Humor can often be created by juxtaposing a ridiculous idea in place of a serious one. In this case, we replace the evil horrible terrorists who did commit these heinous acts with the French who are of course miffed that they lost the Games. Of course France isn't going to blow up London because of it - it's the ridiculousness of the suggestion that makes it funny.
But it's not funny, because it's missing that vital component that all good comedians can provide in abundance - originality. It's such a blindingly obvious thing to say. And, posted on a day on which 50 people lost their lives, at a time when there were many who did not know whether all their friends and relatives were safely accounted for, shows a particular level of butt-headedness.
There will be people reading comments here who will have lost loved ones. Are they "pussies"? Should they "fuck off"?
I don't suppose the posters would treat real people with this indifference and it's frankly humiliating to hide behind a digital identity and be so callous.
Again, many of the posters on this thread need to "grow up".
I put myself on the "Do not call" list and I still get calls from those idiotic automated "You have won a holiday" messages. How can that be? Well, it's because I live in the UK and the FCC, while stamping on abuse at home, does not require US businesses to honour our list. In this day and age, I find this rather puzzling.
Still, the last one we got, we managed to get through to a real person (at their expense) and left them talking to our three year old daughter for half an hour.
It's quite appropriate that, where a piece of work is still being sold, there should be protections over it. I'm even easy about Disney getting an extension over Mickey Mouse... MM is still being commercialised, so I'm not entirely comfortable with a Mickey free-for-all by any Johnny-come-lately.
But there is no place for 90-year copyrights for works that are not being commercialised. Copyright should operate on a 'use it or lose it' basis where, say, after five years of non-exploitation, the work is decopyrighted and opened to anyone who wants it.
Then perhaps we can get our DVD box set of "It's like, you know". [and "Nightingales" too, please]
Clearly we need to encourage people to take fake video cameras into films. If everyone is carrying a cam then they won't be able to find the real pirate from all the fakes.
Added bonus: every fake cam they try and take away can be used as evidence for a lawsuit against the theatre (someone in the cinema will probably have it on tape, eh?)
I download shows that I can't get anywhere else because the TV companies are too stupid to release them on DVD.
On that note, perhaps someone would care to torrent:
It's like you know
Nightingales
Los Dos Bros
If companies won't release their material to us then they should lose their copyright over it and it should be turned over to the general public as a free-for-all.
Exactly right. You accept an erosion of your liberties because you can perceive the benefit to you of doing so. In my case, I got a free DVD player and some nice suitcases from my points. And there's no cash cost. If you don't want to sign up to this arrangement, you don't have to.
Blunkett's plan, on the other hand, will cost you upfront for the card and you'll give up unspecified amounts of your own liberties, in return for no perceivable personal benefit. And if you don't want to sign up to this arrangement, you're clearly a t3rr0r1st!! who must be fined £3,000 and jailed indefinitely. None so blind as those that will not see?
Yeah, if you mean more than 0. They did it that way because they could, not out of guilt.
And now they're complaining about the new rules because their largesse is about to be exposed where it really hurts - through corporate earnings. I'm pretty sure they don't feel guilt. Guilt requires morality and I don't suppose corporate America could find two morals to rub together.
The very fact that companies don't want to tell shareholders how much of their (shareholders') money they are giving away, suggests that they were giving away too much.
No it doesn't. It means that they were using it as a way to hide expenses, or at least defer them.
...because they're giving away too much! Remember the company belongs to the shareholders, not the CEO/CFO. Shareholders have a right to fair information on how much of their money is being taken by management. Only putting it through the P&L does that.
Do they? Stock options aren't being banned; it's merely that the proposals would force companies to charge the fair value of option grants through the profit and loss account. The very fact that companies don't want to tell shareholders how much of their (shareholders') money they are giving away, suggests that they were giving away too much.
It'll take a miracle for Bush to stop this one - Shelby on the Senate Banking Committee is absolutely committed to pushing this through. GWB would be well advised to allow the FASB to do their job.
Free markets operate with the principle of "caveat emptor", or let the buyer beware. If you don't like unlabeled goods, don't buy from them. If you don't trust the label, get a third party opinion, like from a consumer magazine.
Patchooey. 3/10, Palfreman, stay behind after class.
Actually free markets operate on information. They can get that information from a variety of means... let's stick with the foody example because it's easy to understand and I'm hungry.
How would a conscientious government stop food companies allowing their products to contain toxins that harm people? Well... they could force them to label their products showing the toxin levels. Or they could have a tax on food based on toxin levels. Or they could publish league tables of who makes food with least toxins. Or they could ban companies who make toxic food from coming to market. Or they could ask the industry to come up with a code of practice. etc etc etc.
None of these will always be the "best"... that's just fatuous, as is the Libertarian mantra that banning things is always wrong. You pick the solution that gives you the best information flow, simple as that.
and the rare fact that this film was released in the UK last summer, making this rather old news for anyone in Blighty. Makes a change for us to get a film first, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Humor can often be created by juxtaposing a ridiculous idea in place of a serious one. In this case, we replace the evil horrible terrorists who did commit these heinous acts with the French who are of course miffed that they lost the Games. Of course France isn't going to blow up London because of it - it's the ridiculousness of the suggestion that makes it funny.
