"They expect the average citizen (the proverbial stupid Joe Sixpack) to make the distinction between incorrect scientific consensus popularized by mass media in the '70s and supposedly correct scientific consensus popularized by mass media in the '00s. Fool him once, shame on you. What makes you think he'll let himself be convinced twice, even if it's legitimate this time?"
Since mass media is espousing both sides of a nonexistent debate it is not surprising that, as in the 1970s, the public is believes there is controversy. Like belief in global cooling, the public belief in the Debate over Global Warming has its entire basis in advocacy groups and not scientific evidence. This goes on all the time, "first they said eat margarine, not butter, now they say it's bad for me too." But like nutritionists never recommended butter or margarine in any but the smallest quantities meteorologists never predicted an ice age-it was just a theory, one possible explanation for a cooling trend that made a lot great press. Science teachers love teaching whats in the press. News editors love catchy stories (which would you pick, "Part of a Larger trend to the opposite" or "New Ice Age Dawns!") That doesn't make them the voice of science, and that certainly doesn't disprove any theories that might be developed three decades later.
Right now we are in the same situation as we were in the 1970s. Prevailing wisdom says that there is a Debate over Global Warming and its cause among scientists where there is none. People are advocating it all over this discussion. This is caused by ignorance of the field of climate research, reliance on too little media exposure, and not enough study. People who were duped in the 1970s are being duped again by a false perception brought about by not allowing the people who have the facts about global warming (climatologists) to control the discussion.
No one wants to get fooled again, but burying your head in the sand is not the solution to this problem. Global warming is very real. It is being caused by human activity according to Every scientist working on the issue with even a modicum of credibility. There is no debate among scientists.
Anyone who used that phrase gets modded down by me for a)pathetic unoriginality and b)trolling the oppressed card instead of depending on the strength of their statements to make their point.
I find little more amusing in the am than middle-class white guys complaining about how oppressed they are on slashdot for voicing unpopular opinions that just happen to coincide with every fortune 500 company and politician in power today.
Anyone who thinks there's a "collective doctrine" on slashdot needs to do a search on the term "I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but..."
"It's not my argument, it's a possibility. One that's worth looking into. Yes of course it's hard. That why we pay people smarter than me to look at this stuff."
The funny thing is they always come back and say that human CO2 emissions are causing rapidly accelerated global warming. Always. Every time. What makes you think that scientists of all people are not looking at every possible angle. Don't you think that with all the resources of Exxon Mobile that if there were an alternative explanation to global warming that One reputable climate scientist would endorse they'd be pushing that instead of the "sow doubt" campaign?
Anyway we've paid the scientists for the work, now we don't like the answer. It's not acceptable to demand they come up with a more convenient explanation. They've told you what the problem is, like your doctor telling you to cut back on cheeseburgers or you'll have another heart attack. The responsibility is yours, only you'll drag us all down with you the next time.
The problem with your response is that you are attacking the example, not addressing the point it illustrates. In particular you are attacking a part of the example that has no bearing on that point. A convenient angle to take if you want to derail the conversation and force everyone to debate something that you can defend (as opposed to the idea that not responding to global warming is anything but ostrich thinking), but not one that allows the discussion to develop.
"While the conclusion is obvious to over 99% of the population, some crackpots still disagree."
With global warming, like evolution, that would be an accurate representation of the facts. You might replace "crackpots" with "Large Oil Companies" but the conclusion that voters draw is very different from reality by artificial "objectivity."
It sounds like you went into a 90 minute movie expecting to come out with a PHd in environmental science. It was Al Gore's intent to inform people that there is a problem with the Earth's environment. He made one, really simple argument and presented evidence for it: CO2 levels correspond with Temperature levels and CO2 levels are skyrocketing.
The rest is on you to inform yourself. It's understandable that it takes a strong compelling reason to convince yourself to radically alter your perception of your place in the world, but educate thyself and take responsibility for your ignorance. It's not Al Gore's fault that you didn't major in the right field. Now you have to trust the people who know better or go out and become one of them yourself. Railing on Al is your way of avoiding having to take action for what is happening to the world.
Well, some of us who use our mice heavily tend to wear them out faster. There is also the problem of the mouse going to sleep, and having to wait for it to reactivate when, for example, you are watching a movie. There's also the really poor performance with a wireless mouse in games. I used a BT Mac Mouse for a few months and was really frustrated with it most of the time.
