That's actually more reasonable, because being married or not is a state you are in as a result of choice.
(For that matter: Here in sexually liberal Norway, hotel owners need to be wary about couples checking in, because if it is judged that they ought to have known that prostitution was going on on their premises, they could be hit with the anti-pimp law: It's illegal to make money from prostitution for anyone but the prostitute. Both hotels and landlords have been sentenced.)
I'm 28, and a teetotaller (I was at 26 and 18 too, for that matter), I don't think we as a group are all that likely to trash vacation rentals. But that is really beside the point. If you discriminate based on age, you discriminate on something which is intrisic, not chosen, and you unjustly prejudge an awful lot of people who wouldn't do anything wrong.
Actually, knol articles have three different collaboration settings: Open, like wikipedia, moderated (anyone can suggest changes but it has to be approved by someone with edit privileges) and closed (only the creator and people with explicit privileges).
It's just that the open mode is unpopular. People who prefer that write on wikipedia instead, it seems, or maybe it's just a result of defaults. Last 12 hours only 4 open articles were created, vs. 254 moderated, 13 closed.
So far, no amount of shady dealings and messups from Jimbo has caused mass migration and collapse. For good and bad, Wikipedia is a machine running on its own steam now. I'm not sure even an attempt to sell out (or should we say another? He has his for-profit sister project after all) would be sufficient.
I'm no meteorologist. I can't tell what weather we will have tomorrow, but I can reliably predict that the average temperature (where I live) will be higher six months from now. It's called summer. Strange, huh? No idea about short term, pretty good idea about long term average.
So... we're not supposed to bother our pretty little heads trying to understand the basics of the earth's energy budget, how much comes in vs. how much goes out. But trying to "read between the lines", however, like some kind of psychoanalytic literary critic, that is supposed to tell us something? Sure.
You're right, though. Both sides are full of shit. Both the climate "skeptics", and the people like you who pretend to be "fair and balanced" without knowing shit.
I've looked at the "similar services" (Sprinklepenny, Kachingle, Contenture) and they suffer from a critical fault: They want to track your likes automatically rather than just explicitly. This system is simpler and better.
Well, people don't want to pay. But they want to show their approval - even on Pirate Pay you see that plainly enough. Now they can do it in a way that is easy, will be taken sincerely (since it costs the approver some money), and will benefit the recipient financially as well as emotionally.
I think this a great idea. To be honest, I didn't think I would say that about any business model proposed by a Pirate Bay person... but I want to give this a chance.
That's an interesting point I didn't know about!... but I'm really talking about artistic contribution anyway.
I'm not really disputing that Madonna or James Cameron have self-promotion skills, obviously they have. But I do think that while these skills are a (small!) factor in they being the ones becoming stars as opposed to someone else, I don't think it makes that much of a difference in the end.
Yes, it's hard to imagine a major film without all these sorts of tie-ins today, but if for some reason tie-in advertising had never been invented, we would still choose our obsessions and gather around major movies, only a little less predictably.
Nope, no troll, although I'm aware my little personal crusade to lower the status of the "creative" arts may seem a little idiosyncratic.
Let's forget George Lucas for a moment, and focus on another filmmaker who was in the news recently, James Cameron. Now tell me: Are you of the school of thought that James Cameron is the greatest filmmaker of all time, or do you think that perhaps the fact that he gets to play with new toys before everyone else has something to do with his success? How about Madonna. How about J.K. Rowling. Success may involve a lot of perspiration, but so does failures. Dumb luck is a far bigger part of it. Once you are established, you don't have to make the insane grab for people's attention again - they've invested in you, got to know you and your work, and they will want more - even if you strictly speaking don't deserve it.
Commercial artistic success is rarely something people deserve. Certainly they don't deserve the insane compensation - if art worked as any other market, you could look at the huge number of would-be supplyers, and the ease of reproduction, and conclude art would be essentially free. The reason it isn't, is _not_ that George Lucas or J.K Rowling or Mick Jagger or bloody whoever is that much better than all the wannabees. Think about it: if you gave 10000 people James Cameron's resources and opportunities, set them to make movies, did a blind test, you think Avatar would stand out as clearly the best?
Most successful artists think that they live by their art. They are wrong. They live by social inertia and network effects - lots of people wouldn't mind being obsessed about a film, few people would want to be obsessed about a film no one you care about has heard of. There can only be so many stars. What this means is this: Star Wars the movies, may be Lucas' work of art, but no one really cares about the movies. Star Wars the phenomenon is what people really pay for, and Lucas' role in creating that is small. It's almost non-existent. If Star Wars hadn't been created, we the people would have found something different to obsess about.
This is why fans should "have a say in someone else's art". In fact, fans are way too subservient, and our culture is hopelessly locked into a view of "the artist" which appeared in the romantic period, and should have died a hundred years ago. Unfortunately, it became institutionalised (in large part through copyright legislation) and walks on as a ravenous zombie.
