...Idiots. They've basically watched their entire knowledge base die, disintegrate and retire of the past 30 years, and only/NOW/ they're doing something about it.
Hey, look on the bright side... back then those poor people only had one kind of Coca Cola. Now we have Diet Coke, Vanilla Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Cherry Coke and more! We're still exploring the horizons. They've just dipped a little lower.
A few months ago, one of the old Apollo monitoring stations went on sale and we went to look at this unique property. A building in the middle of nowhere up on a mountain, with a six-story-high satellite dish. It was amazing and awe-inspiring to crawl through this rusted dinosaur skeleton of a bygone era. There wasn't much left of the place when I visited, but I felt proud just to be standing on the hallowed ground where great minds plotted of men flying through space and landing on the moon. Now on this site, sits a big obnoxious cell tower. It's kind of sad that kids today don't look up at the stars.
I cannot imagine America having the resources to land on the moon successfully now. Our society was different back then. Science was something to revere. Now we are more concerned with American Idol.
You're last paragraph sounds like you're the one pulling the ripcord. Or did I misinterpret the evidence? This conversation seems to upset you alot.
I, like many, are tired of religious nutballs promoting their delusions publicly. God does not belong in science, nor government. The misguided mental abherrations you espouse are responsible for a vast majority of the immoral behavior perpetrated by mankind. I don't like it. If I thought for a moment you actually were interested in some meaningful debate, I might engage you, but the fact that you completely ignored the substance of my initial response proves you are closed minded. I don't have to show you consideration that you would not show me, so why waste time?
Let's review... you spit out some drivel claiming that both theology and science rely on "faith". I countered with a substantive argument, as well as a challenge and my own counter-theory. Your response? You cut-and-paste a few choice words from my response and criticize semantics and the manner in which the message was delivered, completely ignoring the message and the substance of the main argument, which I quite effectively refuted.
This path leads me to the scientific conclusion that you sir, are a moron.
Yes, it is just a theory. No, I don't have "faith" that you are a moron. The evidence supports it as a natural conclusion and as of yet, there is no counter evidence to dispute that claim. Also note that just because you're more "polite" than I am in expressing yourself, does in no way detract from the moronic nature of the points and subsequent counter-points you've made.
I don't have you confused with anyone. That's a conversion to an ad hominem attack.
Congrats Captain Obvious. Do you have a point to make? Or are you just testing your keyboard, and my patience?
Suffice to say, someone can troll up an exception to every statement ever made. It doesn't mean such exceptions are worthy of discussion, much less statistically significant. You are a troll.
In theory, "a scientist is always willing to admit his theory is wrong if the evidence does not support it." This is the ideal of science. But not a single scientist can live this way. No one human being has the time or resources to personally look into the results of all the studies, verify all the experiments, etc, that have been done to support (and in some cases disprove) current scientific theories. Every single one of them holds on to their current set of acceptable theories by faith. Thus, every single scientist holds on to most of what they believe in the faith that what they've been told by others is accurate. It is only in those scientific endeavors that the particular scientist has directly been involved with that they can hold confidence, and this will always be only a tiny fraction of the pieces needed to support belief in evolution or any other theory. Look at your own life. Have you personally verified every experiment that supports your current set of beliefs? How can you be so confident in what you believe in, then? Because you inherently trust those who taught you what you now believe. You have trusted them and have placed faith in what they've told you. Sure, you may have looked into a few published papers and tried a few experiments yourself, but the vast majority of your beliefs are held by faith.
That's not my definition of faith. Faith as defined by theists is a completely different animal -- an excuse to ignore logic and evidence. Scientists do not use the term "faith" because it is most often used to describe a belief that is absent evidence. Even accepted scientific ideals that I haven't personally tested myself, can be tested if I so decide to pursue it, and if evidence indicated that some established presupposition wasn't holding up, then it would be prudent to re-examine such a theory. This simply is not done with regard to theist beliefs. Apples and oranges.
