I don't think anybody really believes the government propaganda machine anymore.
You give people way too much credit. I don't know about Russia, but in the US it's pretty easy to identify the 'faithful' who've got someone's hook lodged in their gullet.
Not to mention thieving scumbags who don't have any grasp of set ordering.
Either stealing from other criminals is "the lowest of the low," XOR "It's not as bad as stealing from family" which would make stealing from the family as the lowest of the low.
At least if it was "AS BAD," then you could make the argument for a partially ordered set.
Come on, lads. You might not have any respect for the law, or for others' property, but that's no excuse for sloppy logic!
I can understand why a mathematician might like to say that. However, in the real world there are many phenomena in which, for one input, there are several outputs.
How is that oversimplified? The book doesn't say those phenomena don't exist (at least, not in the quote), it says they're not functions.
Maybe capitalism will stop being the way economies are organized. Maybe we will have societies where people can relax all day because there is no need for them to work. Maybe one day the most intelligent people will be offered a chance to live in luxurious accommodations that are not available to the rest of society
Or maybe people will deteriorate into a state of apathy, then become victims and slaves of other men with machines, until finally comes the great revolt, the religious crusade against the machines.
In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god[1] and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise[2]
See, the problem there is the "in your mind" part. Only "[1]" has anything to do with atheism. "[2]" is commonly found across every ideology, belief system, and just about every other subset that people can split themselves into. All your screed is based on premise [2] and a "no true scotsman" fallacy, resulting in a thinly veiled attempt at sounding erudite while actually emitting nothing more than a hypocritical, butthurt whine.
I doubt "secure" in anyone's sense in their getting brand recognition. The "free space referral" pyramid scheme that they had going on for a few years probably had more to do with it.
1) It's to prevent the damage to society that drug users do in the form of low level crime to pay for habits, the costs of rehabilitation etc.
To add to what sibling AC said:
Most of said damage is a result of the Gangland Mk II situation created by prohibition, rather than the substances themselves. "Been there, done that" was almost 100 years ago now, but the new tech makes the methods of "enforcement" even more odious now than they were then.
I'm not sure what "computing market" this guy sees
on
Break Microsoft Up
·
· Score: 1
The underlying problem for Microsoft is that the computing market has rapidly left behind the company's basic strategy of controlling the machines that people use with operating-system software
In what alternate reality? The computing market here in the real world has wholeheartedly embraced that strategy. Windows and Mac on the desktop/laptops, every game console's proprietary OS, iOS and even Android is heading in that direction in the portable space. Linux is still mostly free of it, but then Linux is a blip in "the computing market" in this context.
I'm not saying that Microsoft's not screwed, but I question the credentials of an "expert" who says, essentially, "The reason <big oil company> is in so much trouble is because they refuse to adopt the new standard of cheap, safe, readily-available cold fusion."
Except for the last point - so what if it's delayed?
If it's going to be spoiled 3 months before you even have the opportunity to see it, it makes a strong case for many people not to bother.
The point your missing (or deliberately ignoring) is not about trying to justify unauthorized downloading. It's about a valuable business case being not only deliberately ignored, but, in many cases, explicitly denounced by a luddite industry.
Canada's iTunes gets Game of Thrones.
GoT is only one example. There's plenty they don't get, and it goes in all directions. There's some good stuff in the UK that might, just might, come to the US on DVD 1-2 years later, if we're lucky (and not just BBC programming stuff).
Is there some law that states you have to get it in your preferred form the day it's released?
and got told they wouldn't get non-discriminatory terms
False. Apple was told that they'd get the same terms as anyone else licensing them (the definition of "non-discriminatory") but considered the percentage too high since it was based on a percentage of selling price or revenue per unit, or something like that; in a nutshell, the licensing costs were higher for Apple because their products were more expensive.
Had I not already been familiar with the series, then I probably would have either checked out a few clips on YouTube first, or waited until I could rent the first couple discs through Netflix before buying the set.
Except that brings us back to the original point: if you can't buy them, you usually can't rent them.
And so far, as far as the books go, I have still only read A Game of Thrones and A Storm of Swords, and have done well at avoiding any spoilers. So thank you for so gracefully not revealing that certain event in A Clash of Kings.
