Now he'll just have to spend the money on the prosecutors and politicians to make criminal charges go away. Don't worry, as the public anger about this wanes, everyone will pad their pockets and it will be business as usual.
Just because a church performs a marriage ceremony doesn't mean the ceremony has any legal standing, otherwise all those Mormons with ten wives would have ten legitimate marriages. The legitimacy of the marriage comes from the person (whether they be a priest, a judge, the captain of a ship or whoever) being recognized by the state as being permitted to oversee the ceremony and legitimize the signing of the civil marriage certificate. It isn't weddings in churches that are recognized at all, and in most jurisdictions, if you're not in some way on record as being allowed to conduct a marriage ceremony, the ceremony is not considered lawful.
1. Organisms aren't designed, they evolve. 2. We're hardly the only species that has sex purely for pleasure. By your logic, anal and oral sex among heterosexuals, or sex between heterosexuals where one or both members cannot reproduce is wrong. 3. In a secular country, no church has any business saying who can or cannot enter a civil union. That is, after all, what a civil union is about. Churches are free to decide who can get married in their venue, but as others have pointed out, none of that counts. The only thing the state recognizes is the signatures legitimizing the civil union. 4. Quit worrying so much about what consenting adults do. It's none of your fucking business.
1. Homosexuals can still have heterosexual relations, and many homosexuals have biological children. So your attempt to co-opt science to confirm your bigotry fails.
2. The psychiatry and psychology communities stopped viewing homosexuality as any kind of mental or sexual defect decades ago. You can't justify your bigotry that way either.
3. The United States guarantees equal protection under the law. Your attempt to limit the definition of marriage to justify your bigotry fails.
I guess we're kind of left with you just being a bigot.
Maybe there won't be megastars in the future, or at least there will be far far fewer of them. In music and film, at least, megastars were a byproduct of the sort of promotion utilized by the media companies. Judging by the number of one or two hit wonders in the music business; or artists who only have a very short shelf life, labels are quite happy with that as well. The advantage of, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Led Zeppelin has been a consistent high level of income. Lots of people would pay to see even a mediocre Schwarzenegger film or buy a copy of even a lesser Zeppelin record.
In the music business, to some extent, that model was already eroding by the 1990s as the big labels found themselves in serious competition with smaller Indie labels, and in general the whole market is far more fragmented now than it was, say, thirty or forty years ago. That's what pisses me off about the piracy issue, that it essentially allows organizations like the MPAA and RIAA to blame piracy for revenue issues that may in fact be more deeply rooted.
It's only a disconnect insofar as Congress has discarded even the appearances of being part of a government of the people, for the people and by the people, and has basically declared itself interested only in what large corporate interests want. I think we're only a few decades away from a legislative branch about as functionally useful as China's National People's Congress, a rubber stamp for whatever the board rooms of Corporate America tell it to enact.
It's note like most of the stuff you pay for is any good.
The media industry had a century and a bit of product with economic scarcity because copying films and and musical recordings was really difficult. It was a model based upon being able to control manufacturing and distribution, not upon actual creation. I mean, it's not like people weren't writing plays are composing symphonies until the film projector and the phonograph were invented.
History is replete with products wiped out by new technologies. All the laws in the world won't change the fundamental fact that what made the media companies wealthy, that control of distribution, is gone, it's dead. Maybe it means the end of big blockbuster films, although my thinking is that at some point theaters will figure out how to maximize value-added services. Maybe it means the end of, um, Lady Gaga albums, although most successful musical acts make a lot more money from touring than they do from record sales (in no small part because of the way labels have written contracts).
We hard art and music long before IP law existed, and we will have it even after Warner Bros. can no longer co-opt Congress as the enforcement branch of its litigation department.
It makes short-term economic sense. In the long term, they are no more going to hold back the tide than the Japanese did when the Shoguns banned firearms.
Never assume anything. There will come a time when Apple will become a vast corporate machine like Microsoft and some new upstart will kick the crap out of them. I'm sure Kodak in the 1960s never dreamed that they'd be filing for bankruptcy in half a century.
