You are believing the TFS?! Try reading the articles. Ars shows that he was tweeting during breaks. Pertinent or not, discussing an ongoing case while a juror is a big fuck-up
Pertinent or not? Did his tweets pertain to the ongoing case, you twit?
We have anecdotal (and even research) evidence both ways (although the research tends to lean away from [violence] catharsis as real or beneficial). That actually gets back to the whole violence in video games or other media question.
Well, it's catharsis if you're already angry, and it lets you vent. It's something else if you're not already angry and it pumps you up.
I don't think it's helping to say "see, they got pumped up, catharsis is a myth!"
First, catharsis was a term invented by psychodynamicists (like Freud), whose theories were not based on good research and generally have not been supported by any psychology research. They used the term to refer to built-up unconscious conflict between id and superego. So, catharsis was a term created to explain a psychological construct (i.e., unconscious conflict) that just has not been verified by any research.
Aristotle defined catharsis as "purging of the spirit of morbid and base ideas or emotions by witnessing the playing out of such emotions or ideas on stage" (Aristotle, 2001, p. 1458).
Further, if catharsis (of aggressive behaviors) was true, then research showing increases in aggressive feelings/behaviors after watching or participating in aggressive or violent behaviors would not be true.
Apparently the biggest problem here is confusion over the meaning of catharsis.
I have no structured research to give you, but I have anecdotes: Watching some good old ultraviolence, like Clockwork Orange, helps me when anger is taking over. But showing some clockwork orange to someone who doesn't have a big ball of anger and nowhere to throw it might have the opposite effect.
What part of "don't discuss this case with anyone until it's over" does this idiot not understand?
From the fucking summary: Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given;
I read the article and it says it has to "appeal to a more mainstream audience", and yet it's earnings and revenue are up sharply this year. So, what logic says that they need to appeal to a wider audience?? Do they think that going more mainstream (which I suspect means also changing some of the type of programming as well....) won't cause any of the existing audience to leave? This sounds like the media equivalent to New Coke.
Because there is more of everybody than there is of us. Which, theoretically, means more money from advertisers. Of course, what they're blind to is that by cutting open the golden goose to see how they can make it loved by everybody, they'll turn it into a corpse that will be liked by no body.
A lot of place have laws now that you cant smoke outside. This is not about where someones rights end. This is truly about those who believe they are smarter than everyone else deciding what they think others should and should not be able to do.
It's actually about ending tobacco smoking because of the impact it has on the health of the people in those jurisdictions. The goal is 0% smokers. The steps are incremental, but the goal is obvious.
I think that's going too far (people should be able to enjoy a cigar now and then), but that's a natural consequences of things having gone too far in the other direction in the first place.
Maybe it's safer for you to just stay at home bubble boy.
Your right to smoke stops at the bubble boy's lungs. If you think you can force your poison into his body, maybe he'll think he can force his blade or bullet into yours. So be civil, because you won't like an escalation of violence. You really won't.
The fact that the leaders of these companies tend to get executed indicates to me that the Chinese central government and the justice system takes the fight against crime and corruption very serious indeed.
You misspelled "simply do not value human life at all". The only reason the central government fights corruption at lower levels is because those guys are skimming from their bribery pool.
They both feed on each other. It is not that people in Russia or China are naturally more corrupt, but that the system gives them all the wrong incentives.
If you responsible for allocating a billion dollars and your pay is only a few thousand and you know that you are stuck in that position for life, you will cheat. In a capitalistic system you have bonuses, you have promotions based on skill and you have other greedy people watching over you to not lose money.
Greed is like sea water: it is infinitely bigger than us, can swallow us whole, and the more you drink from it, the thirstier you get.
You misspelled "rampant institutionalized corruption at all levels of government".
Which is a consequence of an economic system where the profit motive has been officially eliminated.
Wow, their economic system is so bad it can cause consequences backward through time that extend long before it was put in place? Incredible!
