You know, without defenitions of what 'oppresive' means to these people, or at least an example other than the vauge, 'America is oppresive!' 'Everyone's oppresive!' statements, no one is going to understand what any of you really mean. You may find that you agree with each other and you are fighting over the same thing and stop fighting...
...unless you are fighting simply for the sake of debate... um, carry on...
"Why would Time Warner want to screw AOL? Hmmm... what is going on behind the scenes? Or is this a sign that AOL is changing its strategy?"
Just a thought... but it is usually standard practice for a 'dying' company's CEO's or Board of Directors to 'try' a separate or new strategy to guide the company some other direction. Then they give themselves huge bonuses for the brainpower they expended, regardless of whether their 'new strategy' worked or not. When it doesn't work, they get fired, get a good separation package, and leave someone else holding the bag. Standard procedure is usually some variation on this.
While I understand this is a severely cynical view, could it be that TW is trying to loose the 'ol' ball and chain' that they see forming in AOL? The time to sell a company is when it is still going good, but the future looks grim - so you get maximum pay-off, and someone else takes the hit.
I agree with you 100% but I see a problem: As Far As I understand, most of these 'big' artists are under years of contract. That kind of motivates them to stay put. I have no idea what kind of punishments the record labels would have for breaking contract, but from the way they are acting now... I wouldn't want to find out.
If a big name does decide to 'succeede' I'm afraid it will be a few years until they can.
No. Supply and Demand does not apply to data - least of all on the internet; the 'supply' is endless so demand has no bearing. The idea is that the perception of demand, or lack thereof, will be set by the record lables -- in an effort to control public opinion and song popularity. As I understand it; $.99 would be the basement price, no lower. (ie. "no one listenes to that song, why would I pay $.99 for a worthless song? Hey, that song is $2.45, ooh... *click*)
Wow. I don't know what to say. You totally missed my point, like many other close-minded scientists who can't accept the idea that they might be wrong.
Let me point it out to you clearly so you will only have your thick skull to blame when you don't understand. I also feel that I need to tell you that I am not allied with either 'camp' of thought.
I never said that the evolution of species was in question, (in fact I acknowledged evolution can be viewed on a small scale - and yes, according to geologic time, ALL evolution is on a relatively small scale), what I said was baseless was how life came to exist. Evolution, to put it quite simply, (I know some of you have issues with this), claims it happened, and tries to explain how. BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened. If a scientific hypothesis needs some evidence to become a theory, this particular part of the 'theory' of evolution is still a hypothesis... just as you claim ID is. (I would agree, by the way, but since evolution is seen as a theory - in this instance - and still has NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, it places itself in the same camp as ID.)
The point of my post, you intelligently evolved being, was that you cannot compare the ID -vs - Evolution debate to this current 'new discovery' that could change the way we look at quantum physics. Why not? Because there is 'actual proof' for this change... as there was 'proof' that ushered-in the quantum physics theory in the first place. The explanation of how life BEGAN, however, is all conjecture. I know this is not a popular topic on/. but you need to realize that the very thing that infuriates evolutionists is the same thing that grants credence to ID proponents. --neither is based on observable fact.
NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)
The problem with the beginnings of life as explained by 'Evolution,' is that they go against basic laws of nature... like Entropy. The natural world does not tend to order itself into highly complex and specific chemical reactions in just the right amounts. The PROBABILITY of everything required coming into the correct order at the same time, same place is so small statistics argue that it simply will not happen. That's as close to a 'fact' proving ID as you are going to get and I will admit it, but you can't deny it either.
On the other hand, saying that 'time' revolves around us and life only 'evolved' here, or evolved here first, is audacity at its peak. One would be an imbecile to rule out the possibility, even under evolution, that another species/being exists/existed and could have 'helped us along.'
Being close-minded like that does not advance science, it hinders it. And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.
You ask me to state the "scientific theory of" ID... you are right that "there is no such thing," because science has correctly said it doesn't follow the rules... but as you can see, neither does Evolution's hypothesis on how life began. But you want a link? Do I have to google for you as well as think for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Read the wiki for a quick and dirty explanation.
Interestingly enough, the reason why the entire evolution - vs. - intelligent design debate is so fruitless, is simply because you can't prove or disprove either of them. Quite the conundrum, eh? You can argue with this all you like, but the fact is simply that if you think you can disprove intelligent design, you don't understand the 'theory.' (i.e., by using an experiment to prove ID wrong, you are proving it right -- you orchestrated it... and unless you are not classified as 'intelligent' then you enforced the 'theory.') What ID contests against evolution, is more focused around how life 'happened,' and not necessarily the process of evolution, which can be viewed on a smaller scale. ID posits that life didn't just appear, but was orchestrated/designed/set-into-motion by some intelligent source while evolution declares that it just happened. (Really, what science means by this is that they don't know, but it obviously happened, and these materials are needed, so they must have been there when it happened. But we weren't there when it 'happened' so we can't say for sure if anyone was stirring the pool with a stick or not, but we'll say there wasn't. -this being taught as 'fact' in schools is what irks many, especially when the scientific community insists evolution is solid and doesn't give any credence to any other ideas, even when they are just as possible/probable.)
