If at all possible, keep that connection open. According to the PDF, the defendant proved she was at work at the time of the infringement and considers this proof that she is innocent. So use your VNC connection from work to share all your files, then just before you head home, stop your p2p software.
And you're wrong, too. The kid felt the need to kill people, and so he did. His father teaching him how to use real weapons did not cause him to feel the need to kill people. His father not locking the weapons away did not cause him to feel the need to kill people.
It is easier to kill with guns than a knife or baseball bat. It is easier to take an unlocked weapon from your dad's closet than steal one from the gun store. But making it harder to kill isn't going to stop people from feeling the need to kill others. Maybe we should find out what it is that causes people to want to kill other people. Find that out and make it harder to do that. Then you will solve problems.
The problem is that Hovind was not consistent. 10 or 20 or 30 inches would've cracked apart due to barometric pressure changes. The only other numbers we have to work with are the diagram, which shows much more water than there's really room for on the surface of the planet.
If he wasn't consistent, fault him for that and move on. Mention that the ice would have cracked at those widths and move on. Using the diagram to guesstimate how much water he thinks would be there is disingenuous unless the diagram says "to scale" on it. After rewatching part 5, I realize I missed the part where the video goes from using the scale of the image (800 km) to using what would be needed (1,000 km), so my bad there. But then why did it even bring up the images scale? It only distracts, even for me who is in agreement with the narrarator that Hovind is an idiot.
If you can find an actual example of someone being misquoted, or their position being misrepresented, go ahead. I haven't, so far.
That's the thing. I don't think I will because I don't think the points are being misrepresented. With the water thing, this is what happens:
VenomFangX: The search for water is futile
Video: But there's water out there
Without knowing why the search is considered futile, the video stating that water exists is practically a non sequitur. Without telling us why VenomFangX thinks it is futile, we are left to assume the next part will tell us it is not futile, instead it only tells us that water exists. The video would have been much better served to just leave out that quote entirely and simply replace it with the not "a speck of H20 in outer space" quote.
Again, I had no problems with the substance of the videos. I'm not even talking about the production quality. It's just that I think the arguments could be much more thought out and organized as they are a little (not a lot, just a little) incohesive.
I watched some of those "Why do people laugh at Creationists" videos. Whoever made them is on the right track, but I found so many problems with some of his arguments that it's hard to keep watching. For example, in part 5, while trying to refute Hovind's ice shield theory, he uses the diagram to estimate how big Hovind's ice shield around the earth is and continues with this size for the rest of the video. But previously in the video Hovind had said he didn't know how big it was but guessed at "10 or 20 or 30 inches thick." But the video uses the diagram to guess a thickness of 800km, a difference by a factor of close to 1 million at best, 3 million at worst.
Another example from part 1. He quotes somebody (Hovind I'm guessing) as saying "Scientists have been trying desperately to find water on other planets. However this search is futile..." and then the video maker cuts the quote off. I am left to assume why the quoted person thinks it is futile (which means "serves no useful purpose"). I can assume why he thinks it's futile, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he thinks it's futile because we already know it exists, or perhaps he thinks it is because finding it won't stop poverty and hunger on Earth. All the video maker had to do was continue the quote for us to know why, but instead leaves it for us to assume. Which means that maybe the video maker is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and set up a strawman.
Before you get all huffy puffy about it, I find creationist ideas to be a load of rabble. I'm only saying that the videos have loads of problems with them, not with the science, but with how he sets up and executes the debates.
Are you stupid? The PS3 has sold ~21.3 million units and the 360 has sold somewhere ~28 million [citation given]. Over their lifetimes, the PS3 has sold ~76% of the 360 in about 70% of the time. Which means it's doing better on average over its lifetime than the 360 is.
Disclaimer: I own a Wii, but very much prefer PC gaming.
You would be greatly informed to learn that the Scientific Method was first developed by Alhazen, who was a muslim from the turn of the 1st millenium. You would also be greatly alarmed to hear that mathematics as we know it was formed during the Dark Ages by Muslims and Hindus. Hindus also developed differential calculus during that time. It would be enlightening for you to understand that Muslims, Hindus, Chinese were also instrumental in the beginnings of modern-day surgery, optics, Trigonometry, Chemistry, and many other fields. That covers your western bias.
