Google indicates the domain below the site's description
Only, recently I've been noticing results that indicate a certain domain, but send me to some "search page" instead (on a different domain even). Anybody know what's going on with this (I'm sure it's happened to other people as well). It's been really annoying.
I have to agree with you about Disney turning into a production studio, look at their most successfull titles recently (besides the Pixar ones), they have come from Studio Gibli.
Too bad I'll have to keep my old device to show Bambi to my children.
You really shouldn't count out Miyasaki's works. I don't know how familiar you are with him, but he is one of the best animators I have ever seen. His stories (he writes and directs as well), are thoughtful, evoking, allegories... and the characters are *almost* always well developed. A few titles I would suggest: Spirited Away, Castle in the Sky, Kiki's Delivery Service, Porco Rosso (my least favorite), Princess Mononoke, Nausicaa: of the Valley of the Winds (I only found this on KaZaa, it was never released in the US, it's only in a subtitled version, so maybe this one's for you). My wife and I are only planning on having children now, but we hope they will grow up on Miyazaki films. I've heard that children tend to be very attracted to the films, especially because of their use of vibrant color and excellent musical score.
Fair warning on the films: The dubbing isn't as faithful as I would like. For your enjoyment, I would suggest subtitles.
And pirating is only bound ot happen by people without ethics.
Just because something is not moral in your ethical system, does not mean it must be that way in all systems; and it's a bit unfair to cite someone who hold a different system than you as holding no system.
Furthermore, I would claim that ethical reasoning is a basic psychological phenomenom that is present in one form or another in *every* human being.
That out of the way--I find it hard to feel guiltly about priating music/software when I don't wish to allow them any rights, including their *right to exist*--when, in fact, I see their very existence as a tyranny on my person and as a barrier to true social progress. In fact, in *my world view*, not only is it ok to fuck the RIAA, Microsoft, and even Adobe (though I don't bear quite so much acrimony for them)--but it is my *moral responsibility*. I want a change of system, and to continue to support that system is a loss of personal integrity.
Well, a lot of the folk I know didn't pay for it, and most of them aren't businesses. We can play the personal testimony game all day, you know. But hey, I paid for mine. Yeah it was $2 (picked it up in Russia). In fact, how are countries who have 90% of their population under the poverty level (ie Russia) supposed to fare with these prices? $500 is a *yearly salary* for many people. Perhaps their not supposed to have professionals.
Yeah, and while we're at it, let's have a literacy test! Just like Alabama used too!! That damned 1965 Voter Right's Act, stopping our wholesome tests.
you know, it's when you start bragging that you slip up. Hell, I even have your phone # from your previous posts. Interested parties could surely figure out who you are from this post. Of course, you were sufficiently ambiguous, but I think my caution stands nonetheless.
And what part does the angel Lucifer, the light-bringer, play in all this?
Umm.... not quite.
According to Merriam Webster it means "light-bearing". Seems like an important distinction to me. Though the meanings overlap, it's the difference between allowing for one to be the "universal light originator", and for one to be "carrying, bearing" or "giving off" light.
On the most important issue, Gates passes the test with flying colors..
Yes, certainly. I mean, we should not mind it when someone hoards money and distributes to various charities. Certainly they're the best people to decide how to distribute the money. Certainly it's best to withold money to those who need it just to give it to them in an "officious manner".
I was just talking about this with someone about Carnegie. It goes like this:
let's exploit the workers and make them live in miserable conditions. Then let's reap our profits from this exploitation. Now, after we've made thourough use of the power large sums of money affords, let's give it away and build museums. Now, we fill these museums full of art depicting the struggle/misery/plight of the downtrodden. Finally, we add insult to injury and call the whole process "edificaiton".
Man, fuck Gates and all the other fucks like them who think that they can exonerate themselves by giving away what they never should've had to begin with.
We should *always* be leary of an individual having that sort of power that Gates has because of the money he has. Franky, I don't trust him to decide what the pressing issues of the day are, nor to influence our politics as much as he certainly does.
Well my point *was* this (though I think I've answered my own question): If the signal was *indistinguishable* from background noise, I thought that it would be impossible for even the intended recievers to know that a signal was even present to attempt to decode it. Secondly, I would expect the background noise to significantly interfere with the transmission as one wouldn't be able to train onto any particular signal.
That aside, the issue obviously is not whether or not it would appear as background noise to them, but as background noise to *us*. The signal would be strong enough so that they could distinguish it from noise close to the origin of the signal, whereas *we* could not.
Now, that said, I feel I should point out I have absolutely zero training/education in this area, and there very well may be certain pecularities with radio communication that would render what I've just said as complete bullshit. This however, is what I would *expect* to be the case.
If bands didn't get any substantial income from CD sales, why would they work so hard to get signed? Could it be that the intangiable benefits of being a signed RIAA band far outweigh any monetary income they get from the CD sales?
