My old high school science teacher was religious, and was heavily involved with his local church (as I was shocked to find out). He taught us the theory evolution without caveat, without overemphasis on the word "theory", and with only one mention of any controversy on the topic. Even then, he only mentioned that he had no trouble resolving science and faith, that faith is something you believe in despite all scientific evidence, that science is done by the scientific method, and that no matter what his faith is, the scientific method delivers the same results, and that he can learn them, and teach them.
I think he was right. If you are truly faithful to your God and his teachings, then no amount of scientific evidence or reasoning should really make a difference to that. Science shouldn't really threaten religion.
God, if he exists, exists completely outside our reality. If he did exist exclusively within our universe, he and his powers would be subjected to logic. If he is subjected to logic, and he can do anything (his powers are limitless), then logically he can set up up a challenge that he cannot perform, which is a paradox, because he can do anything. Since he cannot possibly exclusively exist within our universe and within logic, he must exist outside our universe, if at all. Because he isn't affected by logic, logical imperatives like "having a beginning" simply don't apply to him.
So, you're right. It's not possible to prove God with a series of logical arguments, but it's also not possible to disprove God in the same way.
I still have yet to see any indicatioon that this is true, let alone proof. It's been shown time and again that people who share files spend MORE on music than non-sharers.
Studies for this kind of stuff a long and costly. It's not like we can travel back in time, make a person who supported the artists of a work unsupport them, and test the difference. Any study that goes into that will be long and costly, and will rely a lot on statistics trying to prove what already makes perfect (common) sense, and is a proven economic fact: if you can get exactly the same product for negligible cost, you're not likely to pay for the original. I have never seen any studies to the contrary either, and it would be equally possible. Besides, it doesn't really matter what you think, only what the RIAA thinks, and they think piracy is a problem. It's your responsibility to back your claims up with a bit of evidence in order to stop that, but knowing your stance, I know that ain't gonna happen.
Of course it has nothing to do with the boycott against utterly remorsellessly evil bastard and their sickening actions towards their own customers, or the fact that damned little that's hit the airwaves is worth listening to, let alone buying. No, it's purely a coincindence, nothing more. Riiiiiight. You go on believing that, Mr RIAA lawyer.
Y'know what really shits me? You probably think the boycotting of the RIAA is some great market force out there, that people are outraged that a network that is, by and large, primarily concerned with cannibalising a formerly benign industry, and yet as soon as the debate turns to politics, I'll bet you do a double take and preach to us about how the public are apathetic and ignorant, and refuse to take notice of the copyright issue. Not only that, but you are refusing to pay two seconds to my far more logically viable theory that increased broadband penetration rates spark increased piracy rates. It's simple: it was much cheaper to pirate, and now it's ludicrously cheaper, plus more convenient too. Give me a good reason why I'm wrong, rather than a reason why you possibly, may still be right, even though there hasn't been any evidence or precedent set.
Nobody I know or have even heard of has shown the tinyest hint of feeling guilty about downloading or fearful that they will be sued.
Yeah? Maybe then you should find some friends who aren't assholes. Y'know, people who actually care that they are ripping off the value of a work, the value of which the person who kindly put their time and effort in to provide it for you relies on for a living.
If there is a positive effect, why should that effect evaporate? If file sharing does indeed, as the studies show, cause people to spend more there is no reason whatever to believe that should change. You might as well start worrying that the sun won't melt your snowman.
