More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.
Now, ask the same question, but instead substitute "TV programs" for "Internet content". I'll bet you the percentage breakdown doesn't change much.
This isn't about "internet content", it's about what standards a work of art is judged by.
Haven't you ever seen Dave Chappelle or Carlos Mencia or any other comedian that points out racial differences?
You mean the standard racial sterotypes? Sure, anyone can spout the lists off. Mencia even went out on the street and asked people of all races to describe other races. Sure, the result was typical...
...and inaccurate. My sister's adopted. Amer-asian, as she says. Do the stereotypes fit her? Does she speak with an accent? Does she fit the descriptions Mencia and/or Chapelle's routines?
You can look at someone and think "Chinese people", "Mexican people", "Indian people", sure... But doing so will make you look at 'em as a "people" first, and a "person" secondarily. THAT is my gripe. Stereotypes can apply to a people... but people are applying them to individuals...with often-painful results.
Comcast does have the right to modify traffic on the network they own
Really? Where does it end? Modifying emails because they disapprove of the content? What if your cell phone company monitored your phone conversations, and bleeped out words they didn't like?
This is obnoxious on so many levels it's not even funny...
It has all of the functionality of XP, Linux, and OS X, plus a bit more.
Really? When you can get Vista, with or without Aero, to do what Compiz Fusion can, without upgrading my PC, then I'll buy that line. Until then, the "but more" line rings somewhat hollow...
If pilots are more likely to report incidents (near-misses and dangerous situations) if they know that the data will only be used internally then not releasing it is the right answer.
So you're telling us to approve a system where a group of {some} professionals are less than forthcoming concerning safety. The answer is NOT keeping your safety policies/incidents mum, the answer is firing the self-centered idiots more concerned with their career than with keeping passengers safe.
Examples of a real pilot available on request, and Col. Linn will be remembered as such.
Return a video game? Where is the dream world you're writing from?
It's still our world, he's just thinking its the late 80's or early 90's when the stores did this.
He speaks truly. I worked at a mall-based EB back around '88. Back at that time, EB also sold computers, mainly AST and Amstrad brands. We had a shrink-wrap setup in the back, and the policy at the time was to LET customers "try" the software on our demo PCs.
If they saw what they liked, they bought the game and all was well. If not, we took it to the back, and rewrapped and repriced it. Thinking back, I'm not sure if such was legal; if the game has been installed, even on a demo PC, it's not "new", is it? IANAL, so I couldn't tell you...
So yes, Virginia, there WAS a Santa Claus... Now all you get to demo is console games, unless you go to a gaming cybercafe.
Well said! As for recording capabilities, I'll happily agree; I installed a friend's Digidesign Digi001 setup back in the day. Even being fairly new on the market, a deal at $1000 with PCI card {that was a pain to set up}, breakout box, ProTools LE, and a small monitor {forget the brand}. He got some good use out of that, especially when an engineer friend came over and showed him the ropes...
As for the newer amps being cheaper, yes. Yes, they are. But as you hinted earlier, Marshall heads being tube-driven will drive up the cost, but there's a "warmth" to the sound that you can't emulate with any digital pedal, effect, or sonic maximizer.
Just a matter of preference, really, and matters not a whit if the twit on the kit plays like shit.
If I knew for certain that asthma would be completely cured if and only if humans caused cockroaches to become extinct then I might be OK with causing cockroaches to become extinct but the chances of such a correlation existing are so remote that it's hard to know what my opinion would be.
Pretty powerful word there, extinction...
The problem being that I never used it once, called for it, nor do I advocate it for ANY species.
As it is, the correlation between cockroaches and asthma is sufficiently weak that it doesn't really doesn't affect my preferences for (not) killing cockroaches one way or the other.
Pardon my saying so, but I believe that the doctors have a different take on it than you do.
It's worth pointing out here that the original article was about killing cockroaches in a slow (and probably quite painful) way purely for entertainment purposes. In this case, when I balance the entertainment I would get out of seeing cockroaches irradiated to death versus my preference for not killing cockroaches, the scales tip in favor of not killing cockroaches.
Believe it or not, I know a number of people dissuaded from dangerous personal experimentation after seeing it done on MB. You could almost call the show "Jackass for Geeks". Anecdotal evidence, to be true, but no more so than your guessing at any pain the roaches might feel.