I've paid a fair chunk of those because I had to buy a new phone this year and buying one without a bunch of useless media options was not an option. I mean, it just wasn't available. A lot of my personal backlash is the sheer volume of crap you are paying for when you buy a phone because they don't just have an "it just works" model on the floor.
The distinction is irrelevant. Nike dictates all the terms to the sweatshops that make Nike shoes and they are specifically culpable for their decision to stop doing business in Korea and Taiwan after those sweatshops unionized to seek out cheaper, more exploitative places elsewhere.
You are regurgitating Nike propoganda, which has been demonstrated to be false. Nike is not responding to bad publicity by addressing the problem, they are responding on the cheap by hiring PR firms to "shore up their image."
The irony is that, the same people who are shunning and chanting against this new discovery will be the ones that will praise it the most later on, if the discovery is confirmed real.
In my experience they will be the most intractable. The claims of the hypocrite scientist taking credit for ideas they spurned are just consolation stories for people with unproven or just bad ideas. People who thought Jackson Pollock's work was shit still think it's shit. Paul of Tarsus died a long time ago, and he was probably just boasting his radical conversion to make it easier on gentiles.
That said the older science crowd has *always* been conservative. The younger has *alwasy* been ready to carry new ideas forward. However, this mountain is not science, nor is there anything new about claiming to see Atlantean relics in natural phenominon. The only thing different here is that the claimant actually has the money to put his claim ot the test.
Seriously, why must we have to read on every populist or pseudo-science story out there?
Knowing the hoaxes and the way the minds that perpetuate them work is at least as important as the genuine discoveries. This discovery will prompt countless hours of discussions on critical thinking, scietific method, and archological methods. It also gives us a great opportunity to throw salt on the tails of the flat earther/atlantis myth types and perhaps shake some reason into them while they are pinned down trying to defend themselves.
But there is always a simple solution if you are dissatisfied with your slashdot experience. Personally I just skip the articles I don;t find interesting, but if you don't let it hit your posterior on the way out you probably won't even notice it's gone.
No, my friend, the subject is a mountain, in a poor country that abounds with innumerable genuine archeological sites that are not being excavataed or preserved. We having nothing to go on, no evidence, no imaging, no reason to believe that there is anything under the mountain (We had reason to believe that Troy existed).
All we have is the shape of a mountain that from some angles looks like a pyramid, and the word of a man with no credentials in geology or archeology. Since no one has seen this pyramid, nor found any evidence or historical record of it, then there is only the evidence of a pyramid shaped mountain and the presence of neothilic artifacts in caves on the surface.
One man thinks it is a buried 12,000 year old step pyramid. --Theory.
So, before we spend billions of Bosnian dollars to excavate a mountain based on one man's opinion, why is it not a credible aspect of discussion to examine the credentials of the man?
Considering that we've found the dead in every unplundered pyramid we've excavated it's pretty safe to say that the writing on the walls in the pyramids stating that they are tombs are not lying to us.
It's more likely that the arrangements of the pyramids were for a reason to support their function as a tomb than that all archeologists are wrong and the Egyptians were lying to us.
Most of these items have useful functions
on
Gadgets for the Lazy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wired has a long and annoying history of making kneejerk lists that reflect an ignorance of the world around them, particularly the fact that there are a lot of people with special needs.
In this article they are clearly targeting, as forms of social criticism against people who are lazy:
1. The Motor Lounger: something for genuine lazy tards
2. Ice-cream turner: A gag gift
3. Computer in bed: Something that any geek who has ever been confined to a bed would drool over (but I guess we don't care about invalids).
4. The bird 2.0: Another gag gift (I mean, did someone with no sense of humor write this humorous article about lazy people gadgets)
5. Body dryer: Again, I guess we have never heard of invalids. Because of this article I am going to buy one of these for my grandmother who cannot lift her arm over her head to dry her back or hair (I guess ignorance and narrow minded bigotry does yield some edible fruit).
6. Bugle emulator: Since the whole thread is about this one I'm going to leave it alone
7. Shoe mops: I guess this was a candidate. I'd have put the Chopsticks fan http://www.mindbreakers.com/mb/img/invention7.jpg in its place, but I don't think the writer was trying too hard to find things that are genuinely about saving effort.
