Which the original poster addressed by noting that in the case of "sexting" the model is usually the photographer, therefore the owner of the copyright. The rest of his post followed from that assumption.
Indeed. We were getting smoked out by the American fire, then the winds changed. We are now getting smoked out by the Rim fire. I live within walking distance of the University, and couldn't see my office from home this morning. 125k acres and only 5% contained. Joy.
Um... when was Hollywood about "making the best ART"? It seems to me that almost the entire history of Hollywood is about making money. The studio system, which thrived from the 1920s-40s was designed to make profits, not art. Are we talking about some period before the big studios came into existence? Like, the silent film era? Or is there some period of history that I don't know about during which profits were eschewed in the name of art?
For all of recorded history up to about 1990, marriage has always, in every society, meant a contract of union between a man and a woman.
Actually, for most of human history, marriage has consisted of a non-contractual union (contracts are a fairly modern invention, which reply on a state level society with rule of law) between (generally speaking) a man and as many women as he can afford to marry. There are a few societies where marriage has consisted of a similar non-contractual union between a woman and as many men as she can afford to marry. There are also a fair number of societies where same-sex marriages occur, though they are not the norm (generally, they occur in societies where a man's brother is expected to marry his sister-in-law in the event of the man's death---if the man has no brothers, but has sisters, the sister's might be expected to take over the husbandly duties).
Of course, this is utterly irrelevant, anyway. For the vast majority of Western history, women were treated like property, and marriage was an exchange of property which happened to include a woman. Is that really the institution that you want legally enforced? Since we all like fancy Latin: argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Marriage is most emphatically not a "mostly religious concept." Nearly every human society that has ever existed has possessed the institution of marriage. In most societies, marriage serves economic and social ends as much, if not more than, religious ones. Marriage is the glue that allowed otherwise unrelated bands of hunters and gatherers to meet in the mountains without killing each other, and is the bond that helped maintain stability in feudal societies. Marriage has allowed families to pool resources, and has served to maintain the continuity of cultural capital from one generation to the next. Some of the ends that marriage serves have some religious underpinnings, but most are secular in nature. It is only very recently in human history that anyone has made the claim that marriage is an exclusively (or "mostly") religious institution.
Your analogy is flawed. It would be better to say that I don't want my engineering to be grounded on our understanding of the world as it was 250 years ago. In the last 250 years, we have refined Newtonian physics, created new material (plastics, anyone?), gained a better understanding of catastrophic events that can cause failure (plate tectonics, meteorology, and so on), and have better models for how the world works.
Note, also, that the GP was not suggesting that the Constitution be scrapped, but rather that we should not hold the original wording as sacred. Interpretation of the Constitution changes over time, and amendments are added. Or are you still okay with the 3/5ths compromise? A literal reading of the original Constitution is idiotic.
I am honestly more concerned with the attitude upthread. That is, it bothers me that people are so callous and lacking in empathy that they would actively hope that billions die in misery. This particular rationalization was the straw that broke the camel's back.
You are correct that, in the grand scheme of things we don't amount to a hill of beans. However, I am not "the grand scheme of things." I am not the universe, and I am not a planet. I am a human being. As I am not a sociopath, I feel empathy for my fellow human beings. Moreover, I have a desire to maintain my standard of living, and would be happy if others could attain it, as well. Human life and well-being is important to me. I would hope that you would feel the same way.
Having sung in many choirs, I am quite sure that I have heard jokes about our inability to find a beat, watch a conductor, or read music. If there is a joke about it, it must be true, right?:P
I think you have those two words defined exactly backwards.
No, he has it almost exactly correct. Soil is a mixture of minerals, water, air, and organic material (e.g. organisms, living and dead). Soil develops over long periods of time, and lies in layers (horizons), each with its own composition and properties. Soil is alive and in situ---it has history and context. Dirt, on the other hand, is what you track into the house after playing in the soil.
Oddly enough, there was a time when everyone took drugs, and no one cared. Ultimately, drug bans were created not to level the playing field, but rather to protect the athletes---for instance, the Olympics started enforcing drug bans only after a bicyclist died in 1960.
To back that up just a bit, during the last Reno Air Races, a plane flew into the stands, killing 11 and injuring another 70 or so. Even loaded up with C4, I doubt that a small plane like a 172 could do terribly much more damage than that. One certainly couldn't take down a skyscraper with a Cessna.
xander
I don't doubt that Starbucks provides a service that people are willing to pay for, any more than I don't doubt that PBR profitable product that people are willing to pay for. I was replying to the idea that Starbucks provided better-than-average coffee, which, as I pointed out down-thread, seems to have been a reading comprehension fail on my part.
