At what point does Big Business learn enough about human psychology and "psychohistory" that it's malignant and no longer arguably neutral or benign?
News like this is a reminder that we passed that threshold some time ago.
The manager of Tatu, the russian two-girl band that pretended to be lesbians for profit, was a child psychologist. He's the one who came up with the "lets sell records by marketing soft core lesbian porn" concept.
It was bad enough with the spending by republicans; it appears that it will be worse with the spending by democrats.
There was a lot of big talk by Obama and democrats, too. But post-election, I have heard very little about "cutting spending." New cars for government employees doesn't exactly sound like "cutting unnecessary spending."
Is that new-car money spent from the car-maker saving money pushed by Bush, by any chance?
"republicans have to vote for this, too, but we're not changing anything in it." So, I'll criticize them for that.
They have changed things in it to accommodate republicans, so you're full of shit.
In his first week or so in office, has he done anything about it? Not really, but he sure is pushing other things (including abortion stuff).
He's reinstating logic in sexual health policies. Good for him, the religious nuts had a strangelhold on policy long enough to do some real damage.
IMO, what you push for when you are first given the power to push shows where your real priorities are.
Obama is different, one might say? Well, he doesn't seem particularly interested in cutting spending, so far. He's trying to get Republican/Conservative support on basically a spending bill (the "stimulus" plan). I haven't seen him pushing democrats to cut spending yet.
I didn't see the republicans pushing for smaller government recently.
There was a lot of big talk, but the government spending and debt kept getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
That gasoline engine in your car is inefficient compared to a big power generator that uses the same fuel. The size, the inability to efficiently process the waste heat...It all adds up.
Speaking of which, have you seen this http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/0037238 ? "BMW is unveiling its turbosteamer hybrid engine, which uses the excess heat in the exhaust system and reclaims 80% of it by powering a steam engine that assists the gas engine. "
Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.
I know there's a mercury thing about flooded valleys, but that lasts 10 years and the dams are older than that. I do wonder why they don't just harvest those trees instead of letting them rot and release their accumulated heavy metals, though.
Yes the pictures do speak for themselves. But where are the details? I can tie an SBC to the back of my dog's head and then wrap some wire to it's nose also. That doesn't make it a remote controlled dog.
I want proof and a blueprint on how to do this to a beautiful woman, just saying.
According to the IMDB FAQ there seems to be some disagreement on this
I'd say "reimagining" rather than "remake", much like Planet of the Apes. Except that the reimagined version of the first is better than the original, and the latters' sucks monkey ass.
Note that doing another version doesn't harms the original, in the same way as the "official sequels" do. For example, if somebody does a new silly version of Batman (there are already several) with a totally different cast, then despite being Batman, it will never damage the current saga of Christopher Nolan.
If I were you I'd think about how long it took for Batman to get away from the 60s incarnation. Burton tried, but Shoemacher brought it back again,, and it took a few more years before Nolan could make something good again (and superhero movies had to make a whole lot of millions before they let him).
we need to get off this rock and really dominate the galaxy.
Sky Marshal Dienes: We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*!
in this case, the use probably isn't fair according to those criteria. I base this on the four criteria themselves, rather than an analogy to a case nearly five decades ago
In a common law system (which goes for Boston and New York), the rulings of the past are as important as the original text, so you can bring them up to refute claims based on the original text...
But if I were to argue the 4 points, I'd pit the commercial use against the increased value through linking (1 and 4), and I'd argue the merits of the other 2 points to a draw. Basically, the first point is obviously going to the complaint, but I'd argue that using the material for profit in a different market and linking back to the original is a net gain for the first party caused by the actions of the accused: Everybody wins.
I would be interested to know what research you base that on.
A very dishonest research protocol designed to give that conclusion. It tests for incidental carcinogens resulting from combustion, and measures them from an UNFILTERED joint compared to a FILTERED cigarette. They then claim a conclusion based on the different materials burned.
What you are repeating is a clever bit of propaganda: They measured the difference between unfiltered joints and filtered cigarettes, and instead of concluding "filtering reduces carcinogens by a factor if 4", they declared "cannabis causes cancer". There are several things wrong with this conclusion, the first of which being that the sought-after active ingredients of cannabis, THC, are cancer-suppressants, while nicotine is carcinogenic. Another is that they measured different smoking technologies, and declared a difference between different materials smoked, rather than different methods.