8. The Disc Pod: Well, I can't think of a useful purpose for this one
9. Lazy drinker: As a former caterer I can tell you that this would save thousands and thousands of dollars over a year. This is clearly not aimed at the home user.
10. Sushi machine: Same story. This is for people who have to feed lots of people regularly for cheap. Not for yuppies trying to live an urban lifestyle in their kitchen.
11. iPod bed: Yup. This is a gadget for the spoiled and lazy.
12. AIBO dog: I am curious what it says about the editor of the column that he thought the AIBO dog qualified for this article. It's a toy, dumbass.
13. Wireless cooking thermometer: I guess the author likes leaning into a blazing hot oven trying to read a mechanical gadget that's not accurate and only slightly cheaper than this item. I mean why not dispense with tools altogether and just eat it raw. Really, is this seriously supposed to save time somehow? I guess we could all go back to mechanical watches too since digital is just soooo lazy, natch the fact that they are more reliable, last longer, can be read in the dark and cost a fraction of the price.
14. Shoe dryer: Do people get their shoes wet often enough to need this? If they do then, yes, I think it would be genuinely useful. Last tme I got my shoes wet I put them by the radiator and they took three days to dry in winter.
15. Eyeglasses washer: Uh, I don't wear glasses, but I'm guessing that if I ran a shop that sold them that I'd have one of these in the back.
16. Electric fly swatter: Yeah, this is about the dumbest thing I've seen too.
17. Roomba: Well, I think it's neat, but I have to admit it qualifies for the article.
18. Hot dog toaster, okay, it's stupid, but jeez it would be fun to use the first day you have it before it clutters a spot on the top shelf for the next eight years till the kids are old enough to use it themselves. Hell, I used to wrap a dog up in a paper towel and put it in the microwave. Tasted just like the ball park (seats) and it was easier to use than this gadget looks.
19. How exactly is this easier than pouring it from the carton? Have you ever squeezed a whole orange? I think this falls into the dumb category along with the Subway chin rest http://www.mindbreakers.com/mb/img/invention1.jpg, but for the lazy? I don't get it.
Maybe I'm just lacking in a sense of humor, but I think the the guys who put this article together were either slammed up against a deadline or just enjoyed any excuse to be mean. Like th
In its purest sense capitalism turns every transaction into a capital one, and every imaginable possession into a capital asset. Capitalism as a force drives obscene government regulations of the sort you insist that it would decry by allowing everything to be bought and sold. You cannot have it both ways.
Socialism would not concieve of a copyright lasting an artist's life +70 years, it would likely not need to bother with copyright laws as the incentive to profit by theft of the work of another would be eliminated.
This is the fourth time I've read about people blaming the damn artist for the actions of their estate and a consortium designed to help other estates of dead artists extract as much wealth as possible for exploiting their dead relatives talent.
Please, don't give up on art or something you enjoy just to make a point that you don't like the nasty political reality of defending copyright. Personally I don't think the Miro estate has any right whatsoever to control the use of works 65+ years old and would be happy to take the fight to them to prevent such obscene restriction of even the most basic elements.
Joan Miro had decades to make lots of money off of his success, and his family are very well off. The works belong to the world now, every bit as much as the Mona Lisa, and the great pyramids. Attitudes like the Parent poster's just reinforce the idiotic paradigm of enforcing copyright for the sake of maintaining ownership.
Well, the art world like everyone else is trying to make a living off their trade. In this case, like most others of its ilk, it's a family who never contributed one ounce of effort who are trying to make a buck off of a dead relative.
I don't think anybody should have to ask permission to use elements of a dead artist's work which are over 65 years old. Miro's contribution to popular culture is pervasive. There is no basis for restricting wholesale reproduction of his works outside of the obscene length of time we allow for copyright in the West. Much less should we be allowed to restrict the use of simple elements and basic tributes of extremely common, influential, and well publicized art.
Just don't try to outthink it. You will think they drop in questions like 'have you ever lied to a friend' to catch liers on the test (everybody lies to a friend at least in a little way, they know that).
