You assume that the NRA is "more qualified". As a gun owner who doesn't drink conservative Kool-Aid, and speaking as one who would like to see the right to own a gun still present and relevant fifty years from now, I think the NRA has been an unmitigated disaster as a gun ownership advocacy group.
If the 2nd Amendment is ever repealed in this nation, we will have the NRA solely to blame with their inflammatory "cold dead hands" rhetoric. Talk about a counterproductive PR move.
Glad you asked, actually. I'll take your questions in order. Bear in mind that I'm a firearms owner and pretty into it...but I guarantee my answers will surprise you. "Liberal" gun owners aren't common.
1. I'd like to see the ACLU get involved in these cases, as we (as a nation) need some clarity on just how laws regulating firearms actually apply in the real world, not just as abstract legislation. The Second Amendment and whether it applies to individual or militia ownership has never been clarified. It needs to be.
2. I don't know if regulation of firearms is "constitutional" or not, not being a lawyer, but it's a damn good idea.
3 & 4. Here's what I'd like to see (well-regulated and status quo changes): This is what I call the "automotive" model of firearms ownership. Libertarians will probably have a stroke and if you're one you shouldn't read this:)
What society gets: Licensing (passing a course equivalent to the "Gunsite" series of classes, not cheap or easy) and registration...mandatory. Insurance...mandatory. Draconian penalties for possession of stolen, unlicensed or unregistered firearms. I think a mandatory 10-year sentence for a first offense is not out of line.
What gun owners get: An end to idiotic laws that ban posession of certain firearms based, fundamentally, on what they look like. A Winchester 1897 repeating rifle has MORE capacity that most modern "assault" weapons and is just as accurate and deadly, and yet can be bought in all fifty states. Let's end the bullshit and let those who can pay the insurance for destructive weaponry own them. If you can't pay for your acts or mistakes then you don't get to play.
Obviously, although I'm a lifelong shooter and gun owner, I am not an NRA member. They're the worst thing to ever happen to gun owners and a political and PR liability for us.
You're right. I don't think it's the quality or nature of the ACLU's work that has earned them such emnity...I honestly think it's just that most Americans would be far happier living under a police state. Seriously.
Thank you! At least there's one sane person on Slashdot. The ACLU isn't perfect by any means (their stand on the 2nd amendment causes me much personal grief) but they take on the defense of the Bill of Rights with zeal; something most Americans would never bother to get off their lazy, fat asses to do.
Don't know how it works in your state, but here in California the truck operator is liable for damages from anything that falls off the vehicle whether there's a warning on the back of said truck or not.
1. You can presume anything you want...but it is not science, it is belief. And you can use any presumption you want to prove anything you want, but those proofs, while capable of being true, are not a product of the scientific method and have no place being represented as "science".
2. Neither example is "science". I'll repeat myself: Science does not pretend to address via a formal theory the questions of how life started in the first place. At the moment, all is speculation.
3. There is no such thing as "origin science". Please see #2.
If you were speaking of Newton you should have mentioned the Three Laws, and not have cited that particular example...as it is Galileo's second most important breakthrough.
As an atheist, I can't see a bit of difference between Catholicism and any other Christian sect, save for the over-the-top robes and hats. I'll take your word for it that there is one. The broader point, that they both hold an extreme antipathy towards science and the scientific method, I'll stand by.
"Scientists, on the other hand, will describe how cosmically insignificant you are, that the Universe is a cold and souless place, your existence was an accident of fate and that when you die you're gone forever."
<BR> My experience with ministers and Christians has been one where they describe how morally bankrupt I am, that the Universe is not intended for people like me, my very existence is an affront to God and that when I die I'll burn and suffer agonizing torture forever.
"So teaching ID for one or two classes will wreck all our future scientists?"
Yes. Science relies on the scientific method to arrive at its conclusions. Intelligent design relies on faith to come to its own set of conclusions. Science classes are for the teaching of the scientific method. Teaching anything else is as wildly inappropriate as teaching human sexuality in a mathmematics course.
If you want to teach faith-based material, do it in a religious course.
1. Please examine the definition of "scientific method". Since no one can observe, prove false the notion of, or quantify God, God is excluded from the theory. That's how science works.
2. Science does not pretend to address via a formal theory the questions of how life started in the first place. There are many theories, but none that can provide enough empirical evidence to graduate any of them to the status of a formal theory. If you're confused about the difference between the two grades of "theory", I will refer you once again to a definition of scientific method.
