because the world is a pleasant campfire singalong, and no ones means any one else any wrong
as russia tries to claim the arctic, engages in neoimperialism in the caucasus, as china ramps up its military spending, as myanmar tries to get nukes, as north korea has them, as iran tries to get nukes, as venezuela ramps up military purchases of heavy armament, etc., etc.
yeah, its a world of love and good will. no need for a serious military, you're a genius
if they found a repeat at say, 3 trillion digits?*
just so that certain science/ math completists/ perfectionists, who would consider it their duty to know pi exactly, their brains would explode in an attempt to remember the digits
(*i don't think it is possible for pi to repeat at all, i think pi's irrationality is essential to what pi represents)
to hell with your feelings if you spread ignorance. the issue is not your feelings, the issue is objective fact. objective fact, supported by solid mainstream research: olive oil is healthier than most common food oils
"She tells me that the common perception of Olive Oil as having health benefits that other vegetable oils lack is absolutely wrong, and that this perception is the result of flawed research. Furthermore, there is research, published and unpublished that calls into questions supposed benefits of Olive Oil."
every single book that was ever written, has elements of material that came before
you can't tell me a story that i can't find elements of in something before. even shakespeare harkens back to ancient greece and rome (sometimes overtly)
this doesn't mean originality doesn't exist. but it does mean that some people have very weird definitions of what constitutes a rip off. even the same story, told from a different perspective, can be groundbreaking and original and revelatory and highly creative. there was this guy in the 70s who rewrote the beowulf legend from the point of view of grendel, sympathetically. this is entirely original and highly creative, even though its the same old story:
everything we do, everything we make, is based on the work of who came before us. even in something like science, einstein or newton, could not have made the breakthroughs they made without relying on the contributions of their contemporaries and predecessors. and we view what they did as completely revolutionary
and yet there's a weird vocal minority out there who actually believes you write stories/ do science in some sort of vacuum... or you rip other people off. no in between. when in fact every cultural and scientific output that has ever happened actually occurs in the grey area in between those two extremes
olive oil is obviously much better for you than say, palm oil
flax seed oil is even better for you than olive oil
but "all vegetable oils are the same" is some kind of ignorance. take all the kinds of vegetable oils out there, and some are worse for you than a diet of pure bacon fat, and others will actually help clean plaque from your arteries by amping up your hdl profile
and i'm really sick of this "they say that just because they want to sell it you" overused meme. yeah: and every manufacturer of every other kind of vegetable oil wants to sell you their particular oil too
you know its actually possible as a pure measure of objective chemical breakdown that olive oil really is better for you than most other vegetable oils
educate yourself, then open your mouth. here, get started:
because it says something true and stupid about humanity: "what have you done for me lately" is amped up to ridiculous extremes in expectations once you do anything notable in life
it doesn't matter how amazing your output might have been, but if your latest programming project/ movie/ merger acquisition/ classroom lecture/ etc. is subpar, you're treated like shit. worse, in fact, had you never achieved anything previously at all. people develop high expectations for you, and so when you do something that would otherwise be appreciated as simply mildly well done, you are instead despised
i'm kind of amazed how legends like einstein and gandhi are able to maintain such love and admiration, considering their failures, in terms of physics theories and political efforts, are well-documented and are huge
i can only hope such shallow sour grapes are temporary, and people are remembered in the long term after their deaths for the heights of what they achieve
for example, ridley scott made blade runner and alien
but he also made a good year and body of lies
maybe the key is if you fail, fail outside the genre in which your most rabid fans inhabit, as then they won't even notice your failures
but no, peter jackson made the excellent lord of the rings trilogies, and then he made that totally forgettable king kong movie, and nobody seems to hold that against him
look: lucas made star wars. lucas can milk the star wars universe for decades and rape it of any redeeming quality you hold sacred until it makes you want to vomit... but he still made star wars. so that achievement stands no matter what he does later. same with the wachowski brothers and the matrix
i think after their deaths, people will remember them for their best, and not what came later in their careers, that disappoint the obsessed fanboys to the point of ungrateful shallow mindless hate
The unevenness of "Julie and Julia" is nobody's fault, really. It arises from an inherent flaw in the film's premise. Julie is an insecure, enterprising young woman who found a gimmick and scored a book contract. Julia is a figure of such imposing cultural stature that her pots and pans are displayed at the Smithsonian. The fact that Ms. Ephron, like Julie herself, is well aware of this gap does not prevent the film from falling into it. All the filmmaker's artful whisking can't quite achieve the light, fluffy emulsion she is trying for.
is like punching your pancreas: it spikes sugars in the blood, abusing your insulin making mechanisms
a high protein diet
can destroy your kidneys, put you in ketoacidosis, etc., etc., and other such nonsense scare tactics
did you know water can KILL you!?