It might be enlightening for you to know that the the flat earth idea started well before the greeks and by the 1300s nobody (including the christians) believed it to be flat. In fact, it wasn't until the end of the Dark Ages that Christopher Columbus came along and went against all common knowledge to be exactly wrong. The current myth is that he common knowledge was the earth was flat but Columbus was intelligent enough to see it was not. That's a myth and is absurd for any one who studies history. The reality was the common knowledge was closer to reality, and Columbus was wrong but happened to get lucky that the American continent was in his way.
Also, it's not as if people ever made up things to make religion look worse than it was.
Religion has been nothing but a destructive force in science ranging from oppression to absurd pseudoscience
Let's be honest, religions have gotten many things wrong, they were oppressive at times, and unfortunately religion has been used as a crutch, shield, and/or weapon. But if you're going to say nothing but, then you're going to be sadly disappointed to find the truth. Not that the truth is the exact opposite, but it is different enough that to say nothing but makes you look just as blinded.
OK, raise the speed to 45 and you still have problems when traffic is flowing at 60+. And in either case, does it matter that he's breaking the law going 35? He's doing it and accidents are likely to occur. The cops can cite him for it afterwards, but that wouldn't go back in time and cause the accident not to happen.
First, I think you missed his point. $50 for "a few days of stupid RTS fun" is fine if there is no other option. However, that same $50 could get you a whole lot more than just a few days with the other games the GP mentioned. Even by the price/hour metric, the GP was saying that EndWar would be a stupid purchase since he could get a better price/hour with Empire Total War or Dawn of War II, and an even better price/hour with World in Conflict Gold.
Second, price/hour is a fine objective metric. Unfortunately you are talking about price/hour of entertainment, which is a subjective thing, and not all entertainment is created equal. Are you going to claim that all forms of entertainment provide the same level of entertainment for each hour? That would be absurd. You can't even claim that each form of entertainment provides the same level within that form, as if any movie was equally as enjoyable as any other movie, or any game is as fun as any other game. It doesn't even work for specific genres within a specific form of entertainment, or will you claim that all fantasy books are equally entertaining as any other fantasy book, or that any comedian is just as funny as any other comedian. In fact, you couldn't even claim that any given specific instance of a specific form of entertainment will be as enjoyable as that exact same thing in different hours or at different times. For example, the second half of a movie might be much more entertaining than the first half, or the second watching of that same movie might be less entertaining than the first. Another example, two nights ago playing Warcraft III on battle.net might have been a real drag compared to last night, etc.
Price/hour is a really stupid metric for a price point. How would you even begin to base it on anything meaningful? Does that mean that a 3 minute song for $0.99 is the baseline. $0.33/minute equals $20/hour. A 10 hour game should now be $200? Or should we use a $50 forty hour game? So prices should be $1.25 per hour, and thus the 3 minute song should be $0.06? And how would that even translate into dinner? You pay $30 and get 30 minutes and you can eat whatever you want in that time be it steak and lobster or just salad, and when 30 minutes comes the waiter kicks you out or asks for your credit card for another 30 minutes?
I'm having fun with these examples. Let's use a theater as the baseline. Let's say $10 for 2 hour movie or $5/hour. Most people play WoW at least 5 hours per week, at 4 weeks per month that's $100/month for Blizzard. You should let them know they could be getting 6 0r 7 times what they currently are. Or using those numbers, $15 for 20 hours each month, entertainment ought to cost $0.75/hour, meaning I can now go to Six Flags Magic Mountain for a whole 11.5 hour day and pay only $8.625. I could go for that. Or better yet, let's use the Magic Mountain Park pass as the baseline. $60 for unlimited use for the entire season. They're open at least 8 hours every weekend, plus about 6 months every day, plus holidays, but they're open on all major holidays, and the season pass gets you 4 free tickets on certain days, and it gets you other discounts in the park. I can't even begin to calculate it, but it looks like we're talking either pennies or fractions thereof per hour. Sweet, all games should now be maybe a $1 or less even. I like you're way of thinking.
