I'm a privacy rights advocate. I have an unlisted number. For some reason, switchboard.com has my number listed with an old address. Don't know where they got it from.
Additionally, there is no opt out clause on their page. AND, there's a link at the bottom of the page that says "click here for sales leads, mailing lists, and business credit reports."
Looks like its time for me to move and change my number again.
Come on! I don't see how Metallica can actually prove that these users deserve to be banned.
I for one, trade metallica songs frequently over napster. At last check i had 140 different Metallica songs on mp3 (read: over 700 MB).
But you know what? Every single one of those songs were obtained legally since I own every Metallica album and several European imports (which if the RIAA gets their way with the DMCA would probably be rendered illegal as well).
But since I own the CD that all of my metallica mp3s came from (hell I ripped 'em myself) I'm completely blameless.
I'm assuming that everyone who I share files with is also complying with this law and also have the albums before they get the mp3.
But simply trading an mp3 over napster does NOT immdediately imply guilt, that is, unless you believe the RIAA's schlock about *all* digital copying onto your computer as being illegal.
*sigh*
The kicker to all of this is the fact that CD sales went up 20% last year! If Napster was *that* big of a threat, don't you think that number wouldn't be so high?
For the simple US/Canada only beta, there were over 139,000 requests for betas.
Now multiply this by the entire world. Ok so maybe 1/1000 was a bit much, but anybody who's played any of blizzard's games online knows how wacko those Koreans are for online games (starcraft sold over 1 million copies in Korea alone).
A few have listed doubts as to what a "valid email" address means in the eligibility requirements... One of the persistent rumors is that anonymous emails will not be accepted. Check this out from Blizzard... What "valid e-mail" means is that if we can type it in the "To:" field of the e-mail and not have it bounce back to us as a "unknown recipient" or a "this user does not exist" error message. A valid e-mail would look something like: username@domain.net It doesn't matter if it is POP based or web-based, as long as you can send and recieve from that e-mailbox, you should be fine. Basically, since we are mailing out the access codes via e-mail, if you don't have an e-mail address that works you won't be able to get your access code leading to you not being able to play."
Unfortunately, another persistent rumor is that with 100,000 betas being released, that you have a better chance than the original (with only 1000 released) to get in onthe action. Your odds for the first beta were 1/139 of winning. The estimated odds for this beta will be somewhere around 1/1000. Sorry guys. We probably won't be in on this one either.
What scares me so much about all of this is that *if* napster loses these suits, how long before "artists" (read: money hungry corporate sellouts) start sueing other internet utilities like ICQ (I know i've traded hundreds of mp3's over icq) and IRC. We've got to stop this nonsense now before it gets really out of hand!
I've lived in Illinois for the last ten years and have been active in the local political scene.
This "news blackout" of crime activity is nothing new. I live in a medium sized north western Illinois city and, while crime in the area has been on an INCREDIBLE upsurge over the past several years, media coverage has been almost nil.
Many of my friends are officers on the police force and have informed me of many drug busts and police raids that have been occurring in the area. Yet no news!
This is an outrage. I'm relieved to find out that it has come to the attention of slashdot.
While I cannot speak on this new policy of a statewide blackout of crime coverage, many of my police friends have pointed out that politicians have been directly behind this. Our Mayor doesn't want his citizens to know how truly dangerous it has become to walk out on the streets after dark.
I just wish there was something more I could do...
They should patent this technology immediately along with any and all research related to the technology so they can be the sole proprietors of this brave new world.
Jack Jack Jack... What ever are we (the consumer--you know...the people who buy products from the people you supposedly represent) to do in a situation such as this?
Not only have you managed to circumvent the Bill of Rights (most specifically the First Amendment, but you have managed to do so by dangerously distorting terminology so that even someone such as myself (who knows a great deal about the legalese behind this case) was a little confused after reading your article.
You begin your article of confusion by stating If you cannot protect that which you own, you own nothing. Yet I am confused as to who the "you" is in this statement. Obviously not the consumer. The MPAA has shown virtually no personal regard whatsoever when it has come to the people's ownership of their own property. This lawsuit is a blatant defamation of fair use as determined by the BetaMax decision of 1983.
