It affects his ability to connect with the "folks." Do you really want the 3rd richest President in the nation's history after a Republican like Bush?
Being rich, even growing up rich, doesn't mandate that you have no social skills. Sure, maybe he is a snob. But even that doesn't necessarily disqualify him to be President.
And, frankly, I'd take George Washington or John F. Kennedy any day over the Shrub... and apparently they were richer than Kerry. Maybe someone with *more* money will feel *less* need to pander to the rich, I dunno.
Not that I'm happy he's coming out on top... I was rooting for Dean. And we'll see what kind of running mate he picks; Gore lost my vote by letting Lieberman open his mouth (and y'all can shut up about how I'm part of the problem; I'm in California, which Gore won handily even without my vote). But the assumption that having money means he won't be a better president than Bush isn't necessarily that useful.
If you want to find a polititian that didn't and wouldn't have voted for [the DMCA], you'd need to get really, really, really fringe.
Yeah... all the way outside Congress.
Seriously, I remember looking down the roster of hopefuls during the MoveOn primary way back when. Nine of them, and six were automatic "nos" because they were in Congress, and that check hasn't balanced anything in a while.
Unlike you, I have no problem getting worked up over a person that causes harm to our soldiers, those men who were bravely carrying out their orders. It isn't as though Hanoi Jane caused harm on the people that most blame for the Vietnam war... she harmed our soldiers, that is the crime of what she did.
Hm. To say that Jane Fonda did harm to our soldiers that were sent by the US Government to protect a foreign nation sounds a little like saying someone who threw a lit cigarette into a raging forest fire committed arson. They were hurt by the opposing side (unless it was a friendly fire incident) because we sent them over there for that purpose. Out of the 50k American soldiers killed, you'd be doing well to demonstrate that her actions were responsible for even a handful.
"the nation we were defending at the time was a right wing military dictatorship that was as anti-freedom as you can get"
... For one thing, both Johnson and Kennedy were Democrats. The war started and continued with them in office....
As for dictatorship, as far as I know, three presidents were elected by the people during that war. While there were atrocities committed by certain parts of the government (such as the national guard at Kent), it was not some sort of conspiracy to end free speech, as you can plainly see with all the huge, relatively peaceful anti-war protests that were carried out in America by free Americans.
Erm, you missed an essential element in the parent's statement: the nation *we were defending*. Notice that the Viet Nam war happened somewhere else entirely, not in the US. The folks that elected presidents, dealt with Kent State, and were exercising their free speech rights weren't in the right-wing military dictatorship he was referring to.
If we had declared war, it would have been treason as defined in the Constitution. Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.
Those of you who have served our country in Viet Nam were among those sitting on that lawn with her at that protest. John Kerry was one of them.
It's one thing to say to people who have never fought in a war that they don't know what they're talking about protesting it (on the other hand, you could say the same about those who support wars when they've never been through it). But once someone's been there and done that, who are you to say that what you learned from it is more valid than what they did?
The federal government simply has NO business regulating marriage.
Well...
For one thing, if the federal government has NO business regulating marriage, then they never could have compelled all states to recognize each other's marriages (effectively ending anti-miscegenation laws).
Second, a lot of things the federal government does regulate (i.e. taxes) are dependent on marriage and its legal definition.
So there is justification for a *limited* amount of federal rulemaking on marriage.
What the federal government has NO business doing is legislating religion or morality. Protecting the "sanctity of marriage" is a patently illegal concept under the first amendment. As a matter of fact, as far as government recognition is concerned, marriage cannot have any sanctity at all, as that would be making laws respecting an establishment of religion (sanctity is a thoroughly religious concept). Only churches are in a position to protect the sanctity of marriage, and of course churches have always had the right to deny any couple a marriage under their own rules for whatever stupid reason they come up with (but they have never had a right to deny *other* entities, including the government, the ability to legally marry people).
Until someone comes up with a non-religious reason why same-sex couples shouldn't be legally allowed to marry, there's absolutely no way such an amendment can be passed without repudiating a chunk of the first amendment and a century or two of case law.
No it isn't. (Though passing along such a derivative work may indeed be a violation of copyright.) Unless the watermark effectively limits access to the picture (and obviously, it doesn't), I don't get how DMCA applies at all.
Here's a possible interpretation. (IANAL,BIP1OTV)
Subparagraph A of Title 17, Section 1201 of the US Code, added by the DMCA, states: " No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Corbis allows digitally watermarked pictures to be viewed by anyone. They allow access to un-watermarked copies only to those who create an account and log in.
If the perpetrator of this clearly heinous act* removed the watermark, which is a device "effectively" controlling his access to an un-watermarked image, he has violated this section, and is guilty of a crime.
But there's a loophole. Under subparagraph B, "The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C)." This is designed to prevent the use of the first provision against those engaging in fair use.
So if the watermark was removed by someone who would be (or will be in the next three years) allowed to copy the non-watermarked picture under fair use, DMCA (theoretically) doesn't apply. But it's up to the Librarian of Congress (never occurred to me that the Library of Congress has a Librarian, but it's a big "duh" now that I've seen it in law) what classes of works would be unfairly burdened under fair use by this prohibition, and that is to be updated every three years (hence the "succeeding three years" clause).
Sure, but what's to prevent the reverse from occurring? What if, for instance, John Kerry really had been there, and a 'doctored' image was used to prove he wasn't?
Like a really, really, REALLY long panoramic photo showing that he's several miles away at the same moment?
Kerry really did participate in the same rallies as Jane Fonda -- read the article.
If there was nothing wrong in such participations, than these forgeries are definetly not libels:
libel -- (a tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person)
So, this forgery is inlikely to be criminal...
Ok, there is a picture where both Jane Fonda and John Kerry appear at the same event (though he's sitting several rows behind her). And, according to the photographer who took it, the captions that have been placed on those pictures are wildly inaccurate.
