Oh yes, I remember Simpsons episode 4F12, when Homer becomes Poochie. However, I must lodge an official protest with Fox, because clearly these are the same nerds who got Homer through Nuclear Physics 101 (by hacking the computer, no less, let their geek flags fly). I mean, what are we to believe, that Homer doesn't recognize the people to whom he owes his continued employment at SNPP? Boy, I really hope someone got fired for that blunder.
As a former ADA (Air Defense Artillery) officer in the U.S. Army, I can tell you that the Patriot Missile system was designed primarily to shoot down enemy aircraft. It's ability to kill missiles is a secondary feature.
You could paint all the walls, then use cameras to display on the wall what you would see if the wall wasn't there -- it would give the effect of having see-through walls (one-way).
"Fandom is about celebrating the story the way it is."
Oh, I'm sure that Gangsta Rap versions, puppet characters, and slapstick comedy are just "celebrating the story the way it is." Parody and satire distort the story -- deliberately - for comic effect. True fan fiction is going to be a lot closer to the real story. But parody cannot be outlawed, so they are stuck with it.
And Lucas has used elements from plenty other stories in star wars -- he must have decided that he wasn't going to celebrate those as they were, but take the ideas and reshape them into a new story.
That comment is just propaganda from someone trying to put a spin on the notion that "We created this franchise, millions of you love it and want to add your own ideas, but we still want complete control." The only reason they are allowing parody and documentary is because they have to. So they make up something that sounds like all the spin you hear from corporations, politicians, and anyone else who wants to keep their true motives from being exposed.
And the original "endorsement" by Lucas was just another piece of propaganda to mollify fans when they realized that they had started to alienate their customers, ala RIAA. There's nothing behind it but some lame PR.
The only thing is, that MPAA ratings are not law. A theater is not legally required to prevent <17 year-olds into R-rated films. It is a voluntary thing (that many theaters ignore). I don't have a problem with the MPAA system, comic-book ratings, game ratings, whatever. If retailers and arcades want to enforce age restrictions, that's their business. Just don't try to have the cops enforce it.
The RIAA's Rosen, however, sees some of this as bogus logic. "It's in vogue to diss record companies. That gives fans the license to say, `Well, we're only hurting record companies. We're not hurting the artists," she says. "People sometimes think `If an artist is well known enough and I've heard of them, they have a lot of money and I don't care.`
Hilary knows it's bogus logic to think that artists have a lot of money because she's part of the organization who makes sure that the artists don't have a lot of money. "You think that the artists are rich so copying CDs doesn't hurt? Well, you're wrong. We screw them so bad that they don't have two dimes to rub together. So think about that the next time you pirate music!"
I was always intrigued by the microscope when I saw it in the store, but it seemed so Fisher-Price that I figured that it couldn't be all that good. The way it's packaged and marketed makes it look like some cheesy toy, not a real scientific instrument. I guess I was wrong.
Exposure to others can aggravate existing prejudices. Also, though, exposure can prevent prejudices from forming.
One think worth noting, however, is the role of censorship and bias. If all anyone sees of the U.S. is what a government hostile to the U.S. wishes them to see, then the "global village" is really just a propaganda machine. Information can always be distorted to simultaneously suit opposite views -- watch any political debate and you can see that in action. And in reality, there is bias in all media (the U.S. is no exception). The stronger the bias, the greater the chances that it can be used to generate hostility.
Guess what, punk, the alternative to "extreme" individualism is "group think", which is when a self-appointed Solon tells every weak-kneed conformist he can find how to live his life
That's the extreme alternative. I don't see how what I said supports that. I was simply making the comment that excessive individualism causes problems. If you think that America is not excessively individualist, well, have at it, then. I believe it is. I never said we should become just like the Canadians or Europeans or whatever. But are you saying that we have nothing that we could learn from them as a society?
