Considering they charge the recipients for that aid, yeah, I'd say we can safely call them "fuckers".
I don't think I'd call them "fuckers", but they are NOT the altruistic organization that their PR makes them out to be.
My father was a WWII vet and he refused to ever give the Red Cross a dime after the war. It seems that when he was rotated back from Iwo Jima the Red Cross had taken all the cigarettes out of the men's supplies boxes (they had candy bars, cigarettes, writing paper, razors, etc) and were SELLING them to the soldiers. These boxes were supplied by the government and were not the property of the Red Cross, who clearly saw a chance to make a buck.
Their methods have not changed that much since then, given that they were advertizing for donations for 9/11 victims and were instead caught putting the millions received into their general bank accounts.
"Fuckers", no, but not the selfless organization they pretend to be either. I do NOT include in this criticism the many Red Cross volunteers who do great work for no pay in times of need, but they are very different from the organization "Red Cross".
I like what the Russians do. There was a special Cops episode filmed over there. The bad guys had a van full of caviar. The helecopter machine-gunned the van's engine.
Why the heck don't we authorize this over here? Some FAA thing or a DoD power grab?
The thinking is that helicopters are always unarmed so that criminals do not shoot at them, news copters, or rescue copters. Also, bullets fired at helicopters could kill innocent people miles away.
So we pour millions of dollars in taxpayer funded security when the terrorists might as well go to the basketball game next door (or a mall) to do their dirty work. Not only is it easier but we end up buying useless 3D remote cameras to look under cars. I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.
Exactly. It is far easier for the administration to do the gee-whiz technology stuff than to do the really hard stuff required to fix the problem at the root. Because terrorists could attack literally anywhere it is virtually impossible to defend against determined attackers. Rather than spending billions on 3D cameras, electronic data mining and domestic surveillance, which only give us a false sense of security, it would be much better to focus our resources on figuring our exactly why these extremists are being spawned in certain cultures in the first place, and then fixing THAT problem.
America used to be incredibly ignorant and insensitive to Muslim religion (such as when we named military systems "Crusaders"). We know that there was no religious intent in those names, but many Muslims did not. Of course there are some policies we cannot and should not change, but there are also many policies which don't make one bit of diffrence to us that could be changed to improve the world's perception of America. There are even policy changes (no torture or rendition) that would be MORE in line with our American ideals AND reduce the creation of new terrorists. Changing bad policy is the way to stop terrorist attacks, not 3D cameras and predator drones. Unfortunately that takes a competent administration that actaully thinks about issues rather than just calling out the military, torturing suspects, and screaming "Security" every thirty seconds.
I'm not soft on terrorists - hunt them down, try them in courts and put a bullet in their heads. Good riddance. But we also have to do whatever it takes to prevent more of them being created. If your basement is flooding, the first thing to do is turn off the water - not buy a million dollar 3D camera to spot the leaks.
Did you not read my post? Starr defined the term "having sex" not Clinton. What's hard to understand about that? I said he lied. He dd not, however, commit perjury no matter how absurd your rationalizations.
Lying:perjury lying:purjury TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
ANyone who claims the House of Representatives is a non-political deliberative body shouldn't risk calling anyone revisionist.
Isn't Adultery [wikipedia.org] illegal in this country?
Whaaaaaat!?:-) Where the heck do you live? No, adultery isn't a crime in the US - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, yes, but in the US, no. Did you REALLY get that from wikipedia? Oh my God.
And BTW I liked your first post - it was correct that it is all politics that has gotten out of hand - but fair is fair and equating Iran-Contra with a bowjob just isn't gonna fly.
In addition to lying about it on TV, which, indeed, was not illegal, he lied about it in a court deposition [wikipedia.org] -- under oath
tHIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE CRAP THAT IS ON WIKIPEDIA! (oops). Clinton did not lie under oath or in the deposition. He asked for and got a precise definition of what "having sex" was. The opposing counsel defined it as "sexual intercourse". He then truthfully answered that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinski because he did not have sexual intercourse with her. That is fine in a court, but then he got on Tv and stated again that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinski - that was a lie because the common definition of sexual relations is very different than the precise legal definition he had from the court. So...he did NOT lie under oath, but did lie to the American people. No crime committed.
I hope you've learned your lesson about wikipedia.
Congress was absolutely correct in impeaching him. That Senate decided to allow him to stay for political, rather than legal reasons is another story.
