The point isn't the cross-over from "child" to "adult" that you sarcastically propose occurs in that one second,
The reason I so sarcastically propose that it does in fact happen in that one second is because legally speaking, it does... Technically, what I said is 100% correct, before that second they're a minor, after it, they aren't... The person who originally made *that* proposition, wasn't being sarcastic, they were being serious. I find it difficult to talk about that event without sarcasm.
but the age at which the ratings committees deem most people are able to watch this stuff without taking a gun up the nearest bell tower. By the time most people are 18, they have enough of a grasp on reality not to be overly affected by the material.
No, I don't think that's true, I refuse to believe that even though the majority of the problems in the world are caused by people over the age of 18, it's a given and readily accepted fact that at that age most people are ready to handle everything, the fact is maybe "most people" will never be ready to handle everything, what's the solution to that problem? There isn't one really, so why bother attempting to impose restrictions based on an irrelevant arbitrary barrier, like age? I know that you know that I know that we both know quite a significant amount of people who are troglodytes, and I know also that you know that we know that they are troglodytes not particularily due to the age that they are.. Merely that's the type of people they are. Sorry, I don't buy that... Age is meaningless, I can think of several more relevant things to base an arbitrary assessment of whether or not a group of people is prepared to see certain content. Regardless in my view it's pointless to even attempt to restrict it from the view of those who aren't fit to see it, it's not likely to prevent anything that they would have done from occuring anyhow.
Everything else you said is right. But I'm going to spank you when we get home tonight for saying what you said above, and yes... I'd censor you if I had half a chance....;)
(for everyone else except him, we live together, don't panic)
I'm not denying that there are severely disturbed people out there, as a matter of fact i think that the fact that the original post was made was evidence that there is at least one pretty much severely disturbed person out there, what I'm pointing out is that with or without the "incitation" to commit the crimes that these people end up commiting, they're going to do it anyway, not because they saw some movie and thought damn I wanna be just like mickey and mallory, or because they're below that artificial nonsensical arbitrary age barrier, and although a large amount of pople may equate the two in a cause-effect fashion, I don't think that has any basis in fact, "Natural Born Killers" Didn't make the fundamentally disturbed people involved in the incident that you mention, *into* fundamentally disturbed people, these people were just straight out whacked... as for the *real* cause, I don't know because I'm unfamiliar with the individual case, but as the earlier voices from the hellmouth line of journalism points out, what the mainstream media, or some fruitcake woman in Amite thinks is the cause of the problem, is pretty much blatantly *not*.
I'm sure what you're saying about the fruitcake from Amite is completely true, and I think all it serves to illustrate is the fact that this woman is a member of the aforementioned moral majority whom I was speaking of earlier.. Thus validating my view that this is nothing but a political ploy designed to curry favour from people such as this Amite fruitcake...
Perhaps it will stop happening when the majority that needs to be appealed to is not a bunch of stupid, panicky animals, and politicians can make sensible arguments and sensible statements in order to gain favour.
..enough to not only place limits on their behaviour, but to see those limits enforced.
Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand that.
I would like to clarify something here, do you honestly believe even for a moment that the day before a person turns 18 he is infintesimally less mature than the day after? that *is* an arbitrary barrier, an arbitrary , and in my opinion , nonsensical barrier... it's absurd to think that the passage of a single second (between 11:59:59 and 12:00:00) can so drastically alter a persons ability to judge between reality and fantasy that before that second had passed, seeing a movie like natural born killers would turn them into a raving lunatic who had an uncontrollable urge to pick up the nearest firearm and blow away the general populace. And after that second had passed the aforementioned wouldbe psychopath would be able to take in the content as merely fiction and see into a subtle play on the way the media portrays serial killers. Nay, even more so, perhaps it would be better if previous to that second, the only experience that "Kids" had with serial killers and etc is what the media gives them on the six oclock news every night. If you truly believe that what I've just outlined is sensible, I suggest that if you have any kids, you put them up for adoption. You're painfully unaware of reality and perhaps whilst you're in the process, commit yourself.
Why shouldn't they be able to see restricted movies in a theatre? Because the movies that are restricted are intended for adults,
Who intends them for adults? the producers? the actors? the directors? the politicians? Do all of the aforementioned parties so steadfastly believe in the passage of that single second between 17 and 18 that they're all so desperately worried about the previously mentioned wouldbe serial killer under-the-influence of damaging movies that they would attempt to pass and enforce these draconian regulations? only in America could it be legal to buy and become proficient in the use of a semi automatic and illegal to snatch a glimpse of some titty... (No, I don't think it should be illegal to buy a semi, I just think it's absurd that one is seen as more damaging than the other when it's blatantly obvious that it simply isn't so.)
and have adult themes. Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends to allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing, either to provide guidence after the film, or to remove the child from the film if the parent judges the experience too intense.
Again, do you really believe sheltering someone for the first eighteen years of their lives from fictitious renderings of happenings which are commonly overtaken by their real life counterparts is going to be advantageous to that persons development? I'm sorry, censorship is flat wrong... I don't give a damn about what you think I should or shouldn't be able to see, and If I was under eighteen, I still wouldn't give a damn.. and I still would be no more nor less fit to see it than I am now.