Then there's another picture, a fake, which shows Kerry and Fonda standing next to each other at a lectern at a rally. The implication there is that Kerry's activities in protesting the Viet Nam War were similar to Fonda's (which they weren't).
Not only does the photoshop job count as libel (since Kerry and Fonda never spoke at the same anti-war event), but even the publication of the *real* photograph, given the captions along with it, may be libel. Especially since, regardless of the *effect*, libel (as you have so helpfully pointed out) is about *intent*.
And then there's the copyright issue, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. (At least the guy who took the real picture has gotten paid for all the recent reprints.)
He's less likely to put us into debt because he can handle finances.
I think people said stuff along these lines about the Governator before he put Proposition 57 and 58 on the ballot (It's a bad, bad thing to borrow money, and we want to do it just one last time!)
But maybe buying a Hummer isn't really demonstrating that you know how to manage your money wisely, either;-).
If someone else goes through the trouble to figure out when someone was lying/faking/etc then the news agencies will report on that. But actually do investigative work themselves? Sorry, but I'm not holding my breath.
Possibly...
Think about it. If Fox News ("When Reporters Attack!") "scoops" a story about something nasty in someone's closet, how does MSNBC scoop them back? If they find out that the story's a fake, and break *that* (meta)news...
Hey, this might actually lead to some self-regulation in the news media! Well, about some stuff, anyway. Of course, here in Los Angeles the top story tonight (as it has been several nights in the past couple weeks) is "RAIN! HERE! NOW! LOOK, FALLING FROM THE *SKY*!"
Just recently his administration reffered to the teachers union as a terrorist organization.
Hey, I was in 11th grade during the UTLA strike of 1990... I can see how they'd make that mistake!;-)
(I support unions and think teachers are generally underpaid, but I tend to be disgusted by anyone who will slash tires in the name of a cause. Unless the cause is freeing opressed air from rubber prisons.)
I must admit that it doesn't sound like Bush's style; it sounds more like something Tricky Dick Nixon would have done. What I'd like to know is, how many of you are upset because it's wrong, not because it's being done to Kerry? If somebody put out a faked photo "proving" Bush was AWOL, how many of you would cheer?
I wouldn't cheer, so long as I knew it was faked (if I thought it was true, I might well cheer... until I learned otherwise).
Frankly, I'm not thrilled with Kerry as the democratic front-runner, as I was really pulling for Dean. So I'm not upset "because it's being done to Kerry". I'm not terribly upset on the whole, really. I think that overall, at this point in the campaign, it's sort of a good thing... it might make people a bit more cynical about what they hear from the media about the candidates, and cause them to, oh, I dunno, get more reliable information, perhaps?
Let me get this straight. EA is moving all their offices, and decided it would be cheaper to shutdown Origin and rehire in their new location than it would be to move Origin?
No, you don't have this straight.
They are consolidating their operations. However, they can't force anyone to up and move. I'm guessing a large proportion of their Irvine people will relocate, since it's only 50 miles or so, and probably a substantial portion of the San Jose folks will too just to lower their cost of living. But with the cost of living so much higher in Los Angeles than Austin, Texas, it's likely that a large number of the Origin crowd will choose to find other work closer to home rather than pick up stakes. But EA has made it clear that they are *relocating* their operations, not replacing them. Anyone who's willing to make the move (supposedly) gets to keep their job, and then anyone they need to replace they will hire locally.
Of course, when companies relocate from Southern California to Texas [*cough*Boeing*cough*] they're usually doing it explicitly to replace their current staff with lower-paid employees from the midwest, so the confusion is understandable.
"There is little in the way of 'female dominated competition'..."
So then you are familiar with the men who tried out for the LPGA and WNBA?
I'm astonished to learn that golf and basketball are female-dominated competition. I think pretty much everyone is.
This entire conversation stems from the fact that separate leagues for women's competition do not necessarily allow one to judge their skill accurately. The fact that there is a WNBA doesn't suddenly make the world of basketball female-dominated. It simply reserves a little corner of the male-dominated basketball world for women. If it's for valid reasons, then there's not much reason for men to try out for it. If it's not for valid reasons, then the issue of women wanting to be in the "real" NBA is probably a lot more pressing than the issue of men wanting to be in the WNBA, since the benefits of participating in the former are a lot greater.
"It is an uncommon one for most men..." I've found adversity is common to almost everyone.
Beautiful out-of-context quote. I've found that there are a lot fewer men trying to be accepted in female-dominated circles than the other way around, and that there are still few women trying to be accepted in male-dominated ones. You have found different, apparently, or you decided to change my meaning.
"You know nothing about disadvantage. You don't know what the disadvantage is to being automatically seen as something less than you are, or have the choice of being mistaken for a different gender. The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy is one I'd give up any day to not have to prove I have a brain."
Uh-huh. Ouch. "It seems you took much that was said in response to that person's particular attitudes much too personally."
Yes. I did lecture someone who told me that the disadvantages of being a woman entering a male-dominated arena are nonexistent because I can just flirt my way to the top. You lectured me on much the same subject. The difference is, I addressed someone who was directly addressing *me*, while you decided that I obviously felt the same way about all men, not just the ones who like belittling women because they think it's such an awesome privilege to be considered a sex object.
"If you are the best equipped, however, it is safer and more efficient for you to do most of it."
And this line of reasoning can justify any type of sexism, for keeping women out of combat roles in the military to keeping women out of top positions in businesses as they are less competitive. A good deal of sexism seems to parade itself disguised as practicality. I disregard it. You knew the mission was dangerous, quit bitching about it now.
Oh, come on. Are you saying that you work in a place where everyone's job routinely requires heavy lifting, and all the women expect you to do all of it for them? Are you telling me you were *hired* just because you could do the heavy lifting? Or were you talking about a situation where occasionally, there is lifting to be done, and you're often picked as the one to do it? Because they're not the same thing.
