I understand the point you are trying to make, and I am myself an ignostic, but you miss an important point about igtheism which is that your argument is useless. You see, if "most of what the world pushes on you as the concept of "God" is complete crap" it DOES in fact mean "God" does not exist. The society makes the definition...logically denying God in this context makes perfect sense.
All your argument here says is that 'We came from somewhere or something...' and that you personally may be willing call that somewhere/thing 'God' no matter what that somewhere/thing is. Then you go on to call those who wouldn't dream of calling it 'God' "smug and cock-eyed" when they do so because it's going to be nothing like what everyone on this planet who has a definition claims a god is.
You're accusing someone of being arrogant for not believing in something which you then go on to say has no definition...this is foolish.
The suit is still bullshit. The school should be able to choose whatever the hell it wants for "the standard" and then be required to provide some form of alternative or additional supplemental material as needed for special-needs students.
This is what schools traditionally do, and are the reason why we are allowed to have things like videos and whiteboards and computers in our classrooms even though there are students who are incapable of accessing them fully.
You will notice that the places where such stories tend to occur are the same places where "witches steal men's penises" and the like. Somehow I find myself having doubts as well.
No, IV-426 was not being terraformed in the first film. Indications from the second film are that at the point the Nostromo discovered the beacon the company had not begun terraforming *anything*. IV-426 was an unexplored world at the time of the first film (this is confirmed in both the first and second films).
Carter Burke signed off on the terraforming process on IV-426 because he wasn't sure that the alien ship with the distress beacon even existed and he wanted to make money.
The Beacon was coming from the alien ship that was loaded with eggs. With some kind of LARGE alien creature who appeared to be organically a part of the chair it was sitting in with a burst ribcage. The first 1/3 of the film is spent trying to decode the beacon and figure out what it is saying.
Bishop never tried to have anyone infected...Burke did.
Computer Games. The boxes are significantly smaller than they were in the 80's and 90's, manuals are virtually non-existent and remarkably smaller in size as well when they are printed.
I used to do this all the time with game companies back in the nineties. Often times they'd send me free copies of their C-64 programs and whatnot. It is absolutely worth a shot even though nowadays the operator on the phone is probably not going to even understand your request and/or believe that such a product ever existed.
Except that there are many quite wonderful works of art that use explicit images and content quite effectively within their work. Who gets to be the judge of what is art and therefore an acceptable usage of explicit content and what is pornography? or do you think there should be no explicit content in anything as you view it as unnecessary? Who even gets to decide what explicit means?
Have fun trying to burn all copies of the Bible, the Story of O, The Cook the Thief, His wife, and Her Lover, Most of Wagner, most of Mozart's operas, Verdi, nearly all Shakespeare, most Ballets ever written, just about all theater with the possible exception of Oklahoma, Waiting for Godot (it's quite dirty, but it's obfuscated so it should be okay), and The Sound of Music. Every horror film every made, except for some of the old drecky Hammer films...every Bettie Page print, we should probably just execute Farah Fawcett for her 1970's poster that every teenage boy masturbated to regularly....
Explicit has it's purposes...even life in the 1950's wasn't the way we try to sell "Life in the 1950's" in films...there was quite a bit of explicitness going on there as well.
I think I understand your point, which seems to suggest somebody screaming with a bloody head in one hand, while fucking a teenage nymphet on a screen isn't exactly a "work of art," but my point is that (thankfully) you don't get to decide, as does anyone else...deconstructing what is correct and appropriate is a highly important function of art (good or bad)...without deconstruction (which most commonly happens by the usage of content the current society may view as extreme) we don't get things like the works of Dostoyevski, Kafka, Beckett, Sartre, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg to name but a few. We don't get any form of progress or development.
