I have to disagree that a soprano singing on stage sounds VERY different from a recording of that soprano being played in a speaker in the same spot. A bass drum and a gong sound VERY different. At best a live singer versus a recording of the same singer sound subtly different.
Having heard neither the original pipe organ, nor the new one, I wouldn't care to wager on such a contest. However, you should consider that the general public thought milli vanilli actually sang their songs.
Given that the entire goal behind this project was to reproduce the original, being unable to fool at least 50% of the regulars, let alone the general public, would classify the project as a failure. Given the following quote, I have to assume the creators consider the project a success;
"Jackson, trained at Juilliard, says that the first time he played the organ, he had to stop as quickly as he started, as he was shocked by the organ's verisimilitude. Both organists defy even the most sensitive of ears to discern between a classic pipe organ and Trinity's new creation." -- from http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/news/article_255. shtml
We'd all like to think that the human ear is the epitome of listening devices in the world. Unfortunatly, at least biologically speaking, it is mediocre at best. Through thousands of years of trial and error we have managed to maximize our auditory system's capabilities, but when you get down to it, most people can't distinguish 440Hz from 441Hz, 9dB from 10dB, 120BPM from 121BPM, C# from D, violin from a viola, or the beatles from the monkeys.
Perhaps that last one is a stretch. But still, most people's ears and minds just can't do it, and those that can are rare. For the rest of us, we invent meters, visualizations, tuners, amplifiers, and countless other devices that show us what we can't quite hear.
I find it difficult to believe that a human being could hear a difference as subtle as the absence of pipes in wall cavities in an environment filled with hundreds of breathing, coughing, sneezing, crying, singing organisms. Certainly the presence and absence and arrangement of the church-goers has a more significant impact on the accoustics of the environment. I'm sure some out there will contend that they can detect such differences, and I don't doubt that a slight some can. But I'm certain that the visual image of seeing an old pipe organ removed and a new one installed is the root cause of the percieved accoustic anomalies.
FoxNews must have a giant bug up its butt if it's willing to sue the people that saved it's own sister network over something that (if possible) is even more obviously satire than Al Franken's book title. I guess when you have the name "Fox" attached to the title of your company, you have to fight to the death for every litte bit of credibility you can get your hands on.
"Sweetie-darlin'.. we's just got 'dis vow-char whoozits in the letterbox."
"Well, what's it fer Sugar-pumpkin?"
"Sez we kin gives it to what-so-ever arteest we's want."
"Hot damn, Sugar-pumpkin! Gives it to me! I'm an arteest!"
"But Sweetie-darlin, you ain't not no arteest."
"Like dangnation I'm not! What do you call those scrapin' books I been makin' all these years?! If'n those tain't arts, then what's is?"
"I reckon you's right Sweetie-darlin! Gather up the younguns! We're dinin' at the Outback Steakhouse to-night! And Uncle Sam's a pickin' up the check! YEeEEe-HawW!"
Music must be in 4/4.
Music must have lyrics.
Music must consist of a drummer, a bassist, a guitarist, and a vocalist.
Music must last no less than 3, and no more than 5 minutes.
Music must be: verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, verse, chorus.
Music must be accompanied by a video.
Music must be about love.
Music must have a 30 second instrumental intro for the DJ to talk over.
Music must rhyme.
Music must be able to be danced to.
I live in (or around) St. Louis, MO, USA. My area is blessed with the presence of Charter Communications. They are a cable company that does offer tier based pricing.
Service plans (select one)
384 K $29.99/month
2 M $39.99/month
There's actually a 3rd tier in the middle they don't tell you about on their website. I'm not certain what the specifics are on it. But the tiers are listed as; Bronze (Maximum-crap), Silver (Marginal-crap), and Gold (Minimal-crap).
Here's what they don't tell you: All upstreams, on all tiers are capped at 150 kilo-bit per second. Regardless of the tier you're paying for, you cannot buy more upstream. This has annoyed me for years. Oh how I long for the days of @home. I am curious why the upstreams are capped as they are. I don't understand why the upstreams are limited as they are. I think that it might be to curb child pornographers and data pir8s, but those activities are illegal. It's not up to my cable provider to thwart such activity.