Of course I havn't even addressed the atrocities that occurred with the search and seizure of Jon Johansen's computer and cell phone, among other emnities. There are more problems with this than could even be listed in this letter. Here are a few key issues: 1)How does California state law dictate that which occurs in Europe? 2) Why persecute someone who did not even create the code or crack your weak encryption...all he did was post the DeCSS code. 3) The DeCSS code was created LEGALLY under the Digital Millenium Act, as ironic as that sounds. 4) Cracking the Encryption is not necessary to pirate DVDs and the MPAA has been quite complacent in regards to Hong Kong piracy for some time.
Finally, Mr. Valenti, I must say that given these severe atrocities, abuses of authority, and just plain ignorance of technology and fair useage, I have no other choice than to encourage a boycott of all of the studios mentioned in your suit. I have been an avid cinema-goer for nearly 30 years now, review cinema for various web and news publications, and have some clout with a fair amount of readers. Until the MPAA shows some semblance of sense, you will not hear the last of me.
Seems to me that if companies can patent something as simple as an algorithm (Amazon) somebody must find the electronic realm important. One could logically deduce that email is likewise important... unless that is you have been chosen to either create the laws or ejudicate the laws of this country, in which case you must be inherantly ignorant in matters of electronic knowhow.
Perhaps if somebody tried to patent email... Naah...never happen.
So does this mean that my daily traffic 'copter I listen to on the way to work will become obsolete?
How entirely accurate could this be? This based on the errant assumption that all the traffic on the highways consists of yuppie puppies yacking away while driving (which is illegal in many urban areas--cell phoning while driving...not yuppies)...
Why not just stick with the good ole' traffic copters?
Hmmm...wonder how long it will take for lobbyists to rally and Capitol Hill to pass legislation declaring these things hazardous and detrimental to the future of our societal evolution and our children's children's children.
= ) I can see the headlines now: Suburban Man Victim in Drive-by Squirting
It has been known for quite some time now that the Darwin awards are completely fake.
In fact, you can't even call them "creative fiction" since nearly all the so called award winning stories are basically modified versions of Urban Legends. If, in fact these were actually true stories, don't you think we might hear about one of them once in a while on a news report. Some of these are incredibly bizarre and would be "newsworthy" if at least for some sort of sound bite or segway for todays braindead media.
I can see it now: Man Dies In Freak Gasoline Toilet Incident
Selective breeding is thouands of years old, far predating our knowledge of genetics.
Well, in evolution and nature...yes. In agriculture? No. Selective breeding in agriculture wasn't utilized or fully understood until the agricultural boom around the early 1700's. Hell, the entire agricultural revolution was kicked into motion due to the impact of selective breeding...that and the mechanical reaper.
The world's population keeps growing because farmers keep increasing production. Every species increases population in the presence of food surpluses.
I declare slippery slope, Mr. Slippery! The world's population keeps growing because underdeveloped countries feel the need to reproduce unchecked. Developed nations such as the US and most of Europe have maintained relatively constant populations (with the exception of the influx of immigrants to the US of course) for nigh onto 25 years. If your theory held correct, then the US's steady surplus of food would have resulted in a skyrocketting population growth.
Yet, the US of A has held roughly around 270 million since the early seventies. While countries such as India, China, and Ethiopia (where they've never had enough food for the populace) have increased at PHENOMINAL rates.
Even putting that aside, unsustainable agricultural methods only delay, not prevent, population overtaking food production - and by allowing population to grow in the meantime they could create a greater disaster.
Finally, you say something that makes sense. Unfortunately, you are arguing my point!! If you would have actually read my entire post rather than picking and choosing which paragraph fragments you wanted to argue and disagree with, you would have noticed my points at the end which voice this claim.
WE the consumers of this planet have backed ourselves into a corner. WE are the ones who continue to eat insane quantities of meat (and in the process waste crops that could be feeding people by feeding animals instead) and WE are the ones who continue to reproduce uncontrollably. (sure I didn't actually come and spell it out for you, but it was all there between-the-lines)
This has nothing to do with the farmers or our food production and, in fact, your attitude of blaming our predicament on one demographic group is indicative of the general populace's apathy and unconcern for this global epidemic.
