Mike Mills has made it clear that he thinks file "sharing" is no different than stealing a record. Madonna flooded p2p networks with fake mp3s that said, "What the fuck are you doing?". Jack White chewed out a radio DJ that helped slip a pre-release album on to the internet. That's three examples right off the top of my head that counter your impression of recording artist attitudes.
Good point. Incidentally, nothing prevents a copyright holder from prematurely "donating" the work to the public domain once they feel it's appropriate.
I read your post quite clearly. However prosperous Cuba might be without an embargo right now, American economic love wasn't enough to inspire democracy back when Batista was in power and Havana was like Las Vegas. Again, the onus is on you to show how selling more sugar, rum, and cigars to Americans would directly cause Castro's regime to cede itself or fall to democracy.
So by your logic George Bush is the richest man in the world...
If Bush broke into my apartment and tried to take my "Lawrence of Arabia" DVD my reticence about shooting the theif would only entail harming a human. I at least believe my government accords me that status in relation to the Greaterest Communicationer.
Gee what a surprise. Castro and Guevara have a prep-school lark to trade Batista for themselves. Whoops! Che is so naive he ends up stuck in Bolivia. Fidel are you there? Over. Fidel?
How many Soviet Nukes could be bought with profits from the Castro familly farm? I'd guess none. But hey, I'm sure Castro's familly have faced economic hardship once "the people" got what was rightfully thiers.
If it wasn't for this dumb embargo, Cuba would have gone democratic many years ago.
How can you justify that assertion? When has Castro claimed his grip on power would be used to create a Cuban democracy as soon as the American Embargo ended? My imagination can't summon any motive, however fanciful or ridiculous, for a "Velvet Revolution" in Cuba that relates to a change in American economic policy. America may be an economic powerhouse, but I don't think it can match the trading potential of the rest of planet Earth which is what Cuba mostly has left over. Honestly now, what's driving this notion that the only thing standing between Cubans and democracy is the lack of an American cigar market?
I sincerely mean no disrespect to your political point but what is the preferable alternative? If an embargo has no pragmatic effect does it not at least involve putting our money where our mouth is? Either we up the ante with military intervention or do business with the mob. At least an embargo says, "We won't consort with your ideological ilk. We're ready to sacrifice the relationship for principals." Personally, I admire Castro's guile and wit. During the 2004 Presidential Election fiasco he offered to send troops into Florida to ensure plebecite justice! He deserves props for symbolic value and humor. He's a dictator nonetheless. If he had his druthers, the East Coast would still be in the cross-hairs of (now Cuban) nukes. For every policy he's decreed that's given Cuba a better infant mortality rate than America (Source: Robert McNamara) he's had another that involves oppression or "boat people". Miami is full of Cuban-Americans that have officially forsaken their cigars and want the rest of us to do the same. I might add that dissatisfaction with the Cuban embargo might be aleviated by comparison with unsavory entities that aren't shunned. If sheer principals had no value, no one would circulate photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein.
Yeah, I'd actually look for a bp6 on eBay if it weren't cheaper to snag a brisbane/nv61xx setup on newegg. I managed to ruin mine by trying to mount it in a dorm fridge without properly accounting for condensation!
What are you talking about? This article was posted on/. because Intellegent Design is a political attack on Science no different than Church persecution of Galileo. It's noteworthy to find that the UK will have none of that. So what exactly is your point?
Exactly how is colonization necessary for the survival of homo sapiens? How could terra-forming a different planet be easier than fixing whatever we screw up here? If a dinosaur-destroying asteroid took aim at Earth our present technology would be enough to nullify it. I could go on, but it seems that every time I come across this notion it sounds like The Book of Revelations written by dorks.
In fact, I'd like to go on record right here and now: If it comes down to it, I refuse to hop on that Time Capsule of the Damned. I'm gonna find a lady, nail her on the beach, smoke a doob, and go down with the ship.