look: eat carbs: complex unprocessed grains, so your blood sugars rise and fall slowly
eat protein: good sources like fish and egg that have biotin and omega-3s for brain health
and eat fat: good fats like olive oil. you actually want fats in your bloodstream, that's what hdl is. ldl deposits plauqes, hdl sweeps them up
so what do you do about the food you eat? you eat wholesome complex little processed foods, you eat them in moderation, and you get exercise
that's it, that's the magic
for those of you slurping down mountain dew at 3 am and eating bacon cheeseburgers all day: you're taking years off your life. which might be fine with you. in which case, when you read articles like this, toast a cheer your devil-may-care lack of interest in taking care of yourself, and congratualtions on less women being interested in you and your health problems in your 30s and 40s
life is short, take care of your body. it hardly means much now, but you will hate yourself in your 60s if you treat your body so badly. or, you could feel like you are in your 30s when you are in your 60s. its up to you. no pain (temporary, addiction like withdrawal from unhealthy foods now), no gain (a longer, richer life)
When I went into this film, I knew that the budget was $30 million. I knew that no name actors were involved, that it was a first time director, who had impressive short film work and who was the man directing the HALO movie for Peter Jackson... back before that fell apart. So, I expected great things, but you know... you never know.
At the budget... well, JULIE & JULIA cost $10 million more. How big could this really be? THE HANGOVER cost $5 million more. How "big" could this film be?
This is EPIC science fiction taking place in a Shanty Town outside Johannesburg, South Africa. This is, to me, the most accomplished, provocative and intelligent science fiction I've seen in this new century. On Twitter I declared that this is the first great science fiction film of the 21st century - and was instantly slammed by people that love CHILDREN OF MEN and SUNSHINE. All I can really say is this, "Have you seen DISTRICT 9?" Because if you haven't. You can't even enter the conversation yet, and this is a conversation that you will want to be in on.
LOS ANGELES -- The low-budget alien movie "District 9" was No. 1 at the weekend box office with an estimated $37 million in ticket sales, a stronger than expected result fueled by a quirky marketing campaign.
"District 9," an R-rated social satire about a spacecraft that stalls over Johannesburg, cost only $30 million to make. Peter Jackson of "Lord of the Rings" fame was the driving force as a producer, and the 29-year-old Neill Blomkamp, whose previous feature experience is almost entirely confined to visual-effects work, was the director.
the backstory is this south african guy blomkamp was hired by peter jackson to direct a big screen rendering of halo, but then sony backed out of financially backing the deal (conspiracy theorists, take note of sony's video game console conflicting interests here). this was after blomkamp, jackson, wife, and crew had devoted a considerable ramping up of effort on the movie. jackson, feeling chagrined, pretty much said to blomkamp: so, uh, i feel bad, so is there another movie you want to make? the idea was to expand a short blomkamp made about aliens living in a shanty town in johannesburg. as an added unlikely twist, jackson let him star a complete acting unknown who was just his old friend and more of a producer, and not much of one at that: sharlto copley
and thus scifi was history was made
if they made the halo movie, i bet it would be a $200 million popcorn muncher for 10 year olds that would barely eke out a profit after marketing costs and would be utterly forgotten after viewing, like gi joe and transformers this summer. sure, those are fun movies, but do they challenge your mind? and thus, no one will care about them in a month. devoid of any impression-making and watered down to pap by hollywood suits taking meetings with the producer and director
but instead of halo, we get a smart, 30 million historical utterly groundbreaking and original piece of cinema. not bad for a barely known visual effects dude
in a way, thank you sony, for being such asses, but mostly, thank you jackson (yet again) and blomkamp for blowing our minds
The plight of the film's crustaceanlike extraterrestrials can be easily read as a metaphor for the persecution of South African blacks under apartheid. But Mr. Blomkamp said he was also trying to comment on how the country's impoverished peoples oppress one another. While "District 9" was b
in other words, running amok is nothing unique to malay culture, its just their term for it, like the americans call it going postal. all cultures have dudes who, for various reasons, external and internal, crack and start murdering left and right without apparent warning
give me any example of a behavior "unique" to a certain culture, and you can, if you are intellectualy honest, find examples of that behavior in every other culture under different names
human nature is a constant across all societies and all time
this is simply a logical consequence of free choice, not any aspect of any government. in complete anarchy, no government at all, your freedoms are constantly limited and put in jeopardy by the actions of others. much of what people call government removing citizen's freedoms is actually governments deciding between the validity of two types of freedoms that exist in natural tension
for example, your freedom to sleep, my freedom to blast the stereo at 3 am
your freedom to live, my freedom to drive 100 mph
here's another one: a child's freedom not to be abused, a pedophile's freedom to look at naked children
the open trading of pictures of naked children creates a market of consumption and creation. you cannot divorce the viewing of pictures of naked children from someone somewhere putting a child in sexual poses to create those pictures. those who demand such pictures are culpable for their creation by creating a market for the pictures to exist
therefore, the most liberal, most open minded, most freedom-obsessed society imaginable will still have to decide on rules about the tension between freedoms, and decide upon a policy. such that even the most censorship phobic society will come down in favor of censorship, in some small scenarios, in the name of maximizing the freedom of its citizens
and you tell me if it is aggressive or wrong-headed:
if a government is democratically elected by the people, i respect it
if it is not, i do not respect it
the only legitimate and valid point of view is that of the people, of any country. therefore, if a government maintains power through nondemocratic means, the people's will power has not been consulted. therefore, it is illegitimate. as a simple consequence that those governments don't respect the will of their own people. so why should that government be respected by anyone else?