Nothin' but love.
--the snake
If I were Jon Katz I would...
on
The Timekeeper
·
· Score: 1
It's ok, since he's been clinically dead for about 4 years. Him and Keith Richards both.
Actually, this is somewhat scary...they go from Nobel winning Gorby to alcoholic Yeltsin to...who knows what next. All before Y2k...maybe he knows something we don't. Probably not...
Oh brother. Here we go again. Seems to me that, historically, whenever brand-spanking-new technology is introduced, it is viewed incredibly negatively and is usually predicted to surely signify the "beginning of the end" for us (collectively speaking).
Think about it. In the mid-1800's the advent of the steam engine, or "loco"-motive would certainly (and eventually did) spell doom for the frontier...and without the existence of the frontier, the American economy would flounder into oblivion, thus signalling the end of the "American Way of Life."
...or not.
Then it was the introduction of barbed wire ("devil's wire") that would spell certain doom for cattle ranchers. If there were no cattle ranchers, nobody would raise dairy products and urban areas would be without a significant source of food. ...or not.
Let's not forget the advent of the American Industrial Revolution...which allegedly made tasks so simple (and laborers so replaceable) that learned trades would become obsolete and the entire American society would be at the evil whims of greedy corporations. Ok, so maybe that one did come true. ; )
Other technological advancements that would supposedly spell doom: automated-computer assembly lines (e.g. auto manufacturers), atomic energy, laser technology, and the internet (remember THAT one?).
But it seems that we've always been especially susceptible to claims when technology is suspected of tainting OUR food. Perhaps we forget that techniques, which are now standard to nearly every farmer (such as selective breeding and hybridization, which was originally labelled as "genetic manipulation", or "playing God") were originally considered taboo.
Bottom line: We as a societal whole have backed ourselves into this corner. If farmers don't begin looking to technological advancements in crop production, our food supply is going to be incredibly short in the next few years, if the world population keeps growing at its current rate. In fact, if it weren't for existing technological advancements, we would right now be in the middle of a global famine! The US has taken upon itself the task of feeding the entire world. In fact, entire countries are at our mercy for grain supply (Japan, for instance), so if our crop production doesn't continue to improve (with, if I may add, less farm land each year due to increased urbanization) not only will we experience a food shortage, but so will many other countries who are not agriculturally dependent!!
Something else to consider: according to this article, the EPA had approved of many of the so called Genetic Engineering prodedures. Anybody who has dealt with the EPA knows that if there ever was a paranoid and anal-retentive Government agency, it was the EPA. They yearn to shut down industries who don't meet acceptible norms in the realm of "environmental protection". I'm willing to trust their judgement on this one.
I do agree, however, that people should still be given a choice, and should at least have a choice of "organic" or "synthetic". I just think that the evils of this new technology have been greatly over reported and exaggerated.
I find it humorous that Katz would make a statement such as this. In fact, I found nearly *everything* Katz said in his "review" humorous.
Allow me to explain. Judging from Katz's comments of Kaufman, it would seem that he has fallen into the same trap that Kaufman critics have been falling into for years...and would also lead me to believe that he didn't *really* pay that close attention to the film (Man *IN* the Moon???)
"...he became obsessed with pushing the boundaries..." Became? It would appear to me (after having actually watched the film) that Andy was obsessed with pushing the boundaries of what people would accept way back when he was a child, performing to the wall.
"He taunted women, working-class whites, and Southerners in particular, constantly challenging his audience to figure out what was a joke and what wasn't." Hmmm...doesn't really sound *any* different than what any of the scripted bad guys say and do on every episode of WWF RAW. Yet you don't hear Katz whining about any of those guys. In fact, I found Kaufman very reminiscent of the modern professional wrestlers...if not the predecessor. Katz doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between one of Kaufman's characters (in this case his wrestling persona) and that of the "real andy kaufman."
"They overwhelmingly voted to kick him out..." Poor Katz. Kaufman was only "overwhelmingly kicked out" in the movie. In real life, the vote was much closer. Andy lost 195,544 to 169,186.
"Although he was wildly popular on 'Taxi' as the odd-sounding 'Latke...'" Uh...its LATKA!
