Understood. I've seen and cringed at that sort of thing myself, many times. (Well, among the things I actually got.)
Actually, I think that the theory behind including multiple-entendres in children's films is that it'll whiz above the heads of the young and innocent; after all, many of those films move quickly enough that it's hard to dwell on any one such thing. The filmmakers bother because they seem to think the hidden-in-plain-sight ref. will add "pleasure" for older viewers who do get it. They don't seem to consider audience members asking "what did that mean?" at all.
Also, some filmmakers actively try to avoid G ratings on theory that no one over 13 would voluntarily watch a G film. If the material is naturally G, the main way to force it up is through gratuitous dirty stuff.
This is esp. painful when the material being shifted is a cartoon. Since the MPAA rating board doesn't take American-style cartoons seriously, such a cartoon rated G can get away with far more than a live-action movie rated G, or even one rated PG. Now imagine someone trying to get a cartoon rated PG--and succeeding... No, wait, you have seen the results of such things.
You already know the upshot: most films aimed at "family" audiences are unsuitable for younger viewers. And since the practices are nearly universal, as you also noticed...[sigh]
No, states don't make violent movies illegal, though there are some places that have tried to ban people under 17 from R-rated movies.
The people who decry violence in video games have given up on films. That's why most of the high-grossing films in the last few years are PG. Admittedly, even PG films tend to have some violence; parental action groups in America tend to worry more about sex, and about violence in films that look "innocent."
As for movies just like GTA San Andreas: I think that, if they exist, they would probably be called "urban action thrillers." Parental groups deal with them by delegating them to theaters in (bad) neighborhoods where the parental groups have relatively little presence.
"...Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France, and Japan is extremely alarming."
"The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002."
The November 2002 elections changed control of the Senate from Democrat to Republican. In January 2003, exactly one party controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Coincidence?
"...a double agent working for some opposition political party or perhaps even a foreign entity." (Emphasis mine.)
Okay, so you think the person clearing info at the CIA is a double agent. The next question is, who's infiltrated? Democrats? Libertarians? Greens?
During WWII, Republicans were free to roam the streets. (That's right, FDR was a Democrat, though I am aware that party lines have shifted since then.) America didn't even crack down on Communists until after that war.
Thanks for the info. Since I am not usually interested in space shuttle missions, I didn't have that good an idea of what the astronauts were doing up there.
That NASA didn't think this was a serious problem didn't comfort me. They saw nothing wrong whatsoever with Columbia before it crashed. I don't believe that NASA actually found a solution to the falling foam problem; they just couldn't let it stop missions any longer. (The Discovery mission before this one got some minor dings from falling insulation, if I recall correctly.) All shuttle missions from here on out are risky; and if hits in the insulation are bad, how bad can hits to the wing be?
I am sure about the weather. I had my TV on the Weather Channel on Thursday, and they were specifically talking about the shuttle landing. There was rain in one preferred location and strong winds in the other.
It was Friday night when the shuttle landed in Florida. Saturday was only two or three hours away.
Normally they aren't that interesting to me, either. But this is different.
You see, after the Discovery had launched and was in space, it was discovered that something had hit the wing and maybe damaged some wiring. When I heard about that, I was afraid then that we might get another Columbia incident.
They set a record on spacewalks this mission because they had to take an extra spacewalk to fix that wing.
And then, this shuttle landed on the very last day it could have safely landed. There was bad weather in Calif. and bad weather in Florida continually up to that day. If it had tried to land through bad weather, it risked crashing. If it had stayed up another day, it would have ran out of fuel and become a very large piece of space junk. So the people in charge of landing this shuttle took a gamble.
So yes, the Discovery landing safely, in one piece, and with everyone onboard alive is news. Excellent news, but news nonetheless.
First, the NY Times has an online edition.
Second, if you ever choose to print a high-profile expose from a former government agent, or create one, then it might be good to know in advance that it could be redacted without notice.
"One thing these people need to understand is that their right to publish these things is guaranteed by the U.S Government."
How are those people to understand that if the US government doesn't let them publish these things? The government guarantees the right to publish such things, except when it objects to their being published? What sort of right is that?
Problems:
(a) Your step 1 only just happened; the others can still happen.
(b) The CIA cleared this article already.
(c) You might be giving the current administration ideas.
There were two review boards, though only one appears to be formal. The one run by the CIA said there was nothing there that couldn't be printed. The less formal board from the White House claimed that there was classified info that had to be redacted. I would think that the CIA would be a better judge of this, but oh well...
Doesn't anyone remember the Pentagon Papers anymore?
