I know this is a bit offtopic, but considering where our economy is now, how much more would domestic (for all of us USians) R&D be suffering if we'd signed on board the Kyoto Proticol?
Seeing where our economy is now without Kyoto driving industry into the grount, I can only imagine how bad things would be if we'd voluntarily sabotaged our manufacturing sector, while the most polluting countries in the world sprinted past us because they would be exempt.
Unfortunately, this is a typical response to the "we're not spending enough on education" argument.
It would seem, that to some people, it doesn't matter where or how the money is spent. The high school I graduated from recently spent several million dollars on "the second best high school sports complex in the state". Of course, most of the students are still dumb as rocks, but at least the school district spent all that money!
People who argue that public education needs more funding (and 3 close relatives are teachers, and I argue this to them all the time) need to understand that more $$$ spent does NOT translate into better education. School districts need to spend money on what best meets the needs of the students, not just for the sake of spending it and justifying asking for more.
Perhaps I should have phrased it "validates everything that the RIAA claims to gullible lawmakers/ignorant public.
"If people aren't flocking to your offerings, odds are you're doing something wrong."
100% correct, but you forget that thanks to millions of lobbying dollars, it now means (more and more with every new law passed) that we must be doing something wrong!
My point was that the original poster's statements (whatever kind of music he may or may not have been referring to) can only be used by the RIAA to reinforce their position.
"I support bands who allow the free taping and distribution of their shows. I am NOT a supporter of artists that disallow this practice, and I am NOT a supporter of their music. "
Then this story wouldn't even apply to you, so why comment at all?
I hope this is successful for AOL, and more importantly, if it does succeed, I hope the RIAA pays attention.
I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA either A. raises holy hell about how this will cut into their CD sales, or B. demands a goodly chunk of the revenue generated to compensate them for their perceived loss.
"I don't remember this line specifically, but why is this false? Because he wasn't technically "released"?"
He didn't kill anybody after he was released.
"Did he walk into a bank in Michigan (not Texas) and walk out with a gun an hour later? Or was he given a voucher and had to go to a gun shop to claim it?"
Again, a lie by omission. What he didn't expand upon about that offer (which I will admit is odd) was the fact that had he tried to claim his firearm, he would have undergone a background check like everyone else who acquires a gun from those stores. That omission paints the offer in a much different light (that not surprisingly supports his "gun-crazed redneck" outlook of gun ownership).
"I think instead of focusing on the individual lines or points of the movie, it is worthwhile to think about and discuss the theme of the movie."
You asked me to cite specific examples. I did.
"If it gets people interested in the TOPIC, then I think it isn't all bad."
If his intention was to simply get people interested in the subject at hand, he would have been more objective. However he's clearly trying to sway people to his point as well, and being dishonest to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree, people are ignorant enough without being deliberately misled.
In case I haven't conveyed this yet, I love debating; just about any topic too! I'm not always right, but my arguments are based on facts that I took the time to research. So forgive me when a person in a position of authority (and unfortunately, in this country, Hollywood types DO enjoy such a position) deliberatly try to misinform people for the sake of getting attention.
Glad we could continue this discussion without moderators getting in the way.
There is a big difference between putting a spin on a fact (which is what most pundits do), and making them up from pure fiction. His "Willie Horton released. Then kills again" line was far more than a distortion of the truth. It was simply false.
And a lie of exclusion is still a lie. The scene where he portrays a Texas bank giving away guns in return for opening an account omitted details that completely altered the perception of the actual event.
One reviewer of the film perfectly summed up Moore's tactics: "Moore's film grabs viewers with the old demagogue's trick of using just as much factual information as is necessary to lead people toward false conclusions."
Artistic lisence ends where interpretation is downright untruthful. If Moore would have accurately promoted his work as satire (a term he frequently uses to justify his distortion of facts), I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But as another post (modded Flamebait, of course) correctly noted, a documentary should avoid distortions and lies. By calling "Bowling For Columbine" a documentary, Moore insults every honest journalist that at the very least tries to get the facts straight.
"I used my own made-up word (impactful) to say that this film really made me think about things"
Me too; the most common thoughts going through my head were "What the fuck is he talking about?" and "What is the point of this film?" Likely, the only reason you are still thinking about the film is because the absurd conclusions Moore draws don't make a whole lot of sense.
"Maybe then people will talk about something besides who is dating who in Hollywood, stupid reality TV shows, and sports."
