"What differentiates real SF from Crichton and his ilk is that at the end of non-SF the evil science is defeated and destroyed, and we are back in the world that we now live in. Whereas real SF involves a change in the world, and it is a good thing." Lois McMaster Bujold
I would heartily disagree with this quote. The moral standing or permenance of scifi tech is not a defining charecteristic of the genre, any more than the moral standing or permanence of a magical event is for fantasy, or the moral standing or permanence of a haunting is to horror.
Individual stories in many genres use the plot device of "something is changing in the world, but by the end of the story the change has been averted and only a few people know that it had ever been happening." Even the "and then he woke up" or "but it was all a flash of imagination in the instant he died" endings don't (IMHO) change the genre status of the intervening story.
Congo - A corporate firms races against the competition to stake a diamond claim deep in the African jungle
I disagree. Congo fits his profile perfectly. The orriginal mission encounters an unexpected stressor (psychotic talking apes) at which point the personality flaws of group members come out to prevent them from dealing with it correctly, and everyone goes home barely alive and depressed.
Awful book, I thought. What the hell does he have against math prodigies anyway? I actually disliked the book more than the movie, if that's possible.
He dismisses Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as a progenitor because her science is "fast talking and stage props" which serves to set the stage for classic melodrama, rather than as the real core of the book.
I don't buy it. "fast talking and stage props" describes half of the sci fi tech out there, and how else would you describe the motivating force of the entire story except as the core of the book.
Frankenstein actually sort of reminds me of some of Criton's (sp?) work, like congo. Sort of a "twenty minutes in the future"* idea that reaches seemingly just a little farther than the advances of the day and discovers something totally other.
Sounds a little like he formed an opinion then interpreted the evidence to support it.
* gold star (but no Karma) for identifying the line.
The Super Bowl doesn't have a large pre-teen girl audience, which is exactly why they brought in the boy bands, so that they could increase their ratings among those demographics. The hard core football fans are going to be watching anyway. It's the same reason why the networks ruin their sports coverage by giving us all those sappy personal profiles -- it gives the female audience that normally wouldn't turn in a reason to watch.
uh, yeah. "I hate sports, but gee, they have sappy personal profiles of people I don't care about. better tune in!"
I know some women who were planning on watching the Bowl, and they either a) really REALLY liked football and couldn't wait to see the game, b) were in an office pool, or c) thought the commercials might be cool. In other words, the exact same reasons men were planning on watching.
Its possible that once they are watching, women like the profiles more than men (though hero worship is pretty thick amoung football watching guys, so I wouldn't bet on it) but you have the cause and effect mixed up. Women have constituted a good chunk of superbowl viewers for years, the sponsors are just now waking up and considering that part of their audience.
Like I said, the yuppies commercial was funny, but I wonder what the reaction would've been if parallel racial stereotypes would've been played with. Say, a takeoff of those student achievement commercials with black kids inventing a new kind of pager with which to sell drugs, or an Ebonics spelling bee. Somehow I don't think they'd be seen with such good humor...
yeah, funny how poking fun at people on the top of the heap is taken better than kicking those already at the bottom. Who would have thunk it? (sarcasm off)
Didn't see the commercial, but I'm curious how much "racial" stereotyping was actually going on as opposed to class stereotyping. The latter has always been very common in "blue collar" humor, the former much rarer.
Oh, and isn't day to day business a bit like a war simulation? Take out your opponents before they can take you out >;)
Even with smilies, this is my problem with the entire idea. Life is not a zero sum game, but almost all "strategy" games are. You want to be the last one standing. beat all opponents. Drive everyone out of a living, or possibly out of existance. These are not (IMHO) useful attitudes to take into the real world in almost any career. A "prisoner's dillema" type structure I think would be better correlated with useful management skills.
If you are starting out as a libertarian, I suppose it would be. For someone who has not already swallowed the libertarian assumptions behind almost every sentance, its doesn't really have anything to say.