I realize (perhaps just hope) the above was a joke, but some creationists will probably use this to say that evolution is a myth. Unfortunately for them, since they also say that any form of absolute dating (such as radiocarbon and potassium-argon) is unreliable and inadmissible, they are then saying that this find isn't that old and thus cannot be used by them to show that octopodes haven't changed, and thus this find cannot be used by them (logically anyway) to disprove evolution.
Maybe I'm confused about what CCM is or I just have a very narrow view of it, or maybe you do. I like Red's Breathe Into Me and Already Over, Skillet's Whispers in the Dark and Flyleaf's I'm So Sick and some others. I had no idea any of then were christian bands or that the songs were in any way religious until I read it on Wikipedia. Now that I know it, I see the religion in the songs, but it's not blatantly religious, let alone christian. So I'd have to agree with the GP, if you refuse to listen to CCM then it's not because you aren't christian, it's because it is.
Then again, none of those bands are listed on Wikipedia's CCM page so maybe I'm totally off base here.
If god is indescernable from pure randomness, then you can remove him without changing anything. If you can remove him and it makes no difference, then he's not "there" in any meaningful sense.
The situations I proposed would beg to differ. Assume god(s) intervention really was the only way to jump from single-celled life to multi-cellular life. If that was the case, we might call it indistinguishable from randomness, but to claim it as making no difference is absurd, and to claim removing that intervention would not change anything is even more ridiculous.
Also, in religions whose god(s) require certain acts or behaviors for the purpose of blessings in the after-life (somewhere between most and all to my knowledge) then just because you can't discern the god(s) actions from randomness again doesn't mean you can ignore him/her/it/them. In fact, in those scenarios, their god(s) could really be totally uninvolved in the natural world, only operating in a completely separate "spirit world" and it would still make a difference if you were to ignore him/her/it/them.
He who makes extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary proof.
Can't diasgree with you there.
Now prove me wrong or worship me as your god.:-)
Methinks you are contradicting yourself there. You're making the claim, you need to provide the proof to the positive, not me to the negative.
I thought Lamarcks demon had been killed a hundred times by now.
I couldn't find anything about Lamarck's demon, so I'm assuming you're referring to Lamarckian Evolution. If so, I cannot figure out why, unless you misunderstood what I was saying by no free will. Lamarck suggested that the choices we make can affect the genetic traits we pass on to our offspring. The scenario I presented was totally different; choice is an illusion and there is no such thing as free will.
Did you even google that? If so, did you read beyond the first few sentences in any of the articles? It says that people who are slightly overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) live longer than people who are overweight (BMI > 30) and people who are underweight (BMI 18.5). However, it mentions people who are between 18.5 and 25 are the longest lived people. This should be obvious. In other words, it is saying that people who are slightly off the desired BMI will live longer than people who are way off the desired BMI. Or even more simply, people who are slightly unhealthy live longer than people who are more unhealthy.
StarCraft, in it's current form, will be very long in the tooth when it's source code becomes available to my great-great-grandchildren in 2073
And that is where I think you are wrong, but hope that I am. In it's current form, you don't have to submit anything to the copyright office in order for it to be copyrighted. You do have to submit it in order to file a lawsuit, but in the case of StarCraft, I don't know if Blizzard filed the source code, or the compiled game, so it's possible that when the copyright expires, you still won't get the source code. It'd be interesting to know that.
No matter the status of StarCraft, there are lots of things receiving copyright protections but not having to file that with the copyright office, which ensures that once the copyright expires, the work will still be available. Granted, most "works" aren't deserving of preservation, but copyright doesn't determine what is worth preserving, it only grants protections. And if it's going to get the protections, it should have to be preserved and then others can decide if it's worth having.
A lot of bands already do that, but the majority of bands have decided they'd rather get paid if they can.
And many bands, both big and small, want to make money and still give their music away for free as part of their business model. "Give it away and pray", isn't a business model. Getting fans by giving away music and then charging those fans for other things has been and is used to much success by many musicians. What you have written above is called a false dichotomy.
The RIAA could easily "beat" illegal torrents simply by not releasing any music.