They include questions like that to divert attention from the questions that actually suss the probability of honesty. Often they'll run two similarly worded questions near each other that have the same answer after having warned you that the test is designed to catch inconsistentcies. This is to analyze something completely different from honesty and consistentcy.
Using the example you did is a demonstration of just how much is going on that you don't see. We, as thinking people, will make patterns in what we see and attribute our predictions to the results, right or wrong. These have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Just ask an apocalyptic christian to explain why Kingdom has't come yet.
A test that's designed to determine probabilities about a person's personality will likely have covered the fact that the vast majority of men think they are smarter than everyone else despite evidence to the contrary.
Many slashdotters spend their lives convincing themselves that they are smarter than eryone else, including each other. Haven't you ever seen the guy bragging at a party where everyone knows he's full of it, but since we're all pretty much social sheep no one calls him on it?
But no, that couldn't possibly ever be one of us, now could it?
That's good. Did you know that a significant majority of people consider themselves to posess above average intelligence? Experienced actors spend months developing personalities that read rea, and they've spent their lives (or at least their educational career) learning to do that.
Most people who believe they can fool an even moderately well written personality test are probably foolish enough to convince themselves that they were successful after the fact.
Yeah, I know what you think you are saying, though you seem to be arguing with a lot of invisible goblins that aren't in anything I wrote. You said in plain old english that because you think the film is funny that the poor jackass who you are laughing WITH should just get over it and enjoy being humilated.
Bully's always defend themselves by pretending their victims were in on the joke. So do rapists. When you find yourself having issues fitting in to society, constantly a logerheads with the people around you, you will need to look back and examine this attitude of yours. You will see that it is the problem. Blaming the victim is the first province of a bully.
Has no one noticed that this was a settlement and an undisclosed one at that. As far as we know there was no money changing hands. It's pretty unlikely that the families settled for the full amount.
Not that I am supporting the silly idea that 1/3 of a 300k settlement is going to bankrupt a family. If you want people to take responsibility for their actions what is the appropriate punishment for the kids that did this?
My reply is not to cast doubt on wether he has been bullied or not, but to point out that comparing his own experiences to those of SWK are absurd, i.e. my water analogy.
That is, of course, unless he has a video of himself goofing off broadcast the world over and the susequent echo chamber effect of having every single person you are even angenitally related to being in on the joke.
Slashdot Mirror
"They expect the average citizen (the proverbial stupid Joe Sixpack) to make the distinction between incorrect scientific consensus popularized by mass media in the '70s and supposedly correct scientific consensus popularized by mass media in the '00s. Fool him once, shame on you. What makes you think he'll let himself be convinced twice, even if it's legitimate this time?"
Since mass media is espousing both sides of a nonexistent debate it is not surprising that, as in the 1970s, the public is believes there is controversy. Like belief in global cooling, the public belief in the Debate over Global Warming has its entire basis in advocacy groups and not scientific evidence. This goes on all the time, "first they said eat margarine, not butter, now they say it's bad for me too." But like nutritionists never recommended butter or margarine in any but the smallest quantities meteorologists never predicted an ice age-it was just a theory, one possible explanation for a cooling trend that made a lot great press. Science teachers love teaching whats in the press. News editors love catchy stories (which would you pick, "Part of a Larger trend to the opposite" or "New Ice Age Dawns!") That doesn't make them the voice of science, and that certainly doesn't disprove any theories that might be developed three decades later.
Right now we are in the same situation as we were in the 1970s. Prevailing wisdom says that there is a Debate over Global Warming and its cause among scientists where there is none. People are advocating it all over this discussion. This is caused by ignorance of the field of climate research, reliance on too little media exposure, and not enough study. People who were duped in the 1970s are being duped again by a false perception brought about by not allowing the people who have the facts about global warming (climatologists) to control the discussion.
No one wants to get fooled again, but burying your head in the sand is not the solution to this problem. Global warming is very real. It is being caused by human activity according to Every scientist working on the issue with even a modicum of credibility. There is no debate among scientists.
Anyone who used that phrase gets modded down by me for a)pathetic unoriginality and b)trolling the oppressed card instead of depending on the strength of their statements to make their point.
I find little more amusing in the am than middle-class white guys complaining about how oppressed they are on slashdot for voicing unpopular opinions that just happen to coincide with every fortune 500 company and politician in power today.