Let me explain. If everyone were immoral, rational, short-sighted, consumers, who couldn't give two fucks about the law, we would all pirate our media. Why not? It's cheaper and it's easier. Fortunately, people feel morally obliged (i.e. guilty) to pay for the product that some people worked so hard for. Like with any moral or legal issue though, people need to be reminded of the guilt, or else it becomes an accept part of general culture (no, you are not the defining aspect of general culture). The RIAA constantly reminds the public that there are artists to support, and who need your money in order to survive. Without them, and without enforcing copyright law, who is going to make up for the public's lack of perspective? Who's going to remind them of the artists? Who will actually go to the effort of hunting down and donating to an artist when all the convenient stores close down, and artists cannot be located in any centralised mechanism? Who's going to believe their contribution will make a difference when no-one else they know donates
Yeah, but who goes over the cliff and why? Was it someone who actually "thinks for themselves" (in inverted commas, because "thinking for oneself" simply means "agreeing with me", nothing more, nothing less)? Or was it some external force (e.g. politicians)? Are you so incredibly moronic to think people just copy other people (much like this is a word-for-word copy of every other Sheeple moron's rant), and don't actually think about anything "for themselves", all the while completely ignoring any other outside factors? You don't think they might actually agree with the first person to jump over the proverbial cliff? Let's not beat around the bush here: pretty much everything has been thought of before. Thoughts are not borne out of original sparks of inspiration or deep moments of truth, they come from influences from other people.
Do you think the opinion that your grotesque ego holds is any more original than the average cliff-diving sheep? That's a loaded question for all those too far up their own ass to tell: if you say yes, you're still more of a moron in most truly intelligent people's eyes. Most people realise that everyone holds opinions that aren't unique, and very, very few hold opinions that are. These elite 50% of the population also realise that it's OK to believe in something that someone else believes in, and that it doesn't change the validity of those opinions. Finally, most of them realise that people who, bravely, in the face of all logic, reason and other appeals, defy sensible and considerate thoughts and actions, just because of their deep-seeded insecurities about a completely unrelated quadruped, are stupid, thick, and potentially dangerous if they are ever let near politics.
When I started my "don't change the politicians, change the people" rant, I had assumed you had the mental facilities to appreciate it. My mistake.
No, no, no. You were mocking the people, but you were saying they were sheep. That implies that there is another force involved that's calling the shots. I'm guessing that, if it's not the politicians, it'll be corporations exploiting problems with the political system. You seem to be failing spectacularly at finding the true source of power in a democracy, so I feel my rant is still valid.
If the greed of those in power (industry lobbyists via the Bush administration etc.) brings them to commit crime on an international level with no rebuttal, what happens when they start doing things that affect you?
Then I act. I vote, I donate to the appropriate organisations, I soap-box locally, I write a letter to my local newspaper, etc, etc. I think you'll see this from kind of response from the apathetic masses when the government does something to seriously threaten their lifestyle.
Defining isn't the problem. I can say I have an objection to censorship, but I'm willing to bet you won't get me to define it. After all, it's a phrase with a commonly-accepted meaning. Why bother being difficult? But since you are, let me give it a shot.
Pornography: explicit depictions of the human body designed to sexually excite people Depiction of violence: depiction of physically harmful actions taken against other people, and in this case, the explicit depiction of bodies that have had violence visibly and noticeably exacted upon them. Children: People under the age of [insert age here, between 12 and 21]
It's true they don't draw the law in black and white, but they could be effective, and any grey areas can be handled by juries/judges.
In case you couldn't tell, IANAL.
By define I means specifically enough to produce a workable law, not copy a dictionary definition and think you're being witty.
If you want me to be witty, you could start by raising the bar a little. Stop parroting what so many dumbasses before you have said over and over again, and start actually thinking for yourself. You seem to be under the impression that repeating "baaaaaa" and "define" constitute, if not wit, then deft minimalist rebuttals that can shatter my arguments as they stand. The truth is that things are rarely that simple, and saying "baaaa" loses you dignity, and repeating "define" loses you the opportunity to actually say something that will rebut my arguments, and that demonstrates a little intelligence. Unfortunately, you and the rest of the sheeple crowd are too immersed in your own groupthink to think outside your own little box. Pathetic.
My point is: with a current trend of power hungry politions, leveraging whatever they have now to ensure their political ideals are on-top in future; are you sure you're happy with that?
Yup, I'm pretty much fine with that. Whatever repulsive-sounding thing they have to do to make the people happy, I'm fine with. So long as they don't actively hide harmful activities from the public, they can do as much bending over backwards, ass-licking, baby-kissing, mud-slinging, etc, as they like, so long as democracy works. That's all I require.
