We should immediately imprison anyone in possession of a copy of Romeo and Juliet. You do realize that Romeo and Juliet were lovers, and that Juliet was 13?
I beg your pardon, but romance != pornography. I believe my views were expressed on child pornography, fictitious as it might be.
You're right, some ideas are dangerous. We should imprison anyone spreading ideas that we decide to classify as dangerous. Obviously we'll start with ideas relating to child abuse, but once we *are* criminalizing ideas there's obviously no rational logic for stopping there. All of the other dangerous and harmful ideas also need to be added to that list. It's simply a matter of setting up the proper committee to decide which ideas are dangerous and harmful to be put on that list
Come on, you know what I meant. But let me ask you, are you proposing total anarchy? I didn't think so. So don't stretch what I said either.
In fact I'd like to volunteer to be on that committee, there are quite a few dangerous and harmful ideas I'd personally like to put on the illegal list. Of course I think you might dissagree with some of my choices. In fact I'm fairly certain you'd have a shit-fit over some of the things I'd like to add to that list.
Get active, stop sitting, bitchin' and complaining. Write to your government representative, become part of a cause if you strongly believe in your cause.
Or perhaps we could just agree that the very idea of criminalizing fiction we don't like and ideas we don't like is actually the far more dangerous thing.
The far more dangerous thing? Than what? What will it endanger? No, I am not advocating it, but I am just curious what is so much more dangerous about it?
And perhaps we could just agree that people are only criminals if they actually commit a genuine criminal act or knowingly aid a genuine criminal act or intend to cause a genuine crime to occur, and that people who do *not* commit a genuine criminal act and do *not* knowingly aid a genuine criminal act and do *not* intend to cause a genuine criminal act are innocent.
Is ANYONE going to disagree with the above? Yet just because we agree on it, it does not unite us in the view we originally started to discuss.
People can believe in whatever crap they can imagine. Some believe their purpose is to make kids, for some it's to make money, some think they need to protect the institution of marriage, but for the superior minority of intelligent people, who are the only ones really worthy of living, the purpose is self-improvement, learning about the world and bettering it in creative ways.
Umm... Flamebait? So, intelligent superiority is to learn of the world and better it in creative ways... as opposed to bettering it in practical ways?
I couldn't help but notice the arrogance in your tone. For example, you listed some pursuits that common people have, such as money, institution of marriage, etc..., and then you proceeded to go on with "the purpose is self-improvement, learning about the world and bettering it in creative ways". Making money is akin to self-improvement when it comes to better socio-economic standing. And protecting the institution of marriage is for some (which is their right to choose, inasmuch as it is others' right to choose not to) to better the world.
So I guess that if I apply your criteria to your own post and using your own words, you still believe in the crap that you chose to believe. I wonder... what would the REAL intelligent superiority have to say about all this....
Well, it is not a matter of imagining if we can charge this much or that much. While it is true that many companies simply analyze what is the highest price they can charge, it is also true of other companies that analyze what is the minimum price they must charge in order to stay afloat.
Now, you may say that if you can't compete than you shouldn't be in the business. And so we get back at the dilemma posed by the posting: we can only compete with businesses here (mostly Canada, US, and UK), but we cannot compete price-wise with businesses from China / India.
There is no simple solution, but as is true with most everything, time will show the true turn of events.
Japanese automakers became very successful at making quality and reliable cars to the point where their reputation in NA is unprecedented. However, the big three here decided to move into trucks and SUVs, and this is one area where foreign automakers are quite far behind.
I think the question I am curious about is this: do we have an untapped area where the Western world can move to and become successful?
Well, to start off, I don't know about the case. Having said that (and not directing it to the particular case you brought up), a lot of ideas that appear victimless can turn ugly. FOr that matter, is it truly harmless to write "imaginary" words about "imaginary" situations?
To deny that people become conditioned is foolish, and systematic desensitization is also a fact. And while the author may simply hint at an act, the human mind is a powerful tool for filling in any gaps and painting any pictures necessary to satisfy one's cravings. Just let someone with a certain inclination gain access to some "soft" porn of the controversial nature, get that person worked up and have him fly off the handle... because he couldn't hold it anymore, because he just lusted after that child
And I am much less comfortable with the words "imaginary words that are harmless" in connection with child porn.
But I fail to see why everyone's right to privacy should be invaded just because the Canadians can't track down their own criminals.
Was that for real or what?...because Canadians can't track down their own criminals? How about the school girl who was whored out by her mother, and RCMP or Toronto Police was able to trace her to a public school (because the criminals didn't do a very good job erasing her school uniform logo on the video)? Even the hotel was identified as that belonging to Disney World, and eventually the mother was tracked and located in Florida.
