This statement on/. is getting to be like Godwin's Law. I'm hereby naming it "Martorana's Law" (that's my last name) - within any discussion of Science, there is an ~90% chance that someone will take the opportunity to take a swipe at ID.
Its a perfectly valid swipe; seems the same nutcases that ignore science believe that we can't possibly affect the earth, and that it was created by god. Its the same thing really; ignoring science and pushing your own beliefs. And that's exactly wht this thread is about.
To quote something I have read in a book - "to beleive that the human race has the power or even the potential to destroy the earth is absolute arogance"
Right, lets just ignore the nuclear weapons, which, at the height of the cold war, I'm quite certain were capable of destroying the earth.
Sorry, its not arrogance, we DO have the power to destroy the earth.
if you're pirating a song instead of buying it, that's not exactly good business for the record label, is it?
It depends. If someone downloads a song they never would have bought, what exactly has the label lost? You seem to ignore the fact that its just as likely that a downloader wouldn't buy the song as it is that they would. Given that they may or may not have lost a sale, the punishment seems even more excessive than it should be.
No, there aren't. Theft is taking something without paying.
Theft also involves depriving the orginal owner of something. Which can't be done when an identical copy is made. Did I steal a BMW if I used a Star Trek like replecator to make one from a scan of an existing one?
In music piracy (a special case of copyright infringement), you took music without paying for it.
A) There is no such thing as music piracy. Its a term to try and make copyright infringment take on a more menecing sentimate. There is no such thing as 'a specal case of copyright infringement). You made an unauthorized copy; you did not TAKE anything.
Hrm, I want to find this country. There are a few people I know who I'd kill for $4k.
The $4k is the amount of the settlement. The law has much harser fines. For example, recent DVDs claim that you can be fine $500,000 PER COPY for copyright infringement in addition to 5 years in jail PER COPY.
The person accused has given up their right to defend herself in court and in doing so has all but admitted to 'wrong doing.'
I don't think so. Just because you don't have the money to fight something and thus choose to settle does not mean you admit wrong doing. Even in a criminal case, you have the option of pleading no contest; you'll accept the punishment but are not admitting guilt.
Why is his argument weak? The whole problem the RIAA has is with someone listening to music they didn't pay for. If he downloads then buys the CD, how have they lost revenue? If he dowloads, doesn't like it and deletes it, again, how have they lost revenue? Or are they entitled to make money for a product a consumer doesn't like?
Actually I don't think making copies of songs should bankrupt anyone. There are some many problems with equating copyright infringment with theft I can't see how any reasonable person would try to do so.
Does anyone else see a problem where a country punishes people more for copyright infringment than murder?
A mythological text is not a scientfic source. You stated earlier that science backed up Genesis, and now I'm asking you to cite those studies.
"Let there be light."
That phrase proves nothing. The people that wrote the bible would of course pick that a god created light.. light represents good typically (and supposedly god is good), so they would not have said 'let there be darkness' because that would be bringing evil into the world. All the phrase proves is that man decided years ago that dark was evil and light was good, probably because we can see much better in the day and have more chance of surviving preditors. Sounds like our linking good with light and evil with dark is more evolution than anything else.
a) Tired? It was invented, what, four months ago?
No, I first studied it in college in 1997. The theory goes back much further.
b) I have no idea what "intelligent design theory" is. I've never studied it or read about it anywhere.
That however was the agrument you presented. 'Look at how complex things are. It couldn't have randomly came into being, something must have engineered it.' I believe the classical form of the argument is this: You find a watch. It keeps time so precesly and it so much more complex then anything you've found yet, it must have been built by something.
That question has already been answered. 500 years ago, the most advanced science in the world believed the sun revolved around the Earth. It is supremely arrogant of humanity to believe they have even the remotest understanding of anything at all in this universe.
