By the way, what is the difference between a homosexual and a child molestor? Nothing, they are both choices people make.
Um, if you believe homosexuality is a choice, then that only makes one thing they have in common. How does one thing mean there is no difference between them. Obviously your statements are just inflammatory without reasoning.
But your general arguments are not valid. Marrying someone does not mean that you are in love with them. That's true when two heterosexuals marry, or a homosexual marries someone of the opposite sex, or even when two homosexuals marry. You also missed the fact that people could be "bisexual", and you also miss the confusion that people often go through when they start to realize they are homosexual. You also missed the fact that many people can delude themselves and/or be brainwashed, and or do things to please others. Or how about self-loathing? There's a lot of pressure in society to be straight (parents, stereotypes, prejudiced people like you), so it's not exactly unbelievable that a gay person might fight their urges and try to convince themselves (and others) that they are straight. There are literally dozens of reasons why your argument holds no water.
By your own statement, does that mean that you personally could choose to be homosexual? Can you actually choose to get turned on by someone of the same sex? Try an experiment. Find some pictures of someone of the same sex naked and try to convince yourself to be attracted to them. Can you actually get turned on by them by choice?
As for child molestors (which have nothing to do with homosexuals, by the way), you seem to be 100 years behind the time. They don't choose to molest, in the "free will" meaning of "choose". It is quite clear in scientific studies that the urge to molest is caused by some mental defect, often having been the victim of molestation themselves. That isn't to say that they don't have the ability to chose whether or not to act on their urges, or whether to get help, or that they should be severely punished. But actually having the urge to molest is hardly a choice. Again, do honestly believe that you personally could choose to desire to molest a child? (Forcing yourself to do it is not the same, there'd be no reason for anybody to choose to force themselves to do it if they didn't desire it.)
...there's no reason why they should have special rights...
Excuse me? Did you even read my parent post? Nowhere do any of the arguments depend on whether it is a choice are not. How is gay marriage a "special" right? All my arguments indicate is isn't a special right.
"This is why it is illogical to say only those who choose to be Republicans have free speech"
Huh? That's the exact opposite of your argument. If being gay is a choice (like being Republican), then the right to marry (right to free speech) should not depend on your choice. The analogy is direct, if you believe homosexuality is a choice. By your own argument, gay marriages should be legal.
... but that's not the tone people are using here today.
Having been the person that said it, I can say you are full of crap. I already responded to this, so I won't be redundant by repeating my other response. But yes, I wanted to indicate I had nothing personal to gain from the argument.
In fact, it seems almost stupid to believe that people on an electronic message board spread across the world, who don't know each other, would care if somebody else here thought they were gay. I don't care if anybody here does.
Why does everyone have to keep excusing themselves from being gay while defending human rights? It defeats the purpose.
No. Having been the person who said this, I can explain why. Although reasoning should stand on it's own, in some people's minds (especially those are zealots about their beliefs) an argument is less effective if you have a personal stake in it. My statement was to indicate that I have nothing personal to gain from this, it is purely reasoning.
I hate to comment on this, since it is off-topic, and reasoning never convinces people who believe what they want to believe anyway (prejudices, religion, etc.). That being said, bad reasoning to me is like fingernails grating on a chalkboard. You said:
"Everyone has the right to marry, provided that their partner is of a different gender..."
That's like saying everyone has freedom of speech as long as they are Republicans. In today's society, marriage has financial, legal, and social benefits attached to it. These benefits are not contingent on producing offspring (though that can have different benefits). Marriage is a legal recognition that two people have chosen to commit to each other in financial, social, and legal ways and have common interests in these areas (such as owning a home, sharing credit and debt, legal guardianship of children, etc.).
There is no argument that can explain why this should only apply to couple made up of a man and a woman. The only thing this provides you with is, in some cases, the potential for offspring. However, not all marriages produce children or will ever, such as the infertile, women past menopause, or those who just don't want to have children. Also, gay couples can have children, though perhaps not a genetic offspring of both (adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.). And that isn't to say that they will never be able to. The potential exists to artificially combine genes of a gay couple to produce an offspring. (Lesbians could only have girls, however.)