I, for instance, don't see any need to assume that scarity preceeds property. And the entire bit about a writer "unfairly" stopping a film maker from ripping off his story was pretty silly. It wasn't an argument against copyright, because you would have to already have rejected all intellectual property rights to see anything wrong with the situation.
In other words, the entire thing was a huge question begging, which doesn't strike me as particularly well written.
These products serve a niche, just like those disposable cameras, which BTW, take pretty decent photos.
Nitpick, except for the polaroids, single use cameras are not disposable. They must be given, whole, to a film processor, who then sends the shell back to the factory to be reused. Still not the most effecient modle, but they aren't actually thrown away after one use. (the polaroid one shot comes with a prepaid return package and you can get a rebate for sending it back. I haven't sent mine back yet, but I haven't thrown it away either.)
My question is this: would the icra voluntary content rating system qualify as a "technology" under the bill sufficient to comply with the statute and the regulation? If so, the thing to do is to head to your local library and get them to implement ICRA, a self-rating and filtering tool based on voluntary disclosure by the page author of web site content.
I think this is a good solution in theory, the problem is that unrated sites would have to be blocked by default. So this would work only if a lot of people and organizations got behind it. And since it is a compomise position, that will be hard. For instance, is/. participating in this program, or have they refused "on principle"? How does the creator of a new web site find out about this program and use it?
In theory, though, self rating is one of the best solutions.
I completely agree that the most correct response from the community should not be bitching and moaning but writing a competent open source blocking software.
Good luck. *sigh* The few times I have suggested this, I've gotten either ignored or flamed. I think I saw one similar suggestion with similar results. I'm growing convinced that the entire "unreliable blocking software" argument is more of an excuse to oppose filtering than an insurmountable reason, because anyone who tries to talk about overcoming this "problem" is attacked. (though I'm seeing more of this suggestion on this thread, so maybe something good will eventually emerge from the noise)
Another good response, since this is only being applied to users of a government discount program would be to form local coalitions to offset the loss of these programs for libraries that are willing to opt out.
The bad response, which seem to predominate, is to scream and rant and rage, steroetype and insult your opposition and ignore any chance there could be real concern in there.
The only answer I keep hearing is that "other people" walking by might be offended if they looked at the monitor. So, what then, I guess if I want to read something, say, D.H. Lawrence or Henry Miller, I'd better make sure that no one can read over my shoulder, because, on the off chance that it might offend them, I can't read anything in public?
Come on, I know this is a hotbutton/. issue, but can we maintain some level of intelectual honesty? There's a pretty big difference between someone coming up and deliberately reading over your shoulder close enough and long enough to grow "offended" with your choice of reading matter, and displaying a 12 to 20 inch example of corphaphilia (sp?) to all and sundry passerbys.
Also, the word "offended" is gettign a little thick arround here. In the time of "anti-PC" offending people has become a sort of positive value, and offense is stereotyped as merely uptight anger at someone else's choices. Why not talk about "upsetting" someone? how about "hurting" someone? Is hurting out of line because there is no physical contact? I don't think so. If someone is arrested for exposing themselves to people, it isn't for "offending" them. Its a form of sexual assault. If the library is a public resource, why should people using it have to put up with you flashing them by proxy?
Not that I think the "person walking by" argument is the only one in favor of public terminal filtering, but its nowhere near as dismissable as you're trying to make it out. If anti-filter types can't deal with opposing arguments honestly, its no wonder you're losing all the time. Stick to the first amendment. Its about the only argument you have that works. And if you wait long enough it will work.
Sixth grade. Came in from recess and my teacher was sitting at the little reading table listening to the radio. We were supposed to do spelling after recess but I couldn't, I just sat down at the table with her and listened, as if there was anything knowing more could do.
15 years? hell. How could it be that long ago? Is today the aniversery or was it yesterday?
"Where were you when?" I guess every generation has something to ask that about...
*snort* well, I'm not paid by microsoft (or paid much by anyone else) and I agree with the poster's assessment of Linux fan(atic)s. I like the idea of linux, but I don't use it because the functioning of my scanner and printer are too important to me. But dare I point out that on a functional, user level that Linux might not work for me, I get flames instead of help, suggestions or anyone taking me seriously.
