I think you could do it. We're way past the Contact bit where they took Clinton out of context. With a combination of clips and CG, you could rig up a fake speech, and you could probably whip up a night-vision bombing run in Maya and Aftereffects in about 20 minutes. The special effects on Iraq II pretty much sucked, with expectations that low, practically anything would be plausible.
You couldn't do something like this on ABC or something though. If you turn on the TV and see a war you weren't expecting, you go to CNN or Fox or whatever. If just CBS or somebody did something like that, you probably wouldn't even fool enough old people to have to worry about advertizer complaints.
This is irresponsible prank territory, now. Hypothetically, your best bet would be to pick somewhere odd and poorly covered. Pretending the US nuked Israel isn't going to fool anybody. Mongolia, though, who knows. You go for Fox. Fox doesn't really have it's own people. They have studios, but on location they're using freelancers. MSNBC too, but they've got NBC to fall back on, Fox doesn't even know anybody in Mongolia to call and get to check. Get some guys that've worked for them before to help you out, and make sure they have a reason to be where your crazy shit is about to happen. You need something resonable and predictable first, like hostages. Say they have Americans, Fox is in. Wait until MSNBC picks it up too, since they're paranoid about being first on a story, they'll go for it. Then, start piling it on. Nuclear explosions, jets, soldiers in biohazard suits, lasers, aliens, bigfoot. Just keep going until they catch on. Then run for your life, because by the time you hear about the contract Murdoch's put out on your ass through the Russian mafia, you're already fucked.
Erm, never. If you want audio that's fallen out of copyright, I think there are a few of those wax cylinder dealies around, but Mickey Mouse showed up a good bit before WOTW. This is a corporate work, so it's 95 years. If you can manage to kill all the lawyers in the country before 2033, maybe you'll be able to download it for free, but only if somebody can find an original recording.
That's some kinda shitty attempt to purge the earth of humanity.
Alien #1: Hey, I thought of this great idea on how to DESTROY ALL HU-MANS! Alien #2: Yeah? Alien #1: Yeah! I know this Columbian guy from when I was in the joint, right, and...
Brain the size of a planet and this is the best you come up with? No wonder you get smoked by fucking e-coli.
Alright, I'm not going to argue the economic point. Here's the summary: housing, unsustainable growth, debt, euros, small inventories. Try and figure it out. I'll do a quickie on why Bush is bad, though.
The line between liberal/conservative economic policies is basically gone, at this point. Clinton was arguably more conservative than Bush in most economic areas. My problem with Bush isn't conservative/liberal, it's the thought process. Bush came in with a fixed set of ideas. Invade Iraq, drill for oil in Alaska, cut taxes, cut programs, break off relations with the international community, yadda yadda yadda. He's just rotated the explainations and the focus. He does not respond to stimuli. It's possible that many of his predetermined reactions turned out to be effective, but he's like an AIMbot. Occasionally he gives the illusion of having understood things, but it's just an illusion. I'm not saying he's stupid, either, he's just working towards a different goal than he ought to be.
What's the goal? Who knows. Personally, I think his only real reason for becoming president was to prove that he could, and in the process of getting there, he accumulated people who wanted to get just a few particular things done. PNAC, a few oil guys, some economists... just some guys. I'm sure there are people in there who really care, but the structure is set up in such a way that there's no filter for the public good at the top. Everybody below just keeps pushing their #1 pet project, and without a few good guys up at the top to temper that, it get a little out of control.
Of course, it's not helping that 90% of the pet policies that get most of the attention are ones that got called in to Rush a decade ago by Oregonian white supremacist groups and militias, and then got picked up by academics who just attached their own cool rationales to them.
Whatever. I'm just kinda worried that George is going to lose his faith one of these days and be back on the saucce by noon.
On the one hand, she's violated the house rules regarding thermodynamics, but on the other hand, she called Anne Coulter "Cunta Kinte". I just don't know what to think anymore.