Never mind if the source is supposed to supply classified info. The government shouldn't be able to prosecute the media for it. I mean, if printing classified info is outright illegal, why is Robert Novak walking the streets?
Of course, I understand why the NY Times is cautious these days. It wants to protect its source, and the White House probably won't allow that. (Remember Judith Miller?) We know the Times doesn't like this redaction: it did include the black bars, and it did print how to get to the redacted sections. Better than just running the redacted editorial without any hints, I guess.
One more thing: if the CIA didn't think that this editorial had classified info, why were they overruled by the White House? Is Condi still with the NSA?
That's not a requirement, just a strong incentive. If it was a requirement, we would not have ads in glossy magazines, nor ads on websites requiring subscriptions to glossy magazines for access.
"Name one thing the RIAA has invented or, here's the kicker, caused the invention of that wouldn't have happened had they not been there." (Emphasis yours.)
1. The Grammy Awards and its accompanying concert. The Grammys are given out by the RIAA, and since the ceremony is televised, we get a free concert every year.
I am annoyed that the RIAA appears to be the first entity to use the anti-recording broadcast flag.
2. Beatlemania in America in '64. Maybe it would've happened eventually anyway, given that before '64 the band was good live, and given their success in Europe. But it was because Capitol Records gave in and ran a marketing blitz that the Beatles didn't get the same obscurity as the "hot" British bands that came before. Later, there would be time for us to judge the band on its merits and for them to figure out how to deal with the more painful and blood-sucking aspects of the RIAA--but you should admit, Capitol got them noticed more quickly in America.
In general, the RIAA made it possible for popular music to be wildly popular on multiple continents at the same time. And they chose who got the honors.
3. Legislation of the type we are snarling at now. You didn't say the invention had to be good!
Okay. You say that because our lady of messy RIAA lawsuits barely understands computers, she won't understand the owner's manual for the computer.
But the owner's manual is supposed to tell you how to use whatever the manual is for. It's not strictly necessary, but if you don't already know how to use the thing, the owner's manual is the safest way to learn without breaking the thing.
So, if she is unable to understand computers, she won't understand the owner's manual; but if she can't understand the owner's manual, how will she learn to understand the computer?
This catch-22 is a real problem. Many people are putting the instructions for software on the software itself; you have to wade through a scary and long.html help menu to find how to work the more obscure features. If you must use Windows to learn how to use Windows...
The library is promoting borrowing, actually. It's not the library's fault if we make copies off-premises. (I think the savvier libraries are starting to ban digital cameras on-premises.) It's certainly not the library's fault when the RIAA thinks borrowing is illegal and tries to make the legal system agree.
Some libraries have CD collections. But the ones that don't probably never will. True audio CDs are more vunerable to copying than books or DVDs by design. The RIAA is less merciful to those who do the copying than book publishers or even the MPAA, and the RIAA has been known to sue middlemen. So a library might want to stay out of their way.
Ah, but then it's not the library's digital camera! It's not the library's fault that the info is lying around; it would be violating its duty if info wasn't lying around. Copying library books is our choice.
I don't support the RIAA's tactics, their choices of lawsuits, or the current laws against sharing music without permission. Clearly their tactics were esp. bad this time around. And I'm NAL, so forgive me if I say something legally ridiculous.
Nonetheless, these cases look more grounded than many the RIAA have attempted. I can understand why they might think that someone who owns a computer and an internet account is computer-literate. Now that they believe that other people did the Kazaaing, it's proper for them to shift the case to those other people. It's just painful that they are related to their original victim and that mom will likely be pay any enormous fines or settlements the younger one incurs, at the least.
Okay. Let's that say a robot does malfunction and have abstract feelings. We then get these questions:
1. How long before we humans find out? It could take a while. It's hard to tell how some human beings feel. How can we tell if a Roomba has suddenly developed emotions?
2. When we do find out that a robot has abstract feelings, what do we do about it? If the robot still appears capable of doing whatever it was programmed to do, do we leave it alone, "malfunction" and all? Or do we try to debug it? What if the instruction set is more complicated and convoluted than Windows XP? We could destroy the functionality of the robot, or we could trigger more abstract emotions. We don't even have psychiatric medicine down to a fine point!
Slashdot Mirror
Understood. I've seen and cringed at that sort of thing myself, many times. (Well, among the things I actually got.)
Actually, I think that the theory behind including multiple-entendres in children's films is that it'll whiz above the heads of the young and innocent; after all, many of those films move quickly enough that it's hard to dwell on any one such thing. The filmmakers bother because they seem to think the hidden-in-plain-sight ref. will add "pleasure" for older viewers who do get it. They don't seem to consider audience members asking "what did that mean?" at all.
