cannot or should not experience in reality, assuming you have a normal, healthy mentality. If you are a disturbed person, your actions should not be blamed on things which do not cause the same reactions in the vast majority of users.
but video game sellers have no clue who is going to actually use their product...
That should, in and of itself, prevent this lawsuit. You're exactly right, they have no idea who will end up with their product, and they have no responsibility to make sure that parents prevent kids from getting their products. They comply with the rating system, and should not be held responsible for something as tenuous as 'we played this game and it turned us evil'. I'm sure the victims' parents would be suing the gun manufacturer if similar suits hadn't already been slapped down. That needs to happen in this case, and decisively, so that others will think twice before filing another piece of shit lawsuit like this one.
It seems obvious to me that a person can't take the time to research every product he might want to buy (not if she wants a life anyway).
Well, those who have no time could certainly buy a copy of consumer reports, but I am very much a proponent of caveat emptor, barring fraud.
Think of the loss to the GNP if we were forced to do that.
Are you smoking crack? Spending 30 minutes in research before buying a $10,000-$40,000 vehicle? That's going to bankrupt the nation? Give me a break.
I don't feel that regulations inherently make anything better, especially if they're not enforced, and I'm not a fan of big government for its own sake, but I believe most regulations have arisen in response to abuses.
They've arisen in response to violations of the law, and/or companies paying for them to give them an edge, and/or because of special interest groups that have a vested interest in them (companies that want to hanstring competetors, raise the barrier or entry, etc.).
I also believe that to the extent that people can trust the government to look out for them, the productivity gained outweighs the productivity lost to regulatory compliance.
You can only trust the government to look out for its own interests. Now, sometimes it looks out for people, sometimes it doesn't, but it ALWAYS looks after itself.
And despite the impression you may have gotten from my earlier postings, everyone in that company I have worked with has expressed a real desire to do right by the law and by the customer.
Yet they're punished. Wow, that's a great system! Let's just go ahead and punish everyone, no matter what their track record is, because we assume that if not punished, they'll not care about the customer.
However, I also know that not all businesses (or let's say CEOs) are that professional, and many are perfectly willing to use dishonest, unfair or otherwise unethical business practices in the pursuit of a buck.
So you're saying they'll break laws (words on paper backed up by enforcement) but they won't break regulations (words on paper backed up by enforcement). That makes a lot of sense. That's like expecting a fleeing bank robber to stop for a red light.
Furthermore, I believe that most people are intelligent, and when presented with the facts and encouraged to think about their choices a little bit, will choose rationally.
Yet instead of offering them that opportunity, you'd rather bury them under a mountain of regulation. Weird.
To bring this discussion back on topic, I don't think we're there yet. Crucial to that vision is a free, strong and diverse media, so that people can make well-informed decisions, and I believe that this is one area where there can be no compromise.
So by making sure that fewer companies are able to present fewer points of view (can't diversify your networks anymore), that is somehow going to bring more diversity? That's akin to telling Discovery Channel that they have to go back to one single channel, because they own like 6 channels now and they're not diverse enough. Just because it's one company doesn't mean they're not going to present different points of view. They will present whatever point of view earns them the most money from consumers at any given point in time, and far from encouraging diversity in broadcasting, these re-regs are going to result in less diversity. I don't see a million companies stepping up to provide that diversity, do you?
I wonder what Dr. Laura would say about that little snippet. It pretty much shuts down the entire parenting impetus among the religious right.
I guess you don't listen to the Dr. I live in a small town, and on the way home, it's either her or popcountry, so I listen to her show. I don't always agree with her, but she is *extremely* big on preparing children for the real world. She believes that parents should be involved, should educate their children beyond what public school does, should teach them how to win gracefully and lose gracefully, and how to conduct themselves with honor. While her positions on certain issues are fairly far from mine (for example, I don't believe that kids who smoke reefer every now and then are hardened criminals who should be put away), on this particular issue, she is certainly a preacher of the sentiment you quoted: Prepare not the path for the child; prepare the child for the path.
I politely told the mother that the MA rating on this game was quite appropriate and told her about the graphic shooting and the rape sequence.
I think you got a different game than I did. I never saw any rape in that game, although you could buy some car rocking from a whore. It was pretty tame, though, as you could see the characters still sitting in the exact same position, the car just rocked and you lost money.
This is marked insightfull? The difference is in the bloody titel. What do we need to do, shout RTFT (read the fucking title)?
No, RTFA will still suffice, should ever anyone choose to do so.
