The only people who can't come up with new ways to make money are either a: dinosaurs or b: people who wish to go out of business.
That often holds in capitalism (if it didn't, then capitalism wouldn't work), but there are examples where this has failed. In fact, any time anyone sells anything that is actively not wanted by the population, then it becomes practically impossible to stay in the market, no matter how creative your brain is for finding new ways to sell your product. So, instantly, we can obtain counterexamples. For example, can you think of any circumstances under which you would buy a wall made from potato?
OK, I know that's trivial, but it does mean you need to refine the statement. Perhaps you meant new ways of making money, including changing businesses? Well, artists could change businesses as well, but that's not a good thing. A fundamental part of the source of the dilemma is that we actually want artists working as artists, so clearly "a new way of making money" should not include cutting and running.
Perhaps you want to refine yourself to businesses that sell things that have demand? Well, that does dry up the source of counterexamples. The most prominent one so far is copyright, but you clearly do not agree that it is a counterexample. So, at this point, I would request that you would present a rational argument for the truth of your statement. Otherwise, I will continue to believe it false.
Lots of people have already found successful alternatives, the free product simply makes your other offerings more valuable. This is not a mystery or difficult. these things have worked for hundreds of artists, but it still involves hard work.
Citation needed. And, what is your definition of success? Is it earning a living with making art? Or is distribution necessary? If distribution is necessary, how wide does the distribution need to be? I would argue that a very wide distribution is highly valuable, since art benefits from interaction and inspiration from as many sources as possible. In fact, without it, I would deem the system a failure. For example, musicians playing in different pubs every sunday night might pull a crowd and earn some living money, and the crowd may have fun too, but there's a fairly restrictive limit to the variety of new music that can be showcased at such an event. If our culture was reliant on local inspiration and local interactions, it would stagnate very quickly. Maybe it would not die completely, but it would fail to progress, to innovate, and to inspire. The system, which is supposed to promote culture, and give as many people access to that culture as possible, fails on both counts.
However, I would wager that you think that the internet would provide a distribution network wide enough to satisfy the most sceptical opponent. At least, if it doesn't reach the old grandmas without internet access, but who do have CD store access, then surely it's worth it, right? Well, I would say that artists cannot benefit from the wide distribution network of the internet without fame. There are already many, many artists producing works for free or donations, and posting them online. I know because I have seen for myself these free music publishing sites, like Jamendo. Now, how many of these artists have pulled themselves out of these free promotional sites, and actually made a name for themselves? I certainly haven't heard of any. I know, as someone who has serched through the Jamendo catelogue, that finding hidden gems was difficult and not worth the effort. I was then convinced thoroughly that self-promotion via posting music online doesn't work well. Try it yourself, and see if you can come up with a conclusion that is any different.
Your comment most resembles someone who believes that recording should complement live shows. However, I have found this method completely inadequate. For one, it is not clear whether the recorded product makes the live show more valuable, sinc
Problem: Google wouldn't do that. I figure that a company doing anything not for profit is supposed to generate goodwill, and by now, Google has reached about the most goodwill it's going to get. Most people see them as a decent company, and those who don't, well, they're probably not going to be pursuaded otherwise.
It's called: here is your market, you make money this way -> X
and then becomes: your market has changed, your old way of making money is now free, find a new way.
Specifically, the problem is the last step. It sounds so easy on paper, but nobody has actually come up with and implemented an adequate "new way". There's been lots of suggestions, but none of them have actually worked for any more than a small handful of artists, most of which use them as a gimmicks or experiments, before working under the copyright business model. The fact is that copyright is the only tried and true business model we've had for artworks in some centuries. At least, not since it drastically outperformed the travelling minstrel business model that a small number of people used before recording equipment.
I have no problem with replacing copyright, but I don't think we should jump the gun. We should wait until we have that last step solidly completed before we throw away the system in place.
As most realize, Congress's favorite activity of the last fifty or so years has been how to get around the limits our Founding Fathers placed on the Federal Government.
Calculators have their undeniable uses, but they do not make mental arithmetic obsolete, as some people seem to think. There are always times where it is more efficient to simply think for a split second, than to plug it into the calculator.