"Kaufman flirted with various meditative and holistic groups and practices, none of which did him any good when he was diagnosed as having a fatal form of lung cancer. "
This sentence irritated me more than the rest of Katz's "review" did. Flirted? Kaufman was incredibly serious about his transcendental practices...even the movie was clear in showing how hurt Kaufman was when he was asked to leave the group. None of his practices did him any good? Maybe it was because by the time his cancer was detected it was incurable and, in fact, not even modern medicine was of any use to Andy. Mr. Katz, its one thing to attack a movie or a character in a movie, its another thing entirely to attack the personal choices of Kaufman. As I alluded to earlier, its almost as if Katz didn't even pay attention (or watch it at all...) He could have told us specifically why the movie was one of the best of the year, but instead he merely tells us generic examples of how he believes Carrey to be better than Kaufman.
That said, I still don't see how watching a movie gives Katz poetic license (or any license whatsoever) to criticize the real Kaufman's religious/spiritual choices.
What I'd like to know is "why?" Why this and why now?
If ever South Park was a hot commodity, it was about 2 years ago before they managed to piss off most of their die-hard fans with the whole Terrance and Phillip debacle (remember that episode? It was *supposed* to be the "who is Cartman's Father" episode).
Certainly this is odd timing what with the dismal display of the South Park movie, which grossed *far* less than most predictions...and even failed to be all that funny. Did anybody think all of the anal-rape jokes were even remotely funny or necessary?
It just seems like an odd move for shockwave since the South Park creators have never really been able to do anything right outside of the occasional funny South Park episode. (Remember Orgazmo or Baseketball?) I rest my case.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a privacy rights advocate.
I have an unlisted number.
For some reason, switchboard.com has my number listed with an old address. Don't know where they got it from.
Additionally, there is no opt out clause on their page. AND, there's a link at the bottom of the page that says "click here for sales leads, mailing lists, and business credit reports."
Looks like its time for me to move and change my number again.
= )
Come on! I don't see how Metallica can actually prove that these users deserve to be banned.
I for one, trade metallica songs frequently over napster. At last check i had 140 different Metallica songs on mp3 (read: over 700 MB).
But you know what? Every single one of those songs were obtained legally since I own every Metallica album and several European imports (which if the RIAA gets their way with the DMCA would probably be rendered illegal as well).
But since I own the CD that all of my metallica mp3s came from (hell I ripped 'em myself) I'm completely blameless.
I'm assuming that everyone who I share files with is also complying with this law and also have the albums before they get the mp3.
But simply trading an mp3 over napster does NOT immdediately imply guilt, that is, unless you believe the RIAA's schlock about *all* digital copying onto your computer as being illegal.
*sigh*
The kicker to all of this is the fact that CD sales went up 20% last year! If Napster was *that* big of a threat, don't you think that number wouldn't be so high?
For the simple US/Canada only beta, there were over 139,000 requests for betas.
Now multiply this by the entire world.
Ok so maybe 1/1000 was a bit much, but anybody who's played any of blizzard's games online knows how wacko those Koreans are for online games (starcraft sold over 1 million copies in Korea alone).
But the odds probably won't be any better.
A few have listed doubts as to what a "valid email" address means in the eligibility requirements...
One of the persistent rumors is that anonymous emails will not be accepted.
Check this out from Blizzard...
What "valid e-mail" means is that if we can type it in the "To:" field of the e-mail and not have it bounce back to us as a "unknown recipient" or a "this user does not exist" error message. A valid e-mail would look something like: username@domain.net It doesn't matter if it is POP based or web-based, as long as you can send and recieve from that e-mailbox, you should be fine. Basically, since we are mailing out the access codes via e-mail, if you don't have an e-mail address that works you won't be able to get your access code leading to you not being able to play."
Unfortunately, another persistent rumor is that with 100,000 betas being released, that you have a better chance than the original (with only 1000 released) to get in onthe action. Your odds for the first beta were 1/139 of winning.
The estimated odds for this beta will be somewhere around 1/1000. Sorry guys. We probably won't be in on this one either.
What scares me so much about all of this is that *if* napster loses these suits, how long before "artists" (read: money hungry corporate sellouts) start sueing other internet utilities like ICQ (I know i've traded hundreds of mp3's over icq) and IRC.
