Yeah, its tough because the "its costly because of the people" argument takes into account the $10M your superstar actor makes. But he makes that money not because they're the most talented actor ever (you probably haven't heard of that guy), but because his name will sell the movie. "Bankable" means they can bank a certain return on the actor's name alone, i.e. "the next _______ movie". If you can get to the point where your name goes in there, you're all set.
Of course, if distribution and all that changes who knows, as you won't need the big returns for the "big" movies. 5 years is ridiculous, sorry. But later on where everything is convincingly done on blue screen? Maybe. I still think there always needs to be a "draw" for something. Whether its artificial publicity, who's involved, or word of mouth once the movie has gotten a following, you need something. Top of the Youtube front page is one thing, but you better believe if that was the major distro channel then the "dinosaur" media companies would have that page bought out in a heartbeat. There's also the fact that shoestring budget movies can't pay the talent, but they also can't pay the work-a-day types that make a movie happen - and there's a lot of those and always will be if the movie is of a decent size. As long as people are willing to pay for it (the MPAA wants you to believe they will and won't at the same time), then there will be people willing to do it for a job, and the costs will still be high. 5 years, no way. 25? It won't be the same, but it won't be some garage film utopia where all movies are done for the art and the public suddenly enjoys amateur films over high production value blockbusters either.
That works for us, but I've heard of a curious trend amongst the lusers to actually invite _others_ into their local meatspace proximity. Like not sycing their viewing experience and then commenting on the film via IRC but using actual outdated verbal communication. Very odd behavior, but then, they are lusers and not really expected to follow normal protocols.
Yes, because we know that when you sign up for your first wordpress account, you do it with the solemn oath that you will only blog for truth & justice, and with the moral backbone of a Saint.
Its still an edge (See here.). In the long long run you won't win. GGP states the opposite: "it's pretty much the only game where the house isn't assured of winning over the longterm on any given player"
With the exception of card counting, how do you figure that? The house always has an edge, which means that over a long term they're guaranteed to win. Its a smaller edge than some games, sure, but its still and edge. And if you're saying blackjack is a public service, what about craps? Its got better odds in most places.
Mines a year old and could do 16 if I put up the cash (and threw out the 8 I have), so I don't think its a stretch to think we'll be getting there in the near future.
Yeah, it would be completely crazy to take portability and size into account for something like a tablet, which, just like your 42" TV is designed to be bolted into the wall and used in one place and one place only. In fact, we should just jump straight to 42" tablets and be done with it.
I don't think they care about you watching live so much as they care about the ratings for advertisers. I'm guessing they have all the data for Hulu, but maybe the ads aren't as lucrative?
But again, that's just a facet of ever advancing medical technology. In some ways, rich children that benefit from the best medicine and education are already mentally and physically superior because of that. But cloning by itself doesn't affect the situation, as you'd need modifications to the genes to get to a situation where you have perfect people you'd want to clone anyways.
Yeah, I get the technical issues, but I think the moral arguments are mostly assuming that cloning is perfect and we can do whatever we need to do.
But in terms of the other stuff, if you did a thought experiment where one child was a clone and one wasn't, if they were both via IVF what's the difference, really? Its ridiculous to even suggest that you'd somehow "own" the resulting person as it is to suggest parents "own" a test tube baby. The only real parallel I can see is a lesbian couple that has a child fertilized by donor sperm and one member's egg. The child's guardian is whomever adopts it legally, genetics don't count.
The gene altering stuff is interesting, and I can see the point, but that doesn't have much to do with cloning but more manipulating genes of embryos. Once you get to the point where you're manipulating perfect people, does it matter that you clone them? Perfect people seems like the real issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, its tough because the "its costly because of the people" argument takes into account the $10M your superstar actor makes. But he makes that money not because they're the most talented actor ever (you probably haven't heard of that guy), but because his name will sell the movie. "Bankable" means they can bank a certain return on the actor's name alone, i.e. "the next _______ movie". If you can get to the point where your name goes in there, you're all set.
Of course, if distribution and all that changes who knows, as you won't need the big returns for the "big" movies. 5 years is ridiculous, sorry. But later on where everything is convincingly done on blue screen? Maybe. I still think there always needs to be a "draw" for something. Whether its artificial publicity, who's involved, or word of mouth once the movie has gotten a following, you need something. Top of the Youtube front page is one thing, but you better believe if that was the major distro channel then the "dinosaur" media companies would have that page bought out in a heartbeat. There's also the fact that shoestring budget movies can't pay the talent, but they also can't pay the work-a-day types that make a movie happen - and there's a lot of those and always will be if the movie is of a decent size. As long as people are willing to pay for it (the MPAA wants you to believe they will and won't at the same time), then there will be people willing to do it for a job, and the costs will still be high. 5 years, no way. 25? It won't be the same, but it won't be some garage film utopia where all movies are done for the art and the public suddenly enjoys amateur films over high production value blockbusters either.
I guess you had to be there?
Just use samples of the nerds laughing from Revenge of the Nerds. No one would notice.
Yay! Can't wait for punkbuster PS3.
That works for us, but I've heard of a curious trend amongst the lusers to actually invite _others_ into their local meatspace proximity. Like not sycing their viewing experience and then commenting on the film via IRC but using actual outdated verbal communication. Very odd behavior, but then, they are lusers and not really expected to follow normal protocols.
Windows version does - latest Chrome 8.0.552.224.
Windows version does - latest Chrome 8.0.552.224.
Windows version does - latest Chrome 8.0.552.224.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the problem - cutting and pasting seems to work in this box with any text.
Any reason why the secure site wouldn't work for this?
Fuck you, it works!
Fuck you, it works!
Fuck you, it works!
Hey, I only wrote that once! It works!
Yes, because we know that when you sign up for your first wordpress account, you do it with the solemn oath that you will only blog for truth & justice, and with the moral backbone of a Saint.
1996 called, it wants its internet back.
Its still an edge (See here.). In the long long run you won't win. GGP states the opposite: "it's pretty much the only game where the house isn't assured of winning over the longterm on any given player"
With the exception of card counting, how do you figure that? The house always has an edge, which means that over a long term they're guaranteed to win. Its a smaller edge than some games, sure, but its still and edge. And if you're saying blackjack is a public service, what about craps? Its got better odds in most places.
Radon gas - otherwise known as "devil farts". 4.5B years not needed, just a good breakfast of sinners and some beans.
There's no winning against magical arguments. Don't even bother.
Obviously because they're eeeeeevil.
Mines a year old and could do 16 if I put up the cash (and threw out the 8 I have), so I don't think its a stretch to think we'll be getting there in the near future.
Yeah, it would be completely crazy to take portability and size into account for something like a tablet, which, just like your 42" TV is designed to be bolted into the wall and used in one place and one place only. In fact, we should just jump straight to 42" tablets and be done with it.
It doesn't have caprica either.
lol, "Run away, run away!"
Yeah, seriously. If there's ever been a case for the "haha" tag, this is it.
What's wrong with sailing? If you had said "no holds barred bloodsport" that might have fit your argument a little more.
Isn't the second question redundant? Or maybe, "If not" instead of "Also,".
I don't think they care about you watching live so much as they care about the ratings for advertisers. I'm guessing they have all the data for Hulu, but maybe the ads aren't as lucrative?
But again, that's just a facet of ever advancing medical technology. In some ways, rich children that benefit from the best medicine and education are already mentally and physically superior because of that. But cloning by itself doesn't affect the situation, as you'd need modifications to the genes to get to a situation where you have perfect people you'd want to clone anyways.
I'm cool with that as long as it doesn't have a brain.
Yeah, I get the technical issues, but I think the moral arguments are mostly assuming that cloning is perfect and we can do whatever we need to do.
But in terms of the other stuff, if you did a thought experiment where one child was a clone and one wasn't, if they were both via IVF what's the difference, really? Its ridiculous to even suggest that you'd somehow "own" the resulting person as it is to suggest parents "own" a test tube baby. The only real parallel I can see is a lesbian couple that has a child fertilized by donor sperm and one member's egg. The child's guardian is whomever adopts it legally, genetics don't count.
The gene altering stuff is interesting, and I can see the point, but that doesn't have much to do with cloning but more manipulating genes of embryos. Once you get to the point where you're manipulating perfect people, does it matter that you clone them? Perfect people seems like the real issue.