Keep in mind that the "poverty" level is essentialy an arbitrary level of income, set up by officials within a particular government. Comparing this value between courntries or even within a single country over time requires normalization for accurate comparison (Country X may have the level set at $20k/yr, while Country Y may have it set at $5k/yr for example).
It is accurate to say "among the highest living standards in the world" and not "the highest." 1st place in that contest, I believe, resides with the U.S... but since standard of living is such a subjective measurement, it again is futile to make direct and generalized comparisions. The only thing we can say is the ave citizen in the U.S. has more total wealth (including property) than the average citizen of any other major country. Note: this says nothing for how happy, content, etc... the lives of those wealthy people actualy are)
If anyone bothered to read the artical it states that funds will be provided to educate people on "lawful on-line behavior." Now assuming that the artical really means "Hackers" in the sense that it is intended (breaking into a system to do damage, steal, etc...)I don't have any problems with it. It also wants to stop stalking and harrasment. I don't have a problem with this either. Hackers (and crackers) of the past knew that they really weren't supposed to do what they were doing, but they did it anyway. Telling the ingnorant populous what is legal and what is not doesn't have a real down side (See the case Creation Vs. Caine:-)
Heaven forbid that parents should monitor thier kids activities and rasie them the way they think is appropreate... It is far better that the more *enlightned* and *wise* government should do it for them.
I agree, equality runs both ways. Both in including certin groups and not having to include them.
I can't think of any charactor that Lucas could have replaced with a female that would have been as effective, nor can I think were another major female lead could have been added. We had a very major part for a women with the queen. Would one of the female Jedi saying "May the force be with you" have made the universe more equatable?
Equality means all are treated equaly, Lucas making a concious effort to bow to feminist views is by diffinition not equal treatment. And I doubt that the lack of women had anything to do with any sexist schme of Lucas'. Look at all the women in power positions in the SW series (Princess Leia, Mon-Motha, Queen Amindalla)
The only Jedi that we have seen anything out of the ordinary happen when they die were Yoda, Obi, and the Emperor. Yoda was obviously a very powerful Jedi that had time to prepare to die, as did Obi-One. The Emperor too was a very powerful Sith that exploded in a ball of blue flame and lighting upon death. I would surmise that only very powerful (in the Force) people have deaths that are, how would you say, out of the ordinary. Qui-Gon was not as powerful as the others that disappeared or exploded when they died.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a great plethera of other things to be pissed off at than the amount of media hype. If you don't like the advertisement go get a beer, if you don't like the special collector's cup don't order the 62 oz drink, if you don't like standing in line at the theater rent a video. My anger is so inflamed by general stupidity, distruction of rain forest, and censureship that the media attention a film gets doesn't rate a 1 on my pissed-off-o'meter.
I will be the first to admit that this movie has recieved hype beyond the bounds of the imaginiaton and that the only way for the movie to live up to all the press if if God, Jesus, Budda, Yaweah, Manno, and every other diety ever prayed to by any humanity would come out of the movie screen and pass out salvation with a side order of beluga caviar on a 24K gold platter. But I cannot fault Lucas for all this. He did not actively seek the promotion that Star Wars has been given (with a few rare exceptions). If some toy company or fast food chain offered me a deal that would be worth billions, and all I had to do was let them use the image of my creations, I would not refuse it on the basis that someone would call me a "Sell Out" and nither would any body else. Some places in the world they have another word for "Sell Out" it's called "not starving to death." Shure, the main reason that he went back and did another Star Wars movie was to complete some personal artistic cycle, but let no one kid them selves, this movie was a large business venture. And being a business venture it was intended to make money.
And as far as the hype on the first 3 films goes: the first movie was an extreamly low budget film made by an almost unknown cast and crew, so of course it had little hype. I do however, recall many advertisments, talk shows, toy deals, fast-food promotions, and magazines around the Empire and especialy Jedi movies.
To aptly have the term "sell out" apply something being "sold out" must be an ideal, institution, or artform. While Star Wars will always be one of my all time favorite movies, and is a master piece in its own right, it does not qualify.
"Selling Out" is Ghandi doing ads for the American Beef Asociation and NRA for a 10 Million dollar a year contract, not George Lucas selling the image of Jar-Jar to Kenner.
If a parent gives a child candy once in a while it is a treat. If the child is constantly allowed to eat candy, and infact forced to on occasion they become sick of the candy. It all goes to the repression argument that if I only give you a little it is intising, but If you have too much you either sicken of it or just don't care about it.
A good example of this can bee seen in Japan. Japan has probably the most violent media cultures around. Thier magazines, TV, and movies regularly dipict content that would be kicked out of the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" yet despite this violent culture, they have some of the lowest rates of violent crimes (murder, rape, etc...)
Where were their mothers, huh?
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
You know... I wear black, and play Quake, and know how to make a multitude of dangerous things. I had no idea that I could go berzerk and start a killing spree. I'm glad some one warned me. I'll have to watch myself very closly from now on.
I also ask "where were the parents?" You can be shure that if I was storing propane tanks in my garage that one of my parents would have noticed and bothered to ask about them. It is far esier for the media to blame the "evil" internet rather than look at the parents and home life, mainly because the home life angle has been used to death. People need a bigger and more ominicent thing to have irrational fears over.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that the "poverty" level is essentialy an arbitrary level of income, set up by officials within a particular government. Comparing this value between courntries or even within a single country over time requires normalization for accurate comparison (Country X may have the level set at $20k/yr, while Country Y may have it set at $5k/yr for example).