Get your head out of your ideological ass and look at capitalist Italy, or Mexico. Same corruption problems, different economic system. If you let ideology blind you to the root cause of the problems, it WILL bite you in your free market.
There might be feminists who do think that, but this doesn't mean they all do
I'm not talking about what some feminists think, I'm talking about what their actions show. Example: They complain about sexist ads only when the sexism is against women. When you get an ad that objectifies men, they either remain quiet, or cheer.
It sounds like your rant should actually be about positive discrimination. Which isn't what this article is about, so you can save your anti-feminism rant for another article.
You should read the post I had replied to. Try to see if the changes they propose are for more humane rules that would apply to all parents, or to just one sex.
From the "I thought feminism meant female equality with males" file and the interesting part was the bottom 'recommendation':
"The authors recommended that universities and companies create options for women with math talents who want to pursue math-intensive careers. These could include deferred start-up of tenure-track positions and part-time work that segues to full-time tenure-track work for women who are raising children, and courtesy appointments for women unable to work full time but who would benefit from use of university resources (e-mail, library resources, grant support) to continue their research from home."
Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.
People wonder why I given feminists as much credibility has hearing Saudi Arabia preach about human rights, tolerance and respect.
Sexism is discrimination based on sex, this is subdivided in two:
Chauvinism is discrimination against women in favor of men.
Feminism is discrimination against men in favor of women.
Equality is not achieved by feminism, discrimination is discrimination. There might have been a time when feminism meant to achieve equality, back when chauvinism was the norm, but that hasn't been true in my lifetime.
Countries like Russia, China, and India have had remarkable scientific achievements, but have been mired down by their inefficient socialist economies.
You misspelled "rampant institutionalized corruption at all levels of government".
I'm going to quote another piece of JMS which I think applies specifically to you:
iIt seems to me an odd statement to say, "Boy, I really love this show (comic, book, song,...) so much that I'm going to download it and hurt their income and possibly destroy their ability to tell more such stories in future, THAT'S how much of a fan I am."
How does that apply to me?
Unless by me you mean "that strawman I've made". STFU&DIAF already.
<sarcasim>I'm sure that a little smidgen of beef fat would piss off people that consider cattle holy creatures a lot more than all of those quarter pounder beef patties do.</sarcasim>
Of course no one would censor "motherfucker" or "fuck your mother" in the west on a website or in public television. Must be pure chance that everytime somebody says "cock" or "fuck" on TV in the US there is a beep sound.
Fun anecdote: a vermont PBS station aired the movie Slapshot during one of their "give us moneyz!" marathons one magical saturday night. Now, that's an old low-budget movie about a prom-am hockey team, nothing special except in Quebec, where the "french" dub is a classic that the locals force every immigrant to watch.
Now, the thing about that is that about one in every 3 words in the original version is "fuck", and at their first begging-break, it became apparent that no one at the station had bothered to actually watch the damn thing before airing it.
Long story short, the faces of the PBS beggars was priceless when they came on live, realizing they had just aired a solid half hour of the most strongly worded profanities possible in the english language AND that they had to keep airing more if they wanted the money they were there to beg. And every guy I knew in college had watched it! It was magical I tell you, magical.
According to the article, the restaurant locations fry in vegetable oil, but the fries were partially fried in animal fat before they are frozen and shipped out to the restaurants.
Slashdot Mirror
Why comment if you are not going to read?
Follow your own advice, asshole.
You are believing the TFS?! Try reading the articles. Ars shows that he was tweeting during breaks. Pertinent or not, discussing an ongoing case while a juror is a big fuck-up
Pertinent or not? Did his tweets pertain to the ongoing case, you twit?
We have anecdotal (and even research) evidence both ways (although the research tends to lean away from [violence] catharsis as real or beneficial). That actually gets back to the whole violence in video games or other media question.
Well, it's catharsis if you're already angry, and it lets you vent.
