Here's a short list of things that the government forces you to do at gunpoint:
taxpaying
zoning
speed limits
vehicle inspection
vehicle registration
protest in "free speech" zones
building codes
surrender your house under eminient domain
...and that's just for starters.
Every single rule and regulation instituted by our government is solely backed by local, state, and federal police and agents. They enforce their will at the barrel of a gun. If you continually decline to do precisely what the local, state, and federal government has decreed, then you will eventually find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun. Count on it.
Realising that parents don't do their job or do it badly, just take a look at all the problems that are with children (nothing new, been like that for ages), why shouldn't the government step in when parents fail?
Because the government's answer to all things is layers of bureaucracy. Children currently raised as wards of the state are routinely lost, mishandled, and abused. There were several cases in Florida last year of children who just dropped off the Child Protective Services' radar. Suddenly, you think the federal government is up to the task of raising every child with neglectful parents? That's madness.
Or do you think it's OK for parents to don't give a shit?
Yes, if the alternative is being raised by a bureaucrat whose only connection with that child is a clipboard. They're better off being left alone.
Until parents have proved that they can handle the problem, I have no problems with regulations since it's obvious that selfregulation don't work.
Let me get this straight. "Self-regulation of families doesn't work, so we should get the government to step in." Despite the infeasability of handing that many children, the massive costs to the taxpayer, the orwellian idea of having the government determine whether or not you've "failed" as a parent, and the mistaken idea that other people's families are your business, you still think it's a good idea?
This opens the fascinating can of worms: just what are good and evil ? How do you, as a moral atheist, define them ?
Hi, atheist here. Personally, I don't bother with the words "good" and "evil" do describe actions, except as a very inexact shorthand, since the judeo-xtian tradition uses them to describe things that are "in accordance with God's wishes" and "against God's wishes" respectively. I may descibe actions as peaceful/violent, selfless/selfish, prudent/reckless, social/antisocial, as this gives you a better idea of the nature of the action. Clearly, one set of attributes is negative, the other positive, but without the preset categories inherent in christianity.
Why would that definition be any more correct than another definition ?
It may not be, but my morality is always open to refinement. I believe my morality to be correct because I have worked hard to determine the principles that I believe to be of benefit to myself and to society. To the extent that my principles are noble and my actions match my principles, I am doing "good". I see the religions of the world as ancient works of art which have been passed down to protect the virtues that each society treasures. From my background in the US, I have to say that much of my morality comes from the judeo-xtian tradition. I accept the immorality of murder, theft, adultry, lying, honoring your mother and father, despite my disbelief in the "miraculous" story behind it because they do codify common human values. However, I feel free to incorporate other traditions as well, such as the virtue of the mean from buddhism, and virtue of knowledge from confucianism. Of course, this system of assigning attributes to actions, instead of trying to determine where it falls in the duality of "good" and "evil" will hold up even when an action falls between the cracks that a bulleted list of commandments invariably has.
And if it isn't, if every definition is equally valid, then what does "moral" actually mean - because everyone follows some moral code in their actions, even if it's "screw over everyone else and get me everything I want" - and why not simply change your definition as suits your fancy (and if you do, is it actually possible to be immoral, since any action or inaction can be justified in some moral system)?
That's a false dichotomy. I don't believe that either a system of morality is defined by a deity, or they're all equally valid. Of course, as a christian, you believe that your morality is inherently more correct because it was handed down by God. Therefore, to you, all other moral systems are equally inferior, because they're "man-made". Atheists, however, don't have this convenience, and therefore they actually have to evaluate moral systems. Are they consistent? Are they complete? Do they uphold principles that I value? This process, of course, does not occur in a vacuum. People converse, arbitrate, imagine, and try to come to some consensus over the values that they want to instill in themselves and society. "Screwing everybody over and getting me everything I want" is a common enough morality, however the much of humanity would recognize that this morality only recognizes the principles of greed, dishonesty, and materialism, and is therefore a negative thing. If you were to apply this morality to your actions, you very well may feel justified by your own moral code, but those whom you affect will certainly see the immorality of your actions.