A Clash of Kings was the second book, between A Game of Thrones and A Storm of Swords.
The Doctor is not a long-established (single) character. With each regeneration, an entirely different person is cast to play a different personality.
I disagree with the premise. A new actor does not create a new character and, while each new actor does add his own twist to the character, certain qualities are common across the board (except maybe the first Doctor, since I couldn't sit through those). A time-and-space jaunting do-gooder equally susceptible to moments of whimsical silliness or brooding gravitas (too much of the later lately, IMO, but that's just me), who considers Earth to be his own personal protectorate.
The opposition to a female lead has much of the same reasoning as the supporters, a relatable character. It also seems more feasible to have a female Doctor for one generation than to try to get an entirely new show funded, scripted, cast, marketed, aired, etc.
So those who currently relate to the character should no longer be able to do so because a much smaller demographic thinks they should be able to, instead? If there was an actual market for a female-led Doctor Who, you can bet it would happen. It's more feasible to try to do that than to take an existing line and make a change that could, very possibly, alienate the lion's share of the audience and risk losing both the potential property and the established one (what do you think the odds of said spinoff happening would be if DW tanks?)
I am actually doing a research study on current gender (male and female) roles, viewpoints, and media influence. While, yes, there are extremists on both sides, looking to them as representation of a cause would be like looking at Westboro Baptist as the embodiment of Christian churches.
No, I'm not talking about "extremists." I'm talking about Feminist Theory, the core of feminism, which is entirely based around a premise of systematic, intentional oppression for most of recorded history, and millennia of silent non-action by females. If you want to see an example of reasoning that supports the inherent inequality and innate victimhood of women, you can't do better than that.
Regardless of what others are doing, try to take an objective look at the issue at hand (female non-equality in media). The fact is that there are more men in important/respectable roles while women are usually cast for their sexuality. Think of the women that you do see in magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards, commercials; do they actually seem representative of women?
Honestly, I really hope your research is just starting out if you actually used "TV Shows" as an example of men being cast in "important/respectible roles."
I have taken an objective look (again, limited by the things I have been able to see).
One of the most popular formats of TV show is the sitcom. How about taking a nice, hard look at how men are portrayed in those. Need a hint? It's been going in the same direction since Married With Children and, pretty much hit bottom (or at least, bad enough that I gave up on the format) with Everybody Loves Raymond.
In drama, men are far, far more likely to be portrayed as violent, especially towards partners, despite several studies that reveal near-parity in the real world. Male central characters are more often the ones with substance abuse issues, more likely to be unfaithful, etc...
Ignoring, for the moment, the inherent flaw with "objectively" examining something that is innately subjective (which, it should be noted, is an error that your cited study makes from the word go): Physical appearance: Hollywood Homely and Informed ugliness happen across the aisle. Even moreso when you get into things marketed almost exclusively to women ("Daytime Dramas", e.g.).
Think of the women that you do see in magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards, commercials; do they actually seem representative of women?
That works fine with Game of Thrones, since you've read the books already. That's the same way I decided I wasn't really into the show.
But what if you hadn't known what was coming? It was still months after airing that the DVDs showed up for sale. Would it still have been worth buying them if you weren't already aware of that certain event in Clash of Kings, which spread like an unavoidable memetic wildfire starting the moment it aired?
If you care what people think of you, the solution isn't to hide that you're an evil asshole. The solution is clearly to stop being an evil asshole. If somebody exposes the truth about you, all fault still lies with you. "If you have nothing to hide..." after all, right?
You do realize that you're trying to talk sense to someone who just equated whistleblowing with treason, right?
Even back before local mail clients started to fall by the wayside, setting up [P]GP[G] generally involved a lot of not very user-friendly hoop-jumping. Then, after you finally got it to work (or you went with one of the niche mail clients whose only real functionality was the encryption), you had to deal with keys.
By the time you got your keys ready to go, and assuming you could find someone who could/would sign it, etc... you most likely realized that 100% of the people you were likely to email in the next 24 months would not be jumping through the same hoops, so you were good to go, but it was still ultimately useless to you.