You've got that exactly backwards. The House of Representatives impeached Clinton for purely political reasons (no crime having been committed no matter how wikipedia tries to change history), and then the Senate, being of a more rational mind, refused to take it any further.
there was no difference between the abuse by the dems against Reagan and the abuse of the repubs against Clinton (same laws, same type of abuse, and about the same level of succesful prosecutions - nasty politics in general
I disagree 100%. Reagan absolutely broke the law when he supplied arms to Iran in direct contravention of the law. Clinton broke NO laws. He got a blow job and then lied about it on TV, but neither are illegal. There were several successful prosecutions in the Iran-Contra scandal: Oliver North and Admiral Secours. Even though they both go around saying they were found innocent, that is not the case. They were found guilty but their convictions were overturned on procedural technicalities.
I also have a problem with your characterization of Ronnie Earl as being a prosecutor who "prosecutes political opponents". That is a perfect example of how to lie with the truth. Yes, he has prosecuted political opponents, but you failed to mention that he has also has a long history of prosecuting politicians in his own party. He prosecutes corrupt politicians! You mislead when you state only the half-truth.
...can be seen as part of the corrective mechanism of such a site. Sure, any public figure can modify a Wikipedia page to distort the truth in their favor (or any non-public figure can modify a page to slander someone else), but when the transgression is serious enough, someone points it out, the story becomes public, and then everyone knows what they're up to.
And as a corrective system it is pretty pathetic, not because it doesn't correct some pages (it does), but because we don't know which or even how many pages need or get corrected. We have absolutely no idea how many pages like this go unfound, unnoticed, and uncorrected. Again, that is the exact problem people have with wikipedia - one never knows what is biased, malicious, self-serving garbage and what is not.
Within individual wikipedia articles bias can range from most of it to a few choice words. Within the entirety of wikipedia, significantly biased articles could number from most of them to just a few. We have no idea. I would like to see some researchers do a detailed analysis of wikipedia to determine how much of it is crap and how much of it isn't. Come on grad students - here's a great thesis or dissertation topic that will definately get you published.
Please tell me how, for example, a 14 year old walking home from school is required to show ID when they do now possess such a thing. No, actually, let's make it 18, who doesn't drive. Since I'm not required to have (any) ID, I'd have to say it's impossible that I can be required to show it, ever.
You aren't required to "show ID'. You are required to identify yourself. So unless you start asking "What happens if I have amnesia?", your point is moot.
In the Hillel case the police asked him for his name, which he refused to provide. They never asked him for ID because they knew they had no probable cause to arrest him until, ironically, he refused to tell them his name.
Nevada is still the only state which requires identification, upon request, by law
That is not true. Many other states have such laws including, I'm sorry to say, New York. I checked after the Hillel case. I don't have the complete list any more, nor the links, but it only takes about 15 minutes of googling to find the list.
But that only works if you pretend that Fox likes to show images of people dancing in the street following the burning alive of a couple of hundred people in a Bali night club.
You are attempting to equate the reporting with the act. When that sort of celebratory behavior goes on in some parts of the world I would rather know it than not. I would think it horrible and wrong but I would rather know the truth than only hear the happy-news propoganda fed to us by Fox. Propaganda pap such as how Iraqi's would be offering us flowers in the streets after we invaded, how the insurgents are on the run (according to Fox's logic the increased insurgent activity proves they're losing), and how we are winning the war.
Before you regurgitate some Fox nonsense about how we really are winning, no occupying force that can only leave its walled and fortified compounds in heavily armored convoys can claim to be winning anything, no matter how often Fox says otherwise.
...especially if said black people are sexy and live near a great, nay, the best lake.
People are trying to make a case that some predictor words for winning a Sundance award (America, beautiful, Africa, black,...etc.) imply that films about black Africans or beautiful America win awards.
What everyone is missing is that these terms are NOT RELATED in the Baysean filter - they are just words. It is the human brain that is incorrectly associating 'America' with 'beautiful' or 'black' with 'Africa' or 'black people'. Humans are coming up with the pseudo-revelation that films about black people in Africa tend to win the awards when actually THERE IS NO CONNECTION. "Black" for instance could be used in the film's description as black comedy, black mood, or a film shot in black and white. In fact, I would suspect that the correlation between the word "black" and the likelihood of a Sundance festival award comes more from the use of non-color film stock than from films about black people.
As for the word 'beautiful', who could be surprised that films winning awards are described as beautiful? Sheesh - talk about obvious.
