The God discussion belongs in religion and philosophy classes, not science classes. The evidence for "poof magic" is 0, so even though evolution can't trace the exact path for every critter that walks the earth, it at least has evidence.
What she and every other creationist wants is creationist bullshit treated like it is even remotely equal to scientific theory. They tout the "its just a theory" crap because they don't understand the definition of a scientific theory. Even if most kids laugh it off, the fact that they put that shit in the class causes the assumption that there is anything more to it than silly superstition and intellectual laziness.
I'm sorry, but my version of "God" is a hell of a lot more complex than rolling up some playdough snakes and saying "Bamf" its done.
While I commend your stance it reminds me of the fact that modern American college educated people, that should understand science, all base law on some mystical magical moment in which "life" begins. These stated opinions that deny life begins at conception include the SCOTUS, the ACLU, and NOW. On top of that they have found an additional theory of law called "privacy" which never existed in the Constitution's inception. I would find their arguments more realistic if they would simply admit that government sponsored murder to accommodate irresponsible character and increase semi-affiliated murder industry organizations' coffers was the intent of Roe vs. Wade.
FWIW, I've heard Cuba actually has a remarkably egalitarian society--at least with regards to race--but it's so hard to hear reliable things about Cuba that I don't know..
My understanding is this stems from the policy of murdering everyone the government did not approve of, or those that helped liberate the country. Take your pick.:)
Why should you be surprised? Atheists, like much of secular society, usurps religious verbiage to describe a variety of life experiences. It's always funny to hear an atheist curse someone or thing with a religious icon.
$20 after 10 years
$80 after 20 years
$320 after 30 years
$1280 after 40 years
$5120 after 50 years
$20480 after 60 years
$81920 after 70 years
$327680 after 80 years
$1310720 after 90 years
$5242880 after 100 years
Considering Disney makes that much off of two concession stands everyday, I don't think they'll have issue with the 1,000 year mark, either.
... that I'd never pay per song or per oldsk00l CDs. And yes, I *can* afford to buy stuff, I just want my money here in my bank account, thank you very much. Why waste my money on crap, when there's way better stuff for free (like online radios like di.fm or trance[]control's stuff). Shoutcast forever! Legal, free, and way better.
This is where creating a library of music/media would have commercial value. I have tried to have 6+ terabyte storage arrays and managing them always gets crazy. If there was a commercial library covering a huge variety of artists with a cost similar to iTunes I would pay/subscribe. I have sat with my family and spent $100 a night on iTunes just collecting music for specific themes and mixes.
There are enough artists out there that actually allow you to download their music for free, but also offer merchandise, cheap CDs, etc, without the intervention of a record label. Quite a few people I know that download music can't be bothered to pay for a CD from say EMI at $21 but are more than willing to buy a CD from an indy that offers free downloads, but also sells CDs for $8.
The latter artist actually makes more money per CD sold than the artist that's 'under the wings' of a record label.
I can't be arsed at the moment to give links to the enormous amount of research available that supports that fact, but I'm sure you can find it quite easilly yourself.
The Polynesian bands I worked with in Hawaii have contracts with record labels that provide zero income and are mainly used to get their name out into the community. Similar to your comments, they make money from gigs and spot sales of their music; not from any RIAA contracts.
what happens if my ipod is stolen with all watermarked (i.e. linked to me) songs? the thieve publishes to some p2p networks, and I am liable for millions of copies (i.e. billions of dollars)?
I'd think if anything water marking would make it easier to track down your iPod. Most likely the RIAA would still pursue distributors in court, regardless of whether or not the music bore their watermark. If you reported your iPod stolen immediately, and the RIAA soon found one source distributing a lot of music with your watermark, they've probably found the person who stole your iPod. If your music has found it's way to half the internet before the RIAA picks up on it, you'd better have filed a report, but if there are a few people with a few of your songs and one person with all of your songs, the water-marking may end up finding the person who stole your iPod.
So, at the end of the day you've empowered more lawyers to create more litigation that effectively does nothing for the artists or the consumer past establishing a condition of automatic guilt to any process that uses the watermarked files.
It just seems like it would be so much simpler to sell the materials for a price that would preclude pirating. When it costs more to pirate something than to buy it through legal channels, like iTunes, people will pick buying. Besides, consumers still appreciate marketing, ease of purchasing, and brand inclusion. The majority of Internet users are not going to become DalNet DCC groupies, ever.
Unless I'm in denial about either China or my intelligence, you're wrong. Care to elaborate on how China is a long-term threat to us? All I have been able to fathom is that they are very likely to overtake the United States economically, largely because they have a more productive populace. But how is that a threat? Is it a threat because they seem to be succeeding economically while their government continues to be relatively free of Washington's influence?
Yes, well I hope you and the new revised Chinese economy have fun. Can't wait till you make steel for two years straight and discard food production for a few billion people.
Yes, what about dental care? Where upon you receive such shoddy and poor treatment that over $25,000 of my family income went to pay for reconstruction from dental damage inflicted on my family through the use of inferior materials and workmanship while serving in the Navy. I especially liked the expanding fillings that cause your molars to crack and degrade in less than 10 years. Being ordered to undergo experimentation by dental students was right at the top of that disclosure statement I signed. Anyone else catch that part?
I don't think a lot of people really think about how bad and biased the media really is. If you're not a climatologist, think about a field you are an expert in. Say, technology, since its Slashdot. Do the "experts" on TV know what they're talking about? No. Its the same in every other field, climatology included. The people on TV are there because they're pushing an agenda, trying to push themselves up, trying to get laid, whatever. Its never about really presenting an expert's real position.