If MS wins it won't be because they are smarter, or "better" by some uber-geek standard - it will be because, unlike most Linux types, they WANT to win. If a group of people say "this feature doesn't work for me" they have a marketing department that says "uh oh, lost market share, do something!" (that something may not always be the ubergeek solution, but for the lowly user, it may help). Such a complaint made about linux results (usually) in the complaintant being derided, or at best, a long explanation of how its really best that way.
Windows in a product. Linux is a religion. Products get better market share, while religions remain "pure".
So it looks like research hospitals are still allowed to access materials, as long as they get authorization.
While the law doesn't explicitly refer to it, it also seems likely that such an agency head could distribute an authorized "white list" of resources that OB/GYNs and other doctors would legitamately need to access but fell into any sort of grey area.
Unlike other areas of "Research" on the internet, I suspect that a white list would be perfectly effective for medical research. There is a set of known, dependable resources (most of which aren't publicly accessable web sites anyway) that doctors will be using. If I thought my doctor was going to plug "yeast infection" into Google, I'd stay home and read Our Bodies Ourselves.
So, yeah, the whole "don't go to the hospital with a sexual problem" thing is bogus scare mongering. The acedemic research is a lot more grey and those profs studying sex gender or porn are going to be the only ones seriously inconvenienced, in all likelyhood. (note that they were the ones bringing suit, not a doctor who couldn't get to the naughty bits of MedLine).
Actually, a deal where farmers could grow a few acres of weed or coca and then sell it to the government for processing would be *great* for the farmers...Thing is, there'd probably have to be some kind of government regulation of potency/THC content.
IIRC, (someone correct me if I'm pulling this out of my ass) potency can be somewhat standardized by the spacing of the plants (closer together = more potent?) given a known seed source.
And don't forget the hemp! Theres a whole industry waiting to happen arround it.
Not enough spellcasting - admittedly a low budget, but still, the little things (light spells, etc) might've been nice. One thing I've always hated about (many) RPGs is that spells are for combat-related stuff only. A break would have been nice.
Spellcasting I think is best in those little spells that require almost no special effects. Light spells, unlocking spells, featherfall, false images, persuasion.... these are the spells that a real mage would be casting on a regular basis, not waking up everyone within a mile with a huge fireball to fry an oponent that he could have just made go to sleep.
What was the coolest thing obi wan did in the first movie? "these are not the droids you're looking for". A clear indication that he was something more special and powerful than Luke had ever seen, and the "effect" used was dialogue. Real magic doesn't need a big special effects budget.
obviously I meant the movie itself, although I found teaching Grade 8's back in the late 80's that such things were possible was probably more destructive...
as the post below demonstrates it wasn't totally obvious, but I'm glad for the confirmation.:) I guess is probably hard to make "cautionary tale" movies. Its either too preachy or trying to hard to be hip.
At what point does precausionary education become crimial education? "Here's how to do something grossly illegal/potenially dangerous, now don't do it"
*laugh* good point. I guess you have to be heavy on the bad consequences and light on the planning. Or give out deliberately false plans. (see urban legend about the CIA putting fake recipies in the arnarcist cookbook.)
Oh yeah, anything that I didn't save the article and quote exact stats on is an urban legend. Real mature. I read it in the boston globe, yes the details were there, no you aren't worth looking them up for.
And I don't think the Catholic church would ordain a female bi atheist, so the "father" is even stupider than usual.
When I'm in need of a laugh, I walk over to the McDonald's restaurant next to my office and tape a hand-written sign to the drive-thru menu that reads "Speaker broken - Please YELL loudly." Sometimes there are cars in line when I walk over and tape the sign up. I just give them a sheepish smile and wave. Without any hesitation, the patrons drive up and scream their orders into the speaker. Then I go in to the restaurant and order a soda at the counter. Pure comedy
Hey, then once you're inside, you could pour syrup of iapec in a dispenser labled "coffee cream"! wow, lying is so clever! And causing people you don't know to be uncomfortable or in pain is so funny!