You don't give us much credit. I'd say that most of the people that read this site (who, generally speaking, are a of the same target audience of Moore's ranting) give a shit about much more important things. What does disappoint me, though, is how many supposedly intelligent people actually buy into most, if not all, of what Moore says.
"Farhad Manjoo's cover story in Salon today, on AOL's refusal to take a stand on the RIAA's (so far) successful attempt to get subscriber information from Verizon."
So is this just another non-news story about nothing? I can understand posting a story when AOL does have a stance, but how is this more than just filler?
"I think civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now) is a much more effective way."
...because 'civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now)' has to date been SO successful in securing less restrictive government policies...
"Absolutely one of the most impactful things I have ever viewed."
Yeah, but only if you're accustomed to believing everything you see in the movies.
I already know this is going to be modded into oblivion, but it would appear that anyone who dares criticize the quality, let alone validity, of Moore's work is automatically modded down. Apparently it's easier to silence a dissenting opinion than to defend one's own.
Michael Moore has made a career of distorting the facts and peddaling wild conspiracy theories as fact. He routinely makes up facts to support his rantings when the truth cannot. And always, his nonsensical babblings are, in the current context, modded up +5: Insightful.
If you truly believe Michael Moore is a visionary, I challenge you to defend that assertion. As far as I'm concerned, he is nothing but a 3rd rate Howard Stern who is out for nothing but attention.
Mod parent up! Man I wish I had kept some of my mod points for this one.
Anyone who has seen this inflammatory screed (or troll, if you will) or any of Mickael Moore's work, for that matter, knows that anything he says comes from a radical leftist point of view.
Moore is notorious for making up facts when the truth doesn't support his argument, and the parent post hits this RIGHT on the head!
Moderators, if you disagree with him, explain your point of view. Don't be a coward and hide behind anonymous moderation...
Given, the books are great, but could it be that these attempts to make TV series out of Herbert's work doing more harm than good? I mean just look at what over-commercialization has done to the Star Trek franchise?
...how would you actually track down the source of the e-mails? With telemarketers, they at least identify who they are. With spam, it could be coming from anybody!
Maybe I'm missing something...
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 1
...but I don't see anything in those pictures that indicates the machine still works.
And this sounds more likely to be a silly experiment some geek ran at home, and figured would make a great Slashdot story if he invented a more interesting story around it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing where our economy is now without Kyoto driving industry into the grount, I can only imagine how bad things would be if we'd voluntarily sabotaged our manufacturing sector, while the most polluting countries in the world sprinted past us because they would be exempt.
Was I the only one who was a little apprehensive about clicking on a link from the .cx domain?
It would seem, that to some people, it doesn't matter where or how the money is spent. The high school I graduated from recently spent several million dollars on "the second best high school sports complex in the state". Of course, most of the students are still dumb as rocks, but at least the school district spent all that money!
People who argue that public education needs more funding (and 3 close relatives are teachers, and I argue this to them all the time) need to understand that more $$$ spent does NOT translate into better education. School districts need to spend money on what best meets the needs of the students, not just for the sake of spending it and justifying asking for more.
M R Ducks!
M R Not Ducks!
O S A R, C M E D B D Wings?
L I B! M R Ducks!
They should be revered for the incredible volume of information they liberate and release to all of us on a daily basis!
So to honor them, we try to make any discussion about their deaths as ambiguous as we possibly can.
(I've got some kharma to burn, so why not...)
Couldn't it be argued, then, that Amazon improved upon online purchasing with their one-click process?
Perhaps I should have phrased it "validates everything that the RIAA claims to gullible lawmakers/ignorant public.
"If people aren't flocking to your offerings, odds are you're doing something wrong."
100% correct, but you forget that thanks to millions of lobbying dollars, it now means (more and more with every new law passed) that we must be doing something wrong!
My point was that the original poster's statements (whatever kind of music he may or may not have been referring to) can only be used by the RIAA to reinforce their position.
"
Then this story wouldn't even apply to you, so why comment at all?
It's statements like this that validates everything that the RIAA claims.
If you want to positively change the music industry's approach to digital media, this surely isn't the way to do it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA either A. raises holy hell about how this will cut into their CD sales, or B. demands a goodly chunk of the revenue generated to compensate them for their perceived loss.
He didn't kill anybody after he was released.
"Did he walk into a bank in Michigan (not Texas) and walk out with a gun an hour later? Or was he given a voucher and had to go to a gun shop to claim it?"