You assert that evolution is a religion founded on faith then claim you'll believe it when it's "proven" to you. Does that mean you'll convert from Christianity if some sort of Dr. Frankenstein makes a cat out of a dog and a fox? You're making an oversimplified mish-mash of ambiguous terms.
We can see evolution at work anytime antibiotics become ineffective, or moths are found to adopt the color of local polution. You accept that dog breeds can derived from other breeds. That's the only principle needed to grasp the chain of life. Roughly speaking, speciation is nothing more than one line of descent changing until it can no longer create fertile offspring with its creature of origin. The only difference is time and environmental pressure. We have seen this happen "in the wild" with flowers, fish, birds, and rodents.
It's difficult to believe moderate and reasoned opinions will have weight on you. You've already claimed that modern Israel is founded on theivery, that it's a theocratic clone of the US (that ended up Jewish?), and that the American legal system perverts justice since it's under the dominion of pro-Israel forces.
Palestine/Israel has a history that's so cluster fucked it may be impossible for any honest third party to get a clear moral perspective on who has the righteous side. Period.
You are arguing that a bureaucratic feedback loop is producing a systemic bias in favor of anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, it has the power to trump peer review and the research needed to prove it's a problem is different from the research needed to prove it isn't happening. I don't doubt that academy is chock full of bullshit and subject to intellectual fads, but if it were as blind as you claim I would expect a multitude of grant-harvesting buzzwords beyond the two you've mentioned. I must also wonder if non-American scientists operate in environments subject to the same exact scam.
We could use a little meat behind the numbers you've come up with. You've reduced the global warming discussion to a lobbing war where one side outspends the other by a factor of 100. You also claim proportionality of scientific representation. Give us some actual statistics on that. Then, when we've established a correlation, let's prove the money causes the scientific conclusion.
You are quite justified in refuting an ad hominem attack on your assertions as being inherently invalid. I have claimed you would make a poor detective while sweetening the medicine by noting your skill as a lawyer. My judgement call on both accounts is sincere. I don't think you have correctly explained the origin of Humans, refuted the Theory of Evolution, justified Creationism, or placed either in a proper context as they relate to our culture and government. Still, your rhetoric is skillfull, comprehensive, clever, well presented, committed, and difficult if not imposible to refute. However, there remains a blunt flaw in your response. I haven't bothered to counter your arguments at all.
Reading through your polemic on this topic from the sidelines inspired me to comment on your persona rather than criticise your ideas because I couldn't imagine you listening. Exasperation left me wondering what you would consider science. If you want to believe you've defended or even advocated Creationsism by making ad hominem attacks on an ad hominem judgement it won't work. There's no victory in discrediting an opponent that hasn't fought you.
Some of your stance presents itself in the manner of political agitprop. Blending the definative nature of Science and Religion for example is a kind of double reverse straw man argument. It adds the strength of one to the weakness of the other while turning back on a vulnerability more prominent in the buttressed side. That's co-opting the opposition for pragmatic success.
Most of your arguments rely on exploiting the problem of induction. If you want to claim carbon dating isn't solid enough to distinguish 6,000 years from 60,000,000 then you are effectively advocating "Last Thursday-ism". Actually you go further. If we can't know that God doesn't locally change certain physical constants everytime an experiment is made that measures radioactive decay to look a certain way today then why should we assume anything will be the same tomorrow? I doubt you believe we can't predict what time the Sun will rise in Cairo on August 17, 2009, but you can't claim radical scepticism about prehistory without throwing away the present and future as well. Here's a thought: I believe every copy of the King James Bible was divinely rewritten in 1832 for reasons only God can understand. Prove me wrong. Everyone from the 17th Century is dead so no one knows what the originals really looked like. I also think Newtonian Mechanics works well for objects that aren't moving near the speed of light, but only for the next six months. Better get some candles or sunscreen. Next year the Earth will stop rotating.
