I will take exception to one of your conclusions. The "Feminist movement" actually does want equality. You forget that not all women are feminists. There are those (I met a few recently who openly admitted this in their own case) who despise feminism because it meant they couldn't be 'pretty little girls' all their lives and had to step up and fend for themselves. These are the women who actively opposed the feminist movement when it first gained steam.
In fact, many modern feminists would agree with your essential points (that feminism is being distorted and that the principle of gender equality has gone down the crapper). There two provocative books on the subject by Christina Hoff Sommers Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women and The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. I heard about the latter in a radio interview and the examples she raised then were about male portrayal in the media today. Essentially, her view is that revenge for past female oppression is not a worthy goal for feminists and it doesn't help the cause either.
I've got to wonder about "scientists" who want to watch mice fighting. What scientific value does this have and how is it any different from cock-fighting or dog fights?
Michael Vicks files appeal - "I was only trying to get into Nature your Honor! Those reviewers are tougher than my cellmate bubba."
I never denied the whoosh. Mea culpa and all that rot.
Just remember that there exist the equivalent of script kiddies in the hardware world (and they LOVE to spout technobabble). Terrorists, for instance, can make bombs without any understanding of basic physics by using the ubiquitous 'manuals for dummies' out there. The point is that stupidity is the norm rather than the exception. OP could be either really funny or merely one more radiation noob out of the millions out there. The odds were with me =p
You, on the other hand, crawled out of the woodwork after a few "whoosh" posts, fairly safe in your assumption that it's the former - delightful. The distinction between "funny" and "batshiat insane" is a close call at best unless you know the person. I applaud your faith in human intelligence.
Someone posted a 'howstuffworks' link in this thread that answers your question. But yeah, EVERYTHING is toxic, given the right quantity. What we consider to be "generally safe" is merely stuff that doesn't usually occur in toxic doses under normal circumstances. Classic example - hydrogen peroxide (a traditional disinfectant). Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Regulations vary, but low concentrations, such as 3%, are widely available and legal to buy for medical use. Higher concentrations may be considered hazardous and are typically accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). In high concentrations, hydrogen peroxide is an aggressive oxidizer and will corrode many materials, including human skin. In the presence of a reducing agent, high concentrations of H2O2 will react violently.
High-concentration hydrogen peroxide streams, typically above 40%, should be considered a D001 hazardous waste, due to concentrated hydrogen peroxide's meeting the definition of a DOT oxidizer, if released into the environment. The EPA Reportable Quantity (RQ) for D001 hazardous wastes is 100 pounds, or approximately ten gallons, of concentrated hydrogen peroxide.
Simple reasoning - anything that kills germs can kill (or seriously hurt) YOU given the right amounts. ANother example - there have been cases of people actually dying by drinking too much water (and I mean wayyy too much - on a dare).
Unless it was a quote from some obscure movie or book, it is extremely likely that OP was dead serious - hence my feeble attempt to un-dumben the world, one/. troll at a time. Are you new to the internet? Have you not seen the numerous message boards out there with what can only be described as "other world physics" being discussed daily with the utmost seriousness? Did you completely miss the globe-spanning hoax email with the cell phone egg-cooker? Look it up. Where radiation is concerned, there is NOTHING that people won't believe.
It's a nice enough preliminary study. I'm usually quite skeptical about "OMG teh ebul microwaves are killing us" studies but this one seems sensible enough and it doesn't go overboard in its claims like so many do. Good for the lady for doing things systematically enough to get published in a peer-reviewed journal (that's also serious).
1 kW? And a gun? i.e. directional? You probably burned the shit out of them. A 1 kW infrared gun would be just as (if not more) deadly. More energy absorption in fact. Anything in excess is evil. Sit near a large speaker, go deaf and then shout (naturally) that audio waves are evil too. Did you know that you can die from too much oxygen? Too much water?
Fair 'nuff. I guess I read too much into your post.
I do agree with the practicalities of the situation and the fact that game publishers are definitely missing the big picture (that you just described).
I just feel that boycotts (very vocal boycotts), not piracy, are the way to go because the latter just gives the cretins the moral ammo to continue on their foolish path (mixed metaphors FTL but you get my drift). Also, it sends the message that there will always be demand for their products despite their contempt and automatic distrust of their paying customer. Can you imagine the slap in the face if, in addition to very low sales on a high-budget game, the intertubes blared its contempt for a publisher by refusing to even pirate the damn thing (after publicly braking its DRM)? Now, that's a scathing insult =]
I sympathize. But gaming is a luxury. There's no moral high ground here, anymore than there would be for poor folk who stole caviar that they couldn't otherwise afford. Good on you that you finally did pay for those games.
Indeed. It also pains me deeply when I see any tom, dick and harry (harriet too) writing a book just because they farted yesterday and then wasting several trees putting out hardcovers of their braindump. You could get rid of 3/4 of the world's so-called literary output and raise its average quality by an order of magnitude.
