I'm glad someone brought them up - we had an assignment in my AP English class in high school (way back in '92) to bring in song lyrics that were 'literary' or 'poetic' to study - instead, I brought in the lyrics to "Suite Sister Mary". Ha! The teacher skipped over me. 'Operation Mindcrime' opened my young eyes to hear what some of the better metal bands had to say.
'Rage for Order' was, and still is, one of my favorite albums.
All that said, I was an anomoly in my school's gifted population. Most of the other 'smart' kids were preppies and listened to Top 40. This study is bunk.
True - I read labels like crazy but you're right, and don't think that doesn't make me sad/nervous/angry/etc. - I'm simply saying that I don't think we need empirical proof that GM foods are bad, or at least questionable. Seems to me that common sense would tell us that.
so what we need is smoking gun evidence of toxicity in human beings
I posit that what we really need is a return to common sense.
Let's say you split the population along evolution vs. creationism lines, just for the sake of argument. An Evolutionist might object to genetic foods on the grounds that you are removing natural selection from the process and, in the long run, creating weaker and inferior strains of food. A Creationist might object on the grounds that any sort of genetic modification (foods, animals, embryos) would be considered 'playing God' and therefore immoral.
Me? I'm just listening to my gut - that mysterious place where common sense springs from - and my gut tells me that genetically altered things are not good eats.
Meanwhile, in the real world, I have to create images that can be used both for web and print, conform to graphics standards and maintain consistency with client logos and colors. Instead of opening a dozen programs, or creating one set of stuff that's web-friendly and one for print, it's much easier to create in Photoshop and save both versions at the same time. Believe me, I'd love to be able to move a little faster when playing with small things like GIFs and such, but I am rarely making anything JUST for the web, so the all-in-one-ness of Photoshop makes it my main tool. I think a lot of designers are in this same boat.
Now, if they'd figure out how to put some of Photoshop's features into InDesign, I'd move at the speed of light!
First, let me commend you on being able to use "vagina" and "bunghole" in a single post without being modded a troll.
On to the reply - the camera not only adds 10 pounds, but yes, in close-up, it does horrible things to a person. Not just their naughty bits, but the everyday ones, too. Having had first-hand experience seeing my face blown up full-screen I can totally understand the trauma. I mean, if my nostrils look THAT bad, I really don't want to know what the rest of me might look like at such high-res, nor would I expect anyone to be able to get off on it! *shudder*
This also helps explain the maddening trend of plastic surgery in Hollywood, and all the stuff Michael Jackson's had done over the years - if you saw yourself on TV every day, you might begin to think you needed help, too.
Bring back the fuzzy 70's film look! Linda Lovelace wasn't really that pretty but you couldn't always tell it because of the soft focus.:-)
I always knew that advertisers wanted eyeballs, but wouldnt think they'd gunk up a free vid site.
What wouldn't anyone do for a buck, seriously? I hate to be all doom and gloom, but I suppose it was only a matter of time. As long as they go after corporate repostings of things I can watch on TV, and leave independent videos alone, I won't get alarmed about it. Yet.
You communicate?! Are you accepting new patients? I'm tired of doctors throwing pills at me.:-)
Here's an excerpt from a rant I wrote on this subject back in Sep. 2003:
There are more phobias and illnesses being marketed to than I care to comment on. I don't begrudge the guy who married a cat-owner his allergy medications. He can't help it if his windpipe constricts whenever Mr. Fluffy is in the room. But from my own experience with modern medicine, I know damn well that doctors are more than willing to provide you with samples of the latest miracle pill if for no other reason than to get you the hell out of the office so they can squeeze in one more patient on their billing cycle. People who don't want to be bothered with changing their lifestyles to benefit their health can now pop a pill and wave their prescriptions around like a Get Out of Jail Free card.
For the big slicks, it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of jacks of all trades, mastering none, doing merely acceptable jobs. It's better to have a team of specialists and parcel out different parts to the people who excel in those parts. You get slicker, better product, faster turnaround, and the employees are plug-and-play making a single point of failure less likely.