Not a perfect analogy but the Japanese in the 15th and 16th centuries were the largest manufacturer of firearms on the planet, but the Shoguns got so spooked that firearms would destabilize the Japanese form of feudalism that they banned the manufacture, and Japan was literally pushed back a few hundred years. Of course, Admiral Perry came along with his really big guns, and the Japanese quickly realized they had to catch up in a hurry (and thus began probably the most rapid modernization and industrialization project in all of history).
The only reason for any of the enterprise-level apps is centralized updating and control. Security Essentials works with WSUS now, so you get the updating, but still, you have no good way to monitor which workstations are well protected or which ones have a problem. At the end of the day, my shop is small enough that I can manage the slightly extra load of a checking things out. I haven't actually had a problem with MS Security Essentials, though back in the day when I was using Norton, it was always screwing up on some machine or another.
People could start by voting for third party candidates and rejecting the Demopublican Superparty. Imagine a Congress filled with people with no strong party affiliation.
Don't you feel the least bit foolish? I mean, it's pretty clear you have no idea what science is, what the evidence for evolution is, and worst of all, you're so fucking pathetic you don't even have the intellectual curiousity to go out and look it up. You're a prime example of the kind of proudly ignorant pseudo-skeptic who makes the most ludicrous, moronic pronouncements without the least sense of irony.
Actually, eugenics was largely a rejection of Darwinian selection, and it had no lack of advocates on the Right and Left. It certainly was not a view promoted by most of those who understood natural selection, which as a key concept said that the more variation the better, whereas eugenicists seemed to believe that monocultures were better. As well, many of the targets of the eugenics crowd were people low on the socio-economic ladder, and the arguments usually stemmed either from a view that poverty and/or cretinism were inherited traits. If anything, I'd say most of the eugenics crowd, even if they went around talking in pseudo-Darwinian language, were largely Lamarckian. At any rate, eugenics was never a widely accepted theory in scientific circles, and even at the time there were many who recognized the profoundly unethical nature of its proponents' aims.
An excellent point. I remember years ago a researcher debating a Creationist stating quite simply that "Not knowing everything about a phenomena does not mean we know nothing about a phenomena."
The demand for perfect knowledge has been a frequent one invoked by Creationists for many decades, and as with so many tactics used by the AGW skeptic crowd, this has been co-opted from the Creationists.
Which is not the same thing as a controversy over AGW. This is no different than scientists who debate whether the most potent evolutionary force is mutations or neutral drift. Just because two biologists may differ on which is responsible for more variation in populations doesn't mean that one or the other rejections evolution.
Among those who have debated Creationists, this is what is known as overstating the debate; conflating a debate about details of a theory with a debate about the theory itself.
This is an absurd distortion of science. Numerous fields of research use modeling to both test and refine theories. If you've decided models are now invalid theoretical tools, then everything from quantum mechanics to biology just got thrown out the window.
It would be helpful when reporting a pertinent anecdote that you actually provide the problem. What problem is that that you heard that was so destructive to evolutionary theory?
And that's the real irony. Skeptics, whether evolution deniers or AGW deniers, will go to almost insane levels of skepticism about the theories they reject, and yet will show almost stunning gullibility when it comes to sources they agree with. In my years frequenting evolution debate forums, it was amazing to watch guys saying things in one breath about how we don't have video tape evidence of evolution of humans happening and then with the next breath proclaiming that Noah's Ark and Paluxy footprints were real.
Science didn't even exist as we know it when most people thought the Earth was flat. Science by and large grew out of the Renaissance, and by that point about the only people in the Western world who thought the world was flat were lunatics and ignorant peasants.
I realize you're probably trying to make some sort of rhetorical point, but you're so fucking pig-ignorant yourself you can't even come up with a real topical analogy.
At the same time, even the majority of researchers in any given field say "x is true", just rejecting it because you don't like what you're hearing seems a tad premature. And yes, it is pertinent to say that the number of modern biologists who reject evolution can be counted on two hands, because it drives home the point that virtually no one, with only the most insignificant number of exceptions, who has any expertise on a field related to evolution rejects it.
Slashdot Mirror
Now he'll just have to spend the money on the prosecutors and politicians to make criminal charges go away. Don't worry, as the public anger about this wanes, everyone will pad their pockets and it will be business as usual.
