I personally wish they had taken the photo 0900-1000 GMT. The only thing close to a population center on the night side in the picture is Hawaii. I'm curiouts to see if the Eastern Seaboard could be picked out at night from that position.
"people flock to the theatres because of the (largely) social experience."
Because who wouldn't jump at the chance to spend $10 to walk on sticky floors and try to listen to the movie over the loud breather three seats to your right. But even that's not as bad as the dumb broad two rows back yammering away on her cell phone. Or maybe it's because of the $5.00 tubs of lard with bits of popcorn suspended in it. And let's not forget the 300# man who has to cut across you to go to the bathroom at least twice during the picture. Or the yammering fan-boy who's seen the movie a gazillion times and is telling his buddy next to him what's about to happen about five minutes before it actually happens on the screen.
Going to the movie theater is a "social experience" in the same way that stampeding buffalo running off a cliff is a "social experience." And that's only because I'm too polite to compare movie marketing hysteria with STDs...
For a hardware manufacturer that has done nothing but blatently copy Nintendo controllers, that's not half bad.:)
Select button, action butons in a square configuration, shoulder buttons, analog thumbstick, rumble feature... Everything that Nintendo did first and Sony said "me too!" afterwards. About the only thing Nintendo didn't do first was proportional buttons, but even then that's someting Sega did first.
It seems the only good idea that Sony didn't rip off was putting four controller ports on the console. Of course, why give it away for free when you can MSRP it for only $34.99? And another ~$30 if you want to play PSX games as well...
These are the reasons I'd like Nintendo to stick around in the hardware business. Of the three big consoles out today, the GameCube is the only one that has done anything unique and new, if not innovative.
"Is the entertainment industry recession-resistant? I know during the 1929 depression it wasn't, but since then?"
About the only MPAA member I can think of that wasn't around before 1929 is Sony. It's easier to enforce those 1923 copyrights when you're still around to do it yourself.
"I think a great portion of their market has faced the invasion of digital photography which is certainly cuts their consumer film sales down significantly."
I'm sure people said something similar when Polaroid introduced the instant camera.
Huh? What does hemp have in common with Bakelite? They're both organic compounds?
If you're referring to a possible competitor to Nylon, I'd offer that there has been a crack-down on marajuana transport and use at least as far back as the Great War.
"A man invented specifically for the purpose by his corporate backers."
"Invented?" What, is there a filing for him in the patent office?
"A man whose personal record alone (substance abuse, draft dodging) would have disqualified him from any public office otherwise."
You mean like how Bill Clinton and Miriam Berry were blocked from running?
Besides, I don't see anything in Article I, Section 1 that mentions either substance abuse or military service. While a draft-dodging drug user might not be able to vote, there's nothing that prevents him or her from running for and holding federal office.
"A man who is hardly articulate enough for any public speaking role."
He is far from the first resident to be a poor public speaker. There was a time when public speaking wasn't the first, last, and only quality required to be a president.
"A man who allows himself to be led into waging war,"
"War?" Who said "war?" Where's the congressional war declaration? Or where's the congressional outrage for a president attempting to wage a war without their express permission?
"with weapons of mass destruction,"
I believe the Russians would be the first of many to point out any US use of WMD.
"upon civilians."
The last time civillians were more or less targeted happened about the same time the US used a weapon of mass destruction, well before George W. Bush was born.
"A man hell bent on tearing up his country's constitution."
Now here's the interesting thing: This is the closest you ever come to making a genuinely valid argument. In fact, I would agree that this administration is violating various parts of the constitution. However, I find it interesting just how far down your list of grievences this one appears, and then how vague it is. You could have mentioned specific presidential appointees (Ashcroft). You could have mentioned particular parts of the constitution he seems to be violating (First, Fifth, and now possibly Tenth Amendments, to name a few). But you glossed over constitutional issues and focused on what are essentially personal attacks.
There were specific reasons why I picked the examples of Chavez and Berlusconi. While Bush seems to be violating the federal constitution, these two men have and are actively changing their respective countries' constitutions to better suit themselves. Chavez lengthened his own term (much like Mugabe) and Berlusconi is working on an amendment that would render him immune from prosecution while in office (a luxury Chirac currently enjoys). When all is said and done, the Bush administration's constitutional infractions (both real and imagined) can essentially disappear overnight next November, while the damage these two gentlemen are doing to their countries' constitutions that will last for years or decades when (or if) they leave power.
Now look at yourself. Look at what you just said. You said that you would rather have somebody that has no qualms about changing constitutional law to suit their own short-sighted desires than who we currently have, someone who, to my knowledge, has never even mentioned a new constitutional amendment, let alone propose one.
If the history of the Second Millenium (if not all of recorded history) has anything to teach us is, it is that the worst tyrants are always elected democraticly. The one that makes a brutal power grab doesn't have as much true power or can do as much damage as those that ride the shoulders of (and ultimately direct) popular support. And they are able to get to where they are because of you and people like you.