If I choose not to murder some random person that doesn't obligate me to care for that person and their children.
Really? If you're American, I'm pretty sure some of your tax money goes to Welfare. I'm not equating the poor with cockroaches or vice versa, but the simple fact remains that darn near EVERY living beast needs food and shelter at some point. That costs cash. My question: Where do you propose the funds for cockroach care come from?
I think what you are saying here is that you believe that humans have an obligation to cause all cockroaches to become extinct (because of some vague relationship to human asthma) and that if I disagree then I am obligated to finance an alternative. Fundamentally, I disagree that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct but, even if it were true in some absolute sense that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct, I disagree that I have any obligation to make that happen myself. There are plenty of worthy causes in the world and a person only has limited resources to address those causes.
Again, with that word, "extinction". I've never advocated it, because I know what an ecosystem is. They faithfully play their part in nature as scavengers, and it works quite well. Let them stay there.
What you seem to be missing is that they have NO part in the human ecosystem. Spreading disease, respiratory illness, and otherwise freaking out the squeamish, they need to be relegated elsewhere outside OUR environment.
I'm not saying that you necessarily have to save the "domesticated" cockroach singlehandedly. I'm not claiming you have the resources to do so. What I AM standing by is that rather than complaining about it, you need to first figure out where the resources will come from to care for the ones you believe you need to "save".
Good Idea. They could use a portion of the (probably sizeable) proceeds for gambling rehabilitation. If only the US gov't would do same with Marijuana sales;)
I know lots of stoners that wouldn't care for the marijuana rehabilitation part...
...but yeah, I darn near guarantee they could tax the sales of it at triple the rate of cigarettes and still have lines out the door and around the block. Same age limits as alcohol, with "dry" regions allowable with medical exceptions. HUGE tax windfall, and if they're smart, it could save the dying walrus that is Social Security. Goo goo g'joob.
Don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing the obvious hazards of inhaling ANY type of particulate matter. I'd just like to quote Winston Churchill who, when queried as to his booze consumption, said "I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."
Just like gambling, food, sex, water, and work, almost anything can be harmful when misused and abused.
Extensively processed music will become a thing of the past. People will play and record on devices that are much cheaper than they do currently.
Somehow, I don't think the guitar controller from Guitar Heroes will be replacing Stratocasters anytime soon.... {Musicians, drop your fave brand in there mentally...}
Call me crazy, but the cost of these things never really drop; it's just what's considered "high-end" is constantly being rethought.
The bottom line is that choices in life often involve trade offs. One can have a goal of not killing insects and also have a goal of not being bitten by insects. If some other goal conflicts with my goal of not killing insects and that other goal is more important then I go ahead and kill the insect. On the other hand, I avoid killing insects for no reason.
How about asthma? Any critter that 20% of the world's population is allergic to has to be resettled, if not killed. Would you like to invest in the startup of a "Cockroach Preserve"?
In an untrollish manner, I'm guessing not. I'll be somewhat more willing to buy the "all life is sacred" line when more of the folks SAYING it are willing to back their bark with their bucks.
In short: I'm willing to buy pesticide to kill the critters. Are you ready to care for them over their lifespans, as well as their progeny? If not, don't criticize my actions; I at least TOOK action, whether you agree or not.
As an atheist, I have no compunction about slitting their throats and tearing off that faggot walrus mustache for hurting any living thing. Adam and Jamie can very well test radiation poisoning on themselves for the sake of science or their idiotic realdoll but involving an innocent animal for the sake of entertainment who has no choice in the matter is completely lacking in merit.
...
You DO know that cockroaches are insects, right? Unless you're also willing to rail against the pesticide industry for killing your "friends", your argument sounds a little hollow...
How does one address the lack of ownership by minorities and women? It seems to me that it would not be possible to "force" minorities and women to buy media outlets, nor would it be possible to force people to sell to them...
Consider that women/minority-owned businesses get some financial breaks, and those groups STILL won't really touch broadcast media. Mayhaps everyone but the media CEOs sees the writing on the wall.