But it's not funny, because it's missing that vital component that all good comedians can provide in abundance - originality. It's such a blindingly obvious thing to say. And, posted on a day on which 50 people lost their lives, at a time when there were many who did not know whether all their friends and relatives were safely accounted for, shows a particular level of butt-headedness.
There will be people reading comments here who will have lost loved ones. Are they "pussies"? Should they "fuck off"?
I don't suppose the posters would treat real people with this indifference and it's frankly humiliating to hide behind a digital identity and be so callous.
Again, many of the posters on this thread need to "grow up".
Here in London we don't particularly appreciate your cretinous attempts at humour. Why don't you grow up?
I put myself on the "Do not call" list and I still get calls from those idiotic automated "You have won a holiday" messages. How can that be? Well, it's because I live in the UK and the FCC, while stamping on abuse at home, does not require US businesses to honour our list. In this day and age, I find this rather puzzling.
Still, the last one we got, we managed to get through to a real person (at their expense) and left them talking to our three year old daughter for half an hour.
It's quite appropriate that, where a piece of work is still being sold, there should be protections over it. I'm even easy about Disney getting an extension over Mickey Mouse... MM is still being commercialised, so I'm not entirely comfortable with a Mickey free-for-all by any Johnny-come-lately.
But there is no place for 90-year copyrights for works that are not being commercialised. Copyright should operate on a 'use it or lose it' basis where, say, after five years of non-exploitation, the work is decopyrighted and opened to anyone who wants it.
Then perhaps we can get our DVD box set of "It's like, you know". [and "Nightingales" too, please]
Clearly we need to encourage people to take fake video cameras into films. If everyone is carrying a cam then they won't be able to find the real pirate from all the fakes.
Added bonus: every fake cam they try and take away can be used as evidence for a lawsuit against the theatre (someone in the cinema will probably have it on tape, eh?)
On that note, perhaps someone would care to torrent:
- It's like you know
- Nightingales
- Los Dos Bros
If companies won't release their material to us then they should lose their copyright over it and it should be turned over to the general public as a free-for-all.All this time I wondered why my copy had a genie instead of the paperclip.
Slightly more seriously, the UK patent system is maybe not as badly messed up/over-stretched/under-resourced as the US system (yet)?
Or perhaps it's just not full of trigger-happy numpties?
Exactly right. You accept an erosion of your liberties because you can perceive the benefit to you of doing so. In my case, I got a free DVD player and some nice suitcases from my points. And there's no cash cost. If you don't want to sign up to this arrangement, you don't have to.
Blunkett's plan, on the other hand, will cost you upfront for the card and you'll give up unspecified amounts of your own liberties, in return for no perceivable personal benefit. And if you don't want to sign up to this arrangement, you're clearly a t3rr0r1st!! who must be fined £3,000 and jailed indefinitely. None so blind as those that will not see?
Yeah, if you mean more than 0. They did it that way because they could, not out of guilt.
And now they're complaining about the new rules because their largesse is about to be exposed where it really hurts - through corporate earnings. I'm pretty sure they don't feel guilt. Guilt requires morality and I don't suppose corporate America could find two morals to rub together.
The very fact that companies don't want to tell shareholders how much of their (shareholders') money they are giving away, suggests that they were giving away too much.
...because they're giving away too much! Remember the company belongs to the shareholders, not the CEO/CFO. Shareholders have a right to fair information on how much of their money is being taken by management. Only putting it through the P&L does that.
No it doesn't. It means that they were using it as a way to hide expenses, or at least defer them.
It'll take a miracle for Bush to stop this one - Shelby on the Senate Banking Committee is absolutely committed to pushing this through. GWB would be well advised to allow the FASB to do their job.
Free markets operate with the principle of "caveat emptor", or let the buyer beware. If you don't like unlabeled goods, don't buy from them. If you don't trust the label, get a third party opinion, like from a consumer magazine.
Patchooey. 3/10, Palfreman, stay behind after class.
Actually free markets operate on information. They can get that information from a variety of means... let's stick with the foody example because it's easy to understand and I'm hungry.
How would a conscientious government stop food companies allowing their products to contain toxins that harm people? Well... they could force them to label their products showing the toxin levels. Or they could have a tax on food based on toxin levels. Or they could publish league tables of who makes food with least toxins. Or they could ban companies who make toxic food from coming to market. Or they could ask the industry to come up with a code of practice. etc etc etc.
None of these will always be the "best"... that's just fatuous, as is the Libertarian mantra that banning things is always wrong. You pick the solution that gives you the best information flow, simple as that.
and the rare fact that this film was released in the UK last summer, making this rather old news for anyone in Blighty. Makes a change for us to get a film first, eh?