Many libertarians like the idea of using "property rights" to restrict freedom (you can't walk across this land because I "own" it, you can't punch me in the face because I "own" it, etc.). Of course, that means that rich people have a greater ability to restrict other people's freedom than poor people.
Pretty much every major system of government has the result that rich people have a greater ability to restrict other peoples' freedom than poor people.
The only counterexamples I can think of would be the idealized/never-implemented pure Communism. The system of government helps determine who becomes rich, to some extent.
I agree, the mutant registration was puffed up to be this big bad thing, but really, it's not unlike registering a firearm, and requiring that people walking around with guns have at least had some training in how to properly handle a gun, in order to prevent harm to themselves and to others. Even gun control activists would agree that proper firearms training is essential.
I think that the main reason the opposition to the mutant registration thing comes up is that it would be the end of the "secret identity." Heroes would be unable to have ANY kind of family because their family members would be prime targets for villains, state actors, crazies, etc, as shown repeatedly in the comics. This isn't something that firearms owners have to worry about.
What happened right after Spider-Man revealed his secret identity? Someone shot Aunt May. (Then one of the more ill-conceived ret-cons happened, but that's a different story..)
Also, in the fictional Marvel Universe, there's pretty much no such thing as a database that won't be compromised/leaked/etc. Everyone knows that an evildoer will find the database, leak it, and everyone's secrets will be out in the open, irrevocably. No government agency, be it SHIELD or something else, can stand against the determined super-villains of the Marvel Universe. I suppose you could make that case in the real world too, that no state actors (or hell, private companies) can be trusted with information that shouldn't be public.
I think he's not so much using X-Men (I think the mutant registration thing was Days of Future Past, which wasn't even that good of an arc)
It wasn't? Days of Future Past is commonly cited among comic readers as being among the very top, if not the #1 X-Men story ever published. Days of Future Past, Dark Phoenix Saga, and Age of Apocalypse seem to be the most well regarded.
It didn't revolve around the Mutant Registration Act though. I mean, a Mutant Control Act was mentioned once as something that would happen in the future, but the story arcs that dealt with the Registration Act came around in the mid-to-late '80s (Freedom Force, etc) with references to the Act mostly disappearing after the departure of Chris Claremont. Then Civil War happened..
And I'm sure you could go down to Sturgis and find a couple adults that have gotten into a motorcycle accident at 60 mph with no helmet and walked away because they landed in a lake, or something.
Yup, and it would still be valid data...
Would you take those two anecdotes and say that getting in a 60 mph bike accident with no helmet is no big whoop?
... but not enough of a sample to draw valid results.
Is there an article available that details this? wikiindex is pretty vague; I'd be interested in finding out just what pages were censored and if there's discussion about it on tvtropes.
1. Why do you think people who have sex deserve less protection?
If you're about to have sex with someone, you deserve to know if they have a deadly disease. But not before. Before that, it's none of your business.
2. You can catch HIV/AIDS from someone without having sex
Yes, but it requires actual action on their part to spread it and there's no vaccine to get rid of the disease or prevent its transmission. It doesn't just spread by itself, like the Measles or Mumps or Chicken Pox or the Flu.
What advantage does "Virtual DVD" provide over the existing streaming technology?
I kindof like the idea because I really like the extras that come with movies, the making-ofs, the commentary tracks, features, that you'll never find with netflix/hulu/amazon/etc.
"Why don't the studios let Netflix stream the titles that it currently only offers by physical DVD, for some amount of money that could be split between the studios and Netflix?"
Ah, and... I suppose, to follow up from my previous response.. An answer is "the studios feel like they got screwed by the current dvd rental situation from Netflix." They don't want to set another precedent going forward.
Netflix comes up with a fair number of good ideas that consumers want but the people with control will never go for. Unlimited streaming for a flat rate, for instance. Or putting caching servers in Comcast's data centers to reduce the load streaming video has on peering points. Etc.