We've got to stop this nonsense now before it gets really out of hand!
I ever said about Jon. He might have a chance of scoring before he dies after all.
I've lived in Illinois for the last ten years and have been active in the local political scene.
This "news blackout" of crime activity is nothing new. I live in a medium sized north western Illinois city and, while crime in the area has been on an INCREDIBLE upsurge over the past several years, media coverage has been almost nil.
Many of my friends are officers on the police force and have informed me of many drug busts and police raids that have been occurring in the area.
Yet no news!
This is an outrage. I'm relieved to find out that it has come to the attention of slashdot.
While I cannot speak on this new policy of a statewide blackout of crime coverage, many of my police friends have pointed out that politicians have been directly behind this. Our Mayor doesn't want his citizens to know how truly dangerous it has become to walk out on the streets after dark.
I just wish there was something more I could do...
...that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Maybe I'm just skeptical as hell, but I couldn't help but notice that this is highly improbable as well as the fact that it *is* April 1st.
*shrug*
...dat massah Timothy eesa waitin' fer deesa Phantom Menace toosa come oot onsa video tape.
What the hell is this guys? As if hemos's earlier pidgin post wasn't enfuriating enough, now Timothy has gotta get in on the act too??
what the hell?
They should patent this technology immediately along with any and all research related to the technology so they can be the sole proprietors of this brave new world.
*sigh*
Grand idea, ole chap. Streaming web-jukebox.
Somebody should get on that pronto.
What? Mp3.com already has?
Allright, lets commend those guys!
What? They're being sued?
Hmph
Jack Jack Jack...
What ever are we (the consumer--you know...the people who buy products from the people you supposedly represent) to do in a situation such as this?
Not only have you managed to circumvent the Bill of Rights (most specifically the First Amendment, but you have managed to do so by dangerously distorting terminology so that even someone such as myself (who knows a great deal about the legalese behind this case) was a little confused after reading your article.
You begin your article of confusion by stating If you cannot protect that which you own, you own nothing.
Yet I am confused as to who the "you" is in this statement. Obviously not the consumer. The MPAA has shown virtually no personal regard whatsoever when it has come to the people's ownership of their own property.
This lawsuit is a blatant defamation of fair use as determined by the BetaMax decision of 1983.
Of course I havn't even addressed the atrocities that occurred with the search and seizure of Jon Johansen's computer and cell phone, among other emnities.
There are more problems with this than could even be listed in this letter.
Here are a few key issues:
1)How does California state law dictate that which occurs in Europe?
2) Why persecute someone who did not even create the code or crack your weak encryption...all he did was post the DeCSS code.
3) The DeCSS code was created LEGALLY under the Digital Millenium Act, as ironic as that sounds.
4) Cracking the Encryption is not necessary to pirate DVDs and the MPAA has been quite complacent in regards to Hong Kong piracy for some time.
Finally, Mr. Valenti, I must say that given these severe atrocities, abuses of authority, and just plain ignorance of technology and fair useage, I have no other choice than to encourage a boycott of all of the studios mentioned in your suit.
I have been an avid cinema-goer for nearly 30 years now, review cinema for various web and news publications, and have some clout with a fair amount of readers.
Until the MPAA shows some semblance of sense, you will not hear the last of me.
Humbly,
Valeria Fiorenza
Seems to me that if companies can patent something as simple as an algorithm (Amazon) somebody must find the electronic realm important. One could logically deduce that email is likewise important...
unless that is you have been chosen to either create the laws or ejudicate the laws of this country, in which case you must be inherantly ignorant in matters of electronic knowhow.
Perhaps if somebody tried to patent email...
Naah...never happen.
--snake
So does this mean that my daily traffic 'copter I listen to on the way to work will become obsolete?
How entirely accurate could this be? This based on the errant assumption that all the traffic on the highways consists of yuppie puppies yacking away while driving (which is illegal in many urban areas--cell phoning while driving...not yuppies)...
Why not just stick with the good ole' traffic copters?
--snake
Hmmm...wonder how long it will take for lobbyists to rally and Capitol Hill to pass legislation declaring these things hazardous and detrimental to the future of our societal evolution and our children's children's children.