Anyone who thinks there's a "collective doctrine" on slashdot needs to do a search on the term "I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but..."
"It's not my argument, it's a possibility. One that's worth looking into.
Yes of course it's hard. That why we pay people smarter than me to look at this stuff."
The funny thing is they always come back and say that human CO2 emissions are causing rapidly accelerated global warming. Always. Every time. What makes you think that scientists of all people are not looking at every possible angle. Don't you think that with all the resources of Exxon Mobile that if there were an alternative explanation to global warming that One reputable climate scientist would endorse they'd be pushing that instead of the "sow doubt" campaign?
Anyway we've paid the scientists for the work, now we don't like the answer. It's not acceptable to demand they come up with a more convenient explanation. They've told you what the problem is, like your doctor telling you to cut back on cheeseburgers or you'll have another heart attack. The responsibility is yours, only you'll drag us all down with you the next time.
The problem with your response is that you are attacking the example, not addressing the point it illustrates. In particular you are attacking a part of the example that has no bearing on that point. A convenient angle to take if you want to derail the conversation and force everyone to debate something that you can defend (as opposed to the idea that not responding to global warming is anything but ostrich thinking), but not one that allows the discussion to develop.
"While the conclusion is obvious to over 99% of the population, some crackpots still disagree."
With global warming, like evolution, that would be an accurate representation of the facts. You might replace "crackpots" with "Large Oil Companies" but the conclusion that voters draw is very different from reality by artificial "objectivity."
It sounds like you went into a 90 minute movie expecting to come out with a PHd in environmental science. It was Al Gore's intent to inform people that there is a problem with the Earth's environment. He made one, really simple argument and presented evidence for it: CO2 levels correspond with Temperature levels and CO2 levels are skyrocketing.
The rest is on you to inform yourself. It's understandable that it takes a strong compelling reason to convince yourself to radically alter your perception of your place in the world, but educate thyself and take responsibility for your ignorance. It's not Al Gore's fault that you didn't major in the right field. Now you have to trust the people who know better or go out and become one of them yourself. Railing on Al is your way of avoiding having to take action for what is happening to the world.
People wash yer hands fer cryin out loud. I've used mine for months and months and there's nary a grain of dirt on my mighty mouse.
Observe the old rule: Thou Shalt eat with the left hand and geek with the right.
This is simply not a mighty mouse problem.
Well, some of us who use our mice heavily tend to wear them out faster. There is also the problem of the mouse going to sleep, and having to wait for it to reactivate when, for example, you are watching a movie. There's also the really poor performance with a wireless mouse in games. I used a BT Mac Mouse for a few months and was really frustrated with it most of the time.
86 percent increase in a year. What a backlash.
I've paid a fair chunk of those because I had to buy a new phone this year and buying one without a bunch of useless media options was not an option. I mean, it just wasn't available. A lot of my personal backlash is the sheer volume of crap you are paying for when you buy a phone because they don't just have an "it just works" model on the floor.
The distinction is irrelevant. Nike dictates all the terms to the sweatshops that make Nike shoes and they are specifically culpable for their decision to stop doing business in Korea and Taiwan after those sweatshops unionized to seek out cheaper, more exploitative places elsewhere.
s /nike/
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshop
You are regurgitating Nike propoganda, which has been demonstrated to be false. Nike is not responding to bad publicity by addressing the problem, they are responding on the cheap by hiring PR firms to "shore up their image."
The irony is that, the same people who are shunning and chanting against this new discovery will be the ones that will praise it the most later on, if the discovery is confirmed real.
In my experience they will be the most intractable. The claims of the hypocrite scientist taking credit for ideas they spurned are just consolation stories for people with unproven or just bad ideas. People who thought Jackson Pollock's work was shit still think it's shit. Paul of Tarsus died a long time ago, and he was probably just boasting his radical conversion to make it easier on gentiles.
That said the older science crowd has *always* been conservative. The younger has *alwasy* been ready to carry new ideas forward. However, this mountain is not science, nor is there anything new about claiming to see Atlantean relics in natural phenominon. The only thing different here is that the claimant actually has the money to put his claim ot the test.
Seriously, why must we have to read on every populist or pseudo-science story out there?