I'd hardly call what existed 500 years ago science. True we don't understand everything, but we've learned quite a bit. As it is, we have no proof that the matter just popped out of nowhere and then exploded.. the theory as I understand doesn't state from where that matter came. Either way it doesn't really matter if that mass was there always or if it just 'appeared', you don't need to add a god into the mix, because you have the same problems... where exactly did god come from? well, the answer to that based on the evidence we have is that we created the idea of god.
If you want to gripe about paying too many taxes, write your senator that you're sick of paying for $500 hammers and $10000 toilet seats.
Or we could cut the military, remove the censoring portion of the FCC, stop wiretapping everyone that a suspect called because of a wrong number and stop handing out money to people who sit on thier ass all day.
If a small company, perhaps 50 people, has a database of even just 50,000 credit card numbers stolen, the fines you suggest could easily ruin the company. That could lead to at least 50 people who are now unemployed, and potentially many more as the effect ripples through the economy.
Its unlikely a buisiness of 50 would have 50,000 credit card numbers. Its also probably not even necessary for them to keep the numbers once they receive their money. Also, the lost of 50 people likely won't have much, if any, effect on the local economy (unless of course there's only 60 people in the town).
You can't trespass on his property of course, or steal his garbage
Actually you can take his garbage, once its out for pickup. And if you can't trespass on another's property, why do so many come onto my and leave their trash (deliver menus, polictial flyers, etc).
What? How? You can't just pretend those documents say something they don't. Well, you shouldn't.
I believe the 6th amendment's intent is pretty clear, even just going by the wording of it. I also don't think you should read the Constitution or its amendments in a vacuum; you should know the context from which they came about.
Personally I don't know why corporations can override your rights anyway; the government can't take away your right to bear arms, but an apartment building owner can?
What makes you think that?
You don't think Coca Cola would sue if its formula were posted on the web?
What is the advantage to having regulation be "implied, understood, and common practice" as opposed to clearly spelling it out in statute?
What is the advantage to having to spell out every possible thing you can do that is 'wrong'? One advantage to thinking rationally about the purpose or intent of a law is that you don't end up criminalizing everything in your attempt to spell it all out.
Even the most carefully written legislation can be interperated differently by different people. By the way, we currently DO try to spell out everything, and look what its gotten us; so many laws noboday can say for certain they haven't violated one.
Because we have scientific data that shows the universe had a beginning. You know what's interesting? The story of Genesis, read as an allegory, is nearly perfectly consistent with our current understanding of how the universe began.
hmmm....
Source please? The last theory I heard about the beginning of the universe was the 'big bang theory.' The universe was all matter lumped together and exploded. Of course the theory doesn't state why there was all this matter in one mass, it doesn't explain how long it was there to begin with, nor does it explain what the universe was surrounded by before the explosion. It seems to be accepted however that all that matter was 'just there.'
People know on a subconscious level that there is a Creator. The signature is on every particle in the universe. Only people who have lost their sense of wonder will miss the obvious existence of a Creator. Look at a honeybee some time. If the entire productive output of the human race were channeled into one project, we could never replicate a creature as simple (relatively speaking) as a single honeybee. The human eye is a fantastically advanced and engineered structure. A peregrine falcon can catch an insect smaller than a housefly at speeds of nearly 200 MPH. A cheetah can outrun freeway traffic. Sea anemones can live at depths that would crush iron.
Now imagine the intellect that, with the basic elements and four forces, engineered it all starting with one superheated mass 15 billion years ago.
Ahh, the tired old intelligent design theory. Its funny how much of the bible should be taken literally when it suits ones purpose, and as a story when it becomes too ridiculous to believe. Why is it that believers in god always have to rewrite thier beliefs when science disproves them? Again, if you believe god 'just existed', why can't you believe the universe just existed, without a god building it?
At anyrate, ID is junk because you're trying to take mysticism and make it sound scientific. Which is more likely? Given finite mass and infinite time, that all combinations will naturally come to be, or that some fictional character (whose existance we can't explain) put it together like a puzzle?
