Is anyone considering the local effects of warming the water in the harbors these centers will be docked in? It seems to me, given the current toxic algal bloom off the west coast of the US at the moment, we might be just a bit concerned, right?
Good, that means I read the OP and your comments correctly. In order for your "baby factories" comment to be valid (in my mind at least), it means that the woman is forced to become pregnant. Since the woman became pregnant of her own agency (assuming it wasn't the result of rape), she is not being forced to act as a baby factory, but rather face the consequences of her own actions. There are precautions a couple can take to avoid pregnancy, even if they choose to be sexually active (condoms are 99% effective if used correctly, for example).
In an ideal world, every human would be implanted with a reversible birth control device, but there is no perfect world. So, based on your statement, if she "can't keep it in her pants", so to speak and ends up pregnant, she needs to go to "Mommy Jail" (I'll drop the Baby Factory, as we can't seem to agree on this) and be forced to have the child. So, by your opinion, carrying the baby to term is her "punishment" for doing something perfectly natural and quite enjoyable. Also, please do not forget that, prior to the 40's reliable contraception wasn't available (poorly made condoms and diaphragms). Are you saying that there needs to be retribution?
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious.
Morals and ethics exist outside the realm of religion. 99% of the world's adult population would agree it's immoral to kill another human being in most everyday circumstances. Most would agree it's immoral to steal or rob.
A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care.
Does that make it moral to kill a newborn? Doesn't that newborn have rights?
This is an interesting question and has plagued humans forever. For most societies throughout history up to the present day the practice of "female infanticide" was and is, acceptable. I can't speak to the morality of it; I can understand it, but I am not in favor of it (the dregs of a rejected Catholic indoctrination, I suppose). It's a variation on the old "Titanic lifeboat dilemma"; you have X amount of weight the boat can carry before it swamps and everyone drowns, and people keep floating in the water, screaming for help. What do you do? As far as "Newborn Rights" go, again, one that is wrestled with and decisions made and reversed often over time, based on the needs of the society it is born into. Lately, it would seem that in Western European countries, we have the luxury of debating this question. Sadly, there are places in the world where there is no such luxury.
Unless you are willing to take responsibility for at least one unwanted child, who are you to impose your beliefs on another individual? You can have opinions, yes, but how can you be allowed to impose your beliefs on another individual? Just where does your sense of "morality" come from? Think long and hard about that.
I admit that my religion has shaped my sense of morality. I also believe that most normal humans are born with a general sense of right and wrong. You have no idea about my family and personal life except what I post here.
I agree that we are born with the capacity to develop an internal compass, but that the compass is guided by the needs of the society and comes from many sources, generally whatever the needs of the time are, and what is in vogue at the time. You might be interested in reading P. Churchland's "Braintrust. What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality" for a more in-depth look at the role that evolutionary biology plays in the development of "morals".
BTW, is that Laie, Hawaii? I was lucky enough to live in Kaneohe town for 8 years before a family situation brought me back to the mainland, but if so, I am h
No, Laie_techie, I do not have "things mixed up in my head."; the OP said, and I quote so you don't have to actually bother reading the thread, "When there are many people who can't have children who struggle to adopt, abortion should not be happening", hence, the comment about forcing women to be "Baby Factories" for childless, entitled people.
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious. A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care. Unless you are willing to take responsibility for at least one unwanted child, who are you to impose your beliefs on another individual? You can have opinions, yes, but how can you be allowed to impose your beliefs on another individual? Just where does your sense of "morality" come from? Think long and hard about that.
BTW, is that Laie, Hawaii? I was lucky enough to live in Kaneohe town for 8 years before a family situation brought me back to the mainland, but if so, I am happy for you being able to live the island life; there is nothing else like it,
So you have problems with people who are willing to adopt children, but the entitled people killing defenseless babies aren't entitled to you?
Nice misrepresentation of what I stated, or really, really bad reading comprehension.
I'll re-state my opinion in a simpler way, in deference to you, Coren22, I have a real problem with folks telling women they can't control their own bodies. IMO, it's no one's fucking business at all, except for the host. Can't breed and don't want to adopt older kids, brown or yellow kids, kids that just might have fetal alcohol syndrome, you know, the kids that could really use your help? That smacks of entitlement to me, but as I said, it's just my opinion.
