Canada has "MuchMusic" (and variants) for its music-video fix. Well, there used to be (still might be) a show they did call "TooMuchForMuch" in which they get to air the stuff they'd banned so they could ooh and aah and be shocked and talk about why it shouldn't be shown.
Well, funny thing about Radiohead's Paranoid Android video (a cartoon with both nudity and violence, in the uncut version): in Canada, they censored almost all of the violence. In the U.S., they took out almost all of the nudity.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain weird. I have to agree, Stubear. It is utterly bizarre that nudity is something to ban (we were all born naked, people) and violence is ok. (not that I support banning videogames, for chrissakes).
Actually, there are penalties for bringing "frivolous and vexatious" lawsuits in Canada, as well as being a breach of the Bar code, but only the most egregious qualify.
Counter-suits, on the other hand, can be fun and profitable.
You can kill a cop, steal his gun, and then use it to shoot someone else. Or you can pick up a prostitute and have sex with her in the back of your stolen car, then beat her to death - or shoot her, bludgeon her, whatever you want.
I'm just a tiny bit more concerned about these things actually going on in the world -- which they do -- than whether or not someone wants to explore the dark side in digital form.
Desensitizing? Yes. But hell, if we weren't already desensitized to that stuff, everyone would be too disgusted to buy or play the thing. How's it doing on the shelves?
You know what I'm convinced of? That conspiracy theories were first introduced as disinformation by those responsible for actual conspracies, so that someday some loudmouth could spout off about, oh, I don't know -- psychic vampire Illuminati Freemasons -- when it should be obvious to anyone in the modern age that military action is planned -- and implemented if possible -- on the sly.
There are different grades of preparedness. Having a plan is one kind. Making moves to implement it is another. Does reminding your allies that the option is up for consideration sound more like #1 or #2?
As for crippling your economy being just cause for killing people (aka war), with people like you around, we really don't need conspiracies, do we?
He said it sounded like bullying and a mighty-whallop of double-standard, not unrealistic.
All countries act in their own best interest (after spelling corrections)
Right. Like the numerous countries that have signed on to Kyoto in their own "self-interest". Like signing on to the ICC is about self-interest. Like adherence to law and human rights standards is about self-interest.
It's called the greater good, dumbass. But then America isn't interested in that, is it?
Allow me to humbly suggest that there is a difference between having a plan (especially since, as you point out, this could be taken for granted), and saying to your ally, oh by the way, you know this Arab embargo situation? Yeah, well, force may be an option.
In diplomat-speak that is unless things change fast we're going to be up to our necks in corpses. You with us or what?
Just a thought, but had the ambassador received the suggestion of force from an anonymous coward, he might have given it a little less weight than coming from the Secretary of Defence (not commenting on the personal qualities of persons in that post).
Oh no, diplomacy is all about saying what you mean: yeah, we're thinking of invading next Tuesday, so stay tuned. The SoD tells a foreign ambassador that force may be an option, you bloody well take it seriously.
Love to see how long you would have kept that post. "Well, yes, Mr. Prime Minister, they did say something about "force", but you know how those Americans are."
Spent a year without a drop of coffee and little in the way of caffeine from other sources. Then, returning home (I was backpacking), I stayed up all night with an old friend and together we drank three and a half carafes. I was seriously fucked up. Shakes, sweating, couldn't think straight, head hurt. Never before had it hit me the extent to which these legal drugs we are so used to really are drugs with all the connotations that follow. All the more bizarre that certain drugs are demonized, not for relevant differences, but because they are drugs and that is bad.
Kids were using "prank" as a verb 20 years ago. So they might have "pranked" the old man next door. Might sound atrocious, but it does the job in a way that's easy to understand and does not require the invention of a new term.
Next thing we know, Bush is going to "glork glork" the Iraqi people. Have fun misunderestimating that.
I don't think I've ever "ROFL", but if hungover on no sleep feeling slightly giddy when a particular sentence sends you off on an endless laughing jagg, then I'm friggin OFL alright! heh. thanks for that.
This has long been the case, but typing *snickers wryly* just doesn't quite cut it.
Being a bit of an emotive lad, I actually do laugh out loud at some things I read -- and the shock of actually meaning it when I type lol reminds me of how seldom it's true, so I feel the need to CAPITALIZE, or say something dippy, like "actual lol".
Well now you're getting into my pet peeve area: new-agey business-speak.
"Value-added" "Best practices" "Lessons learned"
I just found out that in my home town, there is no longer a police or fire department. Now they are police and fire services. Makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it?