A brand becomes popular because it offers something that people want. Quality is only one possible metric out of many. To say that Starbucks is popular, therefore they must sell better-than-average-coffee, is a fallacy. Personally, I would hazard to guess that Starbucks is popular because it is fast and consistent (i.e. I can get the same slightly burned cup of coffee at any Starbucks in the world).
That being said, I just reread the original post to which I relied, and it seems that the poster was taking this into account (he said that they do a better than average job, rather than saying that they serve a better than average cup of coffee, which is how I read it originally). Reading comprehension fail on my part.
Regarding McDonalds fries, I suppose that is a matter of taste. I prefer a thicker cut fry. That still doesn't change the fact that the product that McDonalds is best known for---their bugers---are mediocre to terrible. As you rightly point out, McDonalds is not competing on quality, but on price and speed. There are many places where I could get a better burger (and better fries, too), but I am going to have to pay more or wait longer (or both).
Regarding Taco Bell, you have once again made my point for me. I can go to a real Mexican restaurant and get a great taco, but it will likely cost me more than a Taco Bell taco. You buy a taco at Taco Bell not because you want a high quality meal, but because you want a fast, cheap meal.
By your logic, McDonalds makes an obviously-better-than-average burger, Taco Bell serves an obviously-better-than-average taco, and Pabst Blue Ribbon is an obviously-better-than-average beer.
People dying in collisions resulting from drunk driving is a problem. One possible solution is to ban alcohol. That was tried, and failed. However, that is not the only solution, and you will note that many people are clamoring for harsher penalties for drunk driving, stronger enforcement, and technological solutions (breathalyser activated ignition systems, self-driving cars, and so on). Most people are capable of seeing beyond the black and white of everything goes versus prohibition.
Among those advocating stronger gun control, the most common view, by far, is not an outright ban of all firearms. There are a few on the lunatic fringe who would probably make such an argument, but they are not representative of the majority in the same way that the few lunatics arguing that anyone ought to be allowed to build a nuke are not representative of the majority. Basically, no one is arguing that we should "BAN GUNS." The argument is more nuanced than that.
Slashdot Mirror
A: To hold the foreskin back.
Okay, but then who moderates the people who moderate the moderators?
Which the original poster addressed by noting that in the case of "sexting" the model is usually the photographer, therefore the owner of the copyright. The rest of his post followed from that assumption.
Adjuncts are also handy for keeping your payroll costs down.
No kidding. I made more as a graduate student last semester teaching two classes than I will as an adjunct this semester teaching three classes.
Indeed. We were getting smoked out by the American fire, then the winds changed. We are now getting smoked out by the Rim fire. I live within walking distance of the University, and couldn't see my office from home this morning. 125k acres and only 5% contained. Joy.
Or in a sealed baggie in the tank. You wouldn't want a random house guest to leave you without TP.
Um... when was Hollywood about "making the best ART"? It seems to me that almost the entire history of Hollywood is about making money. The studio system, which thrived from the 1920s-40s was designed to make profits, not art. Are we talking about some period before the big studios came into existence? Like, the silent film era? Or is there some period of history that I don't know about during which profits were eschewed in the name of art?
Actually, for most of human history, marriage has consisted of a non-contractual union (contracts are a fairly modern invention, which reply on a state level society with rule of law) between (generally speaking) a man and as many women as he can afford to marry. There are a few societies where marriage has consisted of a similar non-contractual union between a woman and as many men as she can afford to marry. There are also a fair number of societies where same-sex marriages occur, though they are not the norm (generally, they occur in societies where a man's brother is expected to marry his sister-in-law in the event of the man's death---if the man has no brothers, but has sisters, the sister's might be expected to take over the husbandly duties).
Of course, this is utterly irrelevant, anyway. For the vast majority of Western history, women were treated like property, and marriage was an exchange of property which happened to include a woman. Is that really the institution that you want legally enforced? Since we all like fancy Latin: argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Marriage is most emphatically not a "mostly religious concept." Nearly every human society that has ever existed has possessed the institution of marriage. In most societies, marriage serves economic and social ends as much, if not more than, religious ones. Marriage is the glue that allowed otherwise unrelated bands of hunters and gatherers to meet in the mountains without killing each other, and is the bond that helped maintain stability in feudal societies. Marriage has allowed families to pool resources, and has served to maintain the continuity of cultural capital from one generation to the next. Some of the ends that marriage serves have some religious underpinnings, but most are secular in nature. It is only very recently in human history that anyone has made the claim that marriage is an exclusively (or "mostly") religious institution.