This brings up two issues that bother me about christian morality. One, many christians seem to believe that if god does not exist, then anything goes. (as you seem to imply) Is the only thing keeping christians in check really the imprimatur of a deity? If god was somehow proven not to exist (not that I think this is logically possible) would christians suddenly be murdering people in the streets? Or is morality more socially constructed than they like to believe? Two, many christians also seem to bel
Why can't I protect my kid from your kid? Your kid is playing a harmful game that desensitizes him to killing. He pulls the trigger in the videogame (unlike a movie). Thus he is desensitized faster. Why does my kid have to be murdered by your child?
Remember, playing violent video games == murderous child. That's why youth violence is so out of hand. Oh wait, youth violence is at a 25 year low, despite the fact that more children play videogames now than ever in history. If you're more worried about video games than drugs,
crime, and gangs, then it's likely that you are the mediocre parent. While videogames are more interactive than television, movies, books, and music, it's only a difference of degree, not kind. If your child is murdered, it will almost certainly be by someone of low intelligence, who is below the poverty line, likely gang-involved, who has probably seen more real violence in their life than any game could provide, no matter what the TV tells you.
Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. Giving all kids (Even the ones with bad parents) the right to learn then so that they have a chance in not making harmful descisions.
This, of course, has nothing to do with the bill in question. It won't stop parents from buying games for their kids. I imagine you'd like to make that a crime as well.
Look at smoking for example. Most smokers start when they are underage. They don't know any better and they are still disillusioned to the consequence. You don't hear of a 35 year old adult deciding that he wants to be "cool" and smoke. Let's think about it.
Oh yes, fantastic argument. Smoking and homicide are perfectly analagous. You don't hear of 35 year old adults deciding he wants to be "cool" and blow away the Human Resources department. Airtight logic, that.
Finally, it takes a villiage to raise a child.
My child will be fine if I can keep you goddamn superstitious villagers away from her.
This poster cannot or will not distinguish between money wasted, and money spent. At the risk of being slightly distasteful, Federal money spent on (for example) readying the Emergency Response Teams, aiding evacuations or strengthening the New Orleans levees would not be considered wasted. We should not be happy that this money was not spent, because of the massive human cost.
As I stated above, that is exactly the sort of areas where governments should be spending taxpayer money. According to
this source (note, found from Google News, that site doesn't reflect by biases), the Army Corp of Engineers was urging previous to Katrina that the levees in NOLA be shored up because they would not withstand a storm greater than category 3, but the funding for that effort dried up, that source blames the Bush tax cuts, but I have to wonder where the city budget was being spent in the years leading up to this disaster.
If the poster you quoted has difficulty distinguishing between tax money spent and tax money wasted, it is because of the deliberate obsfucation of government spending by the politicians in office. If expenditures were more transparent, I think most people would feel better about government spending. Of course, many politicians resist this because it would put a stop to the back-room deal making that they prefer.
I live in Montgomery, Alabama, and political corruption is rampant here. Unfortunately, this has led to a knee-jerk tax-avoidance mindset in the entire population. It's a good thing that we have some of the lowest property taxes in the US, but the public school system down here is atrocious. As a result, it has become difficult to attract business into the city because of the low levels of education in the workforce. Which results in a smaller tax base, which results in worse schools, repeat ad nauseum. Of course, the mayor found it in the budget to build a baseball stadium on the riverfront, and millions of dollars in pet projects for each of the city councilmen.
But, but, we have to stop the proliferation of WMDs. So we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. Then the Iraqis will greet us as liberators. Besides, they hate our freedom, and they're driven by an ideology of hate. Anyway, you're either with us or you're against us. So, bring it on! USA! USA! USA!
Er, I mean, the Soviet Union has collapsed, China is now our favored trading partner, so we need an external enemy to justify a military budget gone out of control. We were attacked by Islamic radicals from Afghanistan, but who wants Afghanistan? Let's put some special forces in Kabul to see if they can find Bin Laden, but let's commit most of our forces to depose the dictator we assisted during the Iran / Iraq war, and had to reign in during the first Gulf War. As the country descends into chaos, we'll generate new terrorists, and give them a training ground to hone their skills against those people who pledged to defend this country. At least Iraq has oil, so gas should be plenty cheap. People love cheap gas. Now, let's spread democracy at the point of a gun across the globe! That should keep the military occupied and keep the military-industrial complex in the black well into the next century. Who cares anyway? The rapture will be here soon, so no need to worry about the future.
