I would like to espouse the theory that Tony is not dead. I believe *the viewer* is dead. People may have had a point about Tony dying if the series were shot primarily in first person. But it's not. And besides, Tony tied up most of his loose ends during the episode. Who was left to whack him? (Not to mention that David Chase seems to have taken some pains to add the little-known song "I'm Alive" by Tommy James & The Shondells to the jukebox list, and the fact that the final song was called "Don't Stop Believing".)
No. *We* got shot by the suspicious Italian guy when he was coming out of the bathroom, or perhaps by the two African-American guys (just like Tony's close encounter in Season 1).
Clearly the end was meant to be somewhat ambiguous (to understate the point), but I truly believe that the intention was to kill US, not to kill Tony. Life goes on for the Soprano family, just like it has in every other episode. It does NOT go on for us. The viewer finally experiences what has happened to so many other characters on the show. We're dead before we even hear the shot.
Tony didn't get whacked. WE DID.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would complain about the ending. It's difficult to get more closure on a TV show than one's own death.
#1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media #2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran #3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger #4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US #5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo #6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy #7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq #8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act #9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall #10 Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines #13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup #14 Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US #15 Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner #16 Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court #17 Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story #19 Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever #20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem #21 Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers #22 $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed #23 US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe #24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year #25 US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region
Hmmm. I read TFA, and looked up the Reuters original from which the quotes from the mouthpiece were drawn, and all he says is: "By [the time we reach our sales goals of 1 million hybrid units annually], we expect margins to be equal to gasoline cars" and "There really hasn't been that much of a difference in margins [after the government stopped giving incentives for hybrid purchases]. In a sense, you could say things are finally normalizing now. The Prius will soon enter its fifth year, and all this time we had no incentives on it." The 100% hybrid by 2020 statement appears nowhere in the article. That crap in TFA is just speculation.
Not to mention the fact that Toyota is already producing biofuel cars for the market in Brazil. I wouldn't say that hybrid is the only trick they've got up their sleeve.
But from what I know, (and granted, that's not much), hybrid technology just uses the power generated by the engine to recharge the batteries. It doesn't *have to be* gasoline (but of course, gas-hybrid cars are obviously the most common today). My point was that just because they are transitioning to gasoline-hybrid cars now doesn't prevent them from moving from gasoline-hybrids to hydrogen-hybrids in the future.
Where are you getting your data that Japan has low sex crime rates?
I live in Japan, and I personally know a large number of women who have been sexually assaulted. you might have heard the word "chikan", which describes men who molest women. Usually on trains. This is a social problem so grave that there are now women-only train cars. As I recall, I've read one statistic that said something like 1/3 of all women can expect to be groped/molested on a train to one degree or another by the 25th birthday.
And this cannot be brushed off by saying "Japanese trains are packed, and women just think that any old body contact is rape nowadays". I have personally taken the near-abandoned first train home in the morning, and watched a drunken Japanese businessman start pawing at the crotch and ass of one of my female Australian friends right in front of me. A quick shout of the word "chikan" was enough to end the incident, but Japanese women are usually hesitant to do this because it's a source of embarrassment for the both of them. This often results in the assault usually continuing unabated, and going unreported.
I am not alone in having witnessed this. My cousin lives in Tokyo and once sprang to the defence of a girl who was being molested on the train by grabbing the assaulter's fingers and breaking them.
There is also a not-insignificant amount of stalking and lurking, as well as men taking up-skirt camera pictures on escalators.
I would really check up on your data again, and if it does in fact support your claim, I would suggest that it: a) refers only to instances of penetrative rape and not sexual assault; or b) refers only to instances reported to the police, the vast majority of instances, IMO, not being reported.
So what's wrong with that? What's wrong with converting one's boredom or downtime into a product that benefits people?
I haven't read the article, so I don't know if this is supposed to be a slam against open-source contributors or not, but I think it's safe to say that people who choose to do this with their free time are certainly being more productive than those who just sit and play Evercrack for hours on end.