I think the whole paranoia about politicians is a bit of a strawman. The best, most reliable way to stay in power as long as possible is to just give people what they want. It's not rocket-science. A few polls here, a few focus groups there, what they ask for (especially in swinging seats), do it. All you need is the perspective to draft up policies that please the most number of people. That's what most successful politicians do. Their alleged thirst for power can be satisfied rather easily. There's no reason to go to the trouble and risk of instituting a totalitarian state. There'd be so much opposition, so few in favour of it. It would take far too much time to boil the frog slowly, because terms are short, and political layering is complex and completely against such actions. I often find that the premises for films/books like V for Vendetta are often a little too difficult to swallow.
So is it to filter out child pornography, or to filter out anything the gov says is "inappropriate?"
It's to filter out what the gov says is inappropriate, which is what the people say is inappropriate, which often includes child pornography.
It seems even the people doing the "protecting" arent exactly sure about what they are supposed to be protecting people from, or whom they are supposed to be protecting.
Why don't you ask one of them? I think you'll find most of them will answer those questions with "inappropriate behaviour (e.g. pornography, violence)" and "children".
We always heard you australians were supposed to be a tough lot. You look more like sheep from here.
Yeah, I agree. Blame the government. We can just pin all the responsibility on the government, elect them out, elect similar leaders back in, and blame the system for not delivering what we each personally want. Aren't strawmen and scapegoats fun? Certainly more fun than taking *shudder* responsibility for the government we elect, and *shudder* responsibility for our failure to share our values among the wider community. No, that would actually require some backbone and initiative, and would actually force our comfortingly familiar rhetoric to be challenged in *shudder* free exchanges of ideas. We might actually *shudder* learn from the experience. It's much easier to suffer lazily and loudly from the sidelines. Hooray for not being a sheep!
I think you're making things too simplistic. A company ideology doesn't have to be as specific as a certain religion, and they don't have to enforce it to the extent of turning talented people away just because they don't share that ideology. The ideology can be as simple as "respect your co-workers" or "the customer is always right". It often doesn't matter if you think that's the largest pile of steaming crap you've ever heard, but if you tarnish the company's reputation of that in public (and yes, the internet is public), then they can (and I would say should) be able to fire you.
The government is not out to get you. They may implement more cameras in the interest of security, but they are not trying to silence your dissidence, or intimidate you, or even track you. Ushering cameras in may make it slightly more possible for a government who will do all those things to come into power, but right now, you really are paranoid.
Well, to be fair, copyright is all about making "unauthorised" equal "illegal", with a few caveats. It's a sad sign of the state of fair use, that it's so eroded and ignored, that people assume that, just because the RIAA imply so, ripping is illegal.
One of the most common criticisms of modern democracy is the simple fact that people don't care about anything.
I think you'll find that most people will start to care once they're rubbed the wrong way. As it stands, many are quite content with their life the way it is, and have been content with most (if not all) the leaders passing through their offices. They have no motivation to make any issues out of anything because democracy has already succeeded for them. This doesn't mean they don't care, that they aren't a political force, because if anybody does anything to jeopardise their lifestyle, they will care, and their wrath will be terrible.
What if subscription/ad-supported music production won't be enough to fund a particular endeavour? What if a piece of music being downloaded for bandwidth cost (plus small margin) can't be adequately performed? What about the people who actually like the options you're clearing away just because you haven't found new music that you like?
OK, the thing that you need to understand about the music industry currently is that the focus is the end product, not the means of production. Music is no longer the one man (or one band) show that it was. There are a variety of people who collaborate, not least the performer, to produce a piece of music to sell. Like it or not, that's the way things are right now. It certainly does not mean that you don't have to have talent, it just means you don't have to do every job in the music creation process. You can focus on what you happen to be best at, or you can try your hand at everything if you wish.
And I, for one, don't personally care where my music comes from, so long as it sounds good.
You also have to have "talent" at self-promotion, music-distribution, and at whatever your previous job was, because you'll need a lot of money in order to make a decent career for yourself. You may also need talent at surviving below the poverty line if you happen to fail and lose your investment. Or, I guess, you could have a talent at working two (possibly three) jobs simultaneously.
