The difference is that the government makes the road signs that you refer to. They represent the law. It's not illegal to imitate other road signs, such as billboards or yard sale signs, etc. provided that they don't violate copyrights and what-have-you.
This whole sign analogy fails to make sense if you give it even the slightest bit of thought.
Of course, this comment won't get modded up, since I posted too late, and you will be free to continue believing that your analogy is logical.
This is from another website that I post on, about some murders being blamed on the Matrix. I feel that it applies here.
--
Why do people feel the need to blame murders and crime on movies, music, art, Democratic politics, Republican politics, etc.? There were plenty of murders before any one of these things existed. People just do it to further their own cause. They use the death of another person as a stepping stone to get what they want. It's disgusting, really. First of all, by blaming anything or anyone other than the murderer, you remove blame from him/her. Further, the argument doesn't hold water for the following reasons (The first one is a theory I propose, the rest are facts): 1) a) Legally, a person is not culpable for their actions if it was an act of insanity. In the legal sense, insanity refers to the inability to distinguish between "right" and "wrong". b) The act of murder is one that is, in general, condemned by all humans. In the moral and legal sense, it is "wrong" and we expect all people to be able to recognize this. c) A person watching a film in which people are killed should be able to recognize that what he/she sees on the screen is "wrong". If they do, they will not reproduce these actions. If they do not, they may reproduce these actions, however, if they do, they are clearly unable to distinguish between right and wrong. d) Therefore, they are legally, and probably clinically, insane, and were so at the time that they watched the film. e) They are clearly not the basis on which one would wish to make such an analysis.
2) By condemning culture such as films, the VAST majority of viewers who do not go on to kill someone is ignored. This is a simple example of the fundamental scientific error of observational selection or "counting the hits, and forgetting the misses". It's an extreme example, as well, since the number of misses is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than the number of hits.
3) Committing another fundamental scientific error: "Confusion of causation and correlation". Yes, people who commit violent crimes may tend to watch violent movies, but are violent people drawn to violent movies or do violent movies cause people to become violent? Occam's Razor, and common sense, tell us that the former is almost certainly fact. The latter remains to be seen.
4) By assuming that the mere act of watching a film BEFORE a violent crime occurs has caused the violent crime to occur (with no substantiating proof of causation), one commits the fundamental scientific error of "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" or "it happened after, therefore it was caused by". With some hyperbole, it is as nonsensical as arguing that brushing your teeth in the morning caused you to get hit by a bus in the afternoon.
5) Committing YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by relying on the statistics of small numbers. Just because there are a few individuals who have committed such crimes does not mean that the trend holds true for the population as a whole. For example, it is a fact that approximately one out of every five people on Earth is Chinese. You may argue that this is not true because you know 100 people and none of them are Chinese. Small numbers don't work for scientific proof.
6) My oh my...Who would figure...YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by misunderstanding the nature of statistics. Please provide evidence that the rate of murder that is purportedly caused by watching violent films is greater than the rate of murder that is not caused by watching violent films. Indeed, I would wager that it is not. The large majority of murders, I would wager, occur during other crimes, or due to personal vendettas. Some of the most horrible murder sprees have no association with art, film, etc. (Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, The Green River killer, Richard Ramirez (the only connection they found between him and AC/DC was a ball cap), etc.)
If the few CRAZY PEOPLE who got their "inspiration" from art had no
...paying $640 for a toilet seat cover, $435 for a hammer or $7,600 for a coffee maker.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17695
I thought that when they removed the caffeine from natural (i.e. caffeinated) coffee to make decaf, they sold the caffeine to the soft-drink companies so that they could put it in their colas...Aren't they eliminating a source of profit here? Or do they lose money on the caffeine extraction process?
Only a partial solution
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Yes. Animals are treated cruelly in factory farms.
Anyone who wishes to view the way that chickens are treated in captivity can look
here. Granted, this is a video of the way that Kentucky Fried Chicken treats their birds, and they are known to be particularly cruel.