This is where my company is now - I am the 'webmistress' for about 5 or 6 of our clients, but their needs are rapidly outgrowing not only my available time, but also my knowledge. In the 90's all I had to do was make things look good, see that the navigation made sense, and maybe insert a feedback form now and then. Things have certainly changed. I've shifted more towards the graphics end of things and am praying daily that our budget will allow me a nice back-end techie co-worker very, very soon.:-)
Having just worked on an independent TV series I have to agree about the audio. We just screened a rough cut of episode one this weekend and that was the one glaring thing about it. I don't know much about the editing software being used, and whether that will be enough to compensate, but all we had on set were the huge phallic mics attached to the cameras. Maybe next season we can afford a sound guy and a boom. *crosses fingers*
It's all part of a twisty but ingenious plot to scientifically prove the literal translation of the Bible, thereby furthering the GOP stronghold on the country, and the continued success of Faux News and its shareholders.
See, I wasn't going to go there, but yes. This is the true evil of POD. My favorite was one that a 'friend of a friend' sent me through the mail. It was called "Towboat Terrorist." Priceless.
However, if POD becomes more rampant and the Internet becomes the new bookstore and distribution center, the market will keep all the "obsidian orbs" at the bottom of the pile. Would love to see a resurgence of beat writers...
In short, however, the internet I think can make a dent in this mentality if not overcome it.
Mentality, yes. However, passing along the mp3's of an unsigned band is much more friendly than passing along either multiple printed copies of something, or the files it was printed from. On the one hand you'll be out lots of cash and on the other you'll have a hard time trying to get someone to read 100+ pages on a laptop.
I was just trying to point out that there are places out there who will use this technology and try to scam unwary authors into paying to be published. It's an old industry and there's a sucker born every minute.
Any professional writer will look at this and say, POD and vanity press stuff does not count as being published. And they will be right. Just because you can gather the scratch needed to print something does not mean you will find yourself on Oprah's book club. It's still all about distribution and marketing.
Now when someone writes software that will query agents and automatically keep track of responses and requirements for different publishing houses, I'll be interested.
Personally I don't need random stock photos of smiling people with dreadlocks and thick rimmed plastic glasses using laptops to use a website. Or Flash.
You will obey the commands of the Director of Marketing in this, and in all things! Our data shows that the public is not interested in clear, intuitive navigation; nay, they require smileys that appear to trail behind their mouse pointer when it moves! Smileys they shall have, for it has been deemed most Profitable and Right in the eyes of our Lord CEO, He Who Knows All Despite What the IT Dept. Tells Him. He likes the company jingle to play when the pages load, and so does his wife. Praise Him!
As long as clients ask for shiny spinning mouseover widgets and marquee scrollers on their crappy company homepages, and as long as us designers need their money, standards will continue to be meaningless. If Client X clicks on his little blue 'e' and sees what he wants to see, Designer Y gets to eat that week. I can suggest that their choices are bad, but the customer is always right (and I must quit bitching before he takes the project to his nephew who'll do it for free)...
Truly, I'd LOVE to be able to tell a guy, "No, sir, we can't do that. It's not supported by any of the current browsers." And then deliver a clean, stylish Zeldman wet dream.
I wasn't aware that I had. I was replying to the assertion of the poster that intelligent people should be forced to breed for the good of humanity, and sharing the arguments I and my friends have made to everyone who's ever said "Oh, one day you'll change your mind." No, I won't. You're correct: I view a child as something that would take away from my enjoyment of life, not add to it. That does not make me evil or cruel or 'mean spirited' - I am simply self-aware and am choosing not to make some poor child miserable because society feels my only use as a woman is to breed.
I'm glad you love your kids and have learned from them. However, it's not a path that everyone could or should take.
Children are not expensive unless the parents make it so.
That is ludicrous. Whether you make minimum wage or are a billionaire, adding a child to your household will raise your cost of living significantly. Period.
Not that I place myself in your 'intellignet' category with any great amount of pride or ego, but I would like to answer on behalf of those who, like me, have chosen to forego parenthood.
When you have a child, you die a little. You sacrifice something in order to make time and resources available for the child. Your dreams, hopes, aspirations and hobbies take a back seat to this new person. In a perfect world, we would all be making a living wage and working for companies that valued you enough to let you take time off when your child needs it. This is hardly the case. It therefore becomes easier to 'sit around and breed' than it does to try to get a job (which probably does not bring in more than the gov't check you were getting before) and have to leave your children in the hands of expensive day care centers.