Yeah, bunch no-talent hacks can't make money off REAL music. Those damn punks taking the easy road just because it's easier, safer, and more efficient...
And oddly enough, there are some religions that turn a blind-eye to rapists...
Oh yeah? I hear there are atheists who serially kill people, who steal from people, and who are just general assholes. I guess all atheists are bad.
It's only religion that says that you can only fuck your legally-married wife. It's only religion that says that you have to hide your peepee from strangers.
What exactly do you think religion is? It's people who say you can "If you marry me, you may only sleep with me", it's people who say "I don't want to see your penis while walking down the street." It's also people who say "I don't want my four year old daughter's hymen broken by the fat hairy guy down the street". Religions are just a construct to fit that. They have nothing to do with the law. The only reason for the correlation between religious values and legal values, is the correlation between people who share those values and voters.
Yep, the biggest difference between your values and the values of fundamentalist religion (oooooo!), is that fundamentalist religion actually had some logical basis at one time.
Still, the question isn't one of "is the general population aware of voting issues", it's "does the general population actually care about voting issues"... That question leads to some pretty depressing answers.
Why's it depressing? It's not like anyone cares.
Seriously though, that seems to be one of the most common criticism that people have about democracy: that other people don't care about the same issues they do.
honestly is all the bad press doing them any good?
Ask many of the RIAA's customers that, and they'll say "what bad press?" The damage to their sales is localised to the comparatively few who are aware of the issue, and even then, it's dependent on whether or not they agree with the RIAA's crusade. They're losing a few sales in the short term, but they're also securing their business in the long term, which couldn't survive if people gave up actually paying for music. They're making the sacrifice to remind people that there are the artists out there who lose out every time a person shares their works.
i guess this really frightens no talent hacks, if people get to hear their trash before buying it, they'll fade away pretty quick.
Let's not get personal. It's not like piracy is the only way to listen to music. I don't know how it is where you live, but I know that my local record stores all have CD players for trying before buying. You can also listen to previews from various online stores, you can listen to a friend's copy (like you have been doing), listen to the artist on the radio, or you could just read a review. The whole piracy thing isn't some front to secretly push crap to the consumer without them noticing.
It is only religion that makes sex something so "bad" that children should not see it.
WTF? Are you implying that it's only religion that's branding sex offences bad? Including things like statutory rape, rape, public urination, etc? If so, then we should be lobbying to promote religion, because it seems to have the right idea. If you truly hold an irrational grudge against religion, you should probably adopt their ideologies that make sense (like the ones mentioned previously) before panning them all just for being in religion first. That way, you don't sound so much like an extremist ideological fascist who has no social perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
My old high school science teacher was religious, and was heavily involved with his local church (as I was shocked to find out). He taught us the theory evolution without caveat, without overemphasis on the word "theory", and with only one mention of any controversy on the topic. Even then, he only mentioned that he had no trouble resolving science and faith, that faith is something you believe in despite all scientific evidence, that science is done by the scientific method, and that no matter what his faith is, the scientific method delivers the same results, and that he can learn them, and teach them.
I think he was right. If you are truly faithful to your God and his teachings, then no amount of scientific evidence or reasoning should really make a difference to that. Science shouldn't really threaten religion.
... leverage.
It's their music, they want all the leverage they can get.
God, if he exists, exists completely outside our reality. If he did exist exclusively within our universe, he and his powers would be subjected to logic. If he is subjected to logic, and he can do anything (his powers are limitless), then logically he can set up up a challenge that he cannot perform, which is a paradox, because he can do anything. Since he cannot possibly exclusively exist within our universe and within logic, he must exist outside our universe, if at all. Because he isn't affected by logic, logical imperatives like "having a beginning" simply don't apply to him.
So, you're right. It's not possible to prove God with a series of logical arguments, but it's also not possible to disprove God in the same way.
OTOH, letting DRM fail naturally from poor interoperability would be a potent lesson for the labels and studios.
Give them the benefit of the doubt, let them distribute any way they want, then turn 'round and say "I told you so".