If these people were charging for their product, you'd call their motivation "entrepreneurial spirit", but since they're giving it away, you slight them by saying that they contribute only because they're bored?
To be honest, it wouldn't have been to hard to "discover" the park. It's connected to the Beijing subway, it's been open since 1986, and it's rated as a AAAA tourist attraction.
Digg This: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 by Kevin Rose at 9pm, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website
Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts...
In building and shaping the site I've always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We've always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
You don't see a conflict between these two statements?
Quote: "A boycott means I just plain don't care what they are doing anymore because I am NOT going to buy their product for ANY reason." Quote: "The idea behind a boycott is that sales decrease so the company has to take notice..."
Why would you want them to "take notice" if you "don't care what they are doing anymore" and are "not going to buy their product for ANY reason."
And anyway, as I said, your "boycott" is pointless unless you spell out the reasons for it in no uncertain terms.
To offer an anecdote, I used to be a vegan. I didn't go to any restaurants that didn't offer vegan-friendly dishes. I never explained my choice to the owners of any restaurants to which I refused to go. They simply *never knew* that they had lost my business, and not a single restaurant in my neighbourhood made the change to offering vegan dishes. Had I simply explained my relatively simple request that they buy the occasional $1/block of tofu, I'm sure it could have been accommodated.
In the end, *they* lost my business, *I* lost a lot of good eating opportunities, and my point didn't even get through.
Just make sure you--and anyone else who chooses to boycott Sony products--e-mail them and tell them that the reason you won't be purchasing any more of their products is their copyright protection schemes. Otherwise, they're libel to blame decreasing sales on piracy and up the ante even further.
The reason Bush hasn't ratified it is, as I recall, that the convention contains a clause outlawing the death penalty on minors. A lot of Bush's far-right base are advocates for the DP on minors.
Did you actually read the Wiktionary link you posted? If not, let me paste it here for you.
1. A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally
2. Colloq. The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.
3. Colloq. An unfortunate and coincidental turn of events that could have been avoided had all parties involved known more.
The Wikileaks situation certainly does not qualify as "ironic" under #1 or #3. You've suggested that it qualifies under #2, and then changed the word "improbable" to "unexpected" (not the same thing).
The only reason this news was "unexpected" was because of our own ignorance--we didn't realize that the site existed in the first place. But ignorance != irony. Had you known about this site's existence, this news getting leaked is EXACTLY what you would expect given the purpose of the site, and the people who would create or frequent such a site. It is not "improbable", and it is not "ironic".
May I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word "irony", there's nothing "ironic" about it at all.
Ironic: happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this
What's unexpected about the existence of a site that publicizes leaks getting leaked? Nothing. Obviously, the people who are interested in such a site are interested in leaking information, and its' existence won't remain secret for long.
It's about as ironic as a news agency like CNN getting mentioned in the news.
If its' existence had *not* being leaked, *that* would have been ironic.
The Slashdot title "North Korea Air Sample Shows No Radiation" is still 100% incorrect, as is this one from the submitter:
"According to CNN.com, air samples taken over North Korea have not yet shown any radiation from the event on Monday that North Korea claims was a nuclear test. This is not definitive proof that the event was non-nuclear, as it may either have been so small and deep that it did not let any radioactive debris escape, or perhaps the North Koreans sealed the site."
May I quote to you the title of the very CNN article the submitter linked to: U.S. intelligence statement: N. Korea radioactivity detected
It then goes on to say: "A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows 'radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test,' according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official."
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to espouse the theory that Tony is not dead. I believe *the viewer* is dead. People may have had a point about Tony dying if the series were shot primarily in first person. But it's not. And besides, Tony tied up most of his loose ends during the episode. Who was left to whack him? (Not to mention that David Chase seems to have taken some pains to add the little-known song "I'm Alive" by Tommy James & The Shondells to the jukebox list, and the fact that the final song was called "Don't Stop Believing".)
No. *We* got shot by the suspicious Italian guy when he was coming out of the bathroom, or perhaps by the two African-American guys (just like Tony's close encounter in Season 1).
