This older page mentions the same thing:
http://organicconsumers.org/madcow/disposal8101.cf m
It, however, mentions, that it can be cheaper, so now I actually see a benefit.
I'd like to the reports of those generic "researchers" they reference that say by merely burning the deceased and diseased, more cattle can be at risk. Sounds incredulous to me.
I think a great deal of the spinoffs from the space program required the program to be of a very different nature then what it is now(or what it could be in the near future, IMO). A nature involving being pinned against a competing program from a competing nation of a competing political and economic philosophy, that being the Soviet Union's program, of course.
The dynamics have changed so much, you must agree to some extent at least, it's hard to take past performance as sure indicator of future performance.
Broader to this subject:
The idea of this somehow boosting the economy seems incredulous to me in a more wholistic sense. It sounds like the capitalists will merely extract more surplus value for themselves and an increase in debt will be a result. It may create some boost in some sort of "immeadiate" economy, but the national debt will still go up. But I guess that's been the trend for a long time now, and is the preferred "choice" of economic "balancing", or at least the "accepted" one.
Don't mod this up, but don't mod it down, it's all I ask.
Lego was my primary interest as a small one. And not because of the "trends" as they say. I would only first build the thing that the set was supposed to be, then I'd always go on to building whatever I thought up(albeit, with terrible color coordination -- meh).
I would build and build. But my stuff would always get destroyed. I always thought it was my brother(who would be at home for much of the day cause he wasn't in school yet). Mcuh later I found out that it was my step-dad who would secretly destroy it. He said he did it cause when I had a lot of stuff I would stop building cause, you know, there's no blocks left and I couldn't destroy my creations! I guess I could say my step-dad had an interesting method of parenting in that...
Anyway, I guess the point is, I personally liked it for the building entirely not the "toy" aspect, and It's A Good Thing that they're bringing the focus to that moreso.
The only thing i fear is that Google won't really pay any licenses but will enter into some deal where they merely say they are, and SCO will win a certain PR battle like, "we got Google to sign up! now everyone must!" Just one example, I guess, of how this could be bad.
Man, when that "backwards" level came up on Marble Madness my mind was blown. I think I only got up to the level past that one, maybe one more or something? I forget. I wish I could play that game again. The music's bizarre and good too.
If you're "on their property", how could have you stole something? I could stick as much stuff as I want into my pockets(shifty eyes and jerky movements or not), but until I leave the property I haven't stolen anything. So in order for them to detain me for shoplifting they would have had to grabbed me from public space and force me into their property and holding cell. They also have to have "absolute certainty" as in saw me take it and walk out without ever a moment where they lost sight of me.
As funny as this is, people are still "discriminated" against with regards to voting.
The major criterium for discrimination being age. If you're under 18, no voting. Why is discriminating on intelligence any less sensical then on age? The idea is that people under that age can't "understand" what's "needed", isn't it? Well, if a 17 year political science major at whatever uni. can't understand, why can someone with an IQ of 60 who lives in a special-care home? Even if he is 40?
Or what about convicts and such who loose the right to vote? Why should that be? Certainly, even convicts should be given a voice to change something that they see wrong - maybe it's human rights abuses in the prisons?
Just a thought.
When I thought about this I also thought about how the US is allowing more illegal immigrants in. Think about that is terms of franchisement. What if all citizens were illegal immigrants? Who mentioned the "representation of corporations" earlier?
Also, the Spanish-American war was somewhat based on lie. A ship(the Maine) sunk in Havana harbour(the boiler blew up or something) and President McKinley was up on telling everyone it was the Spanish who sunk it. And with that the United States grabbed up a number of assests(Guam, Puerto Rico, and more). That one's kind of eerie considering what is happening now. Many then even said that the US was being imperialistic with the war, much like the US' conflicts today.
At official border crossings maybe. Most(nearly all) of the US's orders are completely unguarded. I've passed from here in Canada to the States many times just in a canoe or a sailboat. And you can easily just walk. There's even some actual roads that are unmanned. I heard of someone(a friend's uncle) who ran a fishing operation in Lake Superior and he went over the border all the time with his boat. One time the border patrol actually noticed him and an officer boarded his ship so he just pushed him over-board and cruised back to Canada. Fairly illegal, but what can you do?
This sounds as if it touches on the question of "what actually is random"?
Most people will just say something is random if it's a case that they don't know what the result could possibly be and, further, don't know how they would go about figuring out what the result would be. By that definition, the market would be "random" to most, non?
