These idiots think cows are grown in vats and fed a steady diet of bubble gum and corn syrup in a 1920s style slaughterhouse.
They're fed corn and antibiotics -- I dunno where you raise your cows but California between Bakersfield and Salinas is one big concentrated feedlot. We only recently convinced people to stop feeding cows with other dead cows. Let alone grass.
I don't know who "everyone you know" is, but 50% of meat in the US comes from CAFOs.
The modern slaughterhouses are pretty awesome. I mean, sure, assembly lines are imperfect things, and pigs and cows often aren't dead when they get put up on the hooks, and are conscious when their trotters and ears get sawed off, but this is a marginal issue...
Sorry, I fail to see where morality enters into this argument at all...?
Humans are just another variety of animal on this planet, like the rest of them, we eat, sleep, shit, fuck and make new little copies of ourselves.
We just happen to be on the top of the food chain, and have a lot of choices on what to eat, picking from those lower than us on the food chain.
There's nothing morally wrong with eating something lower than yourself on the food chain, that's they way nature made all of us animals.
The utilitarian argument goes that human beings, unlike most animals, have a conscience, and are thus obliged to minimize any form of suffering. The argument that humans are "just another animal" isn't sustainable, since it would justify the killing of other humans for food, particularly if the other human is outcompeted for resources and "lower than yourself" on the food chain. The distincition between intra- and inter-species predation is just an artificial construct, "animals" are arbitrary on the issue.
People tend to have an innate sense of decency with regard to animals, they love their pets and would not want them killed; they only accept the killing of cows or chickens because they don't have to watch it, and because there's an arbitrary cultural practice at work.
Not necessarily. The specific prohibition is against cloven-hoofed animals that do not chew cud. An organism (or rather a biological assembly) in a dish has no cloven hooves.
Leviticus Chapter 11:
3:Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat. 4:Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
There is the question of wether these laws apply to particular animal specimens, or to species (or rather the Biblical "kinds") -- I'm sure there's commentary on the issue. At some point some pig was born that had no legs, and some smart-aleck asked his rabbi if he could eat it.
Somewhat more exciting recordings are the airchecks from the EBS Scare of 1971, when a NORAD telegrapher accidentally sent the "Duck and Cover" signal to every radio station in America, and the stations all read their pre-prepared "stand by for an Emergency Action Message from the President of the United States" script.
And here are recordings of the original, pre-recorded nuclear attack messages that would be played, one for if there was several hours warning, and one if there were only minutes warning.
Note that his definition only relates to providers: Youtube's videos shouldn't have priority over Netflix's or Hulu's. If has nothing to do with subscribers.
For Google, Network Neutrality is about keeping Comcast from partnering with Netflix or Amazon Prime, to provide a faster connection to subscribers than YouTube. Subscriber bandwidth caps, deep packet inspection and traffic managent were never their priority.
Why the scare-quotes around "pirated," homeslice? That is what it is.
Of course, Google is going to the trouble of inventing and selling it's own Web-STB because media companies suspect it of cooperating with massive piracy operations, and on account of this they won't play ball with Google's aggregation and media operation the way Google demands.
What do you mean? The whole point of a box like this is they can collect this information without steering you toward they're offerings, while the usage information they collect make its offerings objectively better. The point is that since they're in your house and attached to your TV, they're mediating the TVs connection between you in the internet (or you and your wifi-attached media), just as Google proper mediates searches, and they can sample the clickstream that goes from you back to content providers, wether they're Google's content providers or not. Of course they collect this sort of information on YouTube, but when they own the web browser they can collect this information for ANY video site.
It's like a DVR; DVRs know which ads get watched, which shows get watched and rewatched, when it happens, and what gets skipped, and their operators monetize this information. This is just a DVR that uses Wifi instead of a CableCard, and Google will give it to you for a nominal low price, just as your cable op will give you the DVR for a nominal low price, because the information it collects is almost as valuable as the programming.
They are planning on making money from renting/selling movies on Google Play store, and probably more money through affiliate programs sending new customers to Netflix and other programs that will probably be on there in the future like Hulu and Amazon Prime.
I assume there's some value to the kind of user data they'd collect from such a stick as well -- Netflix has made a business out of trying to guess what movies people will like based on their past viewing, and now Google has this stick that knows not just what Netflix movies you watch, but which Youtube, Vimeo and MKVs off your LAN you like to watch. They can also see when you fast-forward and when you don't, just as Netflix can, either by itself or in collaboration with the remote app, which can geolocate and tie the viewing information to any number of other data points. The HDMI can record when your TV is switched on or not (regardless of wether you're watching the stick's output or not), what model TV you're using...
