If I recall correctly, Fox is still the company behind Futurama, but Comedy Central had already bought the exclusive right to show Futurama, previously held by Cartoon Network. I'm sure Fox could have bought it back instead of waiting for the deal to expire, if they wanted to, so they probably still aren't convinced the show can be successful enough to air on network TV.
I think the first season or two of the Simpsons was about the cleverest thing I've seen that's ever been on TV. No Futurama-style nerd jokes, many fewer laugh-out-loud moments than when the show really found its form around season 3 or 4, but bursting with subtle brilliance.
I think the reason might be that it seems arbitrarily exclusive. What reason does Mothers Against Murder and Aggression have to exclude, say, childless women of childbearing age? Starting just with the name, it's already an irrational appeal to emotion.
The Simpsons keep being successful, if success is measured in terms of my continuing to watch it, because it's The Simpsons. If the show now being made and aired under that name didn't its have the history of hilarity to back it up, I probably wouldn't bother watching it (I hardly watch any shows anyway).
But truth be told, it actually got *better* over the last couple seasons, for perhaps the first time in its history, compared to the several seasons previous.
3. The failure to see the rise of the netbook/tablet.
What are you talking about? Me when I first heard the Apple tablet rumors: "Tablet computers? You mean those things nobody cared about when Bill Gates was hyping them up a few years ago?"
All the minors need to do to see that is to look at that state's example of systematically denying them access to information about how they are being oppressed.
All they need to do is look at that, and...? And then they'll get ice cream? Or, and then the underage nerds of China will rise up and lead a liberal revolution? Or, and then they'll make the point to their lawmakers that they feel that the censorship is worse than what it's censoring, causing those lawmakers to resign in shame?
I think you misunderstand, the move to capitalism is entirely reason for the "harmonious society" doctrine. Back in the day, communism was supposed to be about waging class warfare to establish a classless society. According to the CPC, communist ideology actually means promoting class harmony in developing the market economy.
Moral opposition to slavery was growing very strong, and the issue was growing violent. You could say that the two governments weren't fighing over morals, and you'd be right, but to claim that it was the federal government trying to seize power by abolishing slavery nation-wide, and the South reacting out of desire to preserve states' rights is ahistorical nonsense.
What you had was basically an economic conflict between two social systems, one based on agrarian slavery and a new one based on industrial capitalism. Capitalism was starting to win, and the forces of slavery tried to succeed in order to preserve itself. In other words, slavery versus free labor was what the war was about, not the moral arguments on either side.
What the heck does "just as serious a gaming platform" mean? The MacOS certainly isn't as *good* a gaming platform, due to the huge number of games not available for it. That's just the objective fact of the matter.
Can we finally stop acting like the games industry helping sell/train the military is a good or acceptable thing? It's truly shameful that the art of games is used to purposely aid real-world killing and it's time the community stands up to it.
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if Android gets an ecosystem where people expect their apps to be high-quality hobbyist/enthusiast/ideologue-made programs distributed for free (and often open source). There's a reason so few commercial products are ported to (desktop) Linux, and it's not just the relatively few number of users. Nobody, including me, likes that a lack of some choices result from it, but it's a reflection of Linux's strength.
Anyway, that's *my* dream future for the Android operating system. Nothing wrong with yours.
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall correctly, Fox is still the company behind Futurama, but Comedy Central had already bought the exclusive right to show Futurama, previously held by Cartoon Network. I'm sure Fox could have bought it back instead of waiting for the deal to expire, if they wanted to, so they probably still aren't convinced the show can be successful enough to air on network TV.
I think the first season or two of the Simpsons was about the cleverest thing I've seen that's ever been on TV. No Futurama-style nerd jokes, many fewer laugh-out-loud moments than when the show really found its form around season 3 or 4, but bursting with subtle brilliance.
I think the reason might be that it seems arbitrarily exclusive. What reason does Mothers Against Murder and Aggression have to exclude, say, childless women of childbearing age? Starting just with the name, it's already an irrational appeal to emotion.
"I can HAS cheezburger? No, no way! I can has EARN cheezburger!!"
