Hollywood-style cinema will not enjoy a resurgence until the maximum term of copyright is reduced to 14 years. Remakes from even one generation back will be forced to compete in the open market, where many if not most will die out, and the big source of money will once again shift to genuinely new ideas. The screenwriters will deliver, and so, in turn, will the audiences.
Actually, there isn't a difference. The term "depression," as applied to economics, was originally coined as a euphemism for "recession." Now, of course, we've inverted things, using the term "recession" as a euphemism for "depression." Language is funny like that.
Get used to it. Projection is an important part of the eudaimonia-centric philosophy espoused by the occupiers. It's about making sure everyone has lives that other people would want to lead, rather than the lives they themselves would find satisfying, and you can't come to any kind of conclusions about that without projection.
He does not deserve to be in PR. look at his twitter. He's vicious and nasty. In fact, it's the nastiest series of comments I've ever seen.
I didn't say he deserved to be in PR; clearly he doesn't. And I don't feel sorry for him watching his career go down the tubes. However, it doesn't do any good to pretend that there's proportionality here. One guy got bruised in the heel, and the other guy got bruised in the head, and that's OK, but it needs to be acknowledged.
Whoa; psychopaths aren't "real humans"? They need to be "wiped out" and/or silenced? We're talking about a metaphorical abyss, to be sure, but are you certain you haven't perhaps been staring into it a little too long?
He cannot empathize with other people, as such his feelings are the only ones that matter. So he sees himself as the victim here, because he is the only one who got hurt in his worldview.
To be fair, there are degrees. What he did to Mike, while annoying, was ultimately of no real significance. The consequences he faces for doing that, however, are quite real: deserved, yes, but not in remotely the same league.
I wouldn't go quite that far. But like many people (perhaps even more so), a sociopath has to be allowed to hit rock bottom in order to build back up. That's the only way to get the message across: when the ego becomes too big of a barrier to get around, the alternative is to smash it.
Infinite second chances are often thought of as the compassionate thing to do, the way to enable people to break out of the cycles that are destroying them. Sometimes this is even correct. Quite often, however, it's an enabler only in a much darker sense: the thing that lets people stay in their destructive cycles, rather than the thing that lets them break out.
In any case, this is not going to ruin his life. It may precipitate some major changes, including some that in his current state he would rather not happen, but that's not ruin: a grand inconvenience, but nothing fatal.
Yeah, this. Professionalism isn't about what you do when it matters: it's about what you do when nobody important will know or even care about it. In other words, basic personal integrity.
It's true that e-readers are coming down in price. However, homeschooling a child incurs another considerable expense that the lower price of e-readers cannot defray: namely, requiring a parent to stay home. Far fewer people can afford that than can afford a Kindle or others of its ilk.
Firefox is an important product because it can be a different product with different design decisions and serve different users well.
This is true as far as it goes, but it's moot as long as Firefox continues along its current mad quest to not be a different product with different design decisions.
Another really nice low-impact WM from the old days. I do wish the root menu supported XDG system menus natively, but add some good dockapps and you get a really nice setup.
They don't seem to be destructively-competitive douchebags like most companies. They compete, but in a positive manner. Whether that's all an act, or genuine, I suppose it doesn't really matter as long as they keep it up.
Perhaps, but "most companies" pretty much ruined monopolies for everybody, even those who might wish to run them in a more benevolent manner. Google can stick to "don't be evil" all it wants, but the lawyers won't care, and so other methods are needed.
I also think it was silly for MS to get into trouble for "bundling" IE with Windows. Why does nobody mind them bundling the Calculator app or Notepad and Wordpad?
Because these are trivial programs, more demonstrations of the UI than anything else.
There are just some things that you expect to come along with an OS for it to be useful out of the box.
Browsing isn't one of them, as was clearly demonstrated at the time. That has since changed, but only because Microsoft legitimized it.
Google is coming under increasing scrutiny from the antitrust folks, and funding an open-source competitor in the browser space makes it look better. A better image can be worth quite a lot of money when lawyers are involved.
When the Germans voted Hitler into power, they weren't looking forward into the Palantir at the mass rape of the mothers, sisters, and wives by the Russian hordes bent on retribution. No, they voted him in because of their frustration and the sense that he could get things done.