You assert that, "Dogs have ALWAYS been dogs." The sheer tautology of this statement precludes any need for an antecedent, but you seem to think that means they have no non-dog ancestry. I have to wonder how you know this. There aren't any 300,000 year old humans around to tell us that's the way it's always been. Some have studied mitochondrial DNA and fossils. They think dogs decended from wolves around the time humans started making garbage piles. Of course a dog couldn't breed with a wolf to eventually make a Poodle, but then Evolution and Biology don't claim that's possible. So what is your point?
Man up. If you want the magic buddy in the sky to fill every nook of your inner life then drop the hangup that's making you insecure about your faith. Clearly that's what leaves you threatened by curiosity. Maybe His plan was to make you argue on Slashdot until you realize that humans aren't always total idiots. Then again, it could be a government conspiracy to promote a State Religion at the expense of your own even if it means digging up wierd rocks.
All of your arguments are so groundless and bizzare that you come off like a spin doctor in a propaganda war. You'd make a good lawyer but a poor detective. Exactly what would you consider valid scientific knowledge?
Ahh, I think I see. The reason it's difficult for me to correctly interpret your point is that I'm unfamilliar with these specific anti-Creationists you've psychoanalyzed. They sound like Christians that have left their faith perhaps to live in an un-Christian manner.
I think most of the people that reject Creationism have two other issues with it. They simply don't believe it in the same way they don't believe Santa Claus can shimmy down every chimney on Earth in one night. They're annoyed by it because it's voiciferous advocates want others to abandon reason as well. I don't think most who would find the Creation Museum ridiculous or offensive feel that way because they are loath to have a God-ful universe cramp their style on Sunday morning.
If I've overreacted it's because your take on the topic hit a nerve with me. It seems a common conceit of Christians specifically if not Theists generally that a moral life is only available to believers. When Bertrand Russell debated theism with a Christian Theologian his opponent had the gall to ask him how he would know Good from Evil. (Answer: "The same way I know red from blue.") Still, their mission to turn mere animals into God-aware Humans easily slips into hypocritical irony. A co-worker once told me with the tone of a man discussing his 401k plan that he saw, "So many people walking around with guilt", and that, "God takes care of that". Apparently, belief in God is a kind of theraputic get-out-of-jail-free card that just makes things easier. One can always put an end to self-reflection, put it all in "God's Hands", and claim if only to one's self that it's all part of "His Plan".
"If it was just creation with no implied responsibility, who would really care?"
Everyone who has wondered where this universe we find ourselves in came from would care. Posit a religion that lauds opiates and orgies. There would still be adherents who ask why somethingness rather than nothingness.
The ugly assumption underlying your statement is that people need supernatural force to make them behave ethically and morally -- let alone exhibit curiosity.
Creationism is disbelieved because it's flat out stupid. People want there to be a magic prime mover for many reasons. The one you trumpet allows them to nullify a self awareness of ignorance and reject morality for the sake of being moral. If subsumation to a "higher power" answers every question and provides a righteous sense of self why not abdicate the effort of life?
IIRC, Dirac, while a young student, was "playing around with pretty mathematics" when he came up with a function that prelucidated (look it up) quantum mechanics.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... they could probably post it anonymously on the internet...
Mike Mills has made it clear that he thinks file "sharing" is no different than stealing a record. Madonna flooded p2p networks with fake mp3s that said, "What the fuck are you doing?". Jack White chewed out a radio DJ that helped slip a pre-release album on to the internet. That's three examples right off the top of my head that counter your impression of recording artist attitudes.
So what? You're arguing that everyone has a right to be a parasitic hack.
Good point. Incidentally, nothing prevents a copyright holder from prematurely "donating" the work to the public domain once they feel it's appropriate.
Wow. I never knew it was possible to compare buying a record to rape.
I read your post quite clearly. However prosperous Cuba might be without an embargo right now, American economic love wasn't enough to inspire democracy back when Batista was in power and Havana was like Las Vegas. Again, the onus is on you to show how selling more sugar, rum, and cigars to Americans would directly cause Castro's regime to cede itself or fall to democracy.
