Great observation. With Goldman's track record there's no coincidence in their making a huge investment with private information, followed by exaggerated claims of fast money for the unwashed masses to consume.
BTW, I found this *great* penny stock called TTLBS that you should invest in!
All it does play on human frailty to suck money out of the lower- to middle-class. The worst is sports gambling where once the dollars get big enough bribing players becomes viable. With legalization, a shady character has enough money in the pot to finance throwing enough money at a player, ref, or coach to overcome morality barriers and entice millionaires. And, yes it can and does happen even in the biggest sports. You'll still have gambling if it's illegal, but because gambling/casinos requires such a large infrastructure to support, you limit the scope just by telling people they can't do it. Sure, Vinny and Tony are still going to run numbers in the back of the pub, but that's not like a $50 million dollar riverboat with doors wide open.
Oddly enough, I think we should legalize most drugs. Go figure. The difference in my mind is that people are going to do drugs illegal or not. We've seen that prohibition does a lot to slow down gambling, but not drugs.
It's all about the context. Ebert expressed an opinion on what's a more offensive word when neither word will ever be used for him.
You can do your own poll and ask Black Americans which is more offensive. And, you can ask White Americans which is more offensive. Now, as someone who has been called the 'n' word, you can bet "slave" is nowhere in the same league as an epithet.
In the same way, I have no valid opinion telling Native Americans, women, Jews, or Muslims which epithet they find most offensive.
Just to stop all the responses to my post, the point is he has no personal comprehension of being called the 'n' word in a society that created the epithet based on race and our historical slave trade. Therefore, he can't understand which word is more insulting. He can have an opinion, but it's one formed in a severely limited scope.
Like analogs to the Martian rovers? I watched a documentary a while back where there were was still information to be gleaned from surface rocks the Apollo astronauts never had a chance to collect.
The point is, he's not the target of insult of the 'n' word, so how the hell would he know which one would be more insulting? Is that so hard to understand?
I listened to the "author's" interview yesterday on NPR. Besides the fact that he came off as a jerk, I couldn't argue with his logic. Lots of parents get in a huff about the language and he simply wanted to introduce a cleaned up version that would make the book more accessible. The same way R-rated movies are edited down for TV broadcasts.
And, I also see how this can ruin context. One of my favorites from the 80s was a movie called "Once Bitten." The main character's friends try to forcibly check his inner thigh for a vampire bite in a high school shower. This causes a stampede of jocks running out screaming "fags in the shower!" Of course, this scene is massacred by editing on TV (and who would ever rent the unedited version?), so this scene has probably lost context for 99% of viewers forever.
You've got all sorts of hyper-critical morons calling every moving under the sun boring or overrated. At the same time, you've got the fan boys calling Paulie Shore movies the next Citizen Kane. Open calls for criticism usually garner responses from the extremes.
It's like looking up car reviews. You might as well throw out all the 1 and 5 stars since they're respectively the guy pissed off that the dealer took too long getting the car cleaned or the woman astroturfing for Ford.
Don't quote me on this, but I've read that air quality is typically worse in a house since it's such a closed environment. Dust comes in, settles, but can't get out.
In the age of BS corporate leadership, who *doesn't* want to be the guy who cuts costs by 25%, gets promoted up into the suites, then lets one of his successors take the fall when the shit hits the fan? I'm more concerned with our public infrastructure BTW.
The problem with your comment is that, at least to aviation buffs, most fighter designs are very distinctive. This thing looks like a total rip-off of the F-22 save the vertical stabilizers. Yes, the basic design will be the same, but the subtleties are not. Kind of like the way two pretty girls are functionally the same, but easy to distinguish even if everyone thinks their looks are "perfect."
Two things I loved about these sequels were you didn't need to play preceding version to jump in on Half-Life 2 (which I played first), and for a while the story was very original and unpredictable. But, the luster was lost with Episode 2. I was waiting the entire series to Rescue the damsel in distress who turned out to be a self-reliant killing machine. And, her father was about as big a sacrificial-lamb-for-cheap-drama as you could ever find, but they never killed him. Of course, they ran out of ideas and did both in Episode 2.
Lastly, they didn't know where to quit. The storyline was effectively done at the end of episode 2, but they added a lame "But, wait there's more adventure to be had!" fork with the clumsily slapped on Borealis storyline. Then, at the same time they've waited an intolerable amount of time to wrap up the story they were so desperate to extend.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's built that way on purpose to artificially manufacture hits.
Yup, you misread me. That's exactly what I meant.
They'll dig up a strange UFO with some doppleganger virus that causes the whole crew to kill each other.
Great observation. With Goldman's track record there's no coincidence in their making a huge investment with private information, followed by exaggerated claims of fast money for the unwashed masses to consume.
BTW, I found this *great* penny stock called TTLBS that you should invest in!
The obvious solution is to place a gorilla in the pot to keep the frog from leaving. The genius of my plan is he boils to death with the frog.