No, you didn't fix it. You're making an extreme and hyperbolic claim. A pretty shameful display.
Just because a church performs a marriage ceremony doesn't mean the ceremony has any legal standing, otherwise all those Mormons with ten wives would have ten legitimate marriages. The legitimacy of the marriage comes from the person (whether they be a priest, a judge, the captain of a ship or whoever) being recognized by the state as being permitted to oversee the ceremony and legitimize the signing of the civil marriage certificate. It isn't weddings in churches that are recognized at all, and in most jurisdictions, if you're not in some way on record as being allowed to conduct a marriage ceremony, the ceremony is not considered lawful.
1. Organisms aren't designed, they evolve.
2. We're hardly the only species that has sex purely for pleasure. By your logic, anal and oral sex among heterosexuals, or sex between heterosexuals where one or both members cannot reproduce is wrong.
3. In a secular country, no church has any business saying who can or cannot enter a civil union. That is, after all, what a civil union is about. Churches are free to decide who can get married in their venue, but as others have pointed out, none of that counts. The only thing the state recognizes is the signatures legitimizing the civil union.
4. Quit worrying so much about what consenting adults do. It's none of your fucking business.
That funny feeling in his pants when he sees a muscular fella, I suspect.
1. Homosexuals can still have heterosexual relations, and many homosexuals have biological children. So your attempt to co-opt science to confirm your bigotry fails.
2. The psychiatry and psychology communities stopped viewing homosexuality as any kind of mental or sexual defect decades ago. You can't justify your bigotry that way either.
3. The United States guarantees equal protection under the law. Your attempt to limit the definition of marriage to justify your bigotry fails.
I guess we're kind of left with you just being a bigot.
The certifications amount to "This shell company we created to report whatever we want it to says we're tight and secure. Yay for us!!!!!"
Maybe there won't be megastars in the future, or at least there will be far far fewer of them. In music and film, at least, megastars were a byproduct of the sort of promotion utilized by the media companies. Judging by the number of one or two hit wonders in the music business; or artists who only have a very short shelf life, labels are quite happy with that as well. The advantage of, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Led Zeppelin has been a consistent high level of income. Lots of people would pay to see even a mediocre Schwarzenegger film or buy a copy of even a lesser Zeppelin record.
In the music business, to some extent, that model was already eroding by the 1990s as the big labels found themselves in serious competition with smaller Indie labels, and in general the whole market is far more fragmented now than it was, say, thirty or forty years ago. That's what pisses me off about the piracy issue, that it essentially allows organizations like the MPAA and RIAA to blame piracy for revenue issues that may in fact be more deeply rooted.
It's only a disconnect insofar as Congress has discarded even the appearances of being part of a government of the people, for the people and by the people, and has basically declared itself interested only in what large corporate interests want. I think we're only a few decades away from a legislative branch about as functionally useful as China's National People's Congress, a rubber stamp for whatever the board rooms of Corporate America tell it to enact.
It's note like most of the stuff you pay for is any good.
The media industry had a century and a bit of product with economic scarcity because copying films and and musical recordings was really difficult. It was a model based upon being able to control manufacturing and distribution, not upon actual creation. I mean, it's not like people weren't writing plays are composing symphonies until the film projector and the phonograph were invented.
History is replete with products wiped out by new technologies. All the laws in the world won't change the fundamental fact that what made the media companies wealthy, that control of distribution, is gone, it's dead. Maybe it means the end of big blockbuster films, although my thinking is that at some point theaters will figure out how to maximize value-added services. Maybe it means the end of, um, Lady Gaga albums, although most successful musical acts make a lot more money from touring than they do from record sales (in no small part because of the way labels have written contracts).
We hard art and music long before IP law existed, and we will have it even after Warner Bros. can no longer co-opt Congress as the enforcement branch of its litigation department.
It makes short-term economic sense. In the long term, they are no more going to hold back the tide than the Japanese did when the Shoguns banned firearms.
Not really. At the end of the day, in either case, technology has transformed the market.
Never assume anything. There will come a time when Apple will become a vast corporate machine like Microsoft and some new upstart will kick the crap out of them. I'm sure Kodak in the 1960s never dreamed that they'd be filing for bankruptcy in half a century.