No, it certainly does NOT prove that "god" reveils himself on his own terms.
For the study to prove that you have to prove that god does in fact exist to begin with and that isn't the case at the moment.
We do not consider the mystery of the fact that anything exists at all.
I've certainly thought about it. Of course if you're question on where the universe came from, I don't see why you'd conclude a god created it. After all, if the universe had to created from something, they why wouldn't god have to be? If god just always existed, why couldn't the universe? The fact that the universe does exist certainly doesn't prove that god exists.
We label as irrational, unscientific bigots anyone who dares question the "fact" that the universe just randomly popped into existence from nothingness
I think they get labeled that because they claim this god made the universe. Why do you need a god to create the universe, after all, he couldn't just have popped out of nothingness either, right? Why can god just always exist, but the universe can't? Why claim that's how it happened, this god just always existed (and never question that), and he created the universe? Sounds like you're adding an extra layer for no reason. If you can accept that god just is, why can't it be the universe just is, without the need to say something created it?
We possess the wisdom to devise a scientific, 'controlled' study to see how an intelligent, omniscient being (who knows the purpose of the study) will respond to it
I don't think they were trying to see how an intelligent omniscient being responded to us... I think they were trying to measure the effects of how our perceptions altered recovery.
There are a bunch of other problems with believing in an omniscient and omnipresent being too. For example, if he supposedly knows everything we're going to do, how can we possibly have free will, since before we are even born he knows we're going to heaven or hell? After all, if someone already knows everything we are going to do, how can we choose not to do those things?
Believe me, you don't need any push to go off and start looking for sex. It happens automatically and in ever species. Its more likely that kids get an urge to find more about sex and then find porn.
The rest of your post can apply to anything; video games, reading, watching tv, eating, etc. I fail to see how porn is any different. By and large its parents that shape a childs attitude toward the opposite sex, not magazines. Parents also have a great role in influencing everything else in a childs life. If someone is screwed up, its not because of something they watched, read, heard or played, its some other problem.
Also, it built the movie industry, the VCR market, the DVD market, the CDrom drive market, the webcam market. There's probably more, but I think thats enough for now.
Thank god they haven't touched satellite radio (well, XM anyway.. Sirius can't do channel blocking, and I think the FCC is watching them more closely).
In the US, I'd think most living room TVs are 24" or greater. I have a 24" TV in my bedroom, and a 36" TV for the living room. After 36", it is considered a big screen TV (I believe).
Wal-Mart sells a huge variety of well-known well-regarded quality brands.... including Apple and Sony. If Apple and Sony are crap, than EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT EVERYWHERE is crap.
Did you miss the part where Levi's makes a seperate, lower quality product line just for Walmart? I'm positive Apple and Sony do the same, which is one reason I steer clear of Walmart. I don't want to waste money on cheap junk that will break after only a few uses.
The problem there seems to be that the machines were told to print after the voting was done. If you print the ballot for each voter, then have the voter turn in that sheet, you have a paper trail which could be read by another machine.
I don't see why this can't be done; you eliminate the problems of paper voting (small text, 'hanging chads') and you still have a record of votes which anyone could verify.
Not sure if you honestly don't understand the post or not, but there are 40 to 50 items on which to vote. So some questions will be for filling various offices (like school boards) others will be laws or a way to give those in office an idea how people stand on the issue.
For example, besides electing a new mayor, we voted on what is to be done with a vacant building on the waterfront, whether to keep floride in the city water system, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the literal understanding of Genesis is the most likely explanation of what happened...and/or may be figurative or symbolic or something"
So, which is it? Literal or figurative? Because it can't be both.
This statement on /. is getting to be like Godwin's Law. I'm hereby naming it "Martorana's Law" (that's my last name) - within any discussion of Science, there is an ~90% chance that someone will take the opportunity to take a swipe at ID.