It makes me wonder what they're doing with all that extra bandwidth. Their mail servers likely take in significantly more than they put out. Their web servers likely don't consume a relativly large amount of bandwidth. They must have a massive surplus of upstream that they're paying for anyway.
If you wish to continue to believe that what they sell is art, I won't try to stop you. Though I have to ask if you have ever encountered a true work of art?
I'd like to make some corrections to your statements. Theft and copyright violation are two different crimes. Violating a copyright does not constitute a theft. The girl received and distributed relativly low quality copies of copyrighted materials. This does not make her a theif.
A trade, as you say, is for one item of value for another item of equal value. A disc of plastic does not cost $15. The record producer charges more than the mere cost of production in order to PROFIT. A fair value for a CD would account for production costs, and give a fair salary to those who worked on the recording. And that value would decrease with every copy that was sold. But that's not what happens. This is what I like to call, unfair.
I stand by my statement that art is priceless, and that is not absurd. Truly benevolent works of art carry no value, cannot be posessions, and are made for many, many reasons, none of which are profit.
I do not believe that I ever implied that the RIAA did not have the right to demand compensation (I don't think copyright violation is a prosecutable offense, because it's not criminal, rather litigeous, though I may be wrong) through litegation. Just that it is a despicable and childish act to do so.
Now Puff Daddy can put a third playstation in his Escalade and this little girl's dreams of attending college are shattered.
Oh "recording artists".. or as I prefer to call you, product designers, this is what your representatives are doing in your name.
Next time you get a check in the mail, I hope you think about this little girl. The next time you sign a contract, I hope you see that girl, along with all the college students and other individuals, whose futures are ruined, because they loved your music.
And the next time you call yourself an "artist", I want you to remember that art is for everyone and is priceless. You're worth $15.
Instead of using words or numerical sequences or anything, i remember patterns on the keyboard, for instance:
op[]kl;'
a complex and effective password, but easy to remember because it's a simple pattern on the keyboard. It also naturally ends on the enter key. Another example:
5tgb^YHN
Also effective. But you only really need to remember 1 key and the pattern.
This method is also effective because if someone were to ask me what my password was, I couldn't recall because I don't really know it. Instead I have to physically input it.
This harkens back to an idea I had some time ago for a poor man's facial recognition security method which involves pressing your face into your keyboard at the password prompt.
I'm all for the appropriate prosecution of individuals who exploit social and technical flaws for their personal gain. However I'm curious about the accountability of the manufacturers of the software whose flaws are exploited.
Should not microsoft be at all responsible for releasing insecure products? I'm aware that 100% security is all but inconcievable. But short of saving face, what motivation do microsoft and similar companies have to produce secure products?
If I build a building that is not up to fire code, and an arsonist sets my building on fire, and people get hurt, yes the arsonist gets arrested, but then I get sued and fined for not taking the appropriate measures to protect the inhabitants for such a calamity.
Of course there are no fire codes for software, but does this mean that the publishers are without responsibility when their users get burned?
I would like to see more development for classic platforms. Despite all the graphics and realism, new games are not neccesarily any more or less fun than games were in the early 90s. The development of emulators such as snes9x make it plausible for regular people to develop their own applications for the snes. It would be very interesting to see open source projects based on older gaming systems instead of the bleeding edge.
Let the large developers have their bleeding edge. There's no reason that smaller developers can't continue developing on an older system. Or is the gaming community really so shallow that it will always choose the shiniest graphics, and the most dazzling effects over the content and fun of the game?
In network television, a strong lead-in can give even the crappiest show good ratings. Microsoft has a large chunk of MSN and MSIE users that never bother to replace their starting pages. The (sub)average user has to choose between using MSN's search which is already in front of them, or going someplace else.
Additionally, MSIE has (last I checked) MSN searches tied into the address bar by default. Though I beleive the search engine is configurable, still this is a massive lead-in.
MSIE continues to dominate the browser market, and this gives them significant influence if not control over the choices their users make.