Atrios never accused Luskin of stalking like that. This is the story:
Luskin gets obsessed with bitching about every collumn Paul Krugman writes
Krugman makes a joke about "internet people" stalking him
Luskin accuses Krugman of libel
Atrios defends Krugman
Luskin starts a running joke making fun of Krugman by calling himself a stalker
Atrios links to the promotional site for Luskin's new book under the headline, "Diary of a Stalker"
Luskin sues Atrios
These are blogs. Not serious journalistic projects. The headlines are throwaway gags, like the front page of the NY Daily News. Ever see the "Johnson to City: Drop Dead" cover? LBJ never said that, but it's not libel because it's a front-page joke. There's no intent to harm anyone.
The other problem is that your scenerio wouldn't really be libel either. If you had gone and accused the guy of killing Adorable Missing White Girl of the WeekTM based on the argument that he admitted to being a baby-killer in abstract, then that's libel, but changing the wording from baby killer to kills babies is crap.
He doesn't write about his life. I don't want to hear about some dork's life, but it's nice to have a dork who spends way too much time watching and reading news to sum shit up for me. If Bob the Mechanic started a blog about transmissions, I'd read that. I wouldn't really wanna hear him bitching about how his dog took a shit in the dining room, but as long as he stuck to transmissions, I'd find that pretty interesting.
Didn't Douglas Adams come up with that one first? I think it first came up in Mostly Harmless when Ford knocked out the Guide editor, stole his MePod, used it to steal the editor's identity and buy a lot of incredibly expensive things.
Psychological addiction isn't meaningless, it's the stupid, misleading phrase they came up with for behavioral conditioning that acts in the same way as a physiological addiction.
It's not like this is bizzare or anything. You've evolved to survive, not to do what you want. You smoke pot, pot creates pleasure, pleasure is a reliable indicator of something that will contribute to your survival, so if your consious mind denies your body that pleasure, your body takes actions to save itself from what it believes is a decision that is damaging to your long-term survival. That's over-personified and a little misleading, but the point's there.
12-Step isn't crap either. It's behavioral conditioning. You have a number of conditions that you respond to by drinking or whatever, so you replace those responses with new ones. Same with AA or whatever. You just replace Jack Daniels with Jesus, or the holy "Twelve Steps" or whatever. Idealy, you want to burn off the conditioning by losing drug's physical reinforcement, but you end up with AA addicts too.
Conditioning is more important than a physical addiction. The physical addiction doesn't directly get you to keep buying, it's your psychological addiction based on the physical addiction. Heroin just has the added hook of having double the usual number of controls to keep your conditioning in place. If you try and break conditioning, you not only don't get the high, but your internal organs start exploding. This is why tobacco is more physically addictive than heroin, but is easier to quit. The psychological process is what matters, and heroin gives you a better high, and a stronger, faster withdrawl, and the speed and intensity are what really burn it into your psyche.
Well, I'm betting it's much more likely that it'll be seen as vehicular manslaughter. Suburban flips light, Suburban hits Toyota, Toyota becomes steel-meat pulp, Suburban driver goes to jail. By having one of these in your car, you've basically admitted responsibility in whatever accidents you might get into. Your box is off, somebody runs the light, hits you, breaks their neck. Yeah, sure, your box wasn't on, see you in 5-10, buddy.
Blah Blah Blah... I am going to drive my car, Until the pump won't pump no more. Or the goverment pay's me $$, To drive something different. And i think that view, Is very very common.
Capillary action pulls it around the ball, but you need something to keep the ink up next to the ball for that to work. In orbit, there shouldn't be any problem just shaking the thing by the non-ball end and swinging the ink down to the ball every once and awhile. Try writing again, and shake it when it stops. It'll work again, even if you kept it upside down the whole time. Without gravity working against it, it might actually work without that.
I'm betting his pen has that gel ink stuff that sticks to itself, so it pulls itself down the tube as it's sucked out though. I tried one of them upside down and it kept working fine. Still $5 for a dozen or so at Staples.
It does etching too, and it works with basically all materials. And it's definately faster. Say you have a company that makes those shitty plaques and plexiglass awards for meaningless accomplishments. That's the kind of market this would go to.
