---In the near future (not next year, but in two-three year from today) government will setup a plan for increasing birth rate. The government is heavily influenced by conservative parties ("conservative" as in "preserve our traditions!")---
Heh. That's always an amusing sort of campaign: social conservatives trying to encourage people to fuck more: Conservative fucking coach: That's it, right... no, take that condom off... okay... wait, no! Not in that orfice! God damnit! (is dragged off to jail for blasphemy)
You're forgetting that with cheaper fuel efficiency, people will also drive more. Probably not so much as to completely eliminate the benefits of the fuel efficiency on oil reserves, but certainly quite a lot. Also, people who couldn't afford to own cars at all will buy them.
--The amount of wheat you consume cannot be consumed by anyone else. There is a finite amount of wheat that can be grown each year, and if we over consume this people will starve.--
But there is no reason to think that we are anywhere near this limit, or could even get there, thanks to the Law of Diminishing returns (i.e., the more wheat we tried to grow, the harder it would be, and the pricier, and hence the less we would demand in relation to other things... etc.). Further if no one consumed any wheat, no wheat would be grown! The existence of a resource like wheat DEPENDS upon consumption, not vice-versa.
---As a consequence of much of the above, resources are created by the Earth and are in limited supply.---
I think you missed entirely the gist of his comments. Things are not JUST resources by their nature: they are only resources _in relation_ to a particular human purpose.
---Genetic Modification of agricultural research done in the US threatens Third World farmers astoundingly.---
How can you possibly worry about Third World farmers without also worrying about of Third World consumers? The consumers (which may or may not include a subset of farmers) are the ones for whom cheaper food would benefit much more in the aggregate than cheaper food would hurt the farmers int he aggregate.
---The amount of wheat that I consume is a virtually irrelevent point, because that amount of wheat can be grown again.---
Not only that, but if you didn't consume wheat, it wouldn't be grown in the first place. It's replenishment RELIES upon your consumption of it, not the other way around.
Whether or not they have any merit, you're being very dishonest to characterize Simon's arguments in this way. Simon's position is not one of lackadasical "anything goes": but rather on focusing on what he believes to be the right problems: political repression, economic barriers, technology solutions, etc. And his position on resources is NOT that they are infinate: but rather that what is and is not an important resource changes over time, often in response to the quantity available: which quite naturally forces a shift to alternative sources.
Today too: many of Cartoon Network's new shows are really two episodes. And it actually works very well for them, because it makes their work much tighter (of course, they don't have to worry too much about their shows making sense...)
Working under strict time constraints definately can lead to better work, so I'm not claiming that more time = better programs. But for some sorts of shows, it certainly COULD leave much more room for better programs.
An interesting caveat in there about how metric hours wouldn't be very useful for evenly blocking out television programs of the length we are accustomed to. But which came first: is there something crucial about the 30/60 min timeslot (with ads), that is inherent to the human attention span? Or is it simply a case of people becoming accustomed to that length of time. If programs were generally 35 minutes instead of 30, or 70 instead of 60, I would guess that the depth of the narrative structures of most programs benefit greatly. Maybe there's a real psysiological limit for which that's pushing people's time too far, or maybe it's mere convention to keep tracking easier.
Personally, I think metric time would lead to exactly what it led to in France: lots and lots of public decapitations.
It's worse than that: it's our official motto. And the "We" is not the government: it's the people. Leading to the conclusion that either the motto is a lie (not eveyrone in the "We" trusts, much less believes in, God), or a backhanded implication that those who do not trust in God are not really legitimate members of the "We"
I beg to differ. When Orbach is given some real screen time to act, he's great: but for most shows, his "witty" lines consist of looking at a dead body and uttering a painful pun. "Boy, you sure got shot in the head".... beat... into credits. These days, this show is all about McCoy. Everyone else CAN put in good performances, but are rarely called upon to do so. The new lawyer, blonde chick from Angel, is just awful (her line readings are robotic, right down to her neverhchanging dead-eyed glazed stare).
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
I agree with much of your analysis, except that what was excrutiating about this movie is that it could have been world's better as real art with only a few minor changes. And I really don't think it would have hurt this sort of movie: almost everyone with complaints about it complains about the trite, thoughtless ending.
That may well be: the fact remains that the original grandparent was falsely accused of using words that he was, in fact, taking out of another's post.