It was a load of nonsense, what you said. Canadians can't catch their own criminals, Americans can't catch their own criminals - big news item, sure.
And speaking of giving up privacy rights... look at the US first, when everyone gave up their right to privacy there because the americans could not track foreign criminals in Afghanistan...
That's what I like about I, Robot (the series by Isaac Asimov, NOT the movie). It's realization that robots are smart(er) than humans, and (implied) resentment that they are created by inferior creatures. If robots are superior at reasoning abilities and conservation of energy, why keep humans? Survival of the fittest?
Please... if the problem lied only in the realization of what's real and what's not.
Systematic desensitization is a fact. What remains to figure out (objectively) is how these video games influence young people. They are somewhat similar to videos/movies/tv shows, and we know the copycat acts (or attempts) of Columbine high school shoot-out.
I agree with you that ultimately this should be parents' decision. Banning a specific game is... well, might as well start with all the XXX shops so prevalent in cities. Perhaps this is Hillary's move to appeal to emotional senses of the parents and establish herself as morally upright.
I see the creationists got to you before your BS detector was working.
It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong.
My take is that you have been indoctrinated in evolutionist boot camp? If any other scientific theory was under as much controversy and disagreement as evolution, it would hardly be considered a scientific "fact". One of the major reasons for acceptance of Darwinian evolution is branching away from religion, which interfered with science on more than just numerous occasions.
Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.
I do not think I understand your sentence, but scientists are confident in evolution (mind you, only a certain percentage of scientists believe in evolution, and only a fraction of that are confident) because this is the only explanation for intelligent life outside of religious creation stories.
It's "reproduced" every time new data is dug up, and it confirms the same patterns. It is also reproduced in the laboratory, where short-lived specimens are observed to evolve (and even speciate) within the scale of individual researcher's careers.
What data? If evolution were a fact, surely in all of fossil record there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. Darwin himself was embarassed by the fossil record because it did not prove to be what he predicted. With time, the more abundant fossil evidence shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all. Eohippus, Archaeopteryx, Lungfish are just some examples of animal life thought to exist, but proven false. I will reiterate, the only data that is dug up supports sudden life forms according to their kinds, not gradual, and no transitional forms.
Moreover, genes are qutie a powerful stabilizing mechanism, the function of which is to prevent new forms evolving. And mutations, while they exist, cannot explain the growing complexity of living organisms.
Oddly, anti-evolutionists claim that every discovery of an intermediate form makes TWO "unexplained gaps" in the fossil record where there was only one; their objections appear increasingly dishonest and desperate.
I just one to make one thing clear, and that is that I do not support dishonest fabrication of one kind or another. I am no less displeased about the fundamentalists who fabricate evidence in support of creation than with the scientific fundamentalists who fabricate evidence to support evolution.
One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia. Yes, but that would support neither evolution nor creation. The pattern of intelligent design speaks of sea life appearing in one era, bird life in another, land life in yet another. It anticipated a fossil record that contains:
1. Complex life forms suddenly appearing.
2. Complex life forms multiplying after their kinds (biological families).
3. No transitional links between biological families.
4. No partial body features, all parts complete.
If evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things, such as developing arms, legs, lungs, other bones and organs. Even looking early in the Cambrian period, fossils of the major groups of invertebrates appear in an explosion of living things, unconnected to any evolutionary ancestors.
This is a huge gap, this is a hole. You simply cannot ignore this, and give excuses that "creationists" stick to this like a barnacle as if it's their only desparate last hope. It's like attempting to treat acne in a person with skin cancer. Cancer is still there, and there is no circumventing it.
The bottom line is that the fossil record is much stronger in support of intelligent design than in random, chance-based evolution.
Bravo. The award for most tact-less response goes to....
You know nothing of my education, and I know nothing of your education. But judging by the tactfulness of your response, you must have none or you must've been indoctrinated in evolutionary "we hate other views" bootcamp. I would like you to mention some "mountains" of evidence.
This is precisely the problem. All biology textbooks have next to minimal information on evolution. They simply state that it's a fact, but fail to explain how it got started or how it progressed. There are so many theories in the theory of evolution itself in an attempt to make it into a credible theory that it's nothing more than an inner bedroom or a pack-rat. Most evolutionary references in scientific textbooks go something like this: "And so this organism evolved from that organism as can be supported by evidence." Evidence is usually not mentioned. And as for the most basic steps necessary are missing. Why? Again, because nobody can provide any solid "mountain of evidence" of how the process took place.