It's a nice idea, but the more we take that path, the more it seems that it doesn't work. I'll use me for an example. I'm moderate left in my universe, which kinda translates into Damn Commie in the real world. I recognize that, which is why I try to look at conservative news sources too if I want to be really sure something's accurate. The problem is that, while I would often really like to watch a little Fox News, it's usually offensive enough that I end up triggering my fight or flight response and become incapable of paying attention. Seriously. About 5 minutes into an average O'Reilly show I've got enough adrenaline in my system to bash my head through a brick wall without feeling it. I imagine the same thing would happen to a Bushophille on Indymedia. Everybody's going to drift towards their own side just to keep from having an embolism.
The way to fix that is to just write the story without injecting the "Hilary's a whore!" or "Bush is a Nazi!" every 6 words. You still have a bias, but you're at least offering the possibility that somebody that doesn't share all of your opinions might be able to read it without developing an intense, personal hatred of you. My being able to intelligently handle bias is worthless if my brain regularly confuses your reporting with a kick in the nuts.
I'm sick of the left AND the right-biased media. What we need is a libertarian news source that will cut things right down the middle! LNN... Liberty News Network! I'll start it up once I make my first 10 million... seeya there.
Yeah, great plan. "The news is too biased! Let's bias it towards me, then it'll be fair and ballanced!"
And since when have libertarians been in favor of public schools, socialized healthcare, and redistribution of wealth to the disadvantaged? I mean, it's nice to see you've come around, but what made you change your mind?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the already do the Colbert Report thing where he yells at the Dali Lama to shut up.
I think you could do it. We're way past the Contact bit where they took Clinton out of context. With a combination of clips and CG, you could rig up a fake speech, and you could probably whip up a night-vision bombing run in Maya and Aftereffects in about 20 minutes. The special effects on Iraq II pretty much sucked, with expectations that low, practically anything would be plausible.
You couldn't do something like this on ABC or something though. If you turn on the TV and see a war you weren't expecting, you go to CNN or Fox or whatever. If just CBS or somebody did something like that, you probably wouldn't even fool enough old people to have to worry about advertizer complaints.
This is irresponsible prank territory, now. Hypothetically, your best bet would be to pick somewhere odd and poorly covered. Pretending the US nuked Israel isn't going to fool anybody. Mongolia, though, who knows. You go for Fox. Fox doesn't really have it's own people. They have studios, but on location they're using freelancers. MSNBC too, but they've got NBC to fall back on, Fox doesn't even know anybody in Mongolia to call and get to check. Get some guys that've worked for them before to help you out, and make sure they have a reason to be where your crazy shit is about to happen. You need something resonable and predictable first, like hostages. Say they have Americans, Fox is in. Wait until MSNBC picks it up too, since they're paranoid about being first on a story, they'll go for it. Then, start piling it on. Nuclear explosions, jets, soldiers in biohazard suits, lasers, aliens, bigfoot. Just keep going until they catch on. Then run for your life, because by the time you hear about the contract Murdoch's put out on your ass through the Russian mafia, you're already fucked.
Why, I think I'll pick that up... Oh, wait.
.... Himself
Donald Rumsfeld
Sorry, I just vomited my intestines out all over my shoes.
Erm, never. If you want audio that's fallen out of copyright, I think there are a few of those wax cylinder dealies around, but Mickey Mouse showed up a good bit before WOTW. This is a corporate work, so it's 95 years. If you can manage to kill all the lawyers in the country before 2033, maybe you'll be able to download it for free, but only if somebody can find an original recording.
That's some kinda shitty attempt to purge the earth of humanity.
Alien #1: Hey, I thought of this great idea on how to DESTROY ALL HU-MANS!
Alien #2: Yeah?
Alien #1: Yeah! I know this Columbian guy from when I was in the joint, right, and...
Brain the size of a planet and this is the best you come up with? No wonder you get smoked by fucking e-coli.