Love Happens, Toy Story 3D, Where the Wild Things Are, Amelia, AstroBoy, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Disney's A Christmas Carol, Planet 51, Disney's The Princess And The Frog, Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakuel, Arthur and the Vengeance of Maltazard, Old Dogs...
are all coming out between now and December, the most any of them are rated for is some mild language...and I believe that's only with Old Dogs, but I may be mistaken. That's 6 months of movies, not even a whole years worth, I'm reasonably certain I'll find nearly the same amount if I go back and research the first half of 2009.
How often do you need to go to the movies that this isn't enough for you?
If you want an adult story however, you should expect some adult language, now a film need not be rife with it, but it is true in fact, that many, if not most adults in the US swear at least mildly.
>>>"You think I dislike drama because??????"
I didn't say you dislike drama, I was responding to your distaste for specific dramatic content...Foul language, sexual promiscuity, and violence, all of which you noted in your initial post.
Now, about Shakespeare:
you said: >>>"Last I checked, there's no explicit tits 'n guts in his plays."
First of all, your initial comment wasn't purely about "explicit tits 'n guts." Secondly...
You apparently have never watched and/or understood any work by Shakespeare.
Minor caveat, if your point is now about explicitly showing innards, the only reason we see them now, and not so much then is because we didn't have the technology then to do it. As far as the tits thing goes, actually it depends on the given time period and the given specific society...there have been many times in the history of western civilization that nudity was respected, or simply ignored both onstage and in general public.
Also my point about Shakespeare wasn't strictly about the explicit showing, as your initial argument only mentioned those as a few aspects of your issue, but my argument also includes your marked distaste for "foul language" and "hopping into someone else's bed every other moment."
Let's see...back to Shakespeare
Hamlet - Dad is killed by uncle who starts having sex with his mom. Then Hamlet nearly rapes her. Everybody dies a horrible, bloody, violent death with the possible exception of the little girl who drowned herself.
Romeo and Juliet - lots of kids swearing at each other and derogatorily insulting each other, a 13 year old girl and a teenage boy meet at a party where everybody is trying to get into everyone else's pants...said girl and boy eventually fuck. A not insignificant portion of the cast dies a horrible and violent death with the exception of the titular characters, who die horrible, but not terribly violent deaths.
A Midsummer Night's Dream (a comedy!) - The lovers go into the woods to have sex...and the entire story begins. LOTS of sex, homewrecking, promiscuity, and sexual innuendo, some violence.
Titus Andronicus, Richard II, Macbeth, the list goes on - nope, certainly no foul language, "breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment..." here...well at least not if your willing to close your eyes and plug your ears roughly every 3-4 minutes during each of these plays.
Exactly what time period in the history of theater (dramatic arts, where these things primarily occur) were the plays being written not rife with violent and sexual imagery?
You don't know what you are talking about. Art hasn't degenerated in the modern world, it's the same as it ever was.
You know fuck all about art...you think it has a concrete definition.
Don't try throwing credentials at me, I'm a (successful) professional artist as well, as is my partner...it's what we do for a living...I am a working composer, performer, and dramatist, my partner is a working visual artist.
I would tell you immediately the one thing in life you're not going to see agreement on is the definition of "Art." The fact that you try to present one shows your complete ignorance in the subject. The one thing artists successfully do over and over again throughout the ages is destroy whatever definition and rules society tries to hold them to.
"...drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconcieved by the artist."?? What about furniture music?
You also completely missed my point..."drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconceived by the artist." is in fact considered SPECTACLE by just about anybody who didn't like that particular work.
You see deciding something as spectacle or not is a perspective...it's an opinion. Where you see violence or sex simply for their own sakes, others may not...it's not up to you to decide what is art for the rest of the world...now I'm not saying everything out there is good...most of it is crap...but that's the way it always is.
The Rite of Spring caused a riot within the first 3 minutes of it's first performance...people were throwing chairs. It was most certainly considered spectacle by the people who were infuriated by it...now it's considered one of the most important works of the 20th century by composers and dancers alike.
What's really funny, is that we in fact agree for the most part on art in general...I just don't think I'm qualified to judge what is art and isn't...you on the other hand seem to think you can recreate the world in your own fascist image of what should be acceptable and not.
