It's difficult to parse what you're getting at. So, Atheism, the belief that there is no God or higher power, is illogical because . . . yeah, that's where you lose me. Is it really a response to religion? Atheist aren't atheist because people believe God, they're atheist because they believe in something different, just like Buddhists believe in something different.
Facebook is definitely better online. Imagine if you called your friends up just to tell them you like pickles, or you miss your girlfriend or that "The Arcade Fire r0kz0rZ!" They'd disown you, you'd have zero friend instead of 357. Facebook is like a security blanket for your annoying bullshit, it creates a bubble where it's perfectly acceptable to let 300 people know you just when to the bathroom and your pee smells like Corn Pops.
Sex Online, however, I'm sure that's better in real life . . . probably . . .
I'm not sure where the benefit would be for movie studios to allow us to legally watch their movies online for free? I guess they wouldn't be spending money on researching how to stop us from downloading.
Does anyone have a source on any statistics on the cost of piracy to the movie studios?
When there are plenty of movie still grossing 200 million during the summer months I'm guessing that the affect of piracy is problem not as far reaching as the movie studios think. Then again, I'm not a movie studio, nor do I have the numbers in front of me.
Still, at the same time you can't fault the studio for trying to protect their property. I think these days we all think we're entitled to free entertainment because it's so accessible, and it's easy not to feel guilty when you're plucking intellectual property from giant movie studios that have truck loads of money. The reality is that the films are their work, and they have a right to control where and how is it distributed, just as much as a student film makes has control over his work.
Kind of depends on the level of manipulation. Most photo manipulation for newspapers and the like are simple contrast, color and brightness correction, sometimes necessary for the photo to be publishable. Other manipulations can be innocent ones that are more about composition of then anything.
Of course, it goes without saying that any photo editing that would deliberately mislead the public should be punishable, but in my view this is no different than an article that is deliberately misleading, they should both be handled in a similar way.
The science of global warming is extensive, complicated and confusing, particularly when you try to listen to both sides of the anthropogenic argument. Both sides have points and counter points for each other and the debate over the cause and effects of global warming will likely never reach a consensus. Trying to make heads or tails of the issue is a stressful experience, and I think I'd rather punch myself in the balls for half an hour, at least that's predictable. I hit my nuts, pain is felt. Easy. Simple.
However, as others have pointed out, there are many reasons to cut back our burning of fossil fuels even with global warming aside. Do you like the convenience of a plastic spoon? Hard to eat Wendy's chili without one. Guess what, all that stuff comes from petroleum, and we don't have an infinite amount of that stuff.
Also, the fact that the city of Toronto has something called the AQI (Air Quality Index). If our whether reports include a number that indicates how safe the air outside is to breath, we are already in serious trouble.
Big corporations are not universally bad, indeed many large corporations contribute to the high level of convenience we enjoy as consumers. A large corporation holds powerful buying power that is returned to consumers as low, affordable prices on various necessary or unnecessary products. Large corporations also facilitate the delivery of cultural meccas such as motion pictures and television programs. Without large, big profit corporations it would be difficult to be entertained by high budget shows such as Heroes or Grey's Anatomy every week.
Having said that, the corporate structure that is so pervasive in our economy dispenses a unique brand of social, political and environmental injustices on an unwitting public.
Corporations are bound to the will of the share holder, whose primary investment goal is to see their stock. For this reason the corporate structure must remain in a perpetual state of growth to ensure continued investment. A CEO of any given corporation will particularly feel the heat to grow. Considering the often short life span of their jobs, CEO will be more than motivated to make a large profits in a short period of time.
Big profits and continuous growth leads the corporate world to seek whatever advantage is available. If labourers will work for literally peanuts in South Asia, then setting up a factory overseas just makes good business sense. Of course there is little concern for working conditions or fair wages, that sort of defeats the purpose.