You're not expected to write original answers, just unplagiarised answers. That is, you should be able to come up with them yourself, even if the answer you give is identical to hundreds of people over 20 years.
As for the ancient questions, if it isn't broke, why fix it? It's still the same knowledge you need to know. It's not like the student has seen the questions before, so it's all new to them. The only "disadvantage" is that it makes finding the answers that much easier, but that's only a "problem" if you're looking for them.
Forcing a student to do addition on paper when the student is studying partial differential equations is nothing but an insult.
Perhaps, but students not taking the opportunity to do so when they can is stupid. Mental arithmetic helps keep your mind quick, which can be an extremely valuable benefit of an education in maths.
But yeah, I wouldn't take calculators away from exams. Really, your professor should provide a spare calculator or two, so that people who forget theirs aren't totally screwed. I forgot my calculator during a test in a third year combinatorics course. I was very grateful to the tutor for bringing a spare calculator into the room, because otherwise I would have been screwed. We were enumerating possible outcomes in poker hands and calculating probabilities, where we were multiplying, adding, and subtracting numbers that were more than 10 digits. I would have been there all day if I did it by hand.
DRM leads to people not buying the game, and greed leads them to pirate it. The DRM leads people to want to not spend their money on an inferior product, and to punish the software companies, both of which are achieved in full by not buying it. The decision to then pirate in addition to not buying it is a decision which addresses neither problem with DRM, rather it addresses a more personal problem of the person not getting everything he wanted.
It is unlikely that he would. Any reward would have to be far greater, and you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course, no organisation has ever managed to bribe a judge with the prospect of current or future reward, so I guess I should apologise for making such an insane implication.
I assure you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I was taking the mac pros to be a metaphor for any type of bribery. But yes, I'm glad you realise that the implication was insane. I've seen many such implications made here on/., and until recently, I assumed the people who made them also saw the implication was insane. Lately, however, I've been much less sure...
We could equally ask: if no reasonable jury could have found Apple liable, why did the first judge not either throw out the case or direct the jury? Such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone.
Well, to be clear, I was talking about the case made specifically in that court case. I'm not saying there's no evidence against Apple (on the contrary, I think it's highly probable that there is). However, I think what the judge did (assuming he is honest about the case made having insufficient foundation) was the right thing to do, even if it means that Apple gets off scot-free. You know, the whole issue of justice, protecting the innocent, etc.
No uncorrupt judge could have made that verdict, therefore the judge is corrupt, therefore his findings are invalid.
FTFY. Why should we give any more credence to you, than you gave to the judge for using the same line of argument?
If the lawyer failed to make a solid case, but the jury were impressed, then the judge should step in as a course of duty. Sometimes proof differs from conviction, and arguments that impress a jury may be, in fact, riddled with holes. Say, for example, you were accused of paedophellia, and the prosecutor simply screemed at the jury rhetorical questions like, "Do you want a man like this near your kids?", or "How can we be sure he isn't going to rape your daughter?", and the jury convicted you on these grounds alone, would you not prefer that the judge point out that no case has been established?
As a final point (although at this point it's probably useless given the apparent void of any critical thought here on/. regarding accusations of corruption of people in positions of perceived power), why would a judge risk a stable, well-paying job, his freedom, and his legacy, for a few mac pros? I mean, his decision will be published, and it is witnessed by several parties in the court at the time. If there was no substantiating evidence for the validity of his opinion, such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone (with sufficient knowledge) who reads the decision. It seems, therefore, unlikely that the judge would do anything so overt as to throw the decision to apple for anything less than extremely substantial material gain (more than a few mac pros, or a few hundred thousand dollars), and it seems unlikely for apple to attempt such a bribery at such a steep going rate.
Companies lobbying for infinite copyright length *cough*disney*cough* so that they can sit around and profit from decades-old content and not innovate or even produce new material are bad things.