Studies for this kind of stuff a long and costly. It's not like we can travel back in time, make a person who supported the artists of a work unsupport them, and test the difference. Any study that goes into that will be long and costly, and will rely a lot on statistics trying to prove what already makes perfect (common) sense, and is a proven economic fact: if you can get exactly the same product for negligible cost, you're not likely to pay for the original. I have never seen any studies to the contrary either, and it would be equally possible. Besides, it doesn't really matter what you think, only what the RIAA thinks, and they think piracy is a problem. It's your responsibility to back your claims up with a bit of evidence in order to stop that, but knowing your stance, I know that ain't gonna happen.
Y'know what really shits me? You probably think the boycotting of the RIAA is some great market force out there, that people are outraged that a network that is, by and large, primarily concerned with cannibalising a formerly benign industry, and yet as soon as the debate turns to politics, I'll bet you do a double take and preach to us about how the public are apathetic and ignorant, and refuse to take notice of the copyright issue. Not only that, but you are refusing to pay two seconds to my far more logically viable theory that increased broadband penetration rates spark increased piracy rates. It's simple: it was much cheaper to pirate, and now it's ludicrously cheaper, plus more convenient too. Give me a good reason why I'm wrong, rather than a reason why you possibly, may still be right, even though there hasn't been any evidence or precedent set.
Yeah? Maybe then you should find some friends who aren't assholes. Y'know, people who actually care that they are ripping off the value of a work, the value of which the person who kindly put their time and effort in to provide it for you relies on for a living.
Let me explain. If everyone were immoral, rational, short-sighted, consumers, who couldn't give two fucks about the law, we would all pirate our media. Why not? It's cheaper and it's easier. Fortunately, people feel morally obliged (i.e. guilty) to pay for the product that some people worked so hard for. Like with any moral or legal issue though, people need to be reminded of the guilt, or else it becomes an accept part of general culture (no, you are not the defining aspect of general culture). The RIAA constantly reminds the public that there are artists to support, and who need your money in order to survive. Without them, and without enforcing copyright law, who is going to make up for the public's lack of perspective? Who's going to remind them of the artists? Who will actually go to the effort of hunting down and donating to an artist when all the convenient stores close down, and artists cannot be located in any centralised mechanism? Who's going to believe their contribution will make a difference when no-one else they know donates
Yeah, but who goes over the cliff and why? Was it someone who actually "thinks for themselves" (in inverted commas, because "thinking for oneself" simply means "agreeing with me", nothing more, nothing less)? Or was it some external force (e.g. politicians)? Are you so incredibly moronic to think people just copy other people (much like this is a word-for-word copy of every other Sheeple moron's rant), and don't actually think about anything "for themselves", all the while completely ignoring any other outside factors? You don't think they might actually agree with the first person to jump over the proverbial cliff? Let's not beat around the bush here: pretty much everything has been thought of before. Thoughts are not borne out of original sparks of inspiration or deep moments of truth, they come from influences from other people.
Do you think the opinion that your grotesque ego holds is any more original than the average cliff-diving sheep? That's a loaded question for all those too far up their own ass to tell: if you say yes, you're still more of a moron in most truly intelligent people's eyes. Most people realise that everyone holds opinions that aren't unique, and very, very few hold opinions that are. These elite 50% of the population also realise that it's OK to believe in something that someone else believes in, and that it doesn't change the validity of those opinions. Finally, most of them realise that people who, bravely, in the face of all logic, reason and other appeals, defy sensible and considerate thoughts and actions, just because of their deep-seeded insecurities about a completely unrelated quadruped, are stupid, thick, and potentially dangerous if they are ever let near politics.
When I started my "don't change the politicians, change the people" rant, I had assumed you had the mental facilities to appreciate it. My mistake.
No, no, no. You were mocking the people, but you were saying they were sheep. That implies that there is another force involved that's calling the shots. I'm guessing that, if it's not the politicians, it'll be corporations exploiting problems with the political system. You seem to be failing spectacularly at finding the true source of power in a democracy, so I feel my rant is still valid.