Oh well for the braindead morons. This story the parents of the KILLERS sue. That non-dupe story is about the family of the VICTIMS sueing.
This dupe story is about the parents of the victims suing, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. Perhaps we should try your acronym, only with the final T representing 'Thread'
Slashdot Mirror
Absolute belief in "truth" is what starts so many of the religious wars in this silly world.
Why did you put the word 'religious' in there? Very, very many wars have been started under the pretense of a belief in truth. Religion does not hold sole claim to that distinction. I am always amused at the biases people unthinkingly show. Which do you hate: religion or war? If the latter...why make the distinction? If it's the former, of course, your choice of words makes sense, even though a leader would hardly publicly support a war for the actual reasons it was fought. If you believe either the Crusades or the Inquisition was about religion, you've not done enough homework.
Personally, I don't give a shit if people track what I buy. I mean, so what? The thing is, people act like they're the only ones that are going to be committing data to this new process. Let's be realistic. Think of how many things are sold each day. Then think of how many people buy them. People talk about 'oh what if I'm caught possessing porn!' Well, even if that started happening, so what? Point to the millions of other porn-possessors and say 'so what?'
Oh no, people might know you bought sanka instead of jamaican coffee....OH NO!
people might know that you bought 35 video games last year....who cares?
There's going to be billions of tags to sort through, and anyone wanting to find information on your particular purchases is going to expend effort to find it. So someone might be able to (eventually) find out that you bought both chocolate AND peanut butter, and might send you an ad for reese's peanut butter cups. WHO CARES?! I don't pay attention to the junk mail I get now, why would I pay attention to any I get in the future, just because some corporate drone pulled my name out of a databse to send the 'why not try OUR brand of junk food/magazine/furniture/porn/whatever else? I'm not going to respond to junk mail, telemarketers, or spam, even if it contains a list of every product I've purchased my entire life. If you don't want people to be able to eventually perhaps hack into your grocery list, use the grey market. I'm sure people will sell food, drinks, clothes, and toilet paper with no rfids in them. It's doubtful that porn or sex toys would ever have rfids in them, and that seems to be what many people are afraid of being caught with. If you think you're the only person who buys porn, check out the revenue that industry generates. If you think you're the only person buying the latest pop crap, check the charts. You aren't. No one cares. If anyone out there has nothing better to do than to try to find patterns in my spending, have fun. If someone wants to rfid-scan my house to rob it, you can rest assured my 'home defense' would not show up on their scan. The point is, your house would not be the only one they'd scan...and here's a hint: casing a house is already an exact science. If you live in a ritzy neighborhood, you're more likely to be burglarized than if you live in the sticks. If you walk around your neighborhood flashing wads of cash and driving a mercedes, you're more likely to be robbed. Why would a burglar invest the money in a scanner and the time into scanning when the range isn't remarkable and they'd have a faster, easier, and less costly option already, because they'd be close enough to your house to...see it. If you have treasure in the projects, either everyone already knows or no one would be scanning your house anyhow. It's nonsense. I don't have any Picassos laying around, I wouldn't put an rfid tag on them if I did, and anything else is just stuff. Why do I care if people know what soda I drink, or what food I eat, or what clothes I wear or what furniture, toys, etc I buy? I'm not ashamed of my life, it's boring and repetitive and I like it that way. Anyone sifting through my purchases is more likely to fall victim to terminal ennui than to do anything that would embarass or upset me.
I suppose so long as there's strict legislation, for instance your 'tear off' tag idea, it won't be a privacy threat.
Yes, please make them on tear-off tags, and then make the checkout automated. That way, I can walk out of the store with a giant basketful of stuff and pay maybe 2 dollars. See, I'd leave the tags right on the shelf....
If a manufacturer wants to stop resale of it's goods on the second hand market (think: CD, software, E-book) it says so on the packet and puts a unique RFID into every item.
Then it goes round the car boot sales and picks up the items (doesn't even need to buy/touch them - scan as they walk by), tie back to the original sale (you did pay by credit card didn't you ?) and hit you with a court case.
Result: more profit
What color is the tin foil in your world?
Once I buy a CD, I can sell that CD to someone else, even if it says 'not for sale' on the front. Why? Because it's my property. Unless you're licensing or leasing the CD, you are free to sell it. Ebooks, I dunno about, they may be some sort of lease/license...but if not, you can sell them too. Please note, this doesn't apply to making lots of copies and selling them (as they wouldn't have any rfid tags on them anyhow, and as selling copies of something you bought isn't the same as selling the thing you bought.)