Clearly the end was meant to be somewhat ambiguous (to understate the point), but I truly believe that the intention was to kill US, not to kill Tony. Life goes on for the Soprano family, just like it has in every other episode. It does NOT go on for us. The viewer finally experiences what has happened to so many other characters on the show. We're dead before we even hear the shot.
Tony didn't get whacked. WE DID.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would complain about the ending. It's difficult to get more closure on a TV show than one's own death.
Actually, there was a creation museum that opened in Alberta, Canada this week as well.w s/20070605/creation_museum_070605/20070605
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe
#1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
#3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
#4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
#5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo
#6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
#7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
#8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
#9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
#10 Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
#11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
#12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
#13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
#14 Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
#15 Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
#16 Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
#17 Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
#19 Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
#20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem
#21 Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
#22 $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
#23 US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
#24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
#25 US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region
I agree 100%. Google, change it back, please.
Hmmm. I read TFA, and looked up the Reuters original from which the quotes from the mouthpiece were drawn, and all he says is: "By [the time we reach our sales goals of 1 million hybrid units annually], we expect margins to be equal to gasoline cars" and "There really hasn't been that much of a difference in margins [after the government stopped giving incentives for hybrid purchases]. In a sense, you could say things are finally normalizing now. The Prius will soon enter its fifth year, and all this time we had no incentives on it." The 100% hybrid by 2020 statement appears nowhere in the article. That crap in TFA is just speculation.
3 20070510
Original Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTKX00276
Not to mention the fact that Toyota is already producing biofuel cars for the market in Brazil. I wouldn't say that hybrid is the only trick they've got up their sleeve.
But from what I know, (and granted, that's not much), hybrid technology just uses the power generated by the engine to recharge the batteries. It doesn't *have to be* gasoline (but of course, gas-hybrid cars are obviously the most common today). My point was that just because they are transitioning to gasoline-hybrid cars now doesn't prevent them from moving from gasoline-hybrids to hydrogen-hybrids in the future.
As far as I know, there's no reason that you can't have a hydrogen-driven hybrid.
Where are you getting your data that Japan has low sex crime rates?
I live in Japan, and I personally know a large number of women who have been sexually assaulted. you might have heard the word "chikan", which describes men who molest women. Usually on trains. This is a social problem so grave that there are now women-only train cars. As I recall, I've read one statistic that said something like 1/3 of all women can expect to be groped/molested on a train to one degree or another by the 25th birthday.
And this cannot be brushed off by saying "Japanese trains are packed, and women just think that any old body contact is rape nowadays". I have personally taken the near-abandoned first train home in the morning, and watched a drunken Japanese businessman start pawing at the crotch and ass of one of my female Australian friends right in front of me. A quick shout of the word "chikan" was enough to end the incident, but Japanese women are usually hesitant to do this because it's a source of embarrassment for the both of them. This often results in the assault usually continuing unabated, and going unreported.
I am not alone in having witnessed this. My cousin lives in Tokyo and once sprang to the defence of a girl who was being molested on the train by grabbing the assaulter's fingers and breaking them.
There is also a not-insignificant amount of stalking and lurking, as well as men taking up-skirt camera pictures on escalators.
I would really check up on your data again, and if it does in fact support your claim, I would suggest that it: a) refers only to instances of penetrative rape and not sexual assault; or b) refers only to instances reported to the police, the vast majority of instances, IMO, not being reported.
So what's wrong with that? What's wrong with converting one's boredom or downtime into a product that benefits people?
I haven't read the article, so I don't know if this is supposed to be a slam against open-source contributors or not, but I think it's safe to say that people who choose to do this with their free time are certainly being more productive than those who just sit and play Evercrack for hours on end.
If these people were charging for their product, you'd call their motivation "entrepreneurial spirit", but since they're giving it away, you slight them by saying that they contribute only because they're bored?
Here's the official English web page for the park:a sp
http://www.bs-amusement-park.com/ChinaIn/about-e.