Should I complain that at my first job, they often pulled *me* to do heavy lifting/carting stuff around? Not because I was bigger (I was the shortest person on staff) or stronger (I was usually the only female on the floor, and one of the youngest employees), but because they knew I was taking a weight-training class that summer and so wouldn't mind the extra exercise? Is that also inappropriate? It sounds like it's *always* inappropriate to cast someone into a role for you, no matter what the reasons are.
There's a matter of reasonable and unreasonable actions. I pointed out that there are situations where your co-worker's actions are reasonable, and situations where they're unreasonable. You haven't given anyone enough information to actually determine if they're being reasonable or unreasonable. Truth is, if you're a foot t
DVD recorders should not be illegal...selling (or even just giving) a burned DVD of Star Wars should be illegal.
Always?
What if you (1) bought the DVD; (2) made a back-up copy for your personal use (which is protected under Fair Use, at least for software, but possibly for other digital media); (3) suffered the tragic loss of your original disk in a PB&J sandwich in the DVD player incident; and then (4) decided to sell the copy at a garage sale?
Is that still illegal? Should it be?
Just extending the point that legality is contextual.
Similar to the system we had when I worked at Kinko's, though it was based on an OS/2 server.
It was the graveyard shift's job to wait until around 3 a.m., when there were no customers in the store, to do the daily backup. It took about 15 minutes, and the entire POS system had to be shut down. (I was working graveyard in a giant location with a second floor, so there were 9 machines we had to go around and log out.) The drawers did not open while the system was shut down (there was no way to open them, as you had to log in to use the interface) but sometimes we would leave a cash drawer open in case someone came in just desperate to make their copies quick and pay cash and leave.
One time, we started the backup right after a couple left the store at about 3:30 a.m. They returned about five minutes later, and wanted to do something else. We apologized for the situation, but explained that we would be unable to accomodate them for a couple of minutes. The guy actually threatened to beat up my co-worker for telling him this. (Meanwhile, his girlfriend was mortified by his machismo.)
My co-worker, thinking on his feet, told him he couldn't "take it outside" with him because he was on duty. When asked what time he got off work, he promptly answered 9:00 a.m., and the guy promised to return. I managed to keep a straight face through this exchange, even though I knew for a fact that Bruce clocked out promptly at 7:00 each morning.
The big banks charge no such fee for using ATM (wells fargo, BofA, ect..), unless its a people republic of california thing....
Not sure what you mean. The big banks are the *worst* about charging fees for ATM usage. Last I knew, there was an antitrust-type lawsuit for the differential fees charged for ATM and credit transactions on the same account (i.e., if I use my ATM Check Card with the Visa logo as a debit card, the store pays more than if I use it as a credit card). All vendors pay fees for all plastic transactions. Generally, the increase in business they get from accepting plastic justifies the fees, but many will have a minimum purchase or even add the fee on top (ARCO at least used to charge you 25 cents to use your ATM card).
On an individual level, the smaller banks usually don't charge you for using another bank's ATM, but the big banks (that have ATMs everywhere) do. WFB charges me $2.00 if I sully my ATM card with another bank's ATM.
I learned about this months ago. But maybe that's because I'm in an Urban Planning program, and it was big news that the Playa Vista Development finally found their office tenant.
This development has been followed closely by a whole lot of people. Environmentalists freaked out about it, because it borders the Ballona Wetlands. The protest caused them to completely redesign the site *and* include several acres of wetlands restoration (because Hughes Aircraft, the former owner of the site, was none too kind to the native flora and fauna). Urban planners and designers are fascinated to see if the site can work, because it incorporates a lot of new (old) ideas, such as a mix of uses, high-density development, and a range of income groups.
When they originally were planning the site, Dreamworks SKG had just formed up, and was going to move in as the big anchor office tenant. When the project was massively delayed, they backed out, and one of the big issues was finding another tenant to take over that huge, state-of-the-art space. EA finally anted up late last year. They're cashing out their Irvine, San Jose, and Austin locations, and consolidating everything there.
If they're paying moving costs, it's a pretty good deal for folks moving, especially from San Jose. Units in Playa Vista start in the low $200k range, and the complex has a *ton* of amenities (including its own childcare center, market, and amphitheatre). Every unit has broadband built in and I think even data jacks in the walls, and the complex has its own intranet for reserving rec rooms, checking out events, and so on.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind living there myself... my husband feels it's a bit remote, though (you'd never guess you're in the second-largest city in the country; Lincoln Blvd. looks empty except for Playa Vista). It's between Venice and Marina del Rey, though, just about 5-10 minutes in one direction or the other.
I'm sure that they're counting on the consolidation saving them on staff, and it sucks that some people will lose their jobs. Me, I'm not crying about them bringing a whole mess o' jobs into Los Angeles, since I live here, but I suppose it does suck for those in the locations they're closing. I don't know if it's a good business move for them... unless they're changing their (fraudulent) policies on MMOG billing*, they'll have no business from me for a while, so who knows? But it's an interesting development, to be sure, from many perspectives.
*Used to have an Earth and Beyond account. Discovered from personal experience (twice) and a guildmate's experience that E&B accounts *always* expire two days before they are supposed to (according to the date that comes up on the screen to nag you EVERY FRICKIN' TIME you log in, after you've cancelled). You have to call them, during business hours, to get it fixed. Sure, they'll fix it right up, but oh... you got booted in the middle of a battle and now you can't log in, but they're closed? Pay up or die. I chose to leave my account permanently expired.
I don't know if you're the same anonymous person that I replied to earlier. If you are not, it seems you took much that was said in response to that person's particular attitudes much too personally.
I am curious to hear your views concerning the dynamics of men entering female dominated competition. Unfortunately, that doesn't even merit consideration in the popular consciousness. Speaking as male in a female dominated profession, I can assure you no special allowances are given to me, and I had to endure the slings and arrows before I was respected for my abilities.