Like, my computer can generate "random" numbers, but technically they're not really random, right? Same with rolling a die then as well? Like, if you could know the positions of parts of my hand when I throw it, coefficients of friction, etc. you could "predict" the result couldn't you? But still, because of the complexity and that since the parameters of the algorithm, or whatever, of the die-rolling are just beyond the level of "reasonable" discovery then we could say it's usefully "random", couldn't we?
Most people on Slashdot don't care(or know much about -- I know I don't) this "economy"; I think that's where your strife with them comes from.
Many have some level of greviances, and when they hear of and see rich/powerful people who reached this "higher" level through what they know as a "capitalist" system, naturally some opposing force begins to sound nice to them. Surely you must agree that some people work just as hard as the richest people but still are below the poverty line. People want to have "success"(or insert whatever word you want to use to represent some sort of "goal") and even with working hard they don't get it. Continuing with that, I guess that's why a lot of people do not define success or The Right Thing as dealing much with any sort of stance they hold within this "economy". Which is another reason "they" don't appear to "grasp... why economies grow...[etc]": it's more a case of wanting something else(like maybe more freedom to "lift" samples for collage music, or modify source code for use in their open-source program, or whatever), and so they'll argue against "capitalism" in order to bring about some other non-economic benefits to them/people.
Sure, people may seem to talk as if they claim to know what's best for every "realm" of thought, but that's just cause they're passionate about what matters to them, non? Surely it's not too painful to just take people's seemingly over-arching comments and just try to relate it back to what they want, what their perspective is.
I would agree fully, so would many that are much more educated and authoritative on the matter. Read some works by Zbigniew Brzezinski. I'm sure you've heard of him.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but when I glanced at the subject all I saw from it was "Hot", "Japanese", "Anal" and a three letter word ending with "x".
Perhaps Rockstar will maintain artistic integrity. Maybe in the changed text they'll include some clever jab at the critics. We can only hope. It sounds like something they would do.
Bravo. When you make music a business it sounds about as interesting as a market report or, at best, a press release.
"The music industry has little to do with music." - Robert Fripp (paraphrase)
"'Making music' is just making music and that's where it ends. It ends where I listen back to it. 'Making records' is taking the music you've made and putting it onto a CD and getting involved with all of the music industry side, which isn't really anything to do with music at all. It's all to do with career and stuff like that." - Richard James(Aphex Twin)
Barely any worth it. That's why I don't use them. Napster 2 says they have the largest digital collection of music at 500,000 songs. Wow. That's like, what, nothing? It's got to be less than 2% of total music disseminated. I tried out their 3 day trial and I found a grand total 32 two songs that I wanted. I searched for around 200 artists that I was interested in and they delivered two: Five Style and Talk Talk. They didn't have Messiaen, Slint, Merzbow, Captain Beefheart, Xenakis, Steve Reich, Schoenberg, Stravinksy, or, wait for it, John Cage! No fucking John Cage!
I've rarely had trouble getting music at the wide variety of physical music stores(although I do usually have to order in, but they can still get it nonetheless). When the online stores can bring the selection the traditional stores bring(and we'll just forget about the difference in quality too), then I'll put more thought into switching over.
I can't see that as ever happening. Not everything. I make music on my computer. That means that I would have to stop. And it means every other musician who makes music with their computer would have to stop. Try telling the Autechre boys that they have to stop making music because of some profit-motivated psychos. Every musician and their loyal fans would be up in arms. That would be a large group of VERY vocal people. And a gross destruction of freedom of expression to boot(not to say gross destructions of free expression aren't the trend lately).
I agree that there should be resistance however. Read your Baudrillard, donate to EFF, and speak your mind I guess.
I'm faster than the average male, so one guy with a knife or bat wouldn't scare me as much as, say, anyone in sight willing to shoot me with a gun, assuming I don't bump straight into the former. Usually you get at least a second's warning, that's enough time for me to start sprinting(~.2s likely reaction time). And I'm betting that my fear for life will give me more adrenaline and will(I've ran for my life before and you fucking fly; you swear you feel like you could of broken a world record) then his lust for blood will give him.
But, that's as far as am willing to go into the gun debate, yikes.
Slashdot Mirror
This older page mentions the same thing: http://organicconsumers.org/madcow/disposal8101.cf m
It, however, mentions, that it can be cheaper, so now I actually see a benefit.
I'd like to the reports of those generic "researchers" they reference that say by merely burning the deceased and diseased, more cattle can be at risk. Sounds incredulous to me.