is there any morally or intellectually coherent reason to respect nondemocratic governments according to a simple obvious logical deduction from the simple humanist concern for basic human dignity. respect for simple human dignity invariably demands, out of simple logical deduction, that the people's will be consulted in the construction of the government that lords over it
i do not respect the government of saudi arabia, myanmar/ burma, china, cuba, etc. if i react negatively to a policy of say, the cuban government, the typical propagandistic spin woudl be that i do not respect the cuban people. which is absurd. because it is out of the desire to respect the cuban people that i do not respect a regime which rules over them by dictat, rather than by consulting with and synchronizing with the will of the cuban people, via simple democratic efforts
meanwhile, if a government, like zimbabwe, starts making concrete steps towards democracy away from authoritarianism, like it recently did, i begin to warily respect it again
is there anything wrong with my attitude? does it make me a neoimperialist or a neocolonialist or arrogant westerner? why? aren't those merely propagandistic terms used by dictatorial regimes in order to deflect criticism? how is it logically possible to respect a people, and the government that lords over them nondemocratically, at the same time?isn't that logically incompatible?
how is it logically possible to respect the people of china, and the government of china, at the same time? when these are two different entities? they are obviously two different entities because the agenda of the chinese government is not the same as the agenda of the chinese people. the only way for those agendas to be the same, out of simple logical deduction, is if the chinese people are CONSULTED. the only way to do that is a DEMOCRATIC VOTE. this does not happen. therefore the chinese government is not valid
only in a democracy are the people, and its government, the same entity. if a government is not democratic, its agenda inevitably strays over time from the agenda of the people it lords over. therefore, it is illegitimate, out of simple logical consequence that the most valid humanistic desire is to respect simple human dignity. the chinese government doesn't respect the simple human dignity of its own people, because it doesn't believe the chinese people deserve a voice in their own government. therefore, i disrespect the chinese government, on simple logic and principle, IN THE NAME OF the chinese people
therefore it is perfectly valid to act against the chinese government, not as a matter of imperialism or colonialism, but as a matter of respect for the dignity of the chinese people themselves, however propagandized to the the contrary: that actions against their (illegitimate) government are actions against them, when it is actually in their name actions against their (nondemocratic) government is taken. how can a people defend a government which doesn't respect them unless they are propagandized fools?
what is wrong with this attitude of mine? why is this arrogance, instead of simple logic and reason?
"I've never been one for sitting back while disaster looms, comforted in the knowledge that I'm smarter than the masses"
you're an egomaniac. anyone who has to announce they are smarter than the masses, has just announced they ARE the masses. anyone smarter than the masses is smart enough to know strutting around thinking smugly they are smarter than someone else is insecure and with an ego deficit. and you are a reactionary (inability to deal with change), and you most certainly aren't smart. if you were smart, at this point you would have been able to at least describe, if not convince me of, a valid point of view other than flailing around, panicking at the loss of a system dead for a number of years now
change isn't pretty. deal with it. there is nothing for me to defend against your words, as all i see is fear and hysteria on your part about simple change. it reveals a specific kind of mental enfeeblement on your part, a certain lack of cognitive suppleness, to consider the ways in which change might be good, even hypothetically. its all rearguard action with you, and all the future is dark and frightening and all downside
think about what the locomotive did to the stagecoach industry. think about what the airplane did to cruiseship crews. think about what guns did to swordmaking. change happens from technology. it destroys. and what emerges is always better. from the point of view of those whose livelihoods are part of the old way of doing things though, from those feeble minds invested in the status quo, it is only fear and pain. that describes you and your entire outlook
the internet has destroyed traditional copyright. this is not going to destroy the love of music, nor the love of creating music, nor that loved musicians will be rewarded, lavishly, financially. this is beyond a doubt. but in your mind, its like all of music is dying. pathetic
its called creative destruction, and its about a specific, outmoded distribution system, not artists:
plenty of people lose something temporary and fleeting in order so that much more may gain. you can't even hypothesize how better ways of doing things might come about? not even hypothetically in your dreary mind?
certain inflexible minds like your identify creative destruction instead as just the destruction of all that is right and holy. like when the auto industry dies in the usa: its the entire end of the usa! no it isn't we move on to other industries. why is carmaking the only symbol of american industry and knowhow? its not. why is how they distribute cassette tapes and vinyl the only way god has ordained that music be made? the age of mozart and beethoven, with no recorded music, was a dead zone? no artists made music then because they couldn't get an agent? what the fuck is wrong with your ossified mind?