And you, my friend, have obviously never compared your 35mm images (yes, I'm aware of all of the neccessities of sharp images, but sharpness is only one facet of overall image quality) to images produced with the same care from medium or large format cameras
I haven't? I also own a Rollei 6008 inetgral MF camera as well as 35s and I do know the difference. I never said that MF are not better for large prints (of course they are, all things being equal), just that your limit of 5x7 for 35mm as being the max acceptable enlargement from 35mm was absurd, and it is. And excuse me, but MF does not have a larger tonal scale than 35mm since the film is the same. The lens quality does make a difference of course, but high quality lenses for 35mm are much easier to make than for MF and as a result MF lenses generally have LESS contrast than comparable 35mm lenses, particularly toward the edges. The best 35mm lenses have better contrast, are faster, and have better resolving power than the best MF lenses (and are generaly an order of magnitude cheaper,too). The lower resolving power of the MF lenses is more than made up for by the larger negatives, but the loss of contrast is not. By the way if you want really good glass forget Zeiss and use Schneider-Kreuznach.
Second, I also made it clear that the 5x7 limit is imposed on 35mm images when hung next to similar sized medium format images.
No you did not. You made a simple, absurd statement that 5x7 was the largest acceptable print size from a 35mm negative. Sorry, but you can't re-write your original post.
Properly exposed, low-speed 35mm slide film holds resolution surprisingly well.
I agree 100%. I have several large prints made with 35mm that even pro's are surprised to learn were made from 35mm negatives.
Rock solid tripod, slow film, high quality lenses shot at their middle stops, fanatical attention paid to damping vibration, and then top quality developing and printing can result in large prints that most people think were made with my medium format equipment.
For display, I would never take a 35mm image higher than 5x7; for snapshots, they'll go to 11x14.
That's absurd. I have several 11x17 inch high quality cibachrome prints from 35mm that I would stack against any 5x7 for display purposes. You can actually lose detail in a 5x7 print because the resolving power of the paper isn't high enough to display all the detail that is in the film. Oh, a 5x7 looks nice and sharp with a piss poor negative (maybe that's why you don't go larger?), but the detail is not really there.
How do you get a high quality 11x17 inch print from 35mm? Heavy tripod and head, top lenses, proper aperture, high quality slow film (with careful developing), cable release or timer, mirror lock-up if you have it, and THEN wait at least 15 seconds for vibration to damp out before firing the shutter. Then do that all over again in the printing phase. Most people, including you evidently, don't have a clue as to what good technique can do for a 35mm negative.
Sue based on what? It's a private institution and can legally do whatever it wants, within the bounds of any contractual obligations.
Not quite true. It cannot violate the law as in discrimination based on sex, race, etc, nor can it allow harrassment, nor can it defraud the student or steal from him or defame him.
Since they took away his scholarship a lawsuit for theft of property might be possible, as might a lawsuit on involuntary servitude by "sentencing" him to community service (they aren't a lawful court after all). If they released his identity publicly there might be a defamation suit possible by way of their statements that he needed psychological counseling.
These would all be very unusual lawsuits, but I'm just pointing out that the school CANNOT just do anything it wants to its students with impunity.
The reason I think it's important to make this distinction is that price gouging is a serious matter, and 'dilution' of the term by misusing it lessens the effect of using it approriately.
first, who cares if the word "gouging" diluted? Of all the things to worry about, "diluted gouging terminology" is about 10 millionth on my list.
Second, anyone who doesn't think the telephone companies are gouging (my term) is crazy. with tens of millions of customers paying $20 -$100 PER MONTH even for plain old telephone service, the phone companies rival the oil cartels for pure greed. One hundred million households paying $50/month equals $5 billion a MONTH for the phone companies! The telephone is essentially unchanged after 100 years and it still costs hundreds of dollars per year for the SERVICE ? Plain basic telephone service is outrageously priced, and I haven;t even begun to talk about "advanced" features like caller ID. Cellular and broadband are orders of magnitude more outrageous.
Talent means nothing most of the time, luck or blind obedience is what gets the cash rolling in.
I don't agree. If it were just luck then money would be falling out of the sky randomly to any of us. What is involved is ORIGINAL THINKING, and whether we agree that pixel-selling or forehead-renting are brilliant or not, they ARE original ideas. Although clearly not of the same scale, these ideas are the same as Sears' idea of selling by catalog, and Ford's idea of an assembly line. All of these people deserve our respect, not for being great people, philanthropists or geniuses, but for simply being original thinkers.
I don't get the "blind obedience" part of your post at all.
Ever wonder why the nobel prize isn't awarded until years after the work has been done? Because they want to know if the work that was done will lead to anything major.
No, no, no. The reason it is awarded years later is to make sure the research holds up over time, and is neither a fluke nor being misinterpreted (as in cold fusion). The value of the discovery stands on its own merit, not on the value of subsequent work.