Here's an example. Time and time again, people have said jesus is returning. Every few months there's some prophetic proclaimation by some fundamentalist, which ultimately turns out to be false. Do you religious people, in light of the constant, overwhelming evidence indicating that biblical and theistic prophecy is erroneous, decide to go back and re-examine the legitimacy of these beliefs? Nope. Instead, these people bury their heads in the sand and claim that those who don't believe lack "faith", which is their way of advertising their closed-mindedness. Any scientist who so proudly proclaimed such irrational philosophies in the face of non-existent evidence would be laughed at by his peers and the rest of the thinking world. Just because there are some idiots like this, does not mean they are worthy of being recognized, nor that their irrational theories have any credibility. They do not.
Just because you can tote up one guy with a PhD (employed by Shell Oil) to claim "his research" in global warming shows it not happening, does in no way diminish the overwhelming greater body of evidence by the scientific community refuting such a claim. Why these fringe elements get "equal time" is a testament to the power corporations hold in our society, and no measure whatsoever, of their credibility.
preposterous... bullshit.... always.... excuse Good logical debate approach there....
You have me confused with someone who might be naive enough to think that there can be any sort of productive debate with a theist who claims to have a monopoly on "truth."
I'm sorry. I have better things to do than engage someone in an argument that will ultimately end with them pulling "faith" ripcord and jumping ship.
Why Do You Believe in God? Have you ever asked yourself I mean seriously asked yourself?
Pierre Charron once noted that we are baptised or circumcised a Christian or a Jew, long before we are even aware we are a human.
Is it any wonder then that, through early indoctrination while the critical mind is still developing, we almost without exception go on to inherit the precise religion of our parents or surrounding culture? No, of course not - its only natural. But that doesnt say much for the actual truth of that particular religion, does it?
Don't be afraid to question: The Truth is never embarrassed by honest enquiry
150 years ago: the abolition of slavery 100 years ago: the emancipation of women 50 years ago: inter-racial marriage Today: same-sex relationships
Why is it that the church always has to be dragged kicking and screaming (by secular outrage) towards the tolerance and compassion that, ironically, it claims to hold a monopoly on?
Morality
Contrary to what your church may have told you, atheists do not automatically turn to hedonism and anarchy. In fact, those who suggest that a man must be ethically restrained by a religion reveal, quite frankly, just how deep-seated their own morals are.
It is an easy target for the church to blame society's ills on man's inevitable shelving of the god myth. But the fact remains that there is a fraction of the immorality now than there was when the church had complete, unchallenged influence over every aspect of society.
This was a time of Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch- and heretic burnings. It was a period known as the Dark Ages, and that they truly were both morally and intellectually.
The Ten Commandments are woefully inadequate as a moral guide:
The first four are blatant religious propaganda - basically a plug for the Hebrew God. The remaining six are dangerously held up as exhaustive and inspired by those who apparently haven't read them. For example, one wonders how 'lying' and 'envy' make the big list of don'ts, but not rape, torture, child abuse, racism, slavery. And surely nobody still seriously believes that black and white moral guidelines are of much use in a greyscale world. &Thou shalt not kill& - but what about in genuine self-defense? &Thou shalt not bear false witness & - but what about lying to the Nazi officer who asks if you are hiding Jews? True morality requires judging each case on its own merits, not just overlaying the same clumsy morality stencil on everything.
Prayer
To the critical mind, it seems that the proportion of prayers that are specifically answered do not deviate too far from what the simple law of averages would suggest.
Having never prayed in my life, I can certainly attest to having a better than fair share of good fortune.
Regardless, what never fails to surprise me is the egotism and arrogance of the Christian who, by praying for divine favour or intervention, actually calls doubt on the very wisdom of their god!
Who told you that you were a sinner?
Your church? But wait, don't fret! There's a magic cure, and your church just happens to have it! (Of course some might suggest that your church has merely cut you in order to sell you a band-aid.....) Did Adam and Eve sin?
They disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Right and Wrong). So, yes..... Right?