OK, but then why sell physical DVDs in a cooperative agreement to Netflix at all
Because they can charge $20 - $30 for those, and people like me will buy them. As long as that market exists, it's still the more profitable one. That's 3-6 streams worth of revenue right there, and the hardware and software to support it is pretty ubiquitous, unlike the streaming situation which is a total mess. The studios right now are panicing because the DVD market is on the wane, and they rightly see streaming as the future. Even though they made tons of money with DVDs, they don't like how the DVD situation went down -- they want absolute control over how you watch a movie and they want pay per view. They believe that keeping control is the key to greater profits. For the studios, control is more important than short-term profits.
isn't that also undermining their sales of streams?
I asked a media executive a similar question once when the whole 3D thing came around several years ago. He mentioned that 3D movies were a great way to get people back into the theater, and shortly after mentioned that they were working to make the best 3D Blu-Rays for home theater afficionados. I asked if they weren't building up one thing but then cutting it down with another, and he responded (paraphrased) that they weren't above shooting themselves in the foot.
They can do the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.
The funny thing is that even though Han says this the Imperial fleet routinely sticks with the Millenium Falcon and keeps engaged in combat with it through all three movies, even though that statement implies the ship is supposed to be "fast".
I think it's reasonable to believe that Han was just blustering and trying to get them on board. It was a reaction to Leia's dismayed "what a piece of junk!" It was a sell job.
B) he had all the required maintenance performed on the vehicle
I'll go ahead and postulate that there are thousands, probably millions of drivers on the road today who wouldn't be able to afford that high-end maintenance.
Or he might be an international observer, to whom the American "left" seems rather far to the right of what they would normally consider the left wing, or even the center for that matter.
Only by the standards of (some) left-leaning European countries. Most of the rest of the world is not as liberal.
If you thought what Comcast costs for a service is outrageous just wait until you have to pay a government for the same service. Believe me, corporations are amateurs when it comes to fleecing the people for as much as you cry about lobbyists and such.
I don't think there would be that much of a change; Comcast is in its current position because they are granted government monopoly. There are much fewer market forces brought to bear on Comcast than your average company. Both it and a government entity would be good at charging lots of money, but the government entity would have mission to increase quality and lower rates.
Myself, I'd quite appreciate if lines (especially last-mile) were government-owned, and then ISPs were free-market companies with equal line access.
My understanding of the Big Bang Theory, from Hawking's books, is that the theory doesn't try to address what came before the big bang. Or what set it in motion. How how this something came from nothing or if there was a "nothing."
All it attempts to explain is, once it starts, how does it proceed?
BRIGHT LIGHTS! BIG EXPLOSIONS! VULCANS THAT HAS FEELS!
It seems that over time people have forgotten quite a few things about Vulcans and Spock. Here's what's been canon for thirty years:
First, Spock is not Vulcan. He's half-Vulcan, half-human. Second, Vulcans do not have an absence of feelings. In fact, it was established that Vulcans can have STRONGER emotions than humans, but they train to suppress and purge those feelings. Way back in Star Trek: the Motion Picture (an event that would been long after the events of the Abrams movies) Spock was shown going through a ceremony that would have purged the last of his emotions.. but it was interrupted, and the priestess declared that he still had human emotions.
So the whole "spock can still have emotions" thing doesn't contradict what was already established. Spock still has a lot of work to do to attain Kolinahr.
The sequels also sucked because they were worse than the original is just about every possible way except for CGI
I would say the CGI does not necessarily make for a better special effect. The space battles in Return of the Jedi and the models they used looked more authentic than anything in the prequels, and the choreography was head and shoulders better.
Physical R2D2? He looks fine. CG R2, especially when he starts flying around and spitting oil and nonsense like that? Looked terrible.
Where does it stop? When is a person permitted to have a normal life after doing something wrong? When did any specific individual in society become the arbiter for who should and shouldn't be allowed to build a stable life?
That's entirely up to the singular individuals involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Bobby Knight will be the new head coach. Imagine Knight and Ballmer as tag-team chair throwers.
This needs to be a side-scrolling video games. Knight and Ballmer as bad guys, rapid-fire-throwing chairs.
Many libertarians like the idea of using "property rights" to restrict freedom (you can't walk across this land because I "own" it, you can't punch me in the face because I "own" it, etc.). Of course, that means that rich people have a greater ability to restrict other people's freedom than poor people.