It's not like he's moving the book up and down like a frakking dumbbell. Try holding a 5 pound dumbbell in front of your face for 3 hours (otherwise known as an iPad =] ). I keeed
Also, ever since I started reading ebooks (Palm Zire, then smartphone and now Nook), the number of books I read has gone up drastically since there's almost no dead time now since I always have something good to read that's handy. If it's a leeeetle bit slower (something I dispute but even so), it more than makes up for it in other things.
I imagine it's a sociological issue that starts in the the HR department. "We need someone to replace Tim in the $image manipulation department$ (whatever they call it)." - "Get someone with mad photoshop skillz". (Here, photoshop has a lower case 'p' because it's one of those proper nouns turned common nouns in our language). The confusing thing is that the word morphs from common to proper at the most inconvenient times and leads to brand-slavery.
I agree with you that local (even national) papers need nowhere near the feature set found in heavy-duty packages like PS (or even the GIMP). The idea of newspapers is to do the LEAST amount of image-manipulation. Magazines are the ones that need PS. Newspapers should stick to something much simpler and less cluttered like Paint.net. That way, they could even get rid of their dedicated graphics people and combine those jobs with others. There's really no need for entire departments to do these kinds of jobs anymore, what with the simplicity of modern software (compared to the hoops that people had to jump through for the tiniest image-editing apps in the days of film photography).
Why is it always Photoshop vs. GIMP? I thought the idea of FOSS was more choices. I've been using Paint.net (admittedly not for very intense applications) and find it quite adequate for me needs. Surely there are more choices out there besides GIMP in the FOSS landscape? I've heard that Paint.net has a very limited feature set for true image-editing professionals. Is that the case? Of course, given the needs of a local newspaper, I HUGELY doubt they need anywhere near the feature-set boasted of by PS or GIMP. Paint.net is more than enough for their limited needs.
I would actually agree with Ebert on this one. Video games are not art. They are something much much more. To call them art is to minimize the incredible leap in human creativity that they represent. The field of kinetic sculpture is a good beginning but video games have transcended the realms of mere art a long long time ago. Why are we so concerned about gaining the respect of Luddite art wranglers anyway? The whole issue is rather sad in my view. It's like Harry Potter wanting to be a muggle, or mathematicians trying to make the case that math is as* beautiful and creative as music. In fact, I dread the day that it video games will be called art. Have you MET any artists lately? Do we really want video game designers to become like artists in temperament? I would rather they stay creative and productive.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG. Haven't thought about that old fairy tale in decades! Seven-at-one-blow. *Sigh* good times...
-lipstickcovered-rat
Shouldn't that be a pig?
They then go on to talk about "winning experiences" without detail.
Maybe they were just playing checkers. Jus' sayin' ...
I will take exception to one of your conclusions. The "Feminist movement" actually does want equality. You forget that not all women are feminists. There are those (I met a few recently who openly admitted this in their own case) who despise feminism because it meant they couldn't be 'pretty little girls' all their lives and had to step up and fend for themselves. These are the women who actively opposed the feminist movement when it first gained steam.
In fact, many modern feminists would agree with your essential points (that feminism is being distorted and that the principle of gender equality has gone down the crapper). There two provocative books on the subject by Christina Hoff Sommers Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women and The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. I heard about the latter in a radio interview and the examples she raised then were about male portrayal in the media today. Essentially, her view is that revenge for past female oppression is not a worthy goal for feminists and it doesn't help the cause either.
I've got to wonder about "scientists" who want to watch mice fighting. What scientific value does this have and how is it any different from cock-fighting or dog fights?
Michael Vicks files appeal - "I was only trying to get into Nature your Honor! Those reviewers are tougher than my cellmate bubba."
... the upper body strength, the hormonal response, the reflexes, and the combat cunning that a male possesses ...
On /. ??? Seriously? =]
I never denied the whoosh. Mea culpa and all that rot.
Just remember that there exist the equivalent of script kiddies in the hardware world (and they LOVE to spout technobabble). Terrorists, for instance, can make bombs without any understanding of basic physics by using the ubiquitous 'manuals for dummies' out there. The point is that stupidity is the norm rather than the exception. OP could be either really funny or merely one more radiation noob out of the millions out there. The odds were with me =p
You, on the other hand, crawled out of the woodwork after a few "whoosh" posts, fairly safe in your assumption that it's the former - delightful. The distinction between "funny" and "batshiat insane" is a close call at best unless you know the person. I applaud your faith in human intelligence.
Agreed. I just couldn't resist before =]
Simple reasoning - anything that kills germs can kill (or seriously hurt) YOU given the right amounts. ANother example - there have been cases of people actually dying by drinking too much water (and I mean wayyy too much - on a dare).
Unless it was a quote from some obscure movie or book, it is extremely likely that OP was dead serious - hence my feeble attempt to un-dumben the world, one /. troll at a time. Are you new to the internet? Have you not seen the numerous message boards out there with what can only be described as "other world physics" being discussed daily with the utmost seriousness? Did you completely miss the globe-spanning hoax email with the cell phone egg-cooker? Look it up. Where radiation is concerned, there is NOTHING that people won't believe.