Do me a favour if you are going to reply - be a little more tolerant, stop the hate and spread the love. If you want a discussion, I'll participate. If you want name-calling - I suggest you congregate with less advanced forms for whom evolution has not worked quite so well yet.
You are absolutely right on the definition of theory.
I think the problem in this discussion is that evolutionary theory is not like other scientific theories. The objections to evolutionary theory are that this mountain of evidence is lacking.
A good theory is a theory that is falsifiable. Evolutionary theory is so vague that there is no way to falsify it. Moreover, it is not reproducible. There have been no experiments (yet) that were able to reproduce evolution even in its simplest forms.
Especially considering the lack of intermediary forms, an "evolutionist" might argue that chagnes became very sudden. As a matter of fact, so sudden that it appears that almost some "force" caused the change to happen so suddenly that no intermediary forms have been captures by the fossil record. How is this any different from the belief in "God" who is responsible for making changes, or this "force" that is responsible for the changes?
Even the quote you gave, the only "fact" it mentions with regards to evolution is that current forms came from pre-existing forms. How is that a fact? Has it actually been proven in the lab? It was more of an assumption, with very deep roots, from which most scientist assume their work. One key attribute of a scientist is to approach his/her work without bias, and the work of the scientist is valued when it's not tailored (read: manipulated) to fit his/her theory.
If one sincerely adopts the scientific method and critically applies it to evolution, it will not hold even as a theory.
I am not saying at this point that every scientist must abandon his/her work and become religious... No, far from it, having scientific background myself, I happen to be on the side of science, not the fundamentalists. Give credit where it's due, but science also has to be scrutinized in order to be effective. I'm really surprised at how many scientists put blind faith in evolution. And scientists, from my experience, can be very intolerant of other views.
i stumbled across their neat little program. it's actually pretty fast, and can be configured for both 2d and 3d.
the new version allows remote connectivity between computers, so you can use a desktop that is remotely connected to your server and control it like it's your computer. VNC/RFB and RDP protocols supported.
i personally am not a fan of multi-desktop software, but if you're looking into it, this is the one to check out for sure IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as this is ./, I take it you took a poll? Ran a survey?
You're right.
Thank you, you're so nice.
We should immediately imprison anyone in possession of a copy of Romeo and Juliet. You do realize that Romeo and Juliet were lovers, and that Juliet was 13?
I beg your pardon, but romance != pornography. I believe my views were expressed on child pornography, fictitious as it might be.
You're right, some ideas are dangerous. We should imprison anyone spreading ideas that we decide to classify as dangerous. Obviously we'll start with ideas relating to child abuse, but once we *are* criminalizing ideas there's obviously no rational logic for stopping there. All of the other dangerous and harmful ideas also need to be added to that list. It's simply a matter of setting up the proper committee to decide which ideas are dangerous and harmful to be put on that list
Come on, you know what I meant. But let me ask you, are you proposing total anarchy? I didn't think so. So don't stretch what I said either.
In fact I'd like to volunteer to be on that committee, there are quite a few dangerous and harmful ideas I'd personally like to put on the illegal list. Of course I think you might dissagree with some of my choices. In fact I'm fairly certain you'd have a shit-fit over some of the things I'd like to add to that list.
Get active, stop sitting, bitchin' and complaining. Write to your government representative, become part of a cause if you strongly believe in your cause.
Or perhaps we could just agree that the very idea of criminalizing fiction we don't like and ideas we don't like is actually the far more dangerous thing.
The far more dangerous thing? Than what? What will it endanger? No, I am not advocating it, but I am just curious what is so much more dangerous about it?
And perhaps we could just agree that people are only criminals if they actually commit a genuine criminal act or knowingly aid a genuine criminal act or intend to cause a genuine crime to occur, and that people who do *not* commit a genuine criminal act and do *not* knowingly aid a genuine criminal act and do *not* intend to cause a genuine criminal act are innocent.
Is ANYONE going to disagree with the above? Yet just because we agree on it, it does not unite us in the view we originally started to discuss.
Ganna Ray ganna rays? that is REALLY sci-fi!!!
People can believe in whatever crap they can imagine. Some believe their purpose is to make kids, for some it's to make money, some think they need to protect the institution of marriage, but for the superior minority of intelligent people, who are the only ones really worthy of living, the purpose is self-improvement, learning about the world and bettering it in creative ways. Umm... Flamebait? So, intelligent superiority is to learn of the world and better it in creative ways... as opposed to bettering it in practical ways?
