According to the Facts and Figures section, the company started out making wooden toys, and in 1946 they were making wooden bricks. The four & eight stud "Automatic Binding Brick" started in 1949.
No mention of steel, ceramic, or glass.
It looks like they switched to plastic and never looked back;-)
Funny, there are many people looking for ways to become less fertile. However, that isn't one of the "life-enhancing results". RTFA. That's one of the side-effects. The results they are referring to are less bone loss, better circulation, less muscle thinning. That sort of thing.
The real danger is not that Congress and the President are passing laws that take aware our rights. The real danger is that the President is appointing and Congress is approving judges who have no more interest in protecting our rights.
When I read the Constitution, I don't get the feeling that the Founding Fathers had a great deal of faith in Congress or the President protecting our rights. The last line of defense against an over-reaching Congress or President is the Supreme Court.
That's another reason to have judges appointed for life. Even though I'm concerned about what sort of judges Bush will appoint, I have one small consolation. Once they are on the bench, their attitudes can (and often do) change. A good argument can convince them of something they didn't believe before, and there is little political pressure that can be applied to get them to stick with a position they are no longer in agreement with.
It isn't really just majority rule. If 51% of the people in the U.S. think that there should be a national religion, they still can't establish one.
In addition to setting up how the government will work, the U.S. constitution also established rights of individuals. Those rights overrule the majority, unless the majority get together and amend the constitution.
Sooooo, those pesky rights *should* win out over a law that would violate them, even if most people support the law.
I'm not suggesting that cable isn't regulated, but I am suggesting it isn't regulated by the rules that regulate broadcast TV.
In fact, the FCC seems to agree with me according to a document
on their web page.
Regarding program content, it says:
Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming -- called "origination cablecasting" that is subject to the editorial control of the system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the contents of broadcast signals or access channels over which the system operator has no editorial control.
So, the cable operator is not responsible for content it doesn't actually generate. It must provide a mechanism to allow subscribers to block channels that they find objectionable.
Originators of content are required to provide ratings for the material that they produce, and the ratings must appear for 15 seconds at the beginning of the program.
The Comedy Channel also seems to agree with my interpretation. They presented Chris Rock's Bigger and Blacker uncut and uncensored. I doubt it could be presented on broadcast TV. They clearly know that presenting this will boost ratings because they present it as being indecent. I believe the phrase they use is "curse along at home".
Comedy Central understands their audience, and they understand what their sponsers can handle. If they thought they would lose listeners or advertisers because of Chris Rock, they'd never do it. They may also consider what the FCC might try to do, but I don't think the FCC could succeed. It's a lame argument, but the courts decided that the FCC can regulate broadcast media because it goes out over the air and nothing can stop it. It would be hard for a couple of kids with a transistor radio to sit at the railroad tracks or hang out behind the 7-11 and watch comedy central without their parents knowing.
Other networks make other choices. I doubt the Lifetime Channel is going to put Chris Rock's routine on uncensored. However, I think it has more to do with fears of losing their audience than fears of anything the FCC could do.
Having said all that, I think it's all bullshit. As long as there is an off button on TV's and radios, there should be no other censorship
"Inside the Actor's Studio" is governed by different rules. It is cable. It isn't broadcast, so they could have let all 7 words go out. Only their own standards, and their concern over their viewer's standards govern what they can say.
Ah, that's good. So, if Social Security does manage to exist until then, you'll refuse the payments? That will be nice to see. So many people don't need it, but take it anyway. Cool.
I'm assuming you are also arranging for the training of the hordes of doctors and nurses and technicians and other staff which will be dedicated to keeping your hide alive as long as possible. Perhaps you also plan to refuse any medical care you can't provide without outside assistance.
You'll need my kids more than you think.
Heh. There's no way around it. We're all going to end up dependent on people for our support long after we are able to support ourselves. It doesn't matter what money we have, we still need well-educated people to take care of us. All of those people need to be born and raised.
If you didn't want to have and raise kids, that's fine. I'm willing to let mine take care of you. But don't go around thinking the minor tax break I get from the government makes it a profitable situation. It's really not much more than a symbolic thank-you, representative of the state's real need for people to have and raise children. I appreciate it, but it doesn't really even make a dent.
When I looked at the estimates for the cost of raising my children, it was around $800,000 per child. I don't do this for you or anyone else. I do it for them, and for me. However, the state recognizes that it needs me to do this, even if you are too shortsighted to realize it. That's why I get the tax break. That and the fact that the majority are on my side;-)
There's nothing wrong with images of the human body, but there might be something wrong with images of Janet Jackson. I saw it and I was disturbed, and I watched my wife's C-Section without being bothered.
Clothes on or clothes off, Janet Jackson is just wrong. Hell, she's disturbing when she's being interviewed on the radio.
> > This is the same Eric who built some guy's desk > > out of LEGO a few years back. > > When the boss sees it, he'll help you build a Lego > Pinkslip. (Do they come in pink?)
This was in 1999 during the dot-com boom. If I recall correctly, some guy included it among his list of demands for a position, and the company hiring him paid to have it made for him.
So, in other words, I'm sure the company has already gone bankrupt.
It's nice to think that this is all due to greedy corporations. However, it is really greedy individuals. Rather than paying for an application that comes without spyware, they'll download something that includes malicious code.
There's also the stupidity of individuals, and the laziness of individuals.
Expecting corporations to protect people from themselves is unreasonable. Giving people what they want is in their best interest.
> Then we could see just what was going on when > the cops feel it was necessary to shoot some > unarmed kid they had on the ground in the face.
I'm not sure how useful this would be in those cases. It seems like this system is only useful for identifying the shooter. Since it doesn't go back in time and film the events leading up to the shooting, I'm not sure how it would help in determining if a shooting was justified. In most cases it probably wouldn't even show the victim.
I think with most officer involved shootings, the officer who was involved is probably already known. It might make post-shooting coverups more difficult.
Well, you might choose a word different than stupid, but ignorant isn't it.
When a child runs into a wall and hurts himself, and you point out that he should:
a) not run in the house
and
b) watch where he is going
and then the child IMMEDIATELY runs into the *same* wall in the *same* way, "ignorant" is not an accurate description. Ignorance could be responsible for the first impact, but something else is at work with the second impact.
If ignorance was the only problem, information would be the cure. However informing them doesn't work. If you say the stove is hot, and they will be seriously burned if they touch it, they will still touch it! You have to physically prevent them from doing so.
There's all kinds of stupid. From Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com):
Stupid
1 b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
Hey, they're my kids, I love all of them, and they're all stupid. It's nothing against them. Every single one of their peers is stupid. I was dumb as a stump at their age. With guidance, they should live up to their potential and grow out of their stupidity. If they're lucky, they'll start to climb out of it before they graduate college. If memory serves, many don't (perhaps most). Until that time, I'll do everything I can to step between them and the stupid things they do.
I'm not saying that the human battering ram doesn't have a brain that appears to be developing. In some ways he's well beyond the curve. According to his teacher he can read and comprehend significantly better than anyone else in his first grade class.
Of course, I also know PhDs who could easily strangle themselves by getting their tie caught in a pencil sharpener... a manual pencil sharpener.
> Your children aren't yours; they're human beings.
I agree with that.
> They don't need to be protected from the world.
That's insane.
Children are human beings, but they are remarkably STUPID human beings. It isn't their fault. Their brains just haven't finished forming yet. They aren't supposed to make all the decisions. That's why they should come equiped with parents/guardians.
Children will touch a hot stove.
Children will run out into traffic without looking.
Children will eat nothing but sugar all day given half a chance.
Children will hurt their younger sibling when they are playing.
Children will trust the nice stranger who offered them candy.
Children will do what their friends are doing because they think it is important to be accepted by others.
The list goes on and on.
The trick is letting them learn from the world, while protecting them from being a victim of the *REAL* dangers that exist (as opposed to the fantasy dangers imagined by all the people who want someone to "think of the children"). Not everything is dangerous, but the world is not a safe place, and life is very fragile.
Here's another thought to scare you. The responsibility to protect, nurture, educate, and assist your children never ends.
The line between being a good parent and being a smothering pain in the ass keeps shifting, but there is parenting still to be done right up to the end.
With everything slashdotted, I can't be sure, but the intro to the slashdot article says that it can cruise for 200 miles on a one hour charge. Since I can't find the article where that is stated, I can't be sure that slashdot didn't just get it wrong.
My point exactly. If the character had said anything about the car being a faraday cage instead of the nonsense about the rubber tires, it would have been OK.
> They pretend to be science related but screw it up bad.
Like when one character claimed that "terminal velocity" was 32 feet per second per second. For those who failed physics, that is acceleration due to gravity.
In the same episode, protection from lightning while in a car is attributed to the car being insulated from the ground by rubber tires. That assumes the lightning that could jump the miles of air between the ground and the clouds can't jump the 8 inches between the ground and the bottom of the car.
I keep meaning to watch the credits to see if they bothered hiring someone as a science advisor or if the writers just wing it.
> The single most important question to be resolved > in this issue is that of when a human obtains > rights. When the head starts to stick out? Is it > one nanosecond after birth? After being spanked > and sucking in some air? Or is it when the heart > starts beating? The brain starts showing activity? > When is it?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A fetus becomes a human being when it gets a job and moves out of the house. Abortion should be legal until the end of the 75th trimester.
> However, I don't even know if I could find 8 new > movies each month that were worth my time to > watch... let alone signing up for a subscription > service and watching over 10 movies a month to > make the "obligation" worth it.
I have kids, so I don't go out often;-)
I use Netflix, and my movie queue currently has about 250 movies in it. They aren't all new movies. Many are movies that I missed when they went through the theaters (oldest son is 6 years old, so I've missed about 6 years of movies). Some are movies that just didn't show up near me. The vast majority are older movies that I just want to see.
I have the "3-at-a-time" service, which currently costs $17.99/month (as of 11/1/2004). If I return them on Monday, the next movies are here by Friday (actually, they usually show up on Wednesday or Thursday).
If you assume that I can manage to rent 100 movies in a year (1 movie each Friday & Saturday night would be 104 movies/year), then the current cost per movie is about $2.16. For that price I don't have to leave my house to pick it up or return it, and I don't have to download it.
Looking over my rental history from 9/24/01 to 8/17/04, I have averaged about 105 movies/year.
In 2003, the total number of movies was 101. 2002 it was 125 (I changed from 4-at-a-time to 3-at-a-time last year). So far this year I've gotten through 88 movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Check www.lego.com
;-)
According to the Facts and Figures section, the company started out making wooden toys, and in 1946 they were making wooden bricks. The four & eight stud "Automatic Binding Brick" started in 1949.
No mention of steel, ceramic, or glass.
It looks like they switched to plastic and never looked back
Funny, there are many people looking for ways to become less fertile. However, that isn't one of the "life-enhancing results". RTFA. That's one of the side-effects. The results they are referring to are less bone loss, better circulation, less muscle thinning. That sort of thing.
10% yearly increase is SMALL?
Wow, I want to work where you work.
We're happy to get a 3% yearly increase, and that is eaten up every year by the increase in parking costs.
The biggest increase I ever got was 17% and that was only because they had to beat another company's offer.
Of course, based on this law you would have to pay every tax that anyone proposes.
I can see why you made the proposal anonymously.
The real danger is not that Congress and the President are passing laws that take aware our rights. The real danger is that the President is appointing and Congress is approving judges who have no more interest in protecting our rights.
When I read the Constitution, I don't get the feeling that the Founding Fathers had a great deal of faith in Congress or the President protecting our rights. The last line of defense against an over-reaching Congress or President is the Supreme Court.
That's another reason to have judges appointed for life. Even though I'm concerned about what sort of judges Bush will appoint, I have one small consolation. Once they are on the bench, their attitudes can (and often do) change. A good argument can convince them of something they didn't believe before, and there is little political pressure that can be applied to get them to stick with a position they are no longer in agreement with.
It isn't really just majority rule. If 51% of the people in the U.S. think that there should be a national religion, they still can't establish one.
In addition to setting up how the government will work, the U.S. constitution also established rights of individuals. Those rights overrule the majority, unless the majority get together and amend the constitution.
Sooooo, those pesky rights *should* win out over a law that would violate them, even if most people support the law.
I'm not suggesting that cable isn't regulated, but I am suggesting it isn't regulated by the rules that regulate broadcast TV.
In fact, the FCC seems to agree with me according to a document on their web page.
Regarding program content, it says: Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming -- called "origination cablecasting" that is subject to the editorial control of the system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the contents of broadcast signals or access channels over which the system operator has no editorial control.So, the cable operator is not responsible for content it doesn't actually generate. It must provide a mechanism to allow subscribers to block channels that they find objectionable.
Originators of content are required to provide ratings for the material that they produce, and the ratings must appear for 15 seconds at the beginning of the program.
The Comedy Channel also seems to agree with my interpretation. They presented Chris Rock's Bigger and Blacker uncut and uncensored. I doubt it could be presented on broadcast TV. They clearly know that presenting this will boost ratings because they present it as being indecent. I believe the phrase they use is "curse along at home".
Comedy Central understands their audience, and they understand what their sponsers can handle. If they thought they would lose listeners or advertisers because of Chris Rock, they'd never do it. They may also consider what the FCC might try to do, but I don't think the FCC could succeed. It's a lame argument, but the courts decided that the FCC can regulate broadcast media because it goes out over the air and nothing can stop it. It would be hard for a couple of kids with a transistor radio to sit at the railroad tracks or hang out behind the 7-11 and watch comedy central without their parents knowing.
Other networks make other choices. I doubt the Lifetime Channel is going to put Chris Rock's routine on uncensored. However, I think it has more to do with fears of losing their audience than fears of anything the FCC could do.
Having said all that, I think it's all bullshit. As long as there is an off button on TV's and radios, there should be no other censorship
."Inside the Actor's Studio" is governed by different rules. It is cable. It isn't broadcast, so they could have let all 7 words go out. Only their own standards, and their concern over their viewer's standards govern what they can say.
Ah, that's good. So, if Social Security does manage to exist until then, you'll refuse the payments? That will be nice to see. So many people don't need it, but take it anyway. Cool.
;-)
I'm assuming you are also arranging for the training of the hordes of doctors and nurses and technicians and other staff which will be dedicated to keeping your hide alive as long as possible. Perhaps you also plan to refuse any medical care you can't provide without outside assistance.
You'll need my kids more than you think.
Heh. There's no way around it. We're all going to end up dependent on people for our support long after we are able to support ourselves. It doesn't matter what money we have, we still need well-educated people to take care of us. All of those people need to be born and raised.
If you didn't want to have and raise kids, that's fine. I'm willing to let mine take care of you. But don't go around thinking the minor tax break I get from the government makes it a profitable situation. It's really not much more than a symbolic thank-you, representative of the state's real need for people to have and raise children. I appreciate it, but it doesn't really even make a dent.
When I looked at the estimates for the cost of raising my children, it was around $800,000 per child. I don't do this for you or anyone else. I do it for them, and for me. However, the state recognizes that it needs me to do this, even if you are too shortsighted to realize it. That's why I get the tax break. That and the fact that the majority are on my side
Whine, whine, whine.
It's all your fault, and I know it.
Great! Another couple of slackers not bothering to have kids. Two more people for my kids to support.
Who do you think will be paying for your Social Security? Or do you really believe the money you paid into the system will be paying your benefits?
If it merely restates what the introduction said, then the first on topic post would be redundant.
I'm not saying that is what happened in this case, just saying that it is certainly possible.
> There are certainly some smart folks at the FCC
Prove it.
Even if you prove it, you'd also need to prove that they have any interest in doing the right thing.
There's nothing wrong with images of the human body, but there might be something wrong with images of Janet Jackson. I saw it and I was disturbed, and I watched my wife's C-Section without being bothered.
Clothes on or clothes off, Janet Jackson is just wrong. Hell, she's disturbing when she's being interviewed on the radio.
> > This is the same Eric who built some guy's desk
> > out of LEGO a few years back.
>
> When the boss sees it, he'll help you build a Lego
> Pinkslip. (Do they come in pink?)
This was in 1999 during the dot-com boom. If I recall correctly, some guy included it among his list of demands for a position, and the company hiring him paid to have it made for him.
So, in other words, I'm sure the company has already gone bankrupt.
> Greedy corps brought it to the masses
It's nice to think that this is all due to greedy corporations. However, it is really greedy individuals. Rather than paying for an application that comes without spyware, they'll download something that includes malicious code.
There's also the stupidity of individuals, and the laziness of individuals.
Expecting corporations to protect people from themselves is unreasonable. Giving people what they want is in their best interest.
> Then we could see just what was going on when
> the cops feel it was necessary to shoot some
> unarmed kid they had on the ground in the face.
I'm not sure how useful this would be in those cases. It seems like this system is only useful for identifying the shooter. Since it doesn't go back in time and film the events leading up to the shooting, I'm not sure how it would help in determining if a shooting was justified. In most cases it probably wouldn't even show the victim.
I think with most officer involved shootings, the officer who was involved is probably already known. It might make post-shooting coverups more difficult.
Well, you might choose a word different than stupid, but ignorant isn't it.
When a child runs into a wall and hurts himself, and you point out that he should:
a) not run in the house
and
b) watch where he is going
and then the child IMMEDIATELY runs into the *same* wall in the *same* way, "ignorant" is not an accurate description. Ignorance could be responsible for the first impact, but something else is at work with the second impact.
If ignorance was the only problem, information would be the cure. However informing them doesn't work. If you say the stove is hot, and they will be seriously burned if they touch it, they will still touch it! You have to physically prevent them from doing so.
There's all kinds of stupid. From Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com):
Stupid
1 b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
Hey, they're my kids, I love all of them, and they're all stupid. It's nothing against them. Every single one of their peers is stupid. I was dumb as a stump at their age. With guidance, they should live up to their potential and grow out of their stupidity. If they're lucky, they'll start to climb out of it before they graduate college. If memory serves, many don't (perhaps most). Until that time, I'll do everything I can to step between them and the stupid things they do.
I'm not saying that the human battering ram doesn't have a brain that appears to be developing. In some ways he's well beyond the curve. According to his teacher he can read and comprehend significantly better than anyone else in his first grade class.
Of course, I also know PhDs who could easily strangle themselves by getting their tie caught in a pencil sharpener... a manual pencil sharpener.
> Your children aren't yours; they're human beings.
I agree with that.
> They don't need to be protected from the world.
That's insane.
Children are human beings, but they are remarkably STUPID human beings. It isn't their fault. Their brains just haven't finished forming yet. They aren't supposed to make all the decisions. That's why they should come equiped with parents/guardians.
Children will touch a hot stove.
Children will run out into traffic without looking.
Children will eat nothing but sugar all day given half a chance.
Children will hurt their younger sibling when they are playing.
Children will trust the nice stranger who offered them candy.
Children will do what their friends are doing because they think it is important to be accepted by others.
The list goes on and on.
The trick is letting them learn from the world, while protecting them from being a victim of the *REAL* dangers that exist (as opposed to the fantasy dangers imagined by all the people who want someone to "think of the children"). Not everything is dangerous, but the world is not a safe place, and life is very fragile.
Here's another thought to scare you. The responsibility to protect, nurture, educate, and assist your children never ends.
The line between being a good parent and being a smothering pain in the ass keeps shifting, but there is parenting still to be done right up to the end.
> it may goto 200 mph on a one hour charge...
With everything slashdotted, I can't be sure, but the intro to the slashdot article says that it can cruise for 200 miles on a one hour charge. Since I can't find the article where that is stated, I can't be sure that slashdot didn't just get it wrong.
My point exactly. If the character had said anything about the car being a faraday cage instead of the nonsense about the rubber tires, it would have been OK.
;-)
Perhaps you should go back and review my post
> They pretend to be science related but screw it up bad.
Like when one character claimed that "terminal velocity" was 32 feet per second per second. For those who failed physics, that is acceleration due to gravity.
In the same episode, protection from lightning while in a car is attributed to the car being insulated from the ground by rubber tires. That assumes the lightning that could jump the miles of air between the ground and the clouds can't jump the 8 inches between the ground and the bottom of the car.
I keep meaning to watch the credits to see if they bothered hiring someone as a science advisor or if the writers just wing it.
Kids 6 and under consider stickers to be a valuable thing. At least, my kids do.
It's not so much that they are "collecting". They just like to stick them to things. Sometimes a piece of paper, sometimes themselves.
They'll draw a picture and use stickers as part of the picture.
> The single most important question to be resolved
> in this issue is that of when a human obtains
> rights. When the head starts to stick out? Is it
> one nanosecond after birth? After being spanked
> and sucking in some air? Or is it when the heart
> starts beating? The brain starts showing activity?
> When is it?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A fetus becomes a human being when it gets a job and moves out of the house. Abortion should be legal until the end of the 75th trimester.
> However, I don't even know if I could find 8 new
;-)
> movies each month that were worth my time to
> watch... let alone signing up for a subscription
> service and watching over 10 movies a month to
> make the "obligation" worth it.
I have kids, so I don't go out often
I use Netflix, and my movie queue currently has about 250 movies in it. They aren't all new movies. Many are movies that I missed when they went through the theaters (oldest son is 6 years old, so I've missed about 6 years of movies). Some are movies that just didn't show up near me. The vast majority are older movies that I just want to see.
I have the "3-at-a-time" service, which currently costs $17.99/month (as of 11/1/2004). If I return them on Monday, the next movies are here by Friday (actually, they usually show up on Wednesday or Thursday).
If you assume that I can manage to rent 100 movies in a year (1 movie each Friday & Saturday night would be 104 movies/year), then the current cost per movie is about $2.16. For that price I don't have to leave my house to pick it up or return it, and I don't have to download it.
Looking over my rental history from 9/24/01 to 8/17/04, I have averaged about 105 movies/year.
In 2003, the total number of movies was 101. 2002 it was 125 (I changed from 4-at-a-time to 3-at-a-time last year). So far this year I've gotten through 88 movies.