According to the Motherhood Manifesto, having a child is the single worst financial decision a woman can make. Even with the fantastic job and bennies I have, there is no way I could afford to have a child. Even with my boyfriend's income on top, we would drown. If we are strapped for cash, having to maybe take on 2nd jobs and therefore rarely home with the child, the 'intelligence' we are supposed to be passing on to the child would be utterly negated.
Better and universal education is the key, not elitism in reproduction.
I would love to see that, myself. Would certainly help in those instances when MapQuest didn't alert me to the new construction/closed exit ramp/no U-turn intersection that gets between me and my destination, adding extra minutes/hours and infinite aggravation to my travel time...not to mention the additional $3/gallon gas needed for the detour.
As a woman myself, I find it utterly irritating to think that my gender has ever had or will ever have anything to do with the opportunities presented me in my life. I know people of minority races (and the handicapped) who feel the same way.
I taught myself how to use Photoshop and code HTML back in the 90's, and got jobs based on my inate design talent and willingness to work hard. What a slap in the face it would be to go back and find out that I was hired because they were trying to fill some gap in their demographics!
You can't legislate tolerance or equality. By giving preference to people because of what they are instead of what they can do, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Let those of who can excel, do so. The illusion that humanity is divided and that only some will ever reap the benefits of progress is what makes us assume we have to be overly inclusive.
Some brands of sunscreen are being made with nanoparticles (thus making them nanotechnology) that can penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Do we have a clue what happens when those nanoparticles interact with our brain cells? Hell no! Has that stopped it from being on the market? Hell no!
Which is why I have switched to makeup and body products that are free of questionable man-made goo, like parabens - call it tinfoil if you will, but why do you need to chemically preserve a tube of lipstick for years on end? If you use it every day it should be long gone before it goes rancid.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad someone brought them up - we had an assignment in my AP English class in high school (way back in '92) to bring in song lyrics that were 'literary' or 'poetic' to study - instead, I brought in the lyrics to "Suite Sister Mary". Ha! The teacher skipped over me. 'Operation Mindcrime' opened my young eyes to hear what some of the better metal bands had to say.
'Rage for Order' was, and still is, one of my favorite albums.
All that said, I was an anomoly in my school's gifted population. Most of the other 'smart' kids were preppies and listened to Top 40. This study is bunk.
True - I read labels like crazy but you're right, and don't think that doesn't make me sad/nervous/angry/etc. - I'm simply saying that I don't think we need empirical proof that GM foods are bad, or at least questionable. Seems to me that common sense would tell us that.
so what we need is smoking gun evidence of toxicity in human beings
I posit that what we really need is a return to common sense.
Let's say you split the population along evolution vs. creationism lines, just for the sake of argument. An Evolutionist might object to genetic foods on the grounds that you are removing natural selection from the process and, in the long run, creating weaker and inferior strains of food. A Creationist might object on the grounds that any sort of genetic modification (foods, animals, embryos) would be considered 'playing God' and therefore immoral.
Me? I'm just listening to my gut - that mysterious place where common sense springs from - and my gut tells me that genetically altered things are not good eats.
Meanwhile, in the real world, I have to create images that can be used both for web and print, conform to graphics standards and maintain consistency with client logos and colors. Instead of opening a dozen programs, or creating one set of stuff that's web-friendly and one for print, it's much easier to create in Photoshop and save both versions at the same time. Believe me, I'd love to be able to move a little faster when playing with small things like GIFs and such, but I am rarely making anything JUST for the web, so the all-in-one-ness of Photoshop makes it my main tool. I think a lot of designers are in this same boat.
Now, if they'd figure out how to put some of Photoshop's features into InDesign, I'd move at the speed of light!
What about veoh? Where, by the way, you can see more original shows like The House Between.
First, let me commend you on being able to use "vagina" and "bunghole" in a single post without being modded a troll.
:-)
On to the reply - the camera not only adds 10 pounds, but yes, in close-up, it does horrible things to a person. Not just their naughty bits, but the everyday ones, too. Having had first-hand experience seeing my face blown up full-screen I can totally understand the trauma. I mean, if my nostrils look THAT bad, I really don't want to know what the rest of me might look like at such high-res, nor would I expect anyone to be able to get off on it! *shudder*
This also helps explain the maddening trend of plastic surgery in Hollywood, and all the stuff Michael Jackson's had done over the years - if you saw yourself on TV every day, you might begin to think you needed help, too.