I am not saying that governments are unambiguously bad either. I'm sure that the city of New Orleans is wishing that they had more police, fire, and emergency services right now.
What I am saying is that the U.S. Federal Government is notoriously bad at spending taxpayer money wisely, either through bloated budgets, pork-barrel projects or crony capitalism. Even your previous comment says that money spent by the Government is not neccessarily wasted. Faint praise indeed. Therefore this move in Massachusetts is akin to seeing the pope on TV endorsing french ticklers.
Have you ever worked in / around the Federal Government? My experience in the USAF was that at the end of every fiscal year, every project went on a ill-advised spending spree to ensure that they spent every penny of their budget (flat screen LCDs, the newest computers, expensive peripherals) all of which was totally unneccessary. Every federal project does this at the end of the fiscal year so that they don't come in under budget, otherwise they'd have their budget cut because the don't need the money. Since money == clout in the government, there is never, ever any "extra money". It's all spent. Every time.
The Federal Government will not spend your money wisely, because it is not their money. End of story.
Copyright used to be a moral balance between the output of our culture, and the rights of creators to be compensated for their work. Creators were permitted to profit from their work for a limited time (originally 28 years), and in exchange for this privilege, the work passed into the public domain for all people to benefit from.
Unfortunately, moneyed interests have bought legistlation from our corrupt government to extend the duration of copyright to ridiculous extremes (life of author + 70 years for authored works, 95 years for works for hire). In effect, the culture that you experienced during your lifetime is inaccessable to you, as you will likely be dead before it falls into the public domain.
Furthermore, the DMCA was also purchased from congress, which allows copyright holders to completely redefine the already limited terms under which copyrighted material can be used, as long as they use a fig-leaf worth of encryption which is illegal to peek under. This will also prevent vast amounts of cultural materials from even being usable when they fall into the public domain, as the encryption will still be in place.
The purpose of copyright was to build the public domain of our culture, and to make creative work a viable occupation. The copyright holders have skewed that balance to an unreasonable extreme, and are currently reeducating the public to believe that the public domain either does not exist, or shouldn't.
Given this situation, with no sense of balance, yes copyrights are immoral.
He never spoke to their motives, he simply described how the system that they are designing is supposed to work. It's designed to disallow unsigned code. Don't be a fool.
I am a parent, and while I am sure that you are only doing what you believe is best for your children, I couldn't disagree more with your methods.
When children see something they don't understand, they ask questions. Your job is to answer them. If you find it difficult to talk to your children about sexual issues, it's a problem on your end, not theirs.
Many of the "adult" implications of situations are of no concern to a small child. If they have a question, you should answer it honestly and on a level that they can understand.
When Janet Jackson whipped out her whithered nipple on TV and my daughter asked me "Why did he tear her shirt?" I told her the truth, "She thinks being naked on TV will make more people pay attention to her." That satisfied her, and we moved on.
Now, if I had immediately dashed across the room, covered her eyes, and turned off the TV, it would have taught her that nudity is wrong, and that she should be ashamed of her body. That's not the message I want her to take to heart.
Feel free to disagree. Don't feel free to use the Federal Government to force your personal morality on the nation.
Actually, I have no right not to hear you read from the bible, provided we're in public. Just as you have no right to prevent me from cursing in public. It takes more than a few 'fucks' in public to "disturb the peace". Also, people read from the bible on the TV all the time. I don't see why you think it would be wrong for you to read the bible on TV as you stated above.
On my private property, I'd have every right to have you ejected, and make no mistake, I would.
The FCC regulations on the airwaves come from their scarcity and ubiquity, not from some government right to sanction speech. Trying to expand them to public speech is incorrect, and ultimately, unenforcable.
Trying to make the entire world safe and fuzzy for children will result in a world unfit for adults to live in.
"How much math do you do in GTA? Writing? composing?"