Not a perfect analogy but the Japanese in the 15th and 16th centuries were the largest manufacturer of firearms on the planet, but the Shoguns got so spooked that firearms would destabilize the Japanese form of feudalism that they banned the manufacture, and Japan was literally pushed back a few hundred years. Of course, Admiral Perry came along with his really big guns, and the Japanese quickly realized they had to catch up in a hurry (and thus began probably the most rapid modernization and industrialization project in all of history).
The only reason for any of the enterprise-level apps is centralized updating and control. Security Essentials works with WSUS now, so you get the updating, but still, you have no good way to monitor which workstations are well protected or which ones have a problem. At the end of the day, my shop is small enough that I can manage the slightly extra load of a checking things out. I haven't actually had a problem with MS Security Essentials, though back in the day when I was using Norton, it was always screwing up on some machine or another.
People could start by voting for third party candidates and rejecting the Demopublican Superparty. Imagine a Congress filled with people with no strong party affiliation.
Why not actually read something on the subject, before you make yourself look like a moron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Don't you feel the least bit foolish? I mean, it's pretty clear you have no idea what science is, what the evidence for evolution is, and worst of all, you're so fucking pathetic you don't even have the intellectual curiousity to go out and look it up. You're a prime example of the kind of proudly ignorant pseudo-skeptic who makes the most ludicrous, moronic pronouncements without the least sense of irony.
Actually, eugenics was largely a rejection of Darwinian selection, and it had no lack of advocates on the Right and Left. It certainly was not a view promoted by most of those who understood natural selection, which as a key concept said that the more variation the better, whereas eugenicists seemed to believe that monocultures were better. As well, many of the targets of the eugenics crowd were people low on the socio-economic ladder, and the arguments usually stemmed either from a view that poverty and/or cretinism were inherited traits. If anything, I'd say most of the eugenics crowd, even if they went around talking in pseudo-Darwinian language, were largely Lamarckian. At any rate, eugenics was never a widely accepted theory in scientific circles, and even at the time there were many who recognized the profoundly unethical nature of its proponents' aims.
An excellent point. I remember years ago a researcher debating a Creationist stating quite simply that "Not knowing everything about a phenomena does not mean we know nothing about a phenomena."
The demand for perfect knowledge has been a frequent one invoked by Creationists for many decades, and as with so many tactics used by the AGW skeptic crowd, this has been co-opted from the Creationists.
Which is not the same thing as a controversy over AGW. This is no different than scientists who debate whether the most potent evolutionary force is mutations or neutral drift. Just because two biologists may differ on which is responsible for more variation in populations doesn't mean that one or the other rejections evolution.
Among those who have debated Creationists, this is what is known as overstating the debate; conflating a debate about details of a theory with a debate about the theory itself.
This is an absurd distortion of science. Numerous fields of research use modeling to both test and refine theories. If you've decided models are now invalid theoretical tools, then everything from quantum mechanics to biology just got thrown out the window.
It would be helpful when reporting a pertinent anecdote that you actually provide the problem. What problem is that that you heard that was so destructive to evolutionary theory?
And that's the real irony. Skeptics, whether evolution deniers or AGW deniers, will go to almost insane levels of skepticism about the theories they reject, and yet will show almost stunning gullibility when it comes to sources they agree with. In my years frequenting evolution debate forums, it was amazing to watch guys saying things in one breath about how we don't have video tape evidence of evolution of humans happening and then with the next breath proclaiming that Noah's Ark and Paluxy footprints were real.
Oh man Are you a fucking moron?
Science didn't even exist as we know it when most people thought the Earth was flat. Science by and large grew out of the Renaissance, and by that point about the only people in the Western world who thought the world was flat were lunatics and ignorant peasants.
I realize you're probably trying to make some sort of rhetorical point, but you're so fucking pig-ignorant yourself you can't even come up with a real topical analogy.
At the same time, even the majority of researchers in any given field say "x is true", just rejecting it because you don't like what you're hearing seems a tad premature. And yes, it is pertinent to say that the number of modern biologists who reject evolution can be counted on two hands, because it drives home the point that virtually no one, with only the most insignificant number of exceptions, who has any expertise on a field related to evolution rejects it.