Parent presents fallacious straw-man argument.
Parent's parent wasn't for depriving children
of entertainment. Parent misses simple truth:
LEGOS/ARE/ EDUCATIONAL FOR TODDLERS.
Misfire b/c "Entertainment"'s miscontext'd.
We should implement our priorities/wisely/.
Parent wisely points out that the men & women
who hold the reigns of boardroom control over
a handful of companies with $3 bn/yr profits,
who make untold sums and live - to the world-
view of 99/100 - not only *incomprehensibly*
glutted w/the EMPIRICAL funds to act as God; &
most wouldn't be facile enough to get the joke
of, on/., playing off double-entendre out of
the rather scientific term "empirical," and
that the U.S. is at least a/part/ of Empire.
Th'empire extends to our entrenched oligopolies
sweet-dealing one another to deceive consumers.
Hollywood = "Entertainment" = top-down model
that Gov't/Indsutry/Crooks have had time to
dig their talons into over decades without
oversight, and artists MUST go through that
system to provide their work broad/exposure/.
You'd prefer our society spend its time and
effort to protect/table scraps/ of certain
obscenely obese in their overruly ownership
Americans, following in the footsteps both
of those like the Medici and aiding glory -
but more often crippling their selves with a
crutch of money - and of its hypnotic power.
Indeed, a recent trent in biz and politics
has been OUTSOURCING of distasteful and hard
PERSONAL MATTERS; the true challenges of
life, those which prompt growth; maturity.
*HENCE*: --> Why the fuck give away money
to the people who are one step below those
like Buffet & Gates who, given the immense
RICHNESS of America, ALREADY CAN'T **GIVE**
THEIR UNTOLD WEALTH AWAY PHILANTHROPICALLY(!!!!!)
when those 2nd order wealthy are on average
less likely to be able to do immediate good
in the world around them with the additional
funds (vs their already $80mil in the bank)
when it could affect the lives and situations
of so many other people out there who could
truly benefit from exposure to what artists
out there wanted to SAY to EVERYONE ELSE...
that's what art is, a STATEMENT that's meant
to be HEARD; "Communication is the effect
upon the listener," and all EDUCATION can't
happen without entertaining simultaneous.
Otherwise it's not tied to your self, and
you might gain something, but you will be
none the wiser for it. NOBODY WHO IS RICH
BECAUSE THEY OWN SOMETHING *HAS* TO THINK.
Some are rich due to character, fortitude,
etc.; those of the record industry bilked
their fortunes by being sharks preying on
innocent & gullible, producers & consumers.
At least for all its bureauCRAZY and rules
(not to mention structural problems that
retard people by decades in development,
both socially as well as intellectually),
the EDUCATION sector has its fair share of
hands-on chaperone nurturing teaching and
cultivating type of WISE & PROTECTIVE SOUL
who recognizes more fully where value lies
than he who tries to sleeze value from the
pimping and perversion of artists' visions.
...for me to FIRST POOP on!
Eh, so what if they support all those diverse sites - that shouldn't help them get massive instantaneous momentum, just slowly building momentum over time, and nothing Apple can't control with the appropriate adjustments over time (towards more openness and inclusivity, after they have secured a constellation of dominant positions along the core of the market... please Apple, be smart about that this time...)
...why aren't we all shorting their stock? I mean, it seems to have sat around 4-5 for ages, and just recently jumped up to 8-10 (being about 10.5 today). Considering this jump in their stock price appears to be largely based on these ridiculous claims they have against IBM, and our general belief that these claims will end up being entirely unfounded, wouldn't it be sensible to put our money where our mouths are and put in a short order on SCOX? Isn't it possible to put an order in such a way that it has a failsafe, i.e. it sells automatically in case the price went over, say, 20 (so if they DID somehow bribe the judge and win, you wouldn't be going to bankruptcy when their stock went to $300 lol)? I've never dabbled in short orders before as they're more risky than straight-up stocks, but I would be curious if anyone had some thoughts about this situation where we're all pretty sure SCO's case is baseless, and that SCO is going to essentially vaporize as soon as their claims are debunked. Stay safe all...