Let's see, I want to buy that nice safe house in the hills of Los Santos which costs $150,000 but I only have $25,000. Since drug dealers carry $2,000 on them, I'd have to kill 62.5 rounded up to 63 of them to afford it. Not to mention the travel time and the difficulty of spotting them. I could race instead. At $10,000 for each race won I'd only have to win 13 races. On the other hand, I could heist cars and deliver them to the Ocean Side docks for about $15,000 a pop. I'd only have to steal 9 of them, but I'd have to drive farther to collect them.
Lovecraft is hard to do right on film. Much of the mood of his stories comes from his use of archaic and unusual words in his descriptions (e.g. squamous, cyclopean), and his love of ancient myths and legends. It's hard to have a comprarable effect on the big screen where little can be left to the imagination.
My favorite film adaptation of one of his stories is Dagon. Despite the title, it's based on the story The Shadow Over Innsmouth, except it is set in a Spanish fishing village instead of New England. Other than that change, it does the best job I've seen of capturing the feel of one of his stories, and it manages to be truly horrifying in parts. Highly recommended.
A lesser movie that's still a pretty good adaptation of one of his movies is The Curse. It's an (uncredited) version of HPL's story The Color Out of Space, and it stars perrenial favorite Wil Wheaton.
I also want to second the recommendation of In the Mouth of Madness. Excellent stuff. While not based on one of his stories, it gets closer in feel than most existing movie adaptations.
Dagon is the best adaptation of any of Lovecraft's stories that I've seen.
It's The Shadow Over Innsmouth, but set in a Spanish fishing village. Other than the setting change, it's the only HPL movie that really caught the feeling of the original story.
Of course, half of the effect of HPL comes from his use of the language, so seeing his stories in movie format may be a lost cause.
Nothing is more harmful to the rule of law than measures such as these. Blatantly obvious purchase of legislation, the ever-expanding scope of "criminal" behavior, and plainly selective enforcement of the law is combining to create an entire generation of people who will simply ignore the increasingly broad and self-contradictory stack of rules.
People truly follow the small subset of the law that they understand, and nothing more.
Hopefully you will read and consider Darwin's work with an open mind, but please bear in mind that much work on evolutionary theory has been done since his time. You may be better served by reading a more current account, such as some of Stephen Jay Gould's work.
You have to be careful when considering the evolution of specific features of animals. There have been too many instances of "just-so" stories that try to explain a specific feature of an animal, and these often are based upon speculation rather than evidence. Evolutionary theory only describes the general means of inheritance and selection. The specific biology of different species needs to be studied to understand the specific characteristics of any species.
I am unfamiliar with the taxonomy of the rhino, but it's likely that the horn comes from an ancestor species, rather than originating with that particular species. Interestingly enough, it is primarily composed of keratin, the primary component in fingernails and hair. It probably originated as a mutation of one of those.
However, the eye is a much better understood feature. It is so useful that it has evolved multiple times in different species, and in different ways.
You say that without rods, cones, lenses, and the other features of human eyes that the eye would be useless. Consider that many current species have only a rudimentary light spot that only gives a general indication of the amount of light in the area. This can be enough to indicate the possible presence of a predator, or a change in the environment. (if you're a cave fish, a whole lot of sunlight is nothing but trouble)
This link
has (a little) more information on the evolution of the eye. Enjoy.
"This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place."...or because they're fictional.
"Copyright law isn't there to serve the public good, it's there to protect the copyright owner from the 'public', the public being people who would steal their intellectual property."
Wrong. Copyright exists specifically to promote science and the useful arts for the public good. Read it in the Constitution, section 8, clause 8. Notice that it says nothing about money, and it's supposed to be a limited time. Ninety-five years is NOT a limited time.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Granted, I agree that authors should have the right to determine how their work is used, for a limited time.
I saw one at a government trade show last year. Everything else in the place was dull as dishwater, but when I saw that display I was frozen in my tracks.
I can't remember the model, but I can vouch for the effect. No glasses, surprisingly wide viewing angle, and a real feeling of 3d. Very slick.
Slashdot Mirror
You've been enjoying Rome too I see...
