Unless they have some weird notion that when this bring exactly the kind of people we all know it will, they will start making claims that all animal killing if for sexual gratification by perverts. I could see them going there.
Enterprise was WAY better than BSG. BSG was cool in the same way that Marlyn Manson was cool. As in a couple of people sat at a table with a pad and paper and wrote down everything they thought would be "edgy". Then they tried to mash it into a show. Here is a rule of thumb. When you steal characters from Voyager, your writers suck.
Hold on there partner! Don't draw the attention of the cool kids posing to our good nerd stuff or Babylon 5 might end up in the same place as the rest of the 'pop nerd' culture.
I just finished re-watching the entire Star Trek series on Netflix Streaming. Yes. They did go back and edit them. I don't think they changed the content, but the crappy CGI that put in all over the place is painful to watch.
They don't have to undercut GameFly. They just have to match them and deliver in the one day that Netflix normally ships in instead of the 3 or more days that GameFly ships in.
You seem to be missing the fact that there are these things called "Children". They have a tendency to play in the sand that the seagulls poop in, and also have a tendency to put their hands in their mouths.
More seriously, all sorts of people touch the sand at the beach, and many of them eat food at the beach after touching the sand, and not washing their hands.
No, I would give them some kind of test that the schools DON'T test for. It's like a friend of my son's. It was the summer following her passing of the second grade. She was at our house, and my wife decided to run a game of 'Addition Bingo' for my son and his friend. This little girl was doing fine with all of the addition that she had memorized. 5+5, 10 + 8, 0 +12. These she had memorized to pass her tests in the 2nd grade. The surprise came when the square for 13 + 0 was called. This poor little girl could not add 13 + 0. Since her memorization sheets only went to 12, and she had never been tested on anything that was not on the list, it was immediatly apparent that this 3rd Grade student could not add. It looked like she could add, because she had memorized a set of answers, but she didn't know how addition worked. She was completely lost on how to add 0 to 13.
That isn't testing for skills that can't be tested for. It is testing for skills that the public school system DOESN'T test for. There is a huge difference between the two. Thus, if you are talking about public school kids, "There's more to learning than test scores".
By talking to the kids that that get good scores on standardized tests, and through empirical evidence determine that a large portion of them are as dumb as a box of rocks.
What the parent thinks: It's technology, so they will get better grades!
What the administration thinks: It's technology, so they will score better on the funding tests!
I don't think the majority of parents or administrators care if the kids are smart. The administrators want more funding and the parents don't care if their kids are dumb, they just want them to get good grades.
The scene isn't a "Your just imagining it" scene. Just as the transvestite jokes are not "Your just imagining it" scenes. You are doing EXACTLY what I said many parents do.
Puss'n Boots isn't a cat. It is a Furry. That is a whole class of kink on it's own. Presumably, you will continue to behave in the manner you do by continuing to tell yourself that if it has fur, it doesn't count.
Which, ultimately, comes down to how the parent handles questions, deals with their child, and watches what they are exposed to (including what other little brats they are hanging around with!).
Have you considered that they are leaving BECAUSE of the merger? Who wants a 2 year contract with a company that is destine to be sold to someone you don't want to do business with? The 280,000 lost customers isn't a sign that people don't like T-Mobile. It is a sign that people don't like AT&T
Since 8-core, 4GHz machines as well as x86 software that needs it is so small of a portion of what exists even on the desktop, it isn't even part of the discussion.
No one is suggestion that x86 emulation be forced on every user with every application all the time. It makes no sense to argue that it is a good idea not to let application that people want to run application because it might use more battery power.
A) No they don't. Children see anthropomorphized animals the way they are intended to be seen. As people. When they see Pluto, they see a dog. When they see Goofy, they see a person. They don't expect Pluto to talk, and they don't expect Goofy to eat from a bowl on the kitchen floor. Puss and Boots in the Shrek series was specifically anthropomorphized to be a person. Not an animal.
B) You are splitting hairs. If someone dressed as a cat is sitting in the park sucking his penis, or is sitting in the park cleaning his balls with his tongue, you are going to have the police remove them all the same. It was clear from the context of the scene that the point was that the princess caught him pleasuring himself.
I suppose I should appreciate you piping in and doing EXACTLY what I said people do to explain it away. You explained that if it is Furry Porn, it is totally acceptable for kids, and anyone that would say otherwise must be the one with a problem.
I don't understand this mentality. You are saying that because some applications will not be really good user experiences, that it would be crazy to not lock users out of them, as well as thousands of apps that would work just fine? It's not like all of the native apps are going to be good user experiences anyway. Your premise makes no sense.
I don't line up 100% with your post, but for the most part you are hitting the core subject. My example isn't South Park cartoons, but the movie Shrek 2. It has been a very popular movie. Parents let their kids watch it all the time. It was targeted to kids. No one seems to be phased by the fact that in one scene there is a character sitting in the castle courtyard giving himself a blowjob. Not discreetly. Not in the background. It fills the whole screen and is the premise of the scene.
When pointed out, the standard response is "Ohhh... That's a cat, and cats do that." The fact is that it isn't "a cat". It walks on two legs. It speaks English. It has a French accent. It wears cloths, and uses tools. It an anthropomorphized cat, and thus is designed to be viewed as human. In fact, what would best describe it is calling it a "Furry". So, somehow, the vast majority of parents have concluded that their kids watching a 20' tall furry give himself a blowjob is cute.