3. Your various questions are certainly interesting, and postulate theories that are reasonable given the available facts. So why won't science embrace them? Simple. Science relies on the idea of "falsification", which means very simply that any notion that wishes to advance to the status of a formal theory and not remain a "belief" must be able to be proven false. This is where religion and science can and must part ways, as religious viewpoints, by their very nature, cannot admit the possibility of fallability.
IF (and in all honesty I don't believe it) what you are saying is true, then this "silent majority" of Christians had better start speaking up for what they believe in. The guys getting all the airtime and press are busy furiously digging a trench back to the fourteenth century, and yelling at full volume about how great the view is from said trench.
For what it's worth, every Christian that I've met here in lovely San Diego DOES believe that evolution is a lie, that the Earth is 6000 years old, and they greet every press release from the Institute of Creation Science with joy - and then they promptly shove it in my face as "proof" of whatever lunacy they're promoting this year. They've recently taken to asking me why I don't talk to them anymore:)
It wouldn't be that big a deal, but they (fundamentalist Christians) now own most of the school boards here in town, and as per standard operating procedure, are now trying to cram creationism or ID into all the science classes. This has fairly predictable and disastrous consequences when these kids hit college.
I'm sure your views would surprise me. You post on Slashdot and work in the sciences, which already makes you a member of a very, very small group of the population. Were I you, I'd beware of extrapolating your own personal religious beliefs onto those of Christians in general. You already sound a lot smarter and far more tolerant than most that Christians I've met.
You'll love this; I used to work for the Palatino importer. I was the Q/A guy:)
You're damn right they're good violins. Unlike some of the Chinese factories that use whoever they can pull off the street for labor, the folks making your violin have quite a bit of experience, many of them having apprenticed in either Europe or Japan. They're good guys and I'd put the instrument up against anything European that's four times the price.
Sure, you've got to swap out a few cheap parts to really get the thing up to snuff, but so what? Better to get the best instrument for the money than an inferior one that has primo strings, etc on it.
People who are still living in a world two decades past think the Chinese make crappy products. They can, if that's what you want. But if you want world-class quality and are willing to pay a little more, they can easily do that too. Two more years and they'll be (at least as far as musical instruments go) making stuff that competes head to head with anybody. And they're doing it at a quarter of the price.
For the cello guy...they make a good cello as well. Spend the most money that you can on it up front, and if you live in a dry part of the country for God's sake get a humidifier and use it, or your cello will crack. Any cello younger than about twenty years is in serious danger of splitting from humidity issues unless you compensate for it. After about the twenty year mark (YMMV) the wood stabilizes quite a bit and it's less of a concern. And if you travel get a hard case...I've seen far too many instruments wrecked by guys who thought the bags would keep it safe.
The contracts aren't guesses. The going royalty rate is 5% of net sales, minus expenses. Put another way, one million albums sold at twenty bucks a pop returns about 20 million gross dollars.
Of which the record stores get about 2-3 million.
Of which the artist sees 1 million, BEFORE all the expenses (promotion of every kind, recording of the album, mastering of the album, artwork on the album, videos (realize that a video typically runs $500,000 by itself) payola, 'promotional tours', etc.)
The record company makes at least 17 million and all their expenses are covered out of pocket by the artist.
There's some good reasons I don't play for a living anymore...it's not much of a living, making 30,000/yr before taxes.
You could not be more wrong, and I've got twenty years in the music industry to prove it. Bands frequently NEVER see any return from royalties whatsoever...they're paying off their "debt" to the record company just like any good sharecropper must. Unless you own your own distribution, the only money that will ever cross your palm is from merchandising.
Fox News said it so it must be true. I believe in Fox News. I bask warmly in the holy light of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. I have a picture of my Most Exalted Leader In Christ, President George W. Bush, over my mantelpiece. He has a halo. And I know, as does anyone save the traitorous anti-American liberals and their America-hating Democratic Party (they might as well rename it the Communist Party of America) that Chavez is a baby-killing, abortion-loving, gay-marriage-favoring, election-rigging Communist who, like his good friends Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore, loves the terrorists and hates America, Mom, and apple pie.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd think the answer to that would be self-evident :)
You assume that the NRA is "more qualified". As a gun owner who doesn't drink conservative Kool-Aid, and speaking as one who would like to see the right to own a gun still present and relevant fifty years from now, I think the NRA has been an unmitigated disaster as a gun ownership advocacy group.
If the 2nd Amendment is ever repealed in this nation, we will have the NRA solely to blame with their inflammatory "cold dead hands" rhetoric. Talk about a counterproductive PR move.