Furthermore.. google's longterm operation depends upon profitability. This profitability comes from advertising. MS is a daunting giant compared to google, and can potentially offer it's advertisers exposure on a much wider network. Google can only offer so much. If google had to begin using banner advertisements and pop-ups and what-not, would you still use it?
Though I hate to admit it, I think a paper trail is absolutly neccesary. Though one has to consider the anonimity of the voter. A timestamped printout of each tallied vote could compromise the privacy of some voters. Perhaps instead a printout of a vote tally at a constant interval, say every 15 minutes.
Habbo Hotel is a goofy online community with pixelized characters that walk around and don't really do anything. But you can buy credits to furnish your online hotel room and send imaginary stuff to imaginary people.
I myself would find it difficult to justify my possession of an imaginary pixel credenza when there's so much poverty, homelessness, and I should probably get a real credenza first.
You'll be overjoyed to read this presentation which demonstrates how to use SVG for animation and interaction. My statement was blunt. I did not intend to suggest that SVG was a replacement for Flash or vice-versa. Just an alternative. Apples and oranges are both fruits, both round, and both taste good.
But you're right, I have a 'elitist, intelligent-geeks-only attitude' for which I am not apologetic. I already have linux on my desktop and am content. I beleive it's pointless to ask companies to make software for an operating system you're apparently not using if you are using their software. Either learn to do without their software, or learn to do without linux.
Instead of pestering someone else to port Macromedia Flash, why don't you learn how to use SVG. And instead of pestering someone else to port Adobe Photoshop, why don't you start using the gimp.
Everyone who wants to see linux on the desktop should support the people who develop applications for it, not the people who don't.
I used to use Photoshop, and then I switched to Corel Photo-Paint. I had used the gimp off and on just for experimentation, but never seriously. A few versions later, and now I use nothing else. I do not miss photoshop, and I doubt I ever will.
A class that taught people how to assess their needs, order parts individually, and then assemble them into a computer would probably be very useful.
I think it would help a lot of beginners to lose their fear of computers and give them a better idea of what the different components do and why they do them.
Not only that, but part of the curriculum might invole leaving with your own PC that you built yourself. And then once you have it, knowing what to do when a fan fails, or if you wish to add more memory.
As my dad always told me, everyone who drives a car should know how to change a tire, change the oil, and get a jumpstart. In my opinion, computers should be looked at the same way.
I'm waiting until this nation (us) abandons coal as it's primary energy source. Driving an electric car is not neccesarily any more eco friendly than driving a combustion powered vehicle unless your energy source is renewable and clean. When you plug your electric car into the grid you're probably burning coal.
Unfortunatly, electric cars will probably not lower our dependance on fossil fuels anytime soon. If anything they may increase them. The important step is the adoption of alternative energy sources.
I remember anxiously awaiting the debut of "Hammerman", MC Hammer's animated masterpiece. I remember "The Ghostbusters", and "The Real Ghostbusters". I remember "Garfield & Friends", and I remember that duck who wore the innertube and the duck head on the inner tube always did exactly what the duck's head did. That was clever. I remember never getting up early enough to see "The Snorkles". I remember that one cartoon with Butter Bear. I remember the crazy crap they had on nickelodeon on saturday mornings too, "The Sun Beneathe The Sea" or something, that one with the Prince who catches comets in a net and flies from planet to planet and talks to the bitchy flower, and that one about the kid and the dog. I sadly remember "Bill & Ted's Excellent Cartoon", and the Pac-Man cartoon, and I vaguely recall a cartoon about the video game Pitfall. While we're talking video games.. I also vagely recall a Q-Bert cartoon. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, of course, and WWF Superstars. I particularly remember the episode where Andre the Giant (may he rest in peace) was going on a date, and he had to wear rubber tires as shoes. And I'm not too old to admit that I watched "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and "Beakman's World", neither of them hold a candle to Mr. Wizard though. Even though you had to get up at 4am to see Mr. Wizard, it was always worth it. The Chuck Jones genius of "The Bugs & Daffy Show" was always pleasant. I think "Ducktales" was an afternoon show, but I know "Tail Spin" was a saturday morning show. So was "Denver, The Last Dinosaur", and "Dennis The Mennace". "Dennis the Mennace" is hilarious to watch now as an adult. Dennis wasn't a mennace at all, Mr. Wilson is just an asshole. And do you recall that TMNT spin-off with the frogs? WTF was that? I think all Hanna-Barbera had to offer on Saturday mornings during my youth was "The Grape Ape", "Manilla Gorilla", and "The Flintstones Kids".