Quantum physics, on the other hand, can be disproved here and now, if and only if, something outside the 'laws' of quantum theory is discovered to work... in which case they will come up with a better 'idea' of how quantum physics works... and revise-republish the theory, (perhaps with the same name... as they have with the evolutionary time-table whenever a new earth-shattering fossil is discovered).
um... as for calling the ad-hominem attack used against you to discredit your parent post, you also invalidated your own post. Effective, you both look bad.
Interestingly enough, your 'reasonably convincing evidence' for 'risk free' second-hand-smoke is ludicrous at best. If you say diesel smoke inhalation is bad, (remember this is outdoors), how can you say that second-hand-smoke is fine outdoors?
Instead of calling everyone else extremists, keep your comments consistent with logic, and you will see that you can not call for a ban on diesel vehicles and smoke while insisting that smoking is fine, all the while flipping-off anyone who disagrees with you. Get your head straight, then speak.
Oh, and I fully understand your claim that smoking is less harmful... granted. But both are very damaging, and I pay taxes for Medicare treat the effects of both, (I am sure). All I am asking is that you post logically. If that makes me a 'fascist fuckwits/wowser' then so be it.
--for the record... if it is second-hand smoke, it is my business and that is why my 'ugly nose' is in it. Banned or not, I still have to walk through the cloud of smoke to enter the buildings everyone smokes in front of, and I guess I could move, (since my neighbor smokes), or get another job, or attend another school... but then it would be your 'ugly nose' that is interfering in my business. Or I guess I could always breathe it all in, besides... it is 'risk free'...right?
Well,(IANAL),but if you look real close, I think this particular load is designed to GIVE the FCC the power to enforce the broadcast flag and power to mandate sweeping change in the specifications and manufacture of hardware and broadcasts.
Unless I am reading this wrong. (which, ironically, I am hoping I am.)
Oh, that's rich, really rich. Good idea, Einstein, invade the country that the entire world depends on for their economy. Brilliant. As for your 'bill' that you would like the US to cover... when you rent a car do you own the car, or does the rental company? You still have to pay for gas, (and sometimes insurance), but not for taxes, maintenance, or the full cost of the vehicle or the roads. Just like mine, your analogy and argument is flawed. (Oh, by the way, you sound just as arrogant and the profanity only makes you sound uneducated.)
--Disclaimer-- The rest of this post is a response to many posts, not just yours.
I said this before, and I'll say it again; this is nothing more than a political game to see "who can stand up to the super-power." Nations have been trying and trying to make the U.S. 'cow-tow' since WW2, and now the only difference is that the general world populace doesn't like the U.S. anymore. Does anyone remember what happened just this last century?
In the beginning of the 1900's, the US was very isolationistic, (left the world alone), and what happened? World War 1. We answered 'the call,' financed the armament of allies and restructure of the Eruopean economy, and Eruope left the US holding the debt. We again told the world where to go and left everyone alone. What happened? Another world war. Again we decided the outcome, (of WW2), and financed the restructure of economies -but this time we stayed in world politics. What happened? Not another world war. Amazingly better record than Europe. We created, house, and largely finance the UN - which I am not proud of - and stood against communism, (which may have been the wrong choice, seeing how socialistic most of Europe has chosen to become - but at least they had the choice). If your country had this resume, (regardless of the bad spots), and was known as the 'super-power' whose economy and government had decided two world wars, landed the only men on the moon, (and developed the internet), educates or educated the world's experts, doles out billions in humanitarian aid, created Silly-Putty (tm)- that's gotta be worth somethin' - and all-in-all is still the world authority on weapon technology, not to mention the hundreds of things that I haven't listed... would you be arrogant?
So, like we have discussed before... political presumptions and international bigotry aside; what is wrong with the internet now? Honestly? I have yet to hear a real reason why the internet needs this change, (Other than the 'fact' that you 'don't like or agree with the US' on issues related or unrelated to the internet.) But, if the internet doesn't work now, why would changing 'control' over to those who, lets admit it, would be more likely to exercise control, (one way or another), fix our problem?
Now weigh the decision. Understand that the UN is not a stable governing body, and is fraught with corruption. If you think that the Internet will not be bound and gagged in the red-tape of an international political quagmire, you had better take another hit from whatever you are using, because that hallucinated fairy world is about to disappear.
As for Congress looking like lemmings... what about the rest of the world? From your point of view -- a righteous rebellion against a tyrant. From our point of view, you are the lemmings - the screaming toddlers who are never content with what they have already been given. Maybe it is time we all 'grew up.'
Getting to the natural gas really isn't that hard anymore. Shell has done all the work already, and though I agree with you that moving to 'green' fuel is best, I also think is would be foolish to allow this stored energy potential to 'go to waste.' (I am thinking of many fuel sources, like the methane seeping from the thawing russian permafrost, etc...)
for those who don't want to RTFA, it is crude oil and natural gas from oil shale, (1/3 NG 2/3 crude) at about 1 billion barrels a square mile. Energy cost/yield = 1/3.5...and the kicker, it is economically feasible at $30 a barrel of crude. (yup, close to $40 less than we are currently paying.)
