Actually it's even worse. Many people are aware of the phrase (at least here in the UK), it is spoken with reasonable regularity, and the people use it in a context in which they are agreeing with the sentiment. But it seems most people pay lip service to this, and don't actually mean it when push comes to shove. We just don't have the same reverence for free speech that Americans do, something I find unfortunate.
Why the focus on 'movies'? There are many situations in which an article about a particular subject could be improved through the use of a high-quality, feature-length educational video. Wouldn't the article for the Amen Break be more interesting if this video appeared on the page, right there in the sidebar? To borrow your example, you wouldn't have a Spike Lee film, but a documentary about him, fleshing out the details in the article and offering insight that text alone can't provide. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a moving picture must be worth millions.
Of course, you open up a whole can of worms in the editing battle side of things. Tug-of-wars over text has proved bad enough, let alone people arguing over weasel words and unsupported claims in a thirty minute documentary.
I work 8 hours, and while my evenings are pretty much wasted time - surfing the net, zoning out, etc. - at least it's my wasted time. So while it may not be productive from a novel-writing, model-building point of view, it's definitely good for my mental health.
Tell me about it. My parents have a DVR and, even on standby, the whirring of the hard drives is noticeable from the other side of the room. Seems it can only distinguish between completely off and 'vroom vroom'.
How much energy, if any, would be saved worldwide if Google had a black background and not white? My first thought is that the power use is the same regardless of what is displayed, but I am not entirely positive this is the case. Any electrical engineers want to confirm this?
You know, I really don't care about the ODF toolkit. What I do care about is my fellow Slahsdotters. I love all of you, man. We stand together. Fuck fame, fortune, and a regular sex life. We have computers damn it! And that's all we need. Please look into the bottom of your hearts and mod me appropriately. I thank you for your time, kind moderator.
Basically, women are such shallow bitches that they will only suck your dick if they have received or will receive some compensation in return, likely in the form of diamonds, money, handbags, or some other tat that they can parade around town in front of all other women.
Exactly. If you don't have a person's email address, then they're not exactly your 'friend', are they? Yeah, everyone has 500 friends these, they're just that popular! Yet how many of these friends would they trust their housekeys to?
I'm saying that it is ignorant to claim that something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
I didn't say that if something is unobservable it does not exist. That kind of solipsism is not my bag, baby.
What I said or meant to say was that if something exists, then it can be scrutinised by the Scientific Method given sufficiently advanced technology, i.e. everything that exists has the potential to be observed. You can't posit the existence of something and then say that it is beyond scrutiny. If you believe something to exist, e.g. God, fairies, leprechauns, then there must be some evidence for it or you wouldn't posit it in the first place, unless you were being irrational or dishonest. Essentially, if you can see it then so should I.
There may be invisible pink unicorns swimming around us in their own dimension, but there's absolute dick all evidence for it, even if there's the teeny possibility that we just don't have the Unobtanium Flux Capacitors we need to view this dimension. So until then, it gets the "big red 'Likely Bullshit' stamp, see you for another review in six months, NEXT PLEASE!" treatment.
If something exists, it is part of the natural world and can be examined through the scientific method.
Why is a supreme being excluded, tucked away in some comfortable pocket safe from rational enquiry? Science says that it is highly unlikely that dancing can affect rainfall. Science says that it is highly unlikely that anyone can walk through walls, or walk on water, or heal the sick by touching or praying. Practically any rational thinking human being will agree with these assertions and many more, but when it comes to God they suddenly go on the frotz like a malfunctioning robot.
So why can't Science say that your garden variety supreme being is highly unlikely to exist? Because a lot of people might get their widdle feewings hurt? Because they are afraid of there being no afterlife?
God is an unnecessary link in the chain. Adding God to the equation solves nothing and raises a million questions. By the remote possibility that he/she does exist, he/she ain't doing much. We evolved ourselves out of the mud and the slime. We learnt to walk, to cook food, to build skyscrapers and airplanes and put a man on the fucking moon. We did it our fucking selves. We are our own gods. That's the 'miracle' right there.
Why, oh sarcastic one, do you assume that the people that bought the app were successful in earning the money they used to pay for it? They could be trust fund babies, trophy wives, or even regular 'unsuccessful' Joes who bought it over saving for the utility bills.
Besides, even if my father (who would fit your 'achieved some measure of success' criterion) bought this I would still call him an asshole for doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's even worse. Many people are aware of the phrase (at least here in the UK), it is spoken with reasonable regularity, and the people use it in a context in which they are agreeing with the sentiment. But it seems most people pay lip service to this, and don't actually mean it when push comes to shove. We just don't have the same reverence for free speech that Americans do, something I find unfortunate.