Um, forcing your will on other humans just because you can't breed and you want a baby is way beyond shady, it's manipulative and cruel to force others to be your "baby factories" for your entitled self. There is no valid reason for any more reproduction of the species other than those based in selfishness or superstition. Of course, just my opinion.
I have never understood this type of person. If you're going to do something, just do it, don't contact the press about it for the dramatic "look at me" moment. Perhaps Bellini didn't get enough parental attention as a child. Just my opinion.
1) if you play music beyond personal enjoyment, which license is inherent in "buying a record," you need to license the play with ASCAP or BMI as appropriate for the song. scale varies depending on audience size; there are deals for radio stations and web usage.
2) if you wish to license the songs for playing in your own band for public performance, there is a set rate.
3) if you would like a custom album or CD for a special occasion, you need to license master usage from the Harry Fox Agency. I thought about it for my wedding music, but looked north of $60 a copy. nope.
4) if by chance you wanted any artwork used on the original album, you would have to negotiate that with the art owner, typically the record company.
this is why all the record outfits have "special services" departments. correlate it all, make the package, one stop, one check.
Speaking as a semi-preforming musician, I would like to point a few things out in this posting that I believe are misconceptions.
Points 1 and 2 are basically the same (I do find it a bit hard to understand point 1, but I assume you mean "performance for hire", like in a restaurant). Both of these licensing situations are the the responsibility of the venue - the venue, not the performers, pay the blanket licensing fee to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, generally through a middleman (IIRC) that handles the licensing for them. At no time is the performer ever charged for the licensing.
Point 3 - this would be true if you are compiling the CD yourself and holding the performance at a venue that does not pay the licensing; generally, wedding reception venues have met the point above regarding appropriate licensing. Likewise, having a wedding CD ("Mixtape CD") can be done by a professional company that has paid the licensing fees - you can specify the titles desired - and it should not cost you anywhere near $60 per copy. But I do encourage you to hire live musicians rather than relying on a CD or DJ. Cheaper for you, but tougher on real, live musicians.
Point 4 - agreed on this - if you want artwork, you need to either deal with the publishers or copyright holders, but there are many specialized art dealers that supply album art. It's not cheap, but it's not just for millionaires, either. They are generally high-quality ink jet reproductions of the original work (Giclee, fancy French word for "you paid a lot of money for an ink-jet print").
Also, interesting point - there are "operatives" for the major licensing companies that regularly visit venues (bar, restaurants, reception halls, etc.) to confirm that the correct licensing is in place. And there are a large number of "mom 'n pop" venues (restaurants and bars, mostly) that do not have any licensing. As a performer, it's best to check that out, if it matters to you. The big chain places generally have it all covered.
That might explain the initial rush, but it utterly fails to explain why wristwatches became the de-facto standard for the next 90-odd years.
I believe, based on what I've read about horology and popular culture is that after the very expensive Dumont was created, mass produced wrist watches were given to British WWI soldiers as part of their kit. Prior to WWI, wrist watches were considered a woman's accessory, the pocket watch still being the standard for the average man in the street. After the war, the wrist watch was seen as a manly accoutrement for the working classes and were manufactured in factories at a working man's price point. An interesting side note, many early "wrist watches" were simply pocket watches with a small framework silver-soldered onto the case and the cover removed (if it had one) leaving room for the winding stem (if the winding stem was at the 3, not the 12 position as in a Conductor's pocket watch). But again, just what I have read.
So you think that the whole world transitioned from pocket watches to wrist watches many decades ago because they were all sheeple?
While there are a few examples of wristwatch design prior (especially for the military), in 1904 Dumont asked Cartier to design a watch he could wear and still keep both hands free for flying. Jaeger designed a wristwatch for Cartier called the "Dumont", after the famous aviator, in 1911 for commercial sale and the "trendy set" rushed to buy them. Sounds like a pretty familiar story to me... even a bit sheeplish, don't you think? I believe that some things never really change, but of course, that's just my opinion.
I'm curious... At this point do we just expect everything to be 100% free? Or do we think money fairies give companies the capital to pay for bandwidth and processing power?
