Logical, I'll give you. Necessary from our standpoint? I'll give you that one too. MERCIFUL?! Burning people's shadows into pavement and modifying their genetics, as well as destroying massive amounts of land is MERCY? Paint me confused.
I think he means merciful as in killing less people in the long run, not an act of mercy to those people in particular. People may disagree that more people would have died, but it's not an absurd proposition.
Plumbers could demand a contract demanding a cut every time the house changes hands, but not many people would go for it.
Good point. What if plumbers formed a lobby group to make it law, rather than individual contracts? That is effectively what proponents of perpetual copyright are attempting.
Education's job is to create a thinking population, so that they won't sell their vote for a hotdog and fries next election.
Then it seems to have failed spectacularly. Election campaigns are much more similar to marketing than reasoned debate.
Finally, you say a not insignificant number of teachers tries to educate children. Doesn't that imply the system attempts to educate children, and everything else are exceptions?
No. I encourage you to have a look at John Taylor Gatto's work if you haven't yet. It's hard to agree with everything he says, but it's hard to ignore everything he says also. Many teachers want to teach, and they use the system available to them. That in no way implies that the system is good.
Schools job is not to teach, it is to produce an easily manageable population that will:
1) Be subject to corporations instead of producing and independent income, to assist mass production.
2) Be subject to marketing and mass persuasion to assist mass consupmtion (required for mass production).
Independent critical thinking is detrimental to these goals, and is only tolerated if it doesn't become widespread. The fact that a not insignificant number of teachers try to educate children is not enough to seriously disrupt the system.
The AC you replied to said the OP's comment about having no sympathy for the Chinese was , when taken in context, not based on racism but on his views of software piracy levels in China.
I quote the AC: "He didn't mean he has no sympathy for Chinese people in any circumstance; if you apply a little common sense it's clear that what he means is that he has no sympathy for the Chinese people pirating Windows who got hosed by this Symantec update."
I quote the original poster: "This ought to teach them a good anti-piracy lesson."
The article mentions piracy as significant factor impacting recovery, the summary mentions piracy as a significant factor impacting recovery, and the OP DaMattster said he had no sympathy for the Chinese, which in context of the rest of his post, and certainly the article and summary, would be clearly understood to be in regard to software piracy, not as a result of racism.
Your accusation of racism is without evidence to substantiate it. Even if piracy is not a big factor in the software troubles in China, it is cleary the motivating factor of DaMattster's remark. Your accusation is without merit.
"Piracy" has nothing to do with the problem if you had RTFA you would know this.
From the summary: Piracy issues may complicate recovery, since once the updates are installed Symantec says the only hope for reviving an affected system is to re-copy the affected DLLs from the Windows restore disks.
for tangible physical media that is true, for the disc itself there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling it. But you are selling more than just the disc, you own the disc, but the artist owns the song, you are selling their work to someone else, without them getting their fair share.
No, you are selling exactly what was sold to you, unmodified. They get their fair share on the first sale. I find it bizarre that you don't seem to understand this. The personal or financial situation of the original producer does not abrogate purchasers rights to sell legally owned goods. There is no legal or moral imperitave here.
And I'm not making the RIAA argument that they own the disc and everything on it, and you cant make copies or put it on your mp3 player, I just think that selling used CDs is a bad idea, it profits no one but the record store.
Well, you did make the arguement that they own everything on the disc and have said in two posts that it is stealing, qualifying it in one post as "stealing sales" but stealing nonetheless. You haven't given any reason why it should be considered stealing to sell second hand goods, or why it is bad for second hand dealers to be the only one's to profit from their work (the artist profited on the first sale, they did no further work towards the second hand sale) other than your personal preference of paying producers of music twice for something they produced once (a CD).
If you can't understand the doctrine of first sale, I couldn't be bothered to explain it to you. I won't be reading any more replies, you can go last if you like.
when you buy a CD you own the physical disc, but you don't own the music on it. It is yours to do with as you will but when you sell it you are selling what belongs to the artist, they own the songs, and are providing you with full use of the contents, but not the right to take their recording of the song and sell it. It would be like burning a copy of a CD and selling it, you are selling what doesn't belong to you, and profiting from sales that should have gone to the artist.
I've never heard such an extreme take on it outside of *AA reps. If you own the disk, you can sell the disk. It has the distinct difference from burning a copy and selling it that if I sell a legally purchased copy, I then no longer have it. The original producer has sold one copy, been paid for one copy, and no additional copies exist, so the copyright is not violated.