Read with salt handy, this is all according to Shell. (but I find it interesting that an oil company would advertize that there are huge reserves available, before it has holding on them, and that it will only cost around $30 a barrel. Interesting at least, promising at best IMO.)
yeah, like stamping license plates... if he further 'improves' his resume. Then his 'friends' will show up in a nice shiny black saburban and show him how real 'friendship bracelets' won't come off without the 'friend's' key. He might even get a new room-mate!
While I believe that some antagonistic feelings for the US are founded; most are incredibly hypocritical and convoluted when one removes the labels and names to look at the situations. Why? Because every other country in the world would have acted just as bad or honorable as the US has throughout history.
When it comes to the 'big game' the 'coach' always puts in the best players, those with the best 'record.'
You have summed it up right there. Anyone bright enough to look at the underlying issues here will see that for the last few years, (while the EU has been organizing), countries have been trying to 'take on the super-power' to establish their political clout with the international community. France and Germany have been the biggest 'Veto-holders,' in both the UN and EU - where they hope to (as every country would like to be) take a major, if not top, seat in the 'union' that could potentially challenge the US as the world super-power. Don't forget that the leaders of these countries have been elected or stay elected and popular on little merit besides their 'ability' to stand up to the US in the UN.
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with how the internet is currently administered; the UN has lost all credibility to the US populace (who wonders why boatloads of our tax money is sent to them while they don't thank us for our contribution, but expect it and ask for more. i.e. 'Let's eradicate world hunger and poverty with your money, your citizens love taxes, we know this').
The UN is a wonderful idea and its aims are usually morally sound and just; but too many times they have been inept in practice and completely butcher justice and 'peace-keeping' efforts.
While I can't see it happening, I have long awaited the day when the US ditches the UN in an empty parking lot like the whiny and expensive tag-along poser it is. What would happen? I dare the WTO to place embargo's and trade bans on the US. It would hurt our economy, yes, but the rest of the world would scream and crumble without sucking on the tit of the American consumer. The US is still the major trade hub of the world. Need proof? Look to 9/11, look to history. Every American economic recession since WW1 has been magnified in other countries.
All of this political noise is saber-shaking, and nothing more. We don't need, nor do I support military action to get our way. We vote in this country, and under the system of capitalism, the world still bows to the all-mighty dollar. Not because it is so strong, but because so many consumers are holding it.
Aside from notable exceptions like the Rolling Stones & U2, the touring industry is dying too. Can't blame that one on piracy...
Could it be that a major contributing factor to the decline in touring industry is the cost of tickets and the increasing quality of available media? I can not only hear the band better on mastered recordings, but I can; turn them off when I want, pause, take it with me, and repeat the 'performance' whenever I want, all for less than the ticket cost of a single show?
Unless they have a flair for performance while live that justifies the extra $20-$40 there is no reason for me to go to the show. The same applies for movies.
If I can now get a high-quality (HD) show on a DVD or online from Universal, play it in my home theatre, why would I want to mess with the lines, bad seating, sticky floors, screaming children, et cetera, of a traditional theatre? (I think there will always be the nostalgia of a darkened theatre, but this move by Universal could be a signal of the market finally changing to meed demand.)
you have interesting logic and have come to some really good conclusions, but I think you need to look at it fairly from BOTH points-of-view, (very un-slashdot-like, I know, but try it).
Put yourself in the president's position; because of the past president the international community doesn't take you seriously when you threaten action. Most everyone, including your own advisors and intelligence agency, (and need I mention- the country in question), claim that a *certain country* has biochemical wmd's and are willing to use them. There is even past evidence of wmd's and past use of them on that country's own civilians. The past president and the UN threatened military actions against that country if they did re-start their wmd programs or continue human-rights violations, both of which they have done, largely with impunity; failure to enforce this promise on your part will cripple your ability to enforce international policy in the future.
There is more, but I will not bore you. Looking at this information and knowing that leaders MUST make decisions before they know all the facts, (if they ever do); what would you do?
As for the atomic bombs, most of the radiation dissapated quickly because it was an air-burst explosion, and there was interesting circumstances on that one too. The Japanese were actively training their civilians to fight, (women, children, anyone able to hold a knife or stick - anyone able to kick, bite, hit). Remember, these are people with a fierce honor system and religious loyalty to the emperor, (who was seen as the son of god by them). the president saw casualty estimates and decided to act. Personally, I would probably do the same. Was it horrible? Only the devil could answer no. Of course it was.
I am not advocating or endorsing war or nuclear holocaust of any kind, but I also know how worth while the 'monday-morning quarterback' is and it is just about as much as the duke I flush every day.
The fact is, these both happened. Learning from history is important, yes, but let's get out of the situation before we tear the nation apart. Protest is great. Dialogue is great, just don't cripple the war effort and the support for our troops. Your brother may be home, but so many others are not. Remeber; they read our media and react to the encouragement they find there. (ie:Bush Approval ratings Hit Basement! Iraq War A Loosing Battle, Thousands of Troops Die!)