Heck, I'm deaf, and wouldn't get anywhere NEAR media as it stands now; pandering to the lowest denominator to stay afloat just doesn't do anyone {but the stockholders} any favors. I bet we could name a few channels whose educational value has dropped due to sensationalistic "Sharks Gone Wild"-like fluff that is bloody, inaccurate, and just there to draw the 18-34s.
With that said, who in their right mind would go into broadcast?
Slashdot Mirror
According to the government, sex *is* taxed. This madam was busted for prostitution *AND* tax evasion...
Now, ask the same question, but instead substitute "TV programs" for "Internet content". I'll bet you the percentage breakdown doesn't change much.
This isn't about "internet content", it's about what standards a work of art is judged by.
...argue the merits of Kirk as the original captain.As Archer came before Kirk in the ST timeline, he'd be the original captain, unless ya count Cochrane...
What's to argue? ;)
You mean the standard racial sterotypes? Sure, anyone can spout the lists off. Mencia even went out on the street and asked people of all races to describe other races. Sure, the result was typical...
...and inaccurate. My sister's adopted. Amer-asian, as she says. Do the stereotypes fit her? Does she speak with an accent? Does she fit the descriptions Mencia and/or Chapelle's routines?
You can look at someone and think "Chinese people", "Mexican people", "Indian people", sure... But doing so will make you look at 'em as a "people" first, and a "person" secondarily. THAT is my gripe. Stereotypes can apply to a people... but people are applying them to individuals...with often-painful results.
Sure, razzing people because of imaginary differences is funny.
:P Tphtphtph. :P
There's only ONE race: the Human one. Let us know when you're ready to join.
Indeed...
Sure, 'cause no one would think to pick a mailbox lock, would they...?
Are those the smaller mom 'n' pop stores, or the chains? We're still dropping XP on almost every box that goes out the door...
WHOOOSH!
Looks like someone missed the movie reference.....
Really? Where does it end? Modifying emails because they disapprove of the content? What if your cell phone company monitored your phone conversations, and bleeped out words they didn't like?
This is obnoxious on so many levels it's not even funny...
Really? When you can get Vista, with or without Aero, to do what Compiz Fusion can, without upgrading my PC, then I'll buy that line. Until then, the "but more" line rings somewhat hollow...
...for years, we've been trying to explain to the clients that spaces have no place in URLs, and these yoinks go an' mess it all up...
Two paddles.... 'cause then it's Warlords, for Atari 2600! ;)
So you're telling us to approve a system where a group of {some} professionals are less than forthcoming concerning safety. The answer is NOT keeping your safety policies/incidents mum, the answer is firing the self-centered idiots more concerned with their career than with keeping passengers safe.
Examples of a real pilot available on request, and Col. Linn will be remembered as such.
It's still our world, he's just thinking its the late 80's or early 90's when the stores did this.
He speaks truly. I worked at a mall-based EB back around '88. Back at that time, EB also sold computers, mainly AST and Amstrad brands. We had a shrink-wrap setup in the back, and the policy at the time was to LET customers "try" the software on our demo PCs.
If they saw what they liked, they bought the game and all was well. If not, we took it to the back, and rewrapped and repriced it. Thinking back, I'm not sure if such was legal; if the game has been installed, even on a demo PC, it's not "new", is it? IANAL, so I couldn't tell you...
So yes, Virginia, there WAS a Santa Claus... Now all you get to demo is console games, unless you go to a gaming cybercafe.
I'd be happy finding out why my best scores in games are when I'm lit...
Well said! As for recording capabilities, I'll happily agree; I installed a friend's Digidesign Digi001 setup back in the day. Even being fairly new on the market, a deal at $1000 with PCI card {that was a pain to set up}, breakout box, ProTools LE, and a small monitor {forget the brand}. He got some good use out of that, especially when an engineer friend came over and showed him the ropes...
As for the newer amps being cheaper, yes. Yes, they are. But as you hinted earlier, Marshall heads being tube-driven will drive up the cost, but there's a "warmth" to the sound that you can't emulate with any digital pedal, effect, or sonic maximizer.
Just a matter of preference, really, and matters not a whit if the twit on the kit plays like shit.
Even mechanical throw switches can be shorted, like those going to a power source...
Pretty powerful word there, extinction...
The problem being that I never used it once, called for it, nor do I advocate it for ANY species.