There is little in the way of "female dominated competition," especially in the popular consciousness. I suppose a Betty Crocker Bakeoff would qualify. But as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, women are less competitive than men, which leads to few opportunities for females to dominate organized competition.
Female-dominated professions are another story. For example, teaching (below the college level, and elementary school in particular) is female-dominated. This results in some really bad dynamics for men who go into the profession; they are sometimes more subject to suspicion of improper behavior toward children, for example. In general, any female-dominated profession such as childcare, teaching, nursing, or garment-making is paid less than "comparable" male-dominated work, which is a burden on anyone who is in the profession, regardless of gender. This burden can be particularly difficult for men, since they typically have the societal expectation of "breadwinner" and may suffer self-esteem issues if they make less than their spouse or have trouble making ends meet. (Don't have a cite on this, but ran across similar research about men and reactions to unemployment several years ago as an undergrad.)
If anything, I resent any insinuations of what my capabilities should be. I shouldn't be expected to do all the heavy lifting (as my female compatriots were prone to do), nor should I be seen as incapable of delicacy. But that is a common experience.
It is an uncommon one for most men, and an only slightly more common one for women. I recall distinctly the first time I showed up for an RPG session in high school. "Aww... darn, now we can't scratch ourselves!" and other comments about my "invasion." But after a relatively short time, they realized I was perfectly capable of being a person, rather than just a female. It sounds like you have in some ways experienced the same sort of phenomenon.
WRT doing the heavy lifting, however, this is a matter of physical makeup, I believe. If you are of slighter build than other co-workers (i.e., you're not the best equipped to do the job), then it is out of line for them to expect it of you. If you are the best equipped, however, it is safer and more efficient for you to do most of it. But you didn't comment on this aspect of the decision, so I don't know if they are being chauvinistic or simply practical.
"The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy..." Thank you for reducing my sexuality to exploitation. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know my romantic pursuits are simply degrading to the other party.
Note that this was addressed to someone specifically discussing the fact that women have an "advantage" because men want to get into their pants. It was also addressed to someone who started off by calling me "honey." If you do not see being a sexual object as an advantage, the comment was not directed at your romantic pursuits. In fact, if your pursuits are even the slightest bit romantic, you probably view women as more than a dickcozy, and should not have considered that statement targeted at you in any way.
In you are going to compete, compete. Arbitrary rules only foster the idea of inability. Girls still seem to accomplish beyond what you might say.
What I might say? What I said was that they could accomplish quite a bit, in spite of having more to prove fr
I can see why you posted anonymously... I wouldn't take ownership of such bad reading comprehension, either.
honey, you need to give up on your male-hating views.
My husband, and the majority of my friends, would find it shocking that I "hate" them based on their 43rd chromosome. It's not hatred that motivates me to say shocking phrases like "male-dominated competition"... it's demographics.
Men don't care that you are female when you play online games.
Yes, they do, actually. They usually find it amusing, sometimes suprising, and often intriguing. Of course, when they don't *know* I'm female, they don't care. But when you walk into a tournament, it's kind of hard to disguise your gender unless you really try.
as a matter of fact, a crappy female player has a better chance of making it into a clan just because she is female than a male does.
"a clan" sure. "A professional gaming clan" as was discussed in the article and as I mentioned in my post, however, is a bit different.
Face it, women aren't at a disadvantage, they are at an advantage and still don't/can't play at a high level.
If you happen to belong to an ethnic minority, have a disfiguring disability, or are otherwise marginalized, forgive the assumptions of the following paragraph:
You know nothing about disadvantage. You don't know what the disadvantage is to being automatically seen as something less than you are, or have the choice of being mistaken for a different gender. The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy is one I'd give up any day to not have to prove I have a brain.
I guess you could try to say it's the damn evil corporations who don't cater to women. I don't think it's quite that simple though. I just don't see many women sitting around wishing there were games marketed toward them.
Of course not. If people sat around wishing things would be marketed toward them, there would be no need for marketing. Marketing is about convincing people they want/need something that they would otherwise not seek out.
BTW, the percentage of women who consider Tupperware-style parties something more enticing than an obligation to a friend who's got a bug up her butt about a new product is fairly small. I'd guess that less than 50% of women have even *been* to one of these types of parties. Very, very few would seek them out. Shopping is a lot more fun if it's not someone shoving stuff they think you should like in your face.
I think the perfect example is driving. Men can more quickly adapt to what's going on around them in a car and translate the objects around them better. The result is that the women feel the men are careening out of control and complain. However, partially this is due to the fact that their brains aren't translating the information as quickly, so what looks out of control to them isn't to the men.
Er... on the other hand, it might be because men are more apt to engage in risk-taking behavior. Which is why, even if they might have fewer accidents numerically per mile driven, they are much more likely to cause a serious injury or fatality in a given accident than women are.
Well, competitive grocery shopping might be a bit nuts.
Actually, I remember several years ago seeing a game show on some UHF channel called "Supermarket Sweep." It was competitive grocery shopping. Something about getting all the items on your list into your cart as fast as possible, and the best time wins.
It was a bit nuts. Personally, I much prefer the British game show where the end game consists of trying to taunt kittens onto the spot that has the prize you want to win...
What are all these women gamers playing? Are we talking about online chess? Yahoo games? Solitaire Chat^H^H^H^H Simms Online?
The difference is one of identity and level of interest. What percentage of people who consider themselves "gamers" are women, as opposed to just the percentage of people that play computer games?
If you're marketing a new online game, do you *care* who thinks they're a gamer?
Of course you do. Because if a lot of your potential market *doesn't* think of themselves that way, you'd be a fool to market to that demographic.
And yet, they do. I remember the ridiculous TV commercials they first came up with for EQ (even before the Everquest Online Adventures for PS2 came out and was marketed on television). Pretty much every female EQ player found them repulsive. And they were actually *trying* to appeal to women.