But the evilness of Hitler's scale is mutually exclusive with the stupidity, that warrants comparisions with a monkey.
I'm not quite sure that sentence makes sense, but I think I get your point. I did not bring up Hitler, you did. Your point was very clear: One cannot be both stupid and evil at the same time (as in Hitler) so people who dislike Bush for both exhibit a logical inconsistency. I hope you have a better argument than that for Bush being a competent president. It is pretty clear that Bush is dumb as a post AND has no empathy for the 30,000 innocent civilians in his war for oil. I personally think killing 30,000 people for more money for you and your "oil binness" buddies is pretty damned evil.
Heh, do you think, Roosevelt knew exactly how many Japanese died in any of the American attacks? Does that make him in any way similar to Hitler? Or to Bush, for that matter?
It isn't the knowing, it is the utter disregard for the humanity of those that suffer that is the issue. Also, Roosevelt did not gain financially from WWII in the way that the Bushes and the Carlisle Group have done. Another BIG difference between Roosevelt and Bush is that in WWII we were attacked while the Iraq war is a competely optional war based on trumped up PR to further the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld neo-con doctrine...and of course for the money. Bush clearly wanted Iraq oil and he pathetically thought it would be easy to get just by invading. That was stupid beyond words.
Seriously, some putz at the local pub insisted the Pint glasses there were only 14 fluid ounces. Having a few of same at home I whipped out my trusty graduated cylinder and measured the volume with great precision. The result was close to 16.5 fluid ounces. I keep waiting for an opportunity to make a $100 bet,
Be careful where you bet. Many "pints" you order in bars really do come in glasses that don't hold a pint. Its up to the bar owner which type he buys. Those thin-walled glasses with the bulbous ring near the top - pints. Those thick-walled straight-sided conical glasses - likely not full pints.
All I said, is that the same person simply can not be stupid enough to deserve being called "clueless baboon" and evil enough to warrant comparisions with Hitler.
What makes you say that? Evilness and stupidness are not mutually exclusive. The infamous Idi Amin comes to mind. Just look at the vicious murderers in prison with IQs below 85.
If anything, I would think visiousness and lack of intelligence would be positively correlated. The unintelligent lack empathy for their victims by not having the imagination to put themselves in their victim's shoes.
A good example is Bush'e reply recently to the number of civilian killed in Iraq. "Twenny-five, thirty thousand,", he said, but in a tone completely devoid of empathy for THIRTY THOUSAND DEAD HUMAN BEINGS that made it clear he had simply memorized a number.
If the warming were proportional to the population increase since then, we should have all been cooked by now and run out of things to eat and drink.
You are really into PR aren't you? Talk about junk science. No one said global warming was ^proportional^ to human population, just that the main reason for environmetal problems today is the huge human population. I think that is a no-brainer. The large human population stresses the environment in every way, simply because of the large amount of everything those billions of individuals need - food, water, energy, metals, etc. The consumerized, manufacturing-intense world that makes this huge population possible (not all those people could hunt for food and live in tents) only adds to the environmental problems.
And please don;t tell me you are basing your contention that population has little effect on the environment on the fact that a book written 40 years ago turned out to be wrong! I remember the "Population Bomb", and environmental scientists at the time thought it was bunk. It was not a scientific treatise, but a paperback book published in the popular press for the masses.
Trees evaporate huge amounts of water, which causes the average forest to be cooler on hot days than a plowed or even planted fields
First, trees don;t evaporate huge amounts of water. In fact, trees are designed to conserve as much water as possible. Trees need their water for photosynthesis. Forests are cool because forest shade allows water to be retained - evaporation of that water then cools the forest air. But that does not change the fact that tree leaves absorb a lot of sunlight (aka energy) - after all that is the purpose of leaves and they are dark and plentiful for just that reason. On a more technical level, all the water that is evaporated within a forest eventually condenses again somewhere else releasing its heat - so there is a net-zero effect on global temperatures from evaporation (local yes, global no). The dark forest canopy absorbs a lot of sunlight rather than reflecting it back into space and that can causes a net energy gain globally.
Just as snow cover reflecting sunlight during the ice ages lengthened and deepened the ice age, dark plant matter covering large amounts of surface area would tend to increase the amount of sunlight absorbed and warm the planet. That is just common sense. The real question is whether the warming effect of the dark forests is outweighed by the cooling effect of forest-sequestered atmospheric carbon.
I suggest that before you try to blow away other people's ideas you get a better grounding in basic science yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering they charge the recipients for that aid, yeah, I'd say we can safely call them "fuckers".
I don't think I'd call them "fuckers", but they are NOT the altruistic organization that their PR makes them out to be.
