I agree with your jest that decriminalization is worse than legalization.
But you have to delineate between [cocaine,heroin,meth,X] and [pot,hallucinogens,dissociatives]
The majority of casual drug users stick to the second category (actually, pot)and maybe X. Most of the violence and organized crime aspect of drug networks is related to the first category of drugs, mainly the first two. Since the profit margins for cocaine and heroine are mindboggling ($100-200 for a kilo crop of opium in Pakistan -> $300000/kilo for processed heroin in New York). Similar story with cocaine and South America. Now, meth can be made at home (some skill is required) with all precursors being legal in the US, so there is not the same fight over control of resources (for synthesis/growth), only over territories for distribution. A bit more complicated for X, which is smuggled from Europe after manufacture in former Soviet republics.
Decriminalization would only make sense for marijuana since the overcrowding of prisons is mostly due to pot. Pot isn't really an "organized crime" thing (not to say there aren't gangs involved). Most of the pot consumed in the US is produced in the US over the whole breadth of the country, with the Midwest being the major region of harvest. These are local/regional distribution networks with no "national cartel(s)" at work.
So, I don't see decriminalization as even an option for anything except pot, since the only sizable prison population due to drug usage is the pot community. And I don't see an icrease in crime due to pot decriminalization. With the other drugs, legalization and FDA regulation is the only option.
The vast majority of drug users aren't physically dependent as compared to the legally available nicotine or alcohol which certainly causes more deaths(per annum in US, ~450000 for nicotine, ~81000 for alcohol, ~14000 for illicit drugs combined). As for addiction, Health magazine has this chart.
The hard but unavoidable fact to come to terms with is that you can't eliminate drug use, only control it. Best way to control it is to legalize it, so 1)quality-control is assured. No more harmful adulterants or unknown purity dosages. 2)Much cheaper on the taxpayer and the drug user
If you want to find a song or a book, it most likely isn't going to be a specific word you remember, it will be the tune or the plot, both of which are not searchable.
As far as music goes, you can search for Parsons code.
What's the first thing a non-tech savvy user is going to do when confronted with a DRM scheme? They go online and find the workaround. Then, suddenly, you have a slightly more educated user.
LOL. If the "non-tech-savvy" user had that bent of curiosity, they wouldn't be non-tech-savvy in the first place...
After I've completely known 100 cities, the 101st would be a drag, despite it being a new experience. You'll have learnt enough to see the 101st city as just another instance with different specifics. After reading 10001 books, you will start predicting plots and other elements of literature much better. There won't be much excitement of anticipation left. The root behind all this would be that since you've lived for centuries/millenia, your understanding of human behaviour would be sufficiently mature to dull the curiousity related to the fruits of human creativity.
Works by maintaining/increasing telomere length
on
The Oldest Mouse Contest
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
When DNA is replicated, the transcription occurs not from the start of a strand, but a few "words" into the sequence. Since, this might cut off valuable/active genes, there are telemores "prefixed" to the start of these sequence. These are useless bits of genes that can be safely cut off during cell copying. But as the instance of DNA gets copied more and more, in each succeeding generation, the telomere gets reduced. Eventually coming to the point where during copying, active genes get clipped. The limit is around 50 cell divisions, IIRC. Someone by the age of 60 has roughly 40% of telomere length as compared to birth. There's a gene called telomerase that synthesizes these telomeres at the ends of chromosones. Mice in which telomerase has been re-activated post-infancy have lived thrice as long!!! But there are ill-effects of activating telomerase post-infancy. Cancer tumors require telomerase to work as well. So, it's a double-edged sword. Hope someone figures out a good alternative.
it seems that to locate a specific moment in time you have to be aware of that moment happening which takes time and thus you can't?
Pretty much, I read in some for-the-layman neuroscience book that the "present" we keep on talking about ranges from about 1/2 second - 10 seconds...etc based on the event at hand and our concentration and that there is no concrete concept of the "present"
I presume that you weren't able to get past the artificiality of the character, and thus were unaffected by the performance; or were you affected, but distracted by the artificiality of his appearance, and/or the particulars of the performance?
Affected but distracted. Not surprising, considering I've been working in 3D animation for past 13 years:-)
I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance,
Well, I am. According to what I was taught in comm courses and what this page corroborates, 93% of communication occurs non-verbally. Mainly, via body language and voice tone. Voice tones are closely related to facial expressions. Gollum is similar in form, but isn't human. I think, we make allowances for this disparity innately. Visual appearances serve to make you adopt a "mode of observation". A talking animal, irrespective of complexities of character, will never be as well appreciated apart from the novelty and wonder factor.
I think we're talking about different points here.
Simply that psychologically, seeing a real human bounds us to different and more exacting expectations than it does for a non-human form even if it is humanoid in appearance.
Why should we judge a performance by its adherence to an arbitrary standard of "realism"
This standard isn't a conscious decision, but an innate prejudice. I don't claim to know what this standard is, but I assert that it exists. Your examples of McKellen's nose or Elijah's height aren't valid because they're still human forms. Another reason is that more or less, those actors err... sucked. The day they create a perfectly photorealistic human actor, that day their behind-the-scenes thespians will be unique and critical in their contributions.