Perhaps I watched a little too much TV as a kid. Like Pavlov's dog, I flip the TV off every time I see "Meet The Press" cause that means the cartoons are over.
Why hack my computer when you can simply park in front of my house in a non-descrip unmarked van, sniff my wireless keyboard, my wireless mouse, and now watch everything through my wireless LCD.
First of all, there is no such thing as common sense. There is no instinct that says coffee is served hot. It's something you had to learn. If you didn't grow up in a culture that frequently consumed coffee, you would have no idea that it was served hot.
Secondly, the english language is a tremendous mess of synonyms and slang. Marketing execs will spend days working on the terminology in their campaigns. They want to find the exact word that glamourizes their product without opening themselves up to a false advertising lawsuit. In my opinion, advertising is essentially a contract with the public. An institution should held responsible for what they say in public. If walmart doesn't want to satisfy me sexually, then they should state so in their statement, "non-sexual satisfaction garenteed". If they are not comfortable with the terminology that they promote, then they should not promote it.
I have to disagree. Businesses should have to say what they mean, and if it takes them 30 extra seconds to properly explain themselves, then they'll have to pay for it. I'm getting tired of illegible small print, fast talking, misleading terminology, all meant to confuse the consumer, and obscure the truth. The term "unlimited" means without limits. Nothing is without limits. Why then can they suggest that their product defies all laws of physics. Companies now-a-days rely on creative marketing to make their mediocre products viable. Few companies have the balls to let their product's specs speak for themselves. Noone attempts to make the best product, rather the best marketing scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree that a soprano singing on stage sounds VERY different from a recording of that soprano being played in a speaker in the same spot. A bass drum and a gong sound VERY different. At best a live singer versus a recording of the same singer sound subtly different.
. shtml
Having heard neither the original pipe organ, nor the new one, I wouldn't care to wager on such a contest. However, you should consider that the general public thought milli vanilli actually sang their songs.
Given that the entire goal behind this project was to reproduce the original, being unable to fool at least 50% of the regulars, let alone the general public, would classify the project as a failure. Given the following quote, I have to assume the creators consider the project a success;
"Jackson, trained at Juilliard, says that the first time he played the organ, he had to stop as quickly as he started, as he was shocked by the organ's verisimilitude. Both organists defy even the most sensitive of ears to discern between a classic pipe organ and Trinity's new creation." -- from http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/news/article_255
We'd all like to think that the human ear is the epitome of listening devices in the world. Unfortunatly, at least biologically speaking, it is mediocre at best. Through thousands of years of trial and error we have managed to maximize our auditory system's capabilities, but when you get down to it, most people can't distinguish 440Hz from 441Hz, 9dB from 10dB, 120BPM from 121BPM, C# from D, violin from a viola, or the beatles from the monkeys.
Perhaps that last one is a stretch. But still, most people's ears and minds just can't do it, and those that can are rare. For the rest of us, we invent meters, visualizations, tuners, amplifiers, and countless other devices that show us what we can't quite hear.
I find it difficult to believe that a human being could hear a difference as subtle as the absence of pipes in wall cavities in an environment filled with hundreds of breathing, coughing, sneezing, crying, singing organisms. Certainly the presence and absence and arrangement of the church-goers has a more significant impact on the accoustics of the environment. I'm sure some out there will contend that they can detect such differences, and I don't doubt that a slight some can. But I'm certain that the visual image of seeing an old pipe organ removed and a new one installed is the root cause of the percieved accoustic anomalies.
FoxNews must have a giant bug up its butt if it's willing to sue the people that saved it's own sister network over something that (if possible) is even more obviously satire than Al Franken's book title. I guess when you have the name "Fox" attached to the title of your company, you have to fight to the death for every litte bit of credibility you can get your hands on.
Of course I get all my news from A Bare and Balanced News Source.