My father was a WWII vet and he refused to ever give the Red Cross a dime after the war. It seems that when he was rotated back from Iwo Jima the Red Cross had taken all the cigarettes out of the men's supplies boxes (they had candy bars, cigarettes, writing paper, razors, etc) and were SELLING them to the soldiers. These boxes were supplied by the government and were not the property of the Red Cross, who clearly saw a chance to make a buck.
Their methods have not changed that much since then, given that they were advertizing for donations for 9/11 victims and were instead caught putting the millions received into their general bank accounts.
"Fuckers", no, but not the selfless organization they pretend to be either. I do NOT include in this criticism the many Red Cross volunteers who do great work for no pay in times of need, but they are very different from the organization "Red Cross".
I like what the Russians do. There was a special Cops episode filmed over there. The bad guys had a van full of caviar. The helecopter machine-gunned the van's engine.
Why the heck don't we authorize this over here? Some FAA thing or a DoD power grab?
The thinking is that helicopters are always unarmed so that criminals do not shoot at them, news copters, or rescue copters. Also, bullets fired at helicopters could kill innocent people miles away.
So we pour millions of dollars in taxpayer funded security when the terrorists might as well go to the basketball game next door (or a mall) to do their dirty work. Not only is it easier but we end up buying useless 3D remote cameras to look under cars. I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.
Exactly. It is far easier for the administration to do the gee-whiz technology stuff than to do the really hard stuff required to fix the problem at the root. Because terrorists could attack literally anywhere it is virtually impossible to defend against determined attackers. Rather than spending billions on 3D cameras, electronic data mining and domestic surveillance, which only give us a false sense of security, it would be much better to focus our resources on figuring our exactly why these extremists are being spawned in certain cultures in the first place, and then fixing THAT problem.
America used to be incredibly ignorant and insensitive to Muslim religion (such as when we named military systems "Crusaders"). We know that there was no religious intent in those names, but many Muslims did not. Of course there are some policies we cannot and should not change, but there are also many policies which don't make one bit of diffrence to us that could be changed to improve the world's perception of America. There are even policy changes (no torture or rendition) that would be MORE in line with our American ideals AND reduce the creation of new terrorists. Changing bad policy is the way to stop terrorist attacks, not 3D cameras and predator drones. Unfortunately that takes a competent administration that actaully thinks about issues rather than just calling out the military, torturing suspects, and screaming "Security" every thirty seconds.
I'm not soft on terrorists - hunt them down, try them in courts and put a bullet in their heads. Good riddance. But we also have to do whatever it takes to prevent more of them being created. If your basement is flooding, the first thing to do is turn off the water - not buy a million dollar 3D camera to spot the leaks.
Did you not read my post? Starr defined the term "having sex" not Clinton. What's hard to understand about that? I said he lied. He dd not, however, commit perjury no matter how absurd your rationalizations.
Lying:perjury lying:purjury TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
ANyone who claims the House of Representatives is a non-political deliberative body shouldn't risk calling anyone revisionist.
Isn't Adultery [wikipedia.org] illegal in this country?
:-) Where the heck do you live? No, adultery isn't a crime in the US - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, yes, but in the US, no. Did you REALLY get that from wikipedia? Oh my God.
Whaaaaaat!?
And BTW I liked your first post - it was correct that it is all politics that has gotten out of hand - but fair is fair and equating Iran-Contra with a bowjob just isn't gonna fly.
In addition to lying about it on TV, which, indeed, was not illegal, he lied about it in a court deposition [wikipedia.org] -- under oath
tHIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE CRAP THAT IS ON WIKIPEDIA! (oops). Clinton did not lie under oath or in the deposition. He asked for and got a precise definition of what "having sex" was. The opposing counsel defined it as "sexual intercourse". He then truthfully answered that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinski because he did not have sexual intercourse with her. That is fine in a court, but then he got on Tv and stated again that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinski - that was a lie because the common definition of sexual relations is very different than the precise legal definition he had from the court. So...he did NOT lie under oath, but did lie to the American people. No crime committed.
I hope you've learned your lesson about wikipedia.
Congress was absolutely correct in impeaching him. That Senate decided to allow him to stay for political, rather than legal reasons is another story.