The number of people who consider themselves "gamers" is really pretty small. It's time that computer game companies started realizing they're part of the *entertainment* industry, not the technology industry, and started acting accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
It affects his ability to connect with the "folks." Do you really want the 3rd richest President in the nation's history after a Republican like Bush?
Being rich, even growing up rich, doesn't mandate that you have no social skills. Sure, maybe he is a snob. But even that doesn't necessarily disqualify him to be President.
And, frankly, I'd take George Washington or John F. Kennedy any day over the Shrub... and apparently they were richer than Kerry. Maybe someone with *more* money will feel *less* need to pander to the rich, I dunno.
Not that I'm happy he's coming out on top... I was rooting for Dean. And we'll see what kind of running mate he picks; Gore lost my vote by letting Lieberman open his mouth (and y'all can shut up about how I'm part of the problem; I'm in California, which Gore won handily even without my vote). But the assumption that having money means he won't be a better president than Bush isn't necessarily that useful.
If you want to find a polititian that didn't and wouldn't have voted for [the DMCA], you'd need to get really, really, really fringe.
Yeah... all the way outside Congress.
Seriously, I remember looking down the roster of hopefuls during the MoveOn primary way back when. Nine of them, and six were automatic "nos" because they were in Congress, and that check hasn't balanced anything in a while.
Hm. To say that Jane Fonda did harm to our soldiers that were sent by the US Government to protect a foreign nation sounds a little like saying someone who threw a lit cigarette into a raging forest fire committed arson. They were hurt by the opposing side (unless it was a friendly fire incident) because we sent them over there for that purpose. Out of the 50k American soldiers killed, you'd be doing well to demonstrate that her actions were responsible for even a handful.
...
For one thing, both Johnson and Kennedy were Democrats. The war started and continued with them in office.
As for dictatorship, as far as I know, three presidents were elected by the people during that war. While there were atrocities committed by certain parts of the government (such as the national guard at Kent), it was not some sort of conspiracy to end free speech, as you can plainly see with all the huge, relatively peaceful anti-war protests that were carried out in America by free Americans.
Erm, you missed an essential element in the parent's statement: the nation *we were defending*. Notice that the Viet Nam war happened somewhere else entirely, not in the US. The folks that elected presidents, dealt with Kent State, and were exercising their free speech rights weren't in the right-wing military dictatorship he was referring to.
If we had declared war, it would have been treason as defined in the Constitution. Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.
Those of you who have served our country in Viet Nam were among those sitting on that lawn with her at that protest. John Kerry was one of them.
It's one thing to say to people who have never fought in a war that they don't know what they're talking about protesting it (on the other hand, you could say the same about those who support wars when they've never been through it). But once someone's been there and done that, who are you to say that what you learned from it is more valid than what they did?
The federal government simply has NO business regulating marriage.
Well...
For one thing, if the federal government has NO business regulating marriage, then they never could have compelled all states to recognize each other's marriages (effectively ending anti-miscegenation laws).
Second, a lot of things the federal government does regulate (i.e. taxes) are dependent on marriage and its legal definition.
So there is justification for a *limited* amount of federal rulemaking on marriage.
What the federal government has NO business doing is legislating religion or morality. Protecting the "sanctity of marriage" is a patently illegal concept under the first amendment. As a matter of fact, as far as government recognition is concerned, marriage cannot have any sanctity at all, as that would be making laws respecting an establishment of religion (sanctity is a thoroughly religious concept). Only churches are in a position to protect the sanctity of marriage, and of course churches have always had the right to deny any couple a marriage under their own rules for whatever stupid reason they come up with (but they have never had a right to deny *other* entities, including the government, the ability to legally marry people).
Until someone comes up with a non-religious reason why same-sex couples shouldn't be legally allowed to marry, there's absolutely no way such an amendment can be passed without repudiating a chunk of the first amendment and a century or two of case law.
where they mercilessly decimated him in South Carolina with accusations he had a black baby, etc.
Oh, now, that wasn't a lie, that was just a mix-up! They were thinking of Strom Thurmond.
No it isn't. (Though passing along such a derivative work may indeed be a violation of copyright.) Unless the watermark effectively limits access to the picture (and obviously, it doesn't), I don't get how DMCA applies at all.
Here's a possible interpretation. (IANAL,BIP1OTV)
Subparagraph A of Title 17, Section 1201 of the US Code, added by the DMCA, states: " No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Corbis allows digitally watermarked pictures to be viewed by anyone. They allow access to un-watermarked copies only to those who create an account and log in.
If the perpetrator of this clearly heinous act* removed the watermark, which is a device "effectively" controlling his access to an un-watermarked image, he has violated this section, and is guilty of a crime.
But there's a loophole. Under subparagraph B, "The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C)." This is designed to prevent the use of the first provision against those engaging in fair use.
So if the watermark was removed by someone who would be (or will be in the next three years) allowed to copy the non-watermarked picture under fair use, DMCA (theoretically) doesn't apply. But it's up to the Librarian of Congress (never occurred to me that the Library of Congress has a Librarian, but it's a big "duh" now that I've seen it in law) what classes of works would be unfairly burdened under fair use by this prohibition, and that is to be updated every three years (hence the "succeeding three years" clause).
*Said facetiously.
Sure, but what's to prevent the reverse from occurring? What if, for instance, John Kerry really had been there, and a 'doctored' image was used to prove he wasn't?
Like a really, really, REALLY long panoramic photo showing that he's several miles away at the same moment?
Kerry really did participate in the same rallies as Jane Fonda -- read the article.
If there was nothing wrong in such participations, than these forgeries are definetly not libels:
libel -- (a tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person)
So, this forgery is inlikely to be criminal...
Ok, there is a picture where both Jane Fonda and John Kerry appear at the same event (though he's sitting several rows behind her). And, according to the photographer who took it, the captions that have been placed on those pictures are wildly inaccurate.
Then there's another picture, a fake, which shows Kerry and Fonda standing next to each other at a lectern at a rally. The implication there is that Kerry's activities in protesting the Viet Nam War were similar to Fonda's (which they weren't).
