Was the guy with $50 in his freezer hiding campaign funds from being accounted?
The bottom line is, this (Palin's email break-in)was a low act of violation, a dirty play, and all the dems who scream bloody murder about the NSA and wire taps are being hypocrites if they support this action.
Imagine if a GoP'er broke into Biden's personal email account - what hell would break loose here then? Funny how the means justifies the ends if it works for their side, but not the other way around. Besides, there was nothing incriminating in her email *nor* particularly sensitive. It was all for naught.
All this will do is make the left look bad.. or worse, depending on your perspective.
How long before this is called PalinGate?
Except that this case is over the reorganization of an original work of fiction. Given that it is fiction, those pieces are the property of Rowling and are not protected as factual statements under copyright law. Had facts been stated (e.g. "The author of the Harry Potter books claims that the length of her character's wand is 14 inches"), there would have been no case.
Batman, couldn't you use a less phallic reference than "Harry's 14 inch wand" as your prime example of choice?
lol
And if that difference isn't recognized you can be certain that many more fan sites will start getting nastygrams.
Well, we shall see, shalln't we? Let's just keep our ear to the ground over the next few years and see what other lawsuits JKR/WB bring to bear - if any.
Judging by her previous non-aggresive behavior, however, I'm willing to bet the other publishers and sites are "safe".
Also, Vander Ark is already working on another HP related book, this one obviously transfigurative, (based on locations in England mentioned in the books, and local lore) and I'll wager he'll be fine with this one if he keeps the verbatim copying down.
Finally, and I think most important, copyright is not a "right". It's a grant from the public. We grant the creative (supposed to be) limited monopolies to, as the Founders put it, "encourage the useful arts and sciences". While copyrights and patents are allowed by the Constitution, they are not mandated.
You are really splitting hairs here.
My reaction to her being so greedy would be, "Fine, you wanna be a bitch? How 'bout we public domain Harry Potter? Hmmm?"
If she was a bitch, she'd be going after everyone, not just one guy who copied the crap out of her work verbatim.
There is some analysis in the lexicon, but a lot of it is paraphrasing and copying the text. It does make it easy to find specific references and tidbits from the books, but a lot of that is because it's a website with numerous links everywhere.
It's not about the money. Didn't she say that when she does eventually write her encyclopedia that she'll donate the proceeds to charity? She's trying to make a statement that this is her work and it's under her control. It sucks that they had to go through a lawsuit and everything, but ultimately it is her own creation.
Exactly.. and at that, the settlement was the absolute statutory minimum. $6k is nothing to Rowling, and I'm fairly sure it'll go to charity anyway, just like the proceeds of her encyclopedia will.
Those trying to portray JKR as some sort of greedy psycho bitch really aren't looking at this closely. The Lexicon webpage is still up. This was about the works being too verbatim, and the making of money from it.
Besides that, there are tons of others sites and books, some of them reference, that she has left well alone. Had Vander Ark not copied extensively from "Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts", other reference works created by Rowling, he might have been okay.
Besides, one must remember that all law cases can set precedents upon which other, future, cases may refer to - so in a way, she's also fighting for all authors and their copyrights.
you knew anything about Iran, or its people? Oh I guess from your comment you pretty well summarized your ignorance, and borderline racism fairly well. Sorry, my mistake.
Funny, I thought Iran was a country, not a race.
Any country that rules with the iron clad theocracy that Iran does can't have much said for it's track record of human rights and freedoms.
We're not talking about the Iranian people here, we're talking about the government of Mullahs.
Did that have a meaning before harry potter, or did they have to license that?
I mean, great name and visual from the books/movies, but a quick search only showed harry potter realted results, and dictionary.com didnt know it either.
just curious.
That's what I was wondering.
The word, as spelled, is definitely a Rowling creation - a rather clever play on words at that - a mix of "pensive" and "sieve". She excelled at that - not all her ideas were exactly original, but she is clever with wordplay and names.