I also however believe that "thinking of the children" should include making them be aware that the world is for and run by adults. They don't need to have their childhood necessarily ripped away, but trying to lull them into some self-entitled, overly-pampered, completely unrealistic understanding of the world- where everyone is special, nobody is ever mean to anyone else, and there's no such thing as sex of any kind, including distinguishing that people have different body parts- simply because they're children is cruel and abusive.
It's not helping the children if we remove everything a parent might not want their child to see from their sight. What helps the children is leaving these things right where they are, and then having a loving parent work to put these things in context for a child so they can begin to understand the world and their place in it more effectively.
There were plenty of films made this year without "constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment."
You make it sound as though we have no choice in Cinema and we shouldn't be allowed variety...this is foolish...there are a great deal of people who aren't particularly offended by such things, they should be allowed to be marketed to by writers and producers.
Also allow me to say one word here in argument to your distaste in dramatic content...
Oedipus isn't art then? the works of Shakespeare? The Barber of Seville? The Rite of Spring? The Song of Solomon? These works by and large are not much more than spectacle, particularly to those who lived in the time period they were written.
I know you said "modern" art, but there has always been an extreme violent and sexual side to art throughout western civilization...it's not new...and people have always expressed the opinion you've expressed now...one which clearly shows you don't have a real understanding of what much of art is about.
Art that encompasses violence and sexual imagery usually(not always) has an ontological nature about it, it raises questions about humanity, it raises questions about honesty, and it raises questions about our moral compass (where is it? why is it? should it be there?)...violent and sexual themes aren't necessary in all works (and much of what is available is and always will be "junk" in many people's eyes as you yourself are observing)...but it isn't for you to judge for the rest of us what is and isn't...and most likely, many of the things you consider to be "Art" were considered just as extreme as the works you are criticizing today.
If something doesn't appeal to you, don't play it, watch it, listen to it, etc... but your argument is ignorant.
Much art throughout history was designed simply to provoke, Art is often spectacle.
there is a lot of evidence suggesting that much of the influence regarding sexual preferences has to do with forces that impact the fetus while in the womb. E.g. the more children a woman has, the greater likelihood of each successive child becoming gay...once again however, this is only one of many various aspects (including some possible genetic, not to mention environmental) that may result in homosexuality.
They don't cause physical pain, per se, but I do have to type more slowly, the keys feel more resistant, and my fingers can start to ache if I type for prolonged periods on them. I feel like when I use them I have to stab the keyboard repeatedly with my fingers as opposed to "typing" on it, in order to get the keys to do what I want.
The Fuijitsu FKB4700 series of keyboards (Still my favorite) work on a system similar to the model M, both of which I find refreshing to type on.
The Fujitsu's are still made, but quite a pain to find in the US, so I've finally switched over to Das Keyboard.
Das Keyboard is an interesting alternative, it uses cherry switches instead of catch-spring (If I understand this correctly). It's layout isn't quite as nice as the Fujitsu but it's quite close...and the feel is a significant improvement over the mushy keyboard alternatives.
It is however, even louder than most other audible keyboards.
if torrent files were used (and often times specifically designed) to murder other people.
The whole point of a legal system/justice dept. is to handle exceptional cases of law...where a set of rules cannot cover every potential circumstance and instance in a way that provides safety and productivity to society.
That being said, I have no stance whatsoever on Bloomberg and I am not anti-gun...just making a point. If there are people out there who want stricter gun control, the legal system has a variety of avenues to pursue this. If those people succeed where the the RIAA/MPAA has failed, it does not mean the government is now somehow in contradiction with itself or flawed.
It means that society saw fit to make an exception...exceptions are in fact what laws and lawsuits and judges and governmental rulings are often about.
For the most part, T-cells die off naturally. People infected with HIV do not have to deal with a problem of too many t-cells, so in this case it's not much of a concern.
Most importantly though, T-cells do not replicate to create more T-cells. They come from a type of lymphocyte starter cell (a stem cell essentially), which reproduces in the bone marrow.
