Are you thinking of entrapment, "A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit."
or trapping?-- As in do the police officers lock him in, skin him, scraping the skin to remove fat and flesh, wash it, and treat him with a series of chemicals that soften and preserve, or tan, the skin?
>If it's all CG, what filming permits were necessary?
That's to allow them to bother people, block undesirables from the set, etc.
Thanks buddy. I know what a filming permit is for. The CG part of my original comment means that they did it on computersDIDN'T ACTUALLY USE the actual location. They probably just built cg models of all the buildings. I would imagine with the scope of the use of that area, they would have built it all on their machines and then could do whatever they wanted with it.
But sure, maybe they just choreographed the whole thing and unleashed Spider-Man in Manhattan...
I'm sure that the City of New York and all entities involved in it give out filming permits with the idea that they will be portrayed more or less accurately, if not positively. (emphasis mine)
So what's the problem then? If it's all CG, what filming permits were necessary? Not that I agree with that rationalization anyway...
Yeah, in the US, if you are a bar or restaurant with a jukebox, you have to do the ASCAP/BMI license thing but the upshot is that you can also legally play music over your PA in the restaurant, have a cover band play other bands' songs, etc. The licensing organizations do a survey at certain intervals to determine average usage of the jukebox and charge royalties based on that.
I would imagine that you hold down a button and all of the sound it hears during that time it works to cancel out but then if you talk it knows that's not what you wanted to cancel out... like synchronizing a wireless mouse with the base station by holding the down a button to get it in sync...
That many somehow believe that the epidemic is over or that they are somehow safe from it is only more disheartening and even more tragic.
Tell me how I'm not safe from it. I don't have HIV, neither does my girlfriend, (yes we're sure), and since we're both responsible, there aren't really many ways for us to be infected. (I should include that we've been dating exclusively since we were 15) Yes, I know that nobody is completely safe from anything, but it's hardly tragic that I am responsible for my own actions and my health reflects it.
So unless you've lost ones close to you to HIV, or to the events of September 11, 2001, please don't take it upon yourself try and tell the rest of us what we should find "funny" or not.
OK. Honestly, I don't find deadly viruses or the diseases they cause incredibly hilarious. I did, however, find the South Park episode that I was referencing hilarious. People deal with things different ways. Maybe it's my sick sense of humor, but nothing is really sacred to me. Make fun of whatever you want, whether it's affected someone close to me or not... Guess I'm just insensitive. That's why I like South Park to begin with; they don't hold back at the request of people who might be easily offended by the subject matter.
For that reason entirely, the towers actually did have water tanks up on the 100th floor for putting out fires. Witnesses describe water rushing down the stairways. So in some way, they were prepared for this sort of thing
I mean, it's not like as if they'll forbid guns ! You'll just need proper registration and permit.
As you do right now! Why do we need more laws then?
NOT to aboid criminal act by criminals, but to avoid criminal acts by ordinary common peopple who, in a momentary lapse of fury, shoot their wife/husband/kid/neighbour or half of the school.
That's right!!! before guns came about, nobody ever went crazy and killed anybody! what a great time that was! The fact is, lawfully registered gun owners are responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of gun injuries--and that includes accidental injury!
And the wee silly argument that you'll need to defend yourself against those criminals, which can only be done with a gun... well, that's just plain ridiculous. If that's your reasoning, all kids at school should get a gun with proper instructions on how to frag a schoolmate starts freaking out.
OK. But consider this... Law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.
In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate).
Criminals will always use guns. Period. Whether they are illegal or not. I, for one, will defend myself if they try to kill me. You do what you want. I, however, know what restrictive laws do to my safety:
If gun makers reduce the supply of firearms sold to suburban dealers, the market price of guns will rise. Consumers with the most "elastic" demand -- those who are most sensitive to price changes -- will reduce or eliminate their purchases. And the evidence is clear: Price-sensitive consumers tend to be law-abiding citizens. By contrast, criminals' demand for firearms is highly "inelastic": Crooks are willing to pay inflated black-market prices for their guns. Perversely, by restricting the legal supply of guns and raising their price, plaintiffs would put more weapons in criminals' hands and fewer in the hands of honest citizens. -(Cato Institute Report)
I didn't say to go out and sell your car. I said the next time you are buying a car. You should really be using a car for 10 years, but I'm not trying to change your buying behaviour, just what you buy when you do buy.