Not only does the photoshop job count as libel (since Kerry and Fonda never spoke at the same anti-war event), but even the publication of the *real* photograph, given the captions along with it, may be libel. Especially since, regardless of the *effect*, libel (as you have so helpfully pointed out) is about *intent*.
And then there's the copyright issue, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. (At least the guy who took the real picture has gotten paid for all the recent reprints.)
He's less likely to put us into debt because he can handle finances.
;-).
I think people said stuff along these lines about the Governator before he put Proposition 57 and 58 on the ballot (It's a bad, bad thing to borrow money, and we want to do it just one last time!)
But maybe buying a Hummer isn't really demonstrating that you know how to manage your money wisely, either
If someone else goes through the trouble to figure out when someone was lying/faking/etc then the news agencies will report on that. But actually do investigative work themselves? Sorry, but I'm not holding my breath.
Possibly...
Think about it. If Fox News ("When Reporters Attack!") "scoops" a story about something nasty in someone's closet, how does MSNBC scoop them back? If they find out that the story's a fake, and break *that* (meta)news...
Hey, this might actually lead to some self-regulation in the news media! Well, about some stuff, anyway. Of course, here in Los Angeles the top story tonight (as it has been several nights in the past couple weeks) is "RAIN! HERE! NOW! LOOK, FALLING FROM THE *SKY*!"
Just recently his administration reffered to the teachers union as a terrorist organization.
;-)
Hey, I was in 11th grade during the UTLA strike of 1990... I can see how they'd make that mistake!
(I support unions and think teachers are generally underpaid, but I tend to be disgusted by anyone who will slash tires in the name of a cause. Unless the cause is freeing opressed air from rubber prisons.)
I must admit that it doesn't sound like Bush's style; it sounds more like something Tricky Dick Nixon would have done. What I'd like to know is, how many of you are upset because it's wrong, not because it's being done to Kerry? If somebody put out a faked photo "proving" Bush was AWOL, how many of you would cheer?
I wouldn't cheer, so long as I knew it was faked (if I thought it was true, I might well cheer... until I learned otherwise).
Frankly, I'm not thrilled with Kerry as the democratic front-runner, as I was really pulling for Dean. So I'm not upset "because it's being done to Kerry". I'm not terribly upset on the whole, really. I think that overall, at this point in the campaign, it's sort of a good thing... it might make people a bit more cynical about what they hear from the media about the candidates, and cause them to, oh, I dunno, get more reliable information, perhaps?
Let me get this straight. EA is moving all their offices, and decided it would be cheaper to shutdown Origin and rehire in their new location than it would be to move Origin?
No, you don't have this straight.
They are consolidating their operations. However, they can't force anyone to up and move. I'm guessing a large proportion of their Irvine people will relocate, since it's only 50 miles or so, and probably a substantial portion of the San Jose folks will too just to lower their cost of living. But with the cost of living so much higher in Los Angeles than Austin, Texas, it's likely that a large number of the Origin crowd will choose to find other work closer to home rather than pick up stakes. But EA has made it clear that they are *relocating* their operations, not replacing them. Anyone who's willing to make the move (supposedly) gets to keep their job, and then anyone they need to replace they will hire locally.
Of course, when companies relocate from Southern California to Texas [*cough*Boeing*cough*] they're usually doing it explicitly to replace their current staff with lower-paid employees from the midwest, so the confusion is understandable.
"There is little in the way of 'female dominated competition'..."
So then you are familiar with the men who tried out for the LPGA and WNBA?
I'm astonished to learn that golf and basketball are female-dominated competition. I think pretty much everyone is.
This entire conversation stems from the fact that separate leagues for women's competition do not necessarily allow one to judge their skill accurately. The fact that there is a WNBA doesn't suddenly make the world of basketball female-dominated. It simply reserves a little corner of the male-dominated basketball world for women. If it's for valid reasons, then there's not much reason for men to try out for it. If it's not for valid reasons, then the issue of women wanting to be in the "real" NBA is probably a lot more pressing than the issue of men wanting to be in the WNBA, since the benefits of participating in the former are a lot greater.
"It is an uncommon one for most men..." I've found adversity is common to almost everyone.
Beautiful out-of-context quote. I've found that there are a lot fewer men trying to be accepted in female-dominated circles than the other way around, and that there are still few women trying to be accepted in male-dominated ones. You have found different, apparently, or you decided to change my meaning.
"You know nothing about disadvantage. You don't know what the disadvantage is to being automatically seen as something less than you are, or have the choice of being mistaken for a different gender. The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy is one I'd give up any day to not have to prove I have a brain."
Uh-huh. Ouch. "It seems you took much that was said in response to that person's particular attitudes much too personally."
Yes. I did lecture someone who told me that the disadvantages of being a woman entering a male-dominated arena are nonexistent because I can just flirt my way to the top. You lectured me on much the same subject. The difference is, I addressed someone who was directly addressing *me*, while you decided that I obviously felt the same way about all men, not just the ones who like belittling women because they think it's such an awesome privilege to be considered a sex object.
"If you are the best equipped, however, it is safer and more efficient for you to do most of it."
And this line of reasoning can justify any type of sexism, for keeping women out of combat roles in the military to keeping women out of top positions in businesses as they are less competitive. A good deal of sexism seems to parade itself disguised as practicality. I disregard it. You knew the mission was dangerous, quit bitching about it now.
Oh, come on. Are you saying that you work in a place where everyone's job routinely requires heavy lifting, and all the women expect you to do all of it for them? Are you telling me you were *hired* just because you could do the heavy lifting? Or were you talking about a situation where occasionally, there is lifting to be done, and you're often picked as the one to do it? Because they're not the same thing.