Taking t-cells from your body, and then reintroducing them to your body will not give you leukemia (literally meaning "White Blood", refers to various cancers of white blood cells).
More than likely this is just a test, not *the cure*. The point being to see if the modified t-cells survive long enough to keep the count from dropping (as it would via a normal HIV infection). If it does work, then we can start developing methods to modify bone-marrow in order to make the new t-cells your body creates have the altered gene.
Of course, I'm not an expert, and the article is unfortunately slim on details, so this is basic speculation.
...and the reason Newegg tends to use large boxes is because the majority of items they ship are *LARGE*. They deal in large orders and large items. So you don't get a good deal if you buy a few 1ft cables from them, well whoopey-shit. Those types of orders aren't really their main business.
So in order to better accommodate the small percentage of business that wants to buy small, light, items that make up a relatively insignificant portion of their business, they would need smaller boxes, which means more warehouse space, more cost (buying a variety of bulk items is more expensive than buying only a couple), space for the boxes themselves, more indexing and management, which equals more overhead, etc... and isn't worth it.
You completely missed my point about the retail prices of cables.
The price gouging issue about cables I was talking about is the markup from cost that all retailers do. You know how much BestBuy paid for that $20 usb extension cable they have for sale? about 65 cents...this is true across the board, the MSRP for cables is generally in excess of 600-1000% I'm not talking about Newegg vs. amazon vs some local store cable prices, I'm talking about retailer cost to MSRP, the markup is INSANE.
That's what I was referring to there.
If you'd like to keep playing the comparing shipping prices game, let's talk about the 30 pound, steel antec case I just bought from newegg and paid $19 dollars in shipping for. Most other places were doing shipping at around $30+
Are you starting to understand how this works yet?
I agree that the shipping prices are exorbitantly high for extremely small and light items (in fact, that was my original point), but once again, what I am telling you is that this is not uncommon. Especially for mail-order houses that specialize in large items and large bulk sales.
Newegg isn't some evil company trying to reclaim all of their profits by overcharging you for shipping...setting a price (especially for an automated system) for shipping on especially small or light items can actually be quite difficult depending on what types of orders your store is really designed for.
So you found somebody who will make you a good deal on a bunch of 1 foot cables...great! Bully for you! But you're going to find a significant number of items from newegg (particularly larger, heavier items) that have lower cost than smaller mail-order stores, both in shipping, and in actual item price. The system is imbalanced, I agree, but Newegg isn't the devil...it's just the way it is.
I would also like to point out, that you aren't comparing equal shipping terms, Newegg uses 3-day shipping, for monoprice.com to do 3-day shipping, the cost is $9.95, not ~$2
Quit accusing me of working for Newegg, that's just stupid. I always believe you should shop around for every product you want to purchase online, but blanket statements about Newegg's shipping are unrealistic because the pricing varies depending upon a number of factors that you aren't taking into consideration.
There's nothing dishonest about my argument BTW, which you've taken out of context with that quote...my argument was that the cost of shipping per item goes down if you buy more than one...and it does at Newegg, and pretty much anywhere else.
The "OMG!! I found a fan that they have a really high shipping charge for therefore everything they do is overpriced and designed to rip you off!" is baed off of entirely circumstantial, specious evidence, and is really, honestly, stupid.
Shopping around is always a good thing, you're never going to find one single store that has the best price on everything. Be an intelligent shopper, but don't accuse a retailer who moves big numbers of large, bulky computer hardware in the majority of their orders of being fraudulent because their shipping is high on a single cable...that's just dumb...the shipping is high because their system isn't really set up for it...they will more than make up for it with shipping and handling fees of other equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the point you are trying to make, and I am myself an ignostic, but you miss an important point about igtheism which is that your argument is useless. You see, if "most of what the world pushes on you as the concept of "God" is complete crap" it DOES in fact mean "God" does not exist. The society makes the definition...logically denying God in this context makes perfect sense.