Respect other people's cultures, you fucker. Liquifying the dead so they can be fed to the living is an ancient British custom.
Just for the general audience...
Alright, I'm not going to argue the economic point. Here's the summary: housing, unsustainable growth, debt, euros, small inventories. Try and figure it out. I'll do a quickie on why Bush is bad, though.
The line between liberal/conservative economic policies is basically gone, at this point. Clinton was arguably more conservative than Bush in most economic areas. My problem with Bush isn't conservative/liberal, it's the thought process. Bush came in with a fixed set of ideas. Invade Iraq, drill for oil in Alaska, cut taxes, cut programs, break off relations with the international community, yadda yadda yadda. He's just rotated the explainations and the focus. He does not respond to stimuli. It's possible that many of his predetermined reactions turned out to be effective, but he's like an AIMbot. Occasionally he gives the illusion of having understood things, but it's just an illusion. I'm not saying he's stupid, either, he's just working towards a different goal than he ought to be.
What's the goal? Who knows. Personally, I think his only real reason for becoming president was to prove that he could, and in the process of getting there, he accumulated people who wanted to get just a few particular things done. PNAC, a few oil guys, some economists... just some guys. I'm sure there are people in there who really care, but the structure is set up in such a way that there's no filter for the public good at the top. Everybody below just keeps pushing their #1 pet project, and without a few good guys up at the top to temper that, it get a little out of control.
Of course, it's not helping that 90% of the pet policies that get most of the attention are ones that got called in to Rush a decade ago by Oregonian white supremacist groups and militias, and then got picked up by academics who just attached their own cool rationales to them.
Whatever. I'm just kinda worried that George is going to lose his faith one of these days and be back on the saucce by noon.
On the one hand, she's violated the house rules regarding thermodynamics, but on the other hand, she called Anne Coulter "Cunta Kinte". I just don't know what to think anymore.
- Luskin gets obsessed with bitching about every collumn Paul Krugman writes
- Krugman makes a joke about "internet people" stalking him
- Luskin accuses Krugman of libel
- Atrios defends Krugman
- Luskin starts a running joke making fun of Krugman by calling himself a stalker
- Atrios links to the promotional site for Luskin's new book under the headline, "Diary of a Stalker"
- Luskin sues Atrios
These are blogs. Not serious journalistic projects. The headlines are throwaway gags, like the front page of the NY Daily News. Ever see the "Johnson to City: Drop Dead" cover? LBJ never said that, but it's not libel because it's a front-page joke. There's no intent to harm anyone.The other problem is that your scenerio wouldn't really be libel either. If you had gone and accused the guy of killing Adorable Missing White Girl of the WeekTM based on the argument that he admitted to being a baby-killer in abstract, then that's libel, but changing the wording from baby killer to kills babies is crap.
He doesn't write about his life. I don't want to hear about some dork's life, but it's nice to have a dork who spends way too much time watching and reading news to sum shit up for me. If Bob the Mechanic started a blog about transmissions, I'd read that. I wouldn't really wanna hear him bitching about how his dog took a shit in the dining room, but as long as he stuck to transmissions, I'd find that pretty interesting.
No, no, it's fine. We'll just send in the gorillas next, and they'll freeze come winter!
Didn't Douglas Adams come up with that one first? I think it first came up in Mostly Harmless when Ford knocked out the Guide editor, stole his MePod, used it to steal the editor's identity and buy a lot of incredibly expensive things.
Psychological addiction isn't meaningless, it's the stupid, misleading phrase they came up with for behavioral conditioning that acts in the same way as a physiological addiction.
It's not like this is bizzare or anything. You've evolved to survive, not to do what you want. You smoke pot, pot creates pleasure, pleasure is a reliable indicator of something that will contribute to your survival, so if your consious mind denies your body that pleasure, your body takes actions to save itself from what it believes is a decision that is damaging to your long-term survival. That's over-personified and a little misleading, but the point's there.