I don't see how anyone could possible compare the supposed bias of CNN (slight if any, and regarded as bad even by themselves) to that of FoxNews, which wears its political slant boldly. There are definately valid examples of left-wing bias in the news, but the fact is, claiming that the news is left-slanted is more of a cottage industry on the right than it is a fair and balenced characterization of the work doen by the mainstream journalism industry.
It wasn't his assumption: the parent poster was the one who claimed that the rights started at birth: YOUR parent was simply pointing that out.
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
SPOILERS.
Ditto on the ending, but MUCH moreso. I'll say it straight: Snr. Speilbergo is a coward. He cannot confront the horrors that he hints at in any sort artistic or philosophical way: he looks away before anyone has to consider them too long. Though the whole wife freeing him and him recounting the entire plot over again was as waste, Cruise's final dilemna to Von Shadow was perfect. But instead of leaving that dilemna hanging over the credits: instead of Von Shadow _choosing_ to shoot cruise out of passion for preserving his own program (even though he would know that it had failed to predict/mandate Cruise's death absoltuely), well... we get a cliche bad-guy exit, stage-dead. And, worse, instead of the audience left wondering about whether pre-crime is really worth it or not... Speilberg flatly answers the question for everyone. Even if he really felt strongly that it should have been shut down, leaving the question open and disturbing would have been far far more effective and unsettling. For a movie that raises so many interesting questions, we the audience _deserved_ to be left pondering them, both horrified and intrigued at once, but not knowing how to feel.
But, instead, it's just a classic non-response to technology: instead of confronting the fearful possibilities, we pack it away and never look at it again. And maybe have a baby and a nice house! In short, even if Speilberg meant the ending as somehow advancing a happy organic and natural life, free from techonological quandries, he did it in an insultingly cliched manner: in short he told us nothing NEW about this sort of ending or resolution. This moive could have been a perfect blend of fun action and thoughful art. But it's not art: it's popcorn that uses philosophy as just another flashy prop. And I just can't have respect for someone that chooses popcorn over a chance to make real art.
Consider this cogent point as well:
"As things stand in most of the country, no atheist, agnostic or polytheist can openly and honestly pledge their allegiance to the republic. No matter how much they yearn to do so, there is no officially sanctioned pledge that they can take.
The only congressionally approved pledge is reserved solely for the nation's monotheistic citizens. This wouldn't matter much if the pledge were just something you mumble every sunday like the lords prayer. Properly spoken, the pledge is taken, not recited. Taking it can be a privilege, an honor, or sometimes even a duty.
When congress passed their law limiting the pledge to members of certain religious groups, they took away this privilege, honor, and duty from everyone else. That's not right.
If an atheist, agnostic, or polytheist takes the pledge without saying "under God", they have not taken the official pledge of allegiance. If they do say "under God", they are knowingly making a statement that they believe to be false. I don't see how the rights of the monotheists extend to the point of forcing everyone else into an ethical dilemma. Even christianity takes a dim view of swearing false oaths. Surely it's unethical of these religious folk to force everyone else to either swear falsely, or forgo pledging allegiance entirely?
The words "under God" are not essential to the pledge, except by law, but they do ensure that only christians and other monotheists can take the oath honestly. IMHO, that's a heck of a special privilege." -Squink
---In fact, it says they CAN'T stop you from saying "Under God."---
Indeed: but it seems to have slipped past you that neither does this decision. You can pledge allegience to as many flags as you want, with as many "under gods" as you please! This decision doesn't affect YOUR rights in the least: it merely CEASES to infringe upon the rights of those who choose not to recite the pledge in its current form.
I don't understand how people can possible be this dishonest. No is in any way forced to avoid their religion at any time. Just because no government official is lecturing your kid on what gods to believe in does not mean that the kid is a default atheist: He can sign hymns at any time that anyone is allowed to speak (i.e. anytime but during class), if he wants to pray, he can pray all day long instead of listening.
And would any religious parent really want the GOVERNMENT teaching religion to their children? What if the majority of your town is Mormon, and decides to slant the teachings that way. Aren't Jews and Baptists both in public school a little screwed?
---their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.---
Funny, I don't remember that in the Constit... oh wait, it's not. Are you going to quote the Articles of Confederation next?
---It is imposible to justify government interferece(my taxes for school system), and then yell that the school system is now a funcion of the government and hence separation of chuch and state should apply.---
Uh, what? When the government steals your money to fund something, that something (you know, what it DOES with your money) most certainly is a function of government, subject to all its regulations.