I agree with you, without a shadow of a doubt, that these companies are "bad things", but I don't think that lack of innovation or the risk of not creating new material. Disney will always produce new material, because children will always want new material (perhaps production might slow slightly, but that would be about it). I don't think indefinite copyright would change that (has changed that?). Disney will similarly not innovate, because children don't need them/don't want them to innovate. Besides, I don't see how limited copyright terms would change any of that either.
No, the reason, as far as I'm concerned that these companies are "bad things" (aside, of course, from their creepy influence on the government), is that the culture is not theirs, but ours. We grew up on their material, and it's a part of our lives and our pasts. We have sat patiently on our hands while companies wring every last piece of financial value from these works, on the condition that it becomes ours after a reasonable amount of time. While it's new and most profitable, sure, they deserve the first couple of slices for helping facilitate its existence. But when the public's cash has moved on to the next latest thing, it should become completely our own, for us to share and use as we see fit. Or, if the public's cash doesn't move on, then it's pretty clear that the work in question is already an important part of our culture, and should be liberated.
We can all win; the companies, the artists, and the public. It is possible. Companies and artists can make a mint of popular works, and we can have eventual ownership over our culture. I wish that people would realise this, because then politicians might pay attention. For a politician, fear for their job trumps lobbying every time. After all, how can they be lobbied if they have no power?
Whenever there is doubt or confusion, the Armchair Experts will be there. Whenever science fails to come to a conclusion, the Armchair Experts will be there. Whenever science fails to come to the right conclusion, the Armchair Experts will be there.
Tell that to the people in Africa and South America. There is a reason that the Church is growing in areas of low educaiton and high ignorance and poverty.
Ignoring the glaringly obvious fallacy of affirming the consequent, I could just as easily have specified "the west", or "america", or whatever. It still proves my point.
You never grew up in the church, you apparently are not familiar with their tactics. By 'warning' the faithful, they actually intend to scare those who may already be uncomfortable with using the web (older folks, the uneducated or undereducated, etc).
I certainly grant that I did not grow up in the church. I am, however, aware of the effects that it has to those completely devoted to the church. However, consider this: censorship only works when a certain critical mass of people are being denied access to the information. All Christians I know (and I know quite a few) are intelligent and know how to use the internet, can quite easily see the benefits of using the internet, and will not be scared out of using the information by the existence of satanic pages in some corners of the internet. So, how can the church suppress such information, when it'such suppression is only restricted to only to the small number of older folks, or the dangerously uneducated, who are unfamiliar with the internet, and have no-one they trust to tell them that it in't dangerous? Something about that plan seems to suggest that it would be woefully ineffective. Not that there's actually any evidence or reason to support the existence of such a plan.
I mean, seriously, I've only touched on a couple of reasons why this train of thought is so obviously stupid. Do a little thinking, and I'm confident that you can come up with your own. As another example, what about journalists for actual papers, or news programs, or whatever else? They won't be scared by the internet, and won't hesitate to publish a big scandal about the church. We've seen it happen before!
Make no mistake, this is a direct reaction to the sex scandals.
Hmm. I'm presented with two options. I can either assume the existence of a conspiracy effected by the church to censor a long-since surfaced scandal, by suggesting that people beware what they read online, in an attempt to scare the tiny minority of radical christians who are unfamiliar with the internet out of reading about the scandal that's been in several offline news outlets for years, and hope that such censorship will magically spread, or I can make a mistake. Excuse me if I choose to make a mistake. *Rolls eyes*
Before you start stomping on others for modding something, perhaps you should do a little legwork.
Well, I was considering doing some legwork, but unfortunately, I'm busy trying to prove that all babies are communists. I figure that I'm more likely to get an affirmative answer for that proposition, than trying to prove something obviously false.
I know this is slashdot, but judging the validity of the opinions of others invites a very negative response.
No, judging the validity of opinions of other people whom slashdot likes invites a very negative response. Since the people generally don't like the church too much, their opinions can be bashed to kingdom come without very negative responses. Well, except mine, but I'm not really defending the church here, more just rationality and reason in general. Who would have thought the active champions of such concepts, so paraded and lauded here on slashdot, can be so reviled?