Some interesting facts about chickens raised for eggs and/or slaughter:
Percent of laying hens that suffer broken bones in their cage: 30%
Male chicks (from laying hens) killed per year by suffocation, gas, or grinding in the U.S.: 200 million
Male chicks used per day for fertilizer, chicken food, and pet food in Canada: 40000 (Note the cannibalism here. Also, cow parts are fed to chicks, and chick parts are fed to cows, which can possibly lead to the spread of BSE ("Mad Cow"))
Broiler chickens that have trouble walking: 90%
Chickens still alive at the scald tank: 20%
Not to mention the fact that the agriculture industry is the number one polluter in America.
(Plus, in case you didn't know, chicken has more cholesterol than beef.)
I'm glad to see this machine in action, because it will reduce the suffering, but I'd rather see people just stop eating meat.
It amazes me how many people are bothered by the scene in 'Roger and Me' where the woman kills and strips the rabbit, yet they still eat meat...Does the end justify the means?
-- End vegan propoganda --
Pfff...They could have just used Eliza and saved themselves some dough: http://manifestation.com.h.sabren.com/neur otoys/el iza.php3
> Hello, I am Eliza. * hi. i lost all of my data > How are you today.. What would you like to discuss? * i lost all of my data > That is quite interesting. * no shit > Why not? * you make little sense > You're not really talking about me, are you? * I would imagine. Your company screwed me over. I lost all of my pr0n > Why are you concerned about my company screwed you over. you lost all of your pr0n? * yes. it is all gone. i might as well jump into a sewer > I see. * you are no help at all > Does it please you to believe I am no help at all? * i am going to sue you > Do you enjoy being going to sue me? * yes. goodbye.
as a canadian, i can say that things are pretty good.
of course, the reason that it is called the patriot act is because it is hard to jusitfy voting against something with a name like that. imagine the publicity the next time you run for office: "joe blow voted AGAINST the US Patriot Act." of course, a few informed citizens would realize that this is a good thing, but all the rest would think that he was a traitor.
rene
Spielberg was NEVER that good
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
Shouldn't this comment have been made around the time that Jurassic Park 2 came out?
But seriously. Speilberg is NOT the end-all be-all of directors, and he never was. He is just good at making popular movies. Not particularly good ones.
Not to say that I didn't enjoy his films, but his "films" completely lack the sense of aesthetic beauty of the works of Errol Morris, Peter Jackson, Stanley Kubrick or even George Lucas. Jaws and Schindler's List are the two highlights of his career; he put his heart and soul into each one of these pictures.
Let's not say that he was ever the best director of all time. He's the most successful director of all time. (Him or George Lucas...I forget which.) And as all you Linux people can surely agree, corporate success does not necessarily equate with quality.
Microsoft giving source code to India, and not to Pakistan, is almost as bad as Red Hat removing the Taiwanese flag from KDE in its products. (Were Windows source code of any use to a war-faring nation, it would be much, much worse, of course.)
video lottery terminals are designed to cause addiction. this is a fact. they use a variable ratio schedule of payoffs per turn played, designed especially to get people to continue to play.
-use of variable reinforcement schedules while training rats to push a lever, with a reward of orgasm often causes them to push the lever continuosly until they die; they never stop pushing the lever - they don't eat or drink anything.
-numerous gambling addicts actually wear diapers when they go to the casino. they would rather wallow in their own filth for hours (or days) than give up their machine for 5 minutes.
i have never been a video game junkie; i don't play them at all. however, it would seem to be in the best interest of the video game manufacturers to use similar reinforcement schemes as in VLTs.
while gambling addictions may not cause nearly as much crime (people stealing to satisfy their craving, etc.) what we must realize is that the completely ineffective "war on drugs" is responsible for this by raising prices and placing the money in the hands of the murderous drug cartels. remember how organized crime flourished during prohibition?
i would rather see the government spending money to prevent gambling addiction than drug addiction. a war against VLT gambling could be completely effective, and would save numerous lives, as opposed to the war on drugs, which costs lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the US hesitance to adopt a superior system come as a surprise to anyone? Ever heard of the Metric system?
The difference is that the government makes the road signs that you refer to. They represent the law. It's not illegal to imitate other road signs, such as billboards or yard sale signs, etc. provided that they don't violate copyrights and what-have-you.
This whole sign analogy fails to make sense if you give it even the slightest bit of thought.
Of course, this comment won't get modded up, since I posted too late, and you will be free to continue believing that your analogy is logical.