Regulations, particularly those pesky environmental ones, are sometimes view as road blocks to a windfall of profit. While there maybe some regulations in place that are unfair to business, the majority of regulations are in place to protect the environment, or uphold fair business practices. Corporations have the ability, however, have a disproportionate voice compared to the people to lobby for their interests through the government. To lobby isn't always a bad thing, but a corporation will typically be able to afford smarter, more experienced lobbyists than say an environmental group.
Large corporations aren't a bad thing, but there needs to be a better balance between their needs and the needs of the environment, and the environment.
L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer, a bad one, who just happens to be the father of a "religion" touting space aliens inhabiting our brains. Is there any doubt it's made up?
"Xenu . . . was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Scientology holds that their essences remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm."
Is there any doubt it's retarded?
Best video game of all time? It has to be Super Mario World, doesn't it? Dynamic gameplay, brilliant SNES graphics, tons of unlockable levels and a soundtrack that I still whistle to this very day. It turned out that Super Mario World would be the last greatest 2D Mario platformer as the next proper Mario game would be Mario 64 (an amazing, genre defining game in it's own right).
Being Canadian I don't know much about which news channel is most watched in the States. If MSNBC is "virtually unwatched" as you say, I'll have to take you at your word.
It worries me that people, such as yourself, can watch Fox News and feel that it's balanced. Truth be told, most news outlets in the States seem to be more about opinion than actual reporting. To get a good taste of the difference I suggest reading the BBC News, or even CBC News up here in Canada. While no news will ever be completely unbiased, these two networks at least attempt to present news with some sense of balance.
Equal airtime for right wing and left wing analysts is great, and you're right, I do see that a lot of Fox News, but if you think that they are being any at all fair to those left wing analysts, my friend, you are not watching close enough. Being yelled down by O'Reilly, or having him cut their mics is not a fair way to treat opposing viewpoints. Hannity performs this feat quite effectively as well.
Fair and balanced isn't about cheerleading a sitting president, it's not about starting political fires about people's middle name's being Hussein, or barking about someone not wearing an american flag pin. This is all bad reporting, in every conceivable fashion, and if you think otherwise, then I'm very afraid for your country's future.
I've often wondered if we're experiencing the long lines of events that would lead to some kind of revolt. We are ever increasingly becoming disaffected with government, and we are learning more and more about how little our voice counts against the loud voice of corporations. Misguided wars, unending "theats" of terrorism, propaganda running rampant in government and the media. It seems, at times, that we are becoming more and more repressed by those in power. Historically when a people are repressed, eventually they push back. I just sometimes wonder if that's where we're heading.
Thoughts?
The thing I notice about Olbermann is that there seems to be a lot more fact finding going on as compared to a show like the O'Reilly factor, which mainly consists of Bill O'Reilly yelling over top of his guests . . . particularly when they have a good point.
On the other hand, Olbermann doesn't really ever debate with anyone. Most, or all of his guest are just people that already agree with him.
It's worth asking the question, however, which pundit would you trust to be more fair? Olbermann or the comparable O'Reilly?
A one-world government sounds a bit sketchy. It's hard to imagine democracy working well when power is so centralized. Then again, it depends on how it's structured and how much power is doled out to the leaders.
The Anti-Christ bit was a nice touch. Something about that seems so very Christian, as soon as there is world peace and unity across the globe we're all fucked.
Just out of curiosity, what would be the "conditions" if you were to conditionally meet with anti-American Foreign Leaders?
Maybe my history is a little fuzzy, but isn't communication with the enemy what saved the world from a nuclear disaster during the Cold War? Why is it so odd to meet with your enemies?
The Final Fantasy series before it got its glitzy polygon make over was easily my favourite among RPGs. Final Fantasy IV & VI showered upon the SNES engaging stories, simple turn based game play and memorable soundtracks. They stand today as easily the best in the Final Fantasy series, and two of the best games of all time.
Here's something interesting, John McCain in May:
"[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later."
Sounds more like Obama doesn't it? What happened to McCain? He used to be a good guy.