As far as I'm concerned, this is about as plausible as any other conspiracy theory I've heard. I've seen before so many conspiracy theories debunked here for lack of any supporting evidence, made by fellow slashdotters no less. Why am I suddenly the bad guy here?
Hmm, no. Sorry, but there's really no evidence of any kind to support that kind of conclusion. They haven't had the luxury of ignorance or the power to control information for many, many years. All of the people associated with the church at that time are long dead, even before the internet was available to the general population. Also, notice that this comes as a caution, not as a move to ban the internet, or even advice to boycott the internet. They're telling people to beware what they and their children see online, not to deliberately deprive themselves of information.
Yep, it's pretty obviously clear that they're simply doing their job. They're warning people about issues that conflict with their faith.
Oh, BTW, mods? What the hell? Insightful? It takes only a moment of critical thought to see that this is devoid of insight. This comment offends me, not as a christian (which makes sense, since I am not one, nor have I ever have been one), but as someone with a brain.
I too was sceptical of the story, but unfortunately I have no such proof of my scepticism. Instead of posting about my scepticism, I just passively accepted that it was part of slashdot's long slide into uselessness, and into its current position as the Fox News for nerds.
Mod me flamebait if you like, but at least I'm on topic.
Aww, jealous that you couldn't blame government faster?
Maybe you don't actually pay attention but the nuclear industry is the most heavily regulated industry in existence. An operator can't fart in the control room without authorisation from the NRC. You know all those expired leases on ancient reactors which are renewed are the result of the NRC extending the licenses, not the evil private enterprise doing their best to milk old equipment. If you want to start replacing the old reactors with something better then maybe you should start pointing the fingers at the government.
OK, I will. It's the government's fault for not regulating the industry heavily enough, and giving business enough rope to hang us all with. They honestly should know by now that the free market learns from mistakes, so it doesn't tend to work so well for matters of life and death.
Also if you've ever been exposed to anything to do with engineering, there's always cost cutting. You know the entire incident in Fukushima could have been contained if they built a giant lead dome over the city too right? But that option was knocked down as too cost prohibitive.
OK, we get it. Life is about a trade-off. Who would you prefer to trade in your safety? The government, over whom you have some measure of indirect control, or corporations, over whom you have almost none, and who directly benefit from selling you short?
I don't think anyone is claiming that he accidentally passed bill (or even that such an action would be possible). However, from that fact, it is a leap of logic to conclude that he knew of the consequences and was trying to get away with causing those consequences to happen. It is also a possibility that he tried deliberately to pass a law for which he didn't fully consider the consequences. The latter still falls under the heading of "messing up" in my books, and is what the senator is claiming. There is no evidence to support the former proposition.
How about a new hyperbole? Slashdot editors are trying to control what we see and think. I was getting bored with the usual terrorist and government boogeymen anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
That often holds in capitalism (if it didn't, then capitalism wouldn't work), but there are examples where this has failed. In fact, any time anyone sells anything that is actively not wanted by the population, then it becomes practically impossible to stay in the market, no matter how creative your brain is for finding new ways to sell your product. So, instantly, we can obtain counterexamples. For example, can you think of any circumstances under which you would buy a wall made from potato?
OK, I know that's trivial, but it does mean you need to refine the statement. Perhaps you meant new ways of making money, including changing businesses? Well, artists could change businesses as well, but that's not a good thing. A fundamental part of the source of the dilemma is that we actually want artists working as artists, so clearly "a new way of making money" should not include cutting and running.
Perhaps you want to refine yourself to businesses that sell things that have demand? Well, that does dry up the source of counterexamples. The most prominent one so far is copyright, but you clearly do not agree that it is a counterexample. So, at this point, I would request that you would present a rational argument for the truth of your statement. Otherwise, I will continue to believe it false.
Citation needed. And, what is your definition of success? Is it earning a living with making art? Or is distribution necessary? If distribution is necessary, how wide does the distribution need to be? I would argue that a very wide distribution is highly valuable, since art benefits from interaction and inspiration from as many sources as possible. In fact, without it, I would deem the system a failure. For example, musicians playing in different pubs every sunday night might pull a crowd and earn some living money, and the crowd may have fun too, but there's a fairly restrictive limit to the variety of new music that can be showcased at such an event. If our culture was reliant on local inspiration and local interactions, it would stagnate very quickly. Maybe it would not die completely, but it would fail to progress, to innovate, and to inspire. The system, which is supposed to promote culture, and give as many people access to that culture as possible, fails on both counts.
