Well, AC, like I said, "maybe a bit too clever." Plainly it was too clever for you.
In terms of major areas, this leaves South America, Canada, Australia and the poles.
Is what the parent post to mine was referring to. See that word there, "poles?" In the context of the post, it obviously meant the North Pole and the South Pole, not citizens of Poland. It was what many refer to as a pun.
No one was, in any way, shape or form, denigrating the fine Polish people. Except maybe you.
Congratulations on getting all worked up over a bit of wordplay. Perhaps next time you see something flying over your head, you ought just duck and cover.:p
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Whoa there, buddy. No need to go dragging us nonphilatelists into your argument. I've been not collecting stamps for decades, now, and I'm damn proud of it!
if you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a "vigilante" in search of "justice" in your mind, regardless of the fact that poor parallel parking skills are not illegal
No. If you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a psycho.
Um, I watch several hours of cable news weekly, and I've only heard of this Spears girl mentioned while surfing past those "entertainment" channels. What kind of new are you watching, anyway...?
Gosh, it seems to me you took that a bit personally. Of course, I didn't "simply drop" anything. I made what I think is a fairly reasoned argument against what I saw as an unfair characterization of the movie. I certainly never suggested anything about you, personally, much less that you are an intellectual inferior who can't have opinions of your own. Rather it seems from your response that an opinion divergent from your own stoles the fires of hostility within.
If you are finding yourself put out by the implication that "the average [movie viewer]" seems to miss the less-obvious qualities of art, perhaps you find yourself identifying readily with the word, "average." Sorry for your feelings, but do try to get a grip.
The spirit of "...Electric Sheep" was not "catch the replicant", it was far more broadly philosophical: hence all the stuff about android pets, social class, Mercerism, etc, which basically vanished from the film. Instead we got a simplified Cop Chases Bad Guy affair, with the MTV-esque depth you'd expect from an ex-advertisement director.
I don't think this is fair at all. The spirit of Blade Runner is not "catch the replicant" at all. The spirit is "what makes us human?" The genius of Blade Runner (and this seems to fly over the heads of the average) is that it manages to imply a great deal, leaving questions for the viewer to answer, rather than beating one about the head and neck with them, in the way -- for example -- that the Matrix sequels did.
Certainly the novel explored the themes more deeply, but movies aren't novels. You have to pick something and go with that. The movie focuses on Deckard and the replicants, as the replicants seek the realization of the dream to live, Deckard seeks them out and destroys them. Yet of the cast, only Rutger Hauer's replicant Batty has anything to say about "humanity." It is in my opinion one of the more meaningful, and moving, monologues in any movie.
Yeah...uh...anyway, I love Ubik and I really hope they make a good engaging movie out of it and not some hackjob made just to market toys.
It's in the UK. I say let them have their silly bans. That pales in comparison to their #1 problem which is the monarchy. No sane, sustainable, appreciable democracy can survive while a handful of inbred jingoes have veto power over everything and everyone.
I am reasonably certain that the English royal family have veto power over diddly-squat.
*cough* Gee, I didn't mean for this to turn into another Bush-bash... tee-hee!
Oh. I see. You're a troll.
(Of course, the Bushes, detestable though they may be, have veto power over diddly-squat as well. The President has his fun, sure, but he'll be out of office soon enough. Well, not soon enough for my tastes, but late is better than never, in this case.)
If you've got to put your faith into something, try an idea like Jesus who at least promises eternal salvation for your troubles. Eh, I rather think I've got a better shot with Google.
In Canada, one of the systems highlighted by his film, there are cases where people have an easier time getting hip replacement surgeries for their pet dogs than for themselves. And in the U.S. there are cases where people who need hip-replacement surgery can't get it at all.
This ruling overturns the 1911 ruling because pricing agreements between manufacturers and distributors do not necessarily violate the Sherman act. Such agreements for lifesaving medicines -- obviously, it seems -- would still be regarded as only benefiting the distributor, whereas belts and handbags (which is what the defendant in this case manufactures) might not, if the pricing agreement could be seen as being somehow beneficial to the consumer.
TFA:
Leegin's marketing strategy for finding a niche in the highly competitive world of small leather goods was to sell its "Brighton" line of fashion accessories through small boutiques that could offer personalized service. In this case, retailers which do not honor the pricing agreement can price the boutiques right out of the market, leading to less competition, not more.
