I don't know. I always saw movies, good movies, as a way of communicating something more substantially than with words. The writers, the directors, the actors, the whole crew are attempting to convey humanity. It's not made to necesarily change the world. I think of good movies as stage plays with really, really nice backgrounds. In the end it's all about the humanity.
Does anyone else HATE reading books on the computer? I have to turn the contrast way down or my eyes feel like they're bleeding. Even then I can only last a few minutes at a time. Give me plain old paper over a flickering, bright, harsh monitor screen any day.
An actor friend of mine mentioned something like this a while back. Apparently it's starting to make a mark in the theater world. Actor's get coached just like athletes. At a rehearsal, the director refines and fixes problems as they occur, but at an actual performance the actor is on his own. Now it's possible to coach while the audience is watching. Forgotten lines, obviously, but the director can shift the mood of a scene with a simple passing comment to the performer. Makes a big difference.
The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway
While I see some merit in this, I disagree completely.
My sister became pregnant 5 months before she graduated from high school. After a short time living in the trailer owned by the deadbeat "father", and after months of near starvation, begging for money, frantic searching for decent paying jobs as well as a safe place to live, she's managed to survive. Now, about 6 years later, she lives right outside Columbus in a ghetto. Her neighbors were shot to death. She works for a house cleaning service, requiring a full 40 hours/week. On top of this she is studying to become a medical transcriptionist. Now you're telling me that it is her responsibility to teach her child 100% of what is taught in grade school? History, English, math, science, etc, etc, etc... people go to college for four years to become specialized enough to teach ONE subject for chrissake. How can you expect a single mother to feed, clothe, manage bills/rent, provide healthcare for, do the laundry, wash dishes, cook, clean, and a myriad of other miscellaneous things a parent must do, and on top of that, provide an intensive, well-rounded education that otherwise would have been taught by four or five teachers.
Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity
How would this help, exactly? Would the AFDC grant money to the parent? Time would be freed up, but you still have the problem of educating the parent. Would they then educate the parent? How long would that take? Would they be going to school for years while continuing to raise their child? How would standards be enforced? Standardized testing? Let me tell you from experience how much of a waste standardized testing is.
Do you honestly think, with the amount of support for public school funding by the government today, that the funding for this kind of project would be anywhere near enough? I doubt it. Not when so much emphasis is placed on building bigger weapons, fighting corrupt corporations, battling pharmaceutical companies, playing with social security, and protecting against terrorists. The fact of the matter is that the government, as well as a large percent of the population I'd imagine, does not place as much importance on education as there needs to be. This is the problem.
oh, yes! Now Kadri Gopalnath will benefit from me not having access to his music anymore! Artists don't want me to listen to them, they want me to give them money.
is that a live performer is constantly adjusting his touch to account for the individual characteristics of the piano
Yes, this is one aspect of a live performance, but there are many others. The "feeling" of an audience is one. The emotional state of the performer is another. One performance of a concerto could be completely different than a previous; it's the state of the moment that counts. I think this is what music really depends upon: the present moment.
So, in other words: Yamaha may claim to have captured in exacting, immaculate detail every nuance, dynamic, pressure, and velocity of each note, down to the nanosecond. The cannot claim, however, to record the "essence" of the entire experience. This can only be accomplished with a human being, listening in the pressence of the performance. "Live" is actually being there, experiencing all aspects.
Re:A sad commentary on our society
on
Project Eden
·
· Score: 1
Give them an environment in which preserving the environment can help them prosper and you can ensure it will be protected.
but preserving the environment WILL help them prosper.
I can feel sympathy for their need to prosper, but slash and burn farming/grazing doesn't seem to be helping much. People are still hungry, their countries are still in debt, soil is eroding, and their ecosystem is being quickly shredded into desert. Surely there's an alternative.
Why do they even bother with a capitalistic economy? The rain forest natives cope with their environment amazingly well, and they're happy, content. They're stomachs aren't full, but they sure aren't starving-- that is, they weren't until the foresters and farmers showed up.
and although I am sympathetic of what happened on 9/11, I dont want every single film that is released to be turned into 1 1/2 hours of American patriotism thankyouverymuch.
Amen to that. I live in a fairly conservative, rural section of Pennsylvania, and I get this oh-so-touching worthlessly blind patriotism all the time. Everywhere I go. I can't imagine what it must be like for you and others. Enough is enough.