Also, some filmmakers actively try to avoid G ratings on theory that no one over 13 would voluntarily watch a G film. If the material is naturally G, the main way to force it up is through gratuitous dirty stuff.
This is esp. painful when the material being shifted is a cartoon. Since the MPAA rating board doesn't take American-style cartoons seriously, such a cartoon rated G can get away with far more than a live-action movie rated G, or even one rated PG. Now imagine someone trying to get a cartoon rated PG--and succeeding... No, wait, you have seen the results of such things.
You already know the upshot: most films aimed at "family" audiences are unsuitable for younger viewers. And since the practices are nearly universal, as you also noticed...[sigh]
No, states don't make violent movies illegal, though there are some places that have tried to ban people under 17 from R-rated movies.
The people who decry violence in video games have given up on films. That's why most of the high-grossing films in the last few years are PG. Admittedly, even PG films tend to have some violence; parental action groups in America tend to worry more about sex, and about violence in films that look "innocent."
As for movies just like GTA San Andreas: I think that, if they exist, they would probably be called "urban action thrillers." Parental groups deal with them by delegating them to theaters in (bad) neighborhoods where the parental groups have relatively little presence.
This material was already pre-published. In fact, the Times pointed out other places that had published it first. So why the black bars?
True. Just remember, people, the extra layers include the FBI and the National Guard.
Here's an anecdote about European hate-speech laws. I think this might be the final installment. This is from the Boston Globe, but other places have covered it, too.2 006/12/20/irving_wins_austrian_holocaust_denial_ap peal/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/
"...Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France, and Japan is extremely alarming."
"The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002."
The November 2002 elections changed control of the Senate from Democrat to Republican. In January 2003, exactly one party controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Coincidence?
"...a double agent working for some opposition political party or perhaps even a foreign entity." (Emphasis mine.)
Okay, so you think the person clearing info at the CIA is a double agent. The next question is, who's infiltrated? Democrats? Libertarians? Greens?
During WWII, Republicans were free to roam the streets. (That's right, FDR was a Democrat, though I am aware that party lines have shifted since then.) America didn't even crack down on Communists until after that war.
Thanks for the info. Since I am not usually interested in space shuttle missions, I didn't have that good an idea of what the astronauts were doing up there.
That NASA didn't think this was a serious problem didn't comfort me. They saw nothing wrong whatsoever with Columbia before it crashed. I don't believe that NASA actually found a solution to the falling foam problem; they just couldn't let it stop missions any longer. (The Discovery mission before this one got some minor dings from falling insulation, if I recall correctly.) All shuttle missions from here on out are risky; and if hits in the insulation are bad, how bad can hits to the wing be?
I am sure about the weather. I had my TV on the Weather Channel on Thursday, and they were specifically talking about the shuttle landing. There was rain in one preferred location and strong winds in the other.
It was Friday night when the shuttle landed in Florida. Saturday was only two or three hours away.
A shipping cost from a vending machine?
Hey, I like the idea of Bible vending machines. I'd like them everywhere.
All we need is a way to get people to use them.
Normally they aren't that interesting to me, either. But this is different.
You see, after the Discovery had launched and was in space, it was discovered that something had hit the wing and maybe damaged some wiring. When I heard about that, I was afraid then that we might get another Columbia incident.
They set a record on spacewalks this mission because they had to take an extra spacewalk to fix that wing.
And then, this shuttle landed on the very last day it could have safely landed. There was bad weather in Calif. and bad weather in Florida continually up to that day. If it had tried to land through bad weather, it risked crashing. If it had stayed up another day, it would have ran out of fuel and become a very large piece of space junk. So the people in charge of landing this shuttle took a gamble.
So yes, the Discovery landing safely, in one piece, and with everyone onboard alive is news. Excellent news, but news nonetheless.
First, the NY Times has an online edition.
Second, if you ever choose to print a high-profile expose from a former government agent, or create one, then it might be good to know in advance that it could be redacted without notice.
"One thing these people need to understand is that their right to publish these things is guaranteed by the U.S Government."
How are those people to understand that if the US government doesn't let them publish these things? The government guarantees the right to publish such things, except when it objects to their being published? What sort of right is that?
Problems:
(a) Your step 1 only just happened; the others can still happen.
(b) The CIA cleared this article already.
(c) You might be giving the current administration ideas.
There were two review boards, though only one appears to be formal. The one run by the CIA said there was nothing there that couldn't be printed. The less formal board from the White House claimed that there was classified info that had to be redacted. I would think that the CIA would be a better judge of this, but oh well...