"Sweetie-darlin'.. we's just got 'dis vow-char whoozits in the letterbox."
"Well, what's it fer Sugar-pumpkin?"
"Sez we kin gives it to what-so-ever arteest we's want."
"Hot damn, Sugar-pumpkin! Gives it to me! I'm an arteest!"
"But Sweetie-darlin, you ain't not no arteest."
"Like dangnation I'm not! What do you call those scrapin' books I been makin' all these years?! If'n those tain't arts, then what's is?"
"I reckon you's right Sweetie-darlin! Gather up the younguns! We're dinin' at the Outback Steakhouse to-night! And Uncle Sam's a pickin' up the check! YEeEEe-HawW!"
Music must be in 4/4.
Music must have lyrics.
Music must consist of a drummer, a bassist, a guitarist, and a vocalist.
Music must last no less than 3, and no more than 5 minutes.
Music must be: verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, verse, chorus.
Music must be accompanied by a video.
Music must be about love.
Music must have a 30 second instrumental intro for the DJ to talk over.
Music must rhyme.
Music must be able to be danced to.
I live in (or around) St. Louis, MO, USA. My area is blessed with the presence of Charter Communications. They are a cable company that does offer tier based pricing.
Service plans (select one)
384 K $29.99/month
2 M $39.99/month
There's actually a 3rd tier in the middle they don't tell you about on their website. I'm not certain what the specifics are on it. But the tiers are listed as; Bronze (Maximum-crap), Silver (Marginal-crap), and Gold (Minimal-crap).
Here's what they don't tell you: All upstreams, on all tiers are capped at 150 kilo-bit per second. Regardless of the tier you're paying for, you cannot buy more upstream. This has annoyed me for years. Oh how I long for the days of @home. I am curious why the upstreams are capped as they are. I don't understand why the upstreams are limited as they are. I think that it might be to curb child pornographers and data pir8s, but those activities are illegal. It's not up to my cable provider to thwart such activity.
It makes me wonder what they're doing with all that extra bandwidth. Their mail servers likely take in significantly more than they put out. Their web servers likely don't consume a relativly large amount of bandwidth. They must have a massive surplus of upstream that they're paying for anyway.
If you wish to continue to believe that what they sell is art, I won't try to stop you. Though I have to ask if you have ever encountered a true work of art?
I'd like to make some corrections to your statements. Theft and copyright violation are two different crimes. Violating a copyright does not constitute a theft. The girl received and distributed relativly low quality copies of copyrighted materials. This does not make her a theif.
A trade, as you say, is for one item of value for another item of equal value. A disc of plastic does not cost $15. The record producer charges more than the mere cost of production in order to PROFIT. A fair value for a CD would account for production costs, and give a fair salary to those who worked on the recording. And that value would decrease with every copy that was sold. But that's not what happens. This is what I like to call, unfair.
I stand by my statement that art is priceless, and that is not absurd. Truly benevolent works of art carry no value, cannot be posessions, and are made for many, many reasons, none of which are profit.
I do not believe that I ever implied that the RIAA did not have the right to demand compensation (I don't think copyright violation is a prosecutable offense, because it's not criminal, rather litigeous, though I may be wrong) through litegation. Just that it is a despicable and childish act to do so.
Behold! Justice in action!
Now Puff Daddy can put a third playstation in his Escalade and this little girl's dreams of attending college are shattered.
Oh "recording artists".. or as I prefer to call you, product designers, this is what your representatives are doing in your name.
Next time you get a check in the mail, I hope you think about this little girl. The next time you sign a contract, I hope you see that girl, along with all the college students and other individuals, whose futures are ruined, because they loved your music.
And the next time you call yourself an "artist", I want you to remember that art is for everyone and is priceless. You're worth $15.
Instead of using words or numerical sequences or anything, i remember patterns on the keyboard, for instance:
op[]kl;'
a complex and effective password, but easy to remember because it's a simple pattern on the keyboard. It also naturally ends on the enter key. Another example:
5tgb^YHN
Also effective. But you only really need to remember 1 key and the pattern.
This method is also effective because if someone were to ask me what my password was, I couldn't recall because I don't really know it. Instead I have to physically input it.