Slashdot Mirror
Parent presents fallacious straw-man argument. Parent's parent wasn't for depriving children of entertainment. Parent misses simple truth:
/ARE/ EDUCATIONAL FOR TODDLERS.
/wisely/.
Parent wisely points out that the men & women
who hold the reigns of boardroom control over
a handful of companies with $3 bn/yr profits,
who make untold sums and live - to the world-
view of 99/100 - not only *incomprehensibly*
glutted w/the EMPIRICAL funds to act as God; &
most wouldn't be facile enough to get the joke
of, on /., playing off double-entendre out of
the rather scientific term "empirical," and
that the U.S. is at least a /part/ of Empire.
/exposure/.
/table scraps/ of certain
obscenely obese in their overruly ownership
Americans, following in the footsteps both
of those like the Medici and aiding glory -
but more often crippling their selves with a
crutch of money - and of its hypnotic power.
LEGOS
Misfire b/c "Entertainment"'s miscontext'd.
We should implement our priorities
Th'empire extends to our entrenched oligopolies sweet-dealing one another to deceive consumers. Hollywood = "Entertainment" = top-down model that Gov't/Indsutry/Crooks have had time to dig their talons into over decades without oversight, and artists MUST go through that system to provide their work broad
You'd prefer our society spend its time and effort to protect
Indeed, a recent trent in biz and politics has been OUTSOURCING of distasteful and hard PERSONAL MATTERS; the true challenges of life, those which prompt growth; maturity.
*HENCE*: --> Why the fuck give away money to the people who are one step below those like Buffet & Gates who, given the immense RICHNESS of America, ALREADY CAN'T **GIVE** THEIR UNTOLD WEALTH AWAY PHILANTHROPICALLY(!!!!!) when those 2nd order wealthy are on average less likely to be able to do immediate good in the world around them with the additional funds (vs their already $80mil in the bank) when it could affect the lives and situations of so many other people out there who could truly benefit from exposure to what artists out there wanted to SAY to EVERYONE ELSE... that's what art is, a STATEMENT that's meant to be HEARD; "Communication is the effect upon the listener," and all EDUCATION can't happen without entertaining simultaneous. Otherwise it's not tied to your self, and you might gain something, but you will be none the wiser for it. NOBODY WHO IS RICH BECAUSE THEY OWN SOMETHING *HAS* TO THINK. Some are rich due to character, fortitude, etc.; those of the record industry bilked their fortunes by being sharks preying on innocent & gullible, producers & consumers.
At least for all its bureauCRAZY and rules (not to mention structural problems that retard people by decades in development, both socially as well as intellectually), the EDUCATION sector has its fair share of hands-on chaperone nurturing teaching and cultivating type of WISE & PROTECTIVE SOUL who recognizes more fully where value lies than he who tries to sleeze value from the pimping and perversion of artists' visions.
...why aren't we all shorting their stock? I mean, it seems to have sat around 4-5 for ages, and just recently jumped up to 8-10 (being about 10.5 today). Considering this jump in their stock price appears to be largely based on these ridiculous claims they have against IBM, and our general belief that these claims will end up being entirely unfounded, wouldn't it be sensible to put our money where our mouths are and put in a short order on SCOX? Isn't it possible to put an order in such a way that it has a failsafe, i.e. it sells automatically in case the price went over, say, 20 (so if they DID somehow bribe the judge and win, you wouldn't be going to bankruptcy when their stock went to $300 lol)? I've never dabbled in short orders before as they're more risky than straight-up stocks, but I would be curious if anyone had some thoughts about this situation where we're all pretty sure SCO's case is baseless, and that SCO is going to essentially vaporize as soon as their claims are debunked. Stay safe all...