Good call... I actually read too fast and thought in your comment that you were advocating we all go buy more efficient cars.
I know most are, but speaking about the light bulbs, does it take 8 times the energy to produce a compact flourescent bulb than a normal carbon filament or whatever they are? If so, your energy savings could be negated...
If you sell your car and buy a new one, isn't the balance of energy consumption MORE than it was before you bought the car, no matter how efficient the new car is, because someone else is driving the old one around?
I agree with your ideas and actually like them, but after reading the "Recycling is Garbage" article, I like to double-check these ideas.
If AIDS was to get to the same levels in Europe or North America, you can bet a little more money would be spent...
Um... of course!
It's our own fucking people! You take care of your own first! I will be happy to help my fellow Americans get out of an AIDS epidemic but as far as people that far away, too frickin bad... We gotta worry about ourselves.
So here we go, flame on... That's just how I feel.
The idiotic Kyoto Agreement needed so much work that only ONE industrialized country signed it (Romania). The fact is that NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY in the EU has signed it, and they are usually even more enviro-radical than some of the moron greens here.
Slashdot Mirror
The dealer doesn't need to know how to program phones, just the SIM card with the customer's telephone ID.
You show me the SIM card in my Nokia 8260 and I'll give you $10 billion.
Are you thinking of entrapment , "A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit."
or... unreasonable detention (this is probably what you are thinking)
or trapping?-- As in do the police officers lock him in, skin him, scraping the skin to remove fat and flesh, wash it, and treat him with a series of chemicals that soften and preserve, or tan, the skin?
>If it's all CG, what filming permits were necessary?
...
That's to allow them to bother people, block undesirables from the set, etc.
Thanks buddy. I know what a filming permit is for. The CG part of my original comment means that they did it on computersDIDN'T ACTUALLY USE the actual location. They probably just built cg models of all the buildings. I would imagine with the scope of the use of that area, they would have built it all on their machines and then could do whatever they wanted with it.
But sure, maybe they just choreographed the whole thing and unleashed Spider-Man in Manhattan
I'm sure that the City of New York and all entities involved in it give out filming permits with the idea that they will be portrayed more or less accurately, if not positively. (emphasis mine)
So what's the problem then? If it's all CG, what filming permits were necessary? Not that I agree with that rationalization anyway...
[PPPoE, CATV, DBS, POTS, DBS, HDTV, DBS and CATV.]
As Dilbert would say, Bingo!
Think local diner with CD jukebox system.
Yeah, in the US, if you are a bar or restaurant with a jukebox, you have to do the ASCAP/BMI license thing but the upshot is that you can also legally play music over your PA in the restaurant, have a cover band play other bands' songs, etc. The licensing organizations do a survey at certain intervals to determine average usage of the jukebox and charge royalties based on that.
I know dude; I too am very open-minded about people's tastes and activities. I was just making a joke to mask my *sniff* insecurity ;)
I hope your "friend" gets real better soon.
Wow that's funny.
Where are my mod pts now?
I would imagine that you hold down a button and all of the sound it hears during that time it works to cancel out but then if you talk it knows that's not what you wanted to cancel out... like synchronizing a wireless mouse with the base station by holding the down a button to get it in sync...
...When asked for comment on the fact that there are still over a million Warcraft II players out there, he simply said "Your command, master."
I have to put in a plug for the low-flush Kohler toilets.
Isn't that the point?
That many somehow believe that the epidemic is over or that they are somehow safe from it is only more disheartening and even more tragic.
Tell me how I'm not safe from it. I don't have HIV, neither does my girlfriend, (yes we're sure), and since we're both responsible, there aren't really many ways for us to be infected. (I should include that we've been dating exclusively since we were 15) Yes, I know that nobody is completely safe from anything, but it's hardly tragic that I am responsible for my own actions and my health reflects it.
So unless you've lost ones close to you to HIV, or to the events of September 11, 2001, please don't take it upon yourself try and tell the rest of us what we should find "funny" or not.