---Finally, our currency is not a government note, but rather a note from the Federal Reverse ( a technically private bank), so there is no "chuch and state" issue.---
All of which was set in motion, and is ultimately still controlled by Acts of Congress. So, yes it is. And the motto is on the coins because it is THE motto!
---No, no, no. I have plenty of albums to enjoy.---
That's not the point. You listened to an album and were dissappointed. I listened to the same album and was elated. So there was no need to listen to that album and not think it was great. Thus, you missed an opportunity to enjoy something.
---In the end, I think that the musical tastes of the public animal tend to shift wildly---
The last thing anyone who cares about anyone's happiness should ever want to be cursed with is a _particular_ (much less a self-consciously trendy) sense of taste, as opposed to a desire to get the most possible out of every experience, no matter what.
What a great idea! I really like the way Nader's party is gunning mostly for the MOST progressive candidates in Congress (i.e. the only districts in which their party could possibly get more than a 5% showing: impressive!). So, with a platform that, like it or not, the vast majority of Americans just don't support, their only possible effect is to kick progressives out of Congress. What a brilliant way to save our political system! And I'm sure after the Green Party gets its impressive 4% showings, that the Democrats will just jump at the chance to grab up all those votes on the left, even if they have to cede the entire center to the Republicans. Of course!
---Obviously you haven't spent enough time listening to _Pinkerton_. I think it's their best effort, but it isn't as easily appreciated; it has less of an immediate "wow" effect (the green album has that in scads), but *really* grows on you and stands up to repeated playing. ---
Dumbass: it didn't have a big MTV promotion, so it can't be any good.
---Before you start railing against me because I bash Pearl Jam and Moby, note this; this whole reply is purely my opinion.---
That's true. But look at it this way: your inability to enjoy the rest of their stuff means that you have many less albums in the world that you enjoy than I do. So while we each have our own opinions, and that's great, my opinions on music serve me better (in terms of enjoyment) than yours serve you.
Slashdot Mirror
---In the near future (not next year, but in two-three year from today) government will setup a plan for increasing birth rate. The government is heavily influenced by conservative parties ("conservative" as in "preserve our traditions!")---
Heh. That's always an amusing sort of campaign: social conservatives trying to encourage people to fuck more: Conservative fucking coach: That's it, right... no, take that condom off... okay... wait, no! Not in that orfice! God damnit! (is dragged off to jail for blasphemy)
You're forgetting that with cheaper fuel efficiency, people will also drive more. Probably not so much as to completely eliminate the benefits of the fuel efficiency on oil reserves, but certainly quite a lot. Also, people who couldn't afford to own cars at all will buy them.
--The amount of wheat you consume cannot be consumed by anyone else. There is a finite amount of wheat that can be grown each year, and if we over consume this people will starve.--
But there is no reason to think that we are anywhere near this limit, or could even get there, thanks to the Law of Diminishing returns (i.e., the more wheat we tried to grow, the harder it would be, and the pricier, and hence the less we would demand in relation to other things... etc.). Further if no one consumed any wheat, no wheat would be grown! The existence of a resource like wheat DEPENDS upon consumption, not vice-versa.
---As a consequence of much of the above, resources are created by the Earth and are in limited supply.---
I think you missed entirely the gist of his comments. Things are not JUST resources by their nature: they are only resources _in relation_ to a particular human purpose.
---Genetic Modification of agricultural research done in the US threatens Third World farmers astoundingly.---
How can you possibly worry about Third World farmers without also worrying about of Third World consumers? The consumers (which may or may not include a subset of farmers) are the ones for whom cheaper food would benefit much more in the aggregate than cheaper food would hurt the farmers int he aggregate.
---The amount of wheat that I consume is a virtually irrelevent point, because that amount of wheat can be grown again.---
Not only that, but if you didn't consume wheat, it wouldn't be grown in the first place. It's replenishment RELIES upon your consumption of it, not the other way around.
Whether or not they have any merit, you're being very dishonest to characterize Simon's arguments in this way. Simon's position is not one of lackadasical "anything goes": but rather on focusing on what he believes to be the right problems: political repression, economic barriers, technology solutions, etc. And his position on resources is NOT that they are infinate: but rather that what is and is not an important resource changes over time, often in response to the quantity available: which quite naturally forces a shift to alternative sources.