Umm... if the advert sites go away for want of revenue, so what? I am currently involved in development work on a site in which we expect a lot of traffic, fill a niche not addressed in the chosen field, and we have no plans to run ads or charge for the service; that goes against all of our principals. And we will pony up the dough to run it ourselves, no contributions asked, expected or accepted. I also belong to a couple of private sites that are of interest to me and I contribute cash a few times a year to defray the operating costs. I also kick some cash to Wikipedia a few times a year just to help keep it ad-free. Provide it or not. Perhaps it will all come back around to Usenet and Fidonet connecting text-based RBBS. In any case, the profiteers will go away, but the information will still flow. Obviously, just my opinion.
Wow, you seem like a fairly cynical guy and honestly, sound kinda bitter; sorry about that, and I'm not certain how much travelling you actually do for your company. All the places I ever worked for gave me the choice of airline, hotel and car (except one, and it was back in the days of Piedmont Airlines) by providing a "per diem" and letting me pay more or less for everything - I could have stayed in a Motel 6 and made money on my per diem if I wanted to - and was allowed to keep the miles as a "bonus" for doing the trip (and I suspect they felt they could pay me just a bit less as they didn't care about the miles but knew their frequent travelers did - so it worked for everyone).
But thanks for assuming that I'm a thief and embezzler; Merry Christmas to you, too!
Repeat guests? C'mon, really? You shop for hotels the same way the rest of us do - Either your employer tells you "you will stay here", or you use a price search and pick the lowest place that doesn't mention rats in the toilet.
I think that's probably a bad assumption. Staying within the same chain (in the US, they all have a broad range of properties at various prices, low to high) is very much the same as renting your car from the same franchise, using the same airline for the miles and a CC like Amex or BofA that gives you double miles and other perks (but be aware of your fees). I suppose that if you only travel once or twice a year then grabbing the lowest price you can get seems like a good idea, but when you are on the road a lot, building air miles, hotel loyalty perks (Executive floor access, free food and drinks, reserved parking, free ramp parking, etc.), access to your chosen airlines lounge with free drinks and snacks rather than sitting in seats picking up everyone's colds, picking up free/reduced/upgraded rental cars when on your *own* vacation are all part of the strategy. On the road, you have to think the "long game"; if you start small, just a few trips a year, you are still building your accounts - just my experience.
Did Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep have a sequel?
It's always nice when hack directors decide to "fix up" the writing of gifted authors, or decide that they know better their intent. "Bladerunner" bore no resemblance to "Do Androids..." other than to steal a few great ideas. Can you imagine what a clusterfuck Scott would make out of "Ubik"? It will eventually happen; PKD is just too good for some asshat "artiste'" not to adapt beyond all recognition, time after time. The only person I might trust to do something like Ubik correctly would be Joss Whedon; at least he seems to get the genre and have fun with it. IMO, Scott is just an egotistical fool. Too bad PKD had to sell out; he was just writing too far ahead of his time and like lots of brilliant artists, had a lot of personal baggage.
You know, I like this idea a lot, but I am not sure about it's success. I can see it would be very useful for collecting like information into one place and provide a single point of entry for all information relating to a particular story or like stories (for example, a few days after the Ferguson shooting, a white cop in a southern town shot an unarmed black man he pulled over for a seat belt violation, and the city sat on the information and video for almost a week, which resulted in no story at all, which I believe was the point - who knows about that shooting? What else happened in the world that day that got by *me* in all the noise?). Your Infobitt system would have allowed for that information to be posted almost immediately; no axes grinding, just the facts - unarmed black driver shot by white policeman, city refusing to release any information. Folks who cared would want to know that. I suspect that that people don't want to know about things anymore. I read many news feeds every day and I also read the comments for most articles. It's pretty much a troll and hate fest. In my opinion, the media is used to divide, not unite or inform. The trolls and haters don't want to see facts, they just seem to want to turn the crank a little tighter. Folks like me might be inclined to contribute to Infobitt, but really, who will be reading it? Again, just my opinion, but I think that most folks would have no idea how to use the data collected and summarized, feel even more frustrated and powerless, and spend more time in front of the television. A front-end without a back is not very effective, IMO. Perhaps I am missing the back-end? The tools that allow people to act/react in a significant way to what they are reading? That would be essential to the success of this venture, IMO.