Pornography: explicit depictions of the human body designed to sexually excite people
Depiction of violence: depiction of physically harmful actions taken against other people, and in this case, the explicit depiction of bodies that have had violence visibly and noticeably exacted upon them.
Children: People under the age of [insert age here, between 12 and 21]
It's true they don't draw the law in black and white, but they could be effective, and any grey areas can be handled by juries/judges.
In case you couldn't tell, IANAL.If you want me to be witty, you could start by raising the bar a little. Stop parroting what so many dumbasses before you have said over and over again, and start actually thinking for yourself. You seem to be under the impression that repeating "baaaaaa" and "define" constitute, if not wit, then deft minimalist rebuttals that can shatter my arguments as they stand. The truth is that things are rarely that simple, and saying "baaaa" loses you dignity, and repeating "define" loses you the opportunity to actually say something that will rebut my arguments, and that demonstrates a little intelligence. Unfortunately, you and the rest of the sheeple crowd are too immersed in your own groupthink to think outside your own little box. Pathetic.
I think the whole paranoia about politicians is a bit of a strawman. The best, most reliable way to stay in power as long as possible is to just give people what they want. It's not rocket-science. A few polls here, a few focus groups there, what they ask for (especially in swinging seats), do it. All you need is the perspective to draft up policies that please the most number of people. That's what most successful politicians do. Their alleged thirst for power can be satisfied rather easily. There's no reason to go to the trouble and risk of instituting a totalitarian state. There'd be so much opposition, so few in favour of it. It would take far too much time to boil the frog slowly, because terms are short, and political layering is complex and completely against such actions. I often find that the premises for films/books like V for Vendetta are often a little too difficult to swallow.
(Not the GP)
I think you're making things too simplistic. A company ideology doesn't have to be as specific as a certain religion, and they don't have to enforce it to the extent of turning talented people away just because they don't share that ideology. The ideology can be as simple as "respect your co-workers" or "the customer is always right". It often doesn't matter if you think that's the largest pile of steaming crap you've ever heard, but if you tarnish the company's reputation of that in public (and yes, the internet is public), then they can (and I would say should) be able to fire you.
You can't steal information dude. Information just wants to be free.
/sarcasm
Yes.
The government is not out to get you. They may implement more cameras in the interest of security, but they are not trying to silence your dissidence, or intimidate you, or even track you. Ushering cameras in may make it slightly more possible for a government who will do all those things to come into power, but right now, you really are paranoid.
Well, to be fair, copyright is all about making "unauthorised" equal "illegal", with a few caveats. It's a sad sign of the state of fair use, that it's so eroded and ignored, that people assume that, just because the RIAA imply so, ripping is illegal.
And it seems you're trying to do the same thing with atheism. Freedom of Religion? Don't make me laugh.
What if subscription/ad-supported music production won't be enough to fund a particular endeavour? What if a piece of music being downloaded for bandwidth cost (plus small margin) can't be adequately performed? What about the people who actually like the options you're clearing away just because you haven't found new music that you like?
OK, the thing that you need to understand about the music industry currently is that the focus is the end product, not the means of production. Music is no longer the one man (or one band) show that it was. There are a variety of people who collaborate, not least the performer, to produce a piece of music to sell. Like it or not, that's the way things are right now. It certainly does not mean that you don't have to have talent, it just means you don't have to do every job in the music creation process. You can focus on what you happen to be best at, or you can try your hand at everything if you wish.
And I, for one, don't personally care where my music comes from, so long as it sounds good.
You also have to have "talent" at self-promotion, music-distribution, and at whatever your previous job was, because you'll need a lot of money in order to make a decent career for yourself. You may also need talent at surviving below the poverty line if you happen to fail and lose your investment. Or, I guess, you could have a talent at working two (possibly three) jobs simultaneously.
Yeah, bunch no-talent hacks can't make money off REAL music. Those damn punks taking the easy road just because it's easier, safer, and more efficient...
Yep, the biggest difference between your values and the values of fundamentalist religion (oooooo!), is that fundamentalist religion actually had some logical basis at one time.
Seriously though, that seems to be one of the most common criticism that people have about democracy: that other people don't care about the same issues they do.