This harkens back to an idea I had some time ago for a poor man's facial recognition security method which involves pressing your face into your keyboard at the password prompt.
I'm all for the appropriate prosecution of individuals who exploit social and technical flaws for their personal gain. However I'm curious about the accountability of the manufacturers of the software whose flaws are exploited.
Should not microsoft be at all responsible for releasing insecure products? I'm aware that 100% security is all but inconcievable. But short of saving face, what motivation do microsoft and similar companies have to produce secure products?
If I build a building that is not up to fire code, and an arsonist sets my building on fire, and people get hurt, yes the arsonist gets arrested, but then I get sued and fined for not taking the appropriate measures to protect the inhabitants for such a calamity.
Of course there are no fire codes for software, but does this mean that the publishers are without responsibility when their users get burned?
I would like to see more development for classic platforms. Despite all the graphics and realism, new games are not neccesarily any more or less fun than games were in the early 90s. The development of emulators such as snes9x make it plausible for regular people to develop their own applications for the snes. It would be very interesting to see open source projects based on older gaming systems instead of the bleeding edge.
Let the large developers have their bleeding edge. There's no reason that smaller developers can't continue developing on an older system. Or is the gaming community really so shallow that it will always choose the shiniest graphics, and the most dazzling effects over the content and fun of the game?
In network television, a strong lead-in can give even the crappiest show good ratings. Microsoft has a large chunk of MSN and MSIE users that never bother to replace their starting pages. The (sub)average user has to choose between using MSN's search which is already in front of them, or going someplace else.
Additionally, MSIE has (last I checked) MSN searches tied into the address bar by default. Though I beleive the search engine is configurable, still this is a massive lead-in.
MSIE continues to dominate the browser market, and this gives them significant influence if not control over the choices their users make.
Furthermore.. google's longterm operation depends upon profitability. This profitability comes from advertising. MS is a daunting giant compared to google, and can potentially offer it's advertisers exposure on a much wider network. Google can only offer so much. If google had to begin using banner advertisements and pop-ups and what-not, would you still use it?
Though I hate to admit it, I think a paper trail is absolutly neccesary. Though one has to consider the anonimity of the voter. A timestamped printout of each tallied vote could compromise the privacy of some voters. Perhaps instead a printout of a vote tally at a constant interval, say every 15 minutes.
Habbo Hotel is a goofy online community with pixelized characters that walk around and don't really do anything. But you can buy credits to furnish your online hotel room and send imaginary stuff to imaginary people.
I myself would find it difficult to justify my possession of an imaginary pixel credenza when there's so much poverty, homelessness, and I should probably get a real credenza first.
You'll be overjoyed to read this presentation which demonstrates how to use SVG for animation and interaction. My statement was blunt. I did not intend to suggest that SVG was a replacement for Flash or vice-versa. Just an alternative. Apples and oranges are both fruits, both round, and both taste good.
But you're right, I have a 'elitist, intelligent-geeks-only attitude' for which I am not apologetic. I already have linux on my desktop and am content. I beleive it's pointless to ask companies to make software for an operating system you're apparently not using if you are using their software. Either learn to do without their software, or learn to do without linux.
Instead of pestering someone else to port Macromedia Flash, why don't you learn how to use SVG. And instead of pestering someone else to port Adobe Photoshop, why don't you start using the gimp.
Everyone who wants to see linux on the desktop should support the people who develop applications for it, not the people who don't.
I used to use Photoshop, and then I switched to Corel Photo-Paint. I had used the gimp off and on just for experimentation, but never seriously. A few versions later, and now I use nothing else. I do not miss photoshop, and I doubt I ever will.
A class that taught people how to assess their needs, order parts individually, and then assemble them into a computer would probably be very useful.
I think it would help a lot of beginners to lose their fear of computers and give them a better idea of what the different components do and why they do them.
Not only that, but part of the curriculum might invole leaving with your own PC that you built yourself. And then once you have it, knowing what to do when a fan fails, or if you wish to add more memory.
As my dad always told me, everyone who drives a car should know how to change a tire, change the oil, and get a jumpstart. In my opinion, computers should be looked at the same way.