its mental brittleness on your part. that's all you represent to me, after all your words. i really don't think you will ever understand, your cognition is too fixed on transient economic structures as if they were the word of god
you're just roadkill on the highway to the future. sucks to be you
i didn't kill copyright, the internet did. new technology changes the order of things. why can't you understand that how things are done is not something set down in the bible, and that maybe there is a better way to do things? besides this radical communist concept (which is not some wacky hypothetical i am proposing, but simple reality that i am describing) you might already know as "radio airplay". are free songs over the radio killing artists and their livelihood? no? then why do you think a system where media is freely given out over the internet (aka, reality) is somehow some radical artist destroying force? in such a world, a large number of good artists can make a significant six figure income touring and doing concerts, doing advertising, ancillary materials, etc. how is that inferior to a system where jay z's great grandchildren get a cash flow for doing nothing? it sounds superior to me, why not you? why is your mind glued to an old order that has been destroyed by technology?
basically doing nothing but accusing the usa of hypocrisy
folks, the most radical most liberal most openminded society you could ever imagine will have some sort of censorship of SOMETHING. pedophilia, for example
at that point, would it be valid to compare such a hypothetical state to a country that punishes people harshly merely for expressing a political opinion?
according to some of you, it is
the usa is imperfect. the usa does evil in the world. let me repeat: the usa is imperfect. the usa does evil in the world. have i sufficiently innoculated myself yet in some of your minds of being a blind ultranationalist american yet? can i still criticize you without getting that ridiculous charge? then good, here goes: to compare what the usa censors with what iran and china censors is ignorance on your part
as an example: plenty of you in the usa, critical of the usa, are freely posting a political attitude critical of the usa from within the usa, on american servers. you do realize that in some countries like gee, i dunno, china and iran maybe? that that gets monitored, and if it bothers someone, you get punished, perhaps harshly if you get indignant? can you imagine that in the usa? of course not, that's why you freely post. in china or iran, none of you would be bravely fighting for the assumed status quo of freedom implicit in your comments that you see as ideal, no, you'd be meekly bowed in fear, and would say nothing critical of the government. because you don't speak from nobility, you speak from a position of crass jackass ignorance
here is an objective fact: your freedom of expression in the usa is vastly, by orders of magnitude, superior to that in china and iran. that is an OBJECTIVE FACT. what does that fact mean to you? do you give it any value? are you thankful for it any way? or do you find that the usa is imperfect in its policies, therefore, i will mouth off about the usa being the equivalent of the worst censoring authoritarian governments on the globe. does that sound intellectually honest to you?
but that's ok by me, that's what freedom of expression leads to: lots of loud dumb idiots mouthing off. its a small price to pay to live in a free society that i cherish, and i accept all of your ignorance, even though i feel compelled to smack your ignorance down
here's a magic word for you to consider next time: "scale". the scale and reach of the censorship involved. what does that concept mean to you? here's an example question question ot consider the concept of "scale" in relation to censorship: does censorship of pedophilia have the same impact on society, the same meaning, as censorship of political opinion?
ruminate on the concept. then open your mouth
you may now accuse me of being a dick cheney cock sucking neocon. since obviously, if i criticize your words, i must be the worst kind of american ultranationalist, right? not just some neutral guy asking for a little intellectual honesty on your part, right?
zzz
so predictable and ignorant. god i hope the lot of you are 13 years old. its the only way your ignorance is excusable
i'm not describing a hypothetical system. i'm describing reality whether or not you like it. deal with it. or don't and continue the hardworking troll. whatever works for you
"Y'know why? Because you simply can't maintain a system where the artists get screwed over."
i agree 100%. if you notice what i am describing only screws over distributors. artists give away their media, it serves as advertising for their concert gigs (this radical communist system is similar to what you know as "radio airplay"). they make money at concert gigs. its a nice six figure life for a large number of good artists. how is that being screwed over? because jay z's great grandchildren aren't now guaranteed a cash flow for doing nothing?
copyright is broken. i didn't break it. the internet did. deal
FOE is your acronym? couldn't they have called the system SPECTRE or ENEMY? (Special Propaganda Emulsifying Communication Targetting Regime Email or Email Normalizing Exchange of Missives Y'know)
someone fire the acronym guy please. learn public relations 101: its not assassination, its neutralization. its not violent overthrow, its regime change. its not obamacare, its euthanize the downs syndrome and the elderly. geez, this stuff should be easy
you hire a locksmith to make sure your security is top knotch, but now there's a guy out there, a locksmith, who can enter your business anytime he wants
if you want to trust professionals to do a job for you that involves the security of your business, you need to actually trust them. based on what evidence? no evidence is possible. you need to take a tiny leap of faith, and rely upon the usual indicators of trust in such a business situation: reputation, track record, time in business, contacting other customers, etc.
in business there are plenty of times you need to take a leap of faith and make a judgment of trustability and character and integrity. this ranges in all aspects of business: distributors, employees, accountants, managers, etc.