Here's a short list of things that the government forces you to do at gunpoint:
Every single rule and regulation instituted by our government is solely backed by local, state, and federal police and agents. They enforce their will at the barrel of a gun. If you continually decline to do precisely what the local, state, and federal government has decreed, then you will eventually find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun. Count on it.
So sayeth the prophet. Thanks be to Dickinson.
Realising that parents don't do their job or do it badly, just take a look at all the problems that are with children (nothing new, been like that for ages), why shouldn't the government step in when parents fail?
Because the government's answer to all things is layers of bureaucracy. Children currently raised as wards of the state are routinely lost, mishandled, and abused. There were several cases in Florida last year of children who just dropped off the Child Protective Services' radar. Suddenly, you think the federal government is up to the task of raising every child with neglectful parents? That's madness.
Or do you think it's OK for parents to don't give a shit?
Yes, if the alternative is being raised by a bureaucrat whose only connection with that child is a clipboard. They're better off being left alone.
Until parents have proved that they can handle the problem, I have no problems with regulations since it's obvious that selfregulation don't work.
Let me get this straight. "Self-regulation of families doesn't work, so we should get the government to step in." Despite the infeasability of handing that many children, the massive costs to the taxpayer, the orwellian idea of having the government determine whether or not you've "failed" as a parent, and the mistaken idea that other people's families are your business, you still think it's a good idea?
This opens the fascinating can of worms: just what are good and evil ? How do you, as a moral atheist, define them ?
Hi, atheist here. Personally, I don't bother with the words "good" and "evil" do describe actions, except as a very inexact shorthand, since the judeo-xtian tradition uses them to describe things that are "in accordance with God's wishes" and "against God's wishes" respectively. I may descibe actions as peaceful/violent, selfless/selfish, prudent/reckless, social/antisocial, as this gives you a better idea of the nature of the action. Clearly, one set of attributes is negative, the other positive, but without the preset categories inherent in christianity.
Why would that definition be any more correct than another definition ?
It may not be, but my morality is always open to refinement. I believe my morality to be correct because I have worked hard to determine the principles that I believe to be of benefit to myself and to society. To the extent that my principles are noble and my actions match my principles, I am doing "good". I see the religions of the world as ancient works of art which have been passed down to protect the virtues that each society treasures. From my background in the US, I have to say that much of my morality comes from the judeo-xtian tradition. I accept the immorality of murder, theft, adultry, lying, honoring your mother and father, despite my disbelief in the "miraculous" story behind it because they do codify common human values. However, I feel free to incorporate other traditions as well, such as the virtue of the mean from buddhism, and virtue of knowledge from confucianism. Of course, this system of assigning attributes to actions, instead of trying to determine where it falls in the duality of "good" and "evil" will hold up even when an action falls between the cracks that a bulleted list of commandments invariably has.
And if it isn't, if every definition is equally valid, then what does "moral" actually mean - because everyone follows some moral code in their actions, even if it's "screw over everyone else and get me everything I want" - and why not simply change your definition as suits your fancy (and if you do, is it actually possible to be immoral, since any action or inaction can be justified in some moral system)?
That's a false dichotomy. I don't believe that either a system of morality is defined by a deity, or they're all equally valid. Of course, as a christian, you believe that your morality is inherently more correct because it was handed down by God. Therefore, to you, all other moral systems are equally inferior, because they're "man-made". Atheists, however, don't have this convenience, and therefore they actually have to evaluate moral systems. Are they consistent? Are they complete? Do they uphold principles that I value? This process, of course, does not occur in a vacuum. People converse, arbitrate, imagine, and try to come to some consensus over the values that they want to instill in themselves and society. "Screwing everybody over and getting me everything I want" is a common enough morality, however the much of humanity would recognize that this morality only recognizes the principles of greed, dishonesty, and materialism, and is therefore a negative thing. If you were to apply this morality to your actions, you very well may feel justified by your own moral code, but those whom you affect will certainly see the immorality of your actions.
This brings up two issues that bother me about christian morality. One, many christians seem to believe that if god does not exist, then anything goes. (as you seem to imply) Is the only thing keeping christians in check really the imprimatur of a deity? If god was somehow proven not to exist (not that I think this is logically possible) would christians suddenly be murdering people in the streets? Or is morality more socially constructed than they like to believe? Two, many christians also seem to bel
Why can't I protect my kid from your kid? Your kid is playing a harmful game that desensitizes him to killing. He pulls the trigger in the videogame (unlike a movie). Thus he is desensitized faster. Why does my kid have to be murdered by your child?