Pretty much every major system of government has the result that rich people have a greater ability to restrict other peoples' freedom than poor people.
The only counterexamples I can think of would be the idealized/never-implemented pure Communism. The system of government helps determine who becomes rich, to some extent.
Sometimes having an opinion to share is the point.
That's also precisely the reason why there's a -1, Redundant moderation.
I agree, the mutant registration was puffed up to be this big bad thing, but really, it's not unlike registering a firearm, and requiring that people walking around with guns have at least had some training in how to properly handle a gun, in order to prevent harm to themselves and to others. Even gun control activists would agree that proper firearms training is essential.
I think that the main reason the opposition to the mutant registration thing comes up is that it would be the end of the "secret identity." Heroes would be unable to have ANY kind of family because their family members would be prime targets for villains, state actors, crazies, etc, as shown repeatedly in the comics. This isn't something that firearms owners have to worry about.
What happened right after Spider-Man revealed his secret identity? Someone shot Aunt May. (Then one of the more ill-conceived ret-cons happened, but that's a different story..)
Also, in the fictional Marvel Universe, there's pretty much no such thing as a database that won't be compromised/leaked/etc. Everyone knows that an evildoer will find
the database, leak it, and everyone's secrets will be out in the open, irrevocably. No government agency, be it SHIELD or something else, can stand against the determined super-villains of the Marvel Universe. I suppose you could make that case in the real world too, that no state actors (or hell, private companies) can be trusted with information that shouldn't be public.
Gawker.com posted an editorial saying how the government should arrest Global Warming deniers
Yeah, but no one reasonable pays that guy any heed. I don't think that's a good comparison, though overall your point is valid.
I think he's not so much using X-Men (I think the mutant registration thing was Days of Future Past, which wasn't even that good of an arc)
It wasn't? Days of Future Past is commonly cited among comic readers as being among the very top, if not the #1 X-Men story ever published. Days of Future Past, Dark Phoenix Saga, and Age of Apocalypse seem to be the most well regarded.
It didn't revolve around the Mutant Registration Act though. I mean, a Mutant Control Act was mentioned once as something that would happen in the future, but the story arcs that dealt with the Registration Act came around in the mid-to-late '80s (Freedom Force, etc) with references to the Act mostly disappearing after the departure of Chris Claremont. Then Civil War happened..
And I'm sure you could go down to Sturgis and find a couple adults that have gotten into a motorcycle accident at 60 mph with no helmet and walked away because they landed in a lake, or something.
Yup, and it would still be valid data...
Would you take those two anecdotes and say that getting in a 60 mph bike accident with no helmet is no big whoop?
... but not enough of a sample to draw valid results.
Is there an article available that details this? wikiindex is pretty vague; I'd be interested in finding out just what pages were censored and if there's discussion about it on tvtropes.
Ok, I may regret wanting to know this, but... just what is "tacosnotting?"
1. Why do you think people who have sex deserve less protection?
If you're about to have sex with someone, you deserve to know if they have a deadly disease. But not before. Before that, it's none of your business.
2. You can catch HIV/AIDS from someone without having sex
Yes, but it requires actual action on their part to spread it and there's no vaccine to get rid of the disease or prevent its transmission. It doesn't just spread by itself, like the Measles or Mumps or Chicken Pox or the Flu.
What advantage does "Virtual DVD" provide over the existing streaming technology?
I kindof like the idea because I really like the extras that come with movies, the making-ofs, the commentary tracks, features, that you'll never find with netflix/hulu/amazon/etc.
"Why don't the studios let Netflix stream the titles that it currently only offers by physical DVD, for some amount of money that could be split between the studios and Netflix?"
Ah, and... I suppose, to follow up from my previous response..
An answer is "the studios feel like they got screwed by the current dvd rental situation from Netflix." They don't want to set another precedent going forward.
ob: this never occurred to anybody at Netflix...
Netflix comes up with a fair number of good ideas that consumers want but the people with control will never go for. Unlimited streaming for a flat rate, for instance. Or putting caching servers in Comcast's data centers to reduce the load streaming video has on peering points. Etc.