I suspect it is in fact covered by her copyright, and I would expect IBM to play a license fee. for it's usage She, in turn, would most likely donate the proceeds to a children's charity.
... how muslims fight : kidnapping kids, wives and old people and executing them en masse in hopes of demoralizing an enemy..
-- Hiroshima/Nagasaki anyone?--
The Japanese in those cities were kidnapped? And a ransom demanded? And it was paid, and then we did it anyway?? I think you missed half his point.
I won't attempt to "justify" Hiroshima/Nagasaki to you, but before you throw that argument around, you might want to check the historical context of those events, and the consequences of the alternatives. Additionally, in WWII, all sides were bombing enemy cities: Dresden, London, Conventry..etc.. the US was not some lone, rogue psycho-killer nation.
Your position seems to imply that the US is the progenitor of all conflict and violence in the modern world. I guess the Earth was a happy, peaceful, Utopia before the nasty ol' US of A came along.
The point being - the West did not create the Islamic terrorist mindset via abuses. It had already existed - for centuries.
Why would you need to do that? I'm not all "pro-snooping" or anything but the employees don't legally own anything on a network or computer at work - it's the company's computers, servers, disc space, and email system.
If it's something personal, technically and legally, they're improperly using up company disc space.
I'm far from a being a professional webdesigner, I just do it as a hobby, but when I do, I love and use Homesite5. I'm not hardcore enough to use vi or notepad.
I think tag editors really are the best option; you just can't trust a WYSIWYG editor to work well for all browsers, and the total gobbleygook that Front page or Word puts in HTML pages (as viewed through their source code) is astonishingly confusing and wasteful.
This law according to TFA would regulate class 3 and 4 lasers. I agree that people generally don't have a personal use for class 4 lasers. The weaker class 3 lasers though have plenty of legitimate uses no matter who you are.
I agree. I have a 5mw green pointer I use for astronomy. its handy to point out an area of the sky to others when you're trying to bring their attention to where the scope is pointing, or perhaps even something they can see with the naked eye, but aren't sure where in the sky you're talking about.
To me, it's kind of like banning rocks, because a rock could be used to bash someone in the head.
How many people need a laser than can burn through paper? Well, some actually might though I suspect few need that kind of power - but I still think the law is an overreaction. Just how many pilots has this happened to? Why must everyone always be punished for the actions of a few idiots?
Network:-
1. Cat5 cable maker/tester
2. Guy who knows what IP stands for
3. Guy who knows what DNS stands for
4. Guy who knows stuff about wireless networks
Then there are titles that no-one else knows the meaning of like Systems Analyst who earns big bucks because they are System Analysts.
Then there are Coders - who do the real work and have more than 3 brain cells. Oh that's nice. So Network Admins only know what DNS means (not how it works nor how to set it up and configure it) and have less than 3 brain cells??
I really am sick of the developer bias (as opposed to administration); I see it where I work all the time.
Here, the developers are all in the "Ivory Tower", and everyone else in Information Technology (including the netadmins and sysops/sysadmins) are essentially considered blue collar workers. Fact is, most of our developers don't know so much as how to change their desktop wallpaper, install new software, or check on their default route - nor have any idea how DNS works and why it isn't the source of their problem. They tend to specialize so much in one tiny area they have no idea of the "Big Picture". On top of that, many netadmins and sysadmins script and code as well, but their main title and function is not development. Sure there are plenty of coders who have a better grasp of the big picture, but it swings both ways.
I think you guys are missing the point that the difference is those who avoid scratching the "external" itch see themselves as more disciplined and thus, "better".
In other words, yes we all have chemical dependencies, but some people let themselves fall slave to much stronger and more dangerous substances than others. You can't seriously equate caffeine with heroin (for example) in the context of how it alters one's life and mental/emotional state. They both form dependencies, but one is far, far, more drastic than the other.
But yeah, the war on drugs is still stupid, stupid, stupid.