But isn't this the real problem. When our society is fueled and run by asshats that simply turn everything into theater instead of rational debates. Really, I'd pay extra for the news channel where people have rational debates on subjects without every excuse for commentary turning the arguments into the Punch and Judy Show.
Alcohol and nicotine do not generally make kids physically and mentally addicted in one use. Cocaine, meth, and quite a few designer versions have been proven to do so.
I agree with parenting being the frontline on these issues, but only the truly clueless doubts that there are plenty of bad people out there trying to do plenty of bad things to other human beings on a variety of levels.
So, again, I assert that if you make killing illegal drug pushers legal I am all for legalizing the drugs in question. Her choices I can only educate against. However, I've seen the abuse that pushers have used on kids to get them hooked and therefore enslaved pretty permanently to the chemicals and the support lifestyles usually associated.
As to the comment about someone introducing her to glue sniffing at a party, I believe I already covered that under legalized murder of drug pushers. As a society, we have already legalized murder for nothing more than making someone else feel less inconvenienced in their life. I simply go forward to this next step as a logical extension since the discussion had advocated so much personal responsibility on everyone except those exploiting others.
It should not be the state's job to ban certain substances just because little Jessica may get addicted to them.
It is the job of her parents to ensure that she does not travel that path.
When I can track down and kill the drug dealers legally, I'll accept your argument. In the meantime, when the state makes it illegal for me to protect my daughter, you're wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
While I commend your stance it reminds me of the fact that modern American college educated people, that should understand science, all base law on some mystical magical moment in which "life" begins. These stated opinions that deny life begins at conception include the SCOTUS, the ACLU, and NOW. On top of that they have found an additional theory of law called "privacy" which never existed in the Constitution's inception. I would find their arguments more realistic if they would simply admit that government sponsored murder to accommodate irresponsible character and increase semi-affiliated murder industry organizations' coffers was the intent of Roe vs. Wade.
My understanding is this stems from the policy of murdering everyone the government did not approve of, or those that helped liberate the country. Take your pick. :)
Why should you be surprised? Atheists, like much of secular society, usurps religious verbiage to describe a variety of life experiences. It's always funny to hear an atheist curse someone or thing with a religious icon.
Considering Disney makes that much off of two concession stands everyday, I don't think they'll have issue with the 1,000 year mark, either.
This is where creating a library of music/media would have commercial value. I have tried to have 6+ terabyte storage arrays and managing them always gets crazy. If there was a commercial library covering a huge variety of artists with a cost similar to iTunes I would pay/subscribe. I have sat with my family and spent $100 a night on iTunes just collecting music for specific themes and mixes.
The Polynesian bands I worked with in Hawaii have contracts with record labels that provide zero income and are mainly used to get their name out into the community. Similar to your comments, they make money from gigs and spot sales of their music; not from any RIAA contracts.
It just seems like it would be so much simpler to sell the materials for a price that would preclude pirating. When it costs more to pirate something than to buy it through legal channels, like iTunes, people will pick buying. Besides, consumers still appreciate marketing, ease of purchasing, and brand inclusion. The majority of Internet users are not going to become DalNet DCC groupies, ever.
Unless I'm in denial about either China or my intelligence, you're wrong. Care to elaborate on how China is a long-term threat to us? All I have been able to fathom is that they are very likely to overtake the United States economically, largely because they have a more productive populace. But how is that a threat? Is it a threat because they seem to be succeeding economically while their government continues to be relatively free of Washington's influence?
Yes, well I hope you and the new revised Chinese economy have fun. Can't wait till you make steel for two years straight and discard food production for a few billion people.
Yes, what about dental care? Where upon you receive such shoddy and poor treatment that over $25,000 of my family income went to pay for reconstruction from dental damage inflicted on my family through the use of inferior materials and workmanship while serving in the Navy. I especially liked the expanding fillings that cause your molars to crack and degrade in less than 10 years. Being ordered to undergo experimentation by dental students was right at the top of that disclosure statement I signed. Anyone else catch that part?
My scientists said the Washington Post is a bunch of old ladies griping about their bridge games. :)
b al_warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_glo
I don't think a lot of people really think about how bad and biased the media really is. If you're not a climatologist, think about a field you are an expert in. Say, technology, since its Slashdot. Do the "experts" on TV know what they're talking about? No. Its the same in every other field, climatology included. The people on TV are there because they're pushing an agenda, trying to push themselves up, trying to get laid, whatever. Its never about really presenting an expert's real position.
But isn't this the real problem. When our society is fueled and run by asshats that simply turn everything into theater instead of rational debates. Really, I'd pay extra for the news channel where people have rational debates on subjects without every excuse for commentary turning the arguments into the Punch and Judy Show.
Alcohol and nicotine do not generally make kids physically and mentally addicted in one use. Cocaine, meth, and quite a few designer versions have been proven to do so. I agree with parenting being the frontline on these issues, but only the truly clueless doubts that there are plenty of bad people out there trying to do plenty of bad things to other human beings on a variety of levels. So, again, I assert that if you make killing illegal drug pushers legal I am all for legalizing the drugs in question. Her choices I can only educate against. However, I've seen the abuse that pushers have used on kids to get them hooked and therefore enslaved pretty permanently to the chemicals and the support lifestyles usually associated. As to the comment about someone introducing her to glue sniffing at a party, I believe I already covered that under legalized murder of drug pushers. As a society, we have already legalized murder for nothing more than making someone else feel less inconvenienced in their life. I simply go forward to this next step as a logical extension since the discussion had advocated so much personal responsibility on everyone except those exploiting others.
When I can track down and kill the drug dealers legally, I'll accept your argument. In the meantime, when the state makes it illegal for me to protect my daughter, you're wrong.
My 17 year old trusted her best friend, who promptly wrecked MY car. Yep, you sure know kids well, mate!