At some level, a human audience is aware that they're watching a cartoon as opposed to a human. They'll subconsciously accept more fleshed out expressions from a painted/3D face than they will from a real human, even if a human face is capable of the same contours. This is because, the human face in its details and not just its form, is much more familiar to us than a cartoonish face. Our expectations of plausiblity from a real human are different and more exacting based on our prejudices. So, there's a higher bar to cross, before Serkis could impress us as much in an analogous screenplay involving only human characters.
This reflects a naive view of what consitutes a performance; a performance is defined by an actor's choices to create a convincing character in the context of the film the character appears in
My point doesn't contradict this. In simple words, the expressions provided by Serkis wouldn't be as effective if we're seeing him in person. A further point being, any other competent actor could substitute for Gollum. The character would be different in feel, but unlike some films where you just can't imagine a different actor in a certain role, Gollum's unique execution of expressions aren't so endearing that a different actor would do injustice to the character.
But apart from the fact that it's a team effort, there's a more fundamental reason why he doesn't deserve it.
Gollum is a cartoonish creature. Sure, he's 3D with imperfect textures and non-mechanical dynamics, but the expressions potrayed by him are more fleshed out than what an audience would expect out of a real human. Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces. If anyone gets an award for Gollum, it should only be the VFX team. I venture that there any decent actor could take Serkis' place as long as the VFX talent remains intact.
Actually, they are. The BSA was conducting activities in line with Microsoft's demands of the organization. In your analogy, burning a house next door has nothing to do with fixing roof.
But, searching for pirated software IS what your client NEEDS you to do.
Providing expressions to a mesh is quite different than acting out the same expressions in person. It looks plausible acting on a digital creature, not on a real human.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your jest that decriminalization is worse than legalization.
But you have to delineate between [cocaine,heroin,meth,X] and [pot,hallucinogens,dissociatives]
The majority of casual drug users stick to the second category (actually, pot)and maybe X. Most of the violence and organized crime aspect of drug networks is related to the first category of drugs, mainly the first two. Since the profit margins for cocaine and heroine are mindboggling ($100-200 for a kilo crop of opium in Pakistan -> $300000/kilo for processed heroin in New York). Similar story with cocaine and South America. Now, meth can be made at home (some skill is required) with all precursors being legal in the US, so there is not the same fight over control of resources (for synthesis/growth), only over territories for distribution. A bit more complicated for X, which is smuggled from Europe after manufacture in former Soviet republics.
Decriminalization would only make sense for marijuana since the overcrowding of prisons is mostly due to pot. Pot isn't really an "organized crime" thing (not to say there aren't gangs involved). Most of the pot consumed in the US is produced in the US over the whole breadth of the country, with the Midwest being the major region of harvest. These are local/regional distribution networks with no "national cartel(s)" at work.
So, I don't see decriminalization as even an option for anything except pot, since the only sizable prison population due to drug usage is the pot community. And I don't see an icrease in crime due to pot decriminalization. With the other drugs, legalization and FDA regulation is the only option.
Go cure cancer or something useful!
No long-term revenue source in that...
Read the Economist survey on illicit drugs.
The vast majority of drug users aren't physically dependent as compared to the legally available nicotine or alcohol which certainly causes more deaths(per annum in US, ~450000 for nicotine, ~81000 for alcohol, ~14000 for illicit drugs combined). As for addiction, Health magazine has this chart.
The hard but unavoidable fact to come to terms with is that you can't eliminate drug use, only control it. Best way to control it is to legalize it, so 1)quality-control is assured. No more harmful adulterants or unknown purity dosages. 2)Much cheaper on the taxpayer and the drug user
If you want to find a song or a book, it most likely isn't going to be a specific word you remember, it will be the tune or the plot, both of which are not searchable.
As far as music goes, you can search for Parsons code.
If the new fancy features are confined as the optional extensions, Firebird will continue to rock.
What's the first thing a non-tech savvy user is going to do when confronted with a DRM scheme? They go online and find the workaround. Then, suddenly, you have a slightly more educated user.
LOL. If the "non-tech-savvy" user had that bent of curiosity, they wouldn't be non-tech-savvy in the first place...
Yeah, see, here's the thing about democracies. The governments who "gave" you those things are gone, not "still there."
Looking at the current US admin, one thinks NOT!
I don't have a cite, but check out Matt Ridley's Genome and in the index, follow up the entries for telomerase.
Forget the pot, think of all the acid you could trip on...
Except that the novelty would wear out.
After I've completely known 100 cities, the 101st would be a drag, despite it being a new experience. You'll have learnt enough to see the 101st city as just another instance with different specifics. After reading 10001 books, you will start predicting plots and other elements of literature much better. There won't be much excitement of anticipation left. The root behind all this would be that since you've lived for centuries/millenia, your understanding of human behaviour would be sufficiently mature to dull the curiousity related to the fruits of human creativity.
When DNA is replicated, the transcription occurs not from the start of a strand, but a few "words" into the sequence. Since, this might cut off valuable/active genes, there are telemores "prefixed" to the start of these sequence. These are useless bits of genes that can be safely cut off during cell copying. But as the instance of DNA gets copied more and more, in each succeeding generation, the telomere gets reduced. Eventually coming to the point where during copying, active genes get clipped. The limit is around 50 cell divisions, IIRC. Someone by the age of 60 has roughly 40% of telomere length as compared to birth. There's a gene called telomerase that synthesizes these telomeres at the ends of chromosones. Mice in which telomerase has been re-activated post-infancy have lived thrice as long!!! But there are ill-effects of activating telomerase post-infancy. Cancer tumors require telomerase to work as well. So, it's a double-edged sword. Hope someone figures out a good alternative.
Probably, they caught a small fly. Who then got immunity and secrecy for turning in the ubercoders. Hence, "the witness"
that geeks start coding in graffiti?
Give X to the introvert and LSD to the extrovert
it seems that to locate a specific moment in time you have to be aware of that moment happening which takes time and thus you can't?
...etc based on the event at hand and our concentration and that there is no concrete concept of the "present"
Pretty much, I read in some for-the-layman neuroscience book that the "present" we keep on talking about ranges from about 1/2 second - 10 seconds
No, it's not. Visit without fear.
I presume that you weren't able to get past the artificiality of the character, and thus were unaffected by the performance; or were you affected, but distracted by the artificiality of his appearance, and/or the particulars of the performance?
:-)
Affected but distracted. Not surprising, considering I've been working in 3D animation for past 13 years
I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance,
Well, I am. According to what I was taught in comm courses and what this page corroborates, 93% of communication occurs non-verbally. Mainly, via body language and voice tone. Voice tones are closely related to facial expressions. Gollum is similar in form, but isn't human. I think, we make allowances for this disparity innately. Visual appearances serve to make you adopt a "mode of observation". A talking animal, irrespective of complexities of character, will never be as well appreciated apart from the novelty and wonder factor.
I think we're talking about different points here.
Simply that psychologically, seeing a real human bounds us to different and more exacting expectations than it does for a non-human form even if it is humanoid in appearance.
Why should we judge a performance by its adherence to an arbitrary standard of "realism"
This standard isn't a conscious decision, but an innate prejudice. I don't claim to know what this standard is, but I assert that it exists. Your examples of McKellen's nose or Elijah's height aren't valid because they're still human forms. Another reason is that more or less, those actors err... sucked. The day they create a perfectly photorealistic human actor, that day their behind-the-scenes thespians will be unique and critical in their contributions.
Although, that day is pretty close.
At some level, a human audience is aware that they're watching a cartoon as opposed to a human. They'll subconsciously accept more fleshed out expressions from a painted/3D face than they will from a real human, even if a human face is capable of the same contours. This is because, the human face in its details and not just its form, is much more familiar to us than a cartoonish face. Our expectations of plausiblity from a real human are different and more exacting based on our prejudices. So, there's a higher bar to cross, before Serkis could impress us as much in an analogous screenplay involving only human characters.
This reflects a naive view of what consitutes a performance; a performance is defined by an actor's choices to create a convincing character in the context of the film the character appears in
My point doesn't contradict this. In simple words, the expressions provided by Serkis wouldn't be as effective if we're seeing him in person. A further point being, any other competent actor could substitute for Gollum. The character would be different in feel, but unlike some films where you just can't imagine a different actor in a certain role, Gollum's unique execution of expressions aren't so endearing that a different actor would do injustice to the character.
I agree.
But apart from the fact that it's a team effort, there's a more fundamental reason why he doesn't deserve it.
Gollum is a cartoonish creature. Sure, he's 3D with imperfect textures and non-mechanical dynamics, but the expressions potrayed by him are more fleshed out than what an audience would expect out of a real human. Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces. If anyone gets an award for Gollum, it should only be the VFX team. I venture that there any decent actor could take Serkis' place as long as the VFX talent remains intact.
but were note directed by MS to take this action.
Actually, they are. The BSA was conducting activities in line with Microsoft's demands of the organization. In your analogy, burning a house next door has nothing to do with fixing roof.
But, searching for pirated software IS what your client NEEDS you to do.
I suppose the artifacts never had anything to fear from Iraq being run by an expansionist, sadistic madman
If they did, they would be destroyed by now.
Saddam is ruthless, cold-blooded, sadistic, expansionist, selfish, but he's not a "madman".
Oh, wait a minute, I just saw your username...
Dubya ??
charge the bookstore for subverting a law ?
I mean, they're out in the public saying they're knowingly taking steps to hinder a possible request from the Feds for information.
that people complain about software bugs 'Because it's cool.'
That's why they create so many of them. It's all for the customers.
that Serkis wasn't nominated.
Providing expressions to a mesh is quite different than acting out the same expressions in person. It looks plausible acting on a digital creature, not on a real human.
Serkis' "acting" doesn't mean much by itself.