If gay couples are to be denied marriage because they cannot directly produce offspring (now), then why aren't all other marriages that can't, or won't? It doesn't hold water. The point is, some people are being denied benefits that others are being given. That is not equal rights at all.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I am not gay and don't have any gay friends (that I know about), though I have had a few gay acquaintences. I'm just cursed with a love of reason and logic, and there's no reason or logic behind denying gays the right to marry.
mean to say that the NRA can't be for gun control if all (or probably even the majority) of its members are against it.
Strictly speaking, indeed it can. But there's several big flaws in your reasoning. First, you added the condition of all members (or a majority). Nobody said anything about that. As I pointed out, the iTMS was able to get off the ground after a few labels signed on, notably Universal and Warner. The RIAA membership is made up of over 350 companies. If 348 were opposed to the iTMS, and Universal and Warner were not, iTMS would still have gotten off the ground.
Second, the governing body of the RIAA is made up of only a handful of representatives from several labels and some independent RIAA employees (including the president) who are not RIAA members. The policies are not set by the membership, or even it's majority. The same is (likely) true for the NRA.
Third, the fact that the labels that signed on to iTMS are members of the RIAA is irrelevent to how iTMS got started. They may also be members of some other trade group. Can you then associate iTMS to that other trade group as well? It's the individual labels that get the recognition for signing on, not the RIAA. If you and a friend cured cancer, but were also members of the boyscouts, could we then claim that the boyscouts were responsible for curing cancer?
You seem thoroughly confused at the difference between the RIAA and it's members. Do you mean to say, for instance, that a member of the NRA can't be for gun control even if the NRA is opposed to it?
The RIAA is not a recording company. It's a trade group to promote the recording industry, lobby, perform research, etc. I'm not nitpicking, and it's not semantics. Not every member label of the RIAA has to, or does, support the same policies as the RIAA does. The RIAA is very active in maintaining strict control of recordings, including distribution and protection against copying. The iTMS makes it easier to share and distribute copies rather than harder, so I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA policy is opposed to the iTMS or similar online sales, at least not without much stricter DRM. I don't know this for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.
The 1903 flight certainly wasn't a controlled path and landing. Steering was only for the purpose of keeping it straight (ironically). It landed because it couldn't stay in the air any longer.
...so they're most willing to buy ad time on stations that play predictable music.
Your argument doesn't hold, at least not directly. To get the most "bang for their buck", they'd be looking at ratings, not predictability. Indirectly, it might be that ratings are maximized by playing predictable Top 40 music, but that is what the parent post was talking about -- music consultants and focus groups that determine what will maximize ratings. So you may be indirectly right, but that also makes the parent post partially right.
As for why predictable music provides better ratings, it may very well be a chicken and egg problem. Some people say that people want to hear it because it's all that's marketed to them, and what we're saying here is that it's all that's marketed to them because it's what people want to hear.
Both points seem to have some validity, and may actually help explain why music is becoming bland and predictable. It's a simple dynamic feedback loop. The more people hear bland, predictable music, the more they used to it they become and the more they want to hear it, so radio plays it more so they end up hearing it more. If you factor in what is produced, you might end up with something that looks like this:
Want = k1 * Hear
Hear = k2 * Want + k3 * Produced
Produced = k4 * Want + k5 * Disturbance
Error = Produced - Want
Here, the "disturbance" would be original music, something new, maybe modeled by a random variable. I just tried to model this as a feedback loop to see what would happen. However, I don't have the time to do it properly. A quick guess is that it would either follow the disturbance or would damp out the disturbances and converge to a constant value. It might not be the best model either. I wonder if anyone has tried to do this before.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but if the entire reason the iTMS exists and is commercially viable is because of the RIAA...
I've seen no evidence that iTMS exists or is commericially viable because of the RIAA. In fact, Steve Jobs himself has said that they had to go to record labels one at a time and convince them. After getting "kicked out" many times they managed to convince some labels. Warner signed on first, then Universal. The RIAA had nothing to do with it, and I wouldn't doubt they'd be opposed to it. True, these are labels that are members of the RIAA, but they are not the RIAA.