I dunno.. I remember back in the eighties, when friend of mine and I used to go out and buy a 6 pack (or whatever) and sit around discussing "cosmic" stuff, and one night I said, "What if the "Big Bang" was an implosion of another pre-existing universe, creating this one?", to which my friend said, "Yes! I like it!"
Now, of course, IANAG (I Am Not a Genius); I can't even begin to fathom the math, but the concept doesn't seem so surprising or new to me - I mean, a drunk teenager came across the idea 20 years ago, as I'm sure many other people have (just maybe not while drunk;-) )
I can't believe this is just now coming out ?
However, a cycle seems unlikely because our Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate; unless it eventually slows down, and then finally collapses, I don't see us imploding any time.
How do you define, "main settlers",though?
The "Beaker" People predated the Celts, and were most likely the neolithic culture responsible for the building of Stonehenge (though not necessarily - and it definitely wasn't the Celts). Then came the Celts. They were followed by the Romans, who around 400CE exited hastily, and the Angles and Saxons (Germanic tribes) filled their void.
Then, from around 800Ce to 1,000CE (roughly) you had the Viking invasions, and many settled, but most were eventually repelled. Lastly, there was the Norman conquest of 1066. Which means, the Vikings sort of won, actually, since Normans were mostly Danes, Nordics, and Vikings who'd settled in north western France; they spoke French, but had Nordic heritage.
A lot of people don't realize that the Kings of England, up until about the time of the Tudors (I think?), spoke French - not "English" (Anglo).
I'm torn between Vampires and Dragons as my two favorites.
And before anyone suggest, "Vampire (Undead) Dragons" - well, thats just silly.
I'm pretty sure that the legend of Dragons originated with people coming across Dinosaur bones in ye olde times, and not understanding what they really were, though it would be awesome if there once was some species that could be called "Dragons". All skeletons we've found are dinosaur though, so here's a thought: what if Dragons were like sharks in that their skeletal system was all cartilage (Except the teeth). All the skeletons would've decayed by now, leaving only teeth - smaller and harder to find.
I don't know about the weight ratios of bone to cartilage but maybe that would also "enable" Dragons to be light enough to fly too..?
I love when rationalizing and fantasizing mix! lol
I, for one, don't really understand the point of this entire article.
Who cares, and just how hard is it to "tolerate" ?
This comes off a bit condescending, methinks. "Science versus the unwashed, uneducated masses" kinda thing. Okay, I used to be like this too, and constantly chided my wife over it. However, over several years, I have to say, experience has made me rethink my position, to a degree.
First off, while Astrology is indeed flawed from the aspect of Polar Progression, I have found most people to be uncannily similar to their "sign" designations, nonetheless. Is this merely "Life imitating Art"? It could be - especially if the persons knew what their sign was supposed to be like, and believed in Astrology. But many people I know don't follow any of it, and yet, they are as predictable in their behavior as their sign would indicate. Maybe it's just the season you're born in, and therefore has more to do with the Earth than the heavens. Maybe not.
I don't think many people take Horoscopes seriously, which are mostly entertainment and general good, if not vague, advice. Even hardcore astrologers acknowledge that you cannot lump everyone together so simplistically.
For some reason though, people throughout millenia have believed that the nature of the heavens has some influence on us. Logically, it seems such beliefs would be the result of observed behaviors, for which then an explanation is sought, rather than the other way around. Something had to influence people to believe there was a connection of some sort. It seems an awfully strange thing to just make up..
Most people opposed to astrology cite the fact that the gravity of distant planets could not possibly have an effect on people from such vast differences, and I agree - there's just one problem with the whole argument - who ever claimed the "effects" were due to gravity? For all we know, there is still some unknown force of nature undiscovered, unnamed. It's far fetched, but anyone who thinks we've discovered it all now is sadly mistaken.
Science is indeed the way to truth, but it also requires that one keeps an open mind (without letting the brain flop out), and is subject to revision at any time new data or evidence is brought to light.