Your analogy is flawed. It would be better to say that I don't want my engineering to be grounded on our understanding of the world as it was 250 years ago. In the last 250 years, we have refined Newtonian physics, created new material (plastics, anyone?), gained a better understanding of catastrophic events that can cause failure (plate tectonics, meteorology, and so on), and have better models for how the world works.
Note, also, that the GP was not suggesting that the Constitution be scrapped, but rather that we should not hold the original wording as sacred. Interpretation of the Constitution changes over time, and amendments are added. Or are you still okay with the 3/5ths compromise? A literal reading of the original Constitution is idiotic.
I am honestly more concerned with the attitude upthread. That is, it bothers me that people are so callous and lacking in empathy that they would actively hope that billions die in misery. This particular rationalization was the straw that broke the camel's back.
You are correct that, in the grand scheme of things we don't amount to a hill of beans. However, I am not "the grand scheme of things." I am not the universe, and I am not a planet. I am a human being. As I am not a sociopath, I feel empathy for my fellow human beings. Moreover, I have a desire to maintain my standard of living, and would be happy if others could attain it, as well. Human life and well-being is important to me. I would hope that you would feel the same way.
I was agreeing with the post to which I was replying. I suppose the sarcasm was not evident. For that, I apologize.
Having sung in many choirs, I am quite sure that I have heard jokes about our inability to find a beat, watch a conductor, or read music. If there is a joke about it, it must be true, right? :P
I think you have those two words defined exactly backwards.
No, he has it almost exactly correct. Soil is a mixture of minerals, water, air, and organic material (e.g. organisms, living and dead). Soil develops over long periods of time, and lies in layers (horizons), each with its own composition and properties. Soil is alive and in situ---it has history and context. Dirt, on the other hand, is what you track into the house after playing in the soil.
This! A thousand times, this!
Oddly enough, there was a time when everyone took drugs, and no one cared. Ultimately, drug bans were created not to level the playing field, but rather to protect the athletes---for instance, the Olympics started enforcing drug bans only after a bicyclist died in 1960.
There's prior art. The toilets at my office flush automatically. I assume they use motion sensors to determine when I am done.
And even if you don't want to buy one, a lot of quicky-lube places will do the reading for free.
To back that up just a bit, during the last Reno Air Races, a plane flew into the stands, killing 11 and injuring another 70 or so. Even loaded up with C4, I doubt that a small plane like a 172 could do terribly much more damage than that. One certainly couldn't take down a skyscraper with a Cessna. xander
I don't doubt that Starbucks provides a service that people are willing to pay for, any more than I don't doubt that PBR profitable product that people are willing to pay for. I was replying to the idea that Starbucks provided better-than-average coffee, which, as I pointed out down-thread, seems to have been a reading comprehension fail on my part.
A brand becomes popular because it offers something that people want. Quality is only one possible metric out of many. To say that Starbucks is popular, therefore they must sell better-than-average-coffee, is a fallacy. Personally, I would hazard to guess that Starbucks is popular because it is fast and consistent (i.e. I can get the same slightly burned cup of coffee at any Starbucks in the world).
That being said, I just reread the original post to which I relied, and it seems that the poster was taking this into account (he said that they do a better than average job, rather than saying that they serve a better than average cup of coffee, which is how I read it originally). Reading comprehension fail on my part.
Regarding McDonalds fries, I suppose that is a matter of taste. I prefer a thicker cut fry. That still doesn't change the fact that the product that McDonalds is best known for---their bugers---are mediocre to terrible. As you rightly point out, McDonalds is not competing on quality, but on price and speed. There are many places where I could get a better burger (and better fries, too), but I am going to have to pay more or wait longer (or both).
Regarding Taco Bell, you have once again made my point for me. I can go to a real Mexican restaurant and get a great taco, but it will likely cost me more than a Taco Bell taco. You buy a taco at Taco Bell not because you want a high quality meal, but because you want a fast, cheap meal.
By your logic, McDonalds makes an obviously-better-than-average burger, Taco Bell serves an obviously-better-than-average taco, and Pabst Blue Ribbon is an obviously-better-than-average beer.
Two points: