What if he had donated funds to NAMBLA? You know, the group who fights for the rights of a certain minority group to have sex with 8 year old boys. It's wrong to impose your religious views on others with legislation, especially legislation that puts people in jail.
Adults having sex with children does harm, that's why it's illegal. Religion has nothing to do with it, unless you're trying to imply that atheists would have no issue with men raping little boys? Methinks most of them would disagree with that premise.
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
That makes me wonder if any gay couple has been prosecuted for tax evasion due to attempting to file "married filing jointly." Or for trespassing/disorderly conduct/any catch-all offense when trying to visit their [not-legally-recognized] spouse in the hospital. Or with fraud or whatever when trying to exercise power of attorney in each others' name. Etc.
To top it off, as you'll see in the article, the hospital tried to save face by throwing Gorley under the bus, claiming he was "acting disorderly," even though eyewitness accounts and the police report indicate otherwise.
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant
Well sure - you reap what you sow, after all. Intolerance breeds intolerance.
the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done...
That is a matter of opinion, one with which I disagree.
and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
If that were the case, the KKK would have died out 20 years ago.
They haven't. Hell, their "leader" was trying to get on the 2008 election ballot, it was pretty big news around these parts (he lives not far from here).
Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean unconditional support. It means that you have the right to say what you want, and that you should not be persecuted for it by the government.
Even if the government should recognize marriage at all (an assumption I, as a Libertarian, doubt strongly), there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.
Didn't realize the legitimacy of my marriage was contingent on whether or not my wife and I decide to reproduce.
Oh, right, it's not. Marriage is quite obviously a business contract, once you put emotion aside.
They could bring the Fairness Doctrine back if they wanted to, but in reality it would harm their political machinations just as much as it would that of Republicans.
Better to just use the "threat" of it as a cudgel during election years.
Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
You beat bad ideas with good ideas. Not censorship.
So, if a local business decides to ban smoking, and I decide to stop spending my money there because I disagree with their policy, I'm "silencing" or "censoring" them?
Bullshit. Free speech is a two way street, and if you're going to exercise your right to it, you have to understand that other people might react in kind.
For some reason, that sentence invokes some seriously racist mental imagery, the kind that shouldn't be repeated even in unpleasant company. Think "Eric Cartman meets Glenn Beck"
Hi. I'm an audio engineer. I've done several short films, nominated for a few awards. You just called me a moron, because you don't understand what I do.
Yea, sorry about that - after some thought I realized that it's probably not the fault of the editor himself, but rather some clueless network/show executive who saw the clip and bitched about "why the fuck doesn't that car sound like a car?!?!" Plus, the industry has been doing this sort of thing since forever, and I know old habits can be hard to break.
Personally, I'd love to get into audio engineering myself, albeit my interests are geared more towards the musical than theatrical.
The editors who put in car-related audio on all manner of film media are morons, plain and simple.
I mean, these are the same guys that pipe in 'tires screeching on pavement' sounds every time the Duke boys take off, even when they're on gravel or dirt.
Frankly, I'd be far more surprised if they didn't add a bunch of fake engine noises.
I can see that for fiction shows, but 60 Minutes is a documentary. I would hope that an agency of that calibre (a) wouldn't add sound effects to video and (b) wouldn't hire morons.
As my dad would say, hope in one hand and shit in the other...
It probably has less to do with the "calibre" of the film group, and more to do with the established editing process - My guess is, post-production editors probably don't get a lot of back story on the videos they're told to edit.
Obviously the only reasonable solution is to legally mandate that electric car manufacturers put proximity sensors on all their vehicles, that triggers when a pedestrian is within X feet, and plays "Dixie" on the car horn at about 165 db.
The mental image of a sleek, shiny new Tesla blasting that cheesy tune as it rolls up to a crosswalk... priceless.
At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run.
Can you link to the clip/transcript of the scene where this alleged fraudulent claim occurred? Because I remember watching that episode, and aside from (what I perceived as) the playful "if the battery dies, you'll be doing this" pushing scene toward the end, I don't recall them saying or doing anything that would qualify as fraudulent. The fact that Tesla's lawsuit against the show was settled in a way that still allows the BBC to rebroadcast the episode seems to indicate a lack of fraudulent claims.
Also, in fairness, there's no denying that a "fuse issue" caused the brakes to fail during the Stig's test run - Even Tesla admits that one.
The editors who put in car-related audio on all manner of film media are morons, plain and simple.
I mean, these are the same guys that pipe in 'tires screeching on pavement' sounds every time the Duke boys take off, even when they're on gravel or dirt.
Frankly, I'd be far more surprised if they didn't add a bunch of fake engine noises.
Slashdot Mirror
What if he had donated funds to NAMBLA? You know, the group who fights for the rights of a certain minority group to have sex with 8 year old boys. It's wrong to impose your religious views on others with legislation, especially legislation that puts people in jail.
Adults having sex with children does harm, that's why it's illegal. Religion has nothing to do with it, unless you're trying to imply that atheists would have no issue with men raping little boys? Methinks most of them would disagree with that premise.
Nice try, though.
That makes me wonder if any gay couple has been prosecuted for tax evasion due to attempting to file "married filing jointly." Or for trespassing/disorderly conduct/any catch-all offense when trying to visit their [not-legally-recognized] spouse in the hospital. Or with fraud or whatever when trying to exercise power of attorney in each others' name. Etc.
As much as it shames me to admit that this happened in my own state, yes, homosexuals have been not only denied access to dying loved ones in the hospital, Roger Gorley was handcuffed and forcibly removed from the Research Medical Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, despite the fact that he had medical power of attorney over his ailing partner.