If, by some miracle of statistical noise, you did end up in email communication with someone who had both the patience and inclination to go through the same setup, and that setup was compatible with yours, he/she was probably on the other end of the continent, if not on a different one, which made the traditional model of face-to-facing for key exchange impractical, at best. Of course, various middle-men services sprang up for a while to facilitate that process, which pretty much defeated the purpose of that process.
I'm not saying that end-to-end encryption isn't useful. Not even close to saying that. But if we're being honest, it's not something that's feasible to work for the mundanes any time soon.
Night mode is an eyesaver. I mostly read in bed, and the lack of a bedside lamp means getting back up to turn off the light at 3am (defeating the purpose of 'reading myself to sleep') if I use my old e-ink reader, or using the backlit Nook Color.
Switch FBReader to Night mode, and the latter wins hands down.
Women make up less than 30% of speaking roles, and of those, over 1/3rd are sexualized. The remaining 20% are typically hired based on physical attractiveness and are contractually required to maintain excessively low weights.
You're gonna need a citation for that, because if it's a choice between my own anecdotal/empirical evidence , or blindly accepting the word of some guy on the internet who likes to misuse the word "misogyny" as the usual half-assed shame-tactic, the personal experience is going to win every time.
Of course, even if it is true, that still doesn't explain why the demand is to screw with a long-established character rather than new works that contain that element. I could get behind that River Song spinoff, even if it did mean I'd have to deal with going deaf because of Dr. Girlfriend's squealing like a Japanese schoolgirl.
Modern feminists are not the bra-burning man-haters that they are portrayed as
The "Bra Burning" feminist is mythology. As for feminism not being "man-hating," either you're woefully ignorant of the current Feminist Narrative (TM), or you're just deluding yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I've tried. I wager that, if I'd managed to read the books, I'd also have a far more vast vocabulary of adjectives for use with ambient foliage.
But there's a non-trivial chance that if I kept buying physical books, I'd hit critical mass and my entire house would collapse into a black hole.
You'd be lucky to get off with a black hole.
It can get so much more dangerous
Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks.
And now I don't imagine it being pronounced "froy-o" (rhymes with "boyo") instead of "fro-yo."
Not sure that's relevant enough to count as my "something I learned today" but at least it's one less incongruity messing with my brain. :)
If it's anything like the IKEA shelves I've seen, it can't support itself without bowing.
What the hell is a "Froyo", anyway? It makes me think of a hobbit, not a dessert.
I don't think anybody really believes the government propaganda machine anymore.
You give people way too much credit. I don't know about Russia, but in the US it's pretty easy to identify the 'faithful' who've got someone's hook lodged in their gullet.
Not to mention thieving scumbags who don't have any grasp of set ordering.
Either stealing from other criminals is "the lowest of the low," XOR "It's not as bad as stealing from family" which would make stealing from the family as the lowest of the low.
At least if it was "AS BAD," then you could make the argument for a partially ordered set.
Come on, lads. You might not have any respect for the law, or for others' property, but that's no excuse for sloppy logic!
I can understand why a mathematician might like to say that. However, in the real world there are many phenomena in which, for one input, there are several outputs.
How is that oversimplified? The book doesn't say those phenomena don't exist (at least, not in the quote), it says they're not functions.
Maybe capitalism will stop being the way economies are organized. Maybe we will have societies where people can relax all day because there is no need for them to work. Maybe one day the most intelligent people will be offered a chance to live in luxurious accommodations that are not available to the rest of society
Or maybe people will deteriorate into a state of apathy, then become victims and slaves of other men with machines, until finally comes the great revolt, the religious crusade against the machines.
In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god[1] and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise[2]
See, the problem there is the "in your mind" part. Only "[1]" has anything to do with atheism. "[2]" is commonly found across every ideology, belief system, and just about every other subset that people can split themselves into. All your screed is based on premise [2] and a "no true scotsman" fallacy, resulting in a thinly veiled attempt at sounding erudite while actually emitting nothing more than a hypocritical, butthurt whine.
I doubt "secure" in anyone's sense in their getting brand recognition. The "free space referral" pyramid scheme that they had going on for a few years probably had more to do with it.
1) It's to prevent the damage to society that drug users do in the form of low level crime to pay for habits, the costs of rehabilitation etc.
To add to what sibling AC said:
Most of said damage is a result of the Gangland Mk II situation created by prohibition, rather than the substances themselves. "Been there, done that" was almost 100 years ago now, but the new tech makes the methods of "enforcement" even more odious now than they were then.