Just one problem. How could Adam and Eve have been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of wrong, evil, punishment, suffering, pain, and death?
Even if God had been successful in adequately explaining all of these concepts and the distinction between right and wrong to them beforehand, this means that he would have had to have given them knowledge of good and evil anyway, which turns this entire story into one big ridiculous farce.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
It does not matter how strongly you believe that this is nonsense. It does not matter how strongly you use evolution to prove that this cannot be true and will not happen. You, the one reading this, will stand before that throne and will be judged.
With all due respect, fuck you, and your delusion.
It's your "holy book", not mine.
It's your "ten commandments", not mine.
It's your Jeebus Christ, not mine.
It's your hell, so YOU GO AHEAD AND BURN IN IT! You won't see me there, because I don't believe in that fairy tale crap. No amount of self-righteous fear-mongering verbal or written regurgitation on your part will change my reality, so keep your delusions to yourself... UNDERSTAND?
I don't give a crap if you believe in jesus, allah, yaweh, ra, elvis, bigfoot or joseph smith. Believe whatever you want to believe. But you cross the line when you invade my space with your irrational, self-righteous, arrogant GIBBERISH. If heaven is such a great reward, keep it for yourself. Some of us don't give a flying fuck about your fantasy shit.
And let's establish something here.... What the fuck did your "jesus" do for you? Really? What goddam "sacrifice" does a diety make who "dies" and then comes back to life? If it was really a sacrifice, he'd stay dead. This is like me clipping my fingernails to forgive you idiots of your sins... and the whole notion of someone inheiriting the sins of their ancestors is another backwards belief. There's nothing consistent, nor moral about the goofy ass dogma you preach, so keep it to yourself so I and others don't have to call you out for being a babbling idiot.
If you disagree, then we'll wait and let "gawd" sort it out, ok? But stop your boneheaded preaching.
It's preposterous to compare religion and science as both similar in terms of requiring faith. That's bullshit.
In science, a scientist is always willing to admit his theory is wrong if the evidence does not support it. In theology, people use faith as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming lack of evidence for their god. I can show you thousands of logical, substantive pieces of evidence to show that what you believe, especially if it's any flavor of christianity, is neither rational, nor moral, much less consistent. And after being shown this overwhelming mountain of evidence, would you admit your theory may be wrong? NOPE. There's your faith... which has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific process.
It's about time we drop religion. It's obsolete. It's a remnant from another time when man looked up at the sky and didn't see planets, stars, water vaper, and atmospheric events, but instead the "hammer of Thor" or "Ra", or the "firmament of heaven."
Religion has value in society, but should be as far away from science as possible. Belief in supernatural is the quickest way to neuter the progress of mankind, and history has demonstrated this over and over, and over, and over and over.
Print this and share it among your friends (also pdf version). Stick this on your car. Let's encourage others to evolve beyond the dark ages of cowering under the rock at the angry gods that are now called "weather."
She was using a government network and resources that were undoubtedly made available for this very purpose. The WAP article states that the CIA allows and supports such blogs and sees their value. She just crossed a line with content, not with her use of time or resources.
Way to go... let's marginalize every single attempt to seek out alternative power sources. This way we can be married to oil for that much longer. Look on the bright side.. your kids get to see the middle east.
I've been thinking about this alot lately, and why *not* make Site Operator's or ISP's liable for the client's activities?
This is a very bad idea. Telecommunications companies enjoy what is called "common carrier status" meaning they are not responsible typically for the nature of the content across their networks. Instead, they are merely "common carriers." Can you imagine AT&T being charged because of a discussion over their long distance service that ended up involving illegal activity? The first time you make a carrier responsible for the activity on their network, you require all carriers to monitor everyone's traffic in order to avoid liability. That's the end of any remaining semblance of privacy or personal security any of us have.
Direct Revenue has struggled to fend off a lawsuit filed in April by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The state court action alleges that Direct Revenue crossed a legal line by installing advertising programs in millions of computers without users' consent. Shining a light on the shadowy spyware trade, the suit asserts that the company violated New York civil laws against false advertising, computer tampering, and trespassing.
