I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that this is news all across the country. Major news.

Regarding the gun laws, I find it fascinating that we in the US are so eager to hold on with a death grip to our guns while other countries have been steadily eliminating guns from the general population with, what seems to be, minimal complaint. It makes me wonder whether there would be that much complaining once it was done.

So what constitutes scientific reality and what constitutes reality?

To me, this argument is struggling even to begin. Your very argument that propositions are not falsifiable seems flawed. I am but a simple jackass on slashdot, but to me, I can falsify: "The world was actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis" by stating: "The world was never actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis." I'm uncertain how that could support your position that science (for lack of any better term) is unable to explain reality.

Oh, and, hmmm... what's the most convoluted and demeaning way for me to disagree...

What you've described (fixed set of knowns in particular) sounds like a sufficient set of data that could be validated and applied to the question to try to arrive at an informed conclusion. I might be wrong, but that sounds very much like Bayesian reasoning.

Lastly, I want to humbly apologize (on behalf of the OP) for muddying the pristine waters of philosophy with his dirty ideas. May he(she) rub some ashes on his(her) head and rend his(her) clothes to try and repent of this wickedness?

citation?

Spoken like someone who can't stand for any position that opposes their own.

Spam filtering is a use for Bayesian reasoning. Bayesian reasoning is good for all sorts of other neat stuff, like making rational determinations.

So, your assertion is that it is not evil for you to form an opinion of claimed and denied adultery using the Bible? If that is your assertion, then sure, you are correct. Forming opinions is not inherently evil.

Rather than state that this is hyperbole and leave it at that, why not provide reasoned evidence to support your claim.

Correct. This is why I couldn't possibly bring myself to expose my children to religion on an ongoing basis (a little of it is good to remind them of how crazy those folks are) as I was when I was a child.

All that I need to do is remember the 20 years that I wasted as a child and early adult in the church to know just how bad the church is for humanity. It is not the time that I miss so desperately, it is the opportunities that I passed up. I disregarded anything that contradicted my misguided beliefs and did not think that my youth mattered that much since I was taught that the rapture would likely happen soon and that my earthly existence was not all that important.

Right, because once that actor is no longer making movies, they're incapable of doing *anything* else.

You're imagining that these actors/actresses make huge money and save and invest it wisely in order that they may live out the remainder of their years in idyllic pursuits such as looking at the wall. Seriously?

Fronting money for this? Come off it. The only reason that those multimillion dollar films are produced is to try to make more money. If you really wanted art, then you could have had it for far less.

Come to think of it, entertainment in general is and has been a bubble waiting to pop for decades. If natural economic and social forces were given a bit more free reign when it came to this bubble, then it would never be the size that it is today.

I love the moron who thinks that his life will lose meaning if no more Spiderman sequels are made. Count me as one of the folks who thinks exactly the opposite.

Evidently, that line was missed by several who were quick to knee jerk respond...what can you do?

However, I'd like to address this line:

As others have pointed out before and will probably continue to point out (just like I am), morality does not find its origins in religion, rather religion was created with the morality in mind that we already had. Think about how many religions there are and how diverse the beliefs. Now think about the baseline morals in these religions. Generally speaking (obviously with a pretty coarse filter), these baseline morals line up. That's not because a God or set of Gods dictated those morals and they were just interpreted differently by different cultures.

This is reality and you take advantage of others just like I do. When you take pay from a company or person for the work/time that you give up, you are essentially taking advantage of that person/company by exploiting their resources (money) in exchange for your time. Would you be prepared to tell me that you should be penalized for getting a raise when you weren't giving up any more of your time? Of course, it also works in reverse. There are examples of exploitation that is improper (an employer demanding more than what is fair for the compensation because they can get away with it and vice versa) but that is not the rule, but rather the exception.

This is why I'm scared of religious dogma. Divinity has no place in law.

Yeah, and other such nonsense like: "Wiring's not a hobby hire a licensed electrician" et al

Heard it before dude and it still annoys me

Frankly, I'm not that terribly concerned about greed since that is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy (prove me wrong). Corruption on the other hand...

Thanks for the stats. I honestly did not do any research to qualify that statement, so I'm going on sheer intuition. That said, I did wonder where all the money that flows from itunes, amazon, and others was flowing to.

Agreed. This is the reality that creators now have to come to grips with. I'm excited to see that (with respect to techie types anyway), collectively, we are gradually realizing that these laws and the rampant lawsuits are the dying gasps of an industry that is struggling to hold onto the market that has already moved on.

Care to elucidate, then, on how you plan to protect said "digitized" goods?

Don't forget that everyone agrees that writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers and other creators ought to be compensated. Unfortunately, that compensation is rapidly changing.

Look at it this way: their compensation is commensurate with what the market will bear. For digital goods, the value on the *free* market (I say free in the sense of free of regulation) is pretty dang low.

Sometimes, the truth hurts. But, as the earlier poster mentioned, that doesn't mean the end of said entertainment, it just means that the creators are going to have to change the way that they do business. In fact, this whole movement of the market *needs* to originate with the creators. The creators hold the reins of entertainment (no creators, no entertainment) and are therefore in the perfect position to dictate how they'd like to be compensated for their work. They can choose to try to defend an outdated, cumbersome, and downright ridiculous business model that is tied to the notion of physical media or they can move on to something that may be better.