All your argument here says is that 'We came from somewhere or something...' and that you personally may be willing call that somewhere/thing 'God' no matter what that somewhere/thing is. Then you go on to call those who wouldn't dream of calling it 'God' "smug and cock-eyed" when they do so because it's going to be nothing like what everyone on this planet who has a definition claims a god is.
You're accusing someone of being arrogant for not believing in something which you then go on to say has no definition...this is foolish.
The suit is still bullshit. The school should be able to choose whatever the hell it wants for "the standard" and then be required to provide some form of alternative or additional supplemental material as needed for special-needs students.
This is what schools traditionally do, and are the reason why we are allowed to have things like videos and whiteboards and computers in our classrooms even though there are students who are incapable of accessing them fully.
Quite right!
link
Astrology is valid.
Pls site your sources Mr. I have researched this and know what I am talking about!
>>the evil person knew he or she was doing something wrong and regarded the harm caused as a good thing.
Sounds like my ex-girlfriend.
Good point.
You will notice that the places where such stories tend to occur are the same places where "witches steal men's penises" and the like. Somehow I find myself having doubts as well.
make that LV-426...lol
No, IV-426 was not being terraformed in the first film. Indications from the second film are that at the point the Nostromo discovered the beacon the company had not begun terraforming *anything*. IV-426 was an unexplored world at the time of the first film (this is confirmed in both the first and second films).
Carter Burke signed off on the terraforming process on IV-426 because he wasn't sure that the alien ship with the distress beacon even existed and he wanted to make money.
The Beacon was coming from the alien ship that was loaded with eggs. With some kind of LARGE alien creature who appeared to be organically a part of the chair it was sitting in with a burst ribcage. The first 1/3 of the film is spent trying to decode the beacon and figure out what it is saying.
Bishop never tried to have anyone infected...Burke did.
Computer Games. The boxes are significantly smaller than they were in the 80's and 90's, manuals are virtually non-existent and remarkably smaller in size as well when they are printed.
I used to do this all the time with game companies back in the nineties. Often times they'd send me free copies of their C-64 programs and whatnot. It is absolutely worth a shot even though nowadays the operator on the phone is probably not going to even understand your request and/or believe that such a product ever existed.
Except that there are many quite wonderful works of art that use explicit images and content quite effectively within their work. Who gets to be the judge of what is art and therefore an acceptable usage of explicit content and what is pornography? or do you think there should be no explicit content in anything as you view it as unnecessary? Who even gets to decide what explicit means?
Have fun trying to burn all copies of the Bible, the Story of O, The Cook the Thief, His wife, and Her Lover, Most of Wagner, most of Mozart's operas, Verdi, nearly all Shakespeare, most Ballets ever written, just about all theater with the possible exception of Oklahoma, Waiting for Godot (it's quite dirty, but it's obfuscated so it should be okay), and The Sound of Music. Every horror film every made, except for some of the old drecky Hammer films...every Bettie Page print, we should probably just execute Farah Fawcett for her 1970's poster that every teenage boy masturbated to regularly....
Explicit has it's purposes...even life in the 1950's wasn't the way we try to sell "Life in the 1950's" in films...there was quite a bit of explicitness going on there as well.
I think I understand your point, which seems to suggest somebody screaming with a bloody head in one hand, while fucking a teenage nymphet on a screen isn't exactly a "work of art," but my point is that (thankfully) you don't get to decide, as does anyone else...deconstructing what is correct and appropriate is a highly important function of art (good or bad)...without deconstruction (which most commonly happens by the usage of content the current society may view as extreme) we don't get things like the works of Dostoyevski, Kafka, Beckett, Sartre, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg to name but a few. We don't get any form of progress or development.
You do have a choice...let's see now...