Knowing the hoaxes and the way the minds that perpetuate them work is at least as important as the genuine discoveries. This discovery will prompt countless hours of discussions on critical thinking, scietific method, and archological methods. It also gives us a great opportunity to throw salt on the tails of the flat earther/atlantis myth types and perhaps shake some reason into them while they are pinned down trying to defend themselves.
But there is always a simple solution if you are dissatisfied with your slashdot experience. Personally I just skip the articles I don;t find interesting, but if you don't let it hit your posterior on the way out you probably won't even notice it's gone.
No, my friend, the subject is a mountain, in a poor country that abounds with innumerable genuine archeological sites that are not being excavataed or preserved. We having nothing to go on, no evidence, no imaging, no reason to believe that there is anything under the mountain (We had reason to believe that Troy existed).
All we have is the shape of a mountain that from some angles looks like a pyramid, and the word of a man with no credentials in geology or archeology. Since no one has seen this pyramid, nor found any evidence or historical record of it, then there is only the evidence of a pyramid shaped mountain and the presence of neothilic artifacts in caves on the surface.
One man thinks it is a buried 12,000 year old step pyramid. --Theory.
So, before we spend billions of Bosnian dollars to excavate a mountain based on one man's opinion, why is it not a credible aspect of discussion to examine the credentials of the man?
Considering that we've found the dead in every unplundered pyramid we've excavated it's pretty safe to say that the writing on the walls in the pyramids stating that they are tombs are not lying to us.
It's more likely that the arrangements of the pyramids were for a reason to support their function as a tomb than that all archeologists are wrong and the Egyptians were lying to us.
Wired has a long and annoying history of making kneejerk lists that reflect an ignorance of the world around them, particularly the fact that there are a lot of people with special needs.
In this article they are clearly targeting, as forms of social criticism against people who are lazy:
1. The Motor Lounger: something for genuine lazy tards
2. Ice-cream turner: A gag gift
3. Computer in bed: Something that any geek who has ever been confined to a bed would drool over (but I guess we don't care about invalids).
4. The bird 2.0: Another gag gift (I mean, did someone with no sense of humor write this humorous article about lazy people gadgets)
5. Body dryer: Again, I guess we have never heard of invalids. Because of this article I am going to buy one of these for my grandmother who cannot lift her arm over her head to dry her back or hair (I guess ignorance and narrow minded bigotry does yield some edible fruit).
6. Bugle emulator: Since the whole thread is about this one I'm going to leave it alone
7. Shoe mops: I guess this was a candidate. I'd have put the Chopsticks fan http://www.mindbreakers.com/mb/img/invention7.jpg in its place, but I don't think the writer was trying too hard to find things that are genuinely about saving effort.
8. The Disc Pod: Well, I can't think of a useful purpose for this one
9. Lazy drinker: As a former caterer I can tell you that this would save thousands and thousands of dollars over a year. This is clearly not aimed at the home user.
10. Sushi machine: Same story. This is for people who have to feed lots of people regularly for cheap. Not for yuppies trying to live an urban lifestyle in their kitchen.
11. iPod bed: Yup. This is a gadget for the spoiled and lazy.
12. AIBO dog: I am curious what it says about the editor of the column that he thought the AIBO dog qualified for this article. It's a toy, dumbass.
13. Wireless cooking thermometer: I guess the author likes leaning into a blazing hot oven trying to read a mechanical gadget that's not accurate and only slightly cheaper than this item. I mean why not dispense with tools altogether and just eat it raw. Really, is this seriously supposed to save time somehow? I guess we could all go back to mechanical watches too since digital is just soooo lazy, natch the fact that they are more reliable, last longer, can be read in the dark and cost a fraction of the price.
14. Shoe dryer: Do people get their shoes wet often enough to need this? If they do then, yes, I think it would be genuinely useful. Last tme I got my shoes wet I put them by the radiator and they took three days to dry in winter.
15. Eyeglasses washer: Uh, I don't wear glasses, but I'm guessing that if I ran a shop that sold them that I'd have one of these in the back.
16. Electric fly swatter: Yeah, this is about the dumbest thing I've seen too.
17. Roomba: Well, I think it's neat, but I have to admit it qualifies for the article.
18. Hot dog toaster, okay, it's stupid, but jeez it would be fun to use the first day you have it before it clutters a spot on the top shelf for the next eight years till the kids are old enough to use it themselves. Hell, I used to wrap a dog up in a paper towel and put it in the microwave. Tasted just like the ball park (seats) and it was easier to use than this gadget looks.