OK, but then why sell physical DVDs in a cooperative agreement to Netflix at all
Because they can charge $20 - $30 for those, and people like me will buy them. As long as that market exists, it's still the more profitable one. That's 3-6 streams worth of revenue right there, and the hardware and software to support it is pretty ubiquitous, unlike the streaming situation which is a total mess. The studios right now are panicing because the DVD market is on the wane, and they rightly see streaming as the future. Even though they made tons of money with DVDs, they don't like how the DVD situation went down -- they want absolute control over how you watch a movie and they want pay per view. They believe that keeping control is the key to greater profits. For the studios, control is more important than short-term profits.
isn't that also undermining their sales of streams?
I asked a media executive a similar question once when the whole 3D thing came around several years ago. He mentioned that 3D movies were a great way to get people back into the theater, and shortly after mentioned that they were working to make the best 3D Blu-Rays for home theater afficionados. I asked if they weren't building up one thing but then cutting it down with another, and he responded (paraphrased) that they weren't above shooting themselves in the foot.
The funny thing is that even though Han says this the Imperial fleet routinely sticks with the Millenium Falcon and keeps engaged in combat with it through all three movies, even though that statement implies the ship is supposed to be "fast".
I think it's reasonable to believe that Han was just blustering and trying to get them on board. It was a reaction to Leia's dismayed "what a piece of junk!"
It was a sell job.
I specifically states that:
B) he had all the required maintenance performed on the vehicle
I'll go ahead and postulate that there are thousands, probably millions of drivers on the road today who wouldn't be able to afford that high-end maintenance.
Reid is a Democrat!!!
That's why the original poster called him a DINO - Democrat In Name Only.
Or he might be an international observer, to whom the American "left" seems rather far to the right of what they would normally consider the left wing, or even the center for that matter.
Only by the standards of (some) left-leaning European countries. Most of the rest of the world is not as liberal.
If you thought what Comcast costs for a service is outrageous just wait until you have to pay a government for the same service. Believe me, corporations are amateurs when it comes to fleecing the people for as much as you cry about lobbyists and such.
I don't think there would be that much of a change; Comcast is in its current position because they are granted government monopoly. There are much fewer market forces brought to bear on Comcast than your average company. Both it and a government entity would be good at charging lots of money, but the government entity would have mission to increase quality and lower rates.
Myself, I'd quite appreciate if lines (especially last-mile) were government-owned, and then ISPs were free-market companies with equal line access.
My understanding of the Big Bang Theory, from Hawking's books, is that the theory doesn't try to address what came before the big bang. Or what set it in motion. How how this something came from nothing or if there was a "nothing."
All it attempts to explain is, once it starts, how does it proceed?
The earth-shattering kaboom will launch Australia off into deep space. I'm looking forward to the movie!
BRIGHT LIGHTS! BIG EXPLOSIONS! VULCANS THAT HAS FEELS!
It seems that over time people have forgotten quite a few things about Vulcans and Spock. Here's what's been canon for thirty years:
First, Spock is not Vulcan. He's half-Vulcan, half-human.
Second, Vulcans do not have an absence of feelings. In fact, it was established that Vulcans can have STRONGER emotions than humans, but they train to suppress and purge those feelings. Way back in Star Trek: the Motion Picture (an event that would been long after the events of the Abrams movies) Spock was shown going through a ceremony that would have purged the last of his emotions.. but it was interrupted, and the priestess declared that he still had human emotions.
So the whole "spock can still have emotions" thing doesn't contradict what was already established. Spock still has a lot of work to do to attain Kolinahr.
The sequels also sucked because they were worse than the original is just about every possible way except for CGI
I would say the CGI does not necessarily make for a better special effect. The space battles in Return of the Jedi and the models they used looked more authentic than anything in the prequels, and the choreography was head and shoulders better.
Physical R2D2? He looks fine. CG R2, especially when he starts flying around and spitting oil and nonsense like that? Looked terrible.
The Franklin Cover-up was a hoax. Repeated investigations were conducted and no evidence was found.
Where does it stop? When is a person permitted to have a normal life after doing something wrong? When did any specific individual in society become the arbiter for who should and shouldn't be allowed to build a stable life?
That's entirely up to the singular individuals involved.