absolutely nothing in this world insulates you from the risk of being screwed by someone in your employ/ in a business relationship with you unless you do it yourself. so get out your bullshit meter, set the guy down on the other end of a table, and start measuring. and if you are spooked in any way, don't hire him or cancel the contract or fire him. you don't get any other guarantees in business beyond that
if this is not enough security for you, well then maybe the business world isn't suitable for your comfort zone and you should pursue a job where someone else worries about these kind of things
all i could think after reading your question is that life as a businessman does not suit your character
Slashdot Mirror
because the world is a pleasant campfire singalong, and no ones means any one else any wrong
as russia tries to claim the arctic, engages in neoimperialism in the caucasus, as china ramps up its military spending, as myanmar tries to get nukes, as north korea has them, as iran tries to get nukes, as venezuela ramps up military purchases of heavy armament, etc., etc.
yeah, its a world of love and good will. no need for a serious military, you're a genius
if they found a repeat at say, 3 trillion digits?*
just so that certain science/ math completists/ perfectionists, who would consider it their duty to know pi exactly, their brains would explode in an attempt to remember the digits
(*i don't think it is possible for pi to repeat at all, i think pi's irrationality is essential to what pi represents)
News For Paranoids
Stuff That Matters To Schizophrenics
you can fabricate ANYTHING
hardly news or interesting or revelatory
are anti-inflammatory and heart healthy, olive oil is high in them
omega-6s are inflammatory and heart unhealthy, corn oil is high in them
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/omega-6-000317.htm
to hell with your feelings if you spread ignorance. the issue is not your feelings, the issue is objective fact. objective fact, supported by solid mainstream research: olive oil is healthier than most common food oils
"She tells me that the common perception of Olive Oil as having health benefits that other vegetable oils lack is absolutely wrong, and that this perception is the result of flawed research. Furthermore, there is research, published and unpublished that calls into questions supposed benefits of Olive Oil."
is your wife funded by the corn oil industry?
every single book that was ever written, has elements of material that came before
you can't tell me a story that i can't find elements of in something before. even shakespeare harkens back to ancient greece and rome (sometimes overtly)
this doesn't mean originality doesn't exist. but it does mean that some people have very weird definitions of what constitutes a rip off. even the same story, told from a different perspective, can be groundbreaking and original and revelatory and highly creative. there was this guy in the 70s who rewrote the beowulf legend from the point of view of grendel, sympathetically. this is entirely original and highly creative, even though its the same old story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel_(novel)
everything we do, everything we make, is based on the work of who came before us. even in something like science, einstein or newton, could not have made the breakthroughs they made without relying on the contributions of their contemporaries and predecessors. and we view what they did as completely revolutionary
and yet there's a weird vocal minority out there who actually believes you write stories/ do science in some sort of vacuum... or you rip other people off. no in between. when in fact every cultural and scientific output that has ever happened actually occurs in the grey area in between those two extremes
olive oil is obviously much better for you than say, palm oil
flax seed oil is even better for you than olive oil
but "all vegetable oils are the same" is some kind of ignorance. take all the kinds of vegetable oils out there, and some are worse for you than a diet of pure bacon fat, and others will actually help clean plaque from your arteries by amping up your hdl profile
and i'm really sick of this "they say that just because they want to sell it you" overused meme. yeah: and every manufacturer of every other kind of vegetable oil wants to sell you their particular oil too
you know its actually possible as a pure measure of objective chemical breakdown that olive oil really is better for you than most other vegetable oils
educate yourself, then open your mouth. here, get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegetable_oils
because it says something true and stupid about humanity: "what have you done for me lately" is amped up to ridiculous extremes in expectations once you do anything notable in life
it doesn't matter how amazing your output might have been, but if your latest programming project/ movie/ merger acquisition/ classroom lecture/ etc. is subpar, you're treated like shit. worse, in fact, had you never achieved anything previously at all. people develop high expectations for you, and so when you do something that would otherwise be appreciated as simply mildly well done, you are instead despised
i'm kind of amazed how legends like einstein and gandhi are able to maintain such love and admiration, considering their failures, in terms of physics theories and political efforts, are well-documented and are huge
i can only hope such shallow sour grapes are temporary, and people are remembered in the long term after their deaths for the heights of what they achieve
for example, ridley scott made blade runner and alien
but he also made a good year and body of lies
maybe the key is if you fail, fail outside the genre in which your most rabid fans inhabit, as then they won't even notice your failures
but no, peter jackson made the excellent lord of the rings trilogies, and then he made that totally forgettable king kong movie, and nobody seems to hold that against him
look: lucas made star wars. lucas can milk the star wars universe for decades and rape it of any redeeming quality you hold sacred until it makes you want to vomit... but he still made star wars. so that achievement stands no matter what he does later. same with the wachowski brothers and the matrix
i think after their deaths, people will remember them for their best, and not what came later in their careers, that disappoint the obsessed fanboys to the point of ungrateful shallow mindless hate
completely wrong forum for it, lol
the demographics of slashdot are not exactly friendly to "julie and julia"
and your opinion is well-bourne out
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/movies/07julie.html
is like punching your pancreas: it spikes sugars in the blood, abusing your insulin making mechanisms
a high protein diet
can destroy your kidneys, put you in ketoacidosis, etc., etc., and other such nonsense scare tactics
did you know water can KILL you!?