Second hand sales are not stealing anything, sales, ideas, opportunities, profits or anything else. This is how it works: once you sell something, you no longer get to control it. See, simple isn't it?
If you don't care that the artists you like are not getting paid, then by all means go ahead and buy the secondhand CDs. The big problem with this is when it is an underground band that you are supporting, you would buy their CD at the higher price that benefits them, but you buy the cheap one because it is cheaper, they just lost the money that should have gone to them, so the record stores are stealing from the artist.
I hope I'm missing a joke here... you don't seriously think that selling second hand goods is stealing from the original producer do you?
The notion that the past is something to strip mine freely is kind of disturbing.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You find the justification for copyright in the US constitution disturbing?
That isn't a lot different from the world the 'corporate' folks want today to be like.
Well, most of us do want it to be different now. We have vastly improved technology. To have laws banning us from using it seems like a waste of the last 40 years technological progress. What have they 'ruined'? Progress. They haven't ruined the way things used to be, they are ruining the effects of progress, they way they could be now.
Slashdot, and the majority of its readers, are on the side of the Pirate Bay.
Am I alone in actually paying the programmers, musicians, and directors for their work?
I buy my music and movies, I want to use them, I want to rip them to hard drive, I want to use linux. I believe this is fair use, however, it could possibly be breaking criminal law in come cases (yet to be tested in my country). I have one movie that wouldn't play using DeCSS. I downloaded it. Strangly, downloading that one movie (even if I had not purchased it first on DVD) carries less penalty than ripping my legally purchased DVD's or even watching them (if it gets tested in court and found to be illegal here) because I didn't break any encryption to do so. I also have several movies on VHS I have downloaded. If I got a capture card, I could quite legally copy these (no encryption).
Paying people for their work is reasonable. Pretending that current IP laws are sane is absurd.
Not as different as some people like to think: Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God.... The God of the New Testament is still the same God of the Old Testament.
what about luke 19:27 where jesus says to bring those who will not submit to his teachings before him and kill them? of course, you could just say it was a command to his disciples.
That's a very unusual (mis)understanding of that verse. It's part of a parable, not a command. I'm guessing at this point you either have a very poor grasp of english, you're deliberately trolling or you're just repeating something somebody told you.
granted, the new testament does a lot better of staying away from things we consider reprehensible in modern day life
Actually, I'm not so sure it's reprehensible to kill people whose common practice is to burn children as sacrifices. Even today, I think you could get a lot of support to wipe them out. Not very PC of me I know, but consider the wars that are going on now and in recent history, the people willing to do it could be found pretty easily. Of course, lots of people would think that's terrible, probably including you, but hey, who are you? Just because you think something is wrong doesn't really constrain anyone else. Jesus whipped people. Not very tolerant, now, was he.
you may call it an understanding of the language, but when it comes down to it, its your personal interpretation as to whether or not you should do something you now find morally reprehensible but is called for in the bible.
No, it's not really a personal interpretation. Personally, I'm not a peacenik. You may have guessed. Taking everything in the bible as a personal command to you is absurd. Nobody would suggest that we all have to build an ark because God commanded Noah to do that, unless they were deliberately misinterpreting in order to mock or they were mentally deficient.
The apostle Peter in the New Testament says Lot was a righteous man: 2 Peter 2:7-8.
Hebrew Chapter 11 contains a list of people sometimes called "Heroes of Faith". Not many goody two shoes there. Righteousness is assigned, it is not a statement of approval of every action taken by that person.
Regarding Isaiah 13, it is a promise of fullfillment of God's convenant with Abraham: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee". Speaking from a biblical perspective, the Babylonians had sealed their own fate by their treatment of Israel. It is not an endorsement for us to go around raping people.
but it is his direct command to you as a christian.
uh, no, it isn't. It's a command to the Isrealites at that particular time. It is indeed a command to commit what is now known as genocide on all people living in that land at that time, as I acknowledged (but not in so many words) in my previous post. However, since the Torah also contains instructions on protection and provision for non-Israelites travelling through the land, it should not be taken as a statute requiring continual extermination of any non-Israelite in the land. Since I am neither an Israelite nor involved in the original conquest on that land for the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it is certainly not a command to me nor is it my inheritence.
And I'm not sure, but what did the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, etc ever do? nothing.