Love Happens, Toy Story 3D, Where the Wild Things Are, Amelia, AstroBoy, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Disney's A Christmas Carol, Planet 51, Disney's The Princess And The Frog, Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakuel, Arthur and the Vengeance of Maltazard, Old Dogs...
are all coming out between now and December, the most any of them are rated for is some mild language...and I believe that's only with Old Dogs, but I may be mistaken. That's 6 months of movies, not even a whole years worth, I'm reasonably certain I'll find nearly the same amount if I go back and research the first half of 2009.
How often do you need to go to the movies that this isn't enough for you?
If you want an adult story however, you should expect some adult language, now a film need not be rife with it, but it is true in fact, that many, if not most adults in the US swear at least mildly.
>>>"You think I dislike drama because??????"
I didn't say you dislike drama, I was responding to your distaste for specific dramatic content...Foul language, sexual promiscuity, and violence, all of which you noted in your initial post.
Now, about Shakespeare:
you said:
>>>"Last I checked, there's no explicit tits 'n guts in his plays."
First of all, your initial comment wasn't purely about "explicit tits 'n guts." Secondly...
You apparently have never watched and/or understood any work by Shakespeare.
Minor caveat, if your point is now about explicitly showing innards, the only reason we see them now, and not so much then is because we didn't have the technology then to do it. As far as the tits thing goes, actually it depends on the given time period and the given specific society...there have been many times in the history of western civilization that nudity was respected, or simply ignored both onstage and in general public.
Also my point about Shakespeare wasn't strictly about the explicit showing, as your initial argument only mentioned those as a few aspects of your issue, but my argument also includes your marked distaste for "foul language" and "hopping into someone else's bed every other moment."
Let's see...back to Shakespeare
Hamlet - Dad is killed by uncle who starts having sex with his mom. Then Hamlet nearly rapes her. Everybody dies a horrible, bloody, violent death with the possible exception of the little girl who drowned herself.
Romeo and Juliet - lots of kids swearing at each other and derogatorily insulting each other, a 13 year old girl and a teenage boy meet at a party where everybody is trying to get into everyone else's pants...said girl and boy eventually fuck. A not insignificant portion of the cast dies a horrible and violent death with the exception of the titular characters, who die horrible, but not terribly violent deaths.
A Midsummer Night's Dream (a comedy!) - The lovers go into the woods to have sex...and the entire story begins. LOTS of sex, homewrecking, promiscuity, and sexual innuendo, some violence.
Titus Andronicus, Richard II, Macbeth, the list goes on - nope, certainly no foul language, "breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment..." here...well at least not if your willing to close your eyes and plug your ears roughly every 3-4 minutes during each of these plays.
really scary considering how many ppl took their children to see public hangings but didn't want them to take one step into the theater.
Exactly what time period in the history of theater (dramatic arts, where these things primarily occur) were the plays being written not rife with violent and sexual imagery?
You don't know what you are talking about. Art hasn't degenerated in the modern world, it's the same as it ever was.
Spectacle is often a communicative effort.
You know fuck all about art...you think it has a concrete definition.
Don't try throwing credentials at me, I'm a (successful) professional artist as well, as is my partner...it's what we do for a living...I am a working composer, performer, and dramatist, my partner is a working visual artist.
I would tell you immediately the one thing in life you're not going to see agreement on is the definition of "Art." The fact that you try to present one shows your complete ignorance in the subject. The one thing artists successfully do over and over again throughout the ages is destroy whatever definition and rules society tries to hold them to.
"...drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconcieved by the artist."?? What about furniture music?
You also completely missed my point..."drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconceived by the artist." is in fact considered SPECTACLE by just about anybody who didn't like that particular work.
You see deciding something as spectacle or not is a perspective...it's an opinion. Where you see violence or sex simply for their own sakes, others may not...it's not up to you to decide what is art for the rest of the world...now I'm not saying everything out there is good...most of it is crap...but that's the way it always is.
The Rite of Spring caused a riot within the first 3 minutes of it's first performance...people were throwing chairs. It was most certainly considered spectacle by the people who were infuriated by it...now it's considered one of the most important works of the 20th century by composers and dancers alike.