Colbert clearly doesn't understand the meme. It should have been "I can EARNED cheezburger".
The Simpsons keep being successful, if success is measured in terms of my continuing to watch it, because it's The Simpsons. If the show now being made and aired under that name didn't its have the history of hilarity to back it up, I probably wouldn't bother watching it (I hardly watch any shows anyway).
But truth be told, it actually got *better* over the last couple seasons, for perhaps the first time in its history, compared to the several seasons previous.
The only way they can tell if you watch it is if you are selected for a Nelson survey.
This is Futurama, not The Simpsons.
Well, it is called science fiction for a reason.
So, in your mind, are Warner Brothers cartoons hardcore SF?
3. The failure to see the rise of the netbook/tablet.
What are you talking about? Me when I first heard the Apple tablet rumors: "Tablet computers? You mean those things nobody cared about when Bill Gates was hyping them up a few years ago?"
All the minors need to do to see that is to look at that state's example of systematically denying them access to information about how they are being oppressed.
All they need to do is look at that, and...? And then they'll get ice cream? Or, and then the underage nerds of China will rise up and lead a liberal revolution? Or, and then they'll make the point to their lawmakers that they feel that the censorship is worse than what it's censoring, causing those lawmakers to resign in shame?
That meme is even older than the sun.
I think you misunderstand, the move to capitalism is entirely reason for the "harmonious society" doctrine. Back in the day, communism was supposed to be about waging class warfare to establish a classless society. According to the CPC, communist ideology actually means promoting class harmony in developing the market economy.
But then what abbreviation isn't taken nowadays?
LOVER
TOKE
SNUFF
COKE (though it is the Coca-Cola Bottling Company's stock symbol)
BUZZ
TWEAK
YHWH
ORGASM
SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS
Thank you for giving me something to do for an hour, BTW.
It all depends on what you're into.
Moral opposition to slavery was growing very strong, and the issue was growing violent. You could say that the two governments weren't fighing over morals, and you'd be right, but to claim that it was the federal government trying to seize power by abolishing slavery nation-wide, and the South reacting out of desire to preserve states' rights is ahistorical nonsense.
What you had was basically an economic conflict between two social systems, one based on agrarian slavery and a new one based on industrial capitalism. Capitalism was starting to win, and the forces of slavery tried to succeed in order to preserve itself. In other words, slavery versus free labor was what the war was about, not the moral arguments on either side.
If I recall correctly, the pre-Cold War version is:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I'm still not a fan of making children repeat loyalty oaths as a kind of mantra to begin every (school) day, no matter what the words are.
The only time where you type Win to lose.
"In Soviet Redmond..."?
An elected head of state?
you can currently buy a capable Atom based mini-ITX board with a dual core processor for under $70
I've been searching the Web and I can't find any examples of these sub-$100 netbooks. Could you please tell me where you're hearing about them?
What the heck does "just as serious a gaming platform" mean? The MacOS certainly isn't as *good* a gaming platform, due to the huge number of games not available for it. That's just the objective fact of the matter.
Can we finally stop acting like the games industry helping sell/train the military is a good or acceptable thing? It's truly shameful that the art of games is used to purposely aid real-world killing and it's time the community stands up to it.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
You mean "decoc"?
Anyway, that's *my* dream future for the Android operating system. Nothing wrong with yours.
ADDENDUM: My dream future also includes Firaxis porting their iPhone version of Civilization Revolution to Android. I might even pay for it.
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if Android gets an ecosystem where people expect their apps to be high-quality hobbyist/enthusiast/ideologue-made programs distributed for free (and often open source). There's a reason so few commercial products are ported to (desktop) Linux, and it's not just the relatively few number of users. Nobody, including me, likes that a lack of some choices result from it, but it's a reflection of Linux's strength.
Anyway, that's *my* dream future for the Android operating system. Nothing wrong with yours.
While we're at it, why not engineer corn that eats weeds?
There are quite a few comment being posted by people who clearly aren't farmers
People who aren't farmers, on Slashdot?!?!