Glad you asked, actually. I'll take your questions in order. Bear in mind that I'm a firearms owner and pretty into it...but I guarantee my answers will surprise you. "Liberal" gun owners aren't common.
:)
1. I'd like to see the ACLU get involved in these cases, as we (as a nation) need some clarity on just how laws regulating firearms actually apply in the real world, not just as abstract legislation. The Second Amendment and whether it applies to individual or militia ownership has never been clarified. It needs to be.
2. I don't know if regulation of firearms is "constitutional" or not, not being a lawyer, but it's a damn good idea.
3 & 4. Here's what I'd like to see (well-regulated and status quo changes): This is what I call the "automotive" model of firearms ownership. Libertarians will probably have a stroke and if you're one you shouldn't read this
What society gets: Licensing (passing a course equivalent to the "Gunsite" series of classes, not cheap or easy) and registration...mandatory. Insurance...mandatory. Draconian penalties for possession of stolen, unlicensed or unregistered firearms. I think a mandatory 10-year sentence for a first offense is not out of line.
What gun owners get: An end to idiotic laws that ban posession of certain firearms based, fundamentally, on what they look like. A Winchester 1897 repeating rifle has MORE capacity that most modern "assault" weapons and is just as accurate and deadly, and yet can be bought in all fifty states. Let's end the bullshit and let those who can pay the insurance for destructive weaponry own them. If you can't pay for your acts or mistakes then you don't get to play.
Obviously, although I'm a lifelong shooter and gun owner, I am not an NRA member. They're the worst thing to ever happen to gun owners and a political and PR liability for us.
You're right. I don't think it's the quality or nature of the ACLU's work that has earned them such emnity...I honestly think it's just that most Americans would be far happier living under a police state. Seriously.
Thank you! At least there's one sane person on Slashdot. The ACLU isn't perfect by any means (their stand on the 2nd amendment causes me much personal grief) but they take on the defense of the Bill of Rights with zeal; something most Americans would never bother to get off their lazy, fat asses to do.
Don't know how it works in your state, but here in California the truck operator is liable for damages from anything that falls off the vehicle whether there's a warning on the back of said truck or not.
Better question: Why the hell should I use SBC's pipes if they're going to be such dickheads about it?
Now I feel better.
How ya doin', Mr. Astroturf? Been a while since we saw you around!
1. You can presume anything you want...but it is not science, it is belief. And you can use any presumption you want to prove anything you want, but those proofs, while capable of being true, are not a product of the scientific method and have no place being represented as "science".
2. Neither example is "science". I'll repeat myself: Science does not pretend to address via a formal theory the questions of how life started in the first place. At the moment, all is speculation.
3. There is no such thing as "origin science". Please see #2.
If you were speaking of Newton you should have mentioned the Three Laws, and not have cited that particular example...as it is Galileo's second most important breakthrough.
As an atheist, I can't see a bit of difference between Catholicism and any other Christian sect, save for the over-the-top robes and hats. I'll take your word for it that there is one. The broader point, that they both hold an extreme antipathy towards science and the scientific method, I'll stand by.
"Scientists, on the other hand, will describe how cosmically insignificant you are, that the Universe is a cold and souless place, your existence was an accident of fate and that when you die you're gone forever."
<BR>
My experience with ministers and Christians has been one where they describe how morally bankrupt I am, that the Universe is not intended for people like me, my very existence is an affront to God and that when I die I'll burn and suffer agonizing torture forever.
I'll take science, thanks. I don't like pain.
Hell, just read "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"...same story.
Not Newton. Galileo. And Christianity's record with regards to his body of work is particularly shameful.
"So teaching ID for one or two classes will wreck all our future scientists?"
Yes. Science relies on the scientific method to arrive at its conclusions. Intelligent design relies on faith to come to its own set of conclusions. Science classes are for the teaching of the scientific method. Teaching anything else is as wildly inappropriate as teaching human sexuality in a mathmematics course.
If you want to teach faith-based material, do it in a religious course.
Shit! Highway 56 wasn't built? How am I going to get home from work?
1. Please examine the definition of "scientific method". Since no one can observe, prove false the notion of, or quantify God, God is excluded from the theory. That's how science works.
2. Science does not pretend to address via a formal theory the questions of how life started in the first place. There are many theories, but none that can provide enough empirical evidence to graduate any of them to the status of a formal theory. If you're confused about the difference between the two grades of "theory", I will refer you once again to a definition of scientific method.