Here a few of my quick thoughts on Mr. Coleman's rebuttal to Al Gore:
"He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs"
Okay, so these are three things we know are already happening, but they are presented to us like they are outlandish fear mongering.
" . . . during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes."
The suggestion is we're in an "interglacial period" now as our climate is naturally warming, and life on earth thrives. Sounds great, right? Except that we know that life is not flourishing, nearly every ecosystem on the planet is in decline. By his own example, polar bears are suffering, coral reefs are diminishing and life within them disappearing, frogs in Australia are dying, etc.
"Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?"
While this is true, it is not indicative of a long term trend. Climate science is extremely complicated and there are many, many factors that affect overall climate temperature. Our current plateau seems to the result of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/
"Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it."
This is categorically false. That Mr. Coleman would even suggest that we believe only Carbon Dioxide to be the main factory in global warming is laughable. Methane is a contributer for example, a gas that has increased from the large cattle farms. Soot from our emissions has increase the rate of melting of snow pack and ice up north which in turn puts more water vapour in the air and causes temperatures to increase.
I'm going to stop there, since I'm at work and should actually get some work done.
I whole-heartedly agree, as the oil prices increase you can already see a dramatic shift in focus on the part of companies like Toyota and GM. Their advertising is beginning to shift and boast their vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the race is already on to produce the most fuel efficient car to meet the demand of consumers.
I did a search a could not find any information on how long it would take to produce oil from offshore drilling. One could reasonably expect, between finding drilling sites and setting up the infrastructure that it would not be any kind of quick and easy process. A decade? Who knows, it anyone can find information on this that would be awesome.
A sense of humor is paramount. Who wants to be stuck somewhere, maybe out for dinner for example, with a person who takes everything seriously? If all my jokes are dying on the table in front of my sooner or later I'm going to reach for the butter knife to jab in my eye for some semblance of entertainment.
I wouldn't lie to you and say that OS X never crashes, never has a kernel panic, and never beach-balls for hours until I'm ready to smash my iMac through a tree stump. But for myself, and those who use Mac around me, those moments are few and far between, much less than the hair pulling I experience using Microsoft software.
The thing is, as near as I can tell you're telling me that OS X runs well because of high-quality hardware (which isn't always true, I don't know about now, but there was a time when Apple was using the shittiest of shitty motherboards for their iBooks, the name of that manufacturer escapes me though) and Windows struggles as a result of poor or inconsistent hardware. I would assume you mean to say if Windows had the same hardware advantages as Apple they would be on par with the OS X. Okay, that's fair enough.
A writer from Demonbaby.com visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky and recorded a hilarious exploration into it's outlandish exhibits. In between the laughs he manages to make an excellent point regarding the state of the creationism debate, in that there shouldn't be one. Any debate simply gives Creationist a "disproportionately" larger voice and erroneously legitimizes a falsehood that the earth and it's people were created by God 6000 years ago.
It was somewhat of a revelation for me. We have seen over the past 8 years that all you have to do is institute a little doubt in the public consciousness and suddenly that doubt grows and spreads. Creationists don't have to win the debate, they only need smudge the theory of evolution just a little, enough to catch it with its pants down for just a moment. That will be enough to capture the minds of those who are already want to believe in creation.
I don't know enough about US history to be able to say that George Walker Bush is the worst president the country has ever seen, but quite honestly I have to believe that he is because the prospect of someone being worse than him is terrifying.
To the best of my knowledge atheist aren't prone to gathering in groups to discuss how awesome being an atheist is. But just because there are no atheist organizations to congregate and contribute to charities and the like doesn't mean that there are no individual atheists out there doing good work.
You raise some excellent points, but I'll have to disagree with your main opinion of favour for monoculture.
Multiculturalism is obviously where we are already headed, and it is something to embrace. Other cultures are interesting, and fun to explore, and through that exploration we can hopefully learn to have a great deal more tolerance for how other people live.