I think a great deal of the spinoffs from the space program required the program to be of a very different nature then what it is now(or what it could be in the near future, IMO). A nature involving being pinned against a competing program from a competing nation of a competing political and economic philosophy, that being the Soviet Union's program, of course.
The dynamics have changed so much, you must agree to some extent at least, it's hard to take past performance as sure indicator of future performance.
Broader to this subject:
The idea of this somehow boosting the economy seems incredulous to me in a more wholistic sense. It sounds like the capitalists will merely extract more surplus value for themselves and an increase in debt will be a result. It may create some boost in some sort of "immeadiate" economy, but the national debt will still go up. But I guess that's been the trend for a long time now, and is the preferred "choice" of economic "balancing", or at least the "accepted" one.
Don't mod this up, but don't mod it down, it's all I ask.
Lego was my primary interest as a small one. And not because of the "trends" as they say. I would only first build the thing that the set was supposed to be, then I'd always go on to building whatever I thought up(albeit, with terrible color coordination -- meh).
I would build and build. But my stuff would always get destroyed. I always thought it was my brother(who would be at home for much of the day cause he wasn't in school yet). Mcuh later I found out that it was my step-dad who would secretly destroy it. He said he did it cause when I had a lot of stuff I would stop building cause, you know, there's no blocks left and I couldn't destroy my creations! I guess I could say my step-dad had an interesting method of parenting in that...
Anyway, I guess the point is, I personally liked it for the building entirely not the "toy" aspect, and It's A Good Thing that they're bringing the focus to that moreso.
The only thing i fear is that Google won't really pay any licenses but will enter into some deal where they merely say they are, and SCO will win a certain PR battle like, "we got Google to sign up! now everyone must!" Just one example, I guess, of how this could be bad.
Man, when that "backwards" level came up on Marble Madness my mind was blown. I think I only got up to the level past that one, maybe one more or something? I forget. I wish I could play that game again. The music's bizarre and good too.
Remind me to dump my girlfriend.
If you're "on their property", how could have you stole something? I could stick as much stuff as I want into my pockets(shifty eyes and jerky movements or not), but until I leave the property I haven't stolen anything. So in order for them to detain me for shoplifting they would have had to grabbed me from public space and force me into their property and holding cell. They also have to have "absolute certainty" as in saw me take it and walk out without ever a moment where they lost sight of me.
As funny as this is, people are still "discriminated" against with regards to voting. The major criterium for discrimination being age. If you're under 18, no voting. Why is discriminating on intelligence any less sensical then on age? The idea is that people under that age can't "understand" what's "needed", isn't it? Well, if a 17 year political science major at whatever uni. can't understand, why can someone with an IQ of 60 who lives in a special-care home? Even if he is 40? Or what about convicts and such who loose the right to vote? Why should that be? Certainly, even convicts should be given a voice to change something that they see wrong - maybe it's human rights abuses in the prisons? Just a thought. When I thought about this I also thought about how the US is allowing more illegal immigrants in. Think about that is terms of franchisement. What if all citizens were illegal immigrants? Who mentioned the "representation of corporations" earlier?
Alien babes are bald, ya know? You mean "and", not "but".
They don't want to "create" more of those "radical" writers though. They want paper-pushers, gas-attendents, and McDonald's employees...
Yikes, don't take this guy too seriously, he's considered crazy by many. Me personally: don't know, would like to learn more.
Mods, don't mark me as informative for that, it was just a note of scarcely related interest.
Obviously you're not familiar with Dr. Noe Huntley's articles... http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/physmob.ht m
Also, the Spanish-American war was somewhat based on lie. A ship(the Maine) sunk in Havana harbour(the boiler blew up or something) and President McKinley was up on telling everyone it was the Spanish who sunk it. And with that the United States grabbed up a number of assests(Guam, Puerto Rico, and more). That one's kind of eerie considering what is happening now. Many then even said that the US was being imperialistic with the war, much like the US' conflicts today.
At official border crossings maybe. Most(nearly all) of the US's orders are completely unguarded. I've passed from here in Canada to the States many times just in a canoe or a sailboat. And you can easily just walk. There's even some actual roads that are unmanned. I heard of someone(a friend's uncle) who ran a fishing operation in Lake Superior and he went over the border all the time with his boat. One time the border patrol actually noticed him and an officer boarded his ship so he just pushed him over-board and cruised back to Canada. Fairly illegal, but what can you do?
This sounds as if it touches on the question of "what actually is random"?