Doesn't anyone remember the Pentagon Papers anymore?
Never mind if the source is supposed to supply classified info. The government shouldn't be able to prosecute the media for it. I mean, if printing classified info is outright illegal, why is Robert Novak walking the streets?
Of course, I understand why the NY Times is cautious these days. It wants to protect its source, and the White House probably won't allow that. (Remember Judith Miller?) We know the Times doesn't like this redaction: it did include the black bars, and it did print how to get to the redacted sections. Better than just running the redacted editorial without any hints, I guess.
One more thing: if the CIA didn't think that this editorial had classified info, why were they overruled by the White House? Is Condi still with the NSA?
http://gutenberg.org/
Last modified this month.
I think Project Gutenberg is still around.
That's not a requirement, just a strong incentive. If it was a requirement, we would not have ads in glossy magazines, nor ads on websites requiring subscriptions to glossy magazines for access.
I thought the RIAA already tried to sue Kazaa?
"Name one thing the RIAA has invented or, here's the kicker, caused the invention of that wouldn't have happened had they not been there." (Emphasis yours.)
1. The Grammy Awards and its accompanying concert. The Grammys are given out by the RIAA, and since the ceremony is televised, we get a free concert every year.
I am annoyed that the RIAA appears to be the first entity to use the anti-recording broadcast flag.
2. Beatlemania in America in '64. Maybe it would've happened eventually anyway, given that before '64 the band was good live, and given their success in Europe. But it was because Capitol Records gave in and ran a marketing blitz that the Beatles didn't get the same obscurity as the "hot" British bands that came before. Later, there would be time for us to judge the band on its merits and for them to figure out how to deal with the more painful and blood-sucking aspects of the RIAA--but you should admit, Capitol got them noticed more quickly in America.
In general, the RIAA made it possible for popular music to be wildly popular on multiple continents at the same time. And they chose who got the honors.
3. Legislation of the type we are snarling at now. You didn't say the invention had to be good!
Okay. You say that because our lady of messy RIAA lawsuits barely understands computers, she won't understand the owner's manual for the computer. .html help menu to find how to work the more obscure features. If you must use Windows to learn how to use Windows...
But the owner's manual is supposed to tell you how to use whatever the manual is for. It's not strictly necessary, but if you don't already know how to use the thing, the owner's manual is the safest way to learn without breaking the thing.
So, if she is unable to understand computers, she won't understand the owner's manual; but if she can't understand the owner's manual, how will she learn to understand the computer?
This catch-22 is a real problem. Many people are putting the instructions for software on the software itself; you have to wade through a scary and long
The library is promoting borrowing, actually. It's not the library's fault if we make copies off-premises. (I think the savvier libraries are starting to ban digital cameras on-premises.) It's certainly not the library's fault when the RIAA thinks borrowing is illegal and tries to make the legal system agree.
Some libraries have CD collections. But the ones that don't probably never will. True audio CDs are more vunerable to copying than books or DVDs by design. The RIAA is less merciful to those who do the copying than book publishers or even the MPAA, and the RIAA has been known to sue middlemen. So a library might want to stay out of their way.
Ah, but then it's not the library's digital camera! It's not the library's fault that the info is lying around; it would be violating its duty if info wasn't lying around. Copying library books is our choice.
I don't support the RIAA's tactics, their choices of lawsuits, or the current laws against sharing music without permission. Clearly their tactics were esp. bad this time around. And I'm NAL, so forgive me if I say something legally ridiculous.
Nonetheless, these cases look more grounded than many the RIAA have attempted. I can understand why they might think that someone who owns a computer and an internet account is computer-literate. Now that they believe that other people did the Kazaaing, it's proper for them to shift the case to those other people. It's just painful that they are related to their original victim and that mom will likely be pay any enormous fines or settlements the younger one incurs, at the least.
I don't know. I wish I did--after all, some libraries have CD sections.
Okay. Let's that say a robot does malfunction and have abstract feelings. We then get these questions:
1. How long before we humans find out? It could take a while. It's hard to tell how some human beings feel. How can we tell if a Roomba has suddenly developed emotions?
2. When we do find out that a robot has abstract feelings, what do we do about it? If the robot still appears capable of doing whatever it was programmed to do, do we leave it alone, "malfunction" and all? Or do we try to debug it? What if the instruction set is more complicated and convoluted than Windows XP? We could destroy the functionality of the robot, or we could trigger more abstract emotions. We don't even have psychiatric medicine down to a fine point!