OK. Honestly, I don't find deadly viruses or the diseases they cause incredibly hilarious. I did, however, find the South Park episode that I was referencing hilarious.
People deal with things different ways.
Maybe it's my sick sense of humor, but nothing is really sacred to me. Make fun of whatever you want, whether it's affected someone close to me or not... Guess I'm just insensitive.
That's why I like South Park to begin with; they don't hold back at the request of people who might be easily offended by the subject matter.
how long does something have to be in the past before no one cares I wonder
It's 22.5 years. That's how long it took for AIDS to be funny.
And if you haven't seen the South Park episode, DON'T MOD!!!
For that reason entirely, the towers actually did have water tanks up on the 100th floor for putting out fires. Witnesses describe water rushing down the stairways. So in some way, they were prepared for this sort of thing
I mean, it's not like as if they'll forbid guns ! You'll just need proper registration and permit.
As you do right now! Why do we need more laws then?
NOT to aboid criminal act by criminals, but to avoid criminal acts by ordinary common peopple who, in a momentary lapse of fury, shoot their wife/husband/kid/neighbour or half of the school.
That's right!!! before guns came about, nobody ever went crazy and killed anybody! what a great time that was!
The fact is, lawfully registered gun owners are responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of gun injuries--and that includes accidental injury!
And the wee silly argument that you'll need to defend yourself against those criminals, which can only be done with a gun... well, that's just plain ridiculous. If that's your reasoning, all kids at school should get a gun with proper instructions on how to frag a schoolmate starts freaking out.
OK. But consider this... Law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.
In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate).
Criminals will always use guns. Period. Whether they are illegal or not.
I, for one, will defend myself if they try to kill me. You do what you want. I, however, know what restrictive laws do to my safety:
If gun makers reduce the supply of firearms sold to suburban dealers, the market price of guns will rise. Consumers with the most "elastic" demand -- those who are most sensitive to price changes -- will reduce or eliminate their purchases. And the evidence is clear: Price-sensitive consumers tend to be law-abiding citizens. By contrast, criminals' demand for firearms is highly "inelastic": Crooks are willing to pay inflated black-market prices for their guns. Perversely, by restricting the legal supply of guns and raising their price, plaintiffs would put more weapons in criminals' hands and fewer in the hands of honest citizens. -(Cato Institute Report)
Fast change is inefficient.
and unsustainable.
and unrealistic.
etc...
Still funny though...
Modeling and rendering, designing analyzing, just pick any two!/ I have one dream and it's two CPUs...
HA HA HA HA
SGI's:
"I have a dream, and it's called a graphics pipe/ it really works, and it's not just PR hype".
You have to hear it...
I didn't say to go out and sell your car. I said the next time you are buying a car. You should really be using a car for 10 years, but I'm not trying to change your buying behaviour, just what you buy when you do buy.
Good call... I actually read too fast and thought in your comment that you were advocating we all go buy more efficient cars.
...But are all of these better on net balance?
I know most are, but speaking about the light bulbs, does it take 8 times the energy to produce a compact flourescent bulb than a normal carbon filament or whatever they are? If so, your energy savings could be negated...
If you sell your car and buy a new one, isn't the balance of energy consumption MORE than it was before you bought the car, no matter how efficient the new car is, because someone else is driving the old one around?
I agree with your ideas and actually like them, but after reading the "Recycling is Garbage" article, I like to double-check these ideas.
If AIDS was to get to the same levels in Europe or North America, you can bet a little more money would be spent...
Um... of course!
It's our own fucking people! You take care of your own first! I will be happy to help my fellow Americans get out of an AIDS epidemic but as far as people that far away, too frickin bad... We gotta worry about ourselves.
So here we go, flame on... That's just how I feel.
In other news, a bunch of welfare recipients got together and voted that work should be done, then went back home to watch "Cribs."
Yes, I get your point.
Yes, I understand I'm being immature.
The idiotic Kyoto Agreement needed so much work that only ONE industrialized country signed it (Romania).
The fact is that NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY in the EU has signed it, and they are usually even more enviro-radical than some of the moron greens here.
Get your facts straight.