It's something else if you're not already angry and it pumps you up.
I don't think it's helping to say "see, they got pumped up, catharsis is a myth!"
First, catharsis was a term invented by psychodynamicists (like Freud), whose theories were not based on good research and generally have not been supported by any psychology research. They used the term to refer to built-up unconscious conflict between id and superego. So, catharsis was a term created to explain a psychological construct (i.e., unconscious conflict) that just has not been verified by any research.
Aristotle defined catharsis as "purging of the spirit of morbid and base ideas or emotions by witnessing the playing out of such emotions or ideas on stage" (Aristotle, 2001, p. 1458).
Further, if catharsis (of aggressive behaviors) was true, then research showing increases in aggressive feelings/behaviors after watching or participating in aggressive or violent behaviors would not be true.
Thanks for the article titles, google a bit, found that citation up there here: http://primal-page.com/cathar.htm
Apparently the biggest problem here is confusion over the meaning of catharsis.
I have no structured research to give you, but I have anecdotes: Watching some good old ultraviolence, like Clockwork Orange, helps me when anger is taking over.
But showing some clockwork orange to someone who doesn't have a big ball of anger and nowhere to throw it might have the opposite effect.
What part of "don't discuss this case with anyone until it's over" does this idiot not understand?
From the fucking summary: Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given;
What part of that don't YOU understand?
No genius, I was referring to
Look troll, I don't give a damn about what your stupid comment was referring to, DIAF.
I read the article and it says it has to "appeal to a more mainstream audience", and yet it's earnings and revenue are up sharply this year. So, what logic says that they need to appeal to a wider audience?? Do they think that going more mainstream (which I suspect means also changing some of the type of programming as well....) won't cause any of the existing audience to leave? This sounds like the media equivalent to New Coke.
Because there is more of everybody than there is of us.
Which, theoretically, means more money from advertisers.
Of course, what they're blind to is that by cutting open the golden goose to see how they can make it loved by everybody, they'll turn it into a corpse that will be liked by no body.
I bike, get your fucking polluting car off the road you are hurting my health with your fumes!
You ride a bike inside the bus?
Trolls do weird things.
A lot of place have laws now that you cant smoke outside. This is not about where someones rights end. This is truly about those who believe they are smarter than everyone else deciding what they think others should and should not be able to do.
It's actually about ending tobacco smoking because of the impact it has on the health of the people in those jurisdictions. The goal is 0% smokers. The steps are incremental, but the goal is obvious.
I think that's going too far (people should be able to enjoy a cigar now and then), but that's a natural consequences of things having gone too far in the other direction in the first place.
Maybe it's safer for you to just stay at home bubble boy.
Your right to smoke stops at the bubble boy's lungs.
If you think you can force your poison into his body, maybe he'll think he can force his blade or bullet into yours. So be civil, because you won't like an escalation of violence. You really won't.
The fact that the leaders of these companies tend to get executed indicates to me that the Chinese central government and the justice system takes the fight against crime and corruption very serious indeed.
You misspelled "simply do not value human life at all".
The only reason the central government fights corruption at lower levels is because those guys are skimming from their bribery pool.
They both feed on each other. It is not that people in Russia or China are naturally more corrupt, but that the system gives them all the wrong incentives.
If you responsible for allocating a billion dollars and your pay is only a few thousand and you know that you are stuck in that position for life, you will cheat. In a capitalistic system you have bonuses, you have promotions based on skill and you have other greedy people watching over you to not lose money.
Greed is like sea water: it is infinitely bigger than us, can swallow us whole, and the more you drink from it, the thirstier you get.
Catharsis is a myth; no research supports it.
Show me research that supports that catharsis is a myth.
Um, this is Utah.
Stop! Mormon time!
But seriously Utah, stop it with the stupid laws.
Which is a consequence of an economic system where the profit motive has been officially eliminated.