Its a perfectly valid swipe; seems the same nutcases that ignore science believe that we can't possibly affect the earth, and that it was created by god. Its the same thing really; ignoring science and pushing your own beliefs. And that's exactly wht this thread is about.
In fact, volcanic eruptions have contributed more CO2 and SO2 gasses than man himself in totality.
Yes, if you take the MILLIONS of years for which volcanos have been erupting you are right.
Now, lets compare the CO2 emissions from volcanos in the same time period, say the last 100 years or so.
To quote something I have read in a book - "to beleive that the human race has the power or even the potential to destroy the earth is absolute arogance"
Right, lets just ignore the nuclear weapons, which, at the height of the cold war, I'm quite certain were capable of destroying the earth.
Sorry, its not arrogance, we DO have the power to destroy the earth.
So you really think the labels should lock up the OP because he violated the DMCA? I think he'd have a hard time buying CDs in jail.
Fact is the DMCA is law that should have never been passed; it screws the consumer without any real benefit to them.
if you're pirating a song instead of buying it, that's not exactly good business for the record label, is it?
It depends. If someone downloads a song they never would have bought, what exactly has the label lost? You seem to ignore the fact that its just as likely that a downloader wouldn't buy the song as it is that they would. Given that they may or may not have lost a sale, the punishment seems even more excessive than it should be.
No, there aren't. Theft is taking something without paying.
Theft also involves depriving the orginal owner of something. Which can't be done when an identical copy is made. Did I steal a BMW if I used a Star Trek like replecator to make one from a scan of an existing one?
In music piracy (a special case of copyright infringement), you took music without paying for it.
A) There is no such thing as music piracy. Its a term to try and make copyright infringment take on a more menecing sentimate. There is no such thing as 'a specal case of copyright infringement). You made an unauthorized copy; you did not TAKE anything.
Hrm, I want to find this country. There are a few people I know who I'd kill for $4k.
The $4k is the amount of the settlement. The law has much harser fines. For example, recent DVDs claim that you can be fine $500,000 PER COPY for copyright infringement in addition to 5 years in jail PER COPY.
First, the fines I've heard have been much higher for copyright infringment than you state.
Secondly, while murder should land you in prision for life, you're typically out in a few years. Some have been known to be out in 10.
The person accused has given up their right to defend herself in court and in doing so has all but admitted to 'wrong doing.'
I don't think so. Just because you don't have the money to fight something and thus choose to settle does not mean you admit wrong doing. Even in a criminal case, you have the option of pleading no contest; you'll accept the punishment but are not admitting guilt.
Why is his argument weak? The whole problem the RIAA has is with someone listening to music they didn't pay for. If he downloads then buys the CD, how have they lost revenue? If he dowloads, doesn't like it and deletes it, again, how have they lost revenue? Or are they entitled to make money for a product a consumer doesn't like?
Actually I don't think making copies of songs should bankrupt anyone. There are some many problems with equating copyright infringment with theft I can't see how any reasonable person would try to do so.
Does anyone else see a problem where a country punishes people more for copyright infringment than murder?
Genesis, Chapter One.
A mythological text is not a scientfic source. You stated earlier that science backed up Genesis, and now I'm asking you to cite those studies.
"Let there be light."
That phrase proves nothing. The people that wrote the bible would of course pick that a god created light.. light represents good typically (and supposedly god is good), so they would not have said 'let there be darkness' because that would be bringing evil into the world. All the phrase proves is that man decided years ago that dark was evil and light was good, probably because we can see much better in the day and have more chance of surviving preditors. Sounds like our linking good with light and evil with dark is more evolution than anything else.
a) Tired? It was invented, what, four months ago?
No, I first studied it in college in 1997. The theory goes back much further.
b) I have no idea what "intelligent design theory" is. I've never studied it or read about it anywhere.