The number one rule in international polotics is cover your own ass first. If you are eradicating starvation in Africa, but your own people are killing each other, it will do you no good. Think of it another way; the best defense is a good offence, right? How many terrorist attacks have happened on US soil since we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq? Right, now how many happened in the eight years prior to that? Yeah. Makes sense, doesn't it?
The bottom line is this; Not only do I care about the people suffering over there, but I CAN care, and I am STILL HERE to care. Not only that, but this post and yours have NOTHING to do with the above article... why did I write this here???
lol... I know this is going to be modded a troll, but has anyone taken into consideration that the earth has been warming up steadily for the past several thousand years? (give or take a millennia)
Hello, we are coming out of an ice age! I know I am one of the 'unwashed masses' when it comes to the science of Global Warming, so don't take this as an authority, but last I heard, the Earth fluctuates quite frequently (geologic time) in temperature, and the dinosaurs were enjoying world-wide tropics.
We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Before you mod me down, remember, good scientists ask lots of questions, annoying questions.
It should come as no surprise that the WSJ should take the side of large corporations on this issue, and even less surprising that they lay possible blame for the slowing adaptation of technology to OSS.
The lager corporate model spends ridiculous amounts of $$ on R&D every year, only to milk the products, that they already have the assembly line in place to produce, for every red cent that the public will pay for. (This is why the HD/blue ray dvd format battle was even an issue. If they release them both, but with the lower spec discs first, they 'force' the public to re-purchase players and media all over again, creating a greater revenue for R&D already paid for.)
Blaming Linux and OSS for the possibility of slower tech adaptation and progress is a new trick though, I wonder what the take for the W$J is?
Curiously, I wonder if there is a possibility that Linux could stagnate progress? what do other/.'ers think?
Please allow me to hazard a 'devil's advocate' argument into this cacophony out of a feeling of necessity.
Science is by no means bulletproof. Yes, science has come a long, long way from even ten years ago, not to mention three hundred, yet we must never forget that all it takes to change the 'proven fundamental beliefs' of the scientific community is a simple idea and hypothesis. The beautiful thing about science also is its undoing; science changes.
If we, as is proposed and is being taught, accept the THEORY of evolution as ultimate truth, we will miss the opportunity of further advancement in society, whatever the argument. This is not a debate against 'Intelligent Design,' but a plea for INTELLECTUAL and EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM. (Please, before the nay-sayers dismiss me for using buzzwords, hear me out.)
By the same argument that most 'liberals' use against the government; if we allow the 'government' or school system the power to exclude this possibility, it will be that much easier for them to exclude some other teaching later on.
The argument against Intelligent Design is based on the same premise that blocked evolution from being taught freely for decades after its first inception; fear and misunderstanding. As I understand I.D., it is not a creation 'ex nihilo' , but simply someone/thing guiding or simply starting the process, which is just as provable and probable as life spontaneously organizing in a pool of goop, as evolution states. This seems more an effort to improve on an existing theory, which is a practice of good science. (I can already hear the ignorant populace guffaw at that claim.)
If you are sure that this is a complete load, then your friends, children, general populace,etc... will recognize it for what it is and believe otherwise. The fact is that you cannot stop the rising generation from inheriting the government and world. So instead of trying to play thought police and leaving a legacy of closed-mindedness, let our generation be remembered as one who trusted our children and fellow men to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Lets not forget that freedom has a cost higher than blood, it takes trust.
Let's not turn this field of science into the stagnant pool that entropy rules, (arguments for another day), by killing the possibility of something other than popularly believed. If this is false, it will pan out. The society/country that believes it has ruled out the impossible by simply declaring it impossible is the next to fall.
...atta-boy! now that is what I am talking about...
The real question that we are all waiting to be answered is if it can be successfully cracked to run Linux, of any flava'! THEN, if everything is as good as we hope it is, I can get a near,(if not full), super-computer for $300.00 + a little tax.
That is what every M$ exec is afraid of in this loss-leader they are pulling. All I can say is, bring it on.
This is pretty simple. The internet is much like the old wild west of America with outlaws and vigilantes being chased by the rancher with good intentions or the vaunted sheriff on his white horse. In the end, they all shoot each other.
While today we allow police to carry guns and kill dangerous criminals, the average citizen is not allowed to just accept a higher calling to cleanse the world of annoying people, no matter how much junk mail they send out. Why? because it hurts society, everyone, when someone dies.
Ddos attacks are the same thing. There is extra traffic for everyone when a Ddos attack happens, it uses massive amounts of bandwidth which had limits... that's why it works. There is a reason why they are illegal.
On the other hand, if we decide that we like censorship, we can yield to a new overlord of the net and allow them to Ddos whoever they don't agree with. I guess it is your choice.