And then the bands that don't release anything and the RIAA dry up and die. The bands that do what I mentioned above, are still making music. And nothing of value was lost.
So you are being a hypocrite. Any decision on copyright length, whether it be 0, infinite, or anything between, is a decision as to how long an artist can make money on his work.
Apparently you regard the service of printing and distributing a book to be far more valuable than the service of actually creating the words which go into that book.
In this day and age of making digital copies, turning a copyrighted work into a physical form is a service. Everyone could have it digitally. However, some people want to put it up on the wall or whatever, which most people can't do as easily. So yes, once a work has gone into the public domain, the creation of the words is already done, had it's time in copyright (whether it's 5, 15, 30, or x years) and so only someone providing a service beyond that should get paid. I'm not into audio books, but I know people who would pay money to listen to Jim Dale read to them works that are otherwise free. I'd be willing to bet, some of them would even pay him to recite the constitution. He's providing a service beyond the original work. Yes, it is more valuable now.
Also, value and cost are not directly related. Certainly only an idiot would pay more than what they value something at. But everyone would love to pay less. I value Night of the Living Dead (whose copyright has expired), but I wouldn't pay anything for it because I really don't value having a physical disk at all. I value Washington's Crossing the Delaware (whose copyright has expired) but I would pay a small fee to have a print because I do value having that in physical form.
can't hope to go from concept to consumer within less than 2 years
This might be true. If it is, don't file the patent until you're about to release the product. If it really is so unobvious, then no one else will have thought of it independently. Otherwise, it doesn't deserve patent protection.
It's about being just enough enticement to encourage people to create these works in the first place so as to enrich the public domain to the maximum degree
If she never published them, they would never be in the public domain. So maybe copyright was enough incentive for her children to publish them.
That being said, I agree with you. People need to realize that copyright isn't about making sure an author is paid, it's about making sure they have enough incentive to create works (that should eventually become public domain).
And you don't have the whole picture either. Firstly it's a business model issue. Many musicians are starting to give their music away for free, using the infinite free good (see the price where supply and demand meet when supply is infinite) to help sell the scarce good. This is being done by already well known artists (such as Trent Reznor and Radiohead), as well as unknown-before-giving-away-free-music artists (such as Jill Sobule and Corey Smith).
Movie studios and game developers are going to have a harder time finding a business model, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. For example, Blizzard could give StarCraft II away for free and make enough money on the tournaments alone. They won't do this, of course, but if there was no way to make money on games, this is a model they could use. They get money from sponsorships of their tournaments, charge an entrance fee, sell related merchandise (such as books, posters, figurines, clothing, etc.). In this situation, others could have StarCraft II tournaments, but they couldn't have meet and greets with the developers unless they paid them, so Blizzard would have either a differentiating factor, or a way to make money.
Also, movies don't need the budgets they currently have. A big portion of that budget comes from actor/actress salaries. If the movie was free and they had to make up the money in other ways, then those salaries would probably come down. What that would do to the quality of the acting is any person's guess. Also, special effects don't need to cost as much as they do. Star Wars Revelations was made with a budget of $20,000 or so. While that's not cheap, it's a lot easier to make a profit on $20,000 than it is on $100,000,000+. Granted that was a fan film, but it goes to show that special effects don't need to cost as much as they do. Even if they did, maybe we would go away from movies that rely on special effects towards movies that rely more on a good script.
Copies can be easily made of your house keys. Would you like them widely and legally available?
This statement just shows that you really don't know the difference. To claim that making copies of your house keys are as easy as making a copy of an mp3 is just dumb. Simple and fairly cheap, yes, but I could get an mp3 out to every one with a computer for far cheaper than to make a copy of my house key for those same people. And all those people could listen to the mp3 at the same time and for far cheaper. Only a very small fraction of those people could go through my house in a year's time, and an even smaller number could get to my house for as cheap (time costs included) as it would be to download and listen to an mp3.
All of that ignores the big fundamental difference: artists want their art to be seen/heard/experienced. Yes they'd like to be paid for it as well, and I'm not faulting them there. But no one wants random people walking into their house. And there is another fundamental difference that you are failing to see. Even if I gave away keys to my house, and even if I charged people to see it, there is only one of my house. To make a copy would cost a lot of money and time. While people are in my house, no one else can use it. On the other hand, while I'm listening to my mp3s, you could make a copy of it and use it and it wouldn't affect me one bit.