look: eat carbs: complex unprocessed grains, so your blood sugars rise and fall slowly
eat protein: good sources like fish and egg that have biotin and omega-3s for brain health
and eat fat: good fats like olive oil. you actually want fats in your bloodstream, that's what hdl is. ldl deposits plauqes, hdl sweeps them up
so what do you do about the food you eat? you eat wholesome complex little processed foods, you eat them in moderation, and you get exercise
that's it, that's the magic
for those of you slurping down mountain dew at 3 am and eating bacon cheeseburgers all day: you're taking years off your life. which might be fine with you. in which case, when you read articles like this, toast a cheer your devil-may-care lack of interest in taking care of yourself, and congratualtions on less women being interested in you and your health problems in your 30s and 40s
life is short, take care of your body. it hardly means much now, but you will hate yourself in your 60s if you treat your body so badly. or, you could feel like you are in your 30s when you are in your 60s. its up to you. no pain (temporary, addiction like withdrawal from unhealthy foods now), no gain (a longer, richer life)
better than children of men or eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
http://aintitcool.com/node/42012
and it won this weekend box office
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/movies/17box.html
the backstory is this south african guy blomkamp was hired by peter jackson to direct a big screen rendering of halo, but then sony backed out of financially backing the deal (conspiracy theorists, take note of sony's video game console conflicting interests here). this was after blomkamp, jackson, wife, and crew had devoted a considerable ramping up of effort on the movie. jackson, feeling chagrined, pretty much said to blomkamp: so, uh, i feel bad, so is there another movie you want to make? the idea was to expand a short blomkamp made about aliens living in a shanty town in johannesburg. as an added unlikely twist, jackson let him star a complete acting unknown who was just his old friend and more of a producer, and not much of one at that: sharlto copley
and thus scifi was history was made
if they made the halo movie, i bet it would be a $200 million popcorn muncher for 10 year olds that would barely eke out a profit after marketing costs and would be utterly forgotten after viewing, like gi joe and transformers this summer. sure, those are fun movies, but do they challenge your mind? and thus, no one will care about them in a month. devoid of any impression-making and watered down to pap by hollywood suits taking meetings with the producer and director
but instead of halo, we get a smart, 30 million historical utterly groundbreaking and original piece of cinema. not bad for a barely known visual effects dude
in a way, thank you sony, for being such asses, but mostly, thank you jackson (yet again) and blomkamp for blowing our minds
more backstory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/movies/06district.html
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/gallery/2004/05/05/troy236723222.jpg
he has a romantic comedy coming out this weekend fer chrissake
oh wait, i see it now, nevermind
http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/star_trek_eric_bana_nero_movie_poster.jpg
this is running amok:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_down
in other words, running amok is nothing unique to malay culture, its just their term for it, like the americans call it going postal. all cultures have dudes who, for various reasons, external and internal, crack and start murdering left and right without apparent warning
give me any example of a behavior "unique" to a certain culture, and you can, if you are intellectualy honest, find examples of that behavior in every other culture under different names
human nature is a constant across all societies and all time
pure empty deflection of accusations
"i know you are but what am i"
i'm not sure if bringing an argument down the level of kindergarten interaction is a troll winning or failing, but i'm sure you know the score
have a nice day, roadkill!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxox
with other freedoms
this is simply a logical consequence of free choice, not any aspect of any government. in complete anarchy, no government at all, your freedoms are constantly limited and put in jeopardy by the actions of others. much of what people call government removing citizen's freedoms is actually governments deciding between the validity of two types of freedoms that exist in natural tension
for example, your freedom to sleep, my freedom to blast the stereo at 3 am
your freedom to live, my freedom to drive 100 mph
here's another one: a child's freedom not to be abused, a pedophile's freedom to look at naked children
the open trading of pictures of naked children creates a market of consumption and creation. you cannot divorce the viewing of pictures of naked children from someone somewhere putting a child in sexual poses to create those pictures. those who demand such pictures are culpable for their creation by creating a market for the pictures to exist
therefore, the most liberal, most open minded, most freedom-obsessed society imaginable will still have to decide on rules about the tension between freedoms, and decide upon a policy. such that even the most censorship phobic society will come down in favor of censorship, in some small scenarios, in the name of maximizing the freedom of its citizens
and you tell me if it is aggressive or wrong-headed:
if a government is democratically elected by the people, i respect it
if it is not, i do not respect it
the only legitimate and valid point of view is that of the people, of any country. therefore, if a government maintains power through nondemocratic means, the people's will power has not been consulted. therefore, it is illegitimate. as a simple consequence that those governments don't respect the will of their own people. so why should that government be respected by anyone else?