Just sayin'!
While it isn't exactly hard to feel some sympathy for the girl and her parents, just how reasonable is it to commit suicide over "cyberbullying" ? Bringing new laws into play is just so inappropriate.
I just don't see the need for any new laws here, couldn't the 16 yr old just be charged with garden variety harassment?
This just smacks of another opportunity for certain politicians to get face time and promote themselves as "doing something".
Laws are subtractive in nature. They don't grant rights as by default, something is legal unless declared illegal by law. We lose a little freedom every time a law is passed. I'm not advocating anarchy of course, but automatically creating new laws as a kneejerk reaction is kind of like just throwing money at a problem - it doesn't necessarily fix anything.
mis/dis-information ? or just another side to an assuredly one-sided story about how horrible America is?
I'm sure the cost to the taxpayers was astronomical too..
Sorry, but I'm just really over all these "Caught editing Wikipedia" stories. It's open to everyone to edit, period.
It's not like it was hacked.
Even in a normal guitar, if the building gets hit by a lightning, the guitarist will fry. Don't forget the cord connected to the amplifier, specially if it's a tube amp.
That's one good argument for going wireless at least.
I'd never do it in the studio, but for practice, it's great.. and safe.
The one thing in web design that pisses me off more than anything else is when a webform is loaded, and the first, topmost, and obvious field doesn't automatically get the focus to type in. So, the hand goes back off the keyboard to the mouse to click in the box, and then typing begins or resumes.
It's a really stupid thing that affects ergonomics and workflow, but its so easily correctable. I think it's just lazy web development.. even lazier than me for having to move my hand 12 inches to the right and back.;-)
Actually what I find most amazing about the 9/11 Saddam link myth: The ONLY people I have ever met that believes it are liberals. Not that they believe it themselves, but they constantly repeat it over and over and over and over (such as in this story) that conservatives believe the link exists, as "evidence" of liberal superiority.
No conservative I have ever met has ever repeated this myth as truth. Most conservatives have asked why do the liberals constantly repeat this tired mantra when no one believes it?
I mean, each group does enough stuff that is incredibly stupid without having to resort to lies.
Exactly!! I have - NEVER - heard anyone, especially Republicans or conservatives, make the claim that Saddam was involved in 9-11, yet democrats constantly cite this BS.
Condalzzea Rice has even dispelled this in public telecasts. No, the only myth here is the one that claims that people believe Saddam had anything directly to do with 9/11.
In the logical fallacies, this is known as the "Straw Man Argument" ( http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments .html ), whereby you redefine the opposing side's position and claims so that you can attack them on these bogus grounds that would otherwise not exist.
Even if there are a few out there who believe Saddam orchestrated 9/11, it's a minute, tiny, microscopic handful of people; certainly not the majority of conservatives that this myth would have people believe.
Actually the steady meth usage is probably from legal prescription drugs like ritalin and adderall. Drug tests can't distinguish them from illegal methamphetamines.
Funny how the article describes "illicit" drugs in the header, than goes on to mention prescription drugs were steady throughout the week.
Well, prescription drugs should be, right? And they're not generally illicit anyway, as long as they were actually prescribed. It sounds like they want to consider all drugs illicit.
Personally, I can't stand those filthy Tylenol abusers.
;P
Sounds like the ramblings of a dinosaur to me.
The Internet has the potential to be one of the best things to happen to music, and is already delivering on it's promise - it brings distribution and sharing to the common people in a way undreamed of during Elton John's heyday. He's just pissed because he won't be able to slap crap songs in with a few decent singles and sell the whole package for $17 for much longer; the Internet is bring back the "single" in a big way and helping to cut out the filler and undeserved profits.