...um... where are you in utah? Orem, Provo, and other cities in Utah County are part of the "utopia" project... there is already fiber laid down the center of several streets... I watched them put it in myself. Look up "Utopia" in utah county law and civil government sites... you might not be surprised that it is here, and Comcast and Qwest are doing their best to stop it....oh, by the way, the American Fork city network is fiber, up, and operational. 50mbs up, 50mbs down, unmetered, unmonitered, and only $25/month. Welcome to Zion my friend.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
naw... it all depends on how much $$ you have and if you can get your case tried in California.
reagardless of belief, your analogy would only work if the GLBT were offended morally by Christians.
...unless you are fighting simply for the sake of debate... um, carry on...
Just a thought... but it is usually standard practice for a 'dying' company's CEO's or Board of Directors to 'try' a separate or new strategy to guide the company some other direction. Then they give themselves huge bonuses for the brainpower they expended, regardless of whether their 'new strategy' worked or not. When it doesn't work, they get fired, get a good separation package, and leave someone else holding the bag. Standard procedure is usually some variation on this.
While I understand this is a severely cynical view, could it be that TW is trying to loose the 'ol' ball and chain' that they see forming in AOL? The time to sell a company is when it is still going good, but the future looks grim - so you get maximum pay-off, and someone else takes the hit.
Just a thought.
If a big name does decide to 'succeede' I'm afraid it will be a few years until they can.
No. Supply and Demand does not apply to data - least of all on the internet; the 'supply' is endless so demand has no bearing. The idea is that the perception of demand, or lack thereof, will be set by the record lables -- in an effort to control public opinion and song popularity. As I understand it; $.99 would be the basement price, no lower. (ie. "no one listenes to that song, why would I pay $.99 for a worthless song? Hey, that song is $2.45, ooh... *click*)
Wow. I don't know what to say. You totally missed my point, like many other close-minded scientists who can't accept the idea that they might be wrong.
Let me point it out to you clearly so you will only have your thick skull to blame when you don't understand. I also feel that I need to tell you that I am not allied with either 'camp' of thought.
I never said that the evolution of species was in question, (in fact I acknowledged evolution can be viewed on a small scale - and yes, according to geologic time, ALL evolution is on a relatively small scale), what I said was baseless was how life came to exist. Evolution, to put it quite simply, (I know some of you have issues with this), claims it happened, and tries to explain how. BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened. If a scientific hypothesis needs some evidence to become a theory, this particular part of the 'theory' of evolution is still a hypothesis... just as you claim ID is. (I would agree, by the way, but since evolution is seen as a theory - in this instance - and still has NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, it places itself in the same camp as ID.)
The point of my post, you intelligently evolved being, was that you cannot compare the ID -vs - Evolution debate to this current 'new discovery' that could change the way we look at quantum physics. Why not? Because there is 'actual proof' for this change... as there was 'proof' that ushered-in the quantum physics theory in the first place. The explanation of how life BEGAN, however, is all conjecture. I know this is not a popular topic on /. but you need to realize that the very thing that infuriates evolutionists is the same thing that grants credence to ID proponents. --neither is based on observable fact.
NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)
The problem with the beginnings of life as explained by 'Evolution,' is that they go against basic laws of nature... like Entropy. The natural world does not tend to order itself into highly complex and specific chemical reactions in just the right amounts. The PROBABILITY of everything required coming into the correct order at the same time, same place is so small statistics argue that it simply will not happen. That's as close to a 'fact' proving ID as you are going to get and I will admit it, but you can't deny it either.
On the other hand, saying that 'time' revolves around us and life only 'evolved' here, or evolved here first, is audacity at its peak. One would be an imbecile to rule out the possibility, even under evolution, that another species/being exists/existed and could have 'helped us along.'
Being close-minded like that does not advance science, it hinders it. And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.
You ask me to state the "scientific theory of" ID... you are right that "there is no such thing," because science has correctly said it doesn't follow the rules... but as you can see, neither does Evolution's hypothesis on how life began. But you want a link? Do I have to google for you as well as think for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Read the wiki for a quick and dirty explanation.
Interestingly enough, the reason why the entire evolution - vs. - intelligent design debate is so fruitless, is simply because you can't prove or disprove either of them. Quite the conundrum, eh? You can argue with this all you like, but the fact is simply that if you think you can disprove intelligent design, you don't understand the 'theory.' (i.e., by using an experiment to prove ID wrong, you are proving it right -- you orchestrated it... and unless you are not classified as 'intelligent' then you enforced the 'theory.') What ID contests against evolution, is more focused around how life 'happened,' and not necessarily the process of evolution, which can be viewed on a smaller scale. ID posits that life didn't just appear, but was orchestrated/designed/set-into-motion by some intelligent source while evolution declares that it just happened. (Really, what science means by this is that they don't know, but it obviously happened, and these materials are needed, so they must have been there when it happened. But we weren't there when it 'happened' so we can't say for sure if anyone was stirring the pool with a stick or not, but we'll say there wasn't. -this being taught as 'fact' in schools is what irks many, especially when the scientific community insists evolution is solid and doesn't give any credence to any other ideas, even when they are just as possible/probable.)