Remember, playing violent video games == murderous child. That's why youth violence is so out of hand. Oh wait, youth violence is at a 25 year low, despite the fact that more children play videogames now than ever in history. If you're more worried about video games than drugs, crime, and gangs, then it's likely that you are the mediocre parent. While videogames are more interactive than television, movies, books, and music, it's only a difference of degree, not kind. If your child is murdered, it will almost certainly be by someone of low intelligence, who is below the poverty line, likely gang-involved, who has probably seen more real violence in their life than any game could provide, no matter what the TV tells you.
Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. Giving all kids (Even the ones with bad parents) the right to learn then so that they have a chance in not making harmful descisions.
This, of course, has nothing to do with the bill in question. It won't stop parents from buying games for their kids. I imagine you'd like to make that a crime as well.
Look at smoking for example. Most smokers start when they are underage. They don't know any better and they are still disillusioned to the consequence. You don't hear of a 35 year old adult deciding that he wants to be "cool" and smoke. Let's think about it.
Oh yes, fantastic argument. Smoking and homicide are perfectly analagous. You don't hear of 35 year old adults deciding he wants to be "cool" and blow away the Human Resources department. Airtight logic, that.
Finally, it takes a villiage to raise a child.
My child will be fine if I can keep you goddamn superstitious villagers away from her.
This poster cannot or will not distinguish between money wasted, and money spent. At the risk of being slightly distasteful, Federal money spent on (for example) readying the Emergency Response Teams, aiding evacuations or strengthening the New Orleans levees would not be considered wasted. We should not be happy that this money was not spent, because of the massive human cost.
As I stated above, that is exactly the sort of areas where governments should be spending taxpayer money. According to this source (note, found from Google News, that site doesn't reflect by biases), the Army Corp of Engineers was urging previous to Katrina that the levees in NOLA be shored up because they would not withstand a storm greater than category 3, but the funding for that effort dried up, that source blames the Bush tax cuts, but I have to wonder where the city budget was being spent in the years leading up to this disaster.
If the poster you quoted has difficulty distinguishing between tax money spent and tax money wasted, it is because of the deliberate obsfucation of government spending by the politicians in office. If expenditures were more transparent, I think most people would feel better about government spending. Of course, many politicians resist this because it would put a stop to the back-room deal making that they prefer.
I live in Montgomery, Alabama, and political corruption is rampant here. Unfortunately, this has led to a knee-jerk tax-avoidance mindset in the entire population. It's a good thing that we have some of the lowest property taxes in the US, but the public school system down here is atrocious. As a result, it has become difficult to attract business into the city because of the low levels of education in the workforce. Which results in a smaller tax base, which results in worse schools, repeat ad nauseum. Of course, the mayor found it in the budget to build a baseball stadium on the riverfront, and millions of dollars in pet projects for each of the city councilmen.
But, but, we have to stop the proliferation of WMDs. So we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. Then the Iraqis will greet us as liberators. Besides, they hate our freedom, and they're driven by an ideology of hate. Anyway, you're either with us or you're against us. So, bring it on! USA! USA! USA!
Er, I mean, the Soviet Union has collapsed, China is now our favored trading partner, so we need an external enemy to justify a military budget gone out of control. We were attacked by Islamic radicals from Afghanistan, but who wants Afghanistan? Let's put some special forces in Kabul to see if they can find Bin Laden, but let's commit most of our forces to depose the dictator we assisted during the Iran / Iraq war, and had to reign in during the first Gulf War. As the country descends into chaos, we'll generate new terrorists, and give them a training ground to hone their skills against those people who pledged to defend this country. At least Iraq has oil, so gas should be plenty cheap. People love cheap gas. Now, let's spread democracy at the point of a gun across the globe! That should keep the military occupied and keep the military-industrial complex in the black well into the next century. Who cares anyway? The rapture will be here soon, so no need to worry about the future.