Truth is, the Internet is just another tool, albeit a very good one, and for anyone to finger out a tool as being detrimental, rather than the way it's used, is blind stupidity. But I wouldn't expect a lot more than than this coming from the over-hyped queen of yesteryear, though. I mean, I was a young teenager when he was in his heyday, and he was no better or larger than any other performer of the era, like Steely Dan, Carly Simon, or Aerosmith. Why is he treated like a God all of sudden? Is it just because of the gay thing? Heck, he didn't even write his own lyrics.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is, this (Palin's email break-in)was a low act of violation, a dirty play, and all the dems who scream bloody murder about the NSA and wire taps are being hypocrites if they support this action. Imagine if a GoP'er broke into Biden's personal email account - what hell would break loose here then? Funny how the means justifies the ends if it works for their side, but not the other way around. Besides, there was nothing incriminating in her email *nor* particularly sensitive. It was all for naught.
All this will do is make the left look bad.. or worse, depending on your perspective.
How long before this is called PalinGate?
Except that this case is over the reorganization of an original work of fiction. Given that it is fiction, those pieces are the property of Rowling and are not protected as factual statements under copyright law. Had facts been stated (e.g. "The author of the Harry Potter books claims that the length of her character's wand is 14 inches"), there would have been no case.
Batman, couldn't you use a less phallic reference than "Harry's 14 inch wand" as your prime example of choice?
lol
And if that difference isn't recognized you can be certain that many more fan sites will start getting nastygrams.
Well, we shall see, shalln't we? Let's just keep our ear to the ground over the next few years and see what other lawsuits JKR/WB bring to bear - if any.
Judging by her previous non-aggresive behavior, however, I'm willing to bet the other publishers and sites are "safe".
Also, Vander Ark is already working on another HP related book, this one obviously transfigurative, (based on locations in England mentioned in the books, and local lore) and I'll wager he'll be fine with this one if he keeps the verbatim copying down.
Finally, and I think most important, copyright is not a "right". It's a grant from the public. We grant the creative (supposed to be) limited monopolies to, as the Founders put it, "encourage the useful arts and sciences". While copyrights and patents are allowed by the Constitution, they are not mandated.
You are really splitting hairs here.
My reaction to her being so greedy would be, "Fine, you wanna be a bitch? How 'bout we public domain Harry Potter? Hmmm?"
If she was a bitch, she'd be going after everyone, not just one guy who copied the crap out of her work verbatim.
There is some analysis in the lexicon, but a lot of it is paraphrasing and copying the text. It does make it easy to find specific references and tidbits from the books, but a lot of that is because it's a website with numerous links everywhere.
It's not about the money. Didn't she say that when she does eventually write her encyclopedia that she'll donate the proceeds to charity? She's trying to make a statement that this is her work and it's under her control. It sucks that they had to go through a lawsuit and everything, but ultimately it is her own creation.
Exactly.. and at that, the settlement was the absolute statutory minimum. $6k is nothing to Rowling, and I'm fairly sure it'll go to charity anyway, just like the proceeds of her encyclopedia will.
Those trying to portray JKR as some sort of greedy psycho bitch really aren't looking at this closely. The Lexicon webpage is still up. This was about the works being too verbatim, and the making of money from it.
Besides that, there are tons of others sites and books, some of them reference, that she has left well alone. Had Vander Ark not copied extensively from "Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts", other reference works created by Rowling, he might have been okay.
Besides, one must remember that all law cases can set precedents upon which other, future, cases may refer to - so in a way, she's also fighting for all authors and their copyrights.
you knew anything about Iran, or its people? Oh I guess from your comment you pretty well summarized your ignorance, and borderline racism fairly well. Sorry, my mistake.
Funny, I thought Iran was a country, not a race.
Any country that rules with the iron clad theocracy that Iran does can't have much said for it's track record of human rights and freedoms.
We're not talking about the Iranian people here, we're talking about the government of Mullahs.
Did that have a meaning before harry potter, or did they have to license that?
I mean, great name and visual from the books/movies, but a quick search only showed harry potter realted results, and dictionary.com didnt know it either.
just curious.