Deuteronomy 12: 29-31 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
What did they do? Things including, but not limited to burning their own children to death. I can quite understand why someone might say that genocide will not save the children, but these nations were not doing "nothing wrong". Sometimes in the bible God judged nations rather than individuals. This was one of those times. Presumably those individuals will have the opportunity to be judged on their own merits at the resurrection.
You'll be a lot more intellectually honest (a rarity outside of religion as well, so its not a bash on being religious) if you just admit you don't believe in a lot of what the bible says and have no intention of ever doing it.
Well, I think I have adequately shown that not every command in the bible is a statute (permanent rule) nor is every command or statute necessarily for everyone. This doesn't require special rules of interpretation, just common understanding of language and relationships. If I tell one of my kids to wash the dog, it doesn't automatically become their permanent job, nor an instruction to all my kids to wash the dog.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
This is not God endorsing rape, it is a report of the actions of Lot. Nevertheless, I agree that people seem to try and use the New Testament as an excuse for the Old Testament. Without getting into a debate about it, I note that examples of genocide usually given as a judgement for atrocities committed by that nation, not as an arbitrary hatred of a particular race.
Whether you think collective death penalty for an entire nation is good or evil I leave to you.
You make a bunch of assumptions that I don't know how to think critically and about what you assume to be my religious views. The facts stand: soft tissue would normally be considered conclusive evidence of young age (Young, in this context meaning < 100,000 years). There is a certain belief about dinosaurs (extinct millions of years ago) evidence was found contrary (dinosaur bone with soft tissue) yet the age of soft tissue has been questioned rather than the age of the bone. To not question the age of the bone is hardly an example of the skill of skeptcisim (AKA "critical thinking").
Finding one dinosaur's bones under this age would not change existing science in the least, any more than the various "living fossils" that have been found, such as the wollemi pine. It's not an anti-science statement. It's not a statement of religious faith. Sometimes we think something is extinct, then we find it's not. Thinking something was extinct X million years ago, but finding evidence that it lived up until X thousand years ago, or X hundred years ago, or still lives would not crumble the foundations of science, or else science is already gone. Which it obviously isn't.
Don't bother posting links 'cause in your case I don't need them, to paraphrase your logic: "If the evidence was something different then the results would be different".
Inaccurate paraphrase. It's "If the age of the bones hadn't been decided before examination, they would not likely be aged at millions of years, as it doesn't fit the evidence."
From direct observation of the remains of dinosours science can demonstrate the youngest known remains predate the oldest know human remains by tens of millions of years.
Like dinosaur bones still containing soft tissue? It seems to me, if this had been the bone of a still living species, it would have been dated at no more than a few tens of thousands of years. So now we are doing dating by preconcieved ideas about species rather than observable evidence.
we have dinosaurs fossils and still they don't believe dinosaurs existed, for $DEITY's sake!
Well, I don't know anyone who doesn't believe dinosaurs existed, but I do know people who think that the bible's "behemoth" was a dinosaur and that dinosaurs and man coexisted. Given all the examples of dinosaur like depictions in ancient art like the examples at this creationist website: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient .htm I don't think it's unfair to say that it is a reasonable standard of evidence which should cause us to at least question if man and dinosaurs did live at the same time.
Or maybe he's a zealous visionary. Why is that a bad thing?
Commitment to principles, passion and forward thinking shows other people up for their apathy and shortsightedness. Rather rude of RMS to make others feel bad like that. Must never make people feel bad, even if they are, didn't you know?
If I ever hear the phrase "the safety's on" (after they've pointed it at me) one more time, I'm killing the dumbass who says it.
It is standard firearms handling to never aim at anything you are not prepared to shoot. In my view, them aiming it at you would be a "clear and present danger" and justify lethal force in self defense. The fact that they say "the safety's on" or any other excuse is irrelevant.
Just keep it in mind if you ever face court over this.
If the government was a purporter of drugs and close the market to anyone else then it'd be the same.
Doesn't the US government collect tax/duties on tobacco, alcohol and parmacuetical drugs, while waging a "war on drugs"? I know my counties government does.
What are you going to use? I used to like Sme Server.
Backuppc on CentOS. I think he will find the web interface easier to handle. SME Server is based on CentOS anyway, but I only looked at it after reading your post.