Funny how you complain about how we think of dirty harry cops as heroes and at the same time have such a lack of respect for the law, unlike those Brits
The point is that the way the heroic cops often operate is to break the laws when they become inconvenient. Not that they necessarily disagree with the particular law, but that it's a hindrance in this particular instance for them, so it's OK to break it. In the real world, this translates into unreasonable searches and seizures, beatings (a regular practice of many police departments, like it or not), distortion of evidence, coercing witnesses, etc. Here in Illinois, the Republican governor has halted the death penalty altogether because so many death-row convicts have been cleared by DNA evidence (some post-execution). Many of these cases involved deliberate police/DA misconduct. The attitude was, and is, "we've gotta get our man." These are extreme individualists in action.
America is the land of individualism and extremism. You can't just have a little, you want the whole enchilada, and who cares if anyone else goes hungry. So it's no suprise that the government, given a little power, immediately begins to abuse it. In America, we abuse everything -- food, drugs, the law, other people, etc. We lionize the "rogue cop who doesn't play by the rules," yet this is the guy grabbing us on the street and shaking us down for ID for no good reason. People think, hey I've got an important job to do, so it's OK if I stretch the rules. So of course the FBI and other law-enforcement types will do that. I remember reading an article about the cameras that they put all over England, and how the people who run them have a deep respect for the authority they are wielding and the limits they are supposed to respect. In the US, there's no way those guys would have any restraint. OK, so I'm ranting, but the point is, that the US culture does not lend itself to granting a great degree of unchecked power to any group, be it government, corporate, whatever.
...any more than it is to have undercover cops posing as hookers to catch the johns. Maybe it would be if they put a sign that said "steal me" on the car (I don't know what kind of sign they would put on the hookers, but that's a different story).
Let's get beyond the FUD here. Passport is being considered as a means to authenticate users of US government services online. Nothing more. This is a far cry from a "national ID," which implies that citizens are required to have it. When was the last time you used US government services online? If the government wants to select Microsoft as a vendor for a particular service, I may think it's a bad business decision, but I don't think I can claim my rights are being violated.
Unfortunately, the courts/politicians seem to think that the publisher has all the rights, including the right to grant or revoke any access "priveliges" as they see fit. That is, they do not have the obligation to provide you with the ability to make a digital copy, or even a high-quality analog copy.
I think it was in the DeCSS case where the court basically said that if you want to copy a movie for some fair use application, you could point a video camera at the TV screen. That this is not the quality you want is too bad for you, and the publisher does not have to allow you to make a better-quality reproduction. So there's the rationale for maintaining that fair use is being upheld even in the face of the DMCA.
Not that I agree with that interpretation, but that seems to be the current legal thinking. And I suspect that a great deal of the upcoming copyright battles will be fought over this issue. If I have the right to a digital copy, then I have the right to break the copy prevention measures. If I don't have that right, I'm "trespassing" or "a pirate" or whatever inflammatory Valenti-ism you wish to use.
"You're treating your lawyers as a bureaucratic nuisance, think twice. Some will be as valuable as a building full of Cobol programmers when your company is hit with a year 2000 lawsuit."
These days, who would want either a building full of lawyers or cobol programmers?
What the authors want is to sell TWO copies (or more) of the book instead of one, when two people could derive all the use out of one copy. They are advocating a wasteful approach simply because it profits them and benefits no one else.
So, to counteract the effects of burning fuel, they run the air over quicklime, then have to heat the calcium carbonate by burning fuel in order to keep the process going. Can a plant like this even keep up with its own emissions?
Why do I think that this makes as much sense as a car that uses an electric engine driving the back wheels and a generator on the front wheels that keeps the batteries charged?
Batteries, indeed. Hang the wireless monitor on your wall. Plug it in every 8 hours to re-charge, or maybe pop in a fresh set of 12 D-Cells. That's much more convenient than plugging it in and leaving it that way.
This will change everything! Just like wireless mice and keyboards totally rocked your world! Cords are so passe. You can't expect to compete in the 21st century if your monitor is connected to your PC by a cable.