When hearing about a scientific study, you need to make an effort to go look at what they actually measured, rather than simply believing their conclusions. They pull this sort of dishonest stunts all the time.
Alcohol is legal and yet we have tests for it and use them to find drunk people. It's not like we're going to make this substance totally free like air, more on the line of alcohol (to begin with;).
Why? It is not alcohol, it does not have he same effect as alcohol, so why treat it like alcohol?
If your argument is impairment, go look at the studies: Driving tired is MUCH more dangerous than driving stoned. Yet I see no attempts to outlaw driving after more than 12 hours of wakefulness.
Everything I've seen on the effects of marijuana on driving indicate that yes, it's mildly impairing
this study http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=2633&pid=108 found that it had a mild beneficiary effect. The site itself no longer displays the embarrassing data, but if you use that a googling start, you should find old references to that.
To be fair, I suspect that the reason the drivers were performing better stoned is that sobriety was a strange feeling to these regular tokers.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
You sound like one more person who fails to understand the concept of fair use and that old laws are not written with new technological possibilities in mind.
You might like to reflect on what you wrote there, until you understand the irony.
New technologies do not negate fair use, it just adds new uses. Some of which are fair, and some not.
I maintain that linking with an extract is fair: The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: âoequotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.â
Slashdot Mirror
At what point does Big Business learn enough about human psychology and "psychohistory" that it's malignant and no longer arguably neutral or benign?
News like this is a reminder that we passed that threshold some time ago.
The manager of Tatu, the russian two-girl band that pretended to be lesbians for profit, was a child psychologist.
He's the one who came up with the "lets sell records by marketing soft core lesbian porn" concept.
So, "some time ago", yes.
It was bad enough with the spending by republicans; it appears that it will be worse with the spending by democrats.
There was a lot of big talk by Obama and democrats, too. But post-election, I have heard very little about "cutting spending." New cars for government employees doesn't exactly sound like "cutting unnecessary spending."
Is that new-car money spent from the car-maker saving money pushed by Bush, by any chance?
"republicans have to vote for this, too, but we're not changing anything in it." So, I'll criticize them for that.
They have changed things in it to accommodate republicans, so you're full of shit.
In his first week or so in office, has he done anything about it? Not really, but he sure is pushing other things (including abortion stuff).
He's reinstating logic in sexual health policies. Good for him, the religious nuts had a strangelhold on policy long enough to do some real damage.
IMO, what you push for when you are first given the power to push shows where your real priorities are.
Stopping torture: YAY!
A single employee [...] worth $15k/yr
Wow, harsh.
Is there even any point to the game if you can't even be buggered to play it yourself?
Is porn worth it if you fast-forward through the story and dialogues?
Obama is different, one might say? Well, he doesn't seem particularly interested in cutting spending, so far. He's trying to get Republican/Conservative support on basically a spending bill (the "stimulus" plan). I haven't seen him pushing democrats to cut spending yet.
I didn't see the republicans pushing for smaller government recently.
There was a lot of big talk, but the government spending and debt kept getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.
Dam's aren't renewable, or emissions free. They depend on water and water flow changes, even in the biggest rivers.
Sun heats water, water drops to ground, flows through generator.
Are you a paid astroturfer? Why else would you pick such an obviously false position?
Hydro not renewable... damn!
It's almost certainly wildly inefficient.
That gasoline engine in your car is inefficient compared to a big power generator that uses the same fuel. The size, the inability to efficiently process the waste heat...It all adds up.
Speaking of which, have you seen this http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/0037238 ?
"BMW is unveiling its turbosteamer hybrid engine, which uses the excess heat in the exhaust system and reclaims 80% of it by powering a steam engine that assists the gas engine. "
Exactly how do they plan on filming the "little children engaged in their erotic games" ?
You show kids, then you show adults talking about children and their sexuality.
Terminator Salvation (technically a sequel, but one that isn't recognizing T3 as canon, and recast everyone to start a new franchise)
Really? GOOD!
T3 sucked so bad. So, so bad.
Dams are not environmentally clean
Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.
I know there's a mercury thing about flooded valleys, but that lasts 10 years and the dams are older than that. I do wonder why they don't just harvest those trees instead of letting them rot and release their accumulated heavy metals, though.
More mercury from coal plants used to power incandescent bulbs, 100% of it lost to the environment. Look at whole life, not just one part.