I am not saying that governments are unambiguously bad either. I'm sure that the city of New Orleans is wishing that they had more police, fire, and emergency services right now.
What I am saying is that the U.S. Federal Government is notoriously bad at spending taxpayer money wisely, either through bloated budgets, pork-barrel projects or crony capitalism. Even your previous comment says that money spent by the Government is not neccessarily wasted. Faint praise indeed. Therefore this move in Massachusetts is akin to seeing the pope on TV endorsing french ticklers.
Have you ever worked in / around the Federal Government? My experience in the USAF was that at the end of every fiscal year, every project went on a ill-advised spending spree to ensure that they spent every penny of their budget (flat screen LCDs, the newest computers, expensive peripherals) all of which was totally unneccessary. Every federal project does this at the end of the fiscal year so that they don't come in under budget, otherwise they'd have their budget cut because the don't need the money. Since money == clout in the government, there is never, ever any "extra money". It's all spent. Every time.
The Federal Government will not spend your money wisely, because it is not their money. End of story.
Copyright used to be a moral balance between the output of our culture, and the rights of creators to be compensated for their work. Creators were permitted to profit from their work for a limited time (originally 28 years), and in exchange for this privilege, the work passed into the public domain for all people to benefit from.
Unfortunately, moneyed interests have bought legistlation from our corrupt government to extend the duration of copyright to ridiculous extremes (life of author + 70 years for authored works, 95 years for works for hire). In effect, the culture that you experienced during your lifetime is inaccessable to you, as you will likely be dead before it falls into the public domain.
Furthermore, the DMCA was also purchased from congress, which allows copyright holders to completely redefine the already limited terms under which copyrighted material can be used, as long as they use a fig-leaf worth of encryption which is illegal to peek under. This will also prevent vast amounts of cultural materials from even being usable when they fall into the public domain, as the encryption will still be in place.
The purpose of copyright was to build the public domain of our culture, and to make creative work a viable occupation. The copyright holders have skewed that balance to an unreasonable extreme, and are currently reeducating the public to believe that the public domain either does not exist, or shouldn't.
Given this situation, with no sense of balance, yes copyrights are immoral.
He never spoke to their motives, he simply described how the system that they are designing is supposed to work. It's designed to disallow unsigned code. Don't be a fool.
Well, we certainly need more vague laws to enforce Christian morality on this heathen nation. Onward and Upward!
I am a parent, and while I am sure that you are only doing what you believe is best for your children, I couldn't disagree more with your methods.
When children see something they don't understand, they ask questions. Your job is to answer them. If you find it difficult to talk to your children about sexual issues, it's a problem on your end, not theirs.
Many of the "adult" implications of situations are of no concern to a small child. If they have a question, you should answer it honestly and on a level that they can understand.
When Janet Jackson whipped out her whithered nipple on TV and my daughter asked me "Why did he tear her shirt?" I told her the truth, "She thinks being naked on TV will make more people pay attention to her." That satisfied her, and we moved on.
Now, if I had immediately dashed across the room, covered her eyes, and turned off the TV, it would have taught her that nudity is wrong, and that she should be ashamed of her body. That's not the message I want her to take to heart.
Feel free to disagree. Don't feel free to use the Federal Government to force your personal morality on the nation.
Actually, I have no right not to hear you read from the bible, provided we're in public. Just as you have no right to prevent me from cursing in public. It takes more than a few 'fucks' in public to "disturb the peace". Also, people read from the bible on the TV all the time. I don't see why you think it would be wrong for you to read the bible on TV as you stated above.
On my private property, I'd have every right to have you ejected, and make no mistake, I would.
The FCC regulations on the airwaves come from their scarcity and ubiquity, not from some government right to sanction speech. Trying to expand them to public speech is incorrect, and ultimately, unenforcable.
Trying to make the entire world safe and fuzzy for children will result in a world unfit for adults to live in.
I don't mean to alarm you sir, but I'm rather certain that your daughter is hiding a set of breasts underneath her shirt. If not, she soon will be.
Perhaps you should consider a sensory deprivation tank for her? God forbid she start asking questions.
"How much math do you do in GTA? Writing? composing?"