Now, if the parent is aware that it is there and decides to let their kid watch anyway, fine. The big problem is the parents like your teacher who just ignore what they are feeding their kids.
True that Monopoly isn't violent, but if your worried about games causing your child to do bad things, Monopoly should be at the top of your list. It seems to be lost on modern society that Monopoly was designed specifically to be a warning. Unlike your average first person shooter, when your kid grows up and tries to emulate their Monopoly behavior in real life, people will pat them on the back and tell them how good their destructive behavior is. YOU very well might pat them on the back and tell them how proud you are of them for their destructive behavior.
Smart phones and tablets are just as much general computing devices as our computers of the past were. The fact that I can run Frodo, DosBox, and UAE on them means that to claim they are not general-purpose computing devices you must redefine computers in their entirety.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless they have some weird notion that when this bring exactly the kind of people we all know it will, they will start making claims that all animal killing if for sexual gratification by perverts. I could see them going there.
Enterprise was WAY better than BSG. BSG was cool in the same way that Marlyn Manson was cool. As in a couple of people sat at a table with a pad and paper and wrote down everything they thought would be "edgy". Then they tried to mash it into a show. Here is a rule of thumb. When you steal characters from Voyager, your writers suck.
I'm just wondering how the battle between Bester and Chekov would turn out. If Bester won, would he cease to exist?
Hold on there partner! Don't draw the attention of the cool kids posing to our good nerd stuff or Babylon 5 might end up in the same place as the rest of the 'pop nerd' culture.
I just finished re-watching the entire Star Trek series on Netflix Streaming. Yes. They did go back and edit them. I don't think they changed the content, but the crappy CGI that put in all over the place is painful to watch.
They don't have to undercut GameFly. They just have to match them and deliver in the one day that Netflix normally ships in instead of the 3 or more days that GameFly ships in.
Oops. OUR schools.
Yes, many of your schools in California are infested with seagulls, and I was attacked in my youth at one of them.
You seem to be missing the fact that there are these things called "Children". They have a tendency to play in the sand that the seagulls poop in, and also have a tendency to put their hands in their mouths.
More seriously, all sorts of people touch the sand at the beach, and many of them eat food at the beach after touching the sand, and not washing their hands.
No, I would give them some kind of test that the schools DON'T test for. It's like a friend of my son's. It was the summer following her passing of the second grade. She was at our house, and my wife decided to run a game of 'Addition Bingo' for my son and his friend. This little girl was doing fine with all of the addition that she had memorized. 5+5, 10 + 8, 0 +12. These she had memorized to pass her tests in the 2nd grade. The surprise came when the square for 13 + 0 was called. This poor little girl could not add 13 + 0. Since her memorization sheets only went to 12, and she had never been tested on anything that was not on the list, it was immediatly apparent that this 3rd Grade student could not add. It looked like she could add, because she had memorized a set of answers, but she didn't know how addition worked. She was completely lost on how to add 0 to 13.
That isn't testing for skills that can't be tested for. It is testing for skills that the public school system DOESN'T test for. There is a huge difference between the two. Thus, if you are talking about public school kids, "There's more to learning than test scores".
He didn't say when he learned to walk.
By talking to the kids that that get good scores on standardized tests, and through empirical evidence determine that a large portion of them are as dumb as a box of rocks.
Nice, but I would make two corrections:
What the parent thinks: It's technology, so they will get better grades! What the administration thinks: It's technology, so they will score better on the funding tests! I don't think the majority of parents or administrators care if the kids are smart. The administrators want more funding and the parents don't care if their kids are dumb, they just want them to get good grades.
It is Beerfest 2. http://beerfestmovie.warnerbros.com/
The scene isn't a "Your just imagining it" scene. Just as the transvestite jokes are not "Your just imagining it" scenes. You are doing EXACTLY what I said many parents do.
Puss'n Boots isn't a cat. It is a Furry. That is a whole class of kink on it's own. Presumably, you will continue to behave in the manner you do by continuing to tell yourself that if it has fur, it doesn't count.
Which, ultimately, comes down to how the parent handles questions, deals with their child, and watches what they are exposed to (including what other little brats they are hanging around with!).
Was that intended irony?
Have you considered that they are leaving BECAUSE of the merger? Who wants a 2 year contract with a company that is destine to be sold to someone you don't want to do business with? The 280,000 lost customers isn't a sign that people don't like T-Mobile. It is a sign that people don't like AT&T
Since 8-core, 4GHz machines as well as x86 software that needs it is so small of a portion of what exists even on the desktop, it isn't even part of the discussion.
No one is suggestion that x86 emulation be forced on every user with every application all the time. It makes no sense to argue that it is a good idea not to let application that people want to run application because it might use more battery power.
Case in point.
A) No they don't. Children see anthropomorphized animals the way they are intended to be seen. As people. When they see Pluto, they see a dog. When they see Goofy, they see a person. They don't expect Pluto to talk, and they don't expect Goofy to eat from a bowl on the kitchen floor. Puss and Boots in the Shrek series was specifically anthropomorphized to be a person. Not an animal.
B) You are splitting hairs. If someone dressed as a cat is sitting in the park sucking his penis, or is sitting in the park cleaning his balls with his tongue, you are going to have the police remove them all the same. It was clear from the context of the scene that the point was that the princess caught him pleasuring himself.
I suppose I should appreciate you piping in and doing EXACTLY what I said people do to explain it away. You explained that if it is