However, I would wager that you think that the internet would provide a distribution network wide enough to satisfy the most sceptical opponent. At least, if it doesn't reach the old grandmas without internet access, but who do have CD store access, then surely it's worth it, right? Well, I would say that artists cannot benefit from the wide distribution network of the internet without fame. There are already many, many artists producing works for free or donations, and posting them online. I know because I have seen for myself these free music publishing sites, like Jamendo. Now, how many of these artists have pulled themselves out of these free promotional sites, and actually made a name for themselves? I certainly haven't heard of any. I know, as someone who has serched through the Jamendo catelogue, that finding hidden gems was difficult and not worth the effort. I was then convinced thoroughly that self-promotion via posting music online doesn't work well. Try it yourself, and see if you can come up with a conclusion that is any different.
Your comment most resembles someone who believes that recording should complement live shows. However, I have found this method completely inadequate. For one, it is not clear whether the recorded product makes the live show more valuable, sinc
Problem: Google wouldn't do that. I figure that a company doing anything not for profit is supposed to generate goodwill, and by now, Google has reached about the most goodwill it's going to get. Most people see them as a decent company, and those who don't, well, they're probably not going to be pursuaded otherwise.
Specifically, the problem is the last step. It sounds so easy on paper, but nobody has actually come up with and implemented an adequate "new way". There's been lots of suggestions, but none of them have actually worked for any more than a small handful of artists, most of which use them as a gimmicks or experiments, before working under the copyright business model. The fact is that copyright is the only tried and true business model we've had for artworks in some centuries. At least, not since it drastically outperformed the travelling minstrel business model that a small number of people used before recording equipment.
I have no problem with replacing copyright, but I don't think we should jump the gun. We should wait until we have that last step solidly completed before we throw away the system in place.
As most realise, most people are ignorant. Knowledge is power!
They will, only, they will for a different value of "enough".
Slashdot: the only forum for discussion in the world where politely offering a counterpoint is considered "trolling". For shame, mods.
Hey! Wanna hear a joke? OK, here goes:
Question: What's the difference between offering goods/services for sale, and shoving them down people's throats?
Answer: How much people like you!
Not funny? Yeah, I didn't laugh either. Maybe because it's not so much a joke as it is a cold hard fact.
(Nothing against you personally; I just have an axe to grind.)
Calculators have their undeniable uses, but they do not make mental arithmetic obsolete, as some people seem to think. There are always times where it is more efficient to simply think for a split second, than to plug it into the calculator.
You're not expected to write original answers, just unplagiarised answers. That is, you should be able to come up with them yourself, even if the answer you give is identical to hundreds of people over 20 years.
As for the ancient questions, if it isn't broke, why fix it? It's still the same knowledge you need to know. It's not like the student has seen the questions before, so it's all new to them. The only "disadvantage" is that it makes finding the answers that much easier, but that's only a "problem" if you're looking for them.
Perhaps, but students not taking the opportunity to do so when they can is stupid. Mental arithmetic helps keep your mind quick, which can be an extremely valuable benefit of an education in maths.
But yeah, I wouldn't take calculators away from exams. Really, your professor should provide a spare calculator or two, so that people who forget theirs aren't totally screwed. I forgot my calculator during a test in a third year combinatorics course. I was very grateful to the tutor for bringing a spare calculator into the room, because otherwise I would have been screwed. We were enumerating possible outcomes in poker hands and calculating probabilities, where we were multiplying, adding, and subtracting numbers that were more than 10 digits. I would have been there all day if I did it by hand.
Here's the way I see it:
DRM leads to people not buying the game, and greed leads them to pirate it. The DRM leads people to want to not spend their money on an inferior product, and to punish the software companies, both of which are achieved in full by not buying it. The decision to then pirate in addition to not buying it is a decision which addresses neither problem with DRM, rather it addresses a more personal problem of the person not getting everything he wanted.