Why aren't these guys in jail? Computer tampering is a federal felony criminal offense. If one of the infected computers ends up being a government machine, under the USA Patriot Act, this could be a capital crime. Why is the NY AG dicking around with some boneheaded civil lawsuit? They should march into the offices with federal marshalls and put these guys in chains.
Except now your personal information is being bought and sold all over the world. You've been identified as a receptive consumer who will get listed in company databases and get even more dead trees mailed to you and telephone solicitations.
The same thing happens when you fill out warranty registration cards. That info goes into a database that the company sells to other companies to make extra money.
Plus, while you're wasting lots of time keeping track of the little dingleberries corporate america has promised you, we are on to the next thing.
Rebates are a tax on stupidity and laziness. People fall for those schemes, which assume your time, effort, postage, privacy and personal information are worth less than the rebate amount. It's really sad to see people pander to a scheme that is clearly false and misleading advertising. It's good that OfficeMax finally dropped this scheme, but you know they only did so because they got tired of upset customers harassing them looking for rebate checks that never showed up. So don't think for a minute this corporation is listening to consumers' demands in favor of profitability. It obviously became less profitable to mislead consumers than not, so they dropped the program.
Which god are you talking about? The one you created? Or the one created in the mind of someone else? You are aware that Nostradamus was a wanker who really didn't have a track record of being able to make accurate, detailed predictions?
The point is, money and power is what motivates these people, not little whining constitutients. There are ways to effect change, but the traditional outlets are ineffective, so if you haven't figured that out, you might as well sit on your ass with some cheetos.
Slashdot Mirror
...Idiots. They've basically watched their entire knowledge base die, disintegrate and retire of the past 30 years, and only /NOW/ they're doing something about it.
Hey, look on the bright side... back then those poor people only had one kind of Coca Cola. Now we have Diet Coke, Vanilla Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Cherry Coke and more! We're still exploring the horizons. They've just dipped a little lower.
A few months ago, one of the old Apollo monitoring stations went on sale and we went to look at this unique property. A building in the middle of nowhere up on a mountain, with a six-story-high satellite dish. It was amazing and awe-inspiring to crawl through this rusted dinosaur skeleton of a bygone era. There wasn't much left of the place when I visited, but I felt proud just to be standing on the hallowed ground where great minds plotted of men flying through space and landing on the moon. Now on this site, sits a big obnoxious cell tower. It's kind of sad that kids today don't look up at the stars.
I cannot imagine America having the resources to land on the moon successfully now. Our society was different back then. Science was something to revere. Now we are more concerned with American Idol.
You're last paragraph sounds like you're the one pulling the ripcord. Or did I misinterpret the evidence? This conversation seems to upset you alot.
I, like many, are tired of religious nutballs promoting their delusions publicly. God does not belong in science, nor government. The misguided mental abherrations you espouse are responsible for a vast majority of the immoral behavior perpetrated by mankind. I don't like it. If I thought for a moment you actually were interested in some meaningful debate, I might engage you, but the fact that you completely ignored the substance of my initial response proves you are closed minded. I don't have to show you consideration that you would not show me, so why waste time?
Let's review... you spit out some drivel claiming that both theology and science rely on "faith". I countered with a substantive argument, as well as a challenge and my own counter-theory. Your response? You cut-and-paste a few choice words from my response and criticize semantics and the manner in which the message was delivered, completely ignoring the message and the substance of the main argument, which I quite effectively refuted.
This path leads me to the scientific conclusion that you sir, are a moron.
Yes, it is just a theory. No, I don't have "faith" that you are a moron. The evidence supports it as a natural conclusion and as of yet, there is no counter evidence to dispute that claim. Also note that just because you're more "polite" than I am in expressing yourself, does in no way detract from the moronic nature of the points and subsequent counter-points you've made.
You're words speak for themselves.
I don't have you confused with anyone. That's a conversion to an ad hominem attack.