At the receiving end of all this is a hospital, and for some reason or another the patient records get corrupted by the virus (or something like that) and they can't find out what drugs this one guy is allergic to. And the movie ends with some words of wisdom. Has anyone else seen, or remeber seeing this stupid movie?
hmmmm.... What precisely is stupid about trying to teach kids that their actions can have repercussions? I mean, was the film just stupid in general, or do you think that the message was a bad one?
Last year or so, I read an item about a kid who might go to jail for stealing a traffic sign. It was a stop sign and an out of towner got killed going through the intersection. Involuntary manslaughter. I totally supported the charge. The kid did something that any reasonable person (even a kid) would know could cause a death. The point is, I'm all for teaching people to take their own actions seriously and take responsibility for the end results of their "pranks" even if it takes a cheesy classroom film with dumb directing to do it.
I think you're creating a false problem by assuming that political = bad and charity = good. I agree that greenpeace is political, I also think that it is a good cause. And yes, "wanting to stop people from being tortured" is completely political, even if I agree with it. Its an action for political or social change.
Imagine a man has been beaten in the street. Going up and giving him first aid is charitable. Finding out that he was beaten for being part of a religious minority and starting an education effort to reduce such prejudice is political, but in a social action way that will still get you a charitable deduction. Starting a lobbying group to make police be more proactive in preventing such crimes is political and non-tax deductable. Non of these things is bad, or selfish, or power seeking, or any of the other bad ideas people sometimes associate with "politics". Its just a different way of helping in the long term.
Some kinds of aid can have political implications or effects, but that doesn't make them political rather than charitable. It may reduce their effectivness, however, creating the need for political as well as purely charitable work in that particular instance.
Perhaps I'm being dogmatic, and sorry if I am, but I work with donate to or get solicited for dozens of different organizations, and I can't think of one campaign that I have any difficulty classifying on a politcal vs charitable basis, except those raising money for more than one action. Your examples of greenpeace or amnesty international make me think perhaps you are taking political to mean partisan, or somesuch, but I don't mean it that way. There's a saying in the gay rights feild "the personal is political" its not talking about getting one candidate elected, or one party, or one particular law, its talking about broad social action and change. This is the way I mean political (though some political groups are clearly narrower in focus.)
-Kahuna Burger
Re:EFF is a political lobbying group, not a charit
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 2
Why shouldn't be food-aid seen as political, i.e. what isn't political? If Amnesty is regarded as political in places like China and Singapore, does this make it less of a charity in other countries?
Er, I'm not following your train of thought. Food aid isn't political because it isn't promoting government or social change. Charity is when you give something that is needed, to the people that need it. medical care, housing, food, education, mentorship, etc. Political is when you act at a grassroots or "inside" level to change government policies, use judicial change, or effect the popular opinion on an issue. Many groups are both charitable and political. Project bread, for instance is primarily a charitable organization that raises money to fund food pantries across massachusetts. However, they have also used their volunteer activities to generate an astroturf push for MA to cover the food stamp gap for legal immigrants that was opened by the US welfare "reform". The salvation army is pretty much pure charity, though it could be argues that they want to change people's overall attitudes on giving. Something like planned parenthood is mostly political, but does offer low cost women's health care and HIV screening. Amnesty International is in fact a political organization. So far as I know, they are only lightly involved in providing actual comfort to people now imprisoned, and instead want to change the rules under which they were imprioned in the first place.
Now, under US tax law you get a "charitable donation" for any organization that is a 501c3. That could be a purely charitable donation, it could be a donation to a political group that works on public opinion rather than goverment level change, it could be the fund for a new organ for your church. I suspect that the EFF is a 501c4, which is more explicitly political in that it can have significant direct lobbying expenses, and therefore isn't even charitable by IRS standards, much less by a reasonable examination of what they are trying to accomplish.