You've got that exactly backwards. The House of Representatives impeached Clinton for purely political reasons (no crime having been committed no matter how wikipedia tries to change history), and then the Senate, being of a more rational mind, refused to take it any further.
there was no difference between the abuse by the dems against Reagan and the abuse of the repubs against Clinton (same laws, same type of abuse, and about the same level of succesful prosecutions - nasty politics in general
I disagree 100%. Reagan absolutely broke the law when he supplied arms to Iran in direct contravention of the law. Clinton broke NO laws. He got a blow job and then lied about it on TV, but neither are illegal. There were several successful prosecutions in the Iran-Contra scandal: Oliver North and Admiral Secours. Even though they both go around saying they were found innocent, that is not the case. They were found guilty but their convictions were overturned on procedural technicalities.
I also have a problem with your characterization of Ronnie Earl as being a prosecutor who "prosecutes political opponents". That is a perfect example of how to lie with the truth. Yes, he has prosecuted political opponents, but you failed to mention that he has also has a long history of prosecuting politicians in his own party. He prosecutes corrupt politicians! You mislead when you state only the half-truth.
...can be seen as part of the corrective mechanism of such a site. Sure, any public figure can modify a Wikipedia page to distort the truth in their favor (or any non-public figure can modify a page to slander someone else), but when the transgression is serious enough, someone points it out, the story becomes public, and then everyone knows what they're up to.
And as a corrective system it is pretty pathetic, not because it doesn't correct some pages (it does), but because we don't know which or even how many pages need or get corrected. We have absolutely no idea how many pages like this go unfound, unnoticed, and uncorrected. Again, that is the exact problem people have with wikipedia - one never knows what is biased, malicious, self-serving garbage and what is not.
Within individual wikipedia articles bias can range from most of it to a few choice words. Within the entirety of wikipedia, significantly biased articles could number from most of them to just a few. We have no idea. I would like to see some researchers do a detailed analysis of wikipedia to determine how much of it is crap and how much of it isn't. Come on grad students - here's a great thesis or dissertation topic that will definately get you published.
Please tell me how, for example, a 14 year old walking home from school is required to show ID when they do now possess such a thing. No, actually, let's make it 18, who doesn't drive. Since I'm not required to have (any) ID, I'd have to say it's impossible that I can be required to show it, ever.
You aren't required to "show ID'. You are required to identify yourself. So unless you start asking "What happens if I have amnesia?", your point is moot.
In the Hillel case the police asked him for his name, which he refused to provide. They never asked him for ID because they knew they had no probable cause to arrest him until, ironically, he refused to tell them his name.
Nevada is still the only state which requires identification, upon request, by law
That is not true. Many other states have such laws including, I'm sorry to say, New York. I checked after the Hillel case. I don't have the complete list any more, nor the links, but it only takes about 15 minutes of googling to find the list.
But that only works if you pretend that Fox likes to show images of people dancing in the street following the burning alive of a couple of hundred people in a Bali night club.
You are attempting to equate the reporting with the act. When that sort of celebratory behavior goes on in some parts of the world I would rather know it than not. I would think it horrible and wrong but I would rather know the truth than only hear the happy-news propoganda fed to us by Fox. Propaganda pap such as how Iraqi's would be offering us flowers in the streets after we invaded, how the insurgents are on the run (according to Fox's logic the increased insurgent activity proves they're losing), and how we are winning the war.
Before you regurgitate some Fox nonsense about how we really are winning, no occupying force that can only leave its walled and fortified compounds in heavily armored convoys can claim to be winning anything, no matter how often Fox says otherwise.
People are trying to make a case that some predictor words for winning a Sundance award (America, beautiful, Africa, black,
What everyone is missing is that these terms are NOT RELATED in the Baysean filter - they are just words. It is the human brain that is incorrectly associating 'America' with 'beautiful' or 'black' with 'Africa' or 'black people'. Humans are coming up with the pseudo-revelation that films about black people in Africa tend to win the awards when actually THERE IS NO CONNECTION. "Black" for instance could be used in the film's description as black comedy, black mood, or a film shot in black and white. In fact, I would suspect that the correlation between the word "black" and the likelihood of a Sundance festival award comes more from the use of non-color film stock than from films about black people.
As for the word 'beautiful', who could be surprised that films winning awards are described as beautiful? Sheesh - talk about obvious.
You may have kept your self-respect, but it seems you lost your sense of coherency. What in the fuck did you just say?
The writer meant the caller himself asked for a "stupid change", not that the caller asked for a change that was, in the writer's opinion, stupid.
Evidently the CEO had the same problem interpreting his writing.