Congrats Captain Obvious. Do you have a point to make? Or are you just testing your keyboard, and my patience?
Suffice to say, someone can troll up an exception to every statement ever made. It doesn't mean such exceptions are worthy of discussion, much less statistically significant. You are a troll.
In theory, "a scientist is always willing to admit his theory is wrong if the evidence does not support it." This is the ideal of science. But not a single scientist can live this way. No one human being has the time or resources to personally look into the results of all the studies, verify all the experiments, etc, that have been done to support (and in some cases disprove) current scientific theories. Every single one of them holds on to their current set of acceptable theories by faith. Thus, every single scientist holds on to most of what they believe in the faith that what they've been told by others is accurate. It is only in those scientific endeavors that the particular scientist has directly been involved with that they can hold confidence, and this will always be only a tiny fraction of the pieces needed to support belief in evolution or any other theory.
Look at your own life. Have you personally verified every experiment that supports your current set of beliefs? How can you be so confident in what you believe in, then? Because you inherently trust those who taught you what you now believe. You have trusted them and have placed faith in what they've told you. Sure, you may have looked into a few published papers and tried a few experiments yourself, but the vast majority of your beliefs are held by faith.
That's not my definition of faith. Faith as defined by theists is a completely different animal -- an excuse to ignore logic and evidence. Scientists do not use the term "faith" because it is most often used to describe a belief that is absent evidence. Even accepted scientific ideals that I haven't personally tested myself, can be tested if I so decide to pursue it, and if evidence indicated that some established presupposition wasn't holding up, then it would be prudent to re-examine such a theory. This simply is not done with regard to theist beliefs. Apples and oranges.
Here's an example. Time and time again, people have said jesus is returning. Every few months there's some prophetic proclaimation by some fundamentalist, which ultimately turns out to be false. Do you religious people, in light of the constant, overwhelming evidence indicating that biblical and theistic prophecy is erroneous, decide to go back and re-examine the legitimacy of these beliefs? Nope. Instead, these people bury their heads in the sand and claim that those who don't believe lack "faith", which is their way of advertising their closed-mindedness. Any scientist who so proudly proclaimed such irrational philosophies in the face of non-existent evidence would be laughed at by his peers and the rest of the thinking world. Just because there are some idiots like this, does not mean they are worthy of being recognized, nor that their irrational theories have any credibility. They do not.
Just because you can tote up one guy with a PhD (employed by Shell Oil) to claim "his research" in global warming shows it not happening, does in no way diminish the overwhelming greater body of evidence by the scientific community refuting such a claim. Why these fringe elements get "equal time" is a testament to the power corporations hold in our society, and no measure whatsoever, of their credibility.
preposterous... bullshit.... always.... excuse
Good logical debate approach there....
You have me confused with someone who might be naive enough to think that there can be any sort of productive debate with a theist who claims to have a monopoly on "truth."
I'm sorry. I have better things to do than engage someone in an argument that will ultimately end with them pulling "faith" ripcord and jumping ship.
Why Do You Believe in God?
Have you ever asked yourself
I mean seriously asked yourself?
Pierre Charron once noted that we are baptised or circumcised a Christian or a Jew, long before we are even aware we are a human.
Is it any wonder then that, through early indoctrination while the critical mind is still developing, we almost without exception go on to inherit the precise religion of our parents or surrounding culture?
No, of course not - its only natural. But that doesnt say much for the actual truth of that particular religion, does it?
Don't be afraid to question:
The Truth is never embarrassed by honest enquiry
150 years ago: the abolition of slavery
100 years ago: the emancipation of women
50 years ago: inter-racial marriage
Today: same-sex relationships
Why is it that the church always has to be dragged kicking and screaming (by secular outrage) towards the tolerance and compassion that, ironically, it claims to hold a monopoly on?
Morality
Contrary to what your church may have told you, atheists do not automatically turn to hedonism and anarchy. In fact, those who suggest that a man must be ethically restrained by a religion reveal, quite frankly, just how deep-seated their own morals are.