12-Step isn't crap either. It's behavioral conditioning. You have a number of conditions that you respond to by drinking or whatever, so you replace those responses with new ones. Same with AA or whatever. You just replace Jack Daniels with Jesus, or the holy "Twelve Steps" or whatever. Idealy, you want to burn off the conditioning by losing drug's physical reinforcement, but you end up with AA addicts too.
Conditioning is more important than a physical addiction. The physical addiction doesn't directly get you to keep buying, it's your psychological addiction based on the physical addiction. Heroin just has the added hook of having double the usual number of controls to keep your conditioning in place. If you try and break conditioning, you not only don't get the high, but your internal organs start exploding. This is why tobacco is more physically addictive than heroin, but is easier to quit. The psychological process is what matters, and heroin gives you a better high, and a stronger, faster withdrawl, and the speed and intensity are what really burn it into your psyche.
Well, I'm betting it's much more likely that it'll be seen as vehicular manslaughter. Suburban flips light, Suburban hits Toyota, Toyota becomes steel-meat pulp, Suburban driver goes to jail. By having one of these in your car, you've basically admitted responsibility in whatever accidents you might get into. Your box is off, somebody runs the light, hits you, breaks their neck. Yeah, sure, your box wasn't on, see you in 5-10, buddy.
1) Advertize that you're selling MIRTs
2) Collect money from "customers"
3) Move to Arizona with money
4) Buy a firetruck
*sniff* Beautiful.
Capillary action pulls it around the ball, but you need something to keep the ink up next to the ball for that to work. In orbit, there shouldn't be any problem just shaking the thing by the non-ball end and swinging the ink down to the ball every once and awhile. Try writing again, and shake it when it stops. It'll work again, even if you kept it upside down the whole time. Without gravity working against it, it might actually work without that.
I'm betting his pen has that gel ink stuff that sticks to itself, so it pulls itself down the tube as it's sucked out though. I tried one of them upside down and it kept working fine. Still $5 for a dozen or so at Staples.
Now that'd be some interesting spam. Dick mods. I think my dick could use an extra heat sink. Maybe some neon lights.
Ah, Christ, don't tell me that's an ugly chick pissing herself. ...
Fuck you.
Trains are communist too. Don't you know they've got unions? That's why they don't get paid $15,000 a year like airline pilots.
Feature #8: The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
Finding loopholes in Godwin's law since 2001
It does etching too, and it works with basically all materials. And it's definately faster. Say you have a company that makes those shitty plaques and plexiglass awards for meaningless accomplishments. That's the kind of market this would go to.
Probably just the heroin talking. You know those talk radio guys. Get that stuff in 'em and they get all antsy in the pantsy.
It's a nice idea, but the more we take that path, the more it seems that it doesn't work. I'll use me for an example. I'm moderate left in my universe, which kinda translates into Damn Commie in the real world. I recognize that, which is why I try to look at conservative news sources too if I want to be really sure something's accurate. The problem is that, while I would often really like to watch a little Fox News, it's usually offensive enough that I end up triggering my fight or flight response and become incapable of paying attention. Seriously. About 5 minutes into an average O'Reilly show I've got enough adrenaline in my system to bash my head through a brick wall without feeling it. I imagine the same thing would happen to a Bushophille on Indymedia. Everybody's going to drift towards their own side just to keep from having an embolism.
The way to fix that is to just write the story without injecting the "Hilary's a whore!" or "Bush is a Nazi!" every 6 words. You still have a bias, but you're at least offering the possibility that somebody that doesn't share all of your opinions might be able to read it without developing an intense, personal hatred of you. My being able to intelligently handle bias is worthless if my brain regularly confuses your reporting with a kick in the nuts.
I'm sick of the left AND the right-biased media. What we need is a libertarian news source that will cut things right down the middle! LNN... Liberty News Network! I'll start it up once I make my first 10 million... seeya there.
Yeah, great plan. "The news is too biased! Let's bias it towards me, then it'll be fair and ballanced!"
And since when have libertarians been in favor of public schools, socialized healthcare, and redistribution of wealth to the disadvantaged? I mean, it's nice to see you've come around, but what made you change your mind?