Let's see, I want to buy that nice safe house in the hills of Los Santos which costs $150,000 but I only have $25,000. Since drug dealers carry $2,000 on them, I'd have to kill 62.5 rounded up to 63 of them to afford it. Not to mention the travel time and the difficulty of spotting them. I could race instead. At $10,000 for each race won I'd only have to win 13 races. On the other hand, I could heist cars and deliver them to the Ocean Side docks for about $15,000 a pop. I'd only have to steal 9 of them, but I'd have to drive farther to collect them.
Lovecraft is hard to do right on film. Much of the mood of his stories comes from his use of archaic and unusual words in his descriptions (e.g. squamous, cyclopean), and his love of ancient myths and legends. It's hard to have a comprarable effect on the big screen where little can be left to the imagination.
My favorite film adaptation of one of his stories is Dagon. Despite the title, it's based on the story The Shadow Over Innsmouth, except it is set in a Spanish fishing village instead of New England. Other than that change, it does the best job I've seen of capturing the feel of one of his stories, and it manages to be truly horrifying in parts. Highly recommended.
A lesser movie that's still a pretty good adaptation of one of his movies is The Curse. It's an (uncredited) version of HPL's story The Color Out of Space, and it stars perrenial favorite Wil Wheaton.
I also want to second the recommendation of In the Mouth of Madness. Excellent stuff. While not based on one of his stories, it gets closer in feel than most existing movie adaptations.
Dagon is the best adaptation of any of Lovecraft's stories that I've seen. It's The Shadow Over Innsmouth, but set in a Spanish fishing village. Other than the setting change, it's the only HPL movie that really caught the feeling of the original story. Of course, half of the effect of HPL comes from his use of the language, so seeing his stories in movie format may be a lost cause.
Nothing is more harmful to the rule of law than measures such as these. Blatantly obvious purchase of legislation, the ever-expanding scope of "criminal" behavior, and plainly selective enforcement of the law is combining to create an entire generation of people who will simply ignore the increasingly broad and self-contradictory stack of rules.
People truly follow the small subset of the law that they understand, and nothing more.
Hopefully you will read and consider Darwin's work with an open mind, but please bear in mind that much work on evolutionary theory has been done since his time. You may be better served by reading a more current account, such as some of Stephen Jay Gould's work.
You have to be careful when considering the evolution of specific features of animals. There have been too many instances of "just-so" stories that try to explain a specific feature of an animal, and these often are based upon speculation rather than evidence. Evolutionary theory only describes the general means of inheritance and selection. The specific biology of different species needs to be studied to understand the specific characteristics of any species.
I am unfamiliar with the taxonomy of the rhino, but it's likely that the horn comes from an ancestor species, rather than originating with that particular species. Interestingly enough, it is primarily composed of keratin, the primary component in fingernails and hair. It probably originated as a mutation of one of those.
However, the eye is a much better understood feature. It is so useful that it has evolved multiple times in different species, and in different ways.
You say that without rods, cones, lenses, and the other features of human eyes that the eye would be useless. Consider that many current species have only a rudimentary light spot that only gives a general indication of the amount of light in the area. This can be enough to indicate the possible presence of a predator, or a change in the environment. (if you're a cave fish, a whole lot of sunlight is nothing but trouble)
This link has (a little) more information on the evolution of the eye. Enjoy.
"This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place." ...or because they're fictional.
"Copyright law isn't there to serve the public good, it's there to protect the copyright owner from the 'public', the public being people who would steal their intellectual property."
Wrong. Copyright exists specifically to promote science and the useful arts for the public good. Read it in the Constitution, section 8, clause 8. Notice that it says nothing about money, and it's supposed to be a limited time. Ninety-five years is NOT a limited time.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Granted, I agree that authors should have the right to determine how their work is used, for a limited time.
"Oh no! The people in teh Red states see things in black and white! Not like us good people in teh Blue states."
Dolt.I saw one at a government trade show last year. Everything else in the place was dull as dishwater, but when I saw that display I was frozen in my tracks. I can't remember the model, but I can vouch for the effect. No glasses, surprisingly wide viewing angle, and a real feeling of 3d. Very slick.