I get my power from HYDRO!!!!
Stop trying to force mercury in my home just because others have stupid power sources.
Yes the pictures do speak for themselves. But where are the details? I can tie an SBC to the back of my dog's head and then wrap some wire to it's nose also. That doesn't make it a remote controlled dog.
I want proof and a blueprint on how to do this to a beautiful woman, just saying.
No problem.
According to the IMDB FAQ there seems to be some disagreement on this
I'd say "reimagining" rather than "remake", much like Planet of the Apes.
Except that the reimagined version of the first is better than the original, and the latters' sucks monkey ass.
Note that doing another version doesn't harms the original, in the same way as the "official sequels" do. For example, if somebody does a new silly version of Batman (there are already several) with a totally different cast, then despite being Batman, it will never damage the current saga of Christopher Nolan.
If I were you I'd think about how long it took for Batman to get away from the 60s incarnation. Burton tried, but Shoemacher brought it back again,, and it took a few more years before Nolan could make something good again (and superhero movies had to make a whole lot of millions before they let him).
So does Chow Yung fat, do a little macbre dance to "clowns to the left, jokers to the right"? That would be interesting.
I saw it about... wow, ten years ago. I seem to remember talking about the fact that it lacked the mind-fucking quality that Dogs had. So I'll say no.
we need to get off this rock and really dominate the galaxy.
Sky Marshal Dienes: We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*!
yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs
Reservoir Dogs is a remake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_on_Fire_(1987_film)
in this case, the use probably isn't fair according to those criteria. I base this on the four criteria themselves, rather than an analogy to a case nearly five decades ago
In a common law system (which goes for Boston and New York), the rulings of the past are as important as the original text, so you can bring them up to refute claims based on the original text...
But if I were to argue the 4 points, I'd pit the commercial use against the increased value through linking (1 and 4), and I'd argue the merits of the other 2 points to a draw.
Basically, the first point is obviously going to the complaint, but I'd argue that using the material for profit in a different market and linking back to the original is a net gain for the first party caused by the actions of the accused: Everybody wins.
"Cannabis/Marijuana is carcinogenic"
I would be interested to know what research you base that on.
A very dishonest research protocol designed to give that conclusion.
It tests for incidental carcinogens resulting from combustion, and measures them from an UNFILTERED joint compared to a FILTERED cigarette.
They then claim a conclusion based on the different materials burned.
example of this FUD: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHKG10478820080129
Cannabis/Marijuana is carcinogenic, and about four times as carcinogenic as tobacco.
No it is not: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
What you are repeating is a clever bit of propaganda: They measured the difference between unfiltered joints and filtered cigarettes, and instead of concluding "filtering reduces carcinogens by a factor if 4", they declared "cannabis causes cancer".
There are several things wrong with this conclusion, the first of which being that the sought-after active ingredients of cannabis, THC, are cancer-suppressants, while nicotine is carcinogenic.
Another is that they measured different smoking technologies, and declared a difference between different materials smoked, rather than different methods.
When hearing about a scientific study, you need to make an effort to go look at what they actually measured, rather than simply believing their conclusions. They pull this sort of dishonest stunts all the time.
Give me one reason why prohibition on marijuana is not like prohibition on alcohol
Jesus never miracled any pot into existence.
Alcohol is legal and yet we have tests for it and use them to find drunk people. It's not like we're going to make this substance totally free like air, more on the line of alcohol (to begin with ;).
Why? It is not alcohol, it does not have he same effect as alcohol, so why treat it like alcohol?
If your argument is impairment, go look at the studies: Driving tired is MUCH more dangerous than driving stoned. Yet I see no attempts to outlaw driving after more than 12 hours of wakefulness.
Everything I've seen on the effects of marijuana on driving indicate that yes, it's mildly impairing
this study http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=2633&pid=108 found that it had a mild beneficiary effect.
The site itself no longer displays the embarrassing data, but if you use that a googling start, you should find old references to that.
To be fair, I suspect that the reason the drivers were performing better stoned is that sobriety was a strange feeling to these regular tokers.
cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven.
said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
You sound like one more person who fails to understand the concept of fair use and that old laws are not written with new technological possibilities in mind.
You might like to reflect on what you wrote there, until you understand the irony.
New technologies do not negate fair use, it just adds new uses. Some of which are fair, and some not.
I maintain that linking with an extract is fair:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: âoequotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.â