Although your point might not be directly valid, it still has merit. iTMS still would not have motivation to exclude RIAA members since they individually signed on to iTMS and helped make it successful. But I certainly wouldn't give the RIAA any credit in it.
I agree that the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight was not particularly important in itself--except that the plane that flew there is virtually the same plane that the Wrights flew later with much more impressive results.
I generally agree with your points. When referring to history, we usually refer to "firsts" as those that lead up to the current situation, not necessarily the actual "firsts". For example, it is still commonly stated that Columbus "discovered" the Americas (North and South), even though (a) there were natives here already, and (b) Vikings were actually the first Europeans here. However, our modern society and culture is predominantly descendent from Columbus' discovery, not native developments and not from the Vikings. There are other analogies with the telephone and radio, and I'm sure many others.
So, in that light, we might say that Kitty Hawk 1903 was the first flight of a powered aircraft that directly lead to current aircraft technology. Pierce may have done something similar first, but his work did (apparently) not lead to modern aircraft design.
Why on earth do you consider "the opinion of Bill Sherwood" to be canonical?
You've associated the opinion incorrectly. The actual flights of Richard Pierce are not Bill Sherwood's opinions, they are documented. The "opinion" part is which one of Pierce's flights he considered to be a true "first flight". The point is, Pierce accomplished as much as, if not more than, the Wright Brothers did at Kitty Hawk and did it before them. So either they did not have the "first powered flight", or we have to re-define "first powered flight" to be something beyond what happened at Kitty Hawk.
For instance, some have suggested that the definition should be a controlled take-off, flight path, and landing completely under the airplane's power (including no catapult assisted take-off). That definition would probably put the Wright Brothers back as "first", but it certainly wasn't the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight, it would be sometime later.
Indeed, it appears to be legal to download copyrighted songs in Canada, even according to copyright experts and internet law experts. It hasn't been tested in court yet, but it seems prosecutors believe it is legal too so they won't prosecute.
But as the article states, uploading (broadcasting) is clearly illegal. So as long as we Canadians just leech, we're fine (legally speaking).
So, if you spent 2 hours in the bathroom with bad diarrhea, you'd have no problem telling them if they asked you why you were in there for so long and why you missed a few sessions? Is that it, every minute of your day there is open for anyone's scrutiny? (That is, anyone with access to an RFID tracker.)
Looking over a wing should be far easier than repairing a satellite.
Easier in concept, maybe, but not logistically. Just using a camera to scan the shuttle tiles and RCC panels will take approximately 8 hours, and that's just to cover the surface and record the video. Much longer will be spent on the ground reviewing the tapes. For EVAs to do this would be out of the question. They can only be out for at most 8 hours (usually 6 or less), and they'd be scanning a lot slower than a camera.
Is it so difficult to just do a spacewalk and a visual inspection?
Yes, yes it is. It's very expensive and dangerous, and they have to cover the entire underside of the shuttle, the leading edge of both wings, and the nose. It's hard enough getting cameras and 3D sensors to all those areas. Getting an EVA there would be very difficult.
If you surf the web while walking at normal speeds or faster, remind me to put a bunch of crap in your way and bring a video camera so I can capture the hilarity that ensues.
I didn't mean to imply they were "in" on the pump 'n' dump, just that it was reasonable to expect SCO stock to rise so might be a good investment for the time being. (Incidently, AFAIK there's been no official recognition in business circles, or any investigation, of it being a "pump-and-dump" yet. Officially, SCO stock has been rising "legitimately".)
What are you talking about? SCO stock would have been a great investment, it went way up. That's the point of a pump 'n' dump. As long as RBC got out just before it collapses, I think it's a good investment. Not because they think SCO is right, but because they think the stock would go up like it did.
What do you mean by "recognized"? It is a license, which is essentially a contract. IANAL, but I do know that all licenses/contracts that do not explicitly violate laws and are by definition legal, hence "recognized" by law.
Now it hasn't been tested in court. It's possible that it violates some provision of contract law, which differ by country, but I've never heard anybody ever suggest any violation of law in the GPL, other than SCO's hallucinogenic diatribe about it being unconsititution, which doesn't pass the laugh test.