Fusion doesn't exist to create stars; it is necessary for stars to exist. Similarly, evolution doesn't exist to make more life; making more life (or, more succinctly, reproduction) is necessary for evolution to occur. There's not a whole lot of evolution going on if a life form abiogenisistically appears, doesn't reproduce, then dies.
Slashdot Mirror
If at all possible, keep that connection open. According to the PDF, the defendant proved she was at work at the time of the infringement and considers this proof that she is innocent. So use your VNC connection from work to share all your files, then just before you head home, stop your p2p software.
Bunnies? Bunnies?!!? Sure, and when they grow up, they'll be rabbits that can leap about ... Have huge, sharp ... Just look at the bones you fool.
And you're wrong, too. The kid felt the need to kill people, and so he did. His father teaching him how to use real weapons did not cause him to feel the need to kill people. His father not locking the weapons away did not cause him to feel the need to kill people.
It is easier to kill with guns than a knife or baseball bat. It is easier to take an unlocked weapon from your dad's closet than steal one from the gun store. But making it harder to kill isn't going to stop people from feeling the need to kill others. Maybe we should find out what it is that causes people to want to kill other people. Find that out and make it harder to do that. Then you will solve problems.
If he wasn't consistent, fault him for that and move on. Mention that the ice would have cracked at those widths and move on. Using the diagram to guesstimate how much water he thinks would be there is disingenuous unless the diagram says "to scale" on it. After rewatching part 5, I realize I missed the part where the video goes from using the scale of the image (800 km) to using what would be needed (1,000 km), so my bad there. But then why did it even bring up the images scale? It only distracts, even for me who is in agreement with the narrarator that Hovind is an idiot.
That's the thing. I don't think I will because I don't think the points are being misrepresented. With the water thing, this is what happens:
VenomFangX: The search for water is futile
Video: But there's water out there
Without knowing why the search is considered futile, the video stating that water exists is practically a non sequitur. Without telling us why VenomFangX thinks it is futile, we are left to assume the next part will tell us it is not futile, instead it only tells us that water exists. The video would have been much better served to just leave out that quote entirely and simply replace it with the not "a speck of H20 in outer space" quote.
Again, I had no problems with the substance of the videos. I'm not even talking about the production quality. It's just that I think the arguments could be much more thought out and organized as they are a little (not a lot, just a little) incohesive.
I watched some of those "Why do people laugh at Creationists" videos. Whoever made them is on the right track, but I found so many problems with some of his arguments that it's hard to keep watching. For example, in part 5, while trying to refute Hovind's ice shield theory, he uses the diagram to estimate how big Hovind's ice shield around the earth is and continues with this size for the rest of the video. But previously in the video Hovind had said he didn't know how big it was but guessed at "10 or 20 or 30 inches thick." But the video uses the diagram to guess a thickness of 800km, a difference by a factor of close to 1 million at best, 3 million at worst.
Another example from part 1. He quotes somebody (Hovind I'm guessing) as saying "Scientists have been trying desperately to find water on other planets. However this search is futile..." and then the video maker cuts the quote off. I am left to assume why the quoted person thinks it is futile (which means "serves no useful purpose"). I can assume why he thinks it's futile, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he thinks it's futile because we already know it exists, or perhaps he thinks it is because finding it won't stop poverty and hunger on Earth. All the video maker had to do was continue the quote for us to know why, but instead leaves it for us to assume. Which means that maybe the video maker is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and set up a strawman.
Before you get all huffy puffy about it, I find creationist ideas to be a load of rabble. I'm only saying that the videos have loads of problems with them, not with the science, but with how he sets up and executes the debates.
Are you stupid? The PS3 has sold ~21.3 million units and the 360 has sold somewhere ~28 million [citation given]. Over their lifetimes, the PS3 has sold ~76% of the 360 in about 70% of the time. Which means it's doing better on average over its lifetime than the 360 is.
Disclaimer: I own a Wii, but very much prefer PC gaming.