I would have to say that pricey organizational seminars are the root of this particular evil.
Man, that could care less thing drives me crazy! It seems to be this bizarre way of exaggerating -- by saying the opposite of what you mean, perhaps out of a misguided sense of syntactical sarcasm. Like saying: "I was literally starved to death". It's bad enough when people misuse words and phrases because they simply parrot -- but then they change them for emphasis and say the reverse of what they mean!
How about climate change being climactic? (and I don't mean building to an exciting conclusion)
Man, have you ever heard someone say that something is pitch red? That one really stopped me. Excuse me -- do you mean, intensely red? Pure red? Because pitch only comes in one colour: black!
Was very helpful while dating a German girl to refer to what she called "high" and "low" English -- from her way of thinking, like high and low German. She'd ask me if a particular wording was correct and it was a great shorthand way of saying, well, if you mean do people say this? Yes. But it's not good English. Or, on the other hand, this is good English, but you may actually be faulted for using it because it is uncommon and often misunderstood!
How many times must I hear: "These numbers just don't jive"
And what kind of fish is a card shark?!
Though this kind of thing doesn't just happen with grammar and spelling/pronunciation... New Year's Day today! Imagine we'll be seeing old Father Time -- with his scythe.
Father Time -- Chronos Guy with sycthe -- Cronus (aka Saturn) -- castrates his father (Uranus) and tosses the testacles into the sea (which froth and foam and up comes Aphrodite born of... ahem... passion and blood).
Why would Father Time have a scythe? He's not a grim reaper stand-in. He's not going to carve up the new year baby (often held in the other arm).
People confuse names and forget origins and we get the bizarre offspring.
Slashdot Mirror
Canada has "MuchMusic" (and variants) for its music-video fix. Well, there used to be (still might be) a show they did call "TooMuchForMuch" in which they get to air the stuff they'd banned so they could ooh and aah and be shocked and talk about why it shouldn't be shown.
Well, funny thing about Radiohead's Paranoid Android video (a cartoon with both nudity and violence, in the uncut version): in Canada, they censored almost all of the violence. In the U.S., they took out almost all of the nudity.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain weird. I have to agree, Stubear. It is utterly bizarre that nudity is something to ban (we were all born naked, people) and violence is ok. (not that I support banning videogames, for chrissakes).
No penalty for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
Actually, there are penalties for bringing "frivolous and vexatious" lawsuits in Canada, as well as being a breach of the Bar code, but only the most egregious qualify.
Counter-suits, on the other hand, can be fun and profitable.
You can kill a cop, steal his gun, and then use it to shoot someone else. Or you can pick up a prostitute and have sex with her in the back of your stolen car, then beat her to death - or shoot her, bludgeon her, whatever you want.
I'm just a tiny bit more concerned about these things actually going on in the world -- which they do -- than whether or not someone wants to explore the dark side in digital form.
Desensitizing? Yes. But hell, if we weren't already desensitized to that stuff, everyone would be too disgusted to buy or play the thing. How's it doing on the shelves?
There are no saints in that region, no matter how you may paint it, Doc. It's one turn of barbarism for another, over and over, across the decades.
Backing Saddam with weapons against Iran is a funny way of leaving people alone.
Training Osama in terrorist tactics to be used against our political foes is a funny way of leaving people alone.
Not to mention how we've left enough alone in Latin America.
If that's part of "God's work", I may be ready to convert.
Everything beyond that is whining.
Nope. Real countries are making real sacrifices for that greater good.
And in a future rife with WMD (don't doubt it), the country that wars over something like standard of living will find more than that in jeapardy.
You know what I'm convinced of? That conspiracy theories were first introduced as disinformation by those responsible for actual conspracies, so that someday some loudmouth could spout off about, oh, I don't know -- psychic vampire Illuminati Freemasons -- when it should be obvious to anyone in the modern age that military action is planned -- and implemented if possible -- on the sly.
There are different grades of preparedness. Having a plan is one kind. Making moves to implement it is another. Does reminding your allies that the option is up for consideration sound more like #1 or #2?
As for crippling your economy being just cause for killing people (aka war), with people like you around, we really don't need conspiracies, do we?
He said it sounded like bullying and a mighty-whallop of double-standard, not unrealistic.
All countries act in their own best interest (after spelling corrections)
Right. Like the numerous countries that have signed on to Kyoto in their own "self-interest". Like signing on to the ICC is about self-interest. Like adherence to law and human rights standards is about self-interest.