They are good, well-founded rules. I expect the theatres to enforce them, and I decry Katz as irresponsible and infantile for his advocating that children attempt to circumvent them.
They are not good, nor well founded, they were created as a political stunt in order to curry favour with the moral majority of the American public. That isn't a nicely anti-american stab either, I'm perfectly aware that it isn't just America that engages in stunts like this , my country too is guilty of it as well, with the recent pandering to balance-of-power australian senator Brian Harradine to pass their completely unrelated GST tax, and in your own governments case to gain support amongst the frightened and ignorant aforementioned moral majority. People like you, people who are so easily deluded that they think sheltering people under the age of 18 from fictitious imagery (and often fictitious imagery entirely unrelated to the events which this moral majority fears and loathes, i.e. Columbine, Atlanta, ad et all) is going to stop the killing and the violence in "gods own country"..
in this experiment they're colliding Pb atoms with up to 158Ge/V... So who cares about 100Ge/V gold ion collisions? Is this the typical English attitude of "if we're doing it of course it's much more important than anywhere else" ? or are these people just unaware of the aforementioned experiments? or am I just completely missing something here?
I don't believe this, what a subtle bend on the truth, Note that he mentions that linux has "five windowing systems" (which of course, it has many more than) But fails to mention that there are no issues regarding compatibility of *any* applications between these X based apps which are capable of running in his "five" window managers...
and yet he mentions nothing of his own pathetically fragmented win16/32/95/98/nt/directx/nodirectx/blahblahblah product line, assuming of course everyone will simply assume that windows is compatible with itself. Because it's called windows.
Eugh, I need to use the bathroom, I'm going to be sick, this man is a mockery of intelligence, or a pathological liar.
I perhaps have missed the point here, the information available isn't exactly the clearest in the world though, so, would anyone please be able to enlighten me as to why this technique could not be used tuned to individual frequencies instead of pulsed through the entire radio frequency spectrum? as was mentioned in a few of the earlier comments, at the moment it seems as if this is only being carried to the bounds of the most basic radio-based devices (in reference to whomsoever it was who mentioned that the first marconi morse code devices sent an EM pulse over the radio waves to no specific frequency so that an untuned reciever would pick it up)
Or is the pulse technology not on every frequency simultaneously, merely spreading all the individual pulses amongst all of the frequencies at extremely close intervals, thus making it practically the same, anyhow?
I would appreciate any information or clarification anyone could provide on this.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason I so sarcastically propose that it does in fact happen in that one second is because legally speaking, it does... Technically, what I said is 100% correct, before that second they're a minor, after it, they aren't... The person who originally made *that* proposition, wasn't being sarcastic, they were being serious. I find it difficult to talk about that event without sarcasm.
but the age at which the ratings committees deem most people are able to watch this stuff without taking a gun up the nearest bell tower. By the time most people are 18, they have enough of a grasp on reality not to be overly affected by the material.
No, I don't think that's true, I refuse to believe that even though the majority of the problems in the world are caused by people over the age of 18, it's a given and readily accepted fact that at that age most people are ready to handle everything, the fact is maybe "most people" will never be ready to handle everything, what's the solution to that problem? There isn't one really, so why bother attempting to impose restrictions based on an irrelevant arbitrary barrier, like age? I know that you know that I know that we both know quite a significant amount of people who are troglodytes, and I know also that you know that we know that they are troglodytes not particularily due to the age that they are.. Merely that's the type of people they are. Sorry, I don't buy that... Age is meaningless, I can think of several more relevant things to base an arbitrary assessment of whether or not a group of people is prepared to see certain content. Regardless in my view it's pointless to even attempt to restrict it from the view of those who aren't fit to see it, it's not likely to prevent anything that they would have done from occuring anyhow.
Everything else you said is right. But I'm going to spank you when we get home tonight for saying what you said above, and yes... I'd censor you if I had half a chance .... ;)
(for everyone else except him, we live together, don't panic)
I'm not denying that there are severely disturbed people out there, as a matter of fact i think that the fact that the original post was made was evidence that there is at least one pretty much severely disturbed person out there, what I'm pointing out is that with or without the "incitation" to commit the crimes that these people end up commiting, they're going to do it anyway, not because they saw some movie and thought damn I wanna be just like mickey and mallory, or because they're below that artificial nonsensical arbitrary age barrier, and although a large amount of pople may equate the two in a cause-effect fashion, I don't think that has any basis in fact, "Natural Born Killers" Didn't make the fundamentally disturbed people involved in the incident that you mention, *into* fundamentally disturbed people, these people were just straight out whacked... as for the *real* cause, I don't know because I'm unfamiliar with the individual case, but as the earlier voices from the hellmouth line of journalism points out, what the mainstream media, or some fruitcake woman in Amite thinks is the cause of the problem, is pretty much blatantly *not*.
I'm sure what you're saying about the fruitcake from Amite is completely true, and I think all it serves to illustrate is the fact that this woman is a member of the aforementioned moral majority whom I was speaking of earlier.. Thus validating my view that this is nothing but a political ploy designed to curry favour from people such as this Amite fruitcake...