If Bush broke into my apartment and tried to take my "Lawrence of Arabia" DVD my reticence about shooting the theif would only entail harming a human. I at least believe my government accords me that status in relation to the Greaterest Communicationer.
How many Soviet Nukes could be bought with profits from the Castro familly farm? I'd guess none. But hey, I'm sure Castro's familly have faced economic hardship once "the people" got what was rightfully thiers.
How can you justify that assertion? When has Castro claimed his grip on power would be used to create a Cuban democracy as soon as the American Embargo ended? My imagination can't summon any motive, however fanciful or ridiculous, for a "Velvet Revolution" in Cuba that relates to a change in American economic policy. America may be an economic powerhouse, but I don't think it can match the trading potential of the rest of planet Earth which is what Cuba mostly has left over. Honestly now, what's driving this notion that the only thing standing between Cubans and democracy is the lack of an American cigar market?
What is your point exactly?
I sincerely mean no disrespect to your political point but what is the preferable alternative? If an embargo has no pragmatic effect does it not at least involve putting our money where our mouth is? Either we up the ante with military intervention or do business with the mob. At least an embargo says, "We won't consort with your ideological ilk. We're ready to sacrifice the relationship for principals." Personally, I admire Castro's guile and wit. During the 2004 Presidential Election fiasco he offered to send troops into Florida to ensure plebecite justice! He deserves props for symbolic value and humor. He's a dictator nonetheless. If he had his druthers, the East Coast would still be in the cross-hairs of (now Cuban) nukes. For every policy he's decreed that's given Cuba a better infant mortality rate than America (Source: Robert McNamara) he's had another that involves oppression or "boat people". Miami is full of Cuban-Americans that have officially forsaken their cigars and want the rest of us to do the same. I might add that dissatisfaction with the Cuban embargo might be aleviated by comparison with unsavory entities that aren't shunned. If sheer principals had no value, no one would circulate photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein.
They contribute to LinuxBios too.
Yeah, I'd actually look for a bp6 on eBay if it weren't cheaper to snag a brisbane/nv61xx setup on newegg. I managed to ruin mine by trying to mount it in a dorm fridge without properly accounting for condensation!
self-reflection.
What are you talking about? This article was posted on /. because Intellegent Design is a political attack on Science no different than Church persecution of Galileo. It's noteworthy to find that the UK will have none of that. So what exactly is your point?
In fact, I'd like to go on record right here and now: If it comes down to it, I refuse to hop on that Time Capsule of the Damned. I'm gonna find a lady, nail her on the beach, smoke a doob, and go down with the ship.
We can see evolution at work anytime antibiotics become ineffective, or moths are found to adopt the color of local polution. You accept that dog breeds can derived from other breeds. That's the only principle needed to grasp the chain of life. Roughly speaking, speciation is nothing more than one line of descent changing until it can no longer create fertile offspring with its creature of origin. The only difference is time and environmental pressure. We have seen this happen "in the wild" with flowers, fish, birds, and rodents.
Palestine/Israel has a history that's so cluster fucked it may be impossible for any honest third party to get a clear moral perspective on who has the righteous side. Period.
We could use a little meat behind the numbers you've come up with. You've reduced the global warming discussion to a lobbing war where one side outspends the other by a factor of 100. You also claim proportionality of scientific representation. Give us some actual statistics on that. Then, when we've established a correlation, let's prove the money causes the scientific conclusion.
This graph in this article seems to indicate sunlight is mostly red.
Reading through your polemic on this topic from the sidelines inspired me to comment on your persona rather than criticise your ideas because I couldn't imagine you listening. Exasperation left me wondering what you would consider science. If you want to believe you've defended or even advocated Creationsism by making ad hominem attacks on an ad hominem judgement it won't work. There's no victory in discrediting an opponent that hasn't fought you.