No no. You see, the sun is natural. Which means that it only emits magic sprinkles and unicorn dust. Only the teh ebul radio towers are out to get us.
We're boned!
It's like Day of the Triffids with a porno soundtrack =]
It's a nice enough preliminary study. I'm usually quite skeptical about "OMG teh ebul microwaves are killing us" studies but this one seems sensible enough and it doesn't go overboard in its claims like so many do. Good for the lady for doing things systematically enough to get published in a peer-reviewed journal (that's also serious).
1 kW? And a gun? i.e. directional? You probably burned the shit out of them. A 1 kW infrared gun would be just as (if not more) deadly. More energy absorption in fact. Anything in excess is evil. Sit near a large speaker, go deaf and then shout (naturally) that audio waves are evil too. Did you know that you can die from too much oxygen? Too much water?
Fair 'nuff. I guess I read too much into your post.
I do agree with the practicalities of the situation and the fact that game publishers are definitely missing the big picture (that you just described).
I just feel that boycotts (very vocal boycotts), not piracy, are the way to go because the latter just gives the cretins the moral ammo to continue on their foolish path (mixed metaphors FTL but you get my drift). Also, it sends the message that there will always be demand for their products despite their contempt and automatic distrust of their paying customer. Can you imagine the slap in the face if, in addition to very low sales on a high-budget game, the intertubes blared its contempt for a publisher by refusing to even pirate the damn thing (after publicly braking its DRM)? Now, that's a scathing insult =]
I sympathize. But gaming is a luxury. There's no moral high ground here, anymore than there would be for poor folk who stole caviar that they couldn't otherwise afford. Good on you that you finally did pay for those games.
Sun ? What's this ?
"A big fiery ball in the center of our solar system, but that's not important right now ... "
/.
\\not obscure on
Indeed. It also pains me deeply when I see any tom, dick and harry (harriet too) writing a book just because they farted yesterday and then wasting several trees putting out hardcovers of their braindump. You could get rid of 3/4 of the world's so-called literary output and raise its average quality by an order of magnitude.
It's not like he's moving the book up and down like a frakking dumbbell. Try holding a 5 pound dumbbell in front of your face for 3 hours (otherwise known as an iPad =] ). I keeed
Also, ever since I started reading ebooks (Palm Zire, then smartphone and now Nook), the number of books I read has gone up drastically since there's almost no dead time now since I always have something good to read that's handy. If it's a leeeetle bit slower (something I dispute but even so), it more than makes up for it in other things.
If you want wisdom you get wise people to do things, if you want wit you get witty people to do things.
FTFY.
The idiots always outnumber the intelligent in any age group. Seniority is not magic.
I imagine it's a sociological issue that starts in the the HR department. "We need someone to replace Tim in the $image manipulation department$ (whatever they call it)." - "Get someone with mad photoshop skillz". (Here, photoshop has a lower case 'p' because it's one of those proper nouns turned common nouns in our language). The confusing thing is that the word morphs from common to proper at the most inconvenient times and leads to brand-slavery.
I agree with you that local (even national) papers need nowhere near the feature set found in heavy-duty packages like PS (or even the GIMP). The idea of newspapers is to do the LEAST amount of image-manipulation. Magazines are the ones that need PS. Newspapers should stick to something much simpler and less cluttered like Paint.net. That way, they could even get rid of their dedicated graphics people and combine those jobs with others. There's really no need for entire departments to do these kinds of jobs anymore, what with the simplicity of modern software (compared to the hoops that people had to jump through for the tiniest image-editing apps in the days of film photography).
Why is it always Photoshop vs. GIMP? I thought the idea of FOSS was more choices. I've been using Paint.net (admittedly not for very intense applications) and find it quite adequate for me needs. Surely there are more choices out there besides GIMP in the FOSS landscape? I've heard that Paint.net has a very limited feature set for true image-editing professionals. Is that the case? Of course, given the needs of a local newspaper, I HUGELY doubt they need anywhere near the feature-set boasted of by PS or GIMP. Paint.net is more than enough for their limited needs.
Why use a nuclear blast to crack an egg?
I would actually agree with Ebert on this one. Video games are not art. They are something much much more. To call them art is to minimize the incredible leap in human creativity that they represent. The field of kinetic sculpture is a good beginning but video games have transcended the realms of mere art a long long time ago. Why are we so concerned about gaining the respect of Luddite art wranglers anyway? The whole issue is rather sad in my view. It's like Harry Potter wanting to be a muggle, or mathematicians trying to make the case that math is as* beautiful and creative as music. In fact, I dread the day that it video games will be called art. Have you MET any artists lately? Do we really want video game designers to become like artists in temperament? I would rather they stay creative and productive.
_____________
hint: it's MUCH MUCH more so.
Compare the prices (Hulu and/or Netflix for completeness) and cable with DVR and you'll see how misguided your statement is.