Quantum physics, on the other hand, can be disproved here and now, if and only if, something outside the 'laws' of quantum theory is discovered to work... in which case they will come up with a better 'idea' of how quantum physics works... and revise-republish the theory, (perhaps with the same name... as they have with the evolutionary time-table whenever a new earth-shattering fossil is discovered).
um... as for calling the ad-hominem attack used against you to discredit your parent post, you also invalidated your own post. Effective, you both look bad.
Interestingly enough, your 'reasonably convincing evidence' for 'risk free' second-hand-smoke is ludicrous at best. If you say diesel smoke inhalation is bad, (remember this is outdoors), how can you say that second-hand-smoke is fine outdoors?
Instead of calling everyone else extremists, keep your comments consistent with logic, and you will see that you can not call for a ban on diesel vehicles and smoke while insisting that smoking is fine, all the while flipping-off anyone who disagrees with you. Get your head straight, then speak.
Oh, and I fully understand your claim that smoking is less harmful... granted. But both are very damaging, and I pay taxes for Medicare treat the effects of both, (I am sure). All I am asking is that you post logically. If that makes me a 'fascist fuckwits/wowser' then so be it.
--for the record... if it is second-hand smoke, it is my business and that is why my 'ugly nose' is in it. Banned or not, I still have to walk through the cloud of smoke to enter the buildings everyone smokes in front of, and I guess I could move, (since my neighbor smokes), or get another job, or attend another school... but then it would be your 'ugly nose' that is interfering in my business. Or I guess I could always breathe it all in, besides... it is 'risk free' ...right?
Unless I am reading this wrong. (which, ironically, I am hoping I am.)
Oh, that's rich, really rich. Good idea, Einstein, invade the country that the entire world depends on for their economy. Brilliant. As for your 'bill' that you would like the US to cover... when you rent a car do you own the car, or does the rental company? You still have to pay for gas, (and sometimes insurance), but not for taxes, maintenance, or the full cost of the vehicle or the roads. Just like mine, your analogy and argument is flawed. (Oh, by the way, you sound just as arrogant and the profanity only makes you sound uneducated.)
--Disclaimer-- The rest of this post is a response to many posts, not just yours.
I said this before, and I'll say it again; this is nothing more than a political game to see "who can stand up to the super-power." Nations have been trying and trying to make the U.S. 'cow-tow' since WW2, and now the only difference is that the general world populace doesn't like the U.S. anymore. Does anyone remember what happened just this last century?
In the beginning of the 1900's, the US was very isolationistic, (left the world alone), and what happened? World War 1. We answered 'the call,' financed the armament of allies and restructure of the Eruopean economy, and Eruope left the US holding the debt. We again told the world where to go and left everyone alone. What happened? Another world war. Again we decided the outcome, (of WW2), and financed the restructure of economies -but this time we stayed in world politics. What happened? Not another world war. Amazingly better record than Europe. We created, house, and largely finance the UN - which I am not proud of - and stood against communism, (which may have been the wrong choice, seeing how socialistic most of Europe has chosen to become - but at least they had the choice). If your country had this resume, (regardless of the bad spots), and was known as the 'super-power' whose economy and government had decided two world wars, landed the only men on the moon, (and developed the internet), educates or educated the world's experts, doles out billions in humanitarian aid, created Silly-Putty (tm)- that's gotta be worth somethin' - and all-in-all is still the world authority on weapon technology, not to mention the hundreds of things that I haven't listed... would you be arrogant?
So, like we have discussed before... political presumptions and international bigotry aside; what is wrong with the internet now? Honestly? I have yet to hear a real reason why the internet needs this change, (Other than the 'fact' that you 'don't like or agree with the US' on issues related or unrelated to the internet.) But, if the internet doesn't work now, why would changing 'control' over to those who, lets admit it, would be more likely to exercise control, (one way or another), fix our problem?
Now weigh the decision. Understand that the UN is not a stable governing body, and is fraught with corruption. If you think that the Internet will not be bound and gagged in the red-tape of an international political quagmire, you had better take another hit from whatever you are using, because that hallucinated fairy world is about to disappear.
As for Congress looking like lemmings... what about the rest of the world? From your point of view -- a righteous rebellion against a tyrant. From our point of view, you are the lemmings - the screaming toddlers who are never content with what they have already been given. Maybe it is time we all 'grew up.'
Getting to the natural gas really isn't that hard anymore. Shell has done all the work already, and though I agree with you that moving to 'green' fuel is best, I also think is would be foolish to allow this stored energy potential to 'go to waste.' (I am thinking of many fuel sources, like the methane seeping from the thawing russian permafrost, etc...)
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600160643,00 .html it is an opinion on the fact... still an interesting read. (I know there are ecological implications, but the technology is there.)
for those who don't want to RTFA, it is crude oil and natural gas from oil shale, (1/3 NG 2/3 crude) at about 1 billion barrels a square mile. Energy cost/yield = 1/3.5 ...and the kicker, it is economically feasible at $30 a barrel of crude. (yup, close to $40 less than we are currently paying.)
