Seconded. I know you Anonymous kids think you're pretty hot stuff, but you're not dealing with Microsoft here. These really aren't the kind of people you want to enter into a pissing contest with.
The bird flu virus idea was pretty clever. It hearkens back to the 1918 Influenza. Man would be so weakened by the virus he couldn't mount an effective defense. To win, all the apes need to do is survive and reproduce.
Or there can be sequels with lots of man vs ape battles!!!!
It is not a great movie, but it was good. My wife was sad for the apes, and that kind of detracted from her experience (she really likes science fiction). I was rooting for the Apes the whole way and I liked it.
The CGI is the best. At one point animated clothing is ripped off an animated ape. Only now, as I'm writing this, does it sink in show technically awesome that was.
The review is correct about the moral stupidity of the movie. Franco's unethical behavior and his exploitation of the primates is glossed over, while the Anti-Franco people are all evil.
"War" is a bad word choice because it lacks precision in this context. The current situation can be escalated. What word would you use to describe that escalation?
War is pretty much at the top of the conflict pyramid. I'd want to use a word that leaves room for the conflict to get much worse.
Talking violently is the necessary precursor to any group acting violently. Why not avoid the rhetoric of violence?
We have information crimes punishable by 16 years in prison. And now we're having information "wars."
The Internet is the Wild West. If you don't like it, create a physically secure regimented network and don't let unregistered bad people onto it. Stop with the "war" rhetoric.
Think for half a second. Who would want a cyberwar and who would benefit from one? Now ask yourself: Who would end up doing the dying when the cyberwar turned ugly?
This is just a variant of the nonsense that the RIAA is trying to pull. People with money want to capitalize and control the internet, and violence, and the threat of violence (the killing and imprisoning kind) are the traditional means of imposing control.
Don't buy into the bullshit. "Information war" can become just another synonym for the restriction of free speech.
I'm not sure that there is prosecutorial involvement here. If there were, I would have expected to see the City Attorney put his or her ass on the line rather than the chief of police. The source you quote for prosecutorial involvement doesn't look too reliable.
You don't know what you're talking about. Cops always ask for warrants on their own. In Washington, prosecutors lose their immunity when they step into the investigative process.
In complicated or important cases, like homicide and sex crimes, advice is frequently sought of the prosecutor. For misdemeanors . . . not so much.
It's possible the the prosecutor advised the cops on this one, but I sincerely doubt it. This incestuous mess reeks from a mile away. Maybe the prosecutor was involved, but the odds are way against it.
Some judge signed this warrant. We have the warrant requirement just so people will be safe from abuses like this.
I seriously doubt that this warrant was EVER intended to support a criminal prosecution. All the cops want is a NAME. They are not seeking prosecution--that would obviously be ludicrous. They are using the warrant process to conduct an internal security investigation. This is a serious misuse of the warrant requirement.
Misusing warrants can mean a section 1983 lawsuit. Misleading a judge about the purpose of a warrant is big trouble. . . .
If you want people to work effectively, you must give them work that gratifies them. That gratification is not found merely in "products and services" for many people.
My "greedy pigs" argument was meant to illustrate that the accumulation of wealth is only socially valuable to a certain point.
It is all about the "goal." If your goal is to create wealth for you, then that is your goal. If my goal is to equitably provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care to the Earth's people, then that is my goal.
If you want to impose your goals upon other people, fine. Earth has a rich history of people trying to do that.
In the future, we are going to have computers producing virtually limitless piles of "products and services." Do you honestly think that is going to make us any more "wealthy." Some greedy pig is always going to want more.
I'm not advocating complacency. I'm just saying (a) that if you're going to man the barricades be prepared to die; and (b) encouraging somebody else to do your dying for you is revolting.
Somebody is going to sell this technology. It is far too cool and far too desirable.
The bugaboo of companies "locking up" the technology didn't work for the printing press, the copier, the computer printer, the cassette player, and the DVD drive. It won't work for 3D printers either.
Too many people will be coming out with competitive devices and everyone will have to fight for market share. The company that sits on the technology and doesn't exploit it will waste a great opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Because they have more urine?
Penicillin resistance comes to mind. . . .
The bird flu virus idea was pretty clever. It hearkens back to the 1918 Influenza. Man would be so weakened by the virus he couldn't mount an effective defense. To win, all the apes need to do is survive and reproduce.
Or there can be sequels with lots of man vs ape battles!!!!
Okay, but when the apes take over the world, it will be all your fault!
It is not a great movie, but it was good. My wife was sad for the apes, and that kind of detracted from her experience (she really likes science fiction). I was rooting for the Apes the whole way and I liked it.
The CGI is the best. At one point animated clothing is ripped off an animated ape. Only now, as I'm writing this, does it sink in show technically awesome that was.