But AFAIK, my licenses to use just about any software on my computer (MS Windows, Office, Matlab, CorelDraw, etc.) have not been tested in court either. That doesn't make them "pipedreams". There really is no such thing as "recognized by law", only valid or invalid licenses & contracts, and you need an explicit violation to be invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, if you believe homosexuality is a choice, then that only makes one thing they have in common. How does one thing mean there is no difference between them. Obviously your statements are just inflammatory without reasoning.
But your general arguments are not valid. Marrying someone does not mean that you are in love with them. That's true when two heterosexuals marry, or a homosexual marries someone of the opposite sex, or even when two homosexuals marry. You also missed the fact that people could be "bisexual", and you also miss the confusion that people often go through when they start to realize they are homosexual. You also missed the fact that many people can delude themselves and/or be brainwashed, and or do things to please others. Or how about self-loathing? There's a lot of pressure in society to be straight (parents, stereotypes, prejudiced people like you), so it's not exactly unbelievable that a gay person might fight their urges and try to convince themselves (and others) that they are straight. There are literally dozens of reasons why your argument holds no water.
By your own statement, does that mean that you personally could choose to be homosexual? Can you actually choose to get turned on by someone of the same sex? Try an experiment. Find some pictures of someone of the same sex naked and try to convince yourself to be attracted to them. Can you actually get turned on by them by choice?
As for child molestors (which have nothing to do with homosexuals, by the way), you seem to be 100 years behind the time. They don't choose to molest, in the "free will" meaning of "choose". It is quite clear in scientific studies that the urge to molest is caused by some mental defect, often having been the victim of molestation themselves. That isn't to say that they don't have the ability to chose whether or not to act on their urges, or whether to get help, or that they should be severely punished. But actually having the urge to molest is hardly a choice. Again, do honestly believe that you personally could choose to desire to molest a child? (Forcing yourself to do it is not the same, there'd be no reason for anybody to choose to force themselves to do it if they didn't desire it.)
Excuse me? Did you even read my parent post? Nowhere do any of the arguments depend on whether it is a choice are not. How is gay marriage a "special" right? All my arguments indicate is isn't a special right.
"This is why it is illogical to say only those who choose to be Republicans have free speech"
Huh? That's the exact opposite of your argument. If being gay is a choice (like being Republican), then the right to marry (right to free speech) should not depend on your choice. The analogy is direct, if you believe homosexuality is a choice. By your own argument, gay marriages should be legal.
Having been the person that said it, I can say you are full of crap. I already responded to this, so I won't be redundant by repeating my other response. But yes, I wanted to indicate I had nothing personal to gain from the argument.
In fact, it seems almost stupid to believe that people on an electronic message board spread across the world, who don't know each other, would care if somebody else here thought they were gay. I don't care if anybody here does.
No. Having been the person who said this, I can explain why. Although reasoning should stand on it's own, in some people's minds (especially those are zealots about their beliefs) an argument is less effective if you have a personal stake in it. My statement was to indicate that I have nothing personal to gain from this, it is purely reasoning.
"Everyone has the right to marry, provided that their partner is of a different gender..."
That's like saying everyone has freedom of speech as long as they are Republicans. In today's society, marriage has financial, legal, and social benefits attached to it. These benefits are not contingent on producing offspring (though that can have different benefits). Marriage is a legal recognition that two people have chosen to commit to each other in financial, social, and legal ways and have common interests in these areas (such as owning a home, sharing credit and debt, legal guardianship of children, etc.).
There is no argument that can explain why this should only apply to couple made up of a man and a woman. The only thing this provides you with is, in some cases, the potential for offspring. However, not all marriages produce children or will ever, such as the infertile, women past menopause, or those who just don't want to have children. Also, gay couples can have children, though perhaps not a genetic offspring of both (adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.). And that isn't to say that they will never be able to. The potential exists to artificially combine genes of a gay couple to produce an offspring. (Lesbians could only have girls, however.)