OK, this has gone way off track, but let me end by saying that its no insult to the EFF to recognize that it isn't a charity. I probably donate more money and time ever year to changing the world than to meeting needs. I'm more political than charitable. Some people (mother tereasa, cough cough) focus entirely on meeting very specific needs and activly ignore or even oppose the political/social changes that could reduce those needs in the long run. Just recognize what you're doing and what you're not. If you want to make a political donation, give money to the EFF. if you want to make a charitable donation in the same vein, buy up old computers at garage sales and refurbish them for your local school or something.
If I be modded down for my un-PC views on this, so be it.
I hate to break it to you, but using a rational definition of political correctness, your views are as PC as it gets. "not all discimination is bigotry" "protect the children" "CYA in case something goes wrong" those views will get you onto the new york times or wall street journal op ed page, respectfully recieved at a state house hearing, and considered "moderate" and "tolerant" to boot. It is the ultamately politically correct way to oppose gay inclusion, and I applaud your completeness in hitting all the catch phrases.
And of course, from those who use "PC" as a knee jerk insult for "liberal" or "progressive" you will also get applauded for your "bravery in making un-PC comments". Best of all worlds really.
The logic, or lack thereof, of the comments themselves has been pretty well covered by others, so I won't belabor it.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:What is the diff between a Firby & a Gremlin ?
on
Furby Bounty Paid
·
· Score: 1
Considering the similarities I always wondered why they never had legal problems with the 'look and feel' of a gremlin being so close.
Nitpick - furbies look like MOGWI, the cute furry form that turns into gremlins. But yeah, aside from the beaked nose, they're pretty identical. I think even the talking sound is similar.
I have some vestigial memory of asking someone about the mogwi connection, but don't remember what the response was. There had to be some crankyness over it somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I would heartily disagree with this quote. The moral standing or permenance of scifi tech is not a defining charecteristic of the genre, any more than the moral standing or permanence of a magical event is for fantasy, or the moral standing or permanence of a haunting is to horror.
Individual stories in many genres use the plot device of "something is changing in the world, but by the end of the story the change has been averted and only a few people know that it had ever been happening." Even the "and then he woke up" or "but it was all a flash of imagination in the instant he died" endings don't (IMHO) change the genre status of the intervening story.
Kahuna Burger
Indeed. and not just those silly Pepsi commercials, either. :)
Kahuna Burger
I disagree. Congo fits his profile perfectly. The orriginal mission encounters an unexpected stressor (psychotic talking apes) at which point the personality flaws of group members come out to prevent them from dealing with it correctly, and everyone goes home barely alive and depressed.
Awful book, I thought. What the hell does he have against math prodigies anyway? I actually disliked the book more than the movie, if that's possible.
Kahuna Burger
I don't buy it. "fast talking and stage props" describes half of the sci fi tech out there, and how else would you describe the motivating force of the entire story except as the core of the book.
Frankenstein actually sort of reminds me of some of Criton's (sp?) work, like congo. Sort of a "twenty minutes in the future"* idea that reaches seemingly just a little farther than the advances of the day and discovers something totally other.
Sounds a little like he formed an opinion then interpreted the evidence to support it.
* gold star (but no Karma) for identifying the line.
Kahuna Burger
uh, yeah. "I hate sports, but gee, they have sappy personal profiles of people I don't care about. better tune in!"
I know some women who were planning on watching the Bowl, and they either a) really REALLY liked football and couldn't wait to see the game, b) were in an office pool, or c) thought the commercials might be cool. In other words, the exact same reasons men were planning on watching.
Its possible that once they are watching, women like the profiles more than men (though hero worship is pretty thick amoung football watching guys, so I wouldn't bet on it) but you have the cause and effect mixed up. Women have constituted a good chunk of superbowl viewers for years, the sponsors are just now waking up and considering that part of their audience.
Like I said, the yuppies commercial was funny, but I wonder what the reaction would've been if parallel racial stereotypes would've been played with. Say, a takeoff of those student achievement commercials with black kids inventing a new kind of pager with which to sell drugs, or an Ebonics spelling bee. Somehow I don't think they'd be seen with such good humor...
yeah, funny how poking fun at people on the top of the heap is taken better than kicking those already at the bottom. Who would have thunk it? (sarcasm off)
Didn't see the commercial, but I'm curious how much "racial" stereotyping was actually going on as opposed to class stereotyping. The latter has always been very common in "blue collar" humor, the former much rarer.