And you, my friend, have obviously never compared your 35mm images (yes, I'm aware of all of the neccessities of sharp images, but sharpness is only one facet of overall image quality) to images produced with the same care from medium or large format cameras
I haven't? I also own a Rollei 6008 inetgral MF camera as well as 35s and I do know the difference. I never said that MF are not better for large prints (of course they are, all things being equal), just that your limit of 5x7 for 35mm as being the max acceptable enlargement from 35mm was absurd, and it is. And excuse me, but MF does not have a larger tonal scale than 35mm since the film is the same. The lens quality does make a difference of course, but high quality lenses for 35mm are much easier to make than for MF and as a result MF lenses generally have LESS contrast than comparable 35mm lenses, particularly toward the edges. The best 35mm lenses have better contrast, are faster, and have better resolving power than the best MF lenses (and are generaly an order of magnitude cheaper,too). The lower resolving power of the MF lenses is more than made up for by the larger negatives, but the loss of contrast is not. By the way if you want really good glass forget Zeiss and use Schneider-Kreuznach.
Second, I also made it clear that the 5x7 limit is imposed on 35mm images when hung next to similar sized medium format images.
No you did not. You made a simple, absurd statement that 5x7 was the largest acceptable print size from a 35mm negative. Sorry, but you can't re-write your original post.
If the BBC ever announces, "Next [Some Show] followed by Dr. Who." does that mean that Who's on second?
No - Who's on first, What's on second, and I Don't Know's on third.
Properly exposed, low-speed 35mm slide film holds resolution surprisingly well.
I agree 100%. I have several large prints made with 35mm that even pro's are surprised to learn were made from 35mm negatives.
Rock solid tripod, slow film, high quality lenses shot at their middle stops, fanatical attention paid to damping vibration, and then top quality developing and printing can result in large prints that most people think were made with my medium format equipment.
For display, I would never take a 35mm image higher than 5x7; for snapshots, they'll go to 11x14.
That's absurd. I have several 11x17 inch high quality cibachrome prints from 35mm that I would stack against any 5x7 for display purposes. You can actually lose detail in a 5x7 print because the resolving power of the paper isn't high enough to display all the detail that is in the film. Oh, a 5x7 looks nice and sharp with a piss poor negative (maybe that's why you don't go larger?), but the detail is not really there.
How do you get a high quality 11x17 inch print from 35mm? Heavy tripod and head, top lenses, proper aperture, high quality slow film (with careful developing), cable release or timer, mirror lock-up if you have it, and THEN wait at least 15 seconds for vibration to damp out before firing the shutter. Then do that all over again in the printing phase. Most people, including you evidently, don't have a clue as to what good technique can do for a 35mm negative.
Sue based on what? It's a private institution and can legally do whatever it wants, within the bounds of any contractual obligations.
Not quite true. It cannot violate the law as in discrimination based on sex, race, etc, nor can it allow harrassment, nor can it defraud the student or steal from him or defame him.
Since they took away his scholarship a lawsuit for theft of property might be possible, as might a lawsuit on involuntary servitude by "sentencing" him to community service (they aren't a lawful court after all). If they released his identity publicly there might be a defamation suit possible by way of their statements that he needed psychological counseling.
These would all be very unusual lawsuits, but I'm just pointing out that the school CANNOT just do anything it wants to its students with impunity.
The reason I think it's important to make this distinction is that price gouging is a serious matter, and 'dilution' of the term by misusing it lessens the effect of using it approriately.
first, who cares if the word "gouging" diluted? Of all the things to worry about, "diluted gouging terminology" is about 10 millionth on my list.
Second, anyone who doesn't think the telephone companies are gouging (my term) is crazy. with tens of millions of customers paying $20 -$100 PER MONTH even for plain old telephone service, the phone companies rival the oil cartels for pure greed. One hundred million households paying $50/month equals $5 billion a MONTH for the phone companies! The telephone is essentially unchanged after 100 years and it still costs hundreds of dollars per year for the SERVICE ? Plain basic telephone service is outrageously priced, and I haven;t even begun to talk about "advanced" features like caller ID. Cellular and broadband are orders of magnitude more outrageous.
Talent means nothing most of the time, luck or blind obedience is what gets the cash rolling in.
I don't agree. If it were just luck then money would be falling out of the sky randomly to any of us. What is involved is ORIGINAL THINKING, and whether we agree that pixel-selling or forehead-renting are brilliant or not, they ARE original ideas. Although clearly not of the same scale, these ideas are the same as Sears' idea of selling by catalog, and Ford's idea of an assembly line. All of these people deserve our respect, not for being great people, philanthropists or geniuses, but for simply being original thinkers.
I don't get the "blind obedience" part of your post at all.
Ever wonder why the nobel prize isn't awarded until years after the work has been done? Because they want to know if the work that was done will lead to anything major.