Read with salt handy, this is all according to Shell. (but I find it interesting that an oil company would advertize that there are huge reserves available, before it has holding on them, and that it will only cost around $30 a barrel. Interesting at least, promising at best IMO.)
yeah, like stamping license plates... if he further 'improves' his resume. Then his 'friends' will show up in a nice shiny black saburban and show him how real 'friendship bracelets' won't come off without the 'friend's' key. He might even get a new room-mate!
While I believe that some antagonistic feelings for the US are founded; most are incredibly hypocritical and convoluted when one removes the labels and names to look at the situations. Why? Because every other country in the world would have acted just as bad or honorable as the US has throughout history.
When it comes to the 'big game' the 'coach' always puts in the best players, those with the best 'record.'
How is this any different?
Utter Hogwash
You have summed it up right there. Anyone bright enough to look at the underlying issues here will see that for the last few years, (while the EU has been organizing), countries have been trying to 'take on the super-power' to establish their political clout with the international community. France and Germany have been the biggest 'Veto-holders,' in both the UN and EU - where they hope to (as every country would like to be) take a major, if not top, seat in the 'union' that could potentially challenge the US as the world super-power. Don't forget that the leaders of these countries have been elected or stay elected and popular on little merit besides their 'ability' to stand up to the US in the UN.
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with how the internet is currently administered; the UN has lost all credibility to the US populace (who wonders why boatloads of our tax money is sent to them while they don't thank us for our contribution, but expect it and ask for more. i.e. 'Let's eradicate world hunger and poverty with your money, your citizens love taxes, we know this').
The UN is a wonderful idea and its aims are usually morally sound and just; but too many times they have been inept in practice and completely butcher justice and 'peace-keeping' efforts.
While I can't see it happening, I have long awaited the day when the US ditches the UN in an empty parking lot like the whiny and expensive tag-along poser it is. What would happen? I dare the WTO to place embargo's and trade bans on the US. It would hurt our economy, yes, but the rest of the world would scream and crumble without sucking on the tit of the American consumer. The US is still the major trade hub of the world. Need proof? Look to 9/11, look to history. Every American economic recession since WW1 has been magnified in other countries.
All of this political noise is saber-shaking, and nothing more. We don't need, nor do I support military action to get our way. We vote in this country, and under the system of capitalism, the world still bows to the all-mighty dollar. Not because it is so strong, but because so many consumers are holding it.
Aside from notable exceptions like the Rolling Stones & U2, the touring industry is dying too. Can't blame that one on piracy...
Could it be that a major contributing factor to the decline in touring industry is the cost of tickets and the increasing quality of available media? I can not only hear the band better on mastered recordings, but I can; turn them off when I want, pause, take it with me, and repeat the 'performance' whenever I want, all for less than the ticket cost of a single show?
Unless they have a flair for performance while live that justifies the extra $20-$40 there is no reason for me to go to the show. The same applies for movies.
If I can now get a high-quality (HD) show on a DVD or online from Universal, play it in my home theatre, why would I want to mess with the lines, bad seating, sticky floors, screaming children, et cetera, of a traditional theatre? (I think there will always be the nostalgia of a darkened theatre, but this move by Universal could be a signal of the market finally changing to meed demand.)
Put yourself in the president's position; because of the past president the international community doesn't take you seriously when you threaten action. Most everyone, including your own advisors and intelligence agency, (and need I mention- the country in question), claim that a *certain country* has biochemical wmd's and are willing to use them. There is even past evidence of wmd's and past use of them on that country's own civilians. The past president and the UN threatened military actions against that country if they did re-start their wmd programs or continue human-rights violations, both of which they have done, largely with impunity; failure to enforce this promise on your part will cripple your ability to enforce international policy in the future.
There is more, but I will not bore you. Looking at this information and knowing that leaders MUST make decisions before they know all the facts, (if they ever do); what would you do?
As for the atomic bombs, most of the radiation dissapated quickly because it was an air-burst explosion, and there was interesting circumstances on that one too. The Japanese were actively training their civilians to fight, (women, children, anyone able to hold a knife or stick - anyone able to kick, bite, hit). Remember, these are people with a fierce honor system and religious loyalty to the emperor, (who was seen as the son of god by them). the president saw casualty estimates and decided to act. Personally, I would probably do the same. Was it horrible? Only the devil could answer no. Of course it was.
I am not advocating or endorsing war or nuclear holocaust of any kind, but I also know how worth while the 'monday-morning quarterback' is and it is just about as much as the duke I flush every day.
The fact is, these both happened. Learning from history is important, yes, but let's get out of the situation before we tear the nation apart. Protest is great. Dialogue is great, just don't cripple the war effort and the support for our troops. Your brother may be home, but so many others are not. Remeber; they read our media and react to the encouragement they find there. (ie:Bush Approval ratings Hit Basement! Iraq War A Loosing Battle, Thousands of Troops Die!)
The number one rule in international polotics is cover your own ass first. If you are eradicating starvation in Africa, but your own people are killing each other, it will do you no good. Think of it another way; the best defense is a good offence, right? How many terrorist attacks have happened on US soil since we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq? Right, now how many happened in the eight years prior to that? Yeah. Makes sense, doesn't it?