Many people have tried putting 'not labeled for individual sale' or 'not for resale' on products, but the only legal force it has is in the mind of the reader.
As long as you are willing to admit that you are irrational and believe in things without a shred of evidence, how could we possibly argue with you?
Boy, you're right. That's why it's too bad you don't know what agnostic means. I don't discount the possibility of some kind of creative force. The universe came from somewhere. However, I don't claim to understand, label, or know what it is. I just don't discount the possibility. It's as rational to me to believe in a bearded guy in the sky as to believe that everthing in existence sprung from nowhere. I could call that your 'magic appearing universe' theory if I wanted to be derogatory towards you.
You more or less admit that you believe in your magic daddy for no reason other than lots of others do and it makes you all warm and fuzzy thinking about HIM.
Actually, I stated very clearly that I did not know if there was indeed some form of god or not. I just don't think I know everything. Someday you might try comprehending what you read. It'll do wonders for you.
Your claim that this thing you can't explain exists is no different from my claim that a "rkhgsl" exists.
I'd equate it more closely with 'dark matter', 'quarks' and 'what happens in the heart of a black hole'. Those things we take on faith, yet you aren't deriding them. There's no difference, other than your opinion that taking some things on faith is okay, while taking other things on faith is not.
It really doesn't mean anything. It's just nonsensical gibberish to everyone but you (since only you can really know what you believe in but can't explain).
Actually, agnosticism is a very easy to understand concept, it is not gibberish unless you have no intelligence. You can understand something without agreeing with it.
Personally, I would be kind of embarrassed to admit to believing in something about which I know absolutely nothing.
Apparently not, as you obviously don't know anything about my beliefs, yet you had no problem spouting off about them.
Feel free to believe in anything you want.
Let me say this so you will understand it: I'm about to be very sarcastic.
Thanks for your permission. Dipshit.
We may make fun of your silly beliefs, but we would never persecute you for them or kill you for them as the Catholic church used to do to non-believers.
You don't even understand my beliefs, so how would you making fun of them matter? Agnostics aren't noted for Inquisitions. I realize you're too stupid to understand this, but agnostic does not equal catholic.
Frankly I find your creation tales rather uninteresting though.
I do too, since I don't have any. I'm agnostic. Dumbass.
I prefer the idea that the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle who then rests on the back of another giant turtle...
At least I don't have *any* creation tales. If I did, I certainly wouldn't rip them off. You're not only stupid, you're unoriginal as well.
You can't prove the non-existence of anything, there, Aristotle.
Yeah, that was...um...my point. Glad you missed it.
Can you prove that I am not God?
No, but since my religion isn't based on doing so (as atheism is to the nonexistence of god), it doesn't matter. I'm agnostic. I'd be surprised if you turned out to be god, but then, life's full of surprises.
Incidently, quarks have been (indirectly) observed many times. It's impossible to see one, due to the nature of light.
:)
Impossible to see, yet there are indirect evidences for it. You have to take on faith that quarks exist. Why is that rational, but taking on faith that something created the universe isn't? (indirect proof of that would be...the universe existing. it's not direct proof, but neither is there direct proof for the existence of quarks. I'm not saying quarks don't exist, or that god does, I'm just asking why one is an 'okay' belief, the other isn't.)
Nope, bad TV is evil. Universal truth
Perhaps, but whose definition of 'bad' do we use? Some people might not like mcneil-lehrer...but that doesn't make it bad tv....
Methinks you are confusing complicated/confusing with deceptive.
Not at all. Look at nature. Many things are not what they appear (just as in physics). Empirical evidence has often shown to be incorrect, yet was taken as universal truth for many years. You mentioned the self-correcting nature of science...you are correct if the sciences allow for the possiblility that they could be wrong, which many are not willing to do on either side of the 'is there a god' debate.
What is a 'sexual intellectuals', please?
First: please note I was applying the term to the OP and others like the OP, not to your rational, well spoken replies....
a 'sexual intellectual' is a fucking know-it-all.
yeah but it's the 240 million that don't want pot around that are right.
What about the 250 million that didn't sign up for the DNC list? My point was based upon the quote, and its obvious lack of application in our society.
I would also submit that to choose not to use drugs is in no way a statement that you do not want them around. Just to be nitpicky.
God: In order to have a reasonable belief in something, the standard is evidence. There is no objective evidence for the existence of a god. Therefore the issue is not 'you can't prove that there is not a god', but 'what proof is there that god exists?'. Since the one proposing a change from the accepted status must prove his point, the latter question is the only one relevant.