Today too: many of Cartoon Network's new shows are really two episodes. And it actually works very well for them, because it makes their work much tighter (of course, they don't have to worry too much about their shows making sense...)
Working under strict time constraints definately can lead to better work, so I'm not claiming that more time = better programs. But for some sorts of shows, it certainly COULD leave much more room for better programs.
An interesting caveat in there about how metric hours wouldn't be very useful for evenly blocking out television programs of the length we are accustomed to. But which came first: is there something crucial about the 30/60 min timeslot (with ads), that is inherent to the human attention span? Or is it simply a case of people becoming accustomed to that length of time. If programs were generally 35 minutes instead of 30, or 70 instead of 60, I would guess that the depth of the narrative structures of most programs benefit greatly. Maybe there's a real psysiological limit for which that's pushing people's time too far, or maybe it's mere convention to keep tracking easier.
Personally, I think metric time would lead to exactly what it led to in France: lots and lots of public decapitations.
It's worse than that: it's our official motto. And the "We" is not the government: it's the people. Leading to the conclusion that either the motto is a lie (not eveyrone in the "We" trusts, much less believes in, God), or a backhanded implication that those who do not trust in God are not really legitimate members of the "We"
I beg to differ. When Orbach is given some real screen time to act, he's great: but for most shows, his "witty" lines consist of looking at a dead body and uttering a painful pun. "Boy, you sure got shot in the head".... beat... into credits.
These days, this show is all about McCoy. Everyone else CAN put in good performances, but are rarely called upon to do so. The new lawyer, blonde chick from Angel, is just awful (her line readings are robotic, right down to her neverhchanging dead-eyed glazed stare).
I agree with much of your analysis, except that what was excrutiating about this movie is that it could have been world's better as real art with only a few minor changes. And I really don't think it would have hurt this sort of movie: almost everyone with complaints about it complains about the trite, thoughtless ending.
That may well be: the fact remains that the original grandparent was falsely accused of using words that he was, in fact, taking out of another's post.
Just because it isn't fair to say doesn't mean it can't be used to further someone's point anyway.
I don't see how anyone could possible compare the supposed bias of CNN (slight if any, and regarded as bad even by themselves) to that of FoxNews, which wears its political slant boldly. There are definately valid examples of left-wing bias in the news, but the fact is, claiming that the news is left-slanted is more of a cottage industry on the right than it is a fair and balenced characterization of the work doen by the mainstream journalism industry.
It wasn't his assumption: the parent poster was the one who claimed that the rights started at birth: YOUR parent was simply pointing that out.
SPOILERS. Ditto on the ending, but MUCH moreso. I'll say it straight: Snr. Speilbergo is a coward. He cannot confront the horrors that he hints at in any sort artistic or philosophical way: he looks away before anyone has to consider them too long. Though the whole wife freeing him and him recounting the entire plot over again was as waste, Cruise's final dilemna to Von Shadow was perfect. But instead of leaving that dilemna hanging over the credits: instead of Von Shadow _choosing_ to shoot cruise out of passion for preserving his own program (even though he would know that it had failed to predict/mandate Cruise's death absoltuely), well... we get a cliche bad-guy exit, stage-dead. And, worse, instead of the audience left wondering about whether pre-crime is really worth it or not... Speilberg flatly answers the question for everyone. Even if he really felt strongly that it should have been shut down, leaving the question open and disturbing would have been far far more effective and unsettling. For a movie that raises so many interesting questions, we the audience _deserved_ to be left pondering them, both horrified and intrigued at once, but not knowing how to feel.
But, instead, it's just a classic non-response to technology: instead of confronting the fearful possibilities, we pack it away and never look at it again. And maybe have a baby and a nice house! In short, even if Speilberg meant the ending as somehow advancing a happy organic and natural life, free from techonological quandries, he did it in an insultingly cliched manner: in short he told us nothing NEW about this sort of ending or resolution. This moive could have been a perfect blend of fun action and thoughful art. But it's not art: it's popcorn that uses philosophy as just another flashy prop. And I just can't have respect for someone that chooses popcorn over a chance to make real art.
Consider this cogent point as well:
"As things stand in most of the country, no atheist, agnostic or polytheist can openly and honestly pledge their allegiance to the republic. No matter how much they yearn to do so, there is no officially sanctioned pledge that they can take.