Can you say monopoly? Locked-in distribution channels? I'm sure you can. perhaps then, we should think about the disadvantages of *not* being an RIAA signed band, and *then* we might realize why they need to be stopped.
You seem to be implying that the length of an "artistic statement" by musicians would merely total that of the 3-minute pop song. What makes you think that songs won't simply be much longer like the 20 minutes songs of Can? Have you stopped to think what has popularized the three minute pop song? Perhaps it was a distribution medium that was antagonistic to anything over four minutes because it wanted to cram as much junk together as possible? If p2p is the death of the album, it's also the death of the 3 minute song, as it will be the death of radio.
Good reasoning... only I'd rather not give the record labels another cent. If they founder and we have new distribution medium that's not centered around a few fucks getting rich, then maybe I'll consider buying in.
It's a bit of a quandry, actually. I *want* better quality songs than what I've been able to get off of p2p, but I feel *morally oblidged* not to buy from the big labels. I know, I should be listening to independent music then... unfortunately, there are a few *really* good bands who aren't independent.
Just to clarify: I'm not saying that the spammer didn't deserve this. Hell, I've threatened them myself. I was just correcting what apparently was a misunderstanding of what constitutes assault.
NOw, IANAL, but I do believe I know what assault means, and yes, this *was* assault. If someone feels threatened for their personal safety, that *is* assualt, by definition. Don't confuse "assault" with "assault and battery". Assault does not mean that anything physical actually took place. It is merely the threat of such an act.
I did "pop up a leve & look", and was denied access. BTW: I called GWB sanctimonious because he invokes religion. The fact that I find him somewhat hypocritical *is* a value judgement on my part... but that does excuse your usage of the word. Why don't you find out what it means to be sanctimonious first (and consequently pious), before speaking out of your ass. here's a dictionary if you need help.
You know, I usually take the exact stance that you are taking now. However, as this is a formal term, I will side with the purists on this one.
Moving on, what really defines a rule for language is when the linguists stop pissing themselves whenever you use a certain word, phrase, or construction. I think there are still a whole lot more fuckups that need to happen before that sense of "begs the question" is accepted. Granted, to a certain extent the deferral of acceptable usage to a grammatician relies on the population using the language to have granted the authority for such discrimination to begin with, but I do not believe it is a mistake to *have* given over such authority.
Read this, 'nuff said. Not really, especially consindering the page is missing (and yes, I removed the space).
At any rate, you were calling the now great-grandparent poster sanctimonious. I want to know how he was "affecting piousness : hypocritically devout". If this describes anyone, it describes GWB.
Slashdot Mirror
Only, recently I've been noticing results that indicate a certain domain, but send me to some "search page" instead (on a different domain even). Anybody know what's going on with this (I'm sure it's happened to other people as well). It's been really annoying.
Umm... are you just willy-nilly talking about various middle eastern countries as if they were a single entity? Shame on you.
Thanks for the reference! Seems we've had a bit of a role reversal though... :-)
Too bad I'll have to keep my old device to show Bambi to my children.
You really shouldn't count out Miyasaki's works. I don't know how familiar you are with him, but he is one of the best animators I have ever seen. His stories (he writes and directs as well), are thoughtful, evoking, allegories... and the characters are *almost* always well developed. A few titles I would suggest: Spirited Away, Castle in the Sky, Kiki's Delivery Service, Porco Rosso (my least favorite), Princess Mononoke, Nausicaa: of the Valley of the Winds (I only found this on KaZaa, it was never released in the US, it's only in a subtitled version, so maybe this one's for you). My wife and I are only planning on having children now, but we hope they will grow up on Miyazaki films. I've heard that children tend to be very attracted to the films, especially because of their use of vibrant color and excellent musical score.
Fair warning on the films: The dubbing isn't as faithful as I would like. For your enjoyment, I would suggest subtitles.
Just because something is not moral in your ethical system, does not mean it must be that way in all systems; and it's a bit unfair to cite someone who hold a different system than you as holding no system.
Furthermore, I would claim that ethical reasoning is a basic psychological phenomenom that is present in one form or another in *every* human being.
That out of the way--I find it hard to feel guiltly about priating music/software when I don't wish to allow them any rights, including their *right to exist*--when, in fact, I see their very existence as a tyranny on my person and as a barrier to true social progress. In fact, in *my world view*, not only is it ok to fuck the RIAA, Microsoft, and even Adobe (though I don't bear quite so much acrimony for them)--but it is my *moral responsibility*. I want a change of system, and to continue to support that system is a loss of personal integrity.
Well, a lot of the folk I know didn't pay for it, and most of them aren't businesses. We can play the personal testimony game all day, you know. But hey, I paid for mine. Yeah it was $2 (picked it up in Russia). In fact, how are countries who have 90% of their population under the poverty level (ie Russia) supposed to fare with these prices? $500 is a *yearly salary* for many people. Perhaps their not supposed to have professionals.