Again, a lie by omission. What he didn't expand upon about that offer (which I will admit is odd) was the fact that had he tried to claim his firearm, he would have undergone a background check like everyone else who acquires a gun from those stores. That omission paints the offer in a much different light (that not surprisingly supports his "gun-crazed redneck" outlook of gun ownership).
"I think instead of focusing on the individual lines or points of the movie, it is worthwhile to think about and discuss the theme of the movie."
You asked me to cite specific examples. I did.
"If it gets people interested in the TOPIC, then I think it isn't all bad."
If his intention was to simply get people interested in the subject at hand, he would have been more objective. However he's clearly trying to sway people to his point as well, and being dishonest to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree, people are ignorant enough without being deliberately misled.
In case I haven't conveyed this yet, I love debating; just about any topic too! I'm not always right, but my arguments are based on facts that I took the time to research. So forgive me when a person in a position of authority (and unfortunately, in this country, Hollywood types DO enjoy such a position) deliberatly try to misinform people for the sake of getting attention.
Glad we could continue this discussion without moderators getting in the way.
And a lie of exclusion is still a lie. The scene where he portrays a Texas bank giving away guns in return for opening an account omitted details that completely altered the perception of the actual event.
One reviewer of the film perfectly summed up Moore's tactics: "Moore's film grabs viewers with the old demagogue's trick of using just as much factual information as is necessary to lead people toward false conclusions."
Artistic lisence ends where interpretation is downright untruthful. If Moore would have accurately promoted his work as satire (a term he frequently uses to justify his distortion of facts), I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But as another post (modded Flamebait, of course) correctly noted, a documentary should avoid distortions and lies. By calling "Bowling For Columbine" a documentary, Moore insults every honest journalist that at the very least tries to get the facts straight.
"I used my own made-up word (impactful) to say that this film really made me think about things"
Me too; the most common thoughts going through my head were "What the fuck is he talking about?" and "What is the point of this film?" Likely, the only reason you are still thinking about the film is because the absurd conclusions Moore draws don't make a whole lot of sense.
"Maybe then people will talk about something besides who is dating who in Hollywood, stupid reality TV shows, and sports."
You don't give us much credit. I'd say that most of the people that read this site (who, generally speaking, are a of the same target audience of Moore's ranting) give a shit about much more important things. What does disappoint me, though, is how many supposedly intelligent people actually buy into most, if not all, of what Moore says.
So is this just another non-news story about nothing? I can understand posting a story when AOL does have a stance, but how is this more than just filler?
...because 'civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now)' has to date been SO successful in securing less restrictive government policies...
Also, not to mention the fact that 60% of their member nations are controlled by dictartorships.
Two words: impotent, hypocritical.
Yeah, but only if you're accustomed to believing everything you see in the movies.
I already know this is going to be modded into oblivion, but it would appear that anyone who dares criticize the quality, let alone validity, of Moore's work is automatically modded down. Apparently it's easier to silence a dissenting opinion than to defend one's own.
Michael Moore has made a career of distorting the facts and peddaling wild conspiracy theories as fact. He routinely makes up facts to support his rantings when the truth cannot. And always, his nonsensical babblings are, in the current context, modded up +5: Insightful.
If you truly believe Michael Moore is a visionary, I challenge you to defend that assertion. As far as I'm concerned, he is nothing but a 3rd rate Howard Stern who is out for nothing but attention.
Anyone who has seen this inflammatory screed (or troll, if you will) or any of Mickael Moore's work, for that matter, knows that anything he says comes from a radical leftist point of view.
Moore is notorious for making up facts when the truth doesn't support his argument, and the parent post hits this RIGHT on the head!
Moderators, if you disagree with him, explain your point of view. Don't be a coward and hide behind anonymous moderation...
Oh, there's ways of getting around 'copy-protected CDs'. Things like ISO-Buster didn't suddenly get popular on Kazaa on a coincidence...
1. Buy new software from store.
2. Burn copy of said software.
3. Return software to store for refund.
4. (sorry) Profit!
Given, the books are great, but could it be that these attempts to make TV series out of Herbert's work doing more harm than good? I mean just look at what over-commercialization has done to the Star Trek franchise?
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!
...how would you actually track down the source of the e-mails? With telemarketers, they at least identify who they are. With spam, it could be coming from anybody!
And this sounds more likely to be a silly experiment some geek ran at home, and figured would make a great Slashdot story if he invented a more interesting story around it.
"Worst Episode Ever"