Wow, their economic system is so bad it can cause consequences backward through time that extend long before it was put in place? Incredible!
Get your head out of your ideological ass and look at capitalist Italy, or Mexico. Same corruption problems, different economic system. If you let ideology blind you to the root cause of the problems, it WILL bite you in your free market.
There might be feminists who do think that, but this doesn't mean they all do
I'm not talking about what some feminists think, I'm talking about what their actions show.
Example: They complain about sexist ads only when the sexism is against women. When you get an ad that objectifies men, they either remain quiet, or cheer.
It sounds like your rant should actually be about positive discrimination. Which isn't what this article is about, so you can save your anti-feminism rant for another article.
You should read the post I had replied to. Try to see if the changes they propose are for more humane rules that would apply to all parents, or to just one sex.
You misspelled "rampant institutionalized corruption at all levels of government".
And how is that different than the US?
There is corruption in the US (and canada, and europe, and japan, etc.), it's just not as pervasive.
From the "I thought feminism meant female equality with males" file and the interesting part was the bottom 'recommendation':
"The authors recommended that universities and companies create options for women with math talents who want to pursue math-intensive careers. These could include deferred start-up of tenure-track positions and part-time work that segues to full-time tenure-track work for women who are raising children, and courtesy appointments for women unable to work full time but who would benefit from use of university resources (e-mail, library resources, grant support) to continue their research from home."
Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.
People wonder why I given feminists as much credibility has hearing Saudi Arabia preach about human rights, tolerance and respect.
Sexism is discrimination based on sex, this is subdivided in two:
Equality is not achieved by feminism, discrimination is discrimination. There might have been a time when feminism meant to achieve equality, back when chauvinism was the norm, but that hasn't been true in my lifetime.
Countries like Russia, China, and India have had remarkable scientific achievements, but have been mired down by their inefficient socialist economies.
You misspelled "rampant institutionalized corruption at all levels of government".
I'm going to quote another piece of JMS which I think applies specifically to you:
iIt seems to me an odd statement to say, "Boy, I really love this show (comic, book, song, ...) so much that I'm going to download it and hurt their income and possibly destroy their ability to tell more such stories in future, THAT'S how much of a fan I am."
How does that apply to me?
Unless by me you mean "that strawman I've made".
STFU&DIAF already.
<sarcasim>I'm sure that a little smidgen of beef fat would piss off people that consider cattle holy creatures a lot more than all of those quarter pounder beef patties do.</sarcasim>
It's called "informed consent", look it up.
Of course no one would censor "motherfucker" or "fuck your mother" in the west on a website or in public television. Must be pure chance that everytime somebody says "cock" or "fuck" on TV in the US there is a beep sound.
Fun anecdote: a vermont PBS station aired the movie Slapshot during one of their "give us moneyz!" marathons one magical saturday night.
Now, that's an old low-budget movie about a prom-am hockey team, nothing special except in Quebec, where the "french" dub is a classic that the locals force every immigrant to watch.
Now, the thing about that is that about one in every 3 words in the original version is "fuck", and at their first begging-break, it became apparent that no one at the station had bothered to actually watch the damn thing before airing it.
Long story short, the faces of the PBS beggars was priceless when they came on live, realizing they had just aired a solid half hour of the most strongly worded profanities possible in the english language AND that they had to keep airing more if they wanted the money they were there to beg.
And every guy I knew in college had watched it! It was magical I tell you, magical.
I would rather they used a good filtering method and reused most of the oil for frying.
I bet you'll also want them to filter the dishwater and serve it to you in a glass?
Google knows all: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1331625/McDonalds-admits-using-beef-fat-for-vegetarian-french-fries.html
According to the article, the restaurant locations fry in vegetable oil, but the fries were partially fried in animal fat before they are frozen and shipped out to the restaurants.
I sit corrected.
to track users even more with cookies and the privacy implications.
Tools -> Clear Private Data...