The underlying problem for Microsoft is that the computing market has rapidly left behind the company's basic strategy of controlling the machines that people use with operating-system software
In what alternate reality? The computing market here in the real world has wholeheartedly embraced that strategy. Windows and Mac on the desktop/laptops, every game console's proprietary OS, iOS and even Android is heading in that direction in the portable space. Linux is still mostly free of it, but then Linux is a blip in "the computing market" in this context.
I'm not saying that Microsoft's not screwed, but I question the credentials of an "expert" who says, essentially, "The reason <big oil company> is in so much trouble is because they refuse to adopt the new standard of cheap, safe, readily-available cold fusion."
Except for the last point - so what if it's delayed?
If it's going to be spoiled 3 months before you even have the opportunity to see it, it makes a strong case for many people not to bother.
The point your missing (or deliberately ignoring) is not about trying to justify unauthorized downloading. It's about a valuable business case being not only deliberately ignored, but, in many cases, explicitly denounced by a luddite industry.
Canada's iTunes gets Game of Thrones.
GoT is only one example. There's plenty they don't get, and it goes in all directions. There's some good stuff in the UK that might, just might, come to the US on DVD 1-2 years later, if we're lucky (and not just BBC programming stuff).
Is there some law that states you have to get it in your preferred form the day it's released?
Shut UP! Didn't you RTFS? Do you really want the awesome chocolate-like goodness to become as thin on the ground as the yellow logs of styrofoam?!
and got told they wouldn't get non-discriminatory terms
False. Apple was told that they'd get the same terms as anyone else licensing them (the definition of "non-discriminatory") but considered the percentage too high since it was based on a percentage of selling price or revenue per unit, or something like that; in a nutshell, the licensing costs were higher for Apple because their products were more expensive.
Had I not already been familiar with the series, then I probably would have either checked out a few clips on YouTube first, or waited until I could rent the first couple discs through Netflix before buying the set.
Except that brings us back to the original point: if you can't buy them, you usually can't rent them.
And so far, as far as the books go, I have still only read A Game of Thrones and A Storm of Swords, and have done well at avoiding any spoilers. So thank you for so gracefully not revealing that certain event in A Clash of Kings.
A Clash of Kings was the second book, between A Game of Thrones and A Storm of Swords.
The Doctor is not a long-established (single) character. With each regeneration, an entirely different person is cast to play a different personality.
I disagree with the premise. A new actor does not create a new character and, while each new actor does add his own twist to the character, certain qualities are common across the board (except maybe the first Doctor, since I couldn't sit through those). A time-and-space jaunting do-gooder equally susceptible to moments of whimsical silliness or brooding gravitas (too much of the later lately, IMO, but that's just me), who considers Earth to be his own personal protectorate.
The opposition to a female lead has much of the same reasoning as the supporters, a relatable character. It also seems more feasible to have a female Doctor for one generation than to try to get an entirely new show funded, scripted, cast, marketed, aired, etc.
So those who currently relate to the character should no longer be able to do so because a much smaller demographic thinks they should be able to, instead? If there was an actual market for a female-led Doctor Who, you can bet it would happen. It's more feasible to try to do that than to take an existing line and make a change that could, very possibly, alienate the lion's share of the audience and risk losing both the potential property and the established one (what do you think the odds of said spinoff happening would be if DW tanks?)
I am actually doing a research study on current gender (male and female) roles, viewpoints, and media influence. While, yes, there are extremists on both sides, looking to them as representation of a cause would be like looking at Westboro Baptist as the embodiment of Christian churches.
No, I'm not talking about "extremists." I'm talking about Feminist Theory, the core of feminism, which is entirely based around a premise of systematic, intentional oppression for most of recorded history, and millennia of silent non-action by females. If you want to see an example of reasoning that supports the inherent inequality and innate victimhood of women, you can't do better than that.
Regardless of what others are doing, try to take an objective look at the issue at hand (female non-equality in media). The fact is that there are more men in important/respectable roles while women are usually cast for their sexuality. Think of the women that you do see in magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards, commercials; do they actually seem representative of women?
