In a normal interview it is illegal to ask an applicant's age.
Exactly, which is why the preconception of the applicant's age is so important, and why old-looking people have a hard time getting jobs.
Especially so for women in the entertainment industry.
So, putting an actress's true age up on the internet is kind of like stamping her real age on her forehead -- no matter what she does in the audition, the casting agent will have a preconception about how old she is.
The image created is not a 3D image like what you would expect if the wall were glass, instead it detects distance to objects. So what you get is like a overhead map, as if you were playing Zelda and or had the Harry Potter marauder's map.
Instead of Aliens or X-COM you're thinking Zelda and Harry Potter?!
Sometimes I think this about privacy and surveillance issues. People argue that a cop watching things on the street corner and a camera on the light post are totally different in every possible way, and the second is absolutely unacceptable.
Actually, they ARE different in every possible way, unless the cop is wearing a camera, or the camera is armed and autonomously capable of making arrests.
If a cop's on the streetcorner, you know who's watching...
I would rather see people use OC than a firearm. But I'd rather not see ANYONE use OC in a situation where it would not be appropriate to use a firearm. Maybe I'm just dreaming here--
You are, pretty much. Firearms and OC aren't appropriate in the same situations. The only reason to try to use one in a situation where the other would be appropriate, is if you don't have access to both.
Unless 'having lots of money' is a special power, they didn't have any.
*looks around at current events*
Uh, yeah, "having lots of money" IS a special power.
- Only a rare 1% possess it - It can invisibly control the weak-minded from a distance - It's passed down to their decendants, but they can only use it when they turn 18, like the X-Factor gene - It can change the world for good or evil in ways that no individual without it can even dream of
Sadly, none of the people with this power are superheroes.
If you vote for a third party, all you're doing is making it more likely that the candidate who is closest to your views will lose.
...which is the best way, in any voting system, to make the motherfuckers change their platform next time.
Not voting could mean anything. Voting Green Party, on the other hand, by way of for instance, gives a strong message to the Democrats that they're not doing enough on the environmental front and had better shape up their fucking act if they want to win next time.
This is what's causing the Republicans to have to pay so much attention to the Tea Party; for good or for ill, they HAVE to at least give lip service to those policies, because they feel they can't afford to lose that percentage of the vote.
I'm not talking about somebody digging up something written fifty or a hundred years ago and thinking, "I'd like to make a movie version of this." I'm talking about the fact that with the relatively rare exception of books and movies written simultaneously (pre-greenlit movies), it normally takes more than ten years to go from "Hey, this book got published" to "Hey, this movie got released":
I was merely questioning your use of the word "deserve."
And we should legalize child pornography (it's on computers!) and legalize money counterfeiting, too because you can't make every copy machine illegal.
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Why did you write it?
"Copyright depends on the access limitations inherent to physical media. Those limitations do not exist for digital media. They cannot be made to exist for digital media."
Seriously, answer this question if you can: what does the previous sentence have to do with child pornography?
Counterfeiting is inherently physical. All the limitations of physical media apply; each piece is unique and potentially traceable, and there is no inherent means of production (that is to say, you don't need to make two or three copies of a dollar bill every single time you use one). You simply cannot photocopy a dollar and get another dollar. The opposite is true of digital information; you cannot make a copy of a file and get anything BUT an identical copy that cannot be differentiated in any way from the original, unless instead of copying you (copy+introduce changes). You are REQUIRED to make copies of digital files in order to even look at them.
I just love how people who use this argument are really just rewording the old "might makes right" argument - you can't stop us, therefore we're right.
You didn't even read my argument, not even one time. You have no idea what I'm talking about. How can you love anything about it?
W/O copyright, how many people would have published the Harry Potter books? How many would have given the author a single cent?
You say that like you know the answer to that question. It's cute.
You're argument is why the middle man will go away.
No, my argument is why copyright can't work anymore, unless we break or illegalize nearly every computer. The disappearence of producers in a market where production capacity is ubiquitous and production cost is infitessmal is just a side effect.
It will never be funded by the audience
False, or -1 you don't get it.
It's happening right now, here and there. Not at all difficult to research.
Increasing use of this model is inevitable.
You're welcome to join the rest of us in the future any time you like.
Slashdot Mirror
We will find a way like the Germans did.
That's comforting.
You were probably thinking "dollars per minute".
In a normal interview it is illegal to ask an applicant's age.
Exactly, which is why the preconception of the applicant's age is so important, and why old-looking people have a hard time getting jobs.
Especially so for women in the entertainment industry.
So, putting an actress's true age up on the internet is kind of like stamping her real age on her forehead -- no matter what she does in the audition, the casting agent will have a preconception about how old she is.
I'm pretty sure any age can only be approached from one side.
I'm pretty sure this statement only applies to the porn industry, which will narrow down the guesswork by a lot.
Nope. All Hollywood is like this.
The image created is not a 3D image like what you would expect if the wall were glass, instead it detects distance to objects. So what you get is like a overhead map, as if you were playing Zelda and or had the Harry Potter marauder's map.
Instead of Aliens or X-COM you're thinking Zelda and Harry Potter?!
"Hey, it looks like there's a guy with a pacemaker on the other side of this wall."
"Shit, really? That thing can see that kind of detail?!"