That however was the agrument you presented. 'Look at how complex things are. It couldn't have randomly came into being, something must have engineered it.' I believe the classical form of the argument is this: You find a watch. It keeps time so precesly and it so much more complex then anything you've found yet, it must have been built by something.
That question has already been answered. 500 years ago, the most advanced science in the world believed the sun revolved around the Earth. It is supremely arrogant of humanity to believe they have even the remotest understanding of anything at all in this universe.
I'd hardly call what existed 500 years ago science. True we don't understand everything, but we've learned quite a bit. As it is, we have no proof that the matter just popped out of nowhere and then exploded.. the theory as I understand doesn't state from where that matter came. Either way it doesn't really matter if that mass was there always or if it just 'appeared', you don't need to add a god into the mix, because you have the same problems... where exactly did god come from? well, the answer to that based on the evidence we have is that we created the idea of god.
If you want to gripe about paying too many taxes, write your senator that you're sick of paying for $500 hammers and $10000 toilet seats.
Or we could cut the military, remove the censoring portion of the FCC, stop wiretapping everyone that a suspect called because of a wrong number and stop handing out money to people who sit on thier ass all day.
If a small company, perhaps 50 people, has a database of even just 50,000 credit card numbers stolen, the fines you suggest could easily ruin the company. That could lead to at least 50 people who are now unemployed, and potentially many more as the effect ripples through the economy.
Its unlikely a buisiness of 50 would have 50,000 credit card numbers. Its also probably not even necessary for them to keep the numbers once they receive their money. Also, the lost of 50 people likely won't have much, if any, effect on the local economy (unless of course there's only 60 people in the town).
You can't trespass on his property of course, or steal his garbage
Actually you can take his garbage, once its out for pickup. And if you can't trespass on another's property, why do so many come onto my and leave their trash (deliver menus, polictial flyers, etc).
What? How? You can't just pretend those documents say something they don't. Well, you shouldn't.
I believe the 6th amendment's intent is pretty clear, even just going by the wording of it. I also don't think you should read the Constitution or its amendments in a vacuum; you should know the context from which they came about.
Personally I don't know why corporations can override your rights anyway; the government can't take away your right to bear arms, but an apartment building owner can?
What makes you think that?
You don't think Coca Cola would sue if its formula were posted on the web?
What is the advantage to having regulation be "implied, understood, and common practice" as opposed to clearly spelling it out in statute?
What is the advantage to having to spell out every possible thing you can do that is 'wrong'? One advantage to thinking rationally about the purpose or intent of a law is that you don't end up criminalizing everything in your attempt to spell it all out.
Even the most carefully written legislation can be interperated differently by different people. By the way, we currently DO try to spell out everything, and look what its gotten us; so many laws noboday can say for certain they haven't violated one.
Because we have scientific data that shows the universe had a beginning. You know what's interesting? The story of Genesis, read as an allegory, is nearly perfectly consistent with our current understanding of how the universe began.
hmmm....
Source please? The last theory I heard about the beginning of the universe was the 'big bang theory.' The universe was all matter lumped together and exploded. Of course the theory doesn't state why there was all this matter in one mass, it doesn't explain how long it was there to begin with, nor does it explain what the universe was surrounded by before the explosion. It seems to be accepted however that all that matter was 'just there.'
People know on a subconscious level that there is a Creator. The signature is on every particle in the universe. Only people who have lost their sense of wonder will miss the obvious existence of a Creator. Look at a honeybee some time. If the entire productive output of the human race were channeled into one project, we could never replicate a creature as simple (relatively speaking) as a single honeybee. The human eye is a fantastically advanced and engineered structure. A peregrine falcon can catch an insect smaller than a housefly at speeds of nearly 200 MPH. A cheetah can outrun freeway traffic. Sea anemones can live at depths that would crush iron.
Now imagine the intellect that, with the basic elements and four forces, engineered it all starting with one superheated mass 15 billion years ago.
