Ditto all of that.
And TrueHD (audio), which is awesome to my fairly trained ears, but even so noticeably different in sound quality that my girlfriend (who doesn't have even vaguely trained ears) exclaims how much better the sound is. People talk about HD video but there's no "upscaling" in existance that can take a dolby 5.1 track on dvd and upscale to uncompressed TrueHD - which is noticeably better and more dynamic.
Sorry, but when you sign that contract with the recording labels to produce a record, you often sign away your rights to when, where, and how your music is played. That's what pays for your ticket to appear on MTV Cribs.
"Trust me, if you had the military start to invade Small Town USA, you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right to keep and bear arms."
-->If we get there (or when...) it's likely that the first action will be to remove all registered guns.
Who cares about vandals or a knife - what about road debris?
The first bouncing rock to fall off a flatbed becomes a projectile capable of tearing through taut fabric; if that then strikes parts of the engine hard enough you have a problem.
That's a ridiculously backwards statement, here.
Gasoline power would not exist today without the many tools to engineer the combustion engines.
Steam would have never existed without the tools to design and fabricate steam engines.
Without the WHEEL (a tool), there would be little need for either.
Without more modern tools to make fabrics, the sail would have never have caught wind.
Without the oar (a tool), slave rowers would be paddling by hand.
Improvement of tools is the very thing that drives progress.
Yes, but I will download it for free.
Because that's what I think their music is worth - nothing.
But I entirely disagree with this:
"The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit."
Music and art is as much a commodity created by a skilled designer as anything else, and should be paid for at a fair price.
This is insightful??
What about the issue pointed out in the article?!? Satellites? Hey, let's recall Voyager just to replace it's batteries, then send it out for another 30 years.
I beg to differ.
A gun's primary use is a deterrent. Guns are used as deterrents far much more of their lifetime than they are as lethal weapons.
It's like razor wire. Is razor wire's only purpose to cut? If so, scissors are better at the job, since they do far more cutting in their lifetime. Razor wire's purpose is to deter.
"Personally, I'm more concerned that the bill would help propel us into a situation like we have in movies, where even the best NC-17 movies are considered "porn" and ghettoized, resulting in a bunch of watered-down pabulum."
-->Simple enough to get around that; Release your title under as low(widest audience) of a rating as you can get, then allow downloadable content for the over-the-top stuff.
"In other words, we'll either prove that 'God' could exist, or we'll prove that 'God' must exist."
-->"Prove". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"a set of repeatable phenomena that could be reproduced by an intentional agent with sufficient resources"
-->...does not *prove* that such an agent could exist, simply that the phenomena could be reproduced. Proving that the agent capable of reproducing such phenomena even *could* exist requires us to *prove* that their *could* exist something outside our universe.
For instance, the big bang theory fits your description; "a set of repeatable phenomena that could be reproduced by an intentional agent with sufficient resources" - but does not prove such an agent could exist; in fact it offers NO such proof that the much greater requirements of environment outside our universe ("Turtles, all the way down...") could possibly exist. The requirements for B to exist are not suggested by the proof of A.
Therefore I question your assertion that we will prove God *could* exist, or *must* exist; and offer you a third possible (and dare I say probable) state - "God" could not exist. It is as likely - I say more likely - to find that the universe is "it", that there is nothing more complex - or external to - that. THAT is provable given infinite knowlege. Suggesting that "proof" of the *possibility* of God is a more likely outcome, is laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh look, there's a rape machine I'll go outside if it looks the other way; You wouldn't believe the things they do...
Ditto all of that. And TrueHD (audio), which is awesome to my fairly trained ears, but even so noticeably different in sound quality that my girlfriend (who doesn't have even vaguely trained ears) exclaims how much better the sound is. People talk about HD video but there's no "upscaling" in existance that can take a dolby 5.1 track on dvd and upscale to uncompressed TrueHD - which is noticeably better and more dynamic.
Sorry, but when you sign that contract with the recording labels to produce a record, you often sign away your rights to when, where, and how your music is played. That's what pays for your ticket to appear on MTV Cribs.
The cost of doing it right pales in comparison with not doing it right WHEN something happens.
Fixed that for you.
Care to propose an action that we haven't tried?