As it is, the correlation between cockroaches and asthma is sufficiently weak that it doesn't really doesn't affect my preferences for (not) killing cockroaches one way or the other.Pardon my saying so, but I believe that the doctors have a different take on it than you do.
It's worth pointing out here that the original article was about killing cockroaches in a slow (and probably quite painful) way purely for entertainment purposes. In this case, when I balance the entertainment I would get out of seeing cockroaches irradiated to death versus my preference for not killing cockroaches, the scales tip in favor of not killing cockroaches.Believe it or not, I know a number of people dissuaded from dangerous personal experimentation after seeing it done on MB. You could almost call the show "Jackass for Geeks". Anecdotal evidence, to be true, but no more so than your guessing at any pain the roaches might feel.
If I choose not to murder some random person that doesn't obligate me to care for that person and their children.Really? If you're American, I'm pretty sure some of your tax money goes to Welfare. I'm not equating the poor with cockroaches or vice versa, but the simple fact remains that darn near EVERY living beast needs food and shelter at some point. That costs cash. My question: Where do you propose the funds for cockroach care come from?
I think what you are saying here is that you believe that humans have an obligation to cause all cockroaches to become extinct (because of some vague relationship to human asthma) and that if I disagree then I am obligated to finance an alternative. Fundamentally, I disagree that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct but, even if it were true in some absolute sense that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct, I disagree that I have any obligation to make that happen myself. There are plenty of worthy causes in the world and a person only has limited resources to address those causes.Again, with that word, "extinction". I've never advocated it, because I know what an ecosystem is. They faithfully play their part in nature as scavengers, and it works quite well. Let them stay there.
What you seem to be missing is that they have NO part in the human ecosystem. Spreading disease, respiratory illness, and otherwise freaking out the squeamish, they need to be relegated elsewhere outside OUR environment.
I'm not saying that you necessarily have to save the "domesticated" cockroach singlehandedly. I'm not claiming you have the resources to do so. What I AM standing by is that rather than complaining about it, you need to first figure out where the resources will come from to care for the ones you believe you need to "save".
I know lots of stoners that wouldn't care for the marijuana rehabilitation part...
...but yeah, I darn near guarantee they could tax the sales of it at triple the rate of cigarettes and still have lines out the door and around the block. Same age limits as alcohol, with "dry" regions allowable with medical exceptions. HUGE tax windfall, and if they're smart, it could save the dying walrus that is Social Security. Goo goo g'joob.
Don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing the obvious hazards of inhaling ANY type of particulate matter. I'd just like to quote Winston Churchill who, when queried as to his booze consumption, said "I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."
Just like gambling, food, sex, water, and work, almost anything can be harmful when misused and abused.
Somehow, I don't think the guitar controller from Guitar Heroes will be replacing Stratocasters anytime soon.... {Musicians, drop your fave brand in there mentally...}
Call me crazy, but the cost of these things never really drop; it's just what's considered "high-end" is constantly being rethought.
How about asthma? Any critter that 20% of the world's population is allergic to has to be resettled, if not killed. Would you like to invest in the startup of a "Cockroach Preserve"?
In an untrollish manner, I'm guessing not. I'll be somewhat more willing to buy the "all life is sacred" line when more of the folks SAYING it are willing to back their bark with their bucks.
In short: I'm willing to buy pesticide to kill the critters. Are you ready to care for them over their lifespans, as well as their progeny? If not, don't criticize my actions; I at least TOOK action, whether you agree or not.
...
You DO know that cockroaches are insects, right? Unless you're also willing to rail against the pesticide industry for killing your "friends", your argument sounds a little hollow...
Not if you're in civil service; a Hercules card suits the "black and white" mentality of the government MUCH more aptly.
Consider that women/minority-owned businesses get some financial breaks, and those groups STILL won't really touch broadcast media. Mayhaps everyone but the media CEOs sees the writing on the wall.
Heck, I'm deaf, and wouldn't get anywhere NEAR media as it stands now; pandering to the lowest denominator to stay afloat just doesn't do anyone {but the stockholders} any favors. I bet we could name a few channels whose educational value has dropped due to sensationalistic "Sharks Gone Wild"-like fluff that is bloody, inaccurate, and just there to draw the 18-34s.
With that said, who in their right mind would go into broadcast?