Most people will just say something is random if it's a case that they don't know what the result could possibly be and, further, don't know how they would go about figuring out what the result would be. By that definition, the market would be "random" to most, non?
Like, my computer can generate "random" numbers, but technically they're not really random, right? Same with rolling a die then as well? Like, if you could know the positions of parts of my hand when I throw it, coefficients of friction, etc. you could "predict" the result couldn't you? But still, because of the complexity and that since the parameters of the algorithm, or whatever, of the die-rolling are just beyond the level of "reasonable" discovery then we could say it's usefully "random", couldn't we?
Most people on Slashdot don't care(or know much about -- I know I don't) this "economy"; I think that's where your strife with them comes from.
Many have some level of greviances, and when they hear of and see rich/powerful people who reached this "higher" level through what they know as a "capitalist" system, naturally some opposing force begins to sound nice to them. Surely you must agree that some people work just as hard as the richest people but still are below the poverty line. People want to have "success"(or insert whatever word you want to use to represent some sort of "goal") and even with working hard they don't get it. Continuing with that, I guess that's why a lot of people do not define success or The Right Thing as dealing much with any sort of stance they hold within this "economy". Which is another reason "they" don't appear to "grasp... why economies grow...[etc]": it's more a case of wanting something else(like maybe more freedom to "lift" samples for collage music, or modify source code for use in their open-source program, or whatever), and so they'll argue against "capitalism" in order to bring about some other non-economic benefits to them/people.
Sure, people may seem to talk as if they claim to know what's best for every "realm" of thought, but that's just cause they're passionate about what matters to them, non? Surely it's not too painful to just take people's seemingly over-arching comments and just try to relate it back to what they want, what their perspective is.
Aww, that makes me sad, 'cause there's people like that, and they're just not that bright, you know?
*Waits for "you're just a fag" insults...
I would agree fully, so would many that are much more educated and authoritative on the matter. Read some works by Zbigniew Brzezinski. I'm sure you've heard of him.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but when I glanced at the subject all I saw from it was "Hot", "Japanese", "Anal" and a three letter word ending with "x".
Perhaps Rockstar will maintain artistic integrity. Maybe in the changed text they'll include some clever jab at the critics. We can only hope. It sounds like something they would do.
Bravo. When you make music a business it sounds about as interesting as a market report or, at best, a press release.
"The music industry has little to do with music." - Robert Fripp (paraphrase)
"'Making music' is just making music and that's where it ends. It ends where I listen back to it. 'Making records' is taking the music you've made and putting it onto a CD and getting involved with all of the music industry side, which isn't really anything to do with music at all. It's all to do with career and stuff like that." - Richard James(Aphex Twin)
Barely any worth it. That's why I don't use them. Napster 2 says they have the largest digital collection of music at 500,000 songs. Wow. That's like, what, nothing? It's got to be less than 2% of total music disseminated. I tried out their 3 day trial and I found a grand total 32 two songs that I wanted. I searched for around 200 artists that I was interested in and they delivered two: Five Style and Talk Talk. They didn't have Messiaen, Slint, Merzbow, Captain Beefheart, Xenakis, Steve Reich, Schoenberg, Stravinksy, or, wait for it, John Cage! No fucking John Cage!
I've rarely had trouble getting music at the wide variety of physical music stores(although I do usually have to order in, but they can still get it nonetheless). When the online stores can bring the selection the traditional stores bring(and we'll just forget about the difference in quality too), then I'll put more thought into switching over.
I can't see that as ever happening. Not everything. I make music on my computer. That means that I would have to stop. And it means every other musician who makes music with their computer would have to stop. Try telling the Autechre boys that they have to stop making music because of some profit-motivated psychos. Every musician and their loyal fans would be up in arms. That would be a large group of VERY vocal people. And a gross destruction of freedom of expression to boot(not to say gross destructions of free expression aren't the trend lately).
I agree that there should be resistance however. Read your Baudrillard, donate to EFF, and speak your mind I guess.
I'm faster than the average male, so one guy with a knife or bat wouldn't scare me as much as, say, anyone in sight willing to shoot me with a gun, assuming I don't bump straight into the former. Usually you get at least a second's warning, that's enough time for me to start sprinting(~.2s likely reaction time). And I'm betting that my fear for life will give me more adrenaline and will(I've ran for my life before and you fucking fly; you swear you feel like you could of broken a world record) then his lust for blood will give him.
But, that's as far as am willing to go into the gun debate, yikes.