At the moment there appears to be more growth in ads on Hulu Plus and other Ten-Foot-Interface content companies than on mobile in general. Statistically people are more likely to watch an entire ad on Hulu than any other non-streaming cable method, and their CPMs are something like 10 times that of web ads, and those are twice over more than mobile ads.
Mobile ads are mostly a bill of goods Google sells to advertisers, and users hacking around at the edges of that isn't very important -- ads on TV are orders of magnitude more valuable real estate.
"if we can't do it supercoolmegaright then don't do it at all and don't let the user to do it all"
Users have a habit of loading up phone banks with the stuff that doesn't work mega-right, even if they had to do some mild circumvention in order to try in the first place.
Google's goal (as with all of its hardware products) is to make something with no manual, no learning curve and no technical support, aside from user-supported forums, so they're going to be parsimonious about what they implement. They want you to buy the box, happily use it (to generate clickstream and view ads), and never mention the box to them again.
The problem with TFA is that it claims movies since 2005 have been ruined by formulaic storytelling, and by one particular book -- the existence of Syd Field Screenplay (published 1979) amply disproves the assertion. Field was one of my professors at 'SC, and even he'll tell you he just developed his technique out of stuff Ben Hecht and Frances Goodrich worked out in Irving Thalberg's office in the 1930s.
The frustrating thing is that these techniques usually work just fine in the right hands -- Casablanca and Star Wars are textbook examples of "hack" three-act plot development.
Honest question: then why is it that many foreign films offer more depths than we tend to produce in the USA?
You are probably referring to foreign films produced for the international arthouse market -- these are sold to speciality theaters and Critereon Collection. 2046 and L'Argent weren't made to open on 3000 screens, unlike Iron Man 3, which costs so much money it must appeal to a very broad audience and not alienate any key demographics. Art films are made and distributed cheaply and can afford to alienate the median moviegoer. They tend to be better for this.
I work in the industry and my dad is a Minnesotan college professor. The "nepotism" argument isn't very convincing -- families of actors and impresarios have been plaguing entertainment for centuries, Hollywood is significantly less nepotistic than, for instance, Broadway in the 19-teens. Also note that our best entertainment nowadays is probably premium cable TV, and TV draws its creative talent from the sample pool Hollywood features do.
TFA's claim is pretty bullshit. Syd Field basically wrote the same book on screenplay structure and "how to sell your spec" in the 1970s, there's nothing particularly new about the claim here. I work in LA and have many produced screenwriter friends (yes even ones who've worked for Jerry Bruckheimer) and they haven't read this silly book.
Movies presently suck for a lot of reasons, but structure isn't one of them. The biggest problem nowadays is that a movie must have a simple enough story to be marketable in the international market, and specifically the Chinese market. 2/3s of all of Hollywood's revenue now comes from international distribution.
The vision of Walter has long since been dead only for the momentum of his IP to carry the name forward.
To be fair, at least according to Disney's biographers (I'm thinking Neal Gabler specifically here), merchandising and long-term franchises were a key part of his "vision" for family entertainment, perhaps not at first but for a great proportion of his career. He rigorously defended his company's trademarks and IP long before it was stylish to do so; this is the who, when he was young, he practiced his own signature every day during his lunch hour, so people would know it was his. He was obsessed with brand identity and defining his studio as a peerless source of safe, family entertainment, and his attitude was that anybody who made a knockoff Disney product or presented a Disney product without his approval was besmirching him, personally.
He was originally drawn to the craft because he pioneered the mass-production of it, and he was just the sort of control freak who could make such an operation profitable and artistically valid. After World War II he'd completely burned out on animation itself, and turned his attention to theme parks where the entertainers were automata who never complained and performed perfectly every time. Meanwhile he consolidated his business empire.
The more dirt comes up all at once, the harder it will be for the public and Congress to ignore.
I dunno, if you were trying to avoid reform, I'd think bringing as much dirt up at once would be an effective strategy -- Congress is fundamentally limited as to how much it can do at any one time, all the abuses tend to blur together into nonspecific "allegations," the media gets its fill of the specifics after a day or two and turns to biography stories, as has been done with Snowden.
Real reform after thirty years of groundwork. You kids and your instant gratification!:)
To be fair, they DID enforce DOMA, the admin simply refrained from defending it in court.
I'm not sure what immigration laws you are talking a about, or wether you are implying incompetence or malice.