Kahuna Burger
Even with smilies, this is my problem with the entire idea. Life is not a zero sum game, but almost all "strategy" games are. You want to be the last one standing. beat all opponents. Drive everyone out of a living, or possibly out of existance. These are not (IMHO) useful attitudes to take into the real world in almost any career. A "prisoner's dillema" type structure I think would be better correlated with useful management skills.
Kahuna Burger
I, for instance, don't see any need to assume that scarity preceeds property. And the entire bit about a writer "unfairly" stopping a film maker from ripping off his story was pretty silly. It wasn't an argument against copyright, because you would have to already have rejected all intellectual property rights to see anything wrong with the situation.
In other words, the entire thing was a huge question begging, which doesn't strike me as particularly well written.
-Kahuna Burger
Nitpick, except for the polaroids, single use cameras are not disposable. They must be given, whole, to a film processor, who then sends the shell back to the factory to be reused. Still not the most effecient modle, but they aren't actually thrown away after one use. (the polaroid one shot comes with a prepaid return package and you can get a rebate for sending it back. I haven't sent mine back yet, but I haven't thrown it away either.)
Kahuna Burger
No, you've only shown that you are willing to dismiss it because you disagree with the end result. Typical, but still disapointing.
Kahuna Burger
I think this is a good solution in theory, the problem is that unrated sites would have to be blocked by default. So this would work only if a lot of people and organizations got behind it. And since it is a compomise position, that will be hard. For instance, is /. participating in this program, or have they refused "on principle"? How does the creator of a new web site find out about this program and use it?
In theory, though, self rating is one of the best solutions.
Kahuna Burger
Good luck. *sigh* The few times I have suggested this, I've gotten either ignored or flamed. I think I saw one similar suggestion with similar results. I'm growing convinced that the entire "unreliable blocking software" argument is more of an excuse to oppose filtering than an insurmountable reason, because anyone who tries to talk about overcoming this "problem" is attacked. (though I'm seeing more of this suggestion on this thread, so maybe something good will eventually emerge from the noise)
Another good response, since this is only being applied to users of a government discount program would be to form local coalitions to offset the loss of these programs for libraries that are willing to opt out.
The bad response, which seem to predominate, is to scream and rant and rage, steroetype and insult your opposition and ignore any chance there could be real concern in there.
-Kahuna Burger
Come on, I know this is a hotbutton /. issue, but can we maintain some level of intelectual honesty? There's a pretty big difference between someone coming up and deliberately reading over your shoulder close enough and long enough to grow "offended" with your choice of reading matter, and displaying a 12 to 20 inch example of corphaphilia (sp?) to all and sundry passerbys.
Also, the word "offended" is gettign a little thick arround here. In the time of "anti-PC" offending people has become a sort of positive value, and offense is stereotyped as merely uptight anger at someone else's choices. Why not talk about "upsetting" someone? how about "hurting" someone? Is hurting out of line because there is no physical contact? I don't think so. If someone is arrested for exposing themselves to people, it isn't for "offending" them. Its a form of sexual assault. If the library is a public resource, why should people using it have to put up with you flashing them by proxy?
Not that I think the "person walking by" argument is the only one in favor of public terminal filtering, but its nowhere near as dismissable as you're trying to make it out. If anti-filter types can't deal with opposing arguments honestly, its no wonder you're losing all the time. Stick to the first amendment. Its about the only argument you have that works. And if you wait long enough it will work.
-Kahuna Burger
15 years? hell. How could it be that long ago? Is today the aniversery or was it yesterday?
"Where were you when?" I guess every generation has something to ask that about...
Kahuna Burger
Or at least acts like he is.