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, the literal transformation of bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of christ, and other christians view it as the symbolic consumption of the body and blood of christ. Cannibalism is a major tenet of christianity, it is the culmination if their ritual, they just don't like to talk about it a lot. Ask a catholic about it, or even ask a non-catholic christian why they symbolically eat the flesh and blood of their savior. I guarantee you'll have an interesting conversation.
Don't over think it - you can't afford to go, but they will pay for training. Find the training locally and forget the conference. Conferences are over-rated and while I wouldn't pay for my guys to attend a conference (especially Vegas), I always paid for training (and even exam costs when I had the budget for it - the last few years I could only cover training). If your job is as good as you say it is, you're a bit crazy thinking about leaving over a conference. A whole bunch of IT sucks hard out there, these days. Just my opinion and I hope this helps - it's what I would tell you if you worked for my office and came to me with this issue.
This plus the microwave weapon that makes you feel like you're on fire for "Crowd Control" - oh, no one would ever use it to "interrogate" someone, I'm sure.
What a sick fucking world we've created, or have allowed to be created by silent consent. Getting tear-gassed in the 60's was all for nothing, we were all just a bunch of idealistic assholes; we shoulda just kept our mouths shut and concentrated an getting rich, then we could be doing the burning and the blinding. What a colossal species fail we are.
It's because you have never lived under harsh conditions. I used to fall asleep on a C-2 while it was under fire. It was a lot easier than sleeping in the jungle.
I mean, yeah, your life is hard. It's a shame you can't sleep on a plane.
Touche'! If I could buy you the beverage of your choice, I would!
Slashdot Mirror
Is anyone considering the local effects of warming the water in the harbors these centers will be docked in? It seems to me, given the current toxic algal bloom off the west coast of the US at the moment, we might be just a bit concerned, right?
Good, that means I read the OP and your comments correctly. In order for your "baby factories" comment to be valid (in my mind at least), it means that the woman is forced to become pregnant. Since the woman became pregnant of her own agency (assuming it wasn't the result of rape), she is not being forced to act as a baby factory, but rather face the consequences of her own actions. There are precautions a couple can take to avoid pregnancy, even if they choose to be sexually active (condoms are 99% effective if used correctly, for example).
In an ideal world, every human would be implanted with a reversible birth control device, but there is no perfect world. So, based on your statement, if she "can't keep it in her pants", so to speak and ends up pregnant, she needs to go to "Mommy Jail" (I'll drop the Baby Factory, as we can't seem to agree on this) and be forced to have the child. So, by your opinion, carrying the baby to term is her "punishment" for doing something perfectly natural and quite enjoyable. Also, please do not forget that, prior to the 40's reliable contraception wasn't available (poorly made condoms and diaphragms). Are you saying that there needs to be retribution?
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious.
Morals and ethics exist outside the realm of religion. 99% of the world's adult population would agree it's immoral to kill another human being in most everyday circumstances. Most would agree it's immoral to steal or rob.
A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care.
Does that make it moral to kill a newborn? Doesn't that newborn have rights?
This is an interesting question and has plagued humans forever. For most societies throughout history up to the present day the practice of "female infanticide" was and is, acceptable. I can't speak to the morality of it; I can understand it, but I am not in favor of it (the dregs of a rejected Catholic indoctrination, I suppose). It's a variation on the old "Titanic lifeboat dilemma"; you have X amount of weight the boat can carry before it swamps and everyone drowns, and people keep floating in the water, screaming for help. What do you do? As far as "Newborn Rights" go, again, one that is wrestled with and decisions made and reversed often over time, based on the needs of the society it is born into. Lately, it would seem that in Western European countries, we have the luxury of debating this question. Sadly, there are places in the world where there is no such luxury.
Unless you are willing to take responsibility for at least one unwanted child, who are you to impose your beliefs on another individual? You can have opinions, yes, but how can you be allowed to impose your beliefs on another individual? Just where does your sense of "morality" come from? Think long and hard about that.
I admit that my religion has shaped my sense of morality. I also believe that most normal humans are born with a general sense of right and wrong. You have no idea about my family and personal life except what I post here.