If gay couples are to be denied marriage because they cannot directly produce offspring (now), then why aren't all other marriages that can't, or won't? It doesn't hold water. The point is, some people are being denied benefits that others are being given. That is not equal rights at all.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I am not gay and don't have any gay friends (that I know about), though I have had a few gay acquaintences. I'm just cursed with a love of reason and logic, and there's no reason or logic behind denying gays the right to marry.
Strictly speaking, indeed it can. But there's several big flaws in your reasoning. First, you added the condition of all members (or a majority). Nobody said anything about that. As I pointed out, the iTMS was able to get off the ground after a few labels signed on, notably Universal and Warner. The RIAA membership is made up of over 350 companies. If 348 were opposed to the iTMS, and Universal and Warner were not, iTMS would still have gotten off the ground.
Second, the governing body of the RIAA is made up of only a handful of representatives from several labels and some independent RIAA employees (including the president) who are not RIAA members. The policies are not set by the membership, or even it's majority. The same is (likely) true for the NRA.
Third, the fact that the labels that signed on to iTMS are members of the RIAA is irrelevent to how iTMS got started. They may also be members of some other trade group. Can you then associate iTMS to that other trade group as well? It's the individual labels that get the recognition for signing on, not the RIAA. If you and a friend cured cancer, but were also members of the boyscouts, could we then claim that the boyscouts were responsible for curing cancer?
The RIAA is not a recording company. It's a trade group to promote the recording industry, lobby, perform research, etc. I'm not nitpicking, and it's not semantics. Not every member label of the RIAA has to, or does, support the same policies as the RIAA does. The RIAA is very active in maintaining strict control of recordings, including distribution and protection against copying. The iTMS makes it easier to share and distribute copies rather than harder, so I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA policy is opposed to the iTMS or similar online sales, at least not without much stricter DRM. I don't know this for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.
The 1903 flight certainly wasn't a controlled path and landing. Steering was only for the purpose of keeping it straight (ironically). It landed because it couldn't stay in the air any longer.
Your argument doesn't hold, at least not directly. To get the most "bang for their buck", they'd be looking at ratings, not predictability. Indirectly, it might be that ratings are maximized by playing predictable Top 40 music, but that is what the parent post was talking about -- music consultants and focus groups that determine what will maximize ratings. So you may be indirectly right, but that also makes the parent post partially right.
As for why predictable music provides better ratings, it may very well be a chicken and egg problem. Some people say that people want to hear it because it's all that's marketed to them, and what we're saying here is that it's all that's marketed to them because it's what people want to hear.
Both points seem to have some validity, and may actually help explain why music is becoming bland and predictable. It's a simple dynamic feedback loop. The more people hear bland, predictable music, the more they used to it they become and the more they want to hear it, so radio plays it more so they end up hearing it more. If you factor in what is produced, you might end up with something that looks like this:
Want = k1 * Hear
Hear = k2 * Want + k3 * Produced
Produced = k4 * Want + k5 * Disturbance
Error = Produced - Want
Here, the "disturbance" would be original music, something new, maybe modeled by a random variable. I just tried to model this as a feedback loop to see what would happen. However, I don't have the time to do it properly. A quick guess is that it would either follow the disturbance or would damp out the disturbances and converge to a constant value. It might not be the best model either. I wonder if anyone has tried to do this before.
I've seen no evidence that iTMS exists or is commericially viable because of the RIAA. In fact, Steve Jobs himself has said that they had to go to record labels one at a time and convince them. After getting "kicked out" many times they managed to convince some labels. Warner signed on first, then Universal. The RIAA had nothing to do with it, and I wouldn't doubt they'd be opposed to it. True, these are labels that are members of the RIAA, but they are not the RIAA.
Although your point might not be directly valid, it still has merit. iTMS still would not have motivation to exclude RIAA members since they individually signed on to iTMS and helped make it successful. But I certainly wouldn't give the RIAA any credit in it.
I generally agree with your points. When referring to history, we usually refer to "firsts" as those that lead up to the current situation, not necessarily the actual "firsts". For example, it is still commonly stated that Columbus "discovered" the Americas (North and South), even though (a) there were natives here already, and (b) Vikings were actually the first Europeans here. However, our modern society and culture is predominantly descendent from Columbus' discovery, not native developments and not from the Vikings. There are other analogies with the telephone and radio, and I'm sure many others.