Slashdot Mirror
http://imdb.com/title/tt0087803/
Logical, I'll give you. Necessary from our standpoint? I'll give you that one too. MERCIFUL?! Burning people's shadows into pavement and modifying their genetics, as well as destroying massive amounts of land is MERCY? Paint me confused.
I think he means merciful as in killing less people in the long run, not an act of mercy to those people in particular. People may disagree that more people would have died, but it's not an absurd proposition.
Plumbers could demand a contract demanding a cut every time the house changes hands, but not many people would go for it.
Good point. What if plumbers formed a lobby group to make it law, rather than individual contracts? That is effectively what proponents of perpetual copyright are attempting.
Education's job is to create a thinking population, so that they won't sell their vote for a hotdog and fries next election.
Then it seems to have failed spectacularly. Election campaigns are much more similar to marketing than reasoned debate.
Finally, you say a not insignificant number of teachers tries to educate children. Doesn't that imply the system attempts to educate children, and everything else are exceptions?
No. I encourage you to have a look at John Taylor Gatto's work if you haven't yet. It's hard to agree with everything he says, but it's hard to ignore everything he says also. Many teachers want to teach, and they use the system available to them. That in no way implies that the system is good.
Schools job is not to teach, it is to produce an easily manageable population that will:
1) Be subject to corporations instead of producing and independent income, to assist mass production.
2) Be subject to marketing and mass persuasion to assist mass consupmtion (required for mass production).
Independent critical thinking is detrimental to these goals, and is only tolerated if it doesn't become widespread. The fact that a not insignificant number of teachers try to educate children is not enough to seriously disrupt the system.
The AC you replied to said the OP's comment about having no sympathy for the Chinese was , when taken in context, not based on racism but on his views of software piracy levels in China.
I quote the AC: "He didn't mean he has no sympathy for Chinese people in any circumstance; if you apply a little common sense it's clear that what he means is that he has no sympathy for the Chinese people pirating Windows who got hosed by this Symantec update."
I quote the original poster: "This ought to teach them a good anti-piracy lesson."
The article mentions piracy as significant factor impacting recovery, the summary mentions piracy as a significant factor impacting recovery, and the OP DaMattster said he had no sympathy for the Chinese, which in context of the rest of his post, and certainly the article and summary, would be clearly understood to be in regard to software piracy, not as a result of racism.
Your accusation of racism is without evidence to substantiate it. Even if piracy is not a big factor in the software troubles in China, it is cleary the motivating factor of DaMattster's remark. Your accusation is without merit.
"Piracy" has nothing to do with the problem if you had RTFA you would know this.
From the summary: Piracy issues may complicate recovery, since once the updates are installed Symantec says the only hope for reviving an affected system is to re-copy the affected DLLs from the Windows restore disks.
Pot, meet kettle.
for tangible physical media that is true, for the disc itself there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling it. But you are selling more than just the disc, you own the disc, but the artist owns the song, you are selling their work to someone else, without them getting their fair share.
No, you are selling exactly what was sold to you, unmodified. They get their fair share on the first sale. I find it bizarre that you don't seem to understand this. The personal or financial situation of the original producer does not abrogate purchasers rights to sell legally owned goods. There is no legal or moral imperitave here.
And I'm not making the RIAA argument that they own the disc and everything on it, and you cant make copies or put it on your mp3 player, I just think that selling used CDs is a bad idea, it profits no one but the record store.
Well, you did make the arguement that they own everything on the disc and have said in two posts that it is stealing, qualifying it in one post as "stealing sales" but stealing nonetheless. You haven't given any reason why it should be considered stealing to sell second hand goods, or why it is bad for second hand dealers to be the only one's to profit from their work (the artist profited on the first sale, they did no further work towards the second hand sale) other than your personal preference of paying producers of music twice for something they produced once (a CD).
If you can't understand the doctrine of first sale, I couldn't be bothered to explain it to you. I won't be reading any more replies, you can go last if you like.
when you buy a CD you own the physical disc, but you don't own the music on it. It is yours to do with as you will but when you sell it you are selling what belongs to the artist, they own the songs, and are providing you with full use of the contents, but not the right to take their recording of the song and sell it. It would be like burning a copy of a CD and selling it, you are selling what doesn't belong to you, and profiting from sales that should have gone to the artist.
I've never heard such an extreme take on it outside of *AA reps. If you own the disk, you can sell the disk. It has the distinct difference from burning a copy and selling it that if I sell a legally purchased copy, I then no longer have it. The original producer has sold one copy, been paid for one copy, and no additional copies exist, so the copyright is not violated.