I couldn't help but notice the arrogance in your tone. For example, you listed some pursuits that common people have, such as money, institution of marriage, etc..., and then you proceeded to go on with "the purpose is self-improvement, learning about the world and bettering it in creative ways". Making money is akin to self-improvement when it comes to better socio-economic standing. And protecting the institution of marriage is for some (which is their right to choose, inasmuch as it is others' right to choose not to) to better the world.
So I guess that if I apply your criteria to your own post and using your own words, you still believe in the crap that you chose to believe. I wonder... what would the REAL intelligent superiority have to say about all this....
Well, it is not a matter of imagining if we can charge this much or that much. While it is true that many companies simply analyze what is the highest price they can charge, it is also true of other companies that analyze what is the minimum price they must charge in order to stay afloat.
Now, you may say that if you can't compete than you shouldn't be in the business. And so we get back at the dilemma posed by the posting: we can only compete with businesses here (mostly Canada, US, and UK), but we cannot compete price-wise with businesses from China / India.
There is no simple solution, but as is true with most everything, time will show the true turn of events.
Japanese automakers became very successful at making quality and reliable cars to the point where their reputation in NA is unprecedented. However, the big three here decided to move into trucks and SUVs, and this is one area where foreign automakers are quite far behind.
I think the question I am curious about is this: do we have an untapped area where the Western world can move to and become successful?
Well, to start off, I don't know about the case. Having said that (and not directing it to the particular case you brought up), a lot of ideas that appear victimless can turn ugly. FOr that matter, is it truly harmless to write "imaginary" words about "imaginary" situations?
To deny that people become conditioned is foolish, and systematic desensitization is also a fact. And while the author may simply hint at an act, the human mind is a powerful tool for filling in any gaps and painting any pictures necessary to satisfy one's cravings. Just let someone with a certain inclination gain access to some "soft" porn of the controversial nature, get that person worked up and have him fly off the handle... because he couldn't hold it anymore, because he just lusted after that child
And I am much less comfortable with the words "imaginary words that are harmless" in connection with child porn.
Yeah sure, mod me down if you're unable to argue a controversial hot topic.
You must recognize your position as flawed if you posted as Anonymous Coward. Afraid of being the first victim of the tool?
But I fail to see why everyone's right to privacy should be invaded just because the Canadians can't track down their own criminals.
...because Canadians can't track down their own criminals? How about the school girl who was whored out by her mother, and RCMP or Toronto Police was able to trace her to a public school (because the criminals didn't do a very good job erasing her school uniform logo on the video)? Even the hotel was identified as that belonging to Disney World, and eventually the mother was tracked and located in Florida.
Was that for real or what?
It was a load of nonsense, what you said. Canadians can't catch their own criminals, Americans can't catch their own criminals - big news item, sure.
And speaking of giving up privacy rights... look at the US first, when everyone gave up their right to privacy there because the americans could not track foreign criminals in Afghanistan...
Resentment...
That's what I like about I, Robot (the series by Isaac Asimov, NOT the movie). It's realization that robots are smart(er) than humans, and (implied) resentment that they are created by inferior creatures. If robots are superior at reasoning abilities and conservation of energy, why keep humans? Survival of the fittest?
Please... if the problem lied only in the realization of what's real and what's not.
Systematic desensitization is a fact. What remains to figure out (objectively) is how these video games influence young people. They are somewhat similar to videos/movies/tv shows, and we know the copycat acts (or attempts) of Columbine high school shoot-out.
I agree with you that ultimately this should be parents' decision. Banning a specific game is... well, might as well start with all the XXX shops so prevalent in cities. Perhaps this is Hillary's move to appeal to emotional senses of the parents and establish herself as morally upright.
I see the creationists got to you before your BS detector was working.
It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong.
My take is that you have been indoctrinated in evolutionist boot camp? If any other scientific theory was under as much controversy and disagreement as evolution, it would hardly be considered a scientific "fact". One of the major reasons for acceptance of Darwinian evolution is branching away from religion, which interfered with science on more than just numerous occasions.
Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.
I do not think I understand your sentence, but scientists are confident in evolution (mind you, only a certain percentage of scientists believe in evolution, and only a fraction of that are confident) because this is the only explanation for intelligent life outside of religious creation stories.
It's "reproduced" every time new data is dug up, and it confirms the same patterns. It is also reproduced in the laboratory, where short-lived specimens are observed to evolve (and even speciate) within the scale of individual researcher's careers.
What data? If evolution were a fact, surely in all of fossil record there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. Darwin himself was embarassed by the fossil record because it did not prove to be what he predicted. With time, the more abundant fossil evidence shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all. Eohippus, Archaeopteryx, Lungfish are just some examples of animal life thought to exist, but proven false. I will reiterate, the only data that is dug up supports sudden life forms according to their kinds, not gradual, and no transitional forms.