We now have two whole years of Bush policy behind us, and yet look at your complaints. You don't like what he's done in his personal time or who he had personal relations with. You don't like his inability to look good on televsion. And, oh, as an after-thought, you throw in a few (very) vague references
Oh really? Can you point out that particular section? All the constitution says is that your state can't deny you the ability to vote for age (if you're older than 18), sex, ethnicity or for lack of paying a poll tax. Any other reason to prevent you from voting or ignoring your vote is literally fair game. The only reason you're allowed to vote for members of congress is that your state allows you to vote for members of the most numerous house of your state's legislature, and even then they're not required to let you vote for presidential electors.
With that being said, while not counting votes isn't of itself unconstitutional, what is unconstitutional is for the state, after saying that they'll let people vote and how, to have different standards for different votes and different voters (violates the "equal protection under the law" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). The Gore campaign asked for and initially got selective recounts in particular counties and voting districts, and those votes in the recount areas were getting a different kind of standard than those not being recounted (machines don't count "hanging chads" or "dimpled chads" or anything else that isn't a clean punch, unlike the elections judges). The system allowed the potential of someone who happened to live near a bunch of registered Democrats to receive a looser standard for voting than those that happened to live near a bunch of registered Republicans. That's why the United States Supreme Court stopped that particular recount. The federal deadline set for when all federal electoral votes need to be certified and delivered to Congress did the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why are you buying something that you're ashamed to admit you buy?"
Since when was not being ashamed a requirement?
I personally wish they had taken the photo 0900-1000 GMT. The only thing close to a population center on the night side in the picture is Hawaii. I'm curiouts to see if the Eastern Seaboard could be picked out at night from that position.
" I'd think that being the only fitness places with DDR machines would sell millions!"
It probably would have if it weren't for the Stasi trainers.
> "offers for sale matter that I believe to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative and therefore is a pandering advertisement."
"Unless you use the AOL CD as an artificial vagina, you won't get far with that application."
Perhaps not, but that AOL CD can connect you to some pretty interesting newsgroups.
Of course, it's hard to find an advertisement these days that doesn't rely on sex...
"It's as if he saw MTV for the first time and claimed "people will never listen to music the same."
Huh? What does MTV have to do with music?
"people flock to the theatres because of the (largely) social experience."
Because who wouldn't jump at the chance to spend $10 to walk on sticky floors and try to listen to the movie over the loud breather three seats to your right. But even that's not as bad as the dumb broad two rows back yammering away on her cell phone. Or maybe it's because of the $5.00 tubs of lard with bits of popcorn suspended in it. And let's not forget the 300# man who has to cut across you to go to the bathroom at least twice during the picture. Or the yammering fan-boy who's seen the movie a gazillion times and is telling his buddy next to him what's about to happen about five minutes before it actually happens on the screen.
Going to the movie theater is a "social experience" in the same way that stampeding buffalo running off a cliff is a "social experience." And that's only because I'm too polite to compare movie marketing hysteria with STDs...
I'd rather be in the hold of the Matrix than in the hold of Matrix merchandising.
"Stop with all this blog (not a word, remember, kids?) nonsense,"
:)
You see to be confused. It's not the word "blog" that is meaningless, it's what the word describes that's meaningless.
Or, if you want to be really anal, it's "web log."
The US military is supposed to be all SI, so they must be talking Kelvin.
CmdrTaco posting an article first just doesn't feel right...
"PS2: (...) the one with the "best" controller,"
:)
For a hardware manufacturer that has done nothing but blatently copy Nintendo controllers, that's not half bad.
Select button, action butons in a square configuration, shoulder buttons, analog thumbstick, rumble feature... Everything that Nintendo did first and Sony said "me too!" afterwards. About the only thing Nintendo didn't do first was proportional buttons, but even then that's someting Sega did first.
It seems the only good idea that Sony didn't rip off was putting four controller ports on the console. Of course, why give it away for free when you can MSRP it for only $34.99? And another ~$30 if you want to play PSX games as well...
These are the reasons I'd like Nintendo to stick around in the hardware business. Of the three big consoles out today, the GameCube is the only one that has done anything unique and new, if not innovative.
"Accordingly, the High Priest shall bring the system up by hand, typing in the ancient incantations from the sacred scrolls."
Would those sacred scrolls, perchance, be small, yellow, and stuck all around the monitor screen?
"at locally-affordable prices"
That's what globalization is supposed to help do, convince businesses the benefit of pricing for the lowest common denominator on a global scale.
Oh, wait, the DVD Consortium forces regional lock-outs into their products...
"Is the entertainment industry recession-resistant? I know during the 1929 depression it wasn't, but since then?"
About the only MPAA member I can think of that wasn't around before 1929 is Sony. It's easier to enforce those 1923 copyrights when you're still around to do it yourself.
"I think a great portion of their market has faced the invasion of digital photography which is certainly cuts their consumer film sales down significantly."
I'm sure people said something similar when Polaroid introduced the instant camera.
Huh? What does hemp have in common with Bakelite? They're both organic compounds?