Perhaps it will stop happening when the majority that needs to be appealed to is not a bunch of stupid, panicky animals, and politicians can make sensible arguments and sensible statements in order to gain favour.
Or perhaps not. Like right now.
Thanks for your response.
..enough to not only place limits on their behaviour, but to see those limits enforced.
Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand
that.
I would like to clarify something here, do you honestly believe even for a moment that the day before a person turns 18 he is infintesimally less mature than the day after? that *is* an arbitrary barrier, an arbitrary , and in my opinion , nonsensical barrier... it's absurd to think that the passage of a single second (between 11:59:59 and 12:00:00) can so drastically alter a persons ability to judge between reality and fantasy that before that second had passed, seeing a movie like natural born killers would turn them into a raving lunatic who had an uncontrollable urge to pick up the nearest firearm and blow away the general populace. And after that second had passed the aforementioned wouldbe psychopath would be able to take in the content as merely fiction and see into a subtle play on the way the media portrays serial killers. Nay, even more so, perhaps it would be better if previous to that second, the only experience that "Kids" had with serial killers and etc is what the media gives them on the six oclock news every night. If you truly believe that what I've just outlined is sensible, I suggest that if you have any kids, you put them up for adoption. You're painfully unaware of reality and perhaps whilst you're in the process, commit yourself.
Why shouldn't they be able to see restricted movies in a theatre? Because the movies that are restricted are intended for adults,
Who intends them for adults? the producers? the actors? the directors? the politicians? Do all of the aforementioned parties so steadfastly believe in the passage of that single second between 17 and 18 that they're all so desperately worried about the previously mentioned wouldbe serial killer under-the-influence of damaging movies that they would attempt to pass and enforce these draconian regulations? only in America could it be legal to buy and become proficient in the use of a semi automatic and illegal to snatch a glimpse of some titty... (No, I don't think it should be illegal to buy a semi, I just think it's absurd that one is seen as more damaging than the other when it's blatantly obvious that it simply isn't so.)
and have adult themes. Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends to
allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing, either to provide guidence after the film, or to remove the child from the film if the parent judges the experience too intense.
Again, do you really believe sheltering someone for the first eighteen years of their lives from fictitious renderings of happenings which are commonly overtaken by their real life counterparts is going to be advantageous to that persons development? I'm sorry, censorship is flat wrong... I don't give a damn about what you think I should or shouldn't be able to see, and If I was under eighteen, I still wouldn't give a damn.. and I still would be no more nor less fit to see it than I am now.
They are good, well-founded rules. I expect the theatres to enforce them, and I decry Katz as irresponsible and infantile for his advocating that children attempt to circumvent them.
They are not good, nor well founded, they were created as a political stunt in order to curry favour with the moral majority of the American public. That isn't a nicely anti-american stab either, I'm perfectly aware that it isn't just America that engages in stunts like this , my country too is guilty of it as well, with the recent pandering to balance-of-power australian senator Brian Harradine to pass their completely unrelated GST tax, and in your own governments case to gain support amongst the frightened and ignorant aforementioned moral majority. People like you, people who are so easily deluded that they think sheltering people under the age of 18 from fictitious imagery (and often fictitious imagery entirely unrelated to the events which this moral majority fears and loathes, i.e. Columbine, Atlanta, ad et all) is going to stop the killing and the violence in "gods own country"..
You people make me sick.
That constructive enough for you, sonny?
Go replace your false teeth, gramps.
http://www.lhep.unibe.ch/newmass/intro/strangelets .html
... So who cares about 100Ge/V gold ion collisions? Is this the typical English attitude of "if we're doing it of course it's much more important than anywhere else" ? or are these people just unaware of the aforementioned experiments? or am I just completely missing something here?
in this experiment they're colliding Pb atoms with up to 158Ge/V
stay tuned to find out.
I don't believe this, what a subtle bend on the truth, Note that he mentions that linux has "five windowing systems" (which of course, it has many more than) But fails to mention that there are no issues regarding compatibility of *any* applications between these X based apps which are capable of running in his "five" window managers...
and yet he mentions nothing of his own pathetically fragmented win16/32/95/98/nt/directx/nodirectx/blahblahblah product line, assuming of course everyone will simply assume that windows is compatible with itself. Because it's called windows.
Eugh, I need to use the bathroom, I'm going to be sick, this man is a mockery of intelligence, or a pathological liar.
I perhaps have missed the point here, the information available isn't exactly the clearest in the world though, so, would anyone please be able to enlighten me as to why this technique could not be used tuned to individual frequencies instead of pulsed through the entire radio frequency spectrum? as was mentioned in a few of the earlier comments, at the moment it seems as if this is only being carried to the bounds of the most basic radio-based devices (in reference to whomsoever it was who mentioned that the first marconi morse code devices sent an EM pulse over the radio waves to no specific frequency so that an untuned reciever would pick it up)
Or is the pulse technology not on every frequency simultaneously, merely spreading all the individual pulses amongst all of the frequencies at extremely close intervals, thus making it practically the same, anyhow?
I would appreciate any information or clarification anyone could provide on this.