The review is correct about the moral stupidity of the movie. Franco's unethical behavior and his exploitation of the primates is glossed over, while the Anti-Franco people are all evil.
It was fun, though. I didn't want it to end.
"War" is a bad word choice because it lacks precision in this context. The current situation can be escalated. What word would you use to describe that escalation?
War is pretty much at the top of the conflict pyramid. I'd want to use a word that leaves room for the conflict to get much worse.
Talking violently is the necessary precursor to any group acting violently. Why not avoid the rhetoric of violence?
Fix it by creating a workable appeal process where the appeal judges are outside the cabal--perhaps ordinary editors selected randomly.
If a meta-editor is reversed too many times, demote his or her sorry ass--without appeal.
We have information crimes punishable by 16 years in prison. And now we're having information "wars."
The Internet is the Wild West. If you don't like it, create a physically secure regimented network and don't let unregistered bad people onto it. Stop with the "war" rhetoric.
Think for half a second. Who would want a cyberwar and who would benefit from one? Now ask yourself: Who would end up doing the dying when the cyberwar turned ugly?
This is just a variant of the nonsense that the RIAA is trying to pull. People with money want to capitalize and control the internet, and violence, and the threat of violence (the killing and imprisoning kind) are the traditional means of imposing control.
Don't buy into the bullshit. "Information war" can become just another synonym for the restriction of free speech.
I'm not sure that there is prosecutorial involvement here. If there were, I would have expected to see the City Attorney put his or her ass on the line rather than the chief of police. The source you quote for prosecutorial involvement doesn't look too reliable.
You don't know what you're talking about. Cops always ask for warrants on their own. In Washington, prosecutors lose their immunity when they step into the investigative process.
In complicated or important cases, like homicide and sex crimes, advice is frequently sought of the prosecutor. For misdemeanors . . . not so much.
It's possible the the prosecutor advised the cops on this one, but I sincerely doubt it. This incestuous mess reeks from a mile away. Maybe the prosecutor was involved, but the odds are way against it.
Some judge signed this warrant. We have the warrant requirement just so people will be safe from abuses like this.
I seriously doubt that this warrant was EVER intended to support a criminal prosecution. All the cops want is a NAME. They are not seeking prosecution--that would obviously be ludicrous. They are using the warrant process to conduct an internal security investigation. This is a serious misuse of the warrant requirement.
Misusing warrants can mean a section 1983 lawsuit. Misleading a judge about the purpose of a warrant is big trouble. . . .
This makes me exceptionally angry.
If you want people to work effectively, you must give them work that gratifies them. That gratification is not found merely in "products and services" for many people.
My "greedy pigs" argument was meant to illustrate that the accumulation of wealth is only socially valuable to a certain point.
It is all about the "goal." If your goal is to create wealth for you, then that is your goal. If my goal is to equitably provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care to the Earth's people, then that is my goal.
If you want to impose your goals upon other people, fine. Earth has a rich history of people trying to do that.
In the future, we are going to have computers producing virtually limitless piles of "products and services." Do you honestly think that is going to make us any more "wealthy." Some greedy pig is always going to want more.
The more money moves, the more people work. The more people work, the more people eat.
Conversely,
The more people work, the more money moves. The more money moves, the more people eat.
I'm not advocating complacency. I'm just saying (a) that if you're going to man the barricades be prepared to die; and (b) encouraging somebody else to do your dying for you is revolting.
Having a 3d design alone isn't enough. You need an instruction set to give to the machine that is going to make the product.
Software to run CNC routers and milling machines is very complicated (and expensive).
Somebody is going to sell this technology. It is far too cool and far too desirable.
The bugaboo of companies "locking up" the technology didn't work for the printing press, the copier, the computer printer, the cassette player, and the DVD drive. It won't work for 3D printers either.
Too many people will be coming out with competitive devices and everyone will have to fight for market share. The company that sits on the technology and doesn't exploit it will waste a great opportunity.
Jack O'Neill, hell.
With one of those replicator things, any problem is a problem for MacGuyver!
We have an overabundance of guns and crazy people. This makes protesting to the point of revolution a very dangerous idea.
Well, if you want to protest anything to the point of revolution, you might want to consider getting the guys with guns on your side.
The revolution eats its children. Please don't forget that.
Ah, you should have RTFA. Massachusetts still makes money on the game.
We pay our taxes to these guys as much as we pay them to the government.
Someday we'll send out seeds all over the universe (if we don't extinguish ourselves first). Those that evolve from our seeds will think us GODS.
Isn't that cool!
That's something new!
You're right. I should have added "nothing additional" to my post.
Tracking stuff you expose to public view won't implicate the Fourth Amendment.