*snort* well, I'm not paid by microsoft (or paid much by anyone else) and I agree with the poster's assessment of Linux fan(atic)s. I like the idea of linux, but I don't use it because the functioning of my scanner and printer are too important to me. But dare I point out that on a functional, user level that Linux might not work for me, I get flames instead of help, suggestions or anyone taking me seriously.
If MS wins it won't be because they are smarter, or "better" by some uber-geek standard - it will be because, unlike most Linux types, they WANT to win. If a group of people say "this feature doesn't work for me" they have a marketing department that says "uh oh, lost market share, do something!" (that something may not always be the ubergeek solution, but for the lowly user, it may help). Such a complaint made about linux results (usually) in the complaintant being derided, or at best, a long explanation of how its really best that way.
Windows in a product. Linux is a religion. Products get better market share, while religions remain "pure".
-Kahuna Burger
While the law doesn't explicitly refer to it, it also seems likely that such an agency head could distribute an authorized "white list" of resources that OB/GYNs and other doctors would legitamately need to access but fell into any sort of grey area.
Unlike other areas of "Research" on the internet, I suspect that a white list would be perfectly effective for medical research. There is a set of known, dependable resources (most of which aren't publicly accessable web sites anyway) that doctors will be using. If I thought my doctor was going to plug "yeast infection" into Google, I'd stay home and read Our Bodies Ourselves.
So, yeah, the whole "don't go to the hospital with a sexual problem" thing is bogus scare mongering. The acedemic research is a lot more grey and those profs studying sex gender or porn are going to be the only ones seriously inconvenienced, in all likelyhood. (note that they were the ones bringing suit, not a doctor who couldn't get to the naughty bits of MedLine).
Perspective, guys, its all about perspective....
Kahuna Burger
IIRC, (someone correct me if I'm pulling this out of my ass) potency can be somewhat standardized by the spacing of the plants (closer together = more potent?) given a known seed source.
And don't forget the hemp! Theres a whole industry waiting to happen arround it.
Kahuna Burger
Spellcasting I think is best in those little spells that require almost no special effects. Light spells, unlocking spells, featherfall, false images, persuasion.... these are the spells that a real mage would be casting on a regular basis, not waking up everyone within a mile with a huge fireball to fry an oponent that he could have just made go to sleep.
What was the coolest thing obi wan did in the first movie? "these are not the droids you're looking for". A clear indication that he was something more special and powerful than Luke had ever seen, and the "effect" used was dialogue. Real magic doesn't need a big special effects budget.
-Kahuna Burger
as the post below demonstrates it wasn't totally obvious, but I'm glad for the confirmation. :) I guess is probably hard to make "cautionary tale" movies. Its either too preachy or trying to hard to be hip.
At what point does precausionary education become crimial education? "Here's how to do something grossly illegal/potenially dangerous, now don't do it"
*laugh* good point. I guess you have to be heavy on the bad consequences and light on the planning. Or give out deliberately false plans. (see urban legend about the CIA putting fake recipies in the arnarcist cookbook.)
-Kahuna Burger
And I don't think the Catholic church would ordain a female bi atheist, so the "father" is even stupider than usual.
-Kahuna Burger
Hey, then once you're inside, you could pour syrup of iapec in a dispenser labled "coffee cream"! wow, lying is so clever! And causing people you don't know to be uncomfortable or in pain is so funny!
Immature ass. Grow up.
-Kahuna Burger
hmmmm.... What precisely is stupid about trying to teach kids that their actions can have repercussions? I mean, was the film just stupid in general, or do you think that the message was a bad one?
Last year or so, I read an item about a kid who might go to jail for stealing a traffic sign. It was a stop sign and an out of towner got killed going through the intersection. Involuntary manslaughter. I totally supported the charge. The kid did something that any reasonable person (even a kid) would know could cause a death. The point is, I'm all for teaching people to take their own actions seriously and take responsibility for the end results of their "pranks" even if it takes a cheesy classroom film with dumb directing to do it.