You're western bias and ignorance are showing.
You would be greatly informed to learn that the Scientific Method was first developed by Alhazen, who was a muslim from the turn of the 1st millenium. You would also be greatly alarmed to hear that mathematics as we know it was formed during the Dark Ages by Muslims and Hindus. Hindus also developed differential calculus during that time. It would be enlightening for you to understand that Muslims, Hindus, Chinese were also instrumental in the beginnings of modern-day surgery, optics, Trigonometry, Chemistry, and many other fields. That covers your western bias.
It might be enlightening for you to know that the the flat earth idea started well before the greeks and by the 1300s nobody (including the christians) believed it to be flat. In fact, it wasn't until the end of the Dark Ages that Christopher Columbus came along and went against all common knowledge to be exactly wrong. The current myth is that he common knowledge was the earth was flat but Columbus was intelligent enough to see it was not. That's a myth and is absurd for any one who studies history. The reality was the common knowledge was closer to reality, and Columbus was wrong but happened to get lucky that the American continent was in his way.
Also, it's not as if people ever made up things to make religion look worse than it was.
Let's be honest, religions have gotten many things wrong, they were oppressive at times, and unfortunately religion has been used as a crutch, shield, and/or weapon. But if you're going to say nothing but, then you're going to be sadly disappointed to find the truth. Not that the truth is the exact opposite, but it is different enough that to say nothing but makes you look just as blinded.
Because if free will doesn't exist, you don't have a choice about whether to bother or not.
Because economics says so. Or how much do you think you could charge for sunlight, the infinite good that it is?
Yay, it's party time!
Death is also different from dying. I know I'm gonna die, I just hope it's not as painful as tumbling down a canyon for a while.
Does that include knowing when a tire is about to blow out? That's what the discussion was about until you arrived.
OK, raise the speed to 45 and you still have problems when traffic is flowing at 60+. And in either case, does it matter that he's breaking the law going 35? He's doing it and accidents are likely to occur. The cops can cite him for it afterwards, but that wouldn't go back in time and cause the accident not to happen.
First, I think you missed his point. $50 for "a few days of stupid RTS fun" is fine if there is no other option. However, that same $50 could get you a whole lot more than just a few days with the other games the GP mentioned. Even by the price/hour metric, the GP was saying that EndWar would be a stupid purchase since he could get a better price/hour with Empire Total War or Dawn of War II, and an even better price/hour with World in Conflict Gold.
Second, price/hour is a fine objective metric. Unfortunately you are talking about price/hour of entertainment, which is a subjective thing, and not all entertainment is created equal. Are you going to claim that all forms of entertainment provide the same level of entertainment for each hour? That would be absurd. You can't even claim that each form of entertainment provides the same level within that form, as if any movie was equally as enjoyable as any other movie, or any game is as fun as any other game. It doesn't even work for specific genres within a specific form of entertainment, or will you claim that all fantasy books are equally entertaining as any other fantasy book, or that any comedian is just as funny as any other comedian. In fact, you couldn't even claim that any given specific instance of a specific form of entertainment will be as enjoyable as that exact same thing in different hours or at different times. For example, the second half of a movie might be much more entertaining than the first half, or the second watching of that same movie might be less entertaining than the first. Another example, two nights ago playing Warcraft III on battle.net might have been a real drag compared to last night, etc.
Price/hour is a really stupid metric for a price point. How would you even begin to base it on anything meaningful? Does that mean that a 3 minute song for $0.99 is the baseline. $0.33/minute equals $20/hour. A 10 hour game should now be $200? Or should we use a $50 forty hour game? So prices should be $1.25 per hour, and thus the 3 minute song should be $0.06? And how would that even translate into dinner? You pay $30 and get 30 minutes and you can eat whatever you want in that time be it steak and lobster or just salad, and when 30 minutes comes the waiter kicks you out or asks for your credit card for another 30 minutes?