Some of your stance presents itself in the manner of political agitprop. Blending the definative nature of Science and Religion for example is a kind of double reverse straw man argument. It adds the strength of one to the weakness of the other while turning back on a vulnerability more prominent in the buttressed side. That's co-opting the opposition for pragmatic success.
Most of your arguments rely on exploiting the problem of induction. If you want to claim carbon dating isn't solid enough to distinguish 6,000 years from 60,000,000 then you are effectively advocating "Last Thursday-ism". Actually you go further. If we can't know that God doesn't locally change certain physical constants everytime an experiment is made that measures radioactive decay to look a certain way today then why should we assume anything will be the same tomorrow? I doubt you believe we can't predict what time the Sun will rise in Cairo on August 17, 2009, but you can't claim radical scepticism about prehistory without throwing away the present and future as well. Here's a thought: I believe every copy of the King James Bible was divinely rewritten in 1832 for reasons only God can understand. Prove me wrong. Everyone from the 17th Century is dead so no one knows what the originals really looked like. I also think Newtonian Mechanics works well for objects that aren't moving near the speed of light, but only for the next six months. Better get some candles or sunscreen. Next year the Earth will stop rotating.
You assert that, "Dogs have ALWAYS been dogs." The sheer tautology of this statement precludes any need for an antecedent, but you seem to think that means they have no non-dog ancestry. I have to wonder how you know this. There aren't any 300,000 year old humans around to tell us that's the way it's always been. Some have studied mitochondrial DNA and fossils. They think dogs decended from wolves around the time humans started making garbage piles. Of course a dog couldn't breed with a wolf to eventually make a Poodle, but then Evolution and Biology don't claim that's possible. So what is your point?
Man up. If you want the magic buddy in the sky to fill every nook of your inner life then drop the hangup that's making you insecure about your faith. Clearly that's what leaves you threatened by curiosity. Maybe His plan was to make you argue on Slashdot until you realize that humans aren't always total idiots. Then again, it could be a government conspiracy to promote a State Religion at the expense of your own even if it means digging up wierd rocks.
All of your arguments are so groundless and bizzare that you come off like a spin doctor in a propaganda war. You'd make a good lawyer but a poor detective. Exactly what would you consider valid scientific knowledge?
I think most of the people that reject Creationism have two other issues with it. They simply don't believe it in the same way they don't believe Santa Claus can shimmy down every chimney on Earth in one night. They're annoyed by it because it's voiciferous advocates want others to abandon reason as well. I don't think most who would find the Creation Museum ridiculous or offensive feel that way because they are loath to have a God-ful universe cramp their style on Sunday morning.
If I've overreacted it's because your take on the topic hit a nerve with me. It seems a common conceit of Christians specifically if not Theists generally that a moral life is only available to believers. When Bertrand Russell debated theism with a Christian Theologian his opponent had the gall to ask him how he would know Good from Evil. (Answer: "The same way I know red from blue.") Still, their mission to turn mere animals into God-aware Humans easily slips into hypocritical irony. A co-worker once told me with the tone of a man discussing his 401k plan that he saw, "So many people walking around with guilt", and that, "God takes care of that". Apparently, belief in God is a kind of theraputic get-out-of-jail-free card that just makes things easier. One can always put an end to self-reflection, put it all in "God's Hands", and claim if only to one's self that it's all part of "His Plan".
Everyone who has wondered where this universe we find ourselves in came from would care. Posit a religion that lauds opiates and orgies. There would still be adherents who ask why somethingness rather than nothingness.
The ugly assumption underlying your statement is that people need supernatural force to make them behave ethically and morally -- let alone exhibit curiosity.
Creationism is disbelieved because it's flat out stupid. People want there to be a magic prime mover for many reasons. The one you trumpet allows them to nullify a self awareness of ignorance and reject morality for the sake of being moral. If subsumation to a "higher power" answers every question and provides a righteous sense of self why not abdicate the effort of life?
IIRC, Dirac, while a young student, was "playing around with pretty mathematics" when he came up with a function that prelucidated (look it up) quantum mechanics.