To be honest, it wouldn't have been to hard to "discover" the park. It's connected to the Beijing subway, it's been open since 1986, and it's rated as a AAAA tourist attraction.
http://blog.digg.com/?p=74
Digg This: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
by Kevin Rose at 9pm, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website
Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts...
In building and shaping the site I've always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We've always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
Digg on,
Kevin
You don't see a conflict between these two statements?
Quote: "A boycott means I just plain don't care what they are doing anymore because I am NOT going to buy their product for ANY reason."
Quote: "The idea behind a boycott is that sales decrease so the company has to take notice..."
Why would you want them to "take notice" if you "don't care what they are doing anymore" and are "not going to buy their product for ANY reason."
And anyway, as I said, your "boycott" is pointless unless you spell out the reasons for it in no uncertain terms.
To offer an anecdote, I used to be a vegan. I didn't go to any restaurants that didn't offer vegan-friendly dishes. I never explained my choice to the owners of any restaurants to which I refused to go. They simply *never knew* that they had lost my business, and not a single restaurant in my neighbourhood made the change to offering vegan dishes. Had I simply explained my relatively simple request that they buy the occasional $1/block of tofu, I'm sure it could have been accommodated.
In the end, *they* lost my business, *I* lost a lot of good eating opportunities, and my point didn't even get through.
I'm not disputing any of that, all I said was that if you want to have an effect, you have to tell them WHY you are doing it.
If they don't know the problem, they can't fix it.
I have no problem with a boycott itself.
And yes, I realize I misspelled "liable".
Just make sure you--and anyone else who chooses to boycott Sony products--e-mail them and tell them that the reason you won't be purchasing any more of their products is their copyright protection schemes. Otherwise, they're libel to blame decreasing sales on piracy and up the ante even further.
The reason Bush hasn't ratified it is, as I recall, that the convention contains a clause outlawing the death penalty on minors. A lot of Bush's far-right base are advocates for the DP on minors.
Did you actually read the Wiktionary link you posted? If not, let me paste it here for you.
1. A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally
2. Colloq. The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.
3. Colloq. An unfortunate and coincidental turn of events that could have been avoided had all parties involved known more.
The Wikileaks situation certainly does not qualify as "ironic" under #1 or #3. You've suggested that it qualifies under #2, and then changed the word "improbable" to "unexpected" (not the same thing).
The only reason this news was "unexpected" was because of our own ignorance--we didn't realize that the site existed in the first place. But ignorance != irony. Had you known about this site's existence, this news getting leaked is EXACTLY what you would expect given the purpose of the site, and the people who would create or frequent such a site. It is not "improbable", and it is not "ironic".
May I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word "irony", there's nothing "ironic" about it at all.
Ironic: happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this
What's unexpected about the existence of a site that publicizes leaks getting leaked? Nothing. Obviously, the people who are interested in such a site are interested in leaking information, and its' existence won't remain secret for long.
It's about as ironic as a news agency like CNN getting mentioned in the news.
If its' existence had *not* being leaked, *that* would have been ironic.
This is a hyperbolic chamber: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30990
Japanese verb conjugation is simple. It's the agglutination that makes things difficult.
Compatibility with Mac OS X "Services", such as Chinese Text Converter, etc.
Point being?
The Slashdot title "North Korea Air Sample Shows No Radiation" is still 100% incorrect, as is this one from the submitter:
"According to CNN.com, air samples taken over North Korea have not yet shown any radiation from the event on Monday that North Korea claims was a nuclear test. This is not definitive proof that the event was non-nuclear, as it may either have been so small and deep that it did not let any radioactive debris escape, or perhaps the North Koreans sealed the site."
May I quote to you the title of the very CNN article the submitter linked to:
U.S. intelligence statement: N. Korea radioactivity detected
It then goes on to say: "A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows 'radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test,' according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official."
Well, a quick search for "Linux sucks" reveals *exactly* the same number of hits as "Windows sucks".
+ goats%22&btnG=Search
Unfortunately for Microsoft, it has also been discovered that their documentation "blows goats":
http://google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22blows
Apparently, so does some guy named Tim.