The previous release lived happily with firebird. This 0.1 release is hijacking my firebird profile and my firebird -remote commands.
Also, the cntl-shift-c keyboard shortcut isn't working. And hyperlinks don't seem to do anything when clicked upon.
But despite these slight oversights, this is my email client of choice. And firebird is likewise my browser of choice.
I'm waiting until this nation (us) abandons coal as it's primary energy source. Driving an electric car is not neccesarily any more eco friendly than driving a combustion powered vehicle unless your energy source is renewable and clean. When you plug your electric car into the grid you're probably burning coal.
Unfortunatly, electric cars will probably not lower our dependance on fossil fuels anytime soon. If anything they may increase them. The important step is the adoption of alternative energy sources.
Until then I'll still rely on human-powered transportation.
I remember anxiously awaiting the debut of "Hammerman", MC Hammer's animated masterpiece. I remember "The Ghostbusters", and "The Real Ghostbusters". I remember "Garfield & Friends", and I remember that duck who wore the innertube and the duck head on the inner tube always did exactly what the duck's head did. That was clever. I remember never getting up early enough to see "The Snorkles". I remember that one cartoon with Butter Bear. I remember the crazy crap they had on nickelodeon on saturday mornings too, "The Sun Beneathe The Sea" or something, that one with the Prince who catches comets in a net and flies from planet to planet and talks to the bitchy flower, and that one about the kid and the dog. I sadly remember "Bill & Ted's Excellent Cartoon", and the Pac-Man cartoon, and I vaguely recall a cartoon about the video game Pitfall. While we're talking video games.. I also vagely recall a Q-Bert cartoon. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, of course, and WWF Superstars. I particularly remember the episode where Andre the Giant (may he rest in peace) was going on a date, and he had to wear rubber tires as shoes. And I'm not too old to admit that I watched "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and "Beakman's World", neither of them hold a candle to Mr. Wizard though. Even though you had to get up at 4am to see Mr. Wizard, it was always worth it. The Chuck Jones genius of "The Bugs & Daffy Show" was always pleasant. I think "Ducktales" was an afternoon show, but I know "Tail Spin" was a saturday morning show. So was "Denver, The Last Dinosaur", and "Dennis The Mennace". "Dennis the Mennace" is hilarious to watch now as an adult. Dennis wasn't a mennace at all, Mr. Wilson is just an asshole. And do you recall that TMNT spin-off with the frogs? WTF was that? I think all Hanna-Barbera had to offer on Saturday mornings during my youth was "The Grape Ape", "Manilla Gorilla", and "The Flintstones Kids".
Perhaps I watched a little too much TV as a kid. Like Pavlov's dog, I flip the TV off every time I see "Meet The Press" cause that means the cartoons are over.
in other locales will the directory structure still be in english?
Why hack my computer when you can simply park in front of my house in a non-descrip unmarked van, sniff my wireless keyboard, my wireless mouse, and now watch everything through my wireless LCD.
First of all, there is no such thing as common sense. There is no instinct that says coffee is served hot. It's something you had to learn. If you didn't grow up in a culture that frequently consumed coffee, you would have no idea that it was served hot.
Secondly, the english language is a tremendous mess of synonyms and slang. Marketing execs will spend days working on the terminology in their campaigns. They want to find the exact word that glamourizes their product without opening themselves up to a false advertising lawsuit. In my opinion, advertising is essentially a contract with the public. An institution should held responsible for what they say in public. If walmart doesn't want to satisfy me sexually, then they should state so in their statement, "non-sexual satisfaction garenteed". If they are not comfortable with the terminology that they promote, then they should not promote it.
I have to disagree. Businesses should have to say what they mean, and if it takes them 30 extra seconds to properly explain themselves, then they'll have to pay for it. I'm getting tired of illegible small print, fast talking, misleading terminology, all meant to confuse the consumer, and obscure the truth. The term "unlimited" means without limits. Nothing is without limits. Why then can they suggest that their product defies all laws of physics. Companies now-a-days rely on creative marketing to make their mediocre products viable. Few companies have the balls to let their product's specs speak for themselves. Noone attempts to make the best product, rather the best marketing scheme.