To top it off, as you'll see in the article, the hospital tried to save face by throwing Gorley under the bus, claiming he was "acting disorderly," even though eyewitness accounts and the police report indicate otherwise.
What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?
I would have said "Mr. X is wrong in his view, but his company makes a mighty fine browser."
You have that right, just like how the people that chose to boycott Mozilla based on Mr. X's actions have the right to do what they did.
Freedom, bitches!
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant
Well sure - you reap what you sow, after all. Intolerance breeds intolerance.
the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done...
That is a matter of opinion, one with which I disagree.
and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
If that were the case, the KKK would have died out 20 years ago.
They haven't. Hell, their "leader" was trying to get on the 2008 election ballot, it was pretty big news around these parts (he lives not far from here).
Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean unconditional support.
It means that you have the right to say what you want, and that you should not be persecuted for it by the government.
FTFY.
Even if the government should recognize marriage at all (an assumption I, as a Libertarian, doubt strongly), there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.
Didn't realize the legitimacy of my marriage was contingent on whether or not my wife and I decide to reproduce.
Oh, right, it's not. Marriage is quite obviously a business contract, once you put emotion aside.
They could bring the Fairness Doctrine back if they wanted to, but in reality it would harm their political machinations just as much as it would that of Republicans.
Better to just use the "threat" of it as a cudgel during election years.
Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
You beat bad ideas with good ideas. Not censorship.
So, if a local business decides to ban smoking, and I decide to stop spending my money there because I disagree with their policy, I'm "silencing" or "censoring" them?
Bullshit. Free speech is a two way street, and if you're going to exercise your right to it, you have to understand that other people might react in kind.
Same, I disagree with him, but supporting freedom of speech is bigger than any one issue.
You realize that a boycott or protest is also a form of freedom of speech, right? It's called "voting with your feet/dollar"
That oscillating slime mold was delicious!
That was just a random example.
Change the sentence to, "...every time the [insert chosen car-based character] take off" it it makes more sense that way.
Ha, good one!
+1 Zing.
For some reason, that sentence invokes some seriously racist mental imagery, the kind that shouldn't be repeated even in unpleasant company. Think "Eric Cartman meets Glenn Beck"
Funny as hell inside my head, though.
Hi. I'm an audio engineer. I've done several short films, nominated for a few awards. You just called me a moron, because you don't understand what I do.
Yea, sorry about that - after some thought I realized that it's probably not the fault of the editor himself, but rather some clueless network/show executive who saw the clip and bitched about "why the fuck doesn't that car sound like a car?!?!" Plus, the industry has been doing this sort of thing since forever, and I know old habits can be hard to break.
Personally, I'd love to get into audio engineering myself, albeit my interests are geared more towards the musical than theatrical.
Fair enough.
In the future, I'll try to remember that the poor bastard responsible is more than likely some bottom-of-the-ladder peon, taking orders from above.
WHAT?
Ha, j/k, yo.
Indeed; Elenore's apparent 18-speed gearbox is why I can't watch the Gone in 60 Seconds reboot anymore.
The editors who put in car-related audio on all manner of film media are morons, plain and simple.
I mean, these are the same guys that pipe in 'tires screeching on pavement' sounds every time the Duke boys take off, even when they're on gravel or dirt.
Frankly, I'd be far more surprised if they didn't add a bunch of fake engine noises.
I can see that for fiction shows, but 60 Minutes is a documentary. I would hope that an agency of that calibre (a) wouldn't add sound effects to video and (b) wouldn't hire morons.
As my dad would say, hope in one hand and shit in the other...
It probably has less to do with the "calibre" of the film group, and more to do with the established editing process - My guess is, post-production editors probably don't get a lot of back story on the videos they're told to edit.
I thought I missed the sound of a 28.8k modem establishing a connection, until I set it as my ringtone.
Obviously the only reasonable solution is to legally mandate that electric car manufacturers put proximity sensors on all their vehicles, that triggers when a pedestrian is within X feet, and plays "Dixie" on the car horn at about 165 db.
The mental image of a sleek, shiny new Tesla blasting that cheesy tune as it rolls up to a crosswalk... priceless.
Even gas cars are pretty quiet. I drive up behind parking lot idiots quite often and they don't hear my Camry till I am within several feet.
I think that's more a pedestrian-with-their-head-up-their-ass issue, as I've had the same thing happen to me while driving my large, 4x4 pickup.
At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run.
Can you link to the clip/transcript of the scene where this alleged fraudulent claim occurred? Because I remember watching that episode, and aside from (what I perceived as) the playful "if the battery dies, you'll be doing this" pushing scene toward the end, I don't recall them saying or doing anything that would qualify as fraudulent. The fact that Tesla's lawsuit against the show was settled in a way that still allows the BBC to rebroadcast the episode seems to indicate a lack of fraudulent claims.
Also, in fairness, there's no denying that a "fuse issue" caused the brakes to fail during the Stig's test run - Even Tesla admits that one.
This.
Definitely one of those "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" situations.
Editor see car, cars make noise, thus, editor add car noise. No conspiracy necessary.
The editors who put in car-related audio on all manner of film media are morons, plain and simple.
I mean, these are the same guys that pipe in 'tires screeching on pavement' sounds every time the Duke boys take off, even when they're on gravel or dirt.
Frankly, I'd be far more surprised if they didn't add a bunch of fake engine noises.
More details than this? http://www.kosagi.com/w/index....
What do you want, his sister's phone number too?
Depends, is she hot?