That's a big part of the problem. We live in a society where advertising is king, and marketing/PR/advertising firms with billions of dollars at their disposal employ teams of specialists in various fields of psychology. These people study and tweak and tune their messages and graphics to make them as irresistible as possible. They are not satisfied until the things they put on screen (or radio or billboard) are utterly maximized to pull and hold the attention of the audience.
And then when people somehow "fall for it" and become distracted by a flash website ad in a lecture, they are "weak" and just "need to learn to focus." Or by extension if they go out and buy some cool shiny toy they didn't really need, they are also "weak" and just "need to learn to live within their means."
I'm all for personal responsibility, but we live in a society full of constant, blaring messages that are actively and expertly designed to erode that sense of personal responsibility. I am convinced that if you took an average person from 100 years ago and transported them into the modern "look at this shit! buy this other shit!" world, they would quite rightly go insane in short order.
A curious choice of words. What if somebody is a brilliant theoretician but they easily lose focus when people nearby do distracting things? Still a weak-minded, unmotivated individual? What if somebody recently suffered a loss or trauma and they're doing their best to buck up and keep attending lectures, but the person beside them surfing YouTube is the "the last straw?" Another weak-minded, unmotivated individual?
How did reading a Dr. Suess storybook enter into this? TFA is about making copies of music not singing or reading out loud. You are arguing a point that isn't even in dispute in this case.
You know what? Several decades ago I sang in a children's choir. Every kid in the choir had copies of the sheet music, and every single one of those copies was purchased from the publisher, not photocopied. Most of them had a big "copying prohibited" watermark across every page. So whether GEMA is exactly as big a bunch of douchebags as the RIAA, or only somewhat as big a bunch of douchebags as the RIAA, this story is about something that has been going on since the invention of toner - music publishers expecting that people won't photocopy their work even if it's just a bunch of kids singing.
The summary of this article is deliberately inflammatory.
Statistically, every single IC-powered car is guaranteed to emit CO2, NOx, SOx, and some amount of other pollutants including unburned hydrocarbons and metals every single time it goes anyplace.
Statistically, a tiny subset of battery-powered EV cars will experience a collision on any given trip, and a tiny subsubset of those vehicles will experience a leak from the battery as a result of that collision.
So if we want to look at environmental damage, you don't compare a single worst-case-scenario EV trip with a single best-case-scenario IC trip... unless you are Glenn Beck.
Well, we have perfected transliteration software, but good translation remains the domain of skilled specialists, and will likely remain so for several decades.
Seriously? I have to go all the way back to the start and explain my post to you? Explain the irony behind the idea of somebody patenting a placebo? Explain the irony behind suing somebody for making a generic placebo? Really?
Well, the first sentence of the two-sentence summary suggests that what makes this newsworthy is the fact it's being done defensively ahead of a major wikileak.
Good luck grabbing every possible abusive word and all variations. "Sucks" is hardly the only word in existence that can be used to mean you smoke cock or gobble knob.
Slashdot Mirror
You Betcha!
So what do people in China do for fun?
Laughing. Lots of laughing.
The Do Not Fail registry is coming out in 2011?!
Where do I sign up?
The anticipation is killing me.
attention-pulling flashing or flickering graphics
That's a big part of the problem. We live in a society where advertising is king, and marketing/PR/advertising firms with billions of dollars at their disposal employ teams of specialists in various fields of psychology. These people study and tweak and tune their messages and graphics to make them as irresistible as possible. They are not satisfied until the things they put on screen (or radio or billboard) are utterly maximized to pull and hold the attention of the audience.
And then when people somehow "fall for it" and become distracted by a flash website ad in a lecture, they are "weak" and just "need to learn to focus." Or by extension if they go out and buy some cool shiny toy they didn't really need, they are also "weak" and just "need to learn to live within their means."
I'm all for personal responsibility, but we live in a society full of constant, blaring messages that are actively and expertly designed to erode that sense of personal responsibility. I am convinced that if you took an average person from 100 years ago and transported them into the modern "look at this shit! buy this other shit!" world, they would quite rightly go insane in short order.
Brand new UID of almost 2 million. I'd say the answer is "none of the above"
weaker-minded students ... unmotivated people
A curious choice of words. What if somebody is a brilliant theoretician but they easily lose focus when people nearby do distracting things? Still a weak-minded, unmotivated individual? What if somebody recently suffered a loss or trauma and they're doing their best to buck up and keep attending lectures, but the person beside them surfing YouTube is the "the last straw?" Another weak-minded, unmotivated individual?
Why is SATA a disappointment?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
I have to agree with the part about kindergarten kids being viscous. Have you ever tried to force a group of them through a narrow doorway?
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
That's Neil Young's newest song. Please send him the copyright fees.
Nowhere in the article does it state that the kids can't sing whatever they want, whenever they want to.
How did reading a Dr. Suess storybook enter into this? TFA is about making copies of music not singing or reading out loud. You are arguing a point that isn't even in dispute in this case.
You know what? Several decades ago I sang in a children's choir. Every kid in the choir had copies of the sheet music, and every single one of those copies was purchased from the publisher, not photocopied. Most of them had a big "copying prohibited" watermark across every page. So whether GEMA is exactly as big a bunch of douchebags as the RIAA, or only somewhat as big a bunch of douchebags as the RIAA, this story is about something that has been going on since the invention of toner - music publishers expecting that people won't photocopy their work even if it's just a bunch of kids singing.
The summary of this article is deliberately inflammatory.
The one thing that makes me sad about this list is that SCO isn't somehow included.
Statistically, every single IC-powered car is guaranteed to emit CO2, NOx, SOx, and some amount of other pollutants including unburned hydrocarbons and metals every single time it goes anyplace.
Statistically, a tiny subset of battery-powered EV cars will experience a collision on any given trip, and a tiny subsubset of those vehicles will experience a leak from the battery as a result of that collision.
So if we want to look at environmental damage, you don't compare a single worst-case-scenario EV trip with a single best-case-scenario IC trip ... unless you are Glenn Beck.
If his company is in the goth-supply industry, I'd say you couldn't come up with a better name even if you tried.
Well, we have perfected transliteration software, but good translation remains the domain of skilled specialists, and will likely remain so for several decades.
This technology is pants.
Also, a solar panel on your backpack doesn't necessarily guarantee that you're going to get a beating when you arrive at school.
If you think this is fun to watch, just wait until next year when the Atari Jihad launches.
Seriously? I have to go all the way back to the start and explain my post to you? Explain the irony behind the idea of somebody patenting a placebo? Explain the irony behind suing somebody for making a generic placebo? Really?
Well, the first sentence of the two-sentence summary suggests that what makes this newsworthy is the fact it's being done defensively ahead of a major wikileak.
Good luck grabbing every possible abusive word and all variations. "Sucks" is hardly the only word in existence that can be used to mean you smoke cock or gobble knob.
So I take it you are no longer saying you consider generics to be the equivalent of placebos?
If you in fact consider generics to be the equivalent of placebos
I am saying there is a difference between generic drugs and placebos. They aren't equivalent. They are completely different concepts.