3. Your various questions are certainly interesting, and postulate theories that are reasonable given the available facts. So why won't science embrace them? Simple. Science relies on the idea of "falsification", which means very simply that any notion that wishes to advance to the status of a formal theory and not remain a "belief" must be able to be proven false. This is where religion and science can and must part ways, as religious viewpoints, by their very nature, cannot admit the possibility of fallability.
Thank you. This is a succinct and coherent version of what I've been telling people for years.
IF (and in all honesty I don't believe it) what you are saying is true, then this "silent majority" of Christians had better start speaking up for what they believe in. The guys getting all the airtime and press are busy furiously digging a trench back to the fourteenth century, and yelling at full volume about how great the view is from said trench.
:)
For what it's worth, every Christian that I've met here in lovely San Diego DOES believe that evolution is a lie, that the Earth is 6000 years old, and they greet every press release from the Institute of Creation Science with joy - and then they promptly shove it in my face as "proof" of whatever lunacy they're promoting this year. They've recently taken to asking me why I don't talk to them anymore
It wouldn't be that big a deal, but they (fundamentalist Christians) now own most of the school boards here in town, and as per standard operating procedure, are now trying to cram creationism or ID into all the science classes. This has fairly predictable and disastrous consequences when these kids hit college.
I'm sure your views would surprise me. You post on Slashdot and work in the sciences, which already makes you a member of a very, very small group of the population. Were I you, I'd beware of extrapolating your own personal religious beliefs onto those of Christians in general. You already sound a lot smarter and far more tolerant than most that Christians I've met.
With the volume that they'd need, the humans aren't going to live through it either.
You'll love this; I used to work for the Palatino importer. I was the Q/A guy :)
You're damn right they're good violins. Unlike some of the Chinese factories that use whoever they can pull off the street for labor, the folks making your violin have quite a bit of experience, many of them having apprenticed in either Europe or Japan. They're good guys and I'd put the instrument up against anything European that's four times the price.
Sure, you've got to swap out a few cheap parts to really get the thing up to snuff, but so what? Better to get the best instrument for the money than an inferior one that has primo strings, etc on it.
People who are still living in a world two decades past think the Chinese make crappy products. They can, if that's what you want. But if you want world-class quality and are willing to pay a little more, they can easily do that too. Two more years and they'll be (at least as far as musical instruments go) making stuff that competes head to head with anybody. And they're doing it at a quarter of the price.
For the cello guy...they make a good cello as well. Spend the most money that you can on it up front, and if you live in a dry part of the country for God's sake get a humidifier and use it, or your cello will crack. Any cello younger than about twenty years is in serious danger of splitting from humidity issues unless you compensate for it. After about the twenty year mark (YMMV) the wood stabilizes quite a bit and it's less of a concern. And if you travel get a hard case...I've seen far too many instruments wrecked by guys who thought the bags would keep it safe.
You know what? You're an asshole with no sense of humor. Think before you post, indeed.
The contracts aren't guesses. The going royalty rate is 5% of net sales, minus expenses. Put another way, one million albums sold at twenty bucks a pop returns about 20 million gross dollars.
Of which the record stores get about 2-3 million.
Of which the artist sees 1 million, BEFORE all the expenses (promotion of every kind, recording of the album, mastering of the album, artwork on the album, videos (realize that a video typically runs $500,000 by itself) payola, 'promotional tours', etc.)
The record company makes at least 17 million and all their expenses are covered out of pocket by the artist.
There's some good reasons I don't play for a living anymore...it's not much of a living, making 30,000/yr before taxes.
You could not be more wrong, and I've got twenty years in the music industry to prove it. Bands frequently NEVER see any return from royalties whatsoever...they're paying off their "debt" to the record company just like any good sharecropper must. Unless you own your own distribution, the only money that will ever cross your palm is from merchandising.
Fox News said it so it must be true. I believe in Fox News. I bask warmly in the holy light of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. I have a picture of my Most Exalted Leader In Christ, President George W. Bush, over my mantelpiece. He has a halo. And I know, as does anyone save the traitorous anti-American liberals and their America-hating Democratic Party (they might as well rename it the Communist Party of America) that Chavez is a baby-killing, abortion-loving, gay-marriage-favoring, election-rigging Communist who, like his good friends Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore, loves the terrorists and hates America, Mom, and apple pie.
If your code is truly "standards compliant", then the only browser you have cause to be concerned with is Internet Explorer.
As for your suggestion that a browser monopoly would in any way be a good thing for anyone...well, you're just wrong.