Should I complain that at my first job, they often pulled *me* to do heavy lifting/carting stuff around? Not because I was bigger (I was the shortest person on staff) or stronger (I was usually the only female on the floor, and one of the youngest employees), but because they knew I was taking a weight-training class that summer and so wouldn't mind the extra exercise? Is that also inappropriate? It sounds like it's *always* inappropriate to cast someone into a role for you, no matter what the reasons are.
There's a matter of reasonable and unreasonable actions. I pointed out that there are situations where your co-worker's actions are reasonable, and situations where they're unreasonable. You haven't given anyone enough information to actually determine if they're being reasonable or unreasonable. Truth is, if you're a foot t
DVD recorders should not be illegal...selling (or even just giving) a burned DVD of Star Wars should be illegal.
Always?
What if you (1) bought the DVD; (2) made a back-up copy for your personal use (which is protected under Fair Use, at least for software, but possibly for other digital media); (3) suffered the tragic loss of your original disk in a PB&J sandwich in the DVD player incident; and then (4) decided to sell the copy at a garage sale?
Is that still illegal? Should it be?
Just extending the point that legality is contextual.
Similar to the system we had when I worked at Kinko's, though it was based on an OS/2 server.
It was the graveyard shift's job to wait until around 3 a.m., when there were no customers in the store, to do the daily backup. It took about 15 minutes, and the entire POS system had to be shut down. (I was working graveyard in a giant location with a second floor, so there were 9 machines we had to go around and log out.) The drawers did not open while the system was shut down (there was no way to open them, as you had to log in to use the interface) but sometimes we would leave a cash drawer open in case someone came in just desperate to make their copies quick and pay cash and leave.
One time, we started the backup right after a couple left the store at about 3:30 a.m. They returned about five minutes later, and wanted to do something else. We apologized for the situation, but explained that we would be unable to accomodate them for a couple of minutes. The guy actually threatened to beat up my co-worker for telling him this. (Meanwhile, his girlfriend was mortified by his machismo.)
My co-worker, thinking on his feet, told him he couldn't "take it outside" with him because he was on duty. When asked what time he got off work, he promptly answered 9:00 a.m., and the guy promised to return. I managed to keep a straight face through this exchange, even though I knew for a fact that Bruce clocked out promptly at 7:00 each morning.
The big banks charge no such fee for using ATM (wells fargo, BofA, ect..), unless its a people republic of california thing....
Not sure what you mean. The big banks are the *worst* about charging fees for ATM usage. Last I knew, there was an antitrust-type lawsuit for the differential fees charged for ATM and credit transactions on the same account (i.e., if I use my ATM Check Card with the Visa logo as a debit card, the store pays more than if I use it as a credit card). All vendors pay fees for all plastic transactions. Generally, the increase in business they get from accepting plastic justifies the fees, but many will have a minimum purchase or even add the fee on top (ARCO at least used to charge you 25 cents to use your ATM card).
On an individual level, the smaller banks usually don't charge you for using another bank's ATM, but the big banks (that have ATMs everywhere) do. WFB charges me $2.00 if I sully my ATM card with another bank's ATM.
I learned about this months ago. But maybe that's because I'm in an Urban Planning program, and it was big news that the Playa Vista Development finally found their office tenant.
This development has been followed closely by a whole lot of people. Environmentalists freaked out about it, because it borders the Ballona Wetlands. The protest caused them to completely redesign the site *and* include several acres of wetlands restoration (because Hughes Aircraft, the former owner of the site, was none too kind to the native flora and fauna). Urban planners and designers are fascinated to see if the site can work, because it incorporates a lot of new (old) ideas, such as a mix of uses, high-density development, and a range of income groups.
When they originally were planning the site, Dreamworks SKG had just formed up, and was going to move in as the big anchor office tenant. When the project was massively delayed, they backed out, and one of the big issues was finding another tenant to take over that huge, state-of-the-art space. EA finally anted up late last year. They're cashing out their Irvine, San Jose, and Austin locations, and consolidating everything there.
If they're paying moving costs, it's a pretty good deal for folks moving, especially from San Jose. Units in Playa Vista start in the low $200k range, and the complex has a *ton* of amenities (including its own childcare center, market, and amphitheatre). Every unit has broadband built in and I think even data jacks in the walls, and the complex has its own intranet for reserving rec rooms, checking out events, and so on.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind living there myself... my husband feels it's a bit remote, though (you'd never guess you're in the second-largest city in the country; Lincoln Blvd. looks empty except for Playa Vista). It's between Venice and Marina del Rey, though, just about 5-10 minutes in one direction or the other.
I'm sure that they're counting on the consolidation saving them on staff, and it sucks that some people will lose their jobs. Me, I'm not crying about them bringing a whole mess o' jobs into Los Angeles, since I live here, but I suppose it does suck for those in the locations they're closing. I don't know if it's a good business move for them... unless they're changing their (fraudulent) policies on MMOG billing*, they'll have no business from me for a while, so who knows? But it's an interesting development, to be sure, from many perspectives.
*Used to have an Earth and Beyond account. Discovered from personal experience (twice) and a guildmate's experience that E&B accounts *always* expire two days before they are supposed to (according to the date that comes up on the screen to nag you EVERY FRICKIN' TIME you log in, after you've cancelled). You have to call them, during business hours, to get it fixed. Sure, they'll fix it right up, but oh... you got booted in the middle of a battle and now you can't log in, but they're closed? Pay up or die. I chose to leave my account permanently expired.
I don't know if you're the same anonymous person that I replied to earlier. If you are not, it seems you took much that was said in response to that person's particular attitudes much too personally.
I am curious to hear your views concerning the dynamics of men entering female dominated competition. Unfortunately, that doesn't even merit consideration in the popular consciousness. Speaking as male in a female dominated profession, I can assure you no special allowances are given to me, and I had to endure the slings and arrows before I was respected for my abilities.
There is little in the way of "female dominated competition," especially in the popular consciousness. I suppose a Betty Crocker Bakeoff would qualify. But as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, women are less competitive than men, which leads to few opportunities for females to dominate organized competition.