It is an easy target for the church to blame society's ills on man's inevitable shelving of the god myth. But the fact remains that there is a fraction of the immorality now than there was when the church had complete, unchallenged influence over every aspect of society.
This was a time of Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch- and heretic burnings.
It was a period known as the Dark Ages, and that they truly were both morally and intellectually.
The Ten Commandments are woefully inadequate as a moral guide:
The first four are blatant religious propaganda - basically a plug for the Hebrew God.
The remaining six are dangerously held up as exhaustive and inspired by those who apparently haven't read them. For example, one wonders how 'lying' and 'envy' make the big list of don'ts, but not rape, torture, child abuse, racism, slavery. And surely nobody still seriously believes that black and white moral guidelines are of much use in a greyscale world. &Thou shalt not kill& - but what about in genuine self-defense? &Thou shalt not bear false witness & - but what about lying to the Nazi officer who asks if you are hiding Jews? True morality requires judging each case on its own merits, not just overlaying the same clumsy morality stencil on everything.
Prayer
To the critical mind, it seems that the proportion of prayers that are specifically answered do not deviate too far from what the simple law of averages would suggest.
Having never prayed in my life, I can certainly attest to having a better than fair share of good fortune.
Regardless, what never fails to surprise me is the egotism and arrogance of the Christian who, by praying for divine favour or intervention, actually calls doubt on the very wisdom of their god!
Who told you that you were a sinner?
Your church? But wait, don't fret! There's a magic cure, and your church just happens to have it! (Of course some might suggest that your church has merely cut you in order to sell you a band-aid.....)
Did Adam and Eve sin?
They disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Right and Wrong). So, yes..... Right?
Just one problem. How could Adam and Eve have been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of wrong, evil, punishment, suffering, pain, and death?
Even if God had been successful in adequately explaining all of these concepts and the distinction between right and wrong to them beforehand, this means that he would have had to have given them knowledge of good and evil anyway, which turns this entire story into one big ridiculous farce.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not
It does not matter how strongly you believe that this is nonsense. It does not matter how strongly you use evolution to prove that this cannot be true and will not happen. You, the one reading this, will stand before that throne and will be judged.
With all due respect, fuck you, and your delusion.
It's your "holy book", not mine.
It's your "ten commandments", not mine.
It's your Jeebus Christ, not mine.
It's your hell, so YOU GO AHEAD AND BURN IN IT! You won't see me there, because I don't believe in that fairy tale crap. No amount of self-righteous fear-mongering verbal or written regurgitation on your part will change my reality, so keep your delusions to yourself... UNDERSTAND?
I don't give a crap if you believe in jesus, allah, yaweh, ra, elvis, bigfoot or joseph smith. Believe whatever you want to believe. But you cross the line when you invade my space with your irrational, self-righteous, arrogant GIBBERISH. If heaven is such a great reward, keep it for yourself. Some of us don't give a flying fuck about your fantasy shit.
And let's establish something here.... What the fuck did your "jesus" do for you? Really? What goddam "sacrifice" does a diety make who "dies" and then comes back to life? If it was really a sacrifice, he'd stay dead. This is like me clipping my fingernails to forgive you idiots of your sins... and the whole notion of someone inheiriting the sins of their ancestors is another backwards belief. There's nothing consistent, nor moral about the goofy ass dogma you preach, so keep it to yourself so I and others don't have to call you out for being a babbling idiot.
If you disagree, then we'll wait and let "gawd" sort it out, ok? But stop your boneheaded preaching.
It's preposterous to compare religion and science as both similar in terms of requiring faith. That's bullshit.
In science, a scientist is always willing to admit his theory is wrong if the evidence does not support it. In theology, people use faith as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming lack of evidence for their god. I can show you thousands of logical, substantive pieces of evidence to show that what you believe, especially if it's any flavor of christianity, is neither rational, nor moral, much less consistent. And after being shown this overwhelming mountain of evidence, would you admit your theory may be wrong? NOPE. There's your faith... which has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific process.
