The reason people say to watch a few episodes is so that you know who the characters are and care about what happens to them.
A lot of the good writing is dependent on knowing the characters personality, or some of their background information. If you're watching one episode, and something bad happens to a particular character, or a relationship gets strained, you're not going to care. I think this goes for all shows with any dramatic element; you need to see a few episodes so you're familiar with the characters and the premise. It has nothing to do with lone range planning, it has to do with familiarity.
No, that's just not what happens. Read The Media Monopoly for a great analysis of corporate ownership of the media. Media feels pressure from coproate owners, advertisers or sponsors all the time.
I should also mention this has nothing to do with the "free press." If company A owns media outlet B, company A can pressure B all it wants.
I love the Final Fantasy series (I've yet to play FFX because that will cost me $275 - $200 for a PS2, $50 for the game and $25 for a memory card), and I have no intention of playing FFXI for the exact reasons you mentioned.
What is it that you are thinking of when you say that working against poverty and illteracy is seen as cultural imperialism by those in the Middle East?
Actually, that can be a really bad idea, but for a different reason. Putting your thesis up online counts as publishing it, and it will be harder to get your thesis actually published if it already has been. (This, of course, only applies if you are required to get your thesis published.)
It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine.
Wow. I mean, wow. I can't believe they actually said that with a straight face. (Then again, maybe they didn't.) Using this logic, I could not donate my little e-machine to a school because it has Linux on it, and not Windows 98, which was the pre-installed OS.
As some people in this thread have so vocally reccomend, I used google to find out about the OISM and their petition, and I found an interesting article on them.
You're right, we're not going to destroy the planet. In fact, it would take a highly systematic and calculated effort to even come close, and even then, I don't think we have the technology to succeed. This planet has been around for about five billion years, and has survived much more than we can throw at it.
Whatever happens to it, some new equilibrium will eventually be achieved, which will be sustained for some period of time, until the next catalyst for change comes about.
The interesting queston to ask is will we be a part of whatever new equilibrium that is achieved? That is the concern of environmentalists, not "are we destroying the planet." The planet's always going to chug along (until the sun dies). We, however, may not.
As for your guesses at temperature changes, they're just that: guesses. You're not basing them on any emperical evidence, which makes them rubbish.
There's an eassy in Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn that I think you would find interesting. The chapter title has Machiavelli in there somewhere; Zinn's thesis is that US foreign policy is Machiavellian, even if we are "democratic" at home.
He goes into the bombing of Hiroshim and Nagasaki quite a bit, and provides arguments against yours (mainly, that the bombing saved lives).
[I'm not entirely sure it's in Declarations of Idependence. If not, I know for sure it's in a compilation book, Howard Zinn on War.]
"Foreign aid." Phhht. Translation: investing. I'd be very skeptical about the nature of that money; was it truly aid (i.e., no financial return expected, and it was used for social means, not just building infastructure for industry), or was it American corporations investing in a potentially profitable market?
Which may be true, but don't think that in any way exempts the US from being the same. They are completely independent of each other.
The Bush administration has put out feelers to dropping the test-ban treaty. How would you react if we did? Would you have the same conclusions about how much this country cares about the rest of the world? If not, why not?
There was debate, and there still is. The Undersecratary of the Navy--I can't remember his first name, but I'm fairly certain his last name was Byrd--was against bombing, and I believe Eisenhower was as well.
Leo Scilzard (I probably spelled that wrong), a physicist who had worked on the Manhattan Project led a petition that many other scientists signed urging Truman not to use the bomb.
Whether or not it was the "right" decision is not a black and white issue, but it is wrong to say it happened "without much debate."
Doing the time is necessary, and jumping through the hoops is necessary, but one does not get a masters in geology without having had at least the semblance of an education.
Having a degree is evidence of an education. I won't argue it indicates anything else, but we are talking about education.
Again, lambast the study all you want, I really don't consider it pertinent to my point. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to even make a good response, so I'm not going to try.
And I said no experience teaching. Was I wrong? No. I made the (correct) assumption that if he had any experience teaching the grade level of which he is talking--a rather improtant thing to note given what he is talking about--that the article would have mentioned it.
If having kids made one an expert in our school systems, then we'd have a nation of experts. Not that it doesn't give him experience with it, but he is making claims for which I see no evidence. Insight does not equal evidence, which is necessary if you're going to back up claims like that.
The person to whom I was respodning insinuated that all anarchists aren't educated. This is obviously not the case, and I provided an example to the contrary. Attacking his study of choice doesn't change this.
Slashdot Mirror
Fall, and just miss the ground.
Right. Those sites continually claim scientific evidence, but don't back it up.
The reason people say to watch a few episodes is so that you know who the characters are and care about what happens to them.