>Alas, whatching Bruce Lee movies has not been very helpful
Uh, that could be because Bruce Lee is Chinese.
General rule of thumb: Short family names = Chinese, long family names = Japanese
This is from another website that I post on, about some murders being blamed on the Matrix. I feel that it applies here.
--
Why do people feel the need to blame murders and crime on movies, music, art, Democratic politics, Republican politics, etc.? There were plenty of murders before any one of these things existed.
People just do it to further their own cause. They use the death of another person as a stepping stone to get what they want. It's disgusting, really.
First of all, by blaming anything or anyone other than the murderer, you remove blame from him/her.
Further, the argument doesn't hold water for the following reasons (The first one is a theory I propose, the rest are facts):
1) a) Legally, a person is not culpable for their actions if it was an act of insanity. In the legal sense, insanity refers to the inability to distinguish between "right" and "wrong".
b) The act of murder is one that is, in general, condemned by all humans. In the moral and legal sense, it is "wrong" and we expect all people to be able to recognize this.
c) A person watching a film in which people are killed should be able to recognize that what he/she sees on the screen is "wrong". If they do, they will not reproduce these actions. If they do not, they may reproduce these actions, however, if they do, they are clearly unable to distinguish between right and wrong.
d) Therefore, they are legally, and probably clinically, insane, and were so at the time that they watched the film.
e) They are clearly not the basis on which one would wish to make such an analysis.
2) By condemning culture such as films, the VAST majority of viewers who do not go on to kill someone is ignored. This is a simple example of the fundamental scientific error of observational selection or "counting the hits, and forgetting the misses". It's an extreme example, as well, since the number of misses is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR greater than the number of hits.
3) Committing another fundamental scientific error: "Confusion of causation and correlation". Yes, people who commit violent crimes may tend to watch violent movies, but are violent people drawn to violent movies or do violent movies cause people to become violent? Occam's Razor, and common sense, tell us that the former is almost certainly fact. The latter remains to be seen.
4) By assuming that the mere act of watching a film BEFORE a violent crime occurs has caused the violent crime to occur (with no substantiating proof of causation), one commits the fundamental scientific error of "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" or "it happened after, therefore it was caused by". With some hyperbole, it is as nonsensical as arguing that brushing your teeth in the morning caused you to get hit by a bus in the afternoon.
5) Committing YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by relying on the statistics of small numbers. Just because there are a few individuals who have committed such crimes does not mean that the trend holds true for the population as a whole. For example, it is a fact that approximately one out of every five people on Earth is Chinese. You may argue that this is not true because you know 100 people and none of them are Chinese. Small numbers don't work for scientific proof.
6) My oh my...Who would figure...YET ANOTHER fundamental scientific error by misunderstanding the nature of statistics. Please provide evidence that the rate of murder that is purportedly caused by watching violent films is greater than the rate of murder that is not caused by watching violent films. Indeed, I would wager that it is not. The large majority of murders, I would wager, occur during other crimes, or due to personal vendettas. Some of the most horrible murder sprees have no association with art, film, etc. (Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, The Green River killer, Richard Ramirez (the only connection they found between him and AC/DC was a ball cap), etc.)
If the few CRAZY PEOPLE who got their "inspiration" from art had no
RTFA.
It's not just a screensaver bug. It affects the cocoa core.
...paying $640 for a toilet seat cover, $435 for a hammer or $7,600 for a coffee maker. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly .asp?ARTICLE_ID=17695
Hey, China and India... Welcome to the 60s!
I thought that when they removed the caffeine from natural (i.e. caffeinated) coffee to make decaf, they sold the caffeine to the soft-drink companies so that they could put it in their colas...Aren't they eliminating a source of profit here? Or do they lose money on the caffeine extraction process?
Yes. Animals are treated cruelly in factory farms.
Anyone who wishes to view the way that chickens are treated in captivity can look here. Granted, this is a video of the way that Kentucky Fried Chicken treats their birds, and they are known to be particularly cruel.