What's really funny, is that we in fact agree for the most part on art in general...I just don't think I'm qualified to judge what is art and isn't...you on the other hand seem to think you can recreate the world in your own fascist image of what should be acceptable and not.
I think you make a good point...
I also however believe that "thinking of the children" should include making them be aware that the world is for and run by adults. They don't need to have their childhood necessarily ripped away, but trying to lull them into some self-entitled, overly-pampered, completely unrealistic understanding of the world- where everyone is special, nobody is ever mean to anyone else, and there's no such thing as sex of any kind, including distinguishing that people have different body parts- simply because they're children is cruel and abusive.
It's not helping the children if we remove everything a parent might not want their child to see from their sight. What helps the children is leaving these things right where they are, and then having a loving parent work to put these things in context for a child so they can begin to understand the world and their place in it more effectively.
There were plenty of films made this year without "constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment."
You make it sound as though we have no choice in Cinema and we shouldn't be allowed variety...this is foolish...there are a great deal of people who aren't particularly offended by such things, they should be allowed to be marketed to by writers and producers.
Also allow me to say one word here in argument to your distaste in dramatic content...
Shakespeare.
Oedipus isn't art then? the works of Shakespeare? The Barber of Seville? The Rite of Spring? The Song of Solomon? These works by and large are not much more than spectacle, particularly to those who lived in the time period they were written.
I know you said "modern" art, but there has always been an extreme violent and sexual side to art throughout western civilization...it's not new...and people have always expressed the opinion you've expressed now...one which clearly shows you don't have a real understanding of what much of art is about.
Art that encompasses violence and sexual imagery usually(not always) has an ontological nature about it, it raises questions about humanity, it raises questions about honesty, and it raises questions about our moral compass (where is it? why is it? should it be there?)...violent and sexual themes aren't necessary in all works (and much of what is available is and always will be "junk" in many people's eyes as you yourself are observing)...but it isn't for you to judge for the rest of us what is and isn't...and most likely, many of the things you consider to be "Art" were considered just as extreme as the works you are criticizing today.
If something doesn't appeal to you, don't play it, watch it, listen to it, etc... but your argument is ignorant.
Much art throughout history was designed simply to provoke, Art is often spectacle.
there is a lot of evidence suggesting that much of the influence regarding sexual preferences has to do with forces that impact the fetus while in the womb. E.g. the more children a woman has, the greater likelihood of each successive child becoming gay...once again however, this is only one of many various aspects (including some possible genetic, not to mention environmental) that may result in homosexuality.
They don't cause physical pain, per se, but I do have to type more slowly, the keys feel more resistant, and my fingers can start to ache if I type for prolonged periods on them. I feel like when I use them I have to stab the keyboard repeatedly with my fingers as opposed to "typing" on it, in order to get the keys to do what I want.
The Fuijitsu FKB4700 series of keyboards (Still my favorite) work on a system similar to the model M, both of which I find refreshing to type on.
The Fujitsu's are still made, but quite a pain to find in the US, so I've finally switched over to Das Keyboard.
Das Keyboard is an interesting alternative, it uses cherry switches instead of catch-spring (If I understand this correctly). It's layout isn't quite as nice as the Fujitsu but it's quite close...and the feel is a significant improvement over the mushy keyboard alternatives.
It is however, even louder than most other audible keyboards.
I read it as insects as well.
if torrent files were used (and often times specifically designed) to murder other people.
The whole point of a legal system/justice dept. is to handle exceptional cases of law...where a set of rules cannot cover every potential circumstance and instance in a way that provides safety and productivity to society.
That being said, I have no stance whatsoever on Bloomberg and I am not anti-gun...just making a point. If there are people out there who want stricter gun control, the legal system has a variety of avenues to pursue this. If those people succeed where the the RIAA/MPAA has failed, it does not mean the government is now somehow in contradiction with itself or flawed.
It means that society saw fit to make an exception...exceptions are in fact what laws and lawsuits and judges and governmental rulings are often about.
In Nazi Germany, global warming Godwins you?