Since when do you need citations to ask a question? Come to think of it, how would you possibly provide a citation for a question?
I assure you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I was taking the mac pros to be a metaphor for any type of bribery. But yes, I'm glad you realise that the implication was insane. I've seen many such implications made here on /., and until recently, I assumed the people who made them also saw the implication was insane. Lately, however, I've been much less sure...
Well, to be clear, I was talking about the case made specifically in that court case. I'm not saying there's no evidence against Apple (on the contrary, I think it's highly probable that there is). However, I think what the judge did (assuming he is honest about the case made having insufficient foundation) was the right thing to do, even if it means that Apple gets off scot-free. You know, the whole issue of justice, protecting the innocent, etc.
FTFY. Why should we give any more credence to you, than you gave to the judge for using the same line of argument?
If the lawyer failed to make a solid case, but the jury were impressed, then the judge should step in as a course of duty. Sometimes proof differs from conviction, and arguments that impress a jury may be, in fact, riddled with holes. Say, for example, you were accused of paedophellia, and the prosecutor simply screemed at the jury rhetorical questions like, "Do you want a man like this near your kids?", or "How can we be sure he isn't going to rape your daughter?", and the jury convicted you on these grounds alone, would you not prefer that the judge point out that no case has been established?
As a final point (although at this point it's probably useless given the apparent void of any critical thought here on /. regarding accusations of corruption of people in positions of perceived power), why would a judge risk a stable, well-paying job, his freedom, and his legacy, for a few mac pros? I mean, his decision will be published, and it is witnessed by several parties in the court at the time. If there was no substantiating evidence for the validity of his opinion, such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone (with sufficient knowledge) who reads the decision. It seems, therefore, unlikely that the judge would do anything so overt as to throw the decision to apple for anything less than extremely substantial material gain (more than a few mac pros, or a few hundred thousand dollars), and it seems unlikely for apple to attempt such a bribery at such a steep going rate.
I agree with you, without a shadow of a doubt, that these companies are "bad things", but I don't think that lack of innovation or the risk of not creating new material. Disney will always produce new material, because children will always want new material (perhaps production might slow slightly, but that would be about it). I don't think indefinite copyright would change that (has changed that?). Disney will similarly not innovate, because children don't need them/don't want them to innovate. Besides, I don't see how limited copyright terms would change any of that either.
No, the reason, as far as I'm concerned that these companies are "bad things" (aside, of course, from their creepy influence on the government), is that the culture is not theirs, but ours. We grew up on their material, and it's a part of our lives and our pasts. We have sat patiently on our hands while companies wring every last piece of financial value from these works, on the condition that it becomes ours after a reasonable amount of time. While it's new and most profitable, sure, they deserve the first couple of slices for helping facilitate its existence. But when the public's cash has moved on to the next latest thing, it should become completely our own, for us to share and use as we see fit. Or, if the public's cash doesn't move on, then it's pretty clear that the work in question is already an important part of our culture, and should be liberated.
We can all win; the companies, the artists, and the public. It is possible. Companies and artists can make a mint of popular works, and we can have eventual ownership over our culture. I wish that people would realise this, because then politicians might pay attention. For a politician, fear for their job trumps lobbying every time. After all, how can they be lobbied if they have no power?
Is it self-serving to take actions that ultimately leave both you and your competitors worse off? I'd call it simple stupidity.
Whenever there is doubt or confusion, the Armchair Experts will be there.
Whenever science fails to come to a conclusion, the Armchair Experts will be there.
Whenever science fails to come to the right conclusion, the Armchair Experts will be there.
Ignoring the glaringly obvious fallacy of affirming the consequent, I could just as easily have specified "the west", or "america", or whatever. It still proves my point.