It is accurate to say "among the highest living standards in the world" and not "the highest." 1st place in that contest, I believe, resides with the U.S... but since standard of living is such a subjective measurement, it again is futile to make direct and generalized comparisions. The only thing we can say is the ave citizen in the U.S. has more total wealth (including property) than the average citizen of any other major country. Note: this says nothing for how happy, content, etc... the lives of those wealthy people actualy are)
If anyone bothered to read the artical it states that funds will be provided to educate people on "lawful on-line behavior." Now assuming that the artical really means "Hackers" in the sense that it is intended (breaking into a system to do damage, steal, etc...)I don't have any problems with it. It also wants to stop stalking and harrasment. I don't have a problem with this either. Hackers (and crackers) of the past knew that they really weren't supposed to do what they were doing, but they did it anyway. Telling the ingnorant populous what is legal and what is not doesn't have a real down side (See the case Creation Vs. Caine :-)
Quazix
Why stop at just wearing badges. Why don't we just low-jack everybody. Ever seen Demolition Man?
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"
Heaven forbid that parents should monitor thier kids activities and rasie them the way they think is appropreate... It is far better that the more *enlightned* and *wise* government should do it for them.
I agree, equality runs both ways. Both in including certin groups and not having to include them.
I can't think of any charactor that Lucas could have replaced with a female that would have been as effective, nor can I think were another major female lead could have been added. We had a very major part for a women with the queen. Would one of the female Jedi saying "May the force be with you" have made the universe more equatable?
Equality means all are treated equaly, Lucas making a concious effort to bow to feminist views is by diffinition not equal treatment. And I doubt that the lack of women had anything to do with any sexist schme of Lucas'. Look at all the women in power positions in the SW series (Princess Leia, Mon-Motha, Queen Amindalla)
The only Jedi that we have seen anything out of the ordinary happen when they die were Yoda, Obi, and the Emperor. Yoda was obviously a very powerful Jedi that had time to prepare to die, as did Obi-One. The Emperor too was a very powerful Sith that exploded in a ball of blue flame and lighting upon death. I would surmise that only very powerful (in the Force) people have deaths that are, how would you say, out of the ordinary. Qui-Gon was not as powerful as the others that disappeared or exploded when they died.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a great plethera of other things to be pissed off at than the amount of media hype. If you don't like the advertisement go get a beer, if you don't like the special collector's cup don't order the 62 oz drink, if you don't like standing in line at the theater rent a video. My anger is so inflamed by general stupidity, distruction of rain forest, and censureship that the media attention a film gets doesn't rate a 1 on my pissed-off-o'meter.
I will be the first to admit that this movie has recieved hype beyond the bounds of the imaginiaton and that the only way for the movie to live up to all the press if if God, Jesus, Budda, Yaweah, Manno, and every other diety ever prayed to by any humanity would come out of the movie screen and pass out salvation with a side order of beluga caviar on a 24K gold platter. But I cannot fault Lucas for all this. He did not actively seek the promotion that Star Wars has been given (with a few rare exceptions). If some toy company or fast food chain offered me a deal that would be worth billions, and all I had to do was let them use the image of my creations, I would not refuse it on the basis that someone would call me a "Sell Out" and nither would any body else. Some places in the world they have another word for "Sell Out" it's called "not starving to death." Shure, the main reason that he went back and did another Star Wars movie was to complete some personal artistic cycle, but let no one kid them selves, this movie was a large business venture. And being a business venture it was intended to make money.
And as far as the hype on the first 3 films goes: the first movie was an extreamly low budget film made by an almost unknown cast and crew, so of course it had little hype. I do however, recall many advertisments, talk shows, toy deals, fast-food promotions, and magazines around the Empire and especialy Jedi movies.
To aptly have the term "sell out" apply something being "sold out" must be an ideal, institution, or artform. While Star Wars will always be one of my all time favorite movies, and is a master piece in its own right, it does not qualify.
"Selling Out" is Ghandi doing ads for the American Beef Asociation and NRA for a 10 Million dollar a year contract, not George Lucas selling the image of Jar-Jar to Kenner.
If a parent gives a child candy once in a while it is a treat. If the child is constantly allowed to eat candy, and infact forced to on occasion they become sick of the candy. It all goes to the repression argument that if I only give you a little it is intising, but If you have too much you either sicken of it or just don't care about it.
A good example of this can bee seen in Japan. Japan has probably the most violent media cultures around. Thier magazines, TV, and movies regularly dipict content that would be kicked out of the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" yet despite this violent culture, they have some of the lowest rates of violent crimes (murder, rape, etc...)
You know... I wear black, and play Quake, and know how to make a multitude of dangerous things. I had no idea that I could go berzerk and start a killing spree. I'm glad some one warned me. I'll have to watch myself very closly from now on.
I also ask "where were the parents?" You can be shure that if I was storing propane tanks in my garage that one of my parents would have noticed and bothered to ask about them. It is far esier for the media to blame the "evil" internet rather than look at the parents and home life, mainly because the home life angle has been used to death. People need a bigger and more ominicent thing to have irrational fears over.