And this, as I pointed out, is what makes a bad dictatorship so much worse than a bad democracy. The ability to get things done cuts both ways, and a dictatorship is at the mercy of the dictator's whims. The inefficiency inherent in a democracy is only a hindrance when the times are already good: when things turn sour it becomes a surprisingly effective safeguard.
A little more heed to outcome rather than credit/blame, we'd have fewer of these people around.
Would you, I wonder? "A little more heed to outcome" reduces to the ends justifying the means, which could be argued as an even greater catalyst for cases like this.
A good dictator is better than a good democracy, because the dictator is more easily able to get things done. But for exactly the same reason, a bad dictator is many, many orders of magnitude worse than a bad democracy. This, ultimately, is why we have democracies: not to get the best government, but to avert the worst.
Not everyone deserves to state their views because frankly, they are just too stupid or uneducated for that privilege.
Sure, but they get to state their views anyway, just like everyone else. Why? Because the moment we allow authority to silence anyone, we give them the framework they need to silence anyone. Nothing is worth that cost.
My guess is after a set mourning period, say 60 or 90 days depending on how impatient the generals are, the third stringer will be declared an "enemy of the Juce ideal" and be promptly exiled or possibly shot...
Huh? What does O.J. Simpson have to do with the North Korean military?
The man had a cult of personality, and this is what cults of personality do. The same happened for Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung. It'll probably happen for Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez too, when they die.
Might one suppose that Kim Jong-Il might actually have been dead for a few weeks, instead of less than a day, and this is just the public announcement? It might explain Burma/Myanmar's sudden change of heart: they were fleeing the sinking ship.
(Not that I seriously believe this, but making up conspiracy theories is fun).
The end product of cosmetics is an improved appearance. If an ad tries to sell cosmetics based on an appearance that the cosmetics themselves cannot deliver, that's fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood-style cinema will not enjoy a resurgence until the maximum term of copyright is reduced to 14 years. Remakes from even one generation back will be forced to compete in the open market, where many if not most will die out, and the big source of money will once again shift to genuinely new ideas. The screenwriters will deliver, and so, in turn, will the audiences.
Actually, there isn't a difference. The term "depression," as applied to economics, was originally coined as a euphemism for "recession." Now, of course, we've inverted things, using the term "recession" as a euphemism for "depression." Language is funny like that.
Get used to it. Projection is an important part of the eudaimonia-centric philosophy espoused by the occupiers. It's about making sure everyone has lives that other people would want to lead, rather than the lives they themselves would find satisfying, and you can't come to any kind of conclusions about that without projection.
He does not deserve to be in PR. look at his twitter. He's vicious and nasty. In fact, it's the nastiest series of comments I've ever seen.
I didn't say he deserved to be in PR; clearly he doesn't. And I don't feel sorry for him watching his career go down the tubes. However, it doesn't do any good to pretend that there's proportionality here. One guy got bruised in the heel, and the other guy got bruised in the head, and that's OK, but it needs to be acknowledged.
Whoa; psychopaths aren't "real humans"? They need to be "wiped out" and/or silenced? We're talking about a metaphorical abyss, to be sure, but are you certain you haven't perhaps been staring into it a little too long?
He cannot empathize with other people, as such his feelings are the only ones that matter. So he sees himself as the victim here, because he is the only one who got hurt in his worldview.
To be fair, there are degrees. What he did to Mike, while annoying, was ultimately of no real significance. The consequences he faces for doing that, however, are quite real: deserved, yes, but not in remotely the same league.
I wouldn't go quite that far. But like many people (perhaps even more so), a sociopath has to be allowed to hit rock bottom in order to build back up. That's the only way to get the message across: when the ego becomes too big of a barrier to get around, the alternative is to smash it.
Infinite second chances are often thought of as the compassionate thing to do, the way to enable people to break out of the cycles that are destroying them. Sometimes this is even correct. Quite often, however, it's an enabler only in a much darker sense: the thing that lets people stay in their destructive cycles, rather than the thing that lets them break out.
In any case, this is not going to ruin his life. It may precipitate some major changes, including some that in his current state he would rather not happen, but that's not ruin: a grand inconvenience, but nothing fatal.