It's about time we all evolved.
It's about time we drop religion. It's obsolete. It's a remnant from another time when man looked up at the sky and didn't see planets, stars, water vaper, and atmospheric events, but instead the "hammer of Thor" or "Ra", or the "firmament of heaven."
Religion has value in society, but should be as far away from science as possible. Belief in supernatural is the quickest way to neuter the progress of mankind, and history has demonstrated this over and over, and over, and over and over.
Print this and share it among your friends (also pdf version). Stick this on your car. Let's encourage others to evolve beyond the dark ages of cowering under the rock at the angry gods that are now called "weather."
She was using a government network and resources that were undoubtedly made available for this very purpose. The WAP article states that the CIA allows and supports such blogs and sees their value. She just crossed a line with content, not with her use of time or resources.
1. Wait...
2. EU's windows-based PCs are infected with viruses and crash causing loss of all records relating to fines against Microsoft.
3. Profit!!
The official name is "entropy" and it's a bitch.
Unlike global warming, there isn't even any debate in the oil industry, much less the scientific world.
There is no debate on the global warming issue either. Don't you have something better to do, like lick Karl Rove's ass instead of posting here?
Just wait... Apathy 2.0 is coming out real soon.
Wrong. Embed tags need to be approved by Myspace. They don't get posted immediately.
Way to go... let's marginalize every single attempt to seek out alternative power sources. This way we can be married to oil for that much longer. Look on the bright side.. your kids get to see the middle east.
I've been thinking about this alot lately, and why *not* make Site Operator's or ISP's liable for the client's activities?
This is a very bad idea. Telecommunications companies enjoy what is called "common carrier status" meaning they are not responsible typically for the nature of the content across their networks. Instead, they are merely "common carriers." Can you imagine AT&T being charged because of a discussion over their long distance service that ended up involving illegal activity? The first time you make a carrier responsible for the activity on their network, you require all carriers to monitor everyone's traffic in order to avoid liability. That's the end of any remaining semblance of privacy or personal security any of us have.
Direct Revenue has struggled to fend off a lawsuit filed in April by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The state court action alleges that Direct Revenue crossed a legal line by installing advertising programs in millions of computers without users' consent. Shining a light on the shadowy spyware trade, the suit asserts that the company violated New York civil laws against false advertising, computer tampering, and trespassing.
Why aren't these guys in jail? Computer tampering is a federal felony criminal offense. If one of the infected computers ends up being a government machine, under the USA Patriot Act, this could be a capital crime. Why is the NY AG dicking around with some boneheaded civil lawsuit? They should march into the offices with federal marshalls and put these guys in chains.
Except now your personal information is being bought and sold all over the world. You've been identified as a receptive consumer who will get listed in company databases and get even more dead trees mailed to you and telephone solicitations.
The same thing happens when you fill out warranty registration cards. That info goes into a database that the company sells to other companies to make extra money.
Plus, while you're wasting lots of time keeping track of the little dingleberries corporate america has promised you, we are on to the next thing.
It's not a cheaper price when you factor in the value of your time and other resources.
Rebates are a tax on stupidity and laziness. People fall for those schemes, which assume your time, effort, postage, privacy and personal information are worth less than the rebate amount. It's really sad to see people pander to a scheme that is clearly false and misleading advertising. It's good that OfficeMax finally dropped this scheme, but you know they only did so because they got tired of upset customers harassing them looking for rebate checks that never showed up. So don't think for a minute this corporation is listening to consumers' demands in favor of profitability. It obviously became less profitable to mislead consumers than not, so they dropped the program.
Which god are you talking about? The one you created? Or the one created in the mind of someone else? You are aware that Nostradamus was a wanker who really didn't have a track record of being able to make accurate, detailed predictions?
You might as well... all your contemporaries are.
The point is, money and power is what motivates these people, not little whining constitutients. There are ways to effect change, but the traditional outlets are ineffective, so if you haven't figured that out, you might as well sit on your ass with some cheetos.