Whether you feel a culture or way of life is acceptable or not is irrelevant. If those culture can fit within the laws of your country, then they have every right to exist within your borders.
I do like the romantic thought of a renaissance of religious thought, however. Well said.
The title "Preservation of Favored Races" may sound racist, it's not of course. Races in this context is just a synonym for "species."
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, you know that right? And even if Hitler used evolution as the basis for the Aryan race, is that relevant? I mean, considering all the atrocities committed in the name of God, I think evolution wins in the "which is less evil" category.
Once again, Mr. 35-Year Journalist, you are super wrong.
Wow. Again I find you, the 35-year journalist, being super fair and balanced. Not to mention honest. If the Democratic Party was so racist, as you say, then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a huge step in the wrong damn direction.
" . . . in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il, etc. leftists HATE any message that conflicts with theirs. Their brains are all hard-wired to despise anyone to the right of Che Guevara."
A journalist of 35 years, eh? Sure sounds like your career has been as fair and balanced as Fox News. In fact that post was so pro-Fox News I almost suspect that LoneRanger here is, in fact, Rupert Murdock himself.
It might interest you to know that Keith Olbermann has finally beat O'Reilly in ratings. A changing of the guard, perhaps? Something for all us Che Guevara wanna-be's to celebrate about.
Here's what you said originally:
"OSX works very well on the hardware Apple supplies"
Here is what you're saying now:
". . . the reason many people think OSX is rock solid is that it runs on streamlined and often expensive hardware . . ."
You'll forgive me if I'm still confused.
You're assuming I believe OS X is a solid operating system based solely on my own experience, which is not the case. In addition to being a Mac user for 8 years I also sold Macs for a year and a half. I am also a graphic designer whose peers nearly all use OS X, so my opinions of the operating system are not just based on only my experience.
Having said that OS X isn't bulletproof, and hardly perfect. Some people will have bad experiences, and that's true of any product really. However, if your 25 MacBook Pro's at your high school are crashing because of Microsoft Word or Firefox then the IT staff at your school should be downloading updates for both OS X and the software in question, which would likely solve the problem. I should also point out that if Microsoft Word and Firefox are crashing the OS, and everything else seems to run peachy, isn't it possible that OS X is not the culprit?
As for Apple's hardware advantage, if that's what it takes to get a computer to run smoothly, well maybe that's just what makes Apple not suck and Microsoft suck.
Either way you're kind of arguing both sides of the issue. On one hand you're saying "oh, well OS X machines run awesome cause they're designed with specific hardware in mind" and on the other you're telling me OS X doesn't run well because your computers at school crash all the time. So which is it? Does OS X run well or run shitty?
Yeah, awesome. You know that anyone can sign this petition right? I downloaded the petition for myself, I could sign it if I want, all I have to do is put "Ph. D" at the end of my name.
Oh, also, Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, the first guy on the list is a creationist. Rad.
People who say "scientists have already proven" global warming is a hoax either aren't paying attention to any scientists or are listening to right-wing radio. The IPCC (Internation Panel on Climate Change) has put together four reports on the issue with contributions from over two thousand scientists. I defy you to find a comprehensive report with that many scientific minds saying climate change is a hoax. Seriously, go find it for me. When you give up let me know.
Also, no scientist is willing to conclusively say 100% that climate change is man-made and will lead to catastrophes, because they know that no matter how sure they are, their work is still a scientific theory, they are very careful about their wording. This last report from the IPCC was regarded as "the strongest wording yet" on climate change.
The point is, any scientist who says conclusively that global warming is a myth is a shitty scientist . . . and probably a dickbag.
The Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe had this to say about the future of the auto industry:
" 'Without focusing on measures to address global warming and energy issues, there can be no future for our auto business,' he told reporters in Tokyo, adding, 'Our view is that oil production will peak in the near future. We need to develop power train(s) for alternative energy sources.' "
If auto industry is already changing it's focus because it believes peak oil will occur, I'd say this debate is over.