I'm having fun with these examples. Let's use a theater as the baseline. Let's say $10 for 2 hour movie or $5/hour. Most people play WoW at least 5 hours per week, at 4 weeks per month that's $100/month for Blizzard. You should let them know they could be getting 6 0r 7 times what they currently are. Or using those numbers, $15 for 20 hours each month, entertainment ought to cost $0.75/hour, meaning I can now go to Six Flags Magic Mountain for a whole 11.5 hour day and pay only $8.625. I could go for that. Or better yet, let's use the Magic Mountain Park pass as the baseline. $60 for unlimited use for the entire season. They're open at least 8 hours every weekend, plus about 6 months every day, plus holidays, but they're open on all major holidays, and the season pass gets you 4 free tickets on certain days, and it gets you other discounts in the park. I can't even begin to calculate it, but it looks like we're talking either pennies or fractions thereof per hour. Sweet, all games should now be maybe a $1 or less even. I like you're way of thinking.
I realize (perhaps just hope) the above was a joke, but some creationists will probably use this to say that evolution is a myth. Unfortunately for them, since they also say that any form of absolute dating (such as radiocarbon and potassium-argon) is unreliable and inadmissible, they are then saying that this find isn't that old and thus cannot be used by them to show that octopodes haven't changed, and thus this find cannot be used by them (logically anyway) to disprove evolution.
Maybe I'm confused about what CCM is or I just have a very narrow view of it, or maybe you do. I like Red's Breathe Into Me and Already Over, Skillet's Whispers in the Dark and Flyleaf's I'm So Sick and some others. I had no idea any of then were christian bands or that the songs were in any way religious until I read it on Wikipedia. Now that I know it, I see the religion in the songs, but it's not blatantly religious, let alone christian. So I'd have to agree with the GP, if you refuse to listen to CCM then it's not because you aren't christian, it's because it is.
Then again, none of those bands are listed on Wikipedia's CCM page so maybe I'm totally off base here.
The situations I proposed would beg to differ. Assume god(s) intervention really was the only way to jump from single-celled life to multi-cellular life. If that was the case, we might call it indistinguishable from randomness, but to claim it as making no difference is absurd, and to claim removing that intervention would not change anything is even more ridiculous.
Also, in religions whose god(s) require certain acts or behaviors for the purpose of blessings in the after-life (somewhere between most and all to my knowledge) then just because you can't discern the god(s) actions from randomness again doesn't mean you can ignore him/her/it/them. In fact, in those scenarios, their god(s) could really be totally uninvolved in the natural world, only operating in a completely separate "spirit world" and it would still make a difference if you were to ignore him/her/it/them.
Can't diasgree with you there.
Methinks you are contradicting yourself there. You're making the claim, you need to provide the proof to the positive, not me to the negative.
I couldn't find anything about Lamarck's demon, so I'm assuming you're referring to Lamarckian Evolution. If so, I cannot figure out why, unless you misunderstood what I was saying by no free will. Lamarck suggested that the choices we make can affect the genetic traits we pass on to our offspring. The scenario I presented was totally different; choice is an illusion and there is no such thing as free will.
Did you even google that? If so, did you read beyond the first few sentences in any of the articles? It says that people who are slightly overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) live longer than people who are overweight (BMI > 30) and people who are underweight (BMI 18.5). However, it mentions people who are between 18.5 and 25 are the longest lived people. This should be obvious. In other words, it is saying that people who are slightly off the desired BMI will live longer than people who are way off the desired BMI. Or even more simply, people who are slightly unhealthy live longer than people who are more unhealthy.
And that is where I think you are wrong, but hope that I am. In it's current form, you don't have to submit anything to the copyright office in order for it to be copyrighted. You do have to submit it in order to file a lawsuit, but in the case of StarCraft, I don't know if Blizzard filed the source code, or the compiled game, so it's possible that when the copyright expires, you still won't get the source code. It'd be interesting to know that.
No matter the status of StarCraft, there are lots of things receiving copyright protections but not having to file that with the copyright office, which ensures that once the copyright expires, the work will still be available. Granted, most "works" aren't deserving of preservation, but copyright doesn't determine what is worth preserving, it only grants protections. And if it's going to get the protections, it should have to be preserved and then others can decide if it's worth having.
And many bands, both big and small, want to make money and still give their music away for free as part of their business model. "Give it away and pray", isn't a business model. Getting fans by giving away music and then charging those fans for other things has been and is used to much success by many musicians. What you have written above is called a false dichotomy.