A very good reason for manufacturers to be able require such agreements is to prevent their wares being sold to uninformed consumers who may not know how to properly care for their purchase, causing them to waste their money on to-be-ruined merchandise. People who buy (for example) deeply-discounted high-quality kitchen knives often ruin them by washing them in a dishwasher. They then blame the seller and/or manufacturer for selling them a knife that rusts within days of purchase. The consumers are out of luck. If they'd bought their knife from a knife or kitchen-goods specialty store, they'd have been better-educated. Keeping these service-oriented shops in business, then, is ultimately good for the consumer.
There is nothing in this ruling that suggests antitrust rules would not continue to apply to things like food and needed medicines.
And to this:
...you provided some nice citations to boot. I don't see how a single paragraph from TFA qualifies as "nice citations," but perhaps I am simply too discriminating.
"Burnsauce," indeed.
So, having read that summary, why the hell does anyone think there is anything wrong with that decision? Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!
Because they relied on the breathless quote from the/. summary?
I especially like this part:
...manufacturers can build in excess margins for themselves and for their favored retailers -- prices that consumers have no choice but to pay. O noes! If I don't buy the latest gadget, I'm gonna DIE!
I play Lord of the Rings: Online (LotRO). At level 35, I have yet to feel compelled to grind for levels or gold/silver. In fact, almost every quest I have completed has been soloed, though I have done a few "fellowship" quests. I do kill monsters on my way to (or as part of) completing quests, but "grind?" Not yet. I and members of my kinship (guild) freely trade or give away components for crafting and the items that result. Hence there is no need at all to buy gold. One could, but most of the best gear is obtained from quests and -- here's the part I love -- it "binds" to you as soon as you get it. You can't even give it away. Don't need it? Throw it away or sell it to an NPC vendor for not much money at all.
Anyway my point is that there seems to be game developers who are learning to make games where
grinding is not required to advance (although you can if that's what turns you on),
the primary method of advancement is fun (the quests are all stories, and many are tied into a larger, compelling, tale), and
real-money trade is not particularly helpful (the most useful thing it would be for -- aside from paying repair bills -- is buying crafting ingredients in-game, and the main purpose of crafting is to make consumable items your character finds very helpful but not strictly necessary, or occasionally some nice gear that you can either wear or sell, but not both).
Assuming one of the following to be true, pick the most ludicrous:
1. God created the universe
2. Unicorns created the universe
3. Santa Clause [sic] created the universe
4. Nobody created the universe
I have to vote for number 4 as most ludicrous, yet that seems to be the one many "scientists" pick as their first choice.
Personally I believe the correct answer to be either "'Unknown' created the universe" or "God (whose nature is up for debate) created the universe"
Oddly, "unknown" wasn't even one of the choices. (I am assuming that your final line is merely poorly written and not actually as contradictory as it appears to be.)
The fact that you consider "nobody" to be a more ludicrous creator than unicorns or Santa Claus, I think, speaks volumes about how carefully you've actually thought about this subject. At best, it's a weak argument; worse, it seems to be blatantly disingenuous apologetics.
Lighten up Francis. You must be joking. Either that, or you didn't follow the conversation, in which the GGP was modded "off-topic" and "flamebait" (perhaps you didn't see it?). It was in fact the person I was replying to who was taking something too seriously. Your reference to the Oxford Union Debating Society makes about as much sense as his post. Your Stripes reference was mildly amusing, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a fixed link in case anyone want s to know who the parent is referring to: Toumani Diabate.
The comment so nice, it got posted twice!
Relax, buddy. You've misunderstood completely.
Coward.
8-P
Is what the parent post to mine was referring to. See that word there, "poles?" In the context of the post, it obviously meant the North Pole and the South Pole, not citizens of Poland. It was what many refer to as a pun.
No one was, in any way, shape or form, denigrating the fine Polish people. Except maybe you.
Congratulations on getting all worked up over a bit of wordplay. Perhaps next time you see something flying over your head, you ought just duck and cover. :p
Shut it down! Shut it down FOREVER!
Whoa there, buddy. No need to go dragging us nonphilatelists into your argument. I've been not collecting stamps for decades, now, and I'm damn proud of it!
Might be just a little too clever there. But I liked it. ;)
Well it USED to big a secret, 'til you opened your big fat mouth.
No. If you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a psycho.
Or really really stressed out.