Ahhh, 220v. Fair enough.
Considering a common household 15Amp circuit = 1875W, I highly doubt you've found a 2000W vacuum "at random".
Better to throw away a piece than the entire puzzle.
Dunno what games you're playing, but almost every one that I play on a regular basis -requires- the nunchuck.
"Trust me, if you had the military start to invade Small Town USA, you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right to keep and bear arms." -->If we get there (or when...) it's likely that the first action will be to remove all registered guns.
Who cares about vandals or a knife - what about road debris?
The first bouncing rock to fall off a flatbed becomes a projectile capable of tearing through taut fabric; if that then strikes parts of the engine hard enough you have a problem.
That's a ridiculously backwards statement, here. Gasoline power would not exist today without the many tools to engineer the combustion engines. Steam would have never existed without the tools to design and fabricate steam engines. Without the WHEEL (a tool), there would be little need for either. Without more modern tools to make fabrics, the sail would have never have caught wind. Without the oar (a tool), slave rowers would be paddling by hand. Improvement of tools is the very thing that drives progress.
The only thing I need paper for is to wipe my ass. What do you "need" paper for?
"DVDs are way more sensitive to damage than CDs, which were not that robust in the first place."
-->I keep hearing this from people... do you all not remember magnetic tape?
CDs and DVDs are virtually invincable, compared to VHS and cassette that they replace. And really, if you take care of it, it is quite robust.
Yes, but I will download it for free. Because that's what I think their music is worth - nothing. But I entirely disagree with this: "The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit." Music and art is as much a commodity created by a skilled designer as anything else, and should be paid for at a fair price.
This is insightful?? What about the issue pointed out in the article?!? Satellites? Hey, let's recall Voyager just to replace it's batteries, then send it out for another 30 years.
I beg to differ. A gun's primary use is a deterrent. Guns are used as deterrents far much more of their lifetime than they are as lethal weapons. It's like razor wire. Is razor wire's only purpose to cut? If so, scissors are better at the job, since they do far more cutting in their lifetime. Razor wire's purpose is to deter.
It's slashdot... what's the chance it'll be duped on April 1 anyways?
Actually, in marathons the wheelchairs compete in their own class because they're much faster than runners.
As long as it's not "Global Thermonuclear War".
Sorry, gonna have to go with Spinal Tap FTW here...
"Personally, I'm more concerned that the bill would help propel us into a situation like we have in movies, where even the best NC-17 movies are considered "porn" and ghettoized, resulting in a bunch of watered-down pabulum."
-->Simple enough to get around that; Release your title under as low(widest audience) of a rating as you can get, then allow downloadable content for the over-the-top stuff.
You'll make a mint on sales of the downloads.
"In other words, we'll either prove that 'God' could exist, or we'll prove that 'God' must exist."
-->"Prove". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"a set of repeatable phenomena that could be reproduced by an intentional agent with sufficient resources"
-->...does not *prove* that such an agent could exist, simply that the phenomena could be reproduced. Proving that the agent capable of reproducing such phenomena even *could* exist requires us to *prove* that their *could* exist something outside our universe.
For instance, the big bang theory fits your description; "a set of repeatable phenomena that could be reproduced by an intentional agent with sufficient resources" - but does not prove such an agent could exist; in fact it offers NO such proof that the much greater requirements of environment outside our universe ("Turtles, all the way down...") could possibly exist. The requirements for B to exist are not suggested by the proof of A.
Therefore I question your assertion that we will prove God *could* exist, or *must* exist; and offer you a third possible (and dare I say probable) state - "God" could not exist. It is as likely - I say more likely - to find that the universe is "it", that there is nothing more complex - or external to - that. THAT is provable given infinite knowlege. Suggesting that "proof" of the *possibility* of God is a more likely outcome, is laughable.
Yes, but what is not illegal is facepaint. Use enough makeup to throw off facial recognition... FTW.
That's really our problem, isn't it.
All this time we've wanted laser-beams-on-sharks, thinking the shark was the primary drive mechanism. Instead, it's sharks-on-laser-beams.
Are photonic-drive sharks more bad-ass than sharks with lasers and regular fishy-tail propulsion? I say yes.