I think my head just exploded.
For the most part, T-cells die off naturally.
People infected with HIV do not have to deal with a problem of too many t-cells, so in this case it's not much of a concern.
Most importantly though, T-cells do not replicate to create more T-cells. They come from a type of lymphocyte starter cell (a stem cell essentially), which reproduces in the bone marrow.
Taking t-cells from your body, and then reintroducing them to your body will not give you leukemia (literally meaning "White Blood", refers to various cancers of white blood cells).
More than likely this is just a test, not *the cure*. The point being to see if the modified t-cells survive long enough to keep the count from dropping (as it would via a normal HIV infection). If it does work, then we can start developing methods to modify bone-marrow in order to make the new t-cells your body creates have the altered gene.
Of course, I'm not an expert, and the article is unfortunately slim on details, so this is basic speculation.
...and the reason Newegg tends to use large boxes is because the majority of items they ship are *LARGE*. They deal in large orders and large items. So you don't get a good deal if you buy a few 1ft cables from them, well whoopey-shit. Those types of orders aren't really their main business.
So in order to better accommodate the small percentage of business that wants to buy small, light, items that make up a relatively insignificant portion of their business, they would need smaller boxes, which means more warehouse space, more cost (buying a variety of bulk items is more expensive than buying only a couple), space for the boxes themselves, more indexing and management, which equals more overhead, etc... and isn't worth it.
You completely missed my point about the retail prices of cables.
The price gouging issue about cables I was talking about is the markup from cost that all retailers do. You know how much BestBuy paid for that $20 usb extension cable they have for sale? about 65 cents...this is true across the board, the MSRP for cables is generally in excess of 600-1000% I'm not talking about Newegg vs. amazon vs some local store cable prices, I'm talking about retailer cost to MSRP, the markup is INSANE.
That's what I was referring to there.
If you'd like to keep playing the comparing shipping prices game, let's talk about the 30 pound, steel antec case I just bought from newegg and paid $19 dollars in shipping for. Most other places were doing shipping at around $30+
Are you starting to understand how this works yet?
I agree that the shipping prices are exorbitantly high for extremely small and light items (in fact, that was my original point), but once again, what I am telling you is that this is not uncommon. Especially for mail-order houses that specialize in large items and large bulk sales.
Newegg isn't some evil company trying to reclaim all of their profits by overcharging you for shipping...setting a price (especially for an automated system) for shipping on especially small or light items can actually be quite difficult depending on what types of orders your store is really designed for.
So you found somebody who will make you a good deal on a bunch of 1 foot cables...great! Bully for you! But you're going to find a significant number of items from newegg (particularly larger, heavier items) that have lower cost than smaller mail-order stores, both in shipping, and in actual item price. The system is imbalanced, I agree, but Newegg isn't the devil...it's just the way it is.
I would also like to point out, that you aren't comparing equal shipping terms, Newegg uses 3-day shipping, for monoprice.com to do 3-day shipping, the cost is $9.95, not ~$2
Quit accusing me of working for Newegg, that's just stupid. I always believe you should shop around for every product you want to purchase online, but blanket statements about Newegg's shipping are unrealistic because the pricing varies depending upon a number of factors that you aren't taking into consideration.
There's nothing dishonest about my argument BTW, which you've taken out of context with that quote...my argument was that the cost of shipping per item goes down if you buy more than one...and it does at Newegg, and pretty much anywhere else.
The "OMG!! I found a fan that they have a really high shipping charge for therefore everything they do is overpriced and designed to rip you off!" is baed off of entirely circumstantial, specious evidence, and is really, honestly, stupid.
Shopping around is always a good thing, you're never going to find one single store that has the best price on everything. Be an intelligent shopper, but don't accuse a retailer who moves big numbers of large, bulky computer hardware in the majority of their orders of being fraudulent because their shipping is high on a single cable...that's just dumb...the shipping is high because their system isn't really set up for it...they will more than make up for it with shipping and handling fees of other equipment.