I agree that we are born with the capacity to develop an internal compass, but that the compass is guided by the needs of the society and comes from many sources, generally whatever the needs of the time are, and what is in vogue at the time. You might be interested in reading P. Churchland's "Braintrust. What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality" for a more in-depth look at the role that evolutionary biology plays in the development of "morals".
BTW, is that Laie, Hawaii? I was lucky enough to live in Kaneohe town for 8 years before a family situation brought me back to the mainland, but if so, I am h
REPOSTING as Slash seems to have screwed up:
No, Laie_techie, I do not have "things mixed up in my head."; the OP said, and I quote so you don't have to actually bother reading the thread, "When there are many people who can't have children who struggle to adopt, abortion should not be happening", hence, the comment about forcing women to be "Baby Factories" for childless, entitled people.
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious. A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care. Unless you are willing to take responsibility for at least one unwanted child, who are you to impose your beliefs on another individual? You can have opinions, yes, but how can you be allowed to impose your beliefs on another individual? Just where does your sense of "morality" come from? Think long and hard about that.
BTW, is that Laie, Hawaii? I was lucky enough to live in Kaneohe town for 8 years before a family situation brought me back to the mainland, but if so, I am happy for you being able to live the island life; there is nothing else like it,
So you have problems with people who are willing to adopt children, but the entitled people killing defenseless babies aren't entitled to you?
Nice misrepresentation of what I stated, or really, really bad reading comprehension.
I'll re-state my opinion in a simpler way, in deference to you, Coren22, I have a real problem with folks telling women they can't control their own bodies. IMO, it's no one's fucking business at all, except for the host. Can't breed and don't want to adopt older kids, brown or yellow kids, kids that just might have fetal alcohol syndrome, you know, the kids that could really use your help? That smacks of entitlement to me, but as I said, it's just my opinion.
Um, forcing your will on other humans just because you can't breed and you want a baby is way beyond shady, it's manipulative and cruel to force others to be your "baby factories" for your entitled self. There is no valid reason for any more reproduction of the species other than those based in selfishness or superstition. Of course, just my opinion.
Orbo.
I have never understood this type of person. If you're going to do something, just do it, don't contact the press about it for the dramatic "look at me" moment. Perhaps Bellini didn't get enough parental attention as a child. Just my opinion.
1) if you play music beyond personal enjoyment, which license is inherent in "buying a record," you need to license the play with ASCAP or BMI as appropriate for the song. scale varies depending on audience size; there are deals for radio stations and web usage.
2) if you wish to license the songs for playing in your own band for public performance, there is a set rate.
3) if you would like a custom album or CD for a special occasion, you need to license master usage from the Harry Fox Agency. I thought about it for my wedding music, but looked north of $60 a copy. nope.
4) if by chance you wanted any artwork used on the original album, you would have to negotiate that with the art owner, typically the record company.
this is why all the record outfits have "special services" departments. correlate it all, make the package, one stop, one check.
Speaking as a semi-preforming musician, I would like to point a few things out in this posting that I believe are misconceptions.
Points 1 and 2 are basically the same (I do find it a bit hard to understand point 1, but I assume you mean "performance for hire", like in a restaurant). Both of these licensing situations are the the responsibility of the venue - the venue, not the performers, pay the blanket licensing fee to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, generally through a middleman (IIRC) that handles the licensing for them. At no time is the performer ever charged for the licensing.
Point 3 - this would be true if you are compiling the CD yourself and holding the performance at a venue that does not pay the licensing; generally, wedding reception venues have met the point above regarding appropriate licensing. Likewise, having a wedding CD ("Mixtape CD") can be done by a professional company that has paid the licensing fees - you can specify the titles desired - and it should not cost you anywhere near $60 per copy. But I do encourage you to hire live musicians rather than relying on a CD or DJ. Cheaper for you, but tougher on real, live musicians.
Point 4 - agreed on this - if you want artwork, you need to either deal with the publishers or copyright holders, but there are many specialized art dealers that supply album art. It's not cheap, but it's not just for millionaires, either. They are generally high-quality ink jet reproductions of the original work (Giclee, fancy French word for "you paid a lot of money for an ink-jet print").