Bring back the fuzzy 70's film look! Linda Lovelace wasn't really that pretty but you couldn't always tell it because of the soft focus.
I always knew that advertisers wanted eyeballs, but wouldnt think they'd gunk up a free vid site.
What wouldn't anyone do for a buck, seriously? I hate to be all doom and gloom, but I suppose it was only a matter of time. As long as they go after corporate repostings of things I can watch on TV, and leave independent videos alone, I won't get alarmed about it. Yet.
You communicate?! Are you accepting new patients? I'm tired of doctors throwing pills at me. :-)
Here's an excerpt from a rant I wrote on this subject back in Sep. 2003:
There are more phobias and illnesses being marketed to than I care to comment on. I don't begrudge the guy who married a cat-owner his allergy medications. He can't help it if his windpipe constricts whenever Mr. Fluffy is in the room. But from my own experience with modern medicine, I know damn well that doctors are more than willing to provide you with samples of the latest miracle pill if for no other reason than to get you the hell out of the office so they can squeeze in one more patient on their billing cycle. People who don't want to be bothered with changing their lifestyles to benefit their health can now pop a pill and wave their prescriptions around like a Get Out of Jail Free card.
For the big slicks, it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of jacks of all trades, mastering none, doing merely acceptable jobs. It's better to have a team of specialists and parcel out different parts to the people who excel in those parts. You get slicker, better product, faster turnaround, and the employees are plug-and-play making a single point of failure less likely.
:-)
This is where my company is now - I am the 'webmistress' for about 5 or 6 of our clients, but their needs are rapidly outgrowing not only my available time, but also my knowledge. In the 90's all I had to do was make things look good, see that the navigation made sense, and maybe insert a feedback form now and then. Things have certainly changed. I've shifted more towards the graphics end of things and am praying daily that our budget will allow me a nice back-end techie co-worker very, very soon.
Having just worked on an independent TV series I have to agree about the audio. We just screened a rough cut of episode one this weekend and that was the one glaring thing about it. I don't know much about the editing software being used, and whether that will be enough to compensate, but all we had on set were the huge phallic mics attached to the cameras. Maybe next season we can afford a sound guy and a boom. *crosses fingers*
It's all part of a twisty but ingenious plot to scientifically prove the literal translation of the Bible, thereby furthering the GOP stronghold on the country, and the continued success of Faux News and its shareholders.
Garden of Eden, anyone?
*howl*
See, I wasn't going to go there, but yes. This is the true evil of POD. My favorite was one that a 'friend of a friend' sent me through the mail. It was called "Towboat Terrorist." Priceless.
However, if POD becomes more rampant and the Internet becomes the new bookstore and distribution center, the market will keep all the "obsidian orbs" at the bottom of the pile. Would love to see a resurgence of beat writers...
In short, however, the internet I think can make a dent in this mentality if not overcome it.
Mentality, yes. However, passing along the mp3's of an unsigned band is much more friendly than passing along either multiple printed copies of something, or the files it was printed from. On the one hand you'll be out lots of cash and on the other you'll have a hard time trying to get someone to read 100+ pages on a laptop.
I was just trying to point out that there are places out there who will use this technology and try to scam unwary authors into paying to be published. It's an old industry and there's a sucker born every minute.
Any professional writer will look at this and say, POD and vanity press stuff does not count as being published. And they will be right. Just because you can gather the scratch needed to print something does not mean you will find yourself on Oprah's book club. It's still all about distribution and marketing.
Now when someone writes software that will query agents and automatically keep track of responses and requirements for different publishing houses, I'll be interested.
Personally I don't need random stock photos of smiling people with dreadlocks and thick rimmed plastic glasses using laptops to use a website. Or Flash.
You will obey the commands of the Director of Marketing in this, and in all things! Our data shows that the public is not interested in clear, intuitive navigation; nay, they require smileys that appear to trail behind their mouse pointer when it moves! Smileys they shall have, for it has been deemed most Profitable and Right in the eyes of our Lord CEO, He Who Knows All Despite What the IT Dept. Tells Him. He likes the company jingle to play when the pages load, and so does his wife. Praise Him!