No, no, no. The reason it is awarded years later is to make sure the research holds up over time, and is neither a fluke nor being misinterpreted (as in cold fusion). The value of the discovery stands on its own merit, not on the value of subsequent work.
But the evilness of Hitler's scale is mutually exclusive with the stupidity, that warrants comparisions with a monkey.
I'm not quite sure that sentence makes sense, but I think I get your point. I did not bring up Hitler, you did. Your point was very clear: One cannot be both stupid and evil at the same time (as in Hitler) so people who dislike Bush for both exhibit a logical inconsistency. I hope you have a better argument than that for Bush being a competent president. It is pretty clear that Bush is dumb as a post AND has no empathy for the 30,000 innocent civilians in his war for oil. I personally think killing 30,000 people for more money for you and your "oil binness" buddies is pretty damned evil.
Heh, do you think, Roosevelt knew exactly how many Japanese died in any of the American attacks? Does that make him in any way similar to Hitler? Or to Bush, for that matter?
It isn't the knowing, it is the utter disregard for the humanity of those that suffer that is the issue. Also, Roosevelt did not gain financially from WWII in the way that the Bushes and the Carlisle Group have done. Another BIG difference between Roosevelt and Bush is that in WWII we were attacked while the Iraq war is a competely optional war based on trumped up PR to further the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld neo-con doctrine...and of course for the money. Bush clearly wanted Iraq oil and he pathetically thought it would be easy to get just by invading. That was stupid beyond words.
Seriously, some putz at the local pub insisted the Pint glasses there were only 14 fluid ounces. Having a few of same at home I whipped out my trusty graduated cylinder and measured the volume with great precision. The result was close to 16.5 fluid ounces. I keep waiting for an opportunity to make a $100 bet,
Be careful where you bet. Many "pints" you order in bars really do come in glasses that don't hold a pint. Its up to the bar owner which type he buys. Those thin-walled glasses with the bulbous ring near the top - pints. Those thick-walled straight-sided conical glasses - likely not full pints.
All I said, is that the same person simply can not be stupid enough to deserve being called "clueless baboon" and evil enough to warrant comparisions with Hitler.
What makes you say that? Evilness and stupidness are not mutually exclusive. The infamous Idi Amin comes to mind. Just look at the vicious murderers in prison with IQs below 85.
If anything, I would think visiousness and lack of intelligence would be positively correlated. The unintelligent lack empathy for their victims by not having the imagination to put themselves in their victim's shoes.
A good example is Bush'e reply recently to the number of civilian killed in Iraq. "Twenny-five, thirty thousand,", he said, but in a tone completely devoid of empathy for THIRTY THOUSAND DEAD HUMAN BEINGS that made it clear he had simply memorized a number.
If the warming were proportional to the population increase since then, we should have all been cooked by now and run out of things to eat and drink.
You are really into PR aren't you? Talk about junk science. No one said global warming was ^proportional^ to human population, just that the main reason for environmetal problems today is the huge human population. I think that is a no-brainer. The large human population stresses the environment in every way, simply because of the large amount of everything those billions of individuals need - food, water, energy, metals, etc. The consumerized, manufacturing-intense world that makes this huge population possible (not all those people could hunt for food and live in tents) only adds to the environmental problems.
And please don;t tell me you are basing your contention that population has little effect on the environment on the fact that a book written 40 years ago turned out to be wrong! I remember the "Population Bomb", and environmental scientists at the time thought it was bunk. It was not a scientific treatise, but a paperback book published in the popular press for the masses.
Trees evaporate huge amounts of water, which causes the average forest to be cooler on hot days than a plowed or even planted fields
First, trees don;t evaporate huge amounts of water. In fact, trees are designed to conserve as much water as possible. Trees need their water for photosynthesis. Forests are cool because forest shade allows water to be retained - evaporation of that water then cools the forest air. But that does not change the fact that tree leaves absorb a lot of sunlight (aka energy) - after all that is the purpose of leaves and they are dark and plentiful for just that reason. On a more technical level, all the water that is evaporated within a forest eventually condenses again somewhere else releasing its heat - so there is a net-zero effect on global temperatures from evaporation (local yes, global no). The dark forest canopy absorbs a lot of sunlight rather than reflecting it back into space and that can causes a net energy gain globally.
Just as snow cover reflecting sunlight during the ice ages lengthened and deepened the ice age, dark plant matter covering large amounts of surface area would tend to increase the amount of sunlight absorbed and warm the planet. That is just common sense. The real question is whether the warming effect of the dark forests is outweighed by the cooling effect of forest-sequestered atmospheric carbon.
I suggest that before you try to blow away other people's ideas you get a better grounding in basic science yourself.