I certainly grant that I did not grow up in the church. I am, however, aware of the effects that it has to those completely devoted to the church. However, consider this: censorship only works when a certain critical mass of people are being denied access to the information. All Christians I know (and I know quite a few) are intelligent and know how to use the internet, can quite easily see the benefits of using the internet, and will not be scared out of using the information by the existence of satanic pages in some corners of the internet. So, how can the church suppress such information, when it'such suppression is only restricted to only to the small number of older folks, or the dangerously uneducated, who are unfamiliar with the internet, and have no-one they trust to tell them that it in't dangerous? Something about that plan seems to suggest that it would be woefully ineffective. Not that there's actually any evidence or reason to support the existence of such a plan.
I mean, seriously, I've only touched on a couple of reasons why this train of thought is so obviously stupid. Do a little thinking, and I'm confident that you can come up with your own. As another example, what about journalists for actual papers, or news programs, or whatever else? They won't be scared by the internet, and won't hesitate to publish a big scandal about the church. We've seen it happen before!
Hmm. I'm presented with two options. I can either assume the existence of a conspiracy effected by the church to censor a long-since surfaced scandal, by suggesting that people beware what they read online, in an attempt to scare the tiny minority of radical christians who are unfamiliar with the internet out of reading about the scandal that's been in several offline news outlets for years, and hope that such censorship will magically spread, or I can make a mistake. Excuse me if I choose to make a mistake. *Rolls eyes*
Well, I was considering doing some legwork, but unfortunately, I'm busy trying to prove that all babies are communists. I figure that I'm more likely to get an affirmative answer for that proposition, than trying to prove something obviously false.
No, judging the validity of opinions of other people whom slashdot likes invites a very negative response. Since the people generally don't like the church too much, their opinions can be bashed to kingdom come without very negative responses. Well, except mine, but I'm not really defending the church here, more just rationality and reason in general. Who would have thought the active champions of such concepts, so paraded and lauded here on slashdot, can be so reviled?
As far as I'm concerned, this is about as plausible as any other conspiracy theory I've heard. I've seen before so many conspiracy theories debunked here for lack of any supporting evidence, made by fellow slashdotters no less. Why am I suddenly the bad guy here?
Hmm, no. Sorry, but there's really no evidence of any kind to support that kind of conclusion. They haven't had the luxury of ignorance or the power to control information for many, many years. All of the people associated with the church at that time are long dead, even before the internet was available to the general population. Also, notice that this comes as a caution, not as a move to ban the internet, or even advice to boycott the internet. They're telling people to beware what they and their children see online, not to deliberately deprive themselves of information.
Yep, it's pretty obviously clear that they're simply doing their job. They're warning people about issues that conflict with their faith.
Oh, BTW, mods? What the hell? Insightful? It takes only a moment of critical thought to see that this is devoid of insight. This comment offends me, not as a christian (which makes sense, since I am not one, nor have I ever have been one), but as someone with a brain.
I too was sceptical of the story, but unfortunately I have no such proof of my scepticism. Instead of posting about my scepticism, I just passively accepted that it was part of slashdot's long slide into uselessness, and into its current position as the Fox News for nerds.
Mod me flamebait if you like, but at least I'm on topic.
Aww, jealous that you couldn't blame government faster?
OK, I will. It's the government's fault for not regulating the industry heavily enough, and giving business enough rope to hang us all with. They honestly should know by now that the free market learns from mistakes, so it doesn't tend to work so well for matters of life and death.
OK, we get it. Life is about a trade-off. Who would you prefer to trade in your safety? The government, over whom you have some measure of indirect control, or corporations, over whom you have almost none, and who directly benefit from selling you short?
May the force be with you!
I don't think anyone is claiming that he accidentally passed bill (or even that such an action would be possible). However, from that fact, it is a leap of logic to conclude that he knew of the consequences and was trying to get away with causing those consequences to happen. It is also a possibility that he tried deliberately to pass a law for which he didn't fully consider the consequences. The latter still falls under the heading of "messing up" in my books, and is what the senator is claiming. There is no evidence to support the former proposition.
Bah! I programmed my phones to post pointless messages to slashdot in the event of a 16000 foot drop!
How about a new hyperbole? Slashdot editors are trying to control what we see and think. I was getting bored with the usual terrorist and government boogeymen anyway.