Why the focus on 'movies'? There are many situations in which an article about a particular subject could be improved through the use of a high-quality, feature-length educational video. Wouldn't the article for the Amen Break be more interesting if this video appeared on the page, right there in the sidebar? To borrow your example, you wouldn't have a Spike Lee film, but a documentary about him, fleshing out the details in the article and offering insight that text alone can't provide. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a moving picture must be worth millions.
Of course, you open up a whole can of worms in the editing battle side of things. Tug-of-wars over text has proved bad enough, let alone people arguing over weasel words and unsupported claims in a thirty minute documentary.
Why are you so averse to capital letters?
I work 8 hours, and while my evenings are pretty much wasted time - surfing the net, zoning out, etc. - at least it's my wasted time. So while it may not be productive from a novel-writing, model-building point of view, it's definitely good for my mental health.
Yeah, try and become a member of the mile-out club.
Even better, there will be a montage montage.
Ah, so running them over is the key lesson to be learned here? I like your thinking.
Yeah, but they have boyfriends or husbands.
*sigh*
Tell me about it. My parents have a DVR and, even on standby, the whirring of the hard drives is noticeable from the other side of the room. Seems it can only distinguish between completely off and 'vroom vroom'.
Don't forget the Trojans.
How much energy, if any, would be saved worldwide if Google had a black background and not white? My first thought is that the power use is the same regardless of what is displayed, but I am not entirely positive this is the case. Any electrical engineers want to confirm this?
Well, the fact that she doesn't talk is a major bonus.
You know, I really don't care about the ODF toolkit. What I do care about is my fellow Slahsdotters. I love all of you, man. We stand together. Fuck fame, fortune, and a regular sex life. We have computers damn it! And that's all we need. Please look into the bottom of your hearts and mod me appropriately. I thank you for your time, kind moderator.
Basically, women are such shallow bitches that they will only suck your dick if they have received or will receive some compensation in return, likely in the form of diamonds, money, handbags, or some other tat that they can parade around town in front of all other women.
Where is Doctor Evil's Secret Volcano Layer?
Ah, the joys of a completely unfiltered internet gateway...working in IT does have some perks after all!
Yeah, but do we take away the (Score: Gold Medal) from the Chinese posters who lied about their karma bonus?
Exactly. If you don't have a person's email address, then they're not exactly your 'friend', are they? Yeah, everyone has 500 friends these, they're just that popular! Yet how many of these friends would they trust their housekeys to?
Yes, that was the fucking joke. Jesus Christ.
I'm saying that it is ignorant to claim that something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
I didn't say that if something is unobservable it does not exist. That kind of solipsism is not my bag, baby.
What I said or meant to say was that if something exists, then it can be scrutinised by the Scientific Method given sufficiently advanced technology, i.e. everything that exists has the potential to be observed. You can't posit the existence of something and then say that it is beyond scrutiny. If you believe something to exist, e.g. God, fairies, leprechauns, then there must be some evidence for it or you wouldn't posit it in the first place, unless you were being irrational or dishonest. Essentially, if you can see it then so should I.
There may be invisible pink unicorns swimming around us in their own dimension, but there's absolute dick all evidence for it, even if there's the teeny possibility that we just don't have the Unobtanium Flux Capacitors we need to view this dimension. So until then, it gets the "big red 'Likely Bullshit' stamp, see you for another review in six months, NEXT PLEASE!" treatment.
Why not?
If something exists, it is part of the natural world and can be examined through the scientific method.
Why is a supreme being excluded, tucked away in some comfortable pocket safe from rational enquiry? Science says that it is highly unlikely that dancing can affect rainfall. Science says that it is highly unlikely that anyone can walk through walls, or walk on water, or heal the sick by touching or praying. Practically any rational thinking human being will agree with these assertions and many more, but when it comes to God they suddenly go on the frotz like a malfunctioning robot.
So why can't Science say that your garden variety supreme being is highly unlikely to exist? Because a lot of people might get their widdle feewings hurt? Because they are afraid of there being no afterlife?
God is an unnecessary link in the chain. Adding God to the equation solves nothing and raises a million questions. By the remote possibility that he/she does exist, he/she ain't doing much. We evolved ourselves out of the mud and the slime. We learnt to walk, to cook food, to build skyscrapers and airplanes and put a man on the fucking moon. We did it our fucking selves. We are our own gods. That's the 'miracle' right there.
Why, oh sarcastic one, do you assume that the people that bought the app were successful in earning the money they used to pay for it? They could be trust fund babies, trophy wives, or even regular 'unsuccessful' Joes who bought it over saving for the utility bills.
Besides, even if my father (who would fit your 'achieved some measure of success' criterion) bought this I would still call him an asshole for doing so.
Yeah, he's too old for this shit.
The government can't look through your windows, too?
Yeah but will it run Crysis at full settings?