:) Write a book, found a religion on that :)
Firstly: why do you define the nonexistence of god to be the accepted state? There are more people in the world that believe in some form of diety than do not. I am not saying that their belief makes it true, however I would assert that the 'accepted' state would be the state most of the world is in, and has been for all of recorded history. It isn't enough to simply say that the state you prefer is the accepted state.
The existence of god can be 'proven' by simply asserting that the universe exists. To one who doees not believe in god, this is not proof. To one who does, it is all the proof needed. We all must make that determination for ourselves, however to difinitively state 'there is (or is not) a god' is foolish. If god exists, he certainly does not need our belief in order to exist, and if there is no god, no amount of belief will change that. You claim that all that is needed to shift burden of proof is evidence, yet by the rules of logic negative evidence is not evidence. Thusly, there is no evidence on either side, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim of certainty. Certainly, the universe came from something; even the proponents of the big bang theory (and its more currently in fashion competitors) are uncertain as to where the universe came from. The phenomenon, then, exists, as the origin of the universe has not been explained. As to the will (if there is one) of god (if there is one), you are correct. Anyone wishing to convince me that they know the mind of god (if there is one) has the burden of proof.
Unfortunately people get convinced that the 'default position' is the presence of a god, although this kind of assumption is only considered valid in religion. No other field would allow such unfounded beliefs.
Do you really believe that? Consider the 'humours', if you will. Consider lobotomies for the 'treatment' of mentally ill persons. Consider the firm belief that the sound barrier was unbreakable, that humans can't exceed 16Gs under any conditions, that cancer can't be cured, and many other assumptions that other fields have held. Just because people are scientists or doctors or intellectuals does not mean that they do not make basic, unsupported assumptions. Have you ever seen a quark?
Astrology: Same case, Those arguing the existence of a phenomenon with no evidence have the burden of proof.
While true, it is important to remember that 'not proven' is not the same as 'not true.' I'm not saying that astrology works, only that keeping an open mind is extremely important. Had the OP said 'I don't believe in god or astrology, and I don't like the show 'friends',' I would have had no quarrel. It's when people state opinions as fact that I become upset.
Talking to the dead: Have fun, but no whining when they ignore you.
As I said, talking to the dead is not only possible but easily done; having the dead answer you when you talk to them is a different matter. Again, however, stating definitive knowledge that it can't ever be done is limiting. I don't believe that I'll ever see it happen, but that doesn't mean it cannot. People stated as fact that man would never fly, never get to the moon, never do a bunch of things that were not only 'impossible' but laughable...and yet they were done.
Friends: If there's a universal truth, it's that insipid TV is evil
Funny, that what people said about Shakespeare in his own time. Perhaps elementary school children of the future will be watching 'friends' because they're mandated to
Does that mean we have now voted god into existence?
Does this mean that astrology is real?
Does this mean I can talk to the dead?
Does this mean that Friends is really a good show?
I think not. 50 million people can sometimes be real doofuses.
Can you prove the nonexistence of god? (note: please remember that negative evidence is not evidence under the rules of logic)
Can you prove that astrology is not real? (of course, there are charlatans, but can you prove that out of all the people on the planet, not one can gain insight from the stars?)
Many people talk to the dead, every day. I think what you left off was the 'and have them answer back.'
Why is your opinion about a tv show (which makes more money per episode than you will likely see in your entire life) better than anyone else's?
Please note that I have not given you any of my personal opinions, although you may believe that I have. Please refrain from assuming that your opinion is so valuable that your basic assumptions need not be questioned. At one time, considerably more than 50 million people believed the earth was flat, and from the tone of your post, you would not only have been one of them, but you would have heaped scorn upon the 'round-earth' crowd. While it is okay to have opinions, believing your opinions to be definitive statements is not only the height of hubris, but is as glaring as a bad toupee to those with a less rigid worldview.
For the record: I am agnostic, I don't believe that astrology works, I talk to the dead but I never expect them to answer, and while I catch Friends every now and then, it is by no means my favorite show. I just hate arrogant fuckwads who believe that their opinions define reality. I bet you consider yourself more 'open-minded' than most people, too.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
That's funny, I seem to remember the US government putting out a PSA saying 'only 20% of americans smoke weed.' Well, if we have around 300 mil americans, that means around 60 mil weed smokers, right? Yet I don't see congress saying that those 60 million americans aren't wrong. Not that more proof of government hypocrisy was needed, but there it is anyway.
Ummm...