A lot of the good writing is dependent on knowing the characters personality, or some of their background information. If you're watching one episode, and something bad happens to a particular character, or a relationship gets strained, you're not going to care. I think this goes for all shows with any dramatic element; you need to see a few episodes so you're familiar with the characters and the premise. It has nothing to do with lone range planning, it has to do with familiarity.
Or it could just be that people don't like his new album as much as his last one.
It doesn't work that way. In this case, it comes down to intent, which is what matters is many other laws.
Then you have potential for monopoly charges - but that still is outside of the First Ammendment.
No, that's just not what happens. Read The Media Monopoly for a great analysis of corporate ownership of the media. Media feels pressure from coproate owners, advertisers or sponsors all the time.
I should also mention this has nothing to do with the "free press." If company A owns media outlet B, company A can pressure B all it wants.
I love the Final Fantasy series (I've yet to play FFX because that will cost me $275 - $200 for a PS2, $50 for the game and $25 for a memory card), and I have no intention of playing FFXI for the exact reasons you mentioned.
Okay, so it was a classist joke.
What is it that you are thinking of when you say that working against poverty and illteracy is seen as cultural imperialism by those in the Middle East?
Actually, that can be a really bad idea, but for a different reason. Putting your thesis up online counts as publishing it, and it will be harder to get your thesis actually published if it already has been. (This, of course, only applies if you are required to get your thesis published.)
It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine.
Wow. I mean, wow. I can't believe they actually said that with a straight face. (Then again, maybe they didn't.) Using this logic, I could not donate my little e-machine to a school because it has Linux on it, and not Windows 98, which was the pre-installed OS.
As some people in this thread have so vocally reccomend, I used google to find out about the OISM and their petition, and I found an interesting article on them.
You're right, we're not going to destroy the planet. In fact, it would take a highly systematic and calculated effort to even come close, and even then, I don't think we have the technology to succeed. This planet has been around for about five billion years, and has survived much more than we can throw at it.
Whatever happens to it, some new equilibrium will eventually be achieved, which will be sustained for some period of time, until the next catalyst for change comes about.
The interesting queston to ask is will we be a part of whatever new equilibrium that is achieved? That is the concern of environmentalists, not "are we destroying the planet." The planet's always going to chug along (until the sun dies). We, however, may not.
As for your guesses at temperature changes, they're just that: guesses. You're not basing them on any emperical evidence, which makes them rubbish.
You know, the one we WON because nobody in their freaking mind would attack the US military?
Except the North Koreans and the Viet Cong.
Unless you mean attack the US itself, but in that case, what would they gain?
There's an eassy in Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn that I think you would find interesting. The chapter title has Machiavelli in there somewhere; Zinn's thesis is that US foreign policy is Machiavellian, even if we are "democratic" at home.
He goes into the bombing of Hiroshim and Nagasaki quite a bit, and provides arguments against yours (mainly, that the bombing saved lives).
[I'm not entirely sure it's in Declarations of Idependence. If not, I know for sure it's in a compilation book, Howard Zinn on War.]
"Foreign aid." Phhht. Translation: investing. I'd be very skeptical about the nature of that money; was it truly aid (i.e., no financial return expected, and it was used for social means, not just building infastructure for industry), or was it American corporations investing in a potentially profitable market?
Which may be true, but don't think that in any way exempts the US from being the same. They are completely independent of each other.
The Bush administration has put out feelers to dropping the test-ban treaty. How would you react if we did? Would you have the same conclusions about how much this country cares about the rest of the world? If not, why not?
There was debate, and there still is. The Undersecratary of the Navy--I can't remember his first name, but I'm fairly certain his last name was Byrd--was against bombing, and I believe Eisenhower was as well.
Leo Scilzard (I probably spelled that wrong), a physicist who had worked on the Manhattan Project led a petition that many other scientists signed urging Truman not to use the bomb.
Whether or not it was the "right" decision is not a black and white issue, but it is wrong to say it happened "without much debate."
No, it is not. Nearly 80% of the world lives in poverty. Wake up.
Anti-Semite? Chomsky. Chomsky, for crissakes. The man's Jewish.
Doing the time is necessary, and jumping through the hoops is necessary, but one does not get a masters in geology without having had at least the semblance of an education.
Having a degree is evidence of an education. I won't argue it indicates anything else, but we are talking about education.
Again, lambast the study all you want, I really don't consider it pertinent to my point. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to even make a good response, so I'm not going to try.
And I said no experience teaching. Was I wrong? No. I made the (correct) assumption that if he had any experience teaching the grade level of which he is talking--a rather improtant thing to note given what he is talking about--that the article would have mentioned it.
If having kids made one an expert in our school systems, then we'd have a nation of experts. Not that it doesn't give him experience with it, but he is making claims for which I see no evidence. Insight does not equal evidence, which is necessary if you're going to back up claims like that.
The person to whom I was respodning insinuated that all anarchists aren't educated. This is obviously not the case, and I provided an example to the contrary. Attacking his study of choice doesn't change this.