Some interesting facts about chickens raised for eggs and/or slaughter:
Percent of laying hens that suffer broken bones in their cage: 30%
Male chicks (from laying hens) killed per year by suffocation, gas, or grinding in the U.S.: 200 million
Male chicks used per day for fertilizer, chicken food, and pet food in Canada: 40000 (Note the cannibalism here. Also, cow parts are fed to chicks, and chick parts are fed to cows, which can possibly lead to the spread of BSE ("Mad Cow"))
Broiler chickens that have trouble walking: 90%
Chickens still alive at the scald tank: 20%
Not to mention the fact that the agriculture industry is the number one polluter in America.
(Plus, in case you didn't know, chicken has more cholesterol than beef.)
I'm glad to see this machine in action, because it will reduce the suffering, but I'd rather see people just stop eating meat.
It amazes me how many people are bothered by the scene in 'Roger and Me' where the woman kills and strips the rabbit, yet they still eat meat...Does the end justify the means?
-- End vegan propoganda --
This is the top 100 April Fool's hoaxes of all time, not the top 100 hoaxes of all time.
Huge difference.
Pfff...They could have just used Eliza and saved themselves some dough:r otoys/el iza.php3
http://manifestation.com.h.sabren.com/neu
> Hello, I am Eliza.
* hi. i lost all of my data
> How are you today.. What would you like to discuss?
* i lost all of my data
> That is quite interesting.
* no shit
> Why not?
* you make little sense
> You're not really talking about me, are you?
* I would imagine. Your company screwed me over. I lost all of my pr0n
> Why are you concerned about my company screwed you over. you lost all of your pr0n?
* yes. it is all gone. i might as well jump into a sewer
> I see.
* you are no help at all
> Does it please you to believe I am no help at all?
* i am going to sue you
> Do you enjoy being going to sue me?
* yes. goodbye.
At first I thought this was a terrific idea. But you know that the majority of buyers are people who don't understand what the consequences are.
And further, as the technology becomes more and more popular, eventually, won't EVERY product have one of these labels on it?
Although this act seems like it could be a step in the right direction, I think it should be cut down before it wastes (American) tax-payers dollars.
as a canadian, i can say that things are pretty good.
of course, the reason that it is called the patriot act is because it is hard to jusitfy voting against something with a name like that. imagine the publicity the next time you run for office:
"joe blow voted AGAINST the US Patriot Act."
of course, a few informed citizens would realize that this is a good thing, but all the rest would think that he was a traitor.
rene
Shouldn't this comment have been made around the time that Jurassic Park 2 came out?
But seriously. Speilberg is NOT the end-all be-all of directors, and he never was. He is just good at making popular movies. Not particularly good ones.
Not to say that I didn't enjoy his films, but his "films" completely lack the sense of aesthetic beauty of the works of Errol Morris, Peter Jackson, Stanley Kubrick or even George Lucas. Jaws and Schindler's List are the two highlights of his career; he put his heart and soul into each one of these pictures.
Let's not say that he was ever the best director of all time. He's the most successful director of all time. (Him or George Lucas...I forget which.) And as all you Linux people can surely agree, corporate success does not necessarily equate with quality.
Microsoft giving source code to India, and not to Pakistan, is almost as bad as Red Hat removing the Taiwanese flag from KDE in its products. (Were Windows source code of any use to a war-faring nation, it would be much, much worse, of course.)
video lottery terminals are designed to cause addiction. this is a fact. they use a variable ratio schedule of payoffs per turn played, designed especially to get people to continue to play. -use of variable reinforcement schedules while training rats to push a lever, with a reward of orgasm often causes them to push the lever continuosly until they die; they never stop pushing the lever - they don't eat or drink anything. -numerous gambling addicts actually wear diapers when they go to the casino. they would rather wallow in their own filth for hours (or days) than give up their machine for 5 minutes. i have never been a video game junkie; i don't play them at all. however, it would seem to be in the best interest of the video game manufacturers to use similar reinforcement schemes as in VLTs. while gambling addictions may not cause nearly as much crime (people stealing to satisfy their craving, etc.) what we must realize is that the completely ineffective "war on drugs" is responsible for this by raising prices and placing the money in the hands of the murderous drug cartels. remember how organized crime flourished during prohibition? i would rather see the government spending money to prevent gambling addiction than drug addiction. a war against VLT gambling could be completely effective, and would save numerous lives, as opposed to the war on drugs, which costs lives.
I wish my ISP would block the Deep Impact movie website.