'remote control ' is not a device, it is a function, and this couch would be implementing it.
Yes, as we all know, there is no such concept as a word (or phrase) which may function as more than one part of speech.
For example, it is impossible to use a device (say a 'cane') for a function named after it. (let's say...caning)
remote control - concept
a remote controller (sometimes called 'a remote' for short) - device
remotely controlling - action
Can somebody give me the straight dope?
No, but I can give you a link to it:
http://www.straightdope.com
Enjoy!
I think I would like to see a version of a game like this where, rather than just a threat level, actual charges were accumulated where evidence was available and if caught there was some sort of interactive legal battle. Choose defenses, bribe evidence clerks, murder witnesses, etc.
Ahh. Most people might think its boring I guess.. But I'm a huge Law and Order fan.
Personally, I'd pay for that game. Especially if I could use the 'I'm a celebrity' card, or the Johnny 'if the glove don't fit you must acquit' Cochran card.
I'd like to see a game that takes you through the criminal justice system as a poor young adult, barely too old for juvie court, of whatever color, and the object is to be found 'not guilty'. You'd have to avoid having evidence planted or falsified, choose a public defender from the ranks of failed private practitioners and extremely recent graduates, and watch as a judge tells you that you shoulda gotten a job instead of joining a gang, even though he/she has never stepped foot into a cipher.
If you hadn't noticed, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the U.S.'s reputation for invading other countries, particularly the current situation in Iraq, and hence not understanding the concept of peace.
Apparently you lack understanding as to the meaning of 'invade', as well.
That doesn't mean there isn't some validity to the reputation, as shown by the fact that you immediately attacked the idea of using military for peaceful purposes (including maintaining the peace).
No, I simply attacked the notion that one army is more 'peaceful' than another. They're armies. They do the same things, and one army is no better or worse than another. Look to the commanders in chief for that.
I agree that young children should not be playing this game, but that's what parents are for. If a parent decides to let a child play, that's sad, but their choice. We all know that parents are not receiving the blame they deserve, but that trend is nothing new.
I understand that those actions are technically soliciting prostitution, public lewdness, intent to fraud, fraud, attempted murder, and murder robbery. But believe me, there isn't a DA in this country that wouldn't add rape to that charge.
Why would they? I mean, I'm not doubting that they would, considering some of the things that DAs have done to friends of mine, but they really shouldn't. I'm not saying prostitutes can't be raped, merely that killing one after successfully concluding a business arragement wouldn't constitute rape.
Hah! I'd forgotten about "Dr" Laura. All the Chicago area stations stopped carrying her show several years ago after numerous complaints. Apparently her schlock sells better in more conservative, rural areas.
That pretty much describes where I live. I don't agree with her position on a vast array of items, but her ideas on child-rearing are surprisingly sensible (unless you believe in letting children do whatever they want whenever they want because you're afraid to discipline them).
Mr. Lif makes good music. I doubt anyone else who posts here would have heard of him, though.
/. poster, you cannot logically assume more, however with now 2 /. posters that like him, we're allowed to theorize the existence of a third....that gives me hope, because Mr. Lif is awesome. If you are looking for some unsigned (as yet) but talented guys doing hip-hop, I recommend www.nibb.net.
well, the rules of logic tell me that from one Mr. Lif fan and
I was reading this article right as 'i Phantom' by Mr. Lif came on. Coincidence, or evidence that this console is for reals on the psychic level, yo? You decide.
OK Maybe I considered it a rape sequence because I bought the car-rocking and then beat up the girl to get the money back.... I think the implication of sex was pretty obvious. And if you did that in real life and then murdered the whore, you would be charged with rape and murder. Death penalty here in Texas.
Nothing in the game forced you to kill the hooker for her money after the car rocked a bit. Also, technically, prostitution isn't rape. Killing a prostitute after your 'business' is concluded also isn't rape, nor is it the norm in such dealings. Please remember, video games provide a platform for doing things you wouldn't do in real life, such as flying a spaceship, brawling with mafia thugs, manipulating constantly descending colorful objects, etc. You'd get in trouble for doing a lot of the things you see in video games and on tv, or read in books and magazines. For example, if you went around knocking down trees and shrubs like in Legend of Zelda, you'd be charged with vandalism and/or criminal mischief. That's one reason video games are so cool; you can experience things virtually that you cannot or should not experience in reality, assuming you have a normal, healthy mentality. If you are a disturbed person, your actions should not be blamed on things which do not cause the same reactions in the vast majority of users.
but video game sellers have no clue who is going to actually use their product...