= )
I can see the headlines now:
Suburban Man Victim in Drive-by Squirting
It has been known for quite some time now that the Darwin awards are completely fake.
In fact, you can't even call them "creative fiction" since nearly all the so called award winning stories are basically modified versions of Urban Legends. If, in fact these were actually true stories, don't you think we might hear about one of them once in a while on a news report.
Some of these are incredibly bizarre and would be "newsworthy" if at least for some sort of sound bite or segway for todays braindead media.
I can see it now: Man Dies In Freak Gasoline Toilet Incident
*sigh*
--the snake
Selective breeding is thouands of years old, far predating our knowledge of genetics.
Well, in evolution and nature...yes. In agriculture? No. Selective breeding in agriculture wasn't utilized or fully understood until the agricultural boom around the early 1700's. Hell, the entire agricultural revolution was kicked into motion due to the impact of selective breeding...that and the mechanical reaper.
The world's population keeps growing because farmers keep increasing production. Every species increases population in the presence of food surpluses.
I declare slippery slope, Mr. Slippery! The world's population keeps growing because underdeveloped countries feel the need to reproduce unchecked. Developed nations such as the US and most of Europe have maintained relatively constant populations (with the exception of the influx of immigrants to the US of course) for nigh onto 25 years. If your theory held correct, then the US's steady surplus of food would have resulted in a skyrocketting population growth.
Yet, the US of A has held roughly around 270 million since the early seventies. While countries such as India, China, and Ethiopia (where they've never had enough food for the populace) have increased at PHENOMINAL rates.
Even putting that aside, unsustainable agricultural methods only delay, not prevent, population overtaking food production - and by allowing population to grow in the meantime they could create a greater disaster.
Finally, you say something that makes sense. Unfortunately, you are arguing my point!!
If you would have actually read my entire post rather than picking and choosing which paragraph fragments you wanted to argue and disagree with, you would have noticed my points at the end which voice this claim.
WE the consumers of this planet have backed ourselves into a corner. WE are the ones who continue to eat insane quantities of meat (and in the process waste crops that could be feeding people by feeding animals instead) and WE are the ones who continue to reproduce uncontrollably. (sure I didn't actually come and spell it out for you, but it was all there between-the-lines)
This has nothing to do with the farmers or our food production and, in fact, your attitude of blaming our predicament on one demographic group is indicative of the general populace's apathy and unconcern for this global epidemic.
Nothin' but love.
--the snake
...shoot myself in the face with a bazooka.
= )
It's ok, since he's been clinically dead for about 4 years. Him and Keith Richards both.
Actually, this is somewhat scary...they go from Nobel winning Gorby to alcoholic Yeltsin to...who knows what next. All before Y2k...maybe he knows something we don't. Probably not...
Oh brother. Here we go again. Seems to me that, historically, whenever brand-spanking-new technology is introduced, it is viewed incredibly negatively and is usually predicted to surely signify the "beginning of the end" for us (collectively speaking).
Think about it. In the mid-1800's the advent of the steam engine, or "loco"-motive would certainly (and eventually did) spell doom for the frontier...and without the existence of the frontier, the American economy would flounder into oblivion, thus signalling the end of the "American Way of Life."
...or not.
Then it was the introduction of barbed wire ("devil's wire") that would spell certain doom for cattle ranchers. If there were no cattle ranchers, nobody would raise dairy products and urban areas would be without a significant source of food.
...or not.
Let's not forget the advent of the American Industrial Revolution...which allegedly made tasks so simple (and laborers so replaceable) that learned trades would become obsolete and the entire American society would be at the evil whims of greedy corporations.
Ok, so maybe that one did come true. ; )
Other technological advancements that would supposedly spell doom: automated-computer assembly lines (e.g. auto manufacturers), atomic energy, laser technology, and the internet (remember THAT one?).
But it seems that we've always been especially susceptible to claims when technology is suspected of tainting OUR food.
Perhaps we forget that techniques, which are now standard to nearly every farmer (such as selective breeding and hybridization, which was originally labelled as "genetic manipulation", or "playing God") were originally considered taboo.