If you're referring to a possible competitor to Nylon, I'd offer that there has been a crack-down on marajuana transport and use at least as far back as the Great War.
"it was like the equivalent of going out of business 5-6 times."
Well, if the accountants hadn't multiplied the profit margin numbers five or six times...
"Can You Do A 3-Point Turn In Less Than Six Points."
A real HUMV? Sure. We don't need no steekin' curbs!
As for that God-awful bowtie travesty, on the other hand...
"A man invented specifically for the purpose by his corporate backers."
"Invented?" What, is there a filing for him in the patent office?
"A man whose personal record alone (substance abuse, draft dodging) would have disqualified him from any public office otherwise."
You mean like how Bill Clinton and Miriam Berry were blocked from running?
Besides, I don't see anything in Article I, Section 1 that mentions either substance abuse or military service. While a draft-dodging drug user might not be able to vote, there's nothing that prevents him or her from running for and holding federal office.
"A man who is hardly articulate enough for any public speaking role."
He is far from the first resident to be a poor public speaker. There was a time when public speaking wasn't the first, last, and only quality required to be a president.
"A man who allows himself to be led into waging war,"
"War?" Who said "war?" Where's the congressional war declaration? Or where's the congressional outrage for a president attempting to wage a war without their express permission?
"with weapons of mass destruction,"
I believe the Russians would be the first of many to point out any US use of WMD.
"upon civilians."
The last time civillians were more or less targeted happened about the same time the US used a weapon of mass destruction, well before George W. Bush was born.
"A man hell bent on tearing up his country's constitution."
Now here's the interesting thing: This is the closest you ever come to making a genuinely valid argument. In fact, I would agree that this administration is violating various parts of the constitution. However, I find it interesting just how far down your list of grievences this one appears, and then how vague it is. You could have mentioned specific presidential appointees (Ashcroft). You could have mentioned particular parts of the constitution he seems to be violating (First, Fifth, and now possibly Tenth Amendments, to name a few). But you glossed over constitutional issues and focused on what are essentially personal attacks.
There were specific reasons why I picked the examples of Chavez and Berlusconi. While Bush seems to be violating the federal constitution, these two men have and are actively changing their respective countries' constitutions to better suit themselves. Chavez lengthened his own term (much like Mugabe) and Berlusconi is working on an amendment that would render him immune from prosecution while in office (a luxury Chirac currently enjoys). When all is said and done, the Bush administration's constitutional infractions (both real and imagined) can essentially disappear overnight next November, while the damage these two gentlemen are doing to their countries' constitutions that will last for years or decades when (or if) they leave power.
Now look at yourself. Look at what you just said. You said that you would rather have somebody that has no qualms about changing constitutional law to suit their own short-sighted desires than who we currently have, someone who, to my knowledge, has never even mentioned a new constitutional amendment, let alone propose one.
If the history of the Second Millenium (if not all of recorded history) has anything to teach us is, it is that the worst tyrants are always elected democraticly. The one that makes a brutal power grab doesn't have as much true power or can do as much damage as those that ride the shoulders of (and ultimately direct) popular support. And they are able to get to where they are because of you and people like you.
We now have two whole years of Bush policy behind us, and yet look at your complaints. You don't like what he's done in his personal time or who he had personal relations with. You don't like his inability to look good on televsion. And, oh, as an after-thought, you throw in a few (very) vague references
"What is unconstitutional is not counting votes."
Oh really? Can you point out that particular section? All the constitution says is that your state can't deny you the ability to vote for age (if you're older than 18), sex, ethnicity or for lack of paying a poll tax. Any other reason to prevent you from voting or ignoring your vote is literally fair game. The only reason you're allowed to vote for members of congress is that your state allows you to vote for members of the most numerous house of your state's legislature, and even then they're not required to let you vote for presidential electors.
With that being said, while not counting votes isn't of itself unconstitutional, what is unconstitutional is for the state, after saying that they'll let people vote and how, to have different standards for different votes and different voters (violates the "equal protection under the law" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). The Gore campaign asked for and initially got selective recounts in particular counties and voting districts, and those votes in the recount areas were getting a different kind of standard than those not being recounted (machines don't count "hanging chads" or "dimpled chads" or anything else that isn't a clean punch, unlike the elections judges). The system allowed the potential of someone who happened to live near a bunch of registered Democrats to receive a looser standard for voting than those that happened to live near a bunch of registered Republicans. That's why the United States Supreme Court stopped that particular recount. The federal deadline set for when all federal electoral votes need to be certified and delivered to Congress did the rest.
"and about how my herpes has flared up again."
How does a blogger get a sexually transmitted disease?
"and show how "useless" it would be to steal one"
Hell, it's useless to buy one!
"his auto insurance wants his homeowner's to pay for it"
Did he try to register the Segway on his auto policy before it was stolen?
I was going to put in a footnote but I got distracted.
"Seriously guys, .223. (...) makes a little hole less than .25 inches big,"
.223 inches big?
Would you even say the hole is about