Female-dominated professions are another story. For example, teaching (below the college level, and elementary school in particular) is female-dominated. This results in some really bad dynamics for men who go into the profession; they are sometimes more subject to suspicion of improper behavior toward children, for example. In general, any female-dominated profession such as childcare, teaching, nursing, or garment-making is paid less than "comparable" male-dominated work, which is a burden on anyone who is in the profession, regardless of gender. This burden can be particularly difficult for men, since they typically have the societal expectation of "breadwinner" and may suffer self-esteem issues if they make less than their spouse or have trouble making ends meet. (Don't have a cite on this, but ran across similar research about men and reactions to unemployment several years ago as an undergrad.)
If anything, I resent any insinuations of what my capabilities should be. I shouldn't be expected to do all the heavy lifting (as my female compatriots were prone to do), nor should I be seen as incapable of delicacy. But that is a common experience.
It is an uncommon one for most men, and an only slightly more common one for women. I recall distinctly the first time I showed up for an RPG session in high school. "Aww... darn, now we can't scratch ourselves!" and other comments about my "invasion." But after a relatively short time, they realized I was perfectly capable of being a person, rather than just a female. It sounds like you have in some ways experienced the same sort of phenomenon.
WRT doing the heavy lifting, however, this is a matter of physical makeup, I believe. If you are of slighter build than other co-workers (i.e., you're not the best equipped to do the job), then it is out of line for them to expect it of you. If you are the best equipped, however, it is safer and more efficient for you to do most of it. But you didn't comment on this aspect of the decision, so I don't know if they are being chauvinistic or simply practical.
"The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy..." Thank you for reducing my sexuality to exploitation. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know my romantic pursuits are simply degrading to the other party.
Note that this was addressed to someone specifically discussing the fact that women have an "advantage" because men want to get into their pants. It was also addressed to someone who started off by calling me "honey." If you do not see being a sexual object as an advantage, the comment was not directed at your romantic pursuits. In fact, if your pursuits are even the slightest bit romantic, you probably view women as more than a dickcozy, and should not have considered that statement targeted at you in any way.
In you are going to compete, compete. Arbitrary rules only foster the idea of inability. Girls still seem to accomplish beyond what you might say.
What I might say? What I said was that they could accomplish quite a bit, in spite of having more to prove fr
I can see why you posted anonymously... I wouldn't take ownership of such bad reading comprehension, either.
honey, you need to give up on your male-hating views.
My husband, and the majority of my friends, would find it shocking that I "hate" them based on their 43rd chromosome. It's not hatred that motivates me to say shocking phrases like "male-dominated competition"... it's demographics.
Men don't care that you are female when you play online games.
Yes, they do, actually. They usually find it amusing, sometimes suprising, and often intriguing. Of course, when they don't *know* I'm female, they don't care. But when you walk into a tournament, it's kind of hard to disguise your gender unless you really try.
as a matter of fact, a crappy female player has a better chance of making it into a clan just because she is female than a male does.
"a clan" sure. "A professional gaming clan" as was discussed in the article and as I mentioned in my post, however, is a bit different.
Face it, women aren't at a disadvantage, they are at an advantage and still don't/can't play at a high level.
If you happen to belong to an ethnic minority, have a disfiguring disability, or are otherwise marginalized, forgive the assumptions of the following paragraph:
You know nothing about disadvantage. You don't know what the disadvantage is to being automatically seen as something less than you are, or have the choice of being mistaken for a different gender. The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy is one I'd give up any day to not have to prove I have a brain.
I guess you could try to say it's the damn evil corporations who don't cater to women. I don't think it's quite that simple though. I just don't see many women sitting around wishing there were games marketed toward them.
Of course not. If people sat around wishing things would be marketed toward them, there would be no need for marketing. Marketing is about convincing people they want/need something that they would otherwise not seek out.
BTW, the percentage of women who consider Tupperware-style parties something more enticing than an obligation to a friend who's got a bug up her butt about a new product is fairly small. I'd guess that less than 50% of women have even *been* to one of these types of parties. Very, very few would seek them out. Shopping is a lot more fun if it's not someone shoving stuff they think you should like in your face.
I think the perfect example is driving. Men can more quickly adapt to what's going on around them in a car and translate the objects around them better. The result is that the women feel the men are careening out of control and complain. However, partially this is due to the fact that their brains aren't translating the information as quickly, so what looks out of control to them isn't to the men.
Er... on the other hand, it might be because men are more apt to engage in risk-taking behavior. Which is why, even if they might have fewer accidents numerically per mile driven, they are much more likely to cause a serious injury or fatality in a given accident than women are.
Well, competitive grocery shopping might be a bit nuts.
Actually, I remember several years ago seeing a game show on some UHF channel called "Supermarket Sweep." It was competitive grocery shopping. Something about getting all the items on your list into your cart as fast as possible, and the best time wins.
It was a bit nuts. Personally, I much prefer the British game show where the end game consists of trying to taunt kittens onto the spot that has the prize you want to win...
What are all these women gamers playing? Are we talking about online chess? Yahoo games? Solitaire Chat^H^H^H^H Simms Online?
The difference is one of identity and level of interest. What percentage of people who consider themselves "gamers" are women, as opposed to just the percentage of people that play computer games?
If you're marketing a new online game, do you *care* who thinks they're a gamer?
Of course you do. Because if a lot of your potential market *doesn't* think of themselves that way, you'd be a fool to market to that demographic.
And yet, they do. I remember the ridiculous TV commercials they first came up with for EQ (even before the Everquest Online Adventures for PS2 came out and was marketed on television). Pretty much every female EQ player found them repulsive. And they were actually *trying* to appeal to women.
The number of people who consider themselves "gamers" is really pretty small. It's time that computer game companies started realizing they're part of the *entertainment* industry, not the technology industry, and started acting accordingly.