Yeah, this. Professionalism isn't about what you do when it matters: it's about what you do when nobody important will know or even care about it. In other words, basic personal integrity.
It's true that e-readers are coming down in price. However, homeschooling a child incurs another considerable expense that the lower price of e-readers cannot defray: namely, requiring a parent to stay home. Far fewer people can afford that than can afford a Kindle or others of its ilk.
Firefox is an important product because it can be a different product with different design decisions and serve different users well.
This is true as far as it goes, but it's moot as long as Firefox continues along its current mad quest to not be a different product with different design decisions.
Another really nice low-impact WM from the old days. I do wish the root menu supported XDG system menus natively, but add some good dockapps and you get a really nice setup.
No, no, that would be the chi-rho boson.
They don't seem to be destructively-competitive douchebags like most companies. They compete, but in a positive manner. Whether that's all an act, or genuine, I suppose it doesn't really matter as long as they keep it up.
Perhaps, but "most companies" pretty much ruined monopolies for everybody, even those who might wish to run them in a more benevolent manner. Google can stick to "don't be evil" all it wants, but the lawyers won't care, and so other methods are needed.
I also think it was silly for MS to get into trouble for "bundling" IE with Windows. Why does nobody mind them bundling the Calculator app or Notepad and Wordpad?
Because these are trivial programs, more demonstrations of the UI than anything else.
There are just some things that you expect to come along with an OS for it to be useful out of the box.
Browsing isn't one of them, as was clearly demonstrated at the time. That has since changed, but only because Microsoft legitimized it.
Google is coming under increasing scrutiny from the antitrust folks, and funding an open-source competitor in the browser space makes it look better. A better image can be worth quite a lot of money when lawyers are involved.
When the Germans voted Hitler into power, they weren't looking forward into the Palantir at the mass rape of the mothers, sisters, and wives by the Russian hordes bent on retribution. No, they voted him in because of their frustration and the sense that he could get things done.
And this, as I pointed out, is what makes a bad dictatorship so much worse than a bad democracy. The ability to get things done cuts both ways, and a dictatorship is at the mercy of the dictator's whims. The inefficiency inherent in a democracy is only a hindrance when the times are already good: when things turn sour it becomes a surprisingly effective safeguard.
A little more heed to outcome rather than credit/blame, we'd have fewer of these people around.
Would you, I wonder? "A little more heed to outcome" reduces to the ends justifying the means, which could be argued as an even greater catalyst for cases like this.
A good dictator is better than a good democracy, because the dictator is more easily able to get things done. But for exactly the same reason, a bad dictator is many, many orders of magnitude worse than a bad democracy. This, ultimately, is why we have democracies: not to get the best government, but to avert the worst.
Not everyone deserves to state their views because frankly, they are just too stupid or uneducated for that privilege.
Sure, but they get to state their views anyway, just like everyone else. Why? Because the moment we allow authority to silence anyone, we give them the framework they need to silence anyone. Nothing is worth that cost.
I think he was really cool guy too.
Let me guess: eh starves peasants and doesn't afraid of anything?
Both, I'd guess. The claimed reasoning will be to force people to make the connection between the living animal and the meat being eaten.
then no way in hell they'd implement a picture.
You can bet PETA will lobby for legislation mandating it, though. Not that I think they'll succeed, but they'll certainly try.
My guess is after a set mourning period, say 60 or 90 days depending on how impatient the generals are, the third stringer will be declared an "enemy of the Juce ideal" and be promptly exiled or possibly shot...
Huh? What does O.J. Simpson have to do with the North Korean military?
The man had a cult of personality, and this is what cults of personality do. The same happened for Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung. It'll probably happen for Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez too, when they die.
Might one suppose that Kim Jong-Il might actually have been dead for a few weeks, instead of less than a day, and this is just the public announcement? It might explain Burma/Myanmar's sudden change of heart: they were fleeing the sinking ship.
(Not that I seriously believe this, but making up conspiracy theories is fun).
Hey, if I had the task of improving that country from its current state, I'd probably die from mental and physical exhaustion too.
The end product of cosmetics is an improved appearance. If an ad tries to sell cosmetics based on an appearance that the cosmetics themselves cannot deliver, that's fraud.
True, but you're getting into points of theology that many of the older extant Christian sects are quite sensitive about.