Also, interesting point - there are "operatives" for the major licensing companies that regularly visit venues (bar, restaurants, reception halls, etc.) to confirm that the correct licensing is in place. And there are a large number of "mom 'n pop" venues (restaurants and bars, mostly) that do not have any licensing. As a performer, it's best to check that out, if it matters to you. The big chain places generally have it all covered.
That might explain the initial rush, but it utterly fails to explain why wristwatches became the de-facto standard for the next 90-odd years.
I believe, based on what I've read about horology and popular culture is that after the very expensive Dumont was created, mass produced wrist watches were given to British WWI soldiers as part of their kit. Prior to WWI, wrist watches were considered a woman's accessory, the pocket watch still being the standard for the average man in the street. After the war, the wrist watch was seen as a manly accoutrement for the working classes and were manufactured in factories at a working man's price point. An interesting side note, many early "wrist watches" were simply pocket watches with a small framework silver-soldered onto the case and the cover removed (if it had one) leaving room for the winding stem (if the winding stem was at the 3, not the 12 position as in a Conductor's pocket watch). But again, just what I have read.
So you think that the whole world transitioned from pocket watches to wrist watches many decades ago because they were all sheeple?
While there are a few examples of wristwatch design prior (especially for the military), in 1904 Dumont asked Cartier to design a watch he could wear and still keep both hands free for flying. Jaeger designed a wristwatch for Cartier called the "Dumont", after the famous aviator, in 1911 for commercial sale and the "trendy set" rushed to buy them. Sounds like a pretty familiar story to me... even a bit sheeplish, don't you think? I believe that some things never really change, but of course, that's just my opinion.
So where did the dough to run it come from? Evil corporation or magical fairies?
My savings. I worked in education, so I guess magical fairies?
I'm curious... At this point do we just expect everything to be 100% free? Or do we think money fairies give companies the capital to pay for bandwidth and processing power?
Umm... if the advert sites go away for want of revenue, so what? I am currently involved in development work on a site in which we expect a lot of traffic, fill a niche not addressed in the chosen field, and we have no plans to run ads or charge for the service; that goes against all of our principals. And we will pony up the dough to run it ourselves, no contributions asked, expected or accepted. I also belong to a couple of private sites that are of interest to me and I contribute cash a few times a year to defray the operating costs. I also kick some cash to Wikipedia a few times a year just to help keep it ad-free. Provide it or not. Perhaps it will all come back around to Usenet and Fidonet connecting text-based RBBS. In any case, the profiteers will go away, but the information will still flow. Obviously, just my opinion.
This article is pretty old news. The woman leased a...
Did you then take her home and have "the sex"?
Probably not needed anymore; most drivers just might notice a flasher on while they were texting.
Wow, you seem like a fairly cynical guy and honestly, sound kinda bitter; sorry about that, and I'm not certain how much travelling you actually do for your company. All the places I ever worked for gave me the choice of airline, hotel and car (except one, and it was back in the days of Piedmont Airlines) by providing a "per diem" and letting me pay more or less for everything - I could have stayed in a Motel 6 and made money on my per diem if I wanted to - and was allowed to keep the miles as a "bonus" for doing the trip (and I suspect they felt they could pay me just a bit less as they didn't care about the miles but knew their frequent travelers did - so it worked for everyone).
But thanks for assuming that I'm a thief and embezzler; Merry Christmas to you, too!
Repeat guests? C'mon, really? You shop for hotels the same way the rest of us do - Either your employer tells you "you will stay here", or you use a price search and pick the lowest place that doesn't mention rats in the toilet.
I think that's probably a bad assumption. Staying within the same chain (in the US, they all have a broad range of properties at various prices, low to high) is very much the same as renting your car from the same franchise, using the same airline for the miles and a CC like Amex or BofA that gives you double miles and other perks (but be aware of your fees). I suppose that if you only travel once or twice a year then grabbing the lowest price you can get seems like a good idea, but when you are on the road a lot, building air miles, hotel loyalty perks (Executive floor access, free food and drinks, reserved parking, free ramp parking, etc.), access to your chosen airlines lounge with free drinks and snacks rather than sitting in seats picking up everyone's colds, picking up free/reduced/upgraded rental cars when on your *own* vacation are all part of the strategy. On the road, you have to think the "long game"; if you start small, just a few trips a year, you are still building your accounts - just my experience.