I have no doubt at all that the next Apple TV will be capable of running apps
I'd say if Apple had the choice of selling a twice-as-powerful AppleTV for the same price, or the same AppleTV for $49, they'd do the latter. Let the games be played on other parts of the network, and let the bridge to the TV simply be a dumb box. That way you minimize the Dread Fragmentation by keeping the phone/pad at the center of the ecosystem.
Slashdot Mirror
They're fed corn and antibiotics -- I dunno where you raise your cows but California between Bakersfield and Salinas is one big concentrated feedlot. We only recently convinced people to stop feeding cows with other dead cows. Let alone grass.
I don't know who "everyone you know" is, but 50% of meat in the US comes from CAFOs.
The modern slaughterhouses are pretty awesome. I mean, sure, assembly lines are imperfect things, and pigs and cows often aren't dead when they get put up on the hooks, and are conscious when their trotters and ears get sawed off, but this is a marginal issue...
The utilitarian argument goes that human beings, unlike most animals, have a conscience, and are thus obliged to minimize any form of suffering. The argument that humans are "just another animal" isn't sustainable, since it would justify the killing of other humans for food, particularly if the other human is outcompeted for resources and "lower than yourself" on the food chain. The distincition between intra- and inter-species predation is just an artificial construct, "animals" are arbitrary on the issue.
People tend to have an innate sense of decency with regard to animals, they love their pets and would not want them killed; they only accept the killing of cows or chickens because they don't have to watch it, and because there's an arbitrary cultural practice at work.
Not necessarily. The specific prohibition is against cloven-hoofed animals that do not chew cud. An organism (or rather a biological assembly) in a dish has no cloven hooves.
Leviticus Chapter 11:
There is the question of wether these laws apply to particular animal specimens, or to species (or rather the Biblical "kinds") -- I'm sure there's commentary on the issue. At some point some pig was born that had no legs, and some smart-aleck asked his rabbi if he could eat it.
You shouldn't eat ape -- there's all kinds of potential for zoonosis. Consumption of bushmeat is considered a leading factor in the emergence of HIV.
"Mobile apps" have been a thing since the 90s. And a lot of people doing mobile dev now have decades of general development experience....
Somewhat more exciting recordings are the airchecks from the EBS Scare of 1971, when a NORAD telegrapher accidentally sent the "Duck and Cover" signal to every radio station in America, and the stations all read their pre-prepared "stand by for an Emergency Action Message from the President of the United States" script.
And here are recordings of the original, pre-recorded nuclear attack messages that would be played, one for if there was several hours warning, and one if there were only minutes warning.
Yes, but does Motorola know it yet?
Note that his definition only relates to providers: Youtube's videos shouldn't have priority over Netflix's or Hulu's. If has nothing to do with subscribers. For Google, Network Neutrality is about keeping Comcast from partnering with Netflix or Amazon Prime, to provide a faster connection to subscribers than YouTube. Subscriber bandwidth caps, deep packet inspection and traffic managent were never their priority.
Why the scare-quotes around "pirated," homeslice? That is what it is.
Of course, Google is going to the trouble of inventing and selling it's own Web-STB because media companies suspect it of cooperating with massive piracy operations, and on account of this they won't play ball with Google's aggregation and media operation the way Google demands.
What do you mean? The whole point of a box like this is they can collect this information without steering you toward they're offerings, while the usage information they collect make its offerings objectively better. The point is that since they're in your house and attached to your TV, they're mediating the TVs connection between you in the internet (or you and your wifi-attached media), just as Google proper mediates searches, and they can sample the clickstream that goes from you back to content providers, wether they're Google's content providers or not. Of course they collect this sort of information on YouTube, but when they own the web browser they can collect this information for ANY video site.
It's like a DVR; DVRs know which ads get watched, which shows get watched and rewatched, when it happens, and what gets skipped, and their operators monetize this information. This is just a DVR that uses Wifi instead of a CableCard, and Google will give it to you for a nominal low price, just as your cable op will give you the DVR for a nominal low price, because the information it collects is almost as valuable as the programming.
I assume there's some value to the kind of user data they'd collect from such a stick as well -- Netflix has made a business out of trying to guess what movies people will like based on their past viewing, and now Google has this stick that knows not just what Netflix movies you watch, but which Youtube, Vimeo and MKVs off your LAN you like to watch. They can also see when you fast-forward and when you don't, just as Netflix can, either by itself or in collaboration with the remote app, which can geolocate and tie the viewing information to any number of other data points. The HDMI can record when your TV is switched on or not (regardless of wether you're watching the stick's output or not), what model TV you're using...