That's what I was wondering. The word, as spelled, is definitely a Rowling creation - a rather clever play on words at that - a mix of "pensive" and "sieve". She excelled at that - not all her ideas were exactly original, but she is clever with wordplay and names.
I suspect it is in fact covered by her copyright, and I would expect IBM to play a license fee. for it's usage She, in turn, would most likely donate the proceeds to a children's charity.
... how muslims fight : kidnapping kids, wives and old people and executing them en masse in hopes of demoralizing an enemy..
-- Hiroshima/Nagasaki anyone?--
The Japanese in those cities were kidnapped? And a ransom demanded? And it was paid, and then we did it anyway?? I think you missed half his point.
I won't attempt to "justify" Hiroshima/Nagasaki to you, but before you throw that argument around, you might want to check the historical context of those events, and the consequences of the alternatives. Additionally, in WWII, all sides were bombing enemy cities: Dresden, London, Conventry..etc.. the US was not some lone, rogue psycho-killer nation.
Your position seems to imply that the US is the progenitor of all conflict and violence in the modern world. I guess the Earth was a happy, peaceful, Utopia before the nasty ol' US of A came along.
The point being - the West did not create the Islamic terrorist mindset via abuses. It had already existed - for centuries.
Why would you need to do that? I'm not all "pro-snooping" or anything but the employees don't legally own anything on a network or computer at work - it's the company's computers, servers, disc space, and email system.
If it's something personal, technically and legally, they're improperly using up company disc space.
I'm far from a being a professional webdesigner, I just do it as a hobby, but when I do, I love and use Homesite5. I'm not hardcore enough to use vi or notepad.
I think tag editors really are the best option; you just can't trust a WYSIWYG editor to work well for all browsers, and the total gobbleygook that Front page or Word puts in HTML pages (as viewed through their source code) is astonishingly confusing and wasteful.
I agree. I have a 5mw green pointer I use for astronomy. its handy to point out an area of the sky to others when you're trying to bring their attention to where the scope is pointing, or perhaps even something they can see with the naked eye, but aren't sure where in the sky you're talking about.
To me, it's kind of like banning rocks, because a rock could be used to bash someone in the head.
How many people need a laser than can burn through paper? Well, some actually might though I suspect few need that kind of power - but I still think the law is an overreaction. Just how many pilots has this happened to? Why must everyone always be punished for the actions of a few idiots?
I really am sick of the developer bias (as opposed to administration); I see it where I work all the time.
Here, the developers are all in the "Ivory Tower", and everyone else in Information Technology (including the netadmins and sysops/sysadmins) are essentially considered blue collar workers. Fact is, most of our developers don't know so much as how to change their desktop wallpaper, install new software, or check on their default route - nor have any idea how DNS works and why it isn't the source of their problem. They tend to specialize so much in one tiny area they have no idea of the "Big Picture". On top of that, many netadmins and sysadmins script and code as well, but their main title and function is not development. Sure there are plenty of coders who have a better grasp of the big picture, but it swings both ways.
I think you guys are missing the point that the difference is those who avoid scratching the "external" itch see themselves as more disciplined and thus, "better".
In other words, yes we all have chemical dependencies, but some people let themselves fall slave to much stronger and more dangerous substances than others. You can't seriously equate caffeine with heroin (for example) in the context of how it alters one's life and mental/emotional state. They both form dependencies, but one is far, far, more drastic than the other.
But yeah, the war on drugs is still stupid, stupid, stupid.
I dunno.. I remember back in the eighties, when friend of mine and I used to go out and buy a 6 pack (or whatever) and sit around discussing "cosmic" stuff, and one night I said, "What if the "Big Bang" was an implosion of another pre-existing universe, creating this one?", to which my friend said, "Yes! I like it!" ;-) )
Now, of course, IANAG (I Am Not a Genius); I can't even begin to fathom the math, but the concept doesn't seem so surprising or new to me - I mean, a drunk teenager came across the idea 20 years ago, as I'm sure many other people have (just maybe not while drunk
I can't believe this is just now coming out ? However, a cycle seems unlikely because our Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate; unless it eventually slows down, and then finally collapses, I don't see us imploding any time.