Did Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep have a sequel?
It's always nice when hack directors decide to "fix up" the writing of gifted authors, or decide that they know better their intent. "Bladerunner" bore no resemblance to "Do Androids..." other than to steal a few great ideas. Can you imagine what a clusterfuck Scott would make out of "Ubik"? It will eventually happen; PKD is just too good for some asshat "artiste'" not to adapt beyond all recognition, time after time. The only person I might trust to do something like Ubik correctly would be Joss Whedon; at least he seems to get the genre and have fun with it. IMO, Scott is just an egotistical fool. Too bad PKD had to sell out; he was just writing too far ahead of his time and like lots of brilliant artists, had a lot of personal baggage.
You know, I like this idea a lot, but I am not sure about it's success. I can see it would be very useful for collecting like information into one place and provide a single point of entry for all information relating to a particular story or like stories (for example, a few days after the Ferguson shooting, a white cop in a southern town shot an unarmed black man he pulled over for a seat belt violation, and the city sat on the information and video for almost a week, which resulted in no story at all, which I believe was the point - who knows about that shooting? What else happened in the world that day that got by *me* in all the noise?). Your Infobitt system would have allowed for that information to be posted almost immediately; no axes grinding, just the facts - unarmed black driver shot by white policeman, city refusing to release any information. Folks who cared would want to know that. I suspect that that people don't want to know about things anymore. I read many news feeds every day and I also read the comments for most articles. It's pretty much a troll and hate fest. In my opinion, the media is used to divide, not unite or inform. The trolls and haters don't want to see facts, they just seem to want to turn the crank a little tighter. Folks like me might be inclined to contribute to Infobitt, but really, who will be reading it? Again, just my opinion, but I think that most folks would have no idea how to use the data collected and summarized, feel even more frustrated and powerless, and spend more time in front of the television. A front-end without a back is not very effective, IMO. Perhaps I am missing the back-end? The tools that allow people to act/react in a significant way to what they are reading? That would be essential to the success of this venture, IMO.
It's kinda interesting; your posts read a lot like the text on a bottle of Dr. Bronners.
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, the literal transformation of bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of christ, and other christians view it as the symbolic consumption of the body and blood of christ. Cannibalism is a major tenet of christianity, it is the culmination if their ritual, they just don't like to talk about it a lot. Ask a catholic about it, or even ask a non-catholic christian why they symbolically eat the flesh and blood of their savior. I guarantee you'll have an interesting conversation.
Don't over think it - you can't afford to go, but they will pay for training. Find the training locally and forget the conference. Conferences are over-rated and while I wouldn't pay for my guys to attend a conference (especially Vegas), I always paid for training (and even exam costs when I had the budget for it - the last few years I could only cover training). If your job is as good as you say it is, you're a bit crazy thinking about leaving over a conference. A whole bunch of IT sucks hard out there, these days. Just my opinion and I hope this helps - it's what I would tell you if you worked for my office and came to me with this issue.
This plus the microwave weapon that makes you feel like you're on fire for "Crowd Control" - oh, no one would ever use it to "interrogate" someone, I'm sure.
What a sick fucking world we've created, or have allowed to be created by silent consent. Getting tear-gassed in the 60's was all for nothing, we were all just a bunch of idealistic assholes; we shoulda just kept our mouths shut and concentrated an getting rich, then we could be doing the burning and the blinding. What a colossal species fail we are.
I welcome that killer asteroid.
This is how you get your armed populace to rise up against you.
I thought that was supposed to happen when gasoline got over $4.00 a gallon, or Obama got elected, or something...
Just flew to HNL on Delta - no problem at all. Airplane mode and no laptops were the only instructions for takeoff and landing.
It's because you have never lived under harsh conditions.
I used to fall asleep on a C-2 while it was under fire. It was a lot easier than sleeping in the jungle.
I mean, yeah, your life is hard. It's a shame you can't sleep on a plane.
Touche'! If I could buy you the beverage of your choice, I would!