As long as clients ask for shiny spinning mouseover widgets and marquee scrollers on their crappy company homepages, and as long as us designers need their money, standards will continue to be meaningless. If Client X clicks on his little blue 'e' and sees what he wants to see, Designer Y gets to eat that week. I can suggest that their choices are bad, but the customer is always right (and I must quit bitching before he takes the project to his nephew who'll do it for free)...
Truly, I'd LOVE to be able to tell a guy, "No, sir, we can't do that. It's not supported by any of the current browsers." And then deliver a clean, stylish Zeldman wet dream.
$
(When you find him, let me know...)
Just don't belittle others for their choices.
I wasn't aware that I had. I was replying to the assertion of the poster that intelligent people should be forced to breed for the good of humanity, and sharing the arguments I and my friends have made to everyone who's ever said "Oh, one day you'll change your mind." No, I won't. You're correct: I view a child as something that would take away from my enjoyment of life, not add to it. That does not make me evil or cruel or 'mean spirited' - I am simply self-aware and am choosing not to make some poor child miserable because society feels my only use as a woman is to breed.
I'm glad you love your kids and have learned from them. However, it's not a path that everyone could or should take.
Children are not expensive unless the parents make it so.
That is ludicrous. Whether you make minimum wage or are a billionaire, adding a child to your household will raise your cost of living significantly. Period.
Not that I place myself in your 'intellignet' category with any great amount of pride or ego, but I would like to answer on behalf of those who, like me, have chosen to forego parenthood.
When you have a child, you die a little. You sacrifice something in order to make time and resources available for the child. Your dreams, hopes, aspirations and hobbies take a back seat to this new person. In a perfect world, we would all be making a living wage and working for companies that valued you enough to let you take time off when your child needs it. This is hardly the case. It therefore becomes easier to 'sit around and breed' than it does to try to get a job (which probably does not bring in more than the gov't check you were getting before) and have to leave your children in the hands of expensive day care centers.
According to the Motherhood Manifesto, having a child is the single worst financial decision a woman can make. Even with the fantastic job and bennies I have, there is no way I could afford to have a child. Even with my boyfriend's income on top, we would drown. If we are strapped for cash, having to maybe take on 2nd jobs and therefore rarely home with the child, the 'intelligence' we are supposed to be passing on to the child would be utterly negated.
Better and universal education is the key, not elitism in reproduction.
We see absolutely nothing wrong with our English. If the population has difficulty with spelling, then let them speak "leet"!
I would love to see that, myself. Would certainly help in those instances when MapQuest didn't alert me to the new construction/closed exit ramp/no U-turn intersection that gets between me and my destination, adding extra minutes/hours and infinite aggravation to my travel time...not to mention the additional $3/gallon gas needed for the detour.
Sorry, but hear me out.
As a woman myself, I find it utterly irritating to think that my gender has ever had or will ever have anything to do with the opportunities presented me in my life. I know people of minority races (and the handicapped) who feel the same way.
I taught myself how to use Photoshop and code HTML back in the 90's, and got jobs based on my inate design talent and willingness to work hard. What a slap in the face it would be to go back and find out that I was hired because they were trying to fill some gap in their demographics!
You can't legislate tolerance or equality. By giving preference to people because of what they are instead of what they can do, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Let those of who can excel, do so. The illusion that humanity is divided and that only some will ever reap the benefits of progress is what makes us assume we have to be overly inclusive.
which means we are losing and the people on drugs are winning. What does that tell you about drug use?
Nice Bill Hicks reference. Boy do I wish we could wake HIM up right about now...but he'd probably rather be dead than know Bush II was in office...
Some brands of sunscreen are being made with nanoparticles (thus making them nanotechnology) that can penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Do we have a clue what happens when those nanoparticles interact with our brain cells? Hell no! Has that stopped it from being on the market? Hell no!
Which is why I have switched to makeup and body products that are free of questionable man-made goo, like parabens - call it tinfoil if you will, but why do you need to chemically preserve a tube of lipstick for years on end? If you use it every day it should be long gone before it goes rancid.
I think it was 'round about the time when they started making kids wear helmets to play in the park. http://holophrastic.com/javascopes/october_02.php
Safety is out of hand; if we let stupid people continue to live and breed then we get the future we deserve.