is there any morally or intellectually coherent reason to respect nondemocratic governments according to a simple obvious logical deduction from the simple humanist concern for basic human dignity. respect for simple human dignity invariably demands, out of simple logical deduction, that the people's will be consulted in the construction of the government that lords over it
i do not respect the government of saudi arabia, myanmar/ burma, china, cuba, etc. if i react negatively to a policy of say, the cuban government, the typical propagandistic spin woudl be that i do not respect the cuban people. which is absurd. because it is out of the desire to respect the cuban people that i do not respect a regime which rules over them by dictat, rather than by consulting with and synchronizing with the will of the cuban people, via simple democratic efforts
meanwhile, if a government, like zimbabwe, starts making concrete steps towards democracy away from authoritarianism, like it recently did, i begin to warily respect it again
is there anything wrong with my attitude? does it make me a neoimperialist or a neocolonialist or arrogant westerner? why? aren't those merely propagandistic terms used by dictatorial regimes in order to deflect criticism? how is it logically possible to respect a people, and the government that lords over them nondemocratically, at the same time?isn't that logically incompatible?
how is it logically possible to respect the people of china, and the government of china, at the same time? when these are two different entities? they are obviously two different entities because the agenda of the chinese government is not the same as the agenda of the chinese people. the only way for those agendas to be the same, out of simple logical deduction, is if the chinese people are CONSULTED. the only way to do that is a DEMOCRATIC VOTE. this does not happen. therefore the chinese government is not valid
only in a democracy are the people, and its government, the same entity. if a government is not democratic, its agenda inevitably strays over time from the agenda of the people it lords over. therefore, it is illegitimate, out of simple logical consequence that the most valid humanistic desire is to respect simple human dignity. the chinese government doesn't respect the simple human dignity of its own people, because it doesn't believe the chinese people deserve a voice in their own government. therefore, i disrespect the chinese government, on simple logic and principle, IN THE NAME OF the chinese people
therefore it is perfectly valid to act against the chinese government, not as a matter of imperialism or colonialism, but as a matter of respect for the dignity of the chinese people themselves, however propagandized to the the contrary: that actions against their (illegitimate) government are actions against them, when it is actually in their name actions against their (nondemocratic) government is taken. how can a people defend a government which doesn't respect them unless they are propagandized fools?
what is wrong with this attitude of mine? why is this arrogance, instead of simple logic and reason?
http://www.csupomona.edu/~tassi/gestures.htm
mutual incomprehensibility
"I've never been one for sitting back while disaster looms, comforted in the knowledge that I'm smarter than the masses"
you're an egomaniac. anyone who has to announce they are smarter than the masses, has just announced they ARE the masses. anyone smarter than the masses is smart enough to know strutting around thinking smugly they are smarter than someone else is insecure and with an ego deficit. and you are a reactionary (inability to deal with change), and you most certainly aren't smart. if you were smart, at this point you would have been able to at least describe, if not convince me of, a valid point of view other than flailing around, panicking at the loss of a system dead for a number of years now
change isn't pretty. deal with it. there is nothing for me to defend against your words, as all i see is fear and hysteria on your part about simple change. it reveals a specific kind of mental enfeeblement on your part, a certain lack of cognitive suppleness, to consider the ways in which change might be good, even hypothetically. its all rearguard action with you, and all the future is dark and frightening and all downside
think about what the locomotive did to the stagecoach industry. think about what the airplane did to cruiseship crews. think about what guns did to swordmaking. change happens from technology. it destroys. and what emerges is always better. from the point of view of those whose livelihoods are part of the old way of doing things though, from those feeble minds invested in the status quo, it is only fear and pain. that describes you and your entire outlook
the internet has destroyed traditional copyright. this is not going to destroy the love of music, nor the love of creating music, nor that loved musicians will be rewarded, lavishly, financially. this is beyond a doubt. but in your mind, its like all of music is dying. pathetic
its called creative destruction, and its about a specific, outmoded distribution system, not artists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
plenty of people lose something temporary and fleeting in order so that much more may gain. you can't even hypothesize how better ways of doing things might come about? not even hypothetically in your dreary mind?
certain inflexible minds like your identify creative destruction instead as just the destruction of all that is right and holy. like when the auto industry dies in the usa: its the entire end of the usa! no it isn't we move on to other industries. why is carmaking the only symbol of american industry and knowhow? its not. why is how they distribute cassette tapes and vinyl the only way god has ordained that music be made? the age of mozart and beethoven, with no recorded music, was a dead zone? no artists made music then because they couldn't get an agent? what the fuck is wrong with your ossified mind?
its mental brittleness on your part. that's all you represent to me, after all your words. i really don't think you will ever understand, your cognition is too fixed on transient economic structures as if they were the word of god
you're just roadkill on the highway to the future. sucks to be you
i didn't kill copyright, the internet did. new technology changes the order of things. why can't you understand that how things are done is not something set down in the bible, and that maybe there is a better way to do things? besides this radical communist concept (which is not some wacky hypothetical i am proposing, but simple reality that i am describing) you might already know as "radio airplay". are free songs over the radio killing artists and their livelihood? no? then why do you think a system where media is freely given out over the internet (aka, reality) is somehow some radical artist destroying force? in such a world, a large number of good artists can make a significant six figure income touring and doing concerts, doing advertising, ancillary materials, etc. how is that inferior to a system where jay z's great grandchildren get a cash flow for doing nothing? it sounds superior to me, why not you? why is your mind glued to an old order that has been destroyed by technology?