How do you define, "main settlers",though?
The "Beaker" People predated the Celts, and were most likely the neolithic culture responsible for the building of Stonehenge (though not necessarily - and it definitely wasn't the Celts).
Then came the Celts. They were followed by the Romans, who around 400CE exited hastily, and the Angles and Saxons (Germanic tribes) filled their void.
Then, from around 800Ce to 1,000CE (roughly) you had the Viking invasions, and many settled, but most were eventually repelled. Lastly, there was the Norman conquest of 1066. Which means, the Vikings sort of won, actually, since Normans were mostly Danes, Nordics, and Vikings who'd settled in north western France; they spoke French, but had Nordic heritage.
A lot of people don't realize that the Kings of England, up until about the time of the Tudors (I think?), spoke French - not "English" (Anglo).
That's the paradox of political correctness, isn't it?
Is it intolerance to be intolerant of intolerance?
I'm torn between Vampires and Dragons as my two favorites.
And before anyone suggest, "Vampire (Undead) Dragons" - well, thats just silly.
I'm pretty sure that the legend of Dragons originated with people coming across Dinosaur bones in ye olde times, and not understanding what they really were, though it would be awesome if there once was some species that could be called "Dragons". All skeletons we've found are dinosaur though, so here's a thought: what if Dragons were like sharks in that their skeletal system was all cartilage (Except the teeth). All the skeletons would've decayed by now, leaving only teeth - smaller and harder to find.
I don't know about the weight ratios of bone to cartilage but maybe that would also "enable" Dragons to be light enough to fly too..?
I love when rationalizing and fantasizing mix! lol
I, for one, don't really understand the point of this entire article.
Who cares, and just how hard is it to "tolerate" ?
This comes off a bit condescending, methinks. "Science versus the unwashed, uneducated masses" kinda thing. Okay, I used to be like this too, and constantly chided my wife over it. However, over several years, I have to say, experience has made me rethink my position, to a degree.
First off, while Astrology is indeed flawed from the aspect of Polar Progression, I have found most people to be uncannily similar to their "sign" designations, nonetheless. Is this merely "Life imitating Art"? It could be - especially if the persons knew what their sign was supposed to be like, and believed in Astrology. But many people I know don't follow any of it, and yet, they are as predictable in their behavior as their sign would indicate. Maybe it's just the season you're born in, and therefore has more to do with the Earth than the heavens. Maybe not.
I don't think many people take Horoscopes seriously, which are mostly entertainment and general good, if not vague, advice. Even hardcore astrologers acknowledge that you cannot lump everyone together so simplistically.
For some reason though, people throughout millenia have believed that the nature of the heavens has some influence on us. Logically, it seems such beliefs would be the result of observed behaviors, for which then an explanation is sought, rather than the other way around. Something had to influence people to believe there was a connection of some sort. It seems an awfully strange thing to just make up..
Most people opposed to astrology cite the fact that the gravity of distant planets could not possibly have an effect on people from such vast differences, and I agree - there's just one problem with the whole argument - who ever claimed the "effects" were due to gravity? For all we know, there is still some unknown force of nature undiscovered, unnamed. It's far fetched, but anyone who thinks we've discovered it all now is sadly mistaken.
Science is indeed the way to truth, but it also requires that one keeps an open mind (without letting the brain flop out), and is subject to revision at any time new data or evidence is brought to light.
Just sayin'!
While it isn't exactly hard to feel some sympathy for the girl and her parents, just how reasonable is it to commit suicide over "cyberbullying" ?
Bringing new laws into play is just so inappropriate. I just don't see the need for any new laws here, couldn't the 16 yr old just be charged with garden variety harassment?