SET HYPE_MACHINE=OFF
Neat toy, could be useful in a couple of applications. Like cordless mice. I'm still trying to envision a situation in which I would need a cordless monitor. After all, you still need a cord to plug it in.
A fundamental belief in the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom to innovate, and the basic principles of entrepreneurism and the free enterprise system of economics.
I thought that someone else is already protecting our right to innovate...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, I remember Simpsons episode 4F12, when Homer becomes Poochie. However, I must lodge an official protest with Fox, because clearly these are the same nerds who got Homer through Nuclear Physics 101 (by hacking the computer, no less, let their geek flags fly). I mean, what are we to believe, that Homer doesn't recognize the people to whom he owes his continued employment at SNPP? Boy, I really hope someone got fired for that blunder.
As a former ADA (Air Defense Artillery) officer in the U.S. Army, I can tell you that the Patriot Missile system was designed primarily to shoot down enemy aircraft. It's ability to kill missiles is a secondary feature.
You could paint all the walls, then use cameras to display on the wall what you would see if the wall wasn't there -- it would give the effect of having see-through walls (one-way).
Chicago Tribune
New Scientist
CNN
Tech Industry Forum
Slashdot
Keep looking, you'll eventually find it
Come to think of it, maybe a mushroom cloud is the best thing to come out of Nevada. Never mind...
Oh, I'm sure that Gangsta Rap versions, puppet characters, and slapstick comedy are just "celebrating the story the way it is." Parody and satire distort the story -- deliberately - for comic effect. True fan fiction is going to be a lot closer to the real story. But parody cannot be outlawed, so they are stuck with it.
And Lucas has used elements from plenty other stories in star wars -- he must have decided that he wasn't going to celebrate those as they were, but take the ideas and reshape them into a new story.
That comment is just propaganda from someone trying to put a spin on the notion that "We created this franchise, millions of you love it and want to add your own ideas, but we still want complete control." The only reason they are allowing parody and documentary is because they have to. So they make up something that sounds like all the spin you hear from corporations, politicians, and anyone else who wants to keep their true motives from being exposed.
And the original "endorsement" by Lucas was just another piece of propaganda to mollify fans when they realized that they had started to alienate their customers, ala RIAA. There's nothing behind it but some lame PR.
The only thing is, that MPAA ratings are not law. A theater is not legally required to prevent <17 year-olds into R-rated films. It is a voluntary thing (that many theaters ignore). I don't have a problem with the MPAA system, comic-book ratings, game ratings, whatever. If retailers and arcades want to enforce age restrictions, that's their business. Just don't try to have the cops enforce it.
Hilary knows it's bogus logic to think that artists have a lot of money because she's part of the organization who makes sure that the artists don't have a lot of money. "You think that the artists are rich so copying CDs doesn't hurt? Well, you're wrong. We screw them so bad that they don't have two dimes to rub together. So think about that the next time you pirate music!"
I was always intrigued by the microscope when I saw it in the store, but it seemed so Fisher-Price that I figured that it couldn't be all that good. The way it's packaged and marketed makes it look like some cheesy toy, not a real scientific instrument. I guess I was wrong.
Exposure to others can aggravate existing prejudices. Also, though, exposure can prevent prejudices from forming.
One think worth noting, however, is the role of censorship and bias. If all anyone sees of the U.S. is what a government hostile to the U.S. wishes them to see, then the "global village" is really just a propaganda machine. Information can always be distorted to simultaneously suit opposite views -- watch any political debate and you can see that in action. And in reality, there is bias in all media (the U.S. is no exception). The stronger the bias, the greater the chances that it can be used to generate hostility.
That's the extreme alternative. I don't see how what I said supports that. I was simply making the comment that excessive individualism causes problems. If you think that America is not excessively individualist, well, have at it, then. I believe it is. I never said we should become just like the Canadians or Europeans or whatever. But are you saying that we have nothing that we could learn from them as a society?