Or, you can go to your system sounds settings and customize your Avast! sounds just like you can your Windows sounds.
FAIL. Please try again.
Um, I watch several hours of cable news weekly, and I've only heard of this Spears girl mentioned while surfing past those "entertainment" channels. What kind of new are you watching, anyway...?
Gosh, it seems to me you took that a bit personally. Of course, I didn't "simply drop" anything. I made what I think is a fairly reasoned argument against what I saw as an unfair characterization of the movie. I certainly never suggested anything about you, personally, much less that you are an intellectual inferior who can't have opinions of your own. Rather it seems from your response that an opinion divergent from your own stoles the fires of hostility within.
If you are finding yourself put out by the implication that "the average [movie viewer]" seems to miss the less-obvious qualities of art, perhaps you find yourself identifying readily with the word, "average." Sorry for your feelings, but do try to get a grip.
Good day.
I don't think this is fair at all. The spirit of Blade Runner is not "catch the replicant" at all. The spirit is "what makes us human?" The genius of Blade Runner (and this seems to fly over the heads of the average) is that it manages to imply a great deal, leaving questions for the viewer to answer, rather than beating one about the head and neck with them, in the way -- for example -- that the Matrix sequels did.
Certainly the novel explored the themes more deeply, but movies aren't novels. You have to pick something and go with that. The movie focuses on Deckard and the replicants, as the replicants seek the realization of the dream to live, Deckard seeks them out and destroys them. Yet of the cast, only Rutger Hauer's replicant Batty has anything to say about "humanity." It is in my opinion one of the more meaningful, and moving, monologues in any movie.
Yeah...uh...anyway, I love Ubik and I really hope they make a good engaging movie out of it and not some hackjob made just to market toys.
Well now, that would be exciting. Talk about your "October Surprise."
(Of course, the Bushes, detestable though they may be, have veto power over diddly-squat as well. The President has his fun, sure, but he'll be out of office soon enough. Well, not soon enough for my tastes, but late is better than never, in this case.)
Tee-hee.
Who needs the Quik-E-Mart?
I dooooooooooooooooo...
But that's a different discussion...
This ruling overturns the 1911 ruling because pricing agreements between manufacturers and distributors do not necessarily violate the Sherman act. Such agreements for lifesaving medicines -- obviously, it seems -- would still be regarded as only benefiting the distributor, whereas belts and handbags (which is what the defendant in this case manufactures) might not, if the pricing agreement could be seen as being somehow beneficial to the consumer.
TFA: Leegin's marketing strategy for finding a niche in the highly competitive world of small leather goods was to sell its "Brighton" line of fashion accessories through small boutiques that could offer personalized service. In this case, retailers which do not honor the pricing agreement can price the boutiques right out of the market, leading to less competition, not more.
A very good reason for manufacturers to be able require such agreements is to prevent their wares being sold to uninformed consumers who may not know how to properly care for their purchase, causing them to waste their money on to-be-ruined merchandise. People who buy (for example) deeply-discounted high-quality kitchen knives often ruin them by washing them in a dishwasher. They then blame the seller and/or manufacturer for selling them a knife that rusts within days of purchase. The consumers are out of luck. If they'd bought their knife from a knife or kitchen-goods specialty store, they'd have been better-educated. Keeping these service-oriented shops in business, then, is ultimately good for the consumer.
There is nothing in this ruling that suggests antitrust rules would not continue to apply to things like food and needed medicines.
And to this:
...you provided some nice citations to boot. I don't see how a single paragraph from TFA qualifies as "nice citations," but perhaps I am simply too discriminating. "Burnsauce," indeed.Because they relied on the breathless quote from the
I especially like this part:
...manufacturers can build in excess margins for themselves and for their favored retailers -- prices that consumers have no choice but to pay. O noes! If I don't buy the latest gadget, I'm gonna DIE!Anyway my point is that there seems to be game developers who are learning to make games where
Now hold onto your nuts; here comes the kicker.
LotRO publisher Turbine is among a growing number of MMOG developers who think that RMT isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may well be the future of MMO gaming. http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=7
The fact that you consider "nobody" to be a more ludicrous creator than unicorns or Santa Claus, I think, speaks volumes about how carefully you've actually thought about this subject. At best, it's a weak argument; worse, it seems to be blatantly disingenuous apologetics.
... and probably a lot more. Like someone other than the driver making a call? This will just serve as a nuisance.