Ahh, the tired old intelligent design theory. Its funny how much of the bible should be taken literally when it suits ones purpose, and as a story when it becomes too ridiculous to believe. Why is it that believers in god always have to rewrite thier beliefs when science disproves them? Again, if you believe god 'just existed', why can't you believe the universe just existed, without a god building it?
At anyrate, ID is junk because you're trying to take mysticism and make it sound scientific. Which is more likely? Given finite mass and infinite time, that all combinations will naturally come to be, or that some fictional character (whose existance we can't explain) put it together like a puzzle?
No, it certainly does NOT prove that "god" reveils himself on his own terms.
For the study to prove that you have to prove that god does in fact exist to begin with and that isn't the case at the moment.
We do not consider the mystery of the fact that anything exists at all.
I've certainly thought about it. Of course if you're question on where the universe came from, I don't see why you'd conclude a god created it. After all, if the universe had to created from something, they why wouldn't god have to be? If god just always existed, why couldn't the universe? The fact that the universe does exist certainly doesn't prove that god exists.
We label as irrational, unscientific bigots anyone who dares question the "fact" that the universe just randomly popped into existence from nothingness
I think they get labeled that because they claim this god made the universe. Why do you need a god to create the universe, after all, he couldn't just have popped out of nothingness either, right? Why can god just always exist, but the universe can't? Why claim that's how it happened, this god just always existed (and never question that), and he created the universe? Sounds like you're adding an extra layer for no reason. If you can accept that god just is, why can't it be the universe just is, without the need to say something created it?
We possess the wisdom to devise a scientific, 'controlled' study to see how an intelligent, omniscient being (who knows the purpose of the study) will respond to it
I don't think they were trying to see how an intelligent omniscient being responded to us... I think they were trying to measure the effects of how our perceptions altered recovery.
There are a bunch of other problems with believing in an omniscient and omnipresent being too. For example, if he supposedly knows everything we're going to do, how can we possibly have free will, since before we are even born he knows we're going to heaven or hell? After all, if someone already knows everything we are going to do, how can we choose not to do those things?
This is slashdot, not an IRC chat however. Using pr0n here is just stupid.
I think you should reconsider your opinions here.
Believe me, you don't need any push to go off and start looking for sex. It happens automatically and in ever species. Its more likely that kids get an urge to find more about sex and then find porn.
The rest of your post can apply to anything; video games, reading, watching tv, eating, etc. I fail to see how porn is any different. By and large its parents that shape a childs attitude toward the opposite sex, not magazines. Parents also have a great role in influencing everything else in a childs life. If someone is screwed up, its not because of something they watched, read, heard or played, its some other problem.
Also, it built the movie industry, the VCR market, the DVD market, the CDrom drive market, the webcam market. There's probably more, but I think thats enough for now.
Thank god they haven't touched satellite radio (well, XM anyway.. Sirius can't do channel blocking, and I think the FCC is watching them more closely).
In the US, I'd think most living room TVs are 24" or greater. I have a 24" TV in my bedroom, and a 36" TV for the living room. After 36", it is considered a big screen TV (I believe).
Did you miss the part where Levi's makes a seperate, lower quality product line just for Walmart? I'm positive Apple and Sony do the same, which is one reason I steer clear of Walmart. I don't want to waste money on cheap junk that will break after only a few uses.
The problem there seems to be that the machines were told to print after the voting was done. If you print the ballot for each voter, then have the voter turn in that sheet, you have a paper trail which could be read by another machine.
I don't see why this can't be done; you eliminate the problems of paper voting (small text, 'hanging chads') and you still have a record of votes which anyone could verify.
Not sure if you honestly don't understand the post or not, but there are 40 to 50 items on which to vote. So some questions will be for filling various offices (like school boards) others will be laws or a way to give those in office an idea how people stand on the issue.
For example, besides electing a new mayor, we voted on what is to be done with a vacant building on the waterfront, whether to keep floride in the city water system, etc.