Bottom line: We as a societal whole have backed ourselves into this corner. If farmers don't begin looking to technological advancements in crop production, our food supply is going to be incredibly short in the next few years, if the world population keeps growing at its current rate. In fact, if it weren't for existing technological advancements, we would right now be in the middle of a global famine!
The US has taken upon itself the task of feeding the entire world. In fact, entire countries are at our mercy for grain supply (Japan, for instance), so if our crop production doesn't continue to improve (with, if I may add, less farm land each year due to increased urbanization) not only will we experience a food shortage, but so will many other countries who are not agriculturally dependent!!
Something else to consider: according to this article, the EPA had approved of many of the so called Genetic Engineering prodedures. Anybody who has dealt with the EPA knows that if there ever was a paranoid and anal-retentive Government agency, it was the EPA.
They yearn to shut down industries who don't meet acceptible norms in the realm of "environmental protection". I'm willing to trust their judgement on this one.
I do agree, however, that people should still be given a choice, and should at least have a choice of "organic" or "synthetic".
I just think that the evils of this new technology have been greatly over reported and exaggerated.
I find it humorous that Katz would make a statement such as this. In fact, I found nearly *everything* Katz said in his "review" humorous.
Allow me to explain. Judging from Katz's comments of Kaufman, it would seem that he has fallen into the same trap that Kaufman critics have been falling into for years...and would also lead me to believe that he didn't *really* pay that close attention to the film (Man *IN* the Moon???)
"...he became obsessed with pushing the boundaries..."
Became? It would appear to me (after having actually watched the film) that Andy was obsessed with pushing the boundaries of what people would accept way back when he was a child, performing to the wall.
"He taunted women, working-class whites, and Southerners in particular, constantly challenging his audience to figure out what was a joke and what wasn't."
Hmmm...doesn't really sound *any* different than what any of the scripted bad guys say and do on every episode of WWF RAW. Yet you don't hear Katz whining about any of those guys. In fact, I found Kaufman very reminiscent of the modern professional wrestlers...if not the predecessor.
Katz doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between one of Kaufman's characters (in this case his wrestling persona) and that of the "real andy kaufman."
"They overwhelmingly voted to kick him out..."
Poor Katz. Kaufman was only "overwhelmingly kicked out" in the movie. In real life, the vote was much closer. Andy lost 195,544 to 169,186.
"Although he was wildly popular on 'Taxi' as the odd-sounding 'Latke...'"
Uh...its LATKA!
"Kaufman flirted with various meditative and holistic groups and practices, none of which did him any good when he was diagnosed as having a fatal form of lung cancer. "
This sentence irritated me more than the rest of Katz's "review" did.
Flirted? Kaufman was incredibly serious about his transcendental practices...even the movie was clear in showing how hurt Kaufman was when he was asked to leave the group.
None of his practices did him any good? Maybe it was because by the time his cancer was detected it was incurable and, in fact, not even modern medicine was of any use to Andy.
Mr. Katz, its one thing to attack a movie or a character in a movie, its another thing entirely to attack the personal choices of Kaufman.
As I alluded to earlier, its almost as if Katz didn't even pay attention (or watch it at all...)
He could have told us specifically why the movie was one of the best of the year, but instead he merely tells us generic examples of how he believes Carrey to be better than Kaufman.
That said, I still don't see how watching a movie gives Katz poetic license (or any license whatsoever) to criticize the real Kaufman's religious/spiritual choices.
Very low ball...even for JK.
Who needs the "orgasm pill" when we can implant rice-sized nanotechs! Yeah baby yeah!
What I'd like to know is "why?"
Why this and why now?
If ever South Park was a hot commodity, it was about 2 years ago before they managed to piss off most of their die-hard fans with the whole Terrance and Phillip debacle (remember that episode? It was *supposed* to be the "who is Cartman's Father" episode).
Certainly this is odd timing what with the dismal display of the South Park movie, which grossed *far* less than most predictions...and even failed to be all that funny.
Did anybody think all of the anal-rape jokes were even remotely funny or necessary?
It just seems like an odd move for shockwave since the South Park creators have never really been able to do anything right outside of the occasional funny South Park episode. (Remember Orgazmo or Baseketball?)
I rest my case.