That should, in and of itself, prevent this lawsuit. You're exactly right, they have no idea who will end up with their product, and they have no responsibility to make sure that parents prevent kids from getting their products. They comply with the rating system, and should not be held responsible for something as tenuous as 'we played this game and it turned us evil'.
I'm sure the victims' parents would be suing the gun manufacturer if similar suits hadn't already been slapped down. That needs to happen in this case, and decisively, so that others will think twice before filing another piece of shit lawsuit like this one.
It seems obvious to me that a person can't take the time to research every product he might want to buy (not if she wants a life anyway).
Well, those who have no time could certainly buy a copy of consumer reports, but I am very much a proponent of caveat emptor, barring fraud.
Think of the loss to the GNP if we were forced to do that.
Are you smoking crack? Spending 30 minutes in research before buying a $10,000-$40,000 vehicle? That's going to bankrupt the nation? Give me a break.
I don't feel that regulations inherently make anything better, especially if they're not enforced, and I'm not a fan of big government for its own sake, but I believe most regulations have arisen in response to abuses.
They've arisen in response to violations of the law, and/or companies paying for them to give them an edge, and/or because of special interest groups that have a vested interest in them (companies that want to hanstring competetors, raise the barrier or entry, etc.).
I also believe that to the extent that people can trust the government to look out for them, the productivity gained outweighs the productivity lost to regulatory compliance.
You can only trust the government to look out for its own interests. Now, sometimes it looks out for people, sometimes it doesn't, but it ALWAYS looks after itself.
And despite the impression you may have gotten from my earlier postings, everyone in that company I have worked with has expressed a real desire to do right by the law and by the customer.
Yet they're punished. Wow, that's a great system! Let's just go ahead and punish everyone, no matter what their track record is, because we assume that if not punished, they'll not care about the customer.
However, I also know that not all businesses (or let's say CEOs) are that professional, and many are perfectly willing to use dishonest, unfair or otherwise unethical business practices in the pursuit of a buck.
So you're saying they'll break laws (words on paper backed up by enforcement) but they won't break regulations (words on paper backed up by enforcement). That makes a lot of sense. That's like expecting a fleeing bank robber to stop for a red light.
Furthermore, I believe that most people are intelligent, and when presented with the facts and encouraged to think about their choices a little bit, will choose rationally.
Yet instead of offering them that opportunity, you'd rather bury them under a mountain of regulation. Weird.
To bring this discussion back on topic, I don't think we're there yet. Crucial to that vision is a free, strong and diverse media, so that people can make well-informed decisions, and I believe that this is one area where there can be no compromise.
So by making sure that fewer companies are able to present fewer points of view (can't diversify your networks anymore), that is somehow going to bring more diversity? That's akin to telling Discovery Channel that they have to go back to one single channel, because they own like 6 channels now and they're not diverse enough. Just because it's one company doesn't mean they're not going to present different points of view. They will present whatever point of view earns them the most money from consumers at any given point in time, and far from encouraging diversity in broadcasting, these re-regs are going to result in less diversity. I don't see a million companies stepping up to provide that diversity, do you?
I wonder what Dr. Laura would say about that little snippet. It pretty much shuts down the entire parenting impetus among the religious right.
I guess you don't listen to the Dr.
I live in a small town, and on the way home, it's either her or popcountry, so I listen to her show. I don't always agree with her, but she is *extremely* big on preparing children for the real world. She believes that parents should be involved, should educate their children beyond what public school does, should teach them how to win gracefully and lose gracefully, and how to conduct themselves with honor. While her positions on certain issues are fairly far from mine (for example, I don't believe that kids who smoke reefer every now and then are hardened criminals who should be put away), on this particular issue, she is certainly a preacher of the sentiment you quoted: Prepare not the path for the child; prepare the child for the path.
I politely told the mother that the MA rating on this game was quite appropriate and told her about the graphic shooting and the rape sequence.
I think you got a different game than I did. I never saw any rape in that game, although you could buy some car rocking from a whore. It was pretty tame, though, as you could see the characters still sitting in the exact same position, the car just rocked and you lost money.
This is marked insightfull? The difference is in the bloody titel. What do we need to do, shout RTFT (read the fucking title)?
No, RTFA will still suffice, should ever anyone choose to do so.
Oh well for the braindead morons. This story the parents of the KILLERS sue. That non-dupe story is about the family of the VICTIMS sueing.
This dupe story is about the parents of the victims suing, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. Perhaps we should try your acronym, only with the final T representing 'Thread'