Bad analogy. Want to be accurate, tell a Jew which epithet he should be most offended by.
Figured you were taking this conversation to that tripe.
All it does play on human frailty to suck money out of the lower- to middle-class. The worst is sports gambling where once the dollars get big enough bribing players becomes viable. With legalization, a shady character has enough money in the pot to finance throwing enough money at a player, ref, or coach to overcome morality barriers and entice millionaires. And, yes it can and does happen even in the biggest sports. You'll still have gambling if it's illegal, but because gambling/casinos requires such a large infrastructure to support, you limit the scope just by telling people they can't do it. Sure, Vinny and Tony are still going to run numbers in the back of the pub, but that's not like a $50 million dollar riverboat with doors wide open.
Oddly enough, I think we should legalize most drugs. Go figure. The difference in my mind is that people are going to do drugs illegal or not. We've seen that prohibition does a lot to slow down gambling, but not drugs.
It's all about the context. Ebert expressed an opinion on what's a more offensive word when neither word will ever be used for him.
You can do your own poll and ask Black Americans which is more offensive. And, you can ask White Americans which is more offensive. Now, as someone who has been called the 'n' word, you can bet "slave" is nowhere in the same league as an epithet.
In the same way, I have no valid opinion telling Native Americans, women, Jews, or Muslims which epithet they find most offensive.
Just to stop all the responses to my post, the point is he has no personal comprehension of being called the 'n' word in a society that created the epithet based on race and our historical slave trade. Therefore, he can't understand which word is more insulting. He can have an opinion, but it's one formed in a severely limited scope.
Like analogs to the Martian rovers? I watched a documentary a while back where there were was still information to be gleaned from surface rocks the Apollo astronauts never had a chance to collect.
Here's my pitch for tomorrow: Will raping puppies help system administrators focus better during 12-hour shifts?
I totally agree.
The point is, he's not the target of insult of the 'n' word, so how the hell would he know which one would be more insulting? Is that so hard to understand?
I listened to the "author's" interview yesterday on NPR. Besides the fact that he came off as a jerk, I couldn't argue with his logic. Lots of parents get in a huff about the language and he simply wanted to introduce a cleaned up version that would make the book more accessible. The same way R-rated movies are edited down for TV broadcasts.
And, I also see how this can ruin context. One of my favorites from the 80s was a movie called "Once Bitten." The main character's friends try to forcibly check his inner thigh for a vampire bite in a high school shower. This causes a stampede of jocks running out screaming "fags in the shower!" Of course, this scene is massacred by editing on TV (and who would ever rent the unedited version?), so this scene has probably lost context for 99% of viewers forever.
Seeing as a 60ish white guy has no ancestral relationship to either (besides marriage), I don't see how his opinion matters.
You've got all sorts of hyper-critical morons calling every moving under the sun boring or overrated. At the same time, you've got the fan boys calling Paulie Shore movies the next Citizen Kane. Open calls for criticism usually garner responses from the extremes.
It's like looking up car reviews. You might as well throw out all the 1 and 5 stars since they're respectively the guy pissed off that the dealer took too long getting the car cleaned or the woman astroturfing for Ford.
Don't quote me on this, but I've read that air quality is typically worse in a house since it's such a closed environment. Dust comes in, settles, but can't get out.
In the age of BS corporate leadership, who *doesn't* want to be the guy who cuts costs by 25%, gets promoted up into the suites, then lets one of his successors take the fall when the shit hits the fan? I'm more concerned with our public infrastructure BTW.
Does this mean that even if one team really sucks, they'll still get a shot at the play-offs?
The problem with your comment is that, at least to aviation buffs, most fighter designs are very distinctive. This thing looks like a total rip-off of the F-22 save the vertical stabilizers. Yes, the basic design will be the same, but the subtleties are not. Kind of like the way two pretty girls are functionally the same, but easy to distinguish even if everyone thinks their looks are "perfect."
Goatse avoid at all costs.
I really hate people using the 2nd amendment like a euphemism. If you're calling for armed rebellion, that's not what the 2nd amendment is about.
New races, heroes, removed superfluous stuff. Definitely not a rehash.
Two things I loved about these sequels were you didn't need to play preceding version to jump in on Half-Life 2 (which I played first), and for a while the story was very original and unpredictable. But, the luster was lost with Episode 2. I was waiting the entire series to Rescue the damsel in distress who turned out to be a self-reliant killing machine. And, her father was about as big a sacrificial-lamb-for-cheap-drama as you could ever find, but they never killed him. Of course, they ran out of ideas and did both in Episode 2.
Lastly, they didn't know where to quit. The storyline was effectively done at the end of episode 2, but they added a lame "But, wait there's more adventure to be had!" fork with the clumsily slapped on Borealis storyline. Then, at the same time they've waited an intolerable amount of time to wrap up the story they were so desperate to extend.