There's so many parts of "androids" that are left out (the sad theology of Mercerism) or changed (the androids are, in the end, evil - no qualifications). Blade Runner has its own qualities (great visuals), but as good as the book? No.
There are always high-status individuals that lead the bullying. Yes, my experience is different - having been on that other side, I knew who were the worst, who worked the hardest to convince the others that you were contemptible. All kids do odd things from time to time, socially and otherwise. You usually don't see a pattern in it unless you've been told "that kid is odd".
I would. One of the ways I dealt with bullying - not so much the bullies, by that point I'd fortunately got away from them, but the long-term effects on myself - was to read some serious social science about what bullying was and how it could be dealt with. Girls usually aren't violent bullies, but calling it passive-agressive is being too generous. It can be very active attempts to make your life hell.
No, it does not. If you fail, the bully might just find it amusing (and more entertaining). If you succeed, the bully will just find another victim, or sometimes a couple of allies to "teach you a lesson" - presto, now you have a gang in your school instead of a bully.
What works is administrators (that means teachers, mostly) keeping their eyes open, and their brains educated about how to spot bullying, and stop bullying (by sanctioning the bully, not the victim).
If you, as a teacher, have any kind of contact with the kids at all, you should be able to judge fairly accurately. It's really not difficult to see through the lie of a tough fifth-grader when he says "but he hit me first!". Even if you make a mistake once, you will soon find out if it's real bullying (as opposed to a conflict between equals or near-equals).
This is a very good point, and bonus points for a reasonable reply to a less-than-reasonable post.
I suspect (but this I haven't studied, unlike bullying) that it is with adult abuse (misogynistic, homophobic, whatever) as with bullying: There may be steps you can take to reduce your chances of being the victim, but then the perpetrator will just find another victim. If there were no flamboyant drag queens, violent homophobes would just target someone they thought looked a little effeminate instead. If you dressed inconspicuously, your odds of being targeted by violent misogynists might be reduced, but the limits for what would be considered inconspicuous would also move slightly. No net change.
The initiators must be targeted, in adult abuse as in bullying.
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually more reasonable, because being married or not is a state you are in as a result of choice.
(For that matter: Here in sexually liberal Norway, hotel owners need to be wary about couples checking in, because if it is judged that they ought to have known that prostitution was going on on their premises, they could be hit with the anti-pimp law: It's illegal to make money from prostitution for anyone but the prostitute. Both hotels and landlords have been sentenced.)
I'm 28, and a teetotaller (I was at 26 and 18 too, for that matter), I don't think we as a group are all that likely to trash vacation rentals. But that is really beside the point. If you discriminate based on age, you discriminate on something which is intrisic, not chosen, and you unjustly prejudge an awful lot of people who wouldn't do anything wrong.
... but it's also blatant flattery of his core audience!
> Does YOUR company want to be the only one that doesn't support "The Google format?"
Sad truth: far too many small and medium size companies would jump at the chance to show their loyalty to Microsoft by doing so.
Nah, it's too much affected by die rolls.
High level, lots of hit points, obviously.
Actually, knol articles have three different collaboration settings: Open, like wikipedia, moderated (anyone can suggest changes but it has to be approved by someone with edit privileges) and closed (only the creator and people with explicit privileges).
It's just that the open mode is unpopular. People who prefer that write on wikipedia instead, it seems, or maybe it's just a result of defaults. Last 12 hours only 4 open articles were created, vs. 254 moderated, 13 closed.
So far, no amount of shady dealings and messups from Jimbo has caused mass migration and collapse. For good and bad, Wikipedia is a machine running on its own steam now. I'm not sure even an attempt to sell out (or should we say another? He has his for-profit sister project after all) would be sufficient.
I'm no meteorologist. I can't tell what weather we will have tomorrow, but I can reliably predict that the average temperature (where I live) will be higher six months from now. It's called summer. Strange, huh? No idea about short term, pretty good idea about long term average.
So... we're not supposed to bother our pretty little heads trying to understand the basics of the earth's energy budget, how much comes in vs. how much goes out. But trying to "read between the lines", however, like some kind of psychoanalytic literary critic, that is supposed to tell us something? Sure.
You're right, though. Both sides are full of shit. Both the climate "skeptics", and the people like you who pretend to be "fair and balanced" without knowing shit.
Some have claimed that the term "climate change" was introduced as a propaganda term instead of "global warming" to justify unexpected events.
This is almost correct.
It was introduced as a propaganda term - by the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who though it sounded less severe.
They are good, eh? even try to make you believe their own propaganda terms are invented by their opponents, for their opponents benefit.
I've looked at the "similar services" (Sprinklepenny, Kachingle, Contenture) and they suffer from a critical fault: They want to track your likes automatically rather than just explicitly. This system is simpler and better.
Well, people don't want to pay. But they want to show their approval - even on Pirate Pay you see that plainly enough. Now they can do it in a way that is easy, will be taken sincerely (since it costs the approver some money), and will benefit the recipient financially as well as emotionally.