"No, not really."
"Well, then how can you tell he has a pacemaker?"
"He just fell down and died."
I did a Bing search for "thumbs" using the Megan Fox shape, but all I got back was pictures of toes. Must be broken.
Sometimes I think this about privacy and surveillance issues. People argue that a cop watching things on the street corner and a camera on the light post are totally different in every possible way, and the second is absolutely unacceptable.
Actually, they ARE different in every possible way, unless the cop is wearing a camera, or the camera is armed and autonomously capable of making arrests.
If a cop's on the streetcorner, you know who's watching...
I'm so surprised.
I think
I might have a heart attack
and die
from that surprise.
...back up locally.
Er, one of the most fundamental rights you have as the owner of a company is determining where and to whom your goods will be sold.
What? No you don't.
You have a fundamental right to determine where and to whom YOU SELL THEM, not where and to whom they WILL BE SOLD. Very, very big difference.
"I know your secret!"
Oh yeah, there's a reason they keep him around.
Vigilante justice is seldom good as the punishment doesn't necessarily fit the crime and the potential for abuse is fairly high.
Stopping crimes in progress, on the other hand, isn't vigilante justice, and has nothing to do with punishment.
(the potential for abuse is still present; just not as high)
I'm pretty sure that Monsanto has a gigantic skull-shaped hovering fortress hidden in a swamp someplace.
I would rather see people use OC than a firearm. But I'd rather not see ANYONE use OC in a situation where it would not be appropriate to use a firearm. Maybe I'm just dreaming here--
You are, pretty much. Firearms and OC aren't appropriate in the same situations. The only reason to try to use one in a situation where the other would be appropriate, is if you don't have access to both.
Unless 'having lots of money' is a special power, they didn't have any.
*looks around at current events*
Uh, yeah, "having lots of money" IS a special power.
- Only a rare 1% possess it
- It can invisibly control the weak-minded from a distance
- It's passed down to their decendants, but they can only use it when they turn 18, like the X-Factor gene
- It can change the world for good or evil in ways that no individual without it can even dream of
Sadly, none of the people with this power are superheroes.
Almost all of them are supervillains.
But let's see them adapt to vacuum. To cosmic rays. To a year of hibernation.
Yes, lets!
A mission to another planet could do for biological transhumanism what the first space race did for materials science.
If you vote for a third party, all you're doing is making it more likely that the candidate who is closest to your views will lose.
...which is the best way, in any voting system, to make the motherfuckers change their platform next time.
Not voting could mean anything. Voting Green Party, on the other hand, by way of for instance, gives a strong message to the Democrats that they're not doing enough on the environmental front and had better shape up their fucking act if they want to win next time.
This is what's causing the Republicans to have to pay so much attention to the Tea Party; for good or for ill, they HAVE to at least give lip service to those policies, because they feel they can't afford to lose that percentage of the vote.
I'm not talking about somebody digging up something written fifty or a hundred years ago and thinking, "I'd like to make a movie version of this." I'm talking about the fact that with the relatively rare exception of books and movies written simultaneously (pre-greenlit movies), it normally takes more than ten years to go from "Hey, this book got published" to "Hey, this movie got released":
I was merely questioning your use of the word "deserve."
What someone asks for and what he actually needs are not the same.
5-7 years is the period in which a profitable creative work typically makes the overwhelming majority of its profit.
The author of the original book deserves to get royalties from that.
So should Disney track down the ancestors of the people who wrote Snow White and Cinderella and pay up?
And we should legalize child pornography (it's on computers!) and legalize money counterfeiting, too because you can't make every copy machine illegal.
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Why did you write it?
"Copyright depends on the access limitations inherent to physical media. Those limitations do not exist for digital media. They cannot be made to exist for digital media."
Seriously, answer this question if you can: what does the previous sentence have to do with child pornography?
Counterfeiting is inherently physical. All the limitations of physical media apply; each piece is unique and potentially traceable, and there is no inherent means of production (that is to say, you don't need to make two or three copies of a dollar bill every single time you use one). You simply cannot photocopy a dollar and get another dollar. The opposite is true of digital information; you cannot make a copy of a file and get anything BUT an identical copy that cannot be differentiated in any way from the original, unless instead of copying you (copy+introduce changes). You are REQUIRED to make copies of digital files in order to even look at them.
I just love how people who use this argument are really just rewording the old "might makes right" argument - you can't stop us, therefore we're right.
You didn't even read my argument, not even one time. You have no idea what I'm talking about. How can you love anything about it?
False, or -1 you don't get it.
Incorrect.
W/O copyright, how many people would have published the Harry Potter books? How many would have given the author a single cent?
You say that like you know the answer to that question. It's cute.
You're argument is why the middle man will go away.
No, my argument is why copyright can't work anymore, unless we break or illegalize nearly every computer. The disappearence of producers in a market where production capacity is ubiquitous and production cost is infitessmal is just a side effect.
It will never be funded by the audience
False, or -1 you don't get it.
It's happening right now, here and there. Not at all difficult to research.
Increasing use of this model is inevitable.
You're welcome to join the rest of us in the future any time you like.
You also ignore the new economy where the long tails is, effective, infinite
Unfortunately, the new economy also renders the long tail effectively valueless.