It's called the greater good, dumbass. But then America isn't interested in that, is it?
Allow me to humbly suggest that there is a difference between having a plan (especially since, as you point out, this could be taken for granted), and saying to your ally, oh by the way, you know this Arab embargo situation? Yeah, well, force may be an option.
In diplomat-speak that is unless things change fast we're going to be up to our necks in corpses. You with us or what?
Just a thought, but had the ambassador received the suggestion of force from an anonymous coward, he might have given it a little less weight than coming from the Secretary of Defence (not commenting on the personal qualities of persons in that post).
What: America plan oil grab? Ludicrous!
Oh no, diplomacy is all about saying what you mean: yeah, we're thinking of invading next Tuesday, so stay tuned. The SoD tells a foreign ambassador that force may be an option, you bloody well take it seriously.
Love to see how long you would have kept that post. "Well, yes, Mr. Prime Minister, they did say something about "force", but you know how those Americans are."
The reverse is, ah, "fun" to experience, also.
Spent a year without a drop of coffee and little in the way of caffeine from other sources. Then, returning home (I was backpacking), I stayed up all night with an old friend and together we drank three and a half carafes. I was seriously fucked up. Shakes, sweating, couldn't think straight, head hurt. Never before had it hit me the extent to which these legal drugs we are so used to really are drugs with all the connotations that follow. All the more bizarre that certain drugs are demonized, not for relevant differences, but because they are drugs and that is bad.
You mean you don't like to orientate yourself to new surroundings?
separate out the wheat from the chaff? Don't we just separate them?
Kids were using "prank" as a verb 20 years ago. So they might have "pranked" the old man next door. Might sound atrocious, but it does the job in a way that's easy to understand and does not require the invention of a new term.
jag, even. vroom. heh.
must sleep
Next thing we know, Bush is going to "glork glork" the Iraqi people. Have fun misunderestimating that.
I don't think I've ever "ROFL", but if hungover on no sleep feeling slightly giddy when a particular sentence sends you off on an endless laughing jagg, then I'm friggin OFL alright! heh. thanks for that.
WTF-- I'm sorry, but that is completely beyond the pale.
You might be selling, but I'm not buying!
This has long been the case, but typing *snickers wryly* just doesn't quite cut it.
Being a bit of an emotive lad, I actually do laugh out loud at some things I read -- and the shock of actually meaning it when I type lol reminds me of how seldom it's true, so I feel the need to CAPITALIZE, or say something dippy, like "actual lol".
I don't know. "Precious is my bling-bling" is one of my favorite music lyrics
Well now you're getting into my pet peeve area: new-agey business-speak.
"Value-added"
"Best practices"
"Lessons learned"
I just found out that in my home town, there is no longer a police or fire department. Now they are police and fire services. Makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it?
I would have to say that pricey organizational seminars are the root of this particular evil.
Man, that could care less thing drives me crazy! It seems to be this bizarre way of exaggerating -- by saying the opposite of what you mean, perhaps out of a misguided sense of syntactical sarcasm. Like saying: "I was literally starved to death". It's bad enough when people misuse words and phrases because they simply parrot -- but then they change them for emphasis and say the reverse of what they mean!
How about climate change being climactic? (and I don't mean building to an exciting conclusion)
Man, have you ever heard someone say that something is pitch red? That one really stopped me. Excuse me -- do you mean, intensely red? Pure red? Because pitch only comes in one colour: black!
Was very helpful while dating a German girl to refer to what she called "high" and "low" English -- from her way of thinking, like high and low German. She'd ask me if a particular wording was correct and it was a great shorthand way of saying, well, if you mean do people say this? Yes. But it's not good English. Or, on the other hand, this is good English, but you may actually be faulted for using it because it is uncommon and often misunderstood!
You've hit it, whereis.
How many times must I hear: "These numbers just don't jive"
And what kind of fish is a card shark?!
Though this kind of thing doesn't just happen with grammar and spelling/pronunciation...
New Year's Day today! Imagine we'll be seeing old Father Time -- with his scythe.
Father Time -- Chronos
Guy with sycthe -- Cronus (aka Saturn) -- castrates his father (Uranus) and tosses the testacles into the sea (which froth and foam and up comes Aphrodite born of... ahem... passion and blood).
Why would Father Time have a scythe? He's not a grim reaper stand-in. He's not going to carve up the new year baby (often held in the other arm).
People confuse names and forget origins and we get the bizarre offspring.