Honestly, I really hope your research is just starting out if you actually used "TV Shows" as an example of men being cast in "important/respectible roles."
I have taken an objective look (again, limited by the things I have been able to see).
One of the most popular formats of TV show is the sitcom. How about taking a nice, hard look at how men are portrayed in those. Need a hint? It's been going in the same direction since Married With Children and, pretty much hit bottom (or at least, bad enough that I gave up on the format) with Everybody Loves Raymond.
In drama, men are far, far more likely to be portrayed as violent, especially towards partners, despite several studies that reveal near-parity in the real world. Male central characters are more often the ones with substance abuse issues, more likely to be unfaithful, etc...
Ignoring, for the moment, the inherent flaw with "objectively" examining something that is innately subjective (which, it should be noted, is an error that your cited study makes from the word go):
Physical appearance: Hollywood Homely and Informed ugliness happen across the aisle. Even moreso when you get into things marketed almost exclusively to women ("Daytime Dramas", e.g.).
Think of the women that you do see in magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards, commercials; do they actually seem representative of women?
No. And
That works fine with Game of Thrones, since you've read the books already. That's the same way I decided I wasn't really into the show.
But what if you hadn't known what was coming? It was still months after airing that the DVDs showed up for sale. Would it still have been worth buying them if you weren't already aware of that certain event in Clash of Kings, which spread like an unavoidable memetic wildfire starting the moment it aired?
If you care what people think of you, the solution isn't to hide that you're an evil asshole. The solution is clearly to stop being an evil asshole. If somebody exposes the truth about you, all fault still lies with you. "If you have nothing to hide..." after all, right?
You do realize that you're trying to talk sense to someone who just equated whistleblowing with treason, right?
Except when you don't, which is the point.
Regional limitations? Not on iTunes and/or Amazon, or held back for weeks/months? Edited from original (SyFy does this to DW)?
All of these obstacles exist. Commonly.
Good luck with that.
Even back before local mail clients started to fall by the wayside, setting up [P]GP[G] generally involved a lot of not very user-friendly hoop-jumping. Then, after you finally got it to work (or you went with one of the niche mail clients whose only real functionality was the encryption), you had to deal with keys.
By the time you got your keys ready to go, and assuming you could find someone who could/would sign it, etc... you most likely realized that 100% of the people you were likely to email in the next 24 months would not be jumping through the same hoops, so you were good to go, but it was still ultimately useless to you.
If, by some miracle of statistical noise, you did end up in email communication with someone who had both the patience and inclination to go through the same setup, and that setup was compatible with yours, he/she was probably on the other end of the continent, if not on a different one, which made the traditional model of face-to-facing for key exchange impractical, at best. Of course, various middle-men services sprang up for a while to facilitate that process, which pretty much defeated the purpose of that process.
I'm not saying that end-to-end encryption isn't useful. Not even close to saying that. But if we're being honest, it's not something that's feasible to work for the mundanes any time soon.
Dear Anonymous Mk II,
"Who is dicking whom."
Sincerely,
Ms. Bluebell, your sixth grade English Teacher
Night mode is an eyesaver. I mostly read in bed, and the lack of a bedside lamp means getting back up to turn off the light at 3am (defeating the purpose of 'reading myself to sleep') if I use my old e-ink reader, or using the backlit Nook Color.
Switch FBReader to Night mode, and the latter wins hands down.
Women make up less than 30% of speaking roles, and of those, over 1/3rd are sexualized. The remaining 20% are typically hired based on physical attractiveness and are contractually required to maintain excessively low weights.
You're gonna need a citation for that, because if it's a choice between my own anecdotal/empirical evidence , or blindly accepting the word of some guy on the internet who likes to misuse the word "misogyny" as the usual half-assed shame-tactic, the personal experience is going to win every time.
Of course, even if it is true, that still doesn't explain why the demand is to screw with a long-established character rather than new works that contain that element. I could get behind that River Song spinoff, even if it did mean I'd have to deal with going deaf because of Dr. Girlfriend's squealing like a Japanese schoolgirl.
Modern feminists are not the bra-burning man-haters that they are portrayed as
The "Bra Burning" feminist is mythology. As for feminism not being "man-hating," either you're woefully ignorant of the current Feminist Narrative (TM), or you're just deluding yourself.