Moreover, genes are qutie a powerful stabilizing mechanism, the function of which is to prevent new forms evolving. And mutations, while they exist, cannot explain the growing complexity of living organisms.
Oddly, anti-evolutionists claim that every discovery of an intermediate form makes TWO "unexplained gaps" in the fossil record where there was only one; their objections appear increasingly dishonest and desperate.
I just one to make one thing clear, and that is that I do not support dishonest fabrication of one kind or another. I am no less displeased about the fundamentalists who fabricate evidence in support of creation than with the scientific fundamentalists who fabricate evidence to support evolution.
One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia. Yes, but that would support neither evolution nor creation. The pattern of intelligent design speaks of sea life appearing in one era, bird life in another, land life in yet another. It anticipated a fossil record that contains:
1. Complex life forms suddenly appearing.
2. Complex life forms multiplying after their kinds (biological families).
3. No transitional links between biological families.
4. No partial body features, all parts complete.
If evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things, such as developing arms, legs, lungs, other bones and organs. Even looking early in the Cambrian period, fossils of the major groups of invertebrates appear in an explosion of living things, unconnected to any evolutionary ancestors.
This is a huge gap, this is a hole. You simply cannot ignore this, and give excuses that "creationists" stick to this like a barnacle as if it's their only desparate last hope. It's like attempting to treat acne in a person with skin cancer. Cancer is still there, and there is no circumventing it.
The bottom line is that the fossil record is much stronger in support of intelligent design than in random, chance-based evolution.
Bravo. The award for most tact-less response goes to.... You know nothing of my education, and I know nothing of your education. But judging by the tactfulness of your response, you must have none or you must've been indoctrinated in evolutionary "we hate other views" bootcamp. I would like you to mention some "mountains" of evidence. This is precisely the problem. All biology textbooks have next to minimal information on evolution. They simply state that it's a fact, but fail to explain how it got started or how it progressed. There are so many theories in the theory of evolution itself in an attempt to make it into a credible theory that it's nothing more than an inner bedroom or a pack-rat. Most evolutionary references in scientific textbooks go something like this: "And so this organism evolved from that organism as can be supported by evidence." Evidence is usually not mentioned. And as for the most basic steps necessary are missing. Why? Again, because nobody can provide any solid "mountain of evidence" of how the process took place. Do me a favour if you are going to reply - be a little more tolerant, stop the hate and spread the love. If you want a discussion, I'll participate. If you want name-calling - I suggest you congregate with less advanced forms for whom evolution has not worked quite so well yet.
You are absolutely right on the definition of theory. I think the problem in this discussion is that evolutionary theory is not like other scientific theories. The objections to evolutionary theory are that this mountain of evidence is lacking.
FWIW, I am not a fundamentalist. However...
A good theory is a theory that is falsifiable. Evolutionary theory is so vague that there is no way to falsify it. Moreover, it is not reproducible. There have been no experiments (yet) that were able to reproduce evolution even in its simplest forms.
Especially considering the lack of intermediary forms, an "evolutionist" might argue that chagnes became very sudden. As a matter of fact, so sudden that it appears that almost some "force" caused the change to happen so suddenly that no intermediary forms have been captures by the fossil record. How is this any different from the belief in "God" who is responsible for making changes, or this "force" that is responsible for the changes?
Even the quote you gave, the only "fact" it mentions with regards to evolution is that current forms came from pre-existing forms. How is that a fact? Has it actually been proven in the lab? It was more of an assumption, with very deep roots, from which most scientist assume their work. One key attribute of a scientist is to approach his/her work without bias, and the work of the scientist is valued when it's not tailored (read: manipulated) to fit his/her theory.
If one sincerely adopts the scientific method and critically applies it to evolution, it will not hold even as a theory.
I am not saying at this point that every scientist must abandon his/her work and become religious... No, far from it, having scientific background myself, I happen to be on the side of science, not the fundamentalists. Give credit where it's due, but science also has to be scrutinized in order to be effective. I'm really surprised at how many scientists put blind faith in evolution. And scientists, from my experience, can be very intolerant of other views.
Multi User Desktop
i stumbled across their neat little program. it's actually pretty fast, and can be configured for both 2d and 3d.
the new version allows remote connectivity between computers, so you can use a desktop that is remotely connected to your server and control it like it's your computer. VNC/RFB and RDP protocols supported.
i personally am not a fan of multi-desktop software, but if you're looking into it, this is the one to check out for sure IMO.