19. How exactly is this easier than pouring it from the carton? Have you ever squeezed a whole orange? I think this falls into the dumb category along with the Subway chin rest http://www.mindbreakers.com/mb/img/invention1.jpg, but for the lazy? I don't get it.
Maybe I'm just lacking in a sense of humor, but I think the the guys who put this article together were either slammed up against a deadline or just enjoyed any excuse to be mean. Like th
In its purest sense capitalism turns every transaction into a capital one, and every imaginable possession into a capital asset. Capitalism as a force drives obscene government regulations of the sort you insist that it would decry by allowing everything to be bought and sold. You cannot have it both ways.
Socialism would not concieve of a copyright lasting an artist's life +70 years, it would likely not need to bother with copyright laws as the incentive to profit by theft of the work of another would be eliminated.
So yes, capitalism is the culprit here.
This is the fourth time I've read about people blaming the damn artist for the actions of their estate and a consortium designed to help other estates of dead artists extract as much wealth as possible for exploiting their dead relatives talent.
Please, don't give up on art or something you enjoy just to make a point that you don't like the nasty political reality of defending copyright. Personally I don't think the Miro estate has any right whatsoever to control the use of works 65+ years old and would be happy to take the fight to them to prevent such obscene restriction of even the most basic elements.
Joan Miro had decades to make lots of money off of his success, and his family are very well off. The works belong to the world now, every bit as much as the Mona Lisa, and the great pyramids. Attitudes like the Parent poster's just reinforce the idiotic paradigm of enforcing copyright for the sake of maintaining ownership.
Well, the art world like everyone else is trying to make a living off their trade. In this case, like most others of its ilk, it's a family who never contributed one ounce of effort who are trying to make a buck off of a dead relative.
That is the nature of capitalism.
I don't think anybody should have to ask permission to use elements of a dead artist's work which are over 65 years old. Miro's contribution to popular culture is pervasive. There is no basis for restricting wholesale reproduction of his works outside of the obscene length of time we allow for copyright in the West. Much less should we be allowed to restrict the use of simple elements and basic tributes of extremely common, influential, and well publicized art.
Just don't try to outthink it. You will think they drop in questions like 'have you ever lied to a friend' to catch liers on the test (everybody lies to a friend at least in a little way, they know that).
They include questions like that to divert attention from the questions that actually suss the probability of honesty. Often they'll run two similarly worded questions near each other that have the same answer after having warned you that the test is designed to catch inconsistentcies. This is to analyze something completely different from honesty and consistentcy.
Using the example you did is a demonstration of just how much is going on that you don't see. We, as thinking people, will make patterns in what we see and attribute our predictions to the results, right or wrong. These have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Just ask an apocalyptic christian to explain why Kingdom has't come yet.
A test that's designed to determine probabilities about a person's personality will likely have covered the fact that the vast majority of men think they are smarter than everyone else despite evidence to the contrary.
Many slashdotters spend their lives convincing themselves that they are smarter than eryone else, including each other. Haven't you ever seen the guy bragging at a party where everyone knows he's full of it, but since we're all pretty much social sheep no one calls him on it?
But no, that couldn't possibly ever be one of us, now could it?
That's good. Did you know that a significant majority of people consider themselves to posess above average intelligence? Experienced actors spend months developing personalities that read rea, and they've spent their lives (or at least their educational career) learning to do that.
Most people who believe they can fool an even moderately well written personality test are probably foolish enough to convince themselves that they were successful after the fact.
Bully's always defend themselves by pretending their victims were in on the joke. So do rapists. When you find yourself having issues fitting in to society, constantly a logerheads with the people around you, you will need to look back and examine this attitude of yours. You will see that it is the problem. Blaming the victim is the first province of a bully.
Not that I am supporting the silly idea that 1/3 of a 300k settlement is going to bankrupt a family. If you want people to take responsibility for their actions what is the appropriate punishment for the kids that did this?
That is, of course, unless he has a video of himself goofing off broadcast the world over and the susequent echo chamber effect of having every single person you are even angenitally related to being in on the joke.