The bottom line is this; Not only do I care about the people suffering over there, but I CAN care, and I am STILL HERE to care. Not only that, but this post and yours have NOTHING to do with the above article... why did I write this here???
Hello, we are coming out of an ice age! I know I am one of the 'unwashed masses' when it comes to the science of Global Warming, so don't take this as an authority, but last I heard, the Earth fluctuates quite frequently (geologic time) in temperature, and the dinosaurs were enjoying world-wide tropics.
We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Before you mod me down, remember, good scientists ask lots of questions, annoying questions.
It should come as no surprise that the WSJ should take the side of large corporations on this issue, and even less surprising that they lay possible blame for the slowing adaptation of technology to OSS.
The lager corporate model spends ridiculous amounts of $$ on R&D every year, only to milk the products, that they already have the assembly line in place to produce, for every red cent that the public will pay for. (This is why the HD/blue ray dvd format battle was even an issue. If they release them both, but with the lower spec discs first, they 'force' the public to re-purchase players and media all over again, creating a greater revenue for R&D already paid for.)
Blaming Linux and OSS for the possibility of slower tech adaptation and progress is a new trick though, I wonder what the take for the W$J is?
Curiously, I wonder if there is a possibility that Linux could stagnate progress? what do other /.'ers think?
Please allow me to hazard a 'devil's advocate' argument into this cacophony out of a feeling of necessity.
Science is by no means bulletproof. Yes, science has come a long, long way from even ten years ago, not to mention three hundred, yet we must never forget that all it takes to change the 'proven fundamental beliefs' of the scientific community is a simple idea and hypothesis. The beautiful thing about science also is its undoing; science changes.
If we, as is proposed and is being taught, accept the THEORY of evolution as ultimate truth, we will miss the opportunity of further advancement in society, whatever the argument. This is not a debate against 'Intelligent Design,' but a plea for INTELLECTUAL and EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM. (Please, before the nay-sayers dismiss me for using buzzwords, hear me out.)
By the same argument that most 'liberals' use against the government; if we allow the 'government' or school system the power to exclude this possibility, it will be that much easier for them to exclude some other teaching later on.
The argument against Intelligent Design is based on the same premise that blocked evolution from being taught freely for decades after its first inception; fear and misunderstanding. As I understand I.D., it is not a creation 'ex nihilo' , but simply someone/thing guiding or simply starting the process, which is just as provable and probable as life spontaneously organizing in a pool of goop, as evolution states. This seems more an effort to improve on an existing theory, which is a practice of good science. (I can already hear the ignorant populace guffaw at that claim.)
If you are sure that this is a complete load, then your friends, children, general populace,etc... will recognize it for what it is and believe otherwise. The fact is that you cannot stop the rising generation from inheriting the government and world. So instead of trying to play thought police and leaving a legacy of closed-mindedness, let our generation be remembered as one who trusted our children and fellow men to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Lets not forget that freedom has a cost higher than blood, it takes trust.
Let's not turn this field of science into the stagnant pool that entropy rules, (arguments for another day), by killing the possibility of something other than popularly believed. If this is false, it will pan out. The society/country that believes it has ruled out the impossible by simply declaring it impossible is the next to fall.
...atta-boy! now that is what I am talking about...
The real question that we are all waiting to be answered is if it can be successfully cracked to run Linux, of any flava'! THEN, if everything is as good as we hope it is, I can get a near,(if not full), super-computer for $300.00 + a little tax.
That is what every M$ exec is afraid of in this loss-leader they are pulling. All I can say is, bring it on.
This is pretty simple. The internet is much like the old wild west of America with outlaws and vigilantes being chased by the rancher with good intentions or the vaunted sheriff on his white horse. In the end, they all shoot each other.
While today we allow police to carry guns and kill dangerous criminals, the average citizen is not allowed to just accept a higher calling to cleanse the world of annoying people, no matter how much junk mail they send out. Why? because it hurts society, everyone, when someone dies.
Ddos attacks are the same thing. There is extra traffic for everyone when a Ddos attack happens, it uses massive amounts of bandwidth which had limits... that's why it works. There is a reason why they are illegal.
On the other hand, if we decide that we like censorship, we can yield to a new overlord of the net and allow them to Ddos whoever they don't agree with. I guess it is your choice.
...um, am I the only one who remembers "The Heart of Darkness" by Conrad? Anyone else recognize the name Kurtz?
Yeah... didn't think so.
...um... where are you in utah? Orem, Provo, and other cities in Utah County are part of the "utopia" project... there is already fiber laid down the center of several streets... I watched them put it in myself. Look up "Utopia" in utah county law and civil government sites... you might not be surprised that it is here, and Comcast and Qwest are doing their best to stop it. ...oh, by the way, the American Fork city network is fiber, up, and operational. 50mbs up, 50mbs down, unmetered, unmonitered, and only $25/month. Welcome to Zion my friend. :-)
I am glad the world has some people who are honest with themselves... others just mod me -5 troll for being an honest cynic... lol