I think this a great idea. To be honest, I didn't think I would say that about any business model proposed by a Pirate Bay person... but I want to give this a chance.
Seems fair to me. If you just like one site, odds are you like it a lot more strongly than one who uses 100.
I guess they assumed bark beetles are homophobic.
Free hate all around!!! Aaaaarrrrrggh!!!
That's an interesting point I didn't know about! ... but I'm really talking about artistic contribution anyway.
I'm not really disputing that Madonna or James Cameron have self-promotion skills, obviously they have. But I do think that while these skills are a (small!) factor in they being the ones becoming stars as opposed to someone else, I don't think it makes that much of a difference in the end.
Yes, it's hard to imagine a major film without all these sorts of tie-ins today, but if for some reason tie-in advertising had never been invented, we would still choose our obsessions and gather around major movies, only a little less predictably.
Nope, no troll, although I'm aware my little personal crusade to lower the status of the "creative" arts may seem a little idiosyncratic.
Let's forget George Lucas for a moment, and focus on another filmmaker who was in the news recently, James Cameron. Now tell me: Are you of the school of thought that James Cameron is the greatest filmmaker of all time, or do you think that perhaps the fact that he gets to play with new toys before everyone else has something to do with his success?
How about Madonna. How about J.K. Rowling. Success may involve a lot of perspiration, but so does failures. Dumb luck is a far bigger part of it. Once you are established, you don't have to make the insane grab for people's attention again - they've invested in you, got to know you and your work, and they will want more - even if you strictly speaking don't deserve it.
Commercial artistic success is rarely something people deserve. Certainly they don't deserve the insane compensation - if art worked as any other market, you could look at the huge number of would-be supplyers, and the ease of reproduction, and conclude art would be essentially free. The reason it isn't, is _not_ that George Lucas or J.K Rowling or Mick Jagger or bloody whoever is that much better than all the wannabees. Think about it: if you gave 10000 people James Cameron's resources and opportunities, set them to make movies, did a blind test, you think Avatar would stand out as clearly the best?
Most successful artists think that they live by their art. They are wrong. They live by social inertia and network effects - lots of people wouldn't mind being obsessed about a film, few people would want to be obsessed about a film no one you care about has heard of. There can only be so many stars. What this means is this: Star Wars the movies, may be Lucas' work of art, but no one really cares about the movies. Star Wars the phenomenon is what people really pay for, and Lucas' role in creating that is small. It's almost non-existent. If Star Wars hadn't been created, we the people would have found something different to obsess about.
This is why fans should "have a say in someone else's art". In fact, fans are way too subservient, and our culture is hopelessly locked into a view of "the artist" which appeared in the romantic period, and should have died a hundred years ago. Unfortunately, it became institutionalised (in large part through copyright legislation) and walks on as a ravenous zombie.
That is all.
There's so many parts of "androids" that are left out (the sad theology of Mercerism) or changed (the androids are, in the end, evil - no qualifications). Blade Runner has its own qualities (great visuals), but as good as the book? No.
There are always high-status individuals that lead the bullying. Yes, my experience is different - having been on that other side, I knew who were the worst, who worked the hardest to convince the others that you were contemptible.
All kids do odd things from time to time, socially and otherwise. You usually don't see a pattern in it unless you've been told "that kid is odd".
The Amish usually vaccinate their children.
> you'd not believe me if I told you
I would. One of the ways I dealt with bullying - not so much the bullies, by that point I'd fortunately got away from them, but the long-term effects on myself - was to read some serious social science about what bullying was and how it could be dealt with. Girls usually aren't violent bullies, but calling it passive-agressive is being too generous. It can be very active attempts to make your life hell.
No, it does not. If you fail, the bully might just find it amusing (and more entertaining). If you succeed, the bully will just find another victim, or sometimes a couple of allies to "teach you a lesson" - presto, now you have a gang in your school instead of a bully.
What works is administrators (that means teachers, mostly) keeping their eyes open, and their brains educated about how to spot bullying, and stop bullying (by sanctioning the bully, not the victim).
If you have friends to back you up, you are not a victim of bullying.
If you, as a teacher, have any kind of contact with the kids at all, you should be able to judge fairly accurately. It's really not difficult to see through the lie of a tough fifth-grader when he says "but he hit me first!". Even if you make a mistake once, you will soon find out if it's real bullying (as opposed to a conflict between equals or near-equals).
This is a very good point, and bonus points for a reasonable reply to a less-than-reasonable post.
I suspect (but this I haven't studied, unlike bullying) that it is with adult abuse (misogynistic, homophobic, whatever) as with bullying: There may be steps you can take to reduce your chances of being the victim, but then the perpetrator will just find another victim. If there were no flamboyant drag queens, violent homophobes would just target someone they thought looked a little effeminate instead. If you dressed inconspicuously, your odds of being targeted by violent misogynists might be reduced, but the limits for what would be considered inconspicuous would also move slightly. No net change.
The initiators must be targeted, in adult abuse as in bullying.