So, in that light, we might say that Kitty Hawk 1903 was the first flight of a powered aircraft that directly lead to current aircraft technology. Pierce may have done something similar first, but his work did (apparently) not lead to modern aircraft design.
You've associated the opinion incorrectly. The actual flights of Richard Pierce are not Bill Sherwood's opinions, they are documented. The "opinion" part is which one of Pierce's flights he considered to be a true "first flight". The point is, Pierce accomplished as much as, if not more than, the Wright Brothers did at Kitty Hawk and did it before them. So either they did not have the "first powered flight", or we have to re-define "first powered flight" to be something beyond what happened at Kitty Hawk.
For instance, some have suggested that the definition should be a controlled take-off, flight path, and landing completely under the airplane's power (including no catapult assisted take-off). That definition would probably put the Wright Brothers back as "first", but it certainly wasn't the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight, it would be sometime later.
As always, RTFA, or here (from a previous Slashdot story), or Canadian Copyright Law.
Indeed, it appears to be legal to download copyrighted songs in Canada, even according to copyright experts and internet law experts. It hasn't been tested in court yet, but it seems prosecutors believe it is legal too so they won't prosecute.
But as the article states, uploading (broadcasting) is clearly illegal. So as long as we Canadians just leech, we're fine (legally speaking).
Which is why they should return to the requirement of having a working example in order for it to be patented.
I'd rather they keep their nose out of my business. Actually, if it was bad diarrhea, maybe they should be forced to stick their nose in my business.
So, if you spent 2 hours in the bathroom with bad diarrhea, you'd have no problem telling them if they asked you why you were in there for so long and why you missed a few sessions? Is that it, every minute of your day there is open for anyone's scrutiny? (That is, anyone with access to an RFID tracker.)
Easier in concept, maybe, but not logistically. Just using a camera to scan the shuttle tiles and RCC panels will take approximately 8 hours, and that's just to cover the surface and record the video. Much longer will be spent on the ground reviewing the tapes. For EVAs to do this would be out of the question. They can only be out for at most 8 hours (usually 6 or less), and they'd be scanning a lot slower than a camera.
How did EA get ahold of an advanced screening? Can any company get one?
Yes, yes it is. It's very expensive and dangerous, and they have to cover the entire underside of the shuttle, the leading edge of both wings, and the nose. It's hard enough getting cameras and 3D sensors to all those areas. Getting an EVA there would be very difficult.
Um, then the artist would need normal welfare since they wouldn't be able to make money off recordings.
If you surf the web while walking at normal speeds or faster, remind me to put a bunch of crap in your way and bring a video camera so I can capture the hilarity that ensues.
I didn't mean to imply they were "in" on the pump 'n' dump, just that it was reasonable to expect SCO stock to rise so might be a good investment for the time being. (Incidently, AFAIK there's been no official recognition in business circles, or any investigation, of it being a "pump-and-dump" yet. Officially, SCO stock has been rising "legitimately".)
What are you talking about? SCO stock would have been a great investment, it went way up. That's the point of a pump 'n' dump. As long as RBC got out just before it collapses, I think it's a good investment. Not because they think SCO is right, but because they think the stock would go up like it did.
What do you mean by "recognized"? It is a license, which is essentially a contract. IANAL, but I do know that all licenses/contracts that do not explicitly violate laws and are by definition legal, hence "recognized" by law.
Now it hasn't been tested in court. It's possible that it violates some provision of contract law, which differ by country, but I've never heard anybody ever suggest any violation of law in the GPL, other than SCO's hallucinogenic diatribe about it being unconsititution, which doesn't pass the laugh test.
But AFAIK, my licenses to use just about any software on my computer (MS Windows, Office, Matlab, CorelDraw, etc.) have not been tested in court either. That doesn't make them "pipedreams". There really is no such thing as "recognized by law", only valid or invalid licenses & contracts, and you need an explicit violation to be invalid.
...and a consonant. Geesh, I need sleep. Good night.