Funny how you complain about how we think of dirty harry cops as heroes and at the same time have such a lack of respect for the law, unlike those Brits
The point is that the way the heroic cops often operate is to break the laws when they become inconvenient. Not that they necessarily disagree with the particular law, but that it's a hindrance in this particular instance for them, so it's OK to break it. In the real world, this translates into unreasonable searches and seizures, beatings (a regular practice of many police departments, like it or not), distortion of evidence, coercing witnesses, etc. Here in Illinois, the Republican governor has halted the death penalty altogether because so many death-row convicts have been cleared by DNA evidence (some post-execution). Many of these cases involved deliberate police/DA misconduct. The attitude was, and is, "we've gotta get our man." These are extreme individualists in action.
Actually, I wasn't able to find "California Billing" anywhere on my statement. My understanding was that goatse.cx was a free site...
America is the land of individualism and extremism. You can't just have a little, you want the whole enchilada, and who cares if anyone else goes hungry. So it's no suprise that the government, given a little power, immediately begins to abuse it. In America, we abuse everything -- food, drugs, the law, other people, etc. We lionize the "rogue cop who doesn't play by the rules," yet this is the guy grabbing us on the street and shaking us down for ID for no good reason. People think, hey I've got an important job to do, so it's OK if I stretch the rules. So of course the FBI and other law-enforcement types will do that. I remember reading an article about the cameras that they put all over England, and how the people who run them have a deep respect for the authority they are wielding and the limits they are supposed to respect. In the US, there's no way those guys would have any restraint. OK, so I'm ranting, but the point is, that the US culture does not lend itself to granting a great degree of unchecked power to any group, be it government, corporate, whatever.
Actually, I'm both. I guess you blew my cover. Now I have to get a whole new slashdot account. Damn.
...any more than it is to have undercover cops posing as hookers to catch the johns. Maybe it would be if they put a sign that said "steal me" on the car (I don't know what kind of sign they would put on the hookers, but that's a different story).
Let's get beyond the FUD here. Passport is being considered as a means to authenticate users of US government services online. Nothing more. This is a far cry from a "national ID," which implies that citizens are required to have it. When was the last time you used US government services online? If the government wants to select Microsoft as a vendor for a particular service, I may think it's a bad business decision, but I don't think I can claim my rights are being violated.
Hmm, now if I can get pills that remove my need for food, air, water, and sex, I will legally qualify as a robot.
I think it was in the DeCSS case where the court basically said that if you want to copy a movie for some fair use application, you could point a video camera at the TV screen. That this is not the quality you want is too bad for you, and the publisher does not have to allow you to make a better-quality reproduction. So there's the rationale for maintaining that fair use is being upheld even in the face of the DMCA.
Not that I agree with that interpretation, but that seems to be the current legal thinking. And I suspect that a great deal of the upcoming copyright battles will be fought over this issue. If I have the right to a digital copy, then I have the right to break the copy prevention measures. If I don't have that right, I'm "trespassing" or "a pirate" or whatever inflammatory Valenti-ism you wish to use.
here's a choice article of his from the archive:
"You're treating your lawyers as a bureaucratic nuisance, think twice. Some will be as valuable as a building full of Cobol programmers when your company is hit with a year 2000 lawsuit."
These days, who would want either a building full of lawyers or cobol programmers?
What the authors want is to sell TWO copies (or more) of the book instead of one, when two people could derive all the use out of one copy. They are advocating a wasteful approach simply because it profits them and benefits no one else.
Why do I think that this makes as much sense as a car that uses an electric engine driving the back wheels and a generator on the front wheels that keeps the batteries charged?
That's funny! You grifted me good.
Batteries, indeed. Hang the wireless monitor on your wall. Plug it in every 8 hours to re-charge, or maybe pop in a fresh set of 12 D-Cells. That's much more convenient than plugging it in and leaving it that way.
SET HYPE_MACHINE=OFF
Neat toy, could be useful in a couple of applications. Like cordless mice. I'm still trying to envision a situation in which I would need a cordless monitor. After all, you still need a cord to plug it in.
I thought that someone else is already protecting our right to innovate...