Second hand sales are not stealing anything, sales, ideas, opportunities, profits or anything else. This is how it works: once you sell something, you no longer get to control it. See, simple isn't it?
If you don't care that the artists you like are not getting paid, then by all means go ahead and buy the secondhand CDs. The big problem with this is when it is an underground band that you are supporting, you would buy their CD at the higher price that benefits them, but you buy the cheap one because it is cheaper, they just lost the money that should have gone to them, so the record stores are stealing from the artist.
... you don't seriously think that selling second hand goods is stealing from the original producer do you?
I hope I'm missing a joke here
The notion that the past is something to strip mine freely is kind of disturbing.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You find the justification for copyright in the US constitution disturbing?
When I was a kid in, say 1966
That isn't a lot different from the world the 'corporate' folks want today to be like.
Well, most of us do want it to be different now. We have vastly improved technology. To have laws banning us from using it seems like a waste of the last 40 years technological progress. What have they 'ruined'? Progress. They haven't ruined the way things used to be, they are ruining the effects of progress, they way they could be now.
Slashdot, and the majority of its readers, are on the side of the Pirate Bay.
Am I alone in actually paying the programmers, musicians, and directors for their work?
I buy my music and movies, I want to use them, I want to rip them to hard drive, I want to use linux. I believe this is fair use, however, it could possibly be breaking criminal law in come cases (yet to be tested in my country). I have one movie that wouldn't play using DeCSS. I downloaded it. Strangly, downloading that one movie (even if I had not purchased it first on DVD) carries less penalty than ripping my legally purchased DVD's or even watching them (if it gets tested in court and found to be illegal here) because I didn't break any encryption to do so. I also have several movies on VHS I have downloaded. If I got a capture card, I could quite legally copy these (no encryption).
Paying people for their work is reasonable. Pretending that current IP laws are sane is absurd.
maybe. god seems very different today then
Not as different as some people like to think: Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God.... The God of the New Testament is still the same God of the Old Testament.
what about luke 19:27 where jesus says to bring those who will not submit to his teachings before him and kill them? of course, you could just say it was a command to his disciples.
That's a very unusual (mis)understanding of that verse. It's part of a parable, not a command. I'm guessing at this point you either have a very poor grasp of english, you're deliberately trolling or you're just repeating something somebody told you.
granted, the new testament does a lot better of staying away from things we consider reprehensible in modern day life
Actually, I'm not so sure it's reprehensible to kill people whose common practice is to burn children as sacrifices. Even today, I think you could get a lot of support to wipe them out. Not very PC of me I know, but consider the wars that are going on now and in recent history, the people willing to do it could be found pretty easily. Of course, lots of people would think that's terrible, probably including you, but hey, who are you? Just because you think something is wrong doesn't really constrain anyone else. Jesus whipped people. Not very tolerant, now, was he.
you may call it an understanding of the language, but when it comes down to it, its your personal interpretation as to whether or not you should do something you now find morally reprehensible but is called for in the bible.
No, it's not really a personal interpretation. Personally, I'm not a peacenik. You may have guessed. Taking everything in the bible as a personal command to you is absurd. Nobody would suggest that we all have to build an ark because God commanded Noah to do that, unless they were deliberately misinterpreting in order to mock or they were mentally deficient.
The apostle Peter in the New Testament says Lot was a righteous man: 2 Peter 2:7-8.
Hebrew Chapter 11 contains a list of people sometimes called "Heroes of Faith". Not many goody two shoes there. Righteousness is assigned, it is not a statement of approval of every action taken by that person.
Regarding Isaiah 13, it is a promise of fullfillment of God's convenant with Abraham: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee". Speaking from a biblical perspective, the Babylonians had sealed their own fate by their treatment of Israel. It is not an endorsement for us to go around raping people.
but it is his direct command to you as a christian.
uh, no, it isn't. It's a command to the Isrealites at that particular time. It is indeed a command to commit what is now known as genocide on all people living in that land at that time, as I acknowledged (but not in so many words) in my previous post. However, since the Torah also contains instructions on protection and provision for non-Israelites travelling through the land, it should not be taken as a statute requiring continual extermination of any non-Israelite in the land. Since I am neither an Israelite nor involved in the original conquest on that land for the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it is certainly not a command to me nor is it my inheritence.