In general, children are not encouraged. I don't think this generation is much different than any previous either.
Yeah, and while we're at it, let's have a literacy test! Just like Alabama used too!! That damned 1965 Voter Right's Act, stopping our wholesome tests.
you know, it's when you start bragging that you slip up. Hell, I even have your phone # from your previous posts. Interested parties could surely figure out who you are from this post. Of course, you were sufficiently ambiguous, but I think my caution stands nonetheless.
Umm.... not quite.
According to Merriam Webster it means "light-bearing". Seems like an important distinction to me. Though the meanings overlap, it's the difference between allowing for one to be the "universal light originator", and for one to be "carrying, bearing" or "giving off" light.
Lux (light) + -ferous (bearing).
It's Tony Kushner's Angels in America. Not across. And it's Prior's art. Wink wink.
Yes, certainly. I mean, we should not mind it when someone hoards money and distributes to various charities. Certainly they're the best people to decide how to distribute the money. Certainly it's best to withold money to those who need it just to give it to them in an "officious manner".
I was just talking about this with someone about Carnegie. It goes like this:
let's exploit the workers and make them live in miserable conditions. Then let's reap our profits from this exploitation. Now, after we've made thourough use of the power large sums of money affords, let's give it away and build museums. Now, we fill these museums full of art depicting the struggle/misery/plight of the downtrodden. Finally, we add insult to injury and call the whole process "edificaiton".
Man, fuck Gates and all the other fucks like them who think that they can exonerate themselves by giving away what they never should've had to begin with.
We should *always* be leary of an individual having that sort of power that Gates has because of the money he has. Franky, I don't trust him to decide what the pressing issues of the day are, nor to influence our politics as much as he certainly does.
That aside, the issue obviously is not whether or not it would appear as background noise to them, but as background noise to *us*. The signal would be strong enough so that they could distinguish it from noise close to the origin of the signal, whereas *we* could not.
Now, that said, I feel I should point out I have absolutely zero training/education in this area, and there very well may be certain pecularities with radio communication that would render what I've just said as complete bullshit. This however, is what I would *expect* to be the case.
Then how would *they* recognize their own signal to "decode" it?
Can you say monopoly? Locked-in distribution channels? I'm sure you can. perhaps then, we should think about the disadvantages of *not* being an RIAA signed band, and *then* we might realize why they need to be stopped.
You seem to be implying that the length of an "artistic statement" by musicians would merely total that of the 3-minute pop song. What makes you think that songs won't simply be much longer like the 20 minutes songs of Can? Have you stopped to think what has popularized the three minute pop song? Perhaps it was a distribution medium that was antagonistic to anything over four minutes because it wanted to cram as much junk together as possible? If p2p is the death of the album, it's also the death of the 3 minute song, as it will be the death of radio.
It's a bit of a quandry, actually. I *want* better quality songs than what I've been able to get off of p2p, but I feel *morally oblidged* not to buy from the big labels. I know, I should be listening to independent music then... unfortunately, there are a few *really* good bands who aren't independent.
That is an important caveat, thanks for bringing it up.
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03 /11/21/2223256
. NO. I don't think so. I think you'll send them a link. And *then*,you can add the appropriate parameter.Say:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/1 1/21/2223256&mode=thread .
OMG. So incredibly difficult.
Just to clarify: I'm not saying that the spammer didn't deserve this. Hell, I've threatened them myself. I was just correcting what apparently was a misunderstanding of what constitutes assault.
NOw, IANAL, but I do believe I know what assault means, and yes, this *was* assault. If someone feels threatened for their personal safety, that *is* assualt, by definition. Don't confuse "assault" with "assault and battery". Assault does not mean that anything physical actually took place. It is merely the threat of such an act.
I did "pop up a leve & look", and was denied access. BTW: I called GWB sanctimonious because he invokes religion. The fact that I find him somewhat hypocritical *is* a value judgement on my part... but that does excuse your usage of the word. Why don't you find out what it means to be sanctimonious first (and consequently pious), before speaking out of your ass. here's a dictionary if you need help.
Moving on, what really defines a rule for language is when the linguists stop pissing themselves whenever you use a certain word, phrase, or construction. I think there are still a whole lot more fuckups that need to happen before that sense of "begs the question" is accepted. Granted, to a certain extent the deferral of acceptable usage to a grammatician relies on the population using the language to have granted the authority for such discrimination to begin with, but I do not believe it is a mistake to *have* given over such authority.
At any rate, you were calling the now great-grandparent poster sanctimonious. I want to know how he was "affecting piousness : hypocritically devout". If this describes anyone, it describes GWB.
Sanctimonious? Who the hell is being sanctimonious, and in what way?