This just smacks of another opportunity for certain politicians to get face time and promote themselves as "doing something".
Laws are subtractive in nature. They don't grant rights as by default, something is legal unless declared illegal by law. We lose a little freedom every time a law is passed. I'm not advocating anarchy of course, but automatically creating new laws as a kneejerk reaction is kind of like just throwing money at a problem - it doesn't necessarily fix anything.
mis/dis-information ? or just another side to an assuredly one-sided story about how horrible America is?
I'm sure the cost to the taxpayers was astronomical too..
Sorry, but I'm just really over all these "Caught editing Wikipedia" stories. It's open to everyone to edit, period.
It's not like it was hacked.
Even in a normal guitar, if the building gets hit by a lightning, the guitarist will fry. Don't forget the cord connected to the amplifier, specially if it's a tube amp.
That's one good argument for going wireless at least. I'd never do it in the studio, but for practice, it's great.. and safe.
The one thing in web design that pisses me off more than anything else is when a webform is loaded, and the first, topmost, and obvious field doesn't automatically get the focus to type in. So, the hand goes back off the keyboard to the mouse to click in the box, and then typing begins or resumes. ;-)
It's a really stupid thing that affects ergonomics and workflow, but its so easily correctable. I think it's just lazy web development.. even lazier than me for having to move my hand 12 inches to the right and back.
Actually what I find most amazing about the 9/11 Saddam link myth: The ONLY people I have ever met that believes it are liberals. Not that they believe it themselves, but they constantly repeat it over and over and over and over (such as in this story) that conservatives believe the link exists, as "evidence" of liberal superiority. No conservative I have ever met has ever repeated this myth as truth. Most conservatives have asked why do the liberals constantly repeat this tired mantra when no one believes it? I mean, each group does enough stuff that is incredibly stupid without having to resort to lies.
s .html ), whereby you redefine the opposing side's position and claims so that you can attack them on these bogus grounds that would otherwise not exist.
Exactly!! I have - NEVER - heard anyone, especially Republicans or conservatives, make the claim that Saddam was involved in 9-11, yet democrats constantly cite this BS.
Condalzzea Rice has even dispelled this in public telecasts. No, the only myth here is the one that claims that people believe Saddam had anything directly to do with 9/11.
In the logical fallacies, this is known as the "Straw Man Argument" ( http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanargument
Even if there are a few out there who believe Saddam orchestrated 9/11, it's a minute, tiny, microscopic handful of people; certainly not the majority of conservatives that this myth would have people believe.
Actually the steady meth usage is probably from legal prescription drugs like ritalin and adderall. Drug tests can't distinguish them from illegal methamphetamines.
;P
Funny how the article describes "illicit" drugs in the header, than goes on to mention prescription drugs were steady throughout the week.
Well, prescription drugs should be, right? And they're not generally illicit anyway, as long as they were actually prescribed. It sounds like they want to consider all drugs illicit.
Personally, I can't stand those filthy Tylenol abusers.
Sounds like the ramblings of a dinosaur to me.
The Internet has the potential to be one of the best things to happen to music, and is already delivering on it's promise - it brings distribution and sharing to the common people in a way undreamed of during Elton John's heyday. He's just pissed because he won't be able to slap crap songs in with a few decent singles and sell the whole package for $17 for much longer; the Internet is bring back the "single" in a big way and helping to cut out the filler and undeserved profits.
Truth is, the Internet is just another tool, albeit a very good one, and for anyone to finger out a tool as being detrimental, rather than the way it's used, is blind stupidity. But I wouldn't expect a lot more than than this coming from the over-hyped queen of yesteryear, though. I mean, I was a young teenager when he was in his heyday, and he was no better or larger than any other performer of the era, like Steely Dan, Carly Simon, or Aerosmith. Why is he treated like a God all of sudden? Is it just because of the gay thing? Heck, he didn't even write his own lyrics.