The only congressionally approved pledge is reserved solely for the nation's monotheistic citizens. This wouldn't matter much if the pledge were just something you mumble every sunday like the lords prayer. Properly spoken, the pledge is taken, not recited. Taking it can be a privilege, an honor, or sometimes even a duty.
When congress passed their law limiting the pledge to members of certain religious groups, they took away this privilege, honor, and duty from everyone else. That's not right.
If an atheist, agnostic, or polytheist takes the pledge without saying "under God", they have not taken the official pledge of allegiance. If they do say "under God", they are knowingly making a statement that they believe to be false. I don't see how the rights of the monotheists extend to the point of forcing everyone else into an ethical dilemma. Even christianity takes a dim view of swearing false oaths. Surely it's unethical of these religious folk to force everyone else to either swear falsely, or forgo pledging allegiance entirely?
The words "under God" are not essential to the pledge, except by law, but they do ensure that only christians and other monotheists can take the oath honestly. IMHO, that's a heck of a special privilege."
-Squink
---In fact, it says they CAN'T stop you from saying "Under God."---
Indeed: but it seems to have slipped past you that neither does this decision. You can pledge allegience to as many flags as you want, with as many "under gods" as you please! This decision doesn't affect YOUR rights in the least: it merely CEASES to infringe upon the rights of those who choose not to recite the pledge in its current form.
Nice try at confusing the issue though.
I don't understand how people can possible be this dishonest. No is in any way forced to avoid their religion at any time. Just because no government official is lecturing your kid on what gods to believe in does not mean that the kid is a default atheist: He can sign hymns at any time that anyone is allowed to speak (i.e. anytime but during class), if he wants to pray, he can pray all day long instead of listening.
And would any religious parent really want the GOVERNMENT teaching religion to their children? What if the majority of your town is Mormon, and decides to slant the teachings that way. Aren't Jews and Baptists both in public school a little screwed?
---their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.---
Funny, I don't remember that in the Constit... oh wait, it's not. Are you going to quote the Articles of Confederation next?
---It is imposible to justify government interferece(my taxes for school system), and then yell that the school system is now a funcion of the government and hence separation of chuch and state should apply.---
Uh, what? When the government steals your money to fund something, that something (you know, what it DOES with your money) most certainly is a function of government, subject to all its regulations.
---Finally, our currency is not a government note, but rather a note from the Federal Reverse ( a technically private bank), so there is no "chuch and state" issue.---
All of which was set in motion, and is ultimately still controlled by Acts of Congress. So, yes it is. And the motto is on the coins because it is THE motto!
---No, no, no. I have plenty of albums to enjoy.---
That's not the point. You listened to an album and were dissappointed. I listened to the same album and was elated. So there was no need to listen to that album and not think it was great. Thus, you missed an opportunity to enjoy something.
---In the end, I think that the musical tastes of the public animal tend to shift wildly---
The last thing anyone who cares about anyone's happiness should ever want to be cursed with is a _particular_ (much less a self-consciously trendy) sense of taste, as opposed to a desire to get the most possible out of every experience, no matter what.
---VOTE NADER 2004--
What a great idea! I really like the way Nader's party is gunning mostly for the MOST progressive candidates in Congress (i.e. the only districts in which their party could possibly get more than a 5% showing: impressive!). So, with a platform that, like it or not, the vast majority of Americans just don't support, their only possible effect is to kick progressives out of Congress. What a brilliant way to save our political system! And I'm sure after the Green Party gets its impressive 4% showings, that the Democrats will just jump at the chance to grab up all those votes on the left, even if they have to cede the entire center to the Republicans. Of course!
---Obviously you haven't spent enough time listening to _Pinkerton_. I think it's their best effort, but it isn't as easily appreciated; it has less of an immediate "wow" effect (the green album has that in scads), but *really* grows on you and stands up to repeated playing. ---
Dumbass: it didn't have a big MTV promotion, so it can't be any good.
Well lets just say that Billy Joel doesn't have much to crow about these days either.
---Before you start railing against me because I bash Pearl Jam and Moby, note this; this whole reply is purely my opinion.---
That's true. But look at it this way: your inability to enjoy the rest of their stuff means that you have many less albums in the world that you enjoy than I do. So while we each have our own opinions, and that's great, my opinions on music serve me better (in terms of enjoyment) than yours serve you.
Now, maybe if he had TWO bald heads, and was most often seen from behind...