-Kahuna Burger
Imagine a man has been beaten in the street. Going up and giving him first aid is charitable. Finding out that he was beaten for being part of a religious minority and starting an education effort to reduce such prejudice is political, but in a social action way that will still get you a charitable deduction. Starting a lobbying group to make police be more proactive in preventing such crimes is political and non-tax deductable. Non of these things is bad, or selfish, or power seeking, or any of the other bad ideas people sometimes associate with "politics". Its just a different way of helping in the long term.
Some kinds of aid can have political implications or effects, but that doesn't make them political rather than charitable. It may reduce their effectivness, however, creating the need for political as well as purely charitable work in that particular instance.
Perhaps I'm being dogmatic, and sorry if I am, but I work with donate to or get solicited for dozens of different organizations, and I can't think of one campaign that I have any difficulty classifying on a politcal vs charitable basis, except those raising money for more than one action. Your examples of greenpeace or amnesty international make me think perhaps you are taking political to mean partisan, or somesuch, but I don't mean it that way. There's a saying in the gay rights feild "the personal is political" its not talking about getting one candidate elected, or one party, or one particular law, its talking about broad social action and change. This is the way I mean political (though some political groups are clearly narrower in focus.)
-Kahuna Burger
Er, I'm not following your train of thought. Food aid isn't political because it isn't promoting government or social change. Charity is when you give something that is needed, to the people that need it. medical care, housing, food, education, mentorship, etc. Political is when you act at a grassroots or "inside" level to change government policies, use judicial change, or effect the popular opinion on an issue. Many groups are both charitable and political. Project bread, for instance is primarily a charitable organization that raises money to fund food pantries across massachusetts. However, they have also used their volunteer activities to generate an astroturf push for MA to cover the food stamp gap for legal immigrants that was opened by the US welfare "reform". The salvation army is pretty much pure charity, though it could be argues that they want to change people's overall attitudes on giving. Something like planned parenthood is mostly political, but does offer low cost women's health care and HIV screening. Amnesty International is in fact a political organization. So far as I know, they are only lightly involved in providing actual comfort to people now imprisoned, and instead want to change the rules under which they were imprioned in the first place.
Now, under US tax law you get a "charitable donation" for any organization that is a 501c3. That could be a purely charitable donation, it could be a donation to a political group that works on public opinion rather than goverment level change, it could be the fund for a new organ for your church. I suspect that the EFF is a 501c4, which is more explicitly political in that it can have significant direct lobbying expenses, and therefore isn't even charitable by IRS standards, much less by a reasonable examination of what they are trying to accomplish.
OK, this has gone way off track, but let me end by saying that its no insult to the EFF to recognize that it isn't a charity. I probably donate more money and time ever year to changing the world than to meeting needs. I'm more political than charitable. Some people (mother tereasa, cough cough) focus entirely on meeting very specific needs and activly ignore or even oppose the political/social changes that could reduce those needs in the long run. Just recognize what you're doing and what you're not. If you want to make a political donation, give money to the EFF. if you want to make a charitable donation in the same vein, buy up old computers at garage sales and refurbish them for your local school or something.
-Kahuna Burger
I hate to break it to you, but using a rational definition of political correctness, your views are as PC as it gets. "not all discimination is bigotry" "protect the children" "CYA in case something goes wrong" those views will get you onto the new york times or wall street journal op ed page, respectfully recieved at a state house hearing, and considered "moderate" and "tolerant" to boot. It is the ultamately politically correct way to oppose gay inclusion, and I applaud your completeness in hitting all the catch phrases.
And of course, from those who use "PC" as a knee jerk insult for "liberal" or "progressive" you will also get applauded for your "bravery in making un-PC comments". Best of all worlds really.
The logic, or lack thereof, of the comments themselves has been pretty well covered by others, so I won't belabor it.
-Kahuna Burger
Nitpick - furbies look like MOGWI, the cute furry form that turns into gremlins. But yeah, aside from the beaked nose, they're pretty identical. I think even the talking sound is similar.
I have some vestigial memory of asking someone about the mogwi connection, but don't remember what the response was. There had to be some crankyness over it somewhere.
-Kahuna Burger