Yeah, it does sound like this was the plan from the beginning- or, at least something along these lines.
What's strange is that if TiVo had already set aside space for these promos, then why does the moderator of the TiVo message board (on behalf of the company)say this:
Typically we try to pre-announce these kinds of things to the forum before launching so that they aren't a surprise to people. I'm sorry we didn't get out ahead of this one.
So either they had other plans for the extra space (maybe just an upgrade for extra storage), or they wanted to surprise users and observe the response. It seems like they expected the negativity and aren't taking it as seriously as some would wish.
Very simple - it serves the purpose of distracting from real issues.
I can't imagine what could possibly be more important than bettering humanity as a whole. Space exploration has proven to be more profitable than you seem to give it credit for.
resources used prudently used, human population numbers kept within reason?
Wouldn't sending people off to colonize other planets help with the strained Earth population? Wouldn't it also increase resources?
In US, for example, is there a decent traffic system in the works - like a bullet train?
I really don't understand this one. How would more bullet trains make the US traffic system "decent"? What the US needs are more fuel efficient cars, more technologically current commercial airplanes, and better public transportation all-around.
Humans have a finite number of muscle cells and if the cells are not used, they die: muscle atrophy...Long term reduced or missing gravity in a human body from this planet - forget it!
I disagree with this statement, too. There are numerous ship designs that take muscle atrophy into consideration. Artificial gravity works. Even with low or no gravity, a strict schedule of exercise and a moderated diet have shown to slow down muscle deterioration, enough to let the passengers reach their destination. Once they get there, there's no problem.
So, yeah, maybe the world isn't the perfect gem that it could be, but prolonged introspection isn't what we need. The Earth's too small for all of us. In time, things will either become stagnant or (worse?) violently furious, and wars will not only provide the technological leaps people want, they'll keep that pesky population in check.
Right, and right. It's sad that space exploration has become such an unpopular topic (at least in the US). For being the "Last Frontier", it sure isn't getting the attention it deserves. The recent push in space tourism could be exactly what everyone needs right now, creating a media stunt just strong enough to get the ball rolling. If only people were exposed to this more often we might not be bitching today about NASA budget cuts and cancelled missions.
...humans have still not created a simple life form from non biological materials...This alone should be clue enough to the fact that life simply did not happen by its self, by fluke, but that it was designed.
I'm not sure I follow this logic clearly. Humans cannot create life from nothing, therefore God had to have. You seem to be putting much importance on the human intellect. What was once impossible in the past can quickly become not only possible but also ludicrously easy in the future. Don't just write it off as "Oh, God did it."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. I always saw movies, good movies, as a way of communicating something more substantially than with words. The writers, the directors, the actors, the whole crew are attempting to convey humanity. It's not made to necesarily change the world. I think of good movies as stage plays with really, really nice backgrounds. In the end it's all about the humanity.
Does anyone else HATE reading books on the computer? I have to turn the contrast way down or my eyes feel like they're bleeding. Even then I can only last a few minutes at a time. Give me plain old paper over a flickering, bright, harsh monitor screen any day.
An actor friend of mine mentioned something like this a while back. Apparently it's starting to make a mark in the theater world. Actor's get coached just like athletes. At a rehearsal, the director refines and fixes problems as they occur, but at an actual performance the actor is on his own. Now it's possible to coach while the audience is watching. Forgotten lines, obviously, but the director can shift the mood of a scene with a simple passing comment to the performer. Makes a big difference.
While I see some merit in this, I disagree completely.
My sister became pregnant 5 months before she graduated from high school. After a short time living in the trailer owned by the deadbeat "father", and after months of near starvation, begging for money, frantic searching for decent paying jobs as well as a safe place to live, she's managed to survive. Now, about 6 years later, she lives right outside Columbus in a ghetto. Her neighbors were shot to death. She works for a house cleaning service, requiring a full 40 hours/week. On top of this she is studying to become a medical transcriptionist.
Now you're telling me that it is her responsibility to teach her child 100% of what is taught in grade school? History, English, math, science, etc, etc, etc... people go to college for four years to become specialized enough to teach ONE subject for chrissake. How can you expect a single mother to feed, clothe, manage bills/rent, provide healthcare for, do the laundry, wash dishes, cook, clean, and a myriad of other miscellaneous things a parent must do, and on top of that, provide an intensive, well-rounded education that otherwise would have been taught by four or five teachers.
Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity
How would this help, exactly? Would the AFDC grant money to the parent? Time would be freed up, but you still have the problem of educating the parent. Would they then educate the parent? How long would that take? Would they be going to school for years while continuing to raise their child? How would standards be enforced? Standardized testing? Let me tell you from experience how much of a waste standardized testing is.
Do you honestly think, with the amount of support for public school funding by the government today, that the funding for this kind of project would be anywhere near enough? I doubt it. Not when so much emphasis is placed on building bigger weapons, fighting corrupt corporations, battling pharmaceutical companies, playing with social security, and protecting against terrorists. The fact of the matter is that the government, as well as a large percent of the population I'd imagine, does not place as much importance on education as there needs to be. This is the problem.
oh, yes! Now Kadri Gopalnath will benefit from me not having access to his music anymore! Artists don't want me to listen to them, they want me to give them money.
Yes, this is one aspect of a live performance, but there are many others. The "feeling" of an audience is one. The emotional state of the performer is another. One performance of a concerto could be completely different than a previous; it's the state of the moment that counts. I think this is what music really depends upon: the present moment.
So, in other words: Yamaha may claim to have captured in exacting, immaculate detail every nuance, dynamic, pressure, and velocity of each note, down to the nanosecond. The cannot claim, however, to record the "essence" of the entire experience. This can only be accomplished with a human being, listening in the pressence of the performance. "Live" is actually being there, experiencing all aspects.
but preserving the environment WILL help them prosper.
I can feel sympathy for their need to prosper, but slash and burn farming/grazing doesn't seem to be helping much. People are still hungry, their countries are still in debt, soil is eroding, and their ecosystem is being quickly shredded into desert. Surely there's an alternative.
Why do they even bother with a capitalistic economy? The rain forest natives cope with their environment amazingly well, and they're happy, content. They're stomachs aren't full, but they sure aren't starving-- that is, they weren't until the foresters and farmers showed up.
Amen to that. I live in a fairly conservative, rural section of Pennsylvania, and I get this oh-so-touching worthlessly blind patriotism all the time. Everywhere I go. I can't imagine what it must be like for you and others. Enough is enough.
What's strange is that if TiVo had already set aside space for these promos, then why does the moderator of the TiVo message board (on behalf of the company)say this:
Typically we try to pre-announce these kinds of things to the forum before launching so that they aren't a surprise to people. I'm sorry we didn't get out ahead of this one.
So either they had other plans for the extra space (maybe just an upgrade for extra storage), or they wanted to surprise users and observe the response. It seems like they expected the negativity and aren't taking it as seriously as some would wish.
I can't imagine what could possibly be more important than bettering humanity as a whole. Space exploration has proven to be more profitable than you seem to give it credit for.
resources used prudently used, human population numbers kept within reason?
Wouldn't sending people off to colonize other planets help with the strained Earth population? Wouldn't it also increase resources?
In US, for example, is there a decent traffic system in the works - like a bullet train?
I really don't understand this one. How would more bullet trains make the US traffic system "decent"? What the US needs are more fuel efficient cars, more technologically current commercial airplanes, and better public transportation all-around.
Humans have a finite number of muscle cells and if the cells are not used, they die: muscle atrophy...Long term reduced or missing gravity in a human body from this planet - forget it!
I disagree with this statement, too. There are numerous ship designs that take muscle atrophy into consideration. Artificial gravity works. Even with low or no gravity, a strict schedule of exercise and a moderated diet have shown to slow down muscle deterioration, enough to let the passengers reach their destination. Once they get there, there's no problem.
So, yeah, maybe the world isn't the perfect gem that it could be, but prolonged introspection isn't what we need. The Earth's too small for all of us. In time, things will either become stagnant or (worse?) violently furious, and wars will not only provide the technological leaps people want, they'll keep that pesky population in check.
Which would you prefer? War or space?
If only... *mumbles"
I'm not sure I follow this logic clearly. Humans cannot create life from nothing, therefore God had to have. You seem to be putting much importance on the human intellect. What was once impossible in the past can quickly become not only possible but also ludicrously easy in the future. Don't just write it off as "Oh, God did it."