At the moment there appears to be more growth in ads on Hulu Plus and other Ten-Foot-Interface content companies than on mobile in general. Statistically people are more likely to watch an entire ad on Hulu than any other non-streaming cable method, and their CPMs are something like 10 times that of web ads, and those are twice over more than mobile ads.
Mobile ads are mostly a bill of goods Google sells to advertisers, and users hacking around at the edges of that isn't very important -- ads on TV are orders of magnitude more valuable real estate.
Users have a habit of loading up phone banks with the stuff that doesn't work mega-right, even if they had to do some mild circumvention in order to try in the first place.
Google's goal (as with all of its hardware products) is to make something with no manual, no learning curve and no technical support, aside from user-supported forums, so they're going to be parsimonious about what they implement. They want you to buy the box, happily use it (to generate clickstream and view ads), and never mention the box to them again.
It gets better: Every computer user on the planet who prints through CUPS... is using Apple-owned software.
The problem with TFA is that it claims movies since 2005 have been ruined by formulaic storytelling, and by one particular book -- the existence of Syd Field Screenplay (published 1979) amply disproves the assertion. Field was one of my professors at 'SC, and even he'll tell you he just developed his technique out of stuff Ben Hecht and Frances Goodrich worked out in Irving Thalberg's office in the 1930s.
The frustrating thing is that these techniques usually work just fine in the right hands -- Casablanca and Star Wars are textbook examples of "hack" three-act plot development.
You are probably referring to foreign films produced for the international arthouse market -- these are sold to speciality theaters and Critereon Collection. 2046 and L'Argent weren't made to open on 3000 screens, unlike Iron Man 3, which costs so much money it must appeal to a very broad audience and not alienate any key demographics. Art films are made and distributed cheaply and can afford to alienate the median moviegoer. They tend to be better for this.
I work in the industry and my dad is a Minnesotan college professor. The "nepotism" argument isn't very convincing -- families of actors and impresarios have been plaguing entertainment for centuries, Hollywood is significantly less nepotistic than, for instance, Broadway in the 19-teens. Also note that our best entertainment nowadays is probably premium cable TV, and TV draws its creative talent from the sample pool Hollywood features do.
TFA's claim is pretty bullshit. Syd Field basically wrote the same book on screenplay structure and "how to sell your spec" in the 1970s, there's nothing particularly new about the claim here. I work in LA and have many produced screenwriter friends (yes even ones who've worked for Jerry Bruckheimer) and they haven't read this silly book.
Movies presently suck for a lot of reasons, but structure isn't one of them. The biggest problem nowadays is that a movie must have a simple enough story to be marketable in the international market, and specifically the Chinese market. 2/3s of all of Hollywood's revenue now comes from international distribution.
To be fair, at least according to Disney's biographers (I'm thinking Neal Gabler specifically here), merchandising and long-term franchises were a key part of his "vision" for family entertainment, perhaps not at first but for a great proportion of his career. He rigorously defended his company's trademarks and IP long before it was stylish to do so; this is the who, when he was young, he practiced his own signature every day during his lunch hour, so people would know it was his. He was obsessed with brand identity and defining his studio as a peerless source of safe, family entertainment, and his attitude was that anybody who made a knockoff Disney product or presented a Disney product without his approval was besmirching him, personally.
He was originally drawn to the craft because he pioneered the mass-production of it, and he was just the sort of control freak who could make such an operation profitable and artistically valid. After World War II he'd completely burned out on animation itself, and turned his attention to theme parks where the entertainers were automata who never complained and performed perfectly every time. Meanwhile he consolidated his business empire.
I dunno, if you were trying to avoid reform, I'd think bringing as much dirt up at once would be an effective strategy -- Congress is fundamentally limited as to how much it can do at any one time, all the abuses tend to blur together into nonspecific "allegations," the media gets its fill of the specifics after a day or two and turns to biography stories, as has been done with Snowden.
Real reform after thirty years of groundwork. You kids and your instant gratification! :)
To be fair, they DID enforce DOMA, the admin simply refrained from defending it in court. I'm not sure what immigration laws you are talking a about, or wether you are implying incompetence or malice.
A lot of people in Information Technology work for large employers that have terrible health benefits.
It's more of a push; the bigger question is how much the Kindle Fire hurts the Play Store.
I'd say if Apple had the choice of selling a twice-as-powerful AppleTV for the same price, or the same AppleTV for $49, they'd do the latter. Let the games be played on other parts of the network, and let the bridge to the TV simply be a dumb box. That way you minimize the Dread Fragmentation by keeping the phone/pad at the center of the ecosystem.
It remains, they are sunk, regardless of who sunk them.