basically doing nothing but accusing the usa of hypocrisy
folks, the most radical most liberal most openminded society you could ever imagine will have some sort of censorship of SOMETHING. pedophilia, for example
at that point, would it be valid to compare such a hypothetical state to a country that punishes people harshly merely for expressing a political opinion?
according to some of you, it is
the usa is imperfect. the usa does evil in the world. let me repeat: the usa is imperfect. the usa does evil in the world. have i sufficiently innoculated myself yet in some of your minds of being a blind ultranationalist american yet? can i still criticize you without getting that ridiculous charge? then good, here goes: to compare what the usa censors with what iran and china censors is ignorance on your part
as an example: plenty of you in the usa, critical of the usa, are freely posting a political attitude critical of the usa from within the usa, on american servers. you do realize that in some countries like gee, i dunno, china and iran maybe? that that gets monitored, and if it bothers someone, you get punished, perhaps harshly if you get indignant? can you imagine that in the usa? of course not, that's why you freely post. in china or iran, none of you would be bravely fighting for the assumed status quo of freedom implicit in your comments that you see as ideal, no, you'd be meekly bowed in fear, and would say nothing critical of the government. because you don't speak from nobility, you speak from a position of crass jackass ignorance
here is an objective fact: your freedom of expression in the usa is vastly, by orders of magnitude, superior to that in china and iran. that is an OBJECTIVE FACT. what does that fact mean to you? do you give it any value? are you thankful for it any way? or do you find that the usa is imperfect in its policies, therefore, i will mouth off about the usa being the equivalent of the worst censoring authoritarian governments on the globe. does that sound intellectually honest to you?
but that's ok by me, that's what freedom of expression leads to: lots of loud dumb idiots mouthing off. its a small price to pay to live in a free society that i cherish, and i accept all of your ignorance, even though i feel compelled to smack your ignorance down
here's a magic word for you to consider next time: "scale". the scale and reach of the censorship involved. what does that concept mean to you? here's an example question question ot consider the concept of "scale" in relation to censorship: does censorship of pedophilia have the same impact on society, the same meaning, as censorship of political opinion?
ruminate on the concept. then open your mouth
you may now accuse me of being a dick cheney cock sucking neocon. since obviously, if i criticize your words, i must be the worst kind of american ultranationalist, right? not just some neutral guy asking for a little intellectual honesty on your part, right?
zzz
so predictable and ignorant. god i hope the lot of you are 13 years old. its the only way your ignorance is excusable
then again, it might not suck
but then again, lets read 200 comments convinced it will suck already, based on not even rumors
zzz
"thevelvetflamebait"
a good name for a hardworking troll
i'm not describing a hypothetical system. i'm describing reality whether or not you like it. deal with it. or don't and continue the hardworking troll. whatever works for you
"Y'know why? Because you simply can't maintain a system where the artists get screwed over."
i agree 100%. if you notice what i am describing only screws over distributors. artists give away their media, it serves as advertising for their concert gigs (this radical communist system is similar to what you know as "radio airplay"). they make money at concert gigs. its a nice six figure life for a large number of good artists. how is that being screwed over? because jay z's great grandchildren aren't now guaranteed a cash flow for doing nothing?
copyright is broken. i didn't break it. the internet did. deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)
triton goes the wrong way around neptune because it was captured from the planetoid kuiper belt junk around and beyond neptune, not formed there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)#Capture
hypothetically then, this new planet was captured by the star, but not from elsewhere in that star system of course, but from interstellar space
who knows what else is lying in the cold and the dark out there
FOE is your acronym? couldn't they have called the system SPECTRE or ENEMY? (Special Propaganda Emulsifying Communication Targetting Regime Email or Email Normalizing Exchange of Missives Y'know)
someone fire the acronym guy please. learn public relations 101: its not assassination, its neutralization. its not violent overthrow, its regime change. its not obamacare, its euthanize the downs syndrome and the elderly. geez, this stuff should be easy
you hire a locksmith to make sure your security is top knotch, but now there's a guy out there, a locksmith, who can enter your business anytime he wants
if you want to trust professionals to do a job for you that involves the security of your business, you need to actually trust them. based on what evidence? no evidence is possible. you need to take a tiny leap of faith, and rely upon the usual indicators of trust in such a business situation: reputation, track record, time in business, contacting other customers, etc.
in business there are plenty of times you need to take a leap of faith and make a judgment of trustability and character and integrity. this ranges in all aspects of business: distributors, employees, accountants, managers, etc.
absolutely nothing in this world insulates you from the risk of being screwed by someone in your employ/ in a business relationship with you unless you do it yourself. so get out your bullshit meter, set the guy down on the other end of a table, and start measuring. and if you are spooked in any way, don't hire him or cancel the contract or fire him. you don't get any other guarantees in business beyond that
if this is not enough security for you, well then maybe the business world isn't suitable for your comfort zone and you should pursue a job where someone else worries about these kind of things
all i could think after reading your question is that life as a businessman does not suit your character
and thus have i demonstrated my cognitive superiority to you, mr. first post man