And then the bands that don't release anything and the RIAA dry up and die. The bands that do what I mentioned above, are still making music. And nothing of value was lost.
is another way of saying
So you are being a hypocrite. Any decision on copyright length, whether it be 0, infinite, or anything between, is a decision as to how long an artist can make money on his work.
In this day and age of making digital copies, turning a copyrighted work into a physical form is a service. Everyone could have it digitally. However, some people want to put it up on the wall or whatever, which most people can't do as easily. So yes, once a work has gone into the public domain, the creation of the words is already done, had it's time in copyright (whether it's 5, 15, 30, or x years) and so only someone providing a service beyond that should get paid. I'm not into audio books, but I know people who would pay money to listen to Jim Dale read to them works that are otherwise free. I'd be willing to bet, some of them would even pay him to recite the constitution. He's providing a service beyond the original work. Yes, it is more valuable now.
Also, value and cost are not directly related. Certainly only an idiot would pay more than what they value something at. But everyone would love to pay less. I value Night of the Living Dead (whose copyright has expired), but I wouldn't pay anything for it because I really don't value having a physical disk at all. I value Washington's Crossing the Delaware (whose copyright has expired) but I would pay a small fee to have a print because I do value having that in physical form.
This might be true. If it is, don't file the patent until you're about to release the product. If it really is so unobvious, then no one else will have thought of it independently. Otherwise, it doesn't deserve patent protection.
To play devil's advocate:
If she never published them, they would never be in the public domain. So maybe copyright was enough incentive for her children to publish them.
That being said, I agree with you. People need to realize that copyright isn't about making sure an author is paid, it's about making sure they have enough incentive to create works (that should eventually become public domain).
Movie studios and game developers are going to have a harder time finding a business model, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. For example, Blizzard could give StarCraft II away for free and make enough money on the tournaments alone. They won't do this, of course, but if there was no way to make money on games, this is a model they could use. They get money from sponsorships of their tournaments, charge an entrance fee, sell related merchandise (such as books, posters, figurines, clothing, etc.). In this situation, others could have StarCraft II tournaments, but they couldn't have meet and greets with the developers unless they paid them, so Blizzard would have either a differentiating factor, or a way to make money.
Also, movies don't need the budgets they currently have. A big portion of that budget comes from actor/actress salaries. If the movie was free and they had to make up the money in other ways, then those salaries would probably come down. What that would do to the quality of the acting is any person's guess. Also, special effects don't need to cost as much as they do. Star Wars Revelations was made with a budget of $20,000 or so. While that's not cheap, it's a lot easier to make a profit on $20,000 than it is on $100,000,000+. Granted that was a fan film, but it goes to show that special effects don't need to cost as much as they do. Even if they did, maybe we would go away from movies that rely on special effects towards movies that rely more on a good script.
This statement just shows that you really don't know the difference. To claim that making copies of your house keys are as easy as making a copy of an mp3 is just dumb. Simple and fairly cheap, yes, but I could get an mp3 out to every one with a computer for far cheaper than to make a copy of my house key for those same people. And all those people could listen to the mp3 at the same time and for far cheaper. Only a very small fraction of those people could go through my house in a year's time, and an even smaller number could get to my house for as cheap (time costs included) as it would be to download and listen to an mp3.
All of that ignores the big fundamental difference: artists want their art to be seen/heard/experienced. Yes they'd like to be paid for it as well, and I'm not faulting them there. But no one wants random people walking into their house. And there is another fundamental difference that you are failing to see. Even if I gave away keys to my house, and even if I charged people to see it, there is only one of my house. To make a copy would cost a lot of money and time. While people are in my house, no one else can use it. On the other hand, while I'm listening to my mp3s, you could make a copy of it and use it and it wouldn't affect me one bit.
Fusion doesn't exist to create stars; it is necessary for stars to exist. Similarly, evolution doesn't exist to make more life; making more life (or, more succinctly, reproduction) is necessary for evolution to occur. There's not a whole lot of evolution going on if a life form abiogenisistically appears, doesn't reproduce, then dies.