And I'm not sure, but what did the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, etc ever do? nothing.
Deuteronomy 12: 29-31 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
What did they do? Things including, but not limited to burning their own children to death. I can quite understand why someone might say that genocide will not save the children, but these nations were not doing "nothing wrong". Sometimes in the bible God judged nations rather than individuals. This was one of those times. Presumably those individuals will have the opportunity to be judged on their own merits at the resurrection.
You'll be a lot more intellectually honest (a rarity outside of religion as well, so its not a bash on being religious) if you just admit you don't believe in a lot of what the bible says and have no intention of ever doing it.
Well, I think I have adequately shown that not every command in the bible is a statute (permanent rule) nor is every command or statute necessarily for everyone. This doesn't require special rules of interpretation, just common understanding of language and relationships. If I tell one of my kids to wash the dog, it doesn't automatically become their permanent job, nor an instruction to all my kids to wash the dog.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
This is not God endorsing rape, it is a report of the actions of Lot. Nevertheless, I agree that people seem to try and use the New Testament as an excuse for the Old Testament. Without getting into a debate about it, I note that examples of genocide usually given as a judgement for atrocities committed by that nation, not as an arbitrary hatred of a particular race.
Whether you think collective death penalty for an entire nation is good or evil I leave to you.
Nice refutation of a heap of stuff I didn't say.
You make a bunch of assumptions that I don't know how to think critically and about what you assume to be my religious views. The facts stand: soft tissue would normally be considered conclusive evidence of young age (Young, in this context meaning < 100,000 years). There is a certain belief about dinosaurs (extinct millions of years ago) evidence was found contrary (dinosaur bone with soft tissue) yet the age of soft tissue has been questioned rather than the age of the bone. To not question the age of the bone is hardly an example of the skill of skeptcisim (AKA "critical thinking").
Finding one dinosaur's bones under this age would not change existing science in the least, any more than the various "living fossils" that have been found, such as the wollemi pine. It's not an anti-science statement. It's not a statement of religious faith. Sometimes we think something is extinct, then we find it's not. Thinking something was extinct X million years ago, but finding evidence that it lived up until X thousand years ago, or X hundred years ago, or still lives would not crumble the foundations of science, or else science is already gone. Which it obviously isn't.
Don't bother posting links 'cause in your case I don't need them, to paraphrase your logic: "If the evidence was something different then the results would be different".
Inaccurate paraphrase. It's "If the age of the bones hadn't been decided before examination, they would not likely be aged at millions of years, as it doesn't fit the evidence."
No link necessary.
From direct observation of the remains of dinosours science can demonstrate the youngest known remains predate the oldest know human remains by tens of millions of years.
Like dinosaur bones still containing soft tissue? It seems to me, if this had been the bone of a still living species, it would have been dated at no more than a few tens of thousands of years. So now we are doing dating by preconcieved ideas about species rather than observable evidence.
we have dinosaurs fossils and still they don't believe dinosaurs existed, for $DEITY's sake!
t .htm I don't think it's unfair to say that it is a reasonable standard of evidence which should cause us to at least question if man and dinosaurs did live at the same time.
Well, I don't know anyone who doesn't believe dinosaurs existed, but I do know people who think that the bible's "behemoth" was a dinosaur and that dinosaurs and man coexisted. Given all the examples of dinosaur like depictions in ancient art like the examples at this creationist website: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancien
Or maybe he's a zealous visionary. Why is that a bad thing?
Commitment to principles, passion and forward thinking shows other people up for their apathy and shortsightedness. Rather rude of RMS to make others feel bad like that. Must never make people feel bad, even if they are, didn't you know?
If I ever hear the phrase "the safety's on" (after they've pointed it at me) one more time, I'm killing the dumbass who says it.
It is standard firearms handling to never aim at anything you are not prepared to shoot. In my view, them aiming it at you would be a "clear and present danger" and justify lethal force in self defense. The fact that they say "the safety's on" or any other excuse is irrelevant.
Just keep it in mind if you ever face court over this.
If the government was a purporter of drugs and close the market to anyone else then it'd be the same.
Doesn't the US government collect tax/duties on tobacco, alcohol and parmacuetical drugs, while waging a "war on drugs"? I know my counties government does.
What are you going to use? I used to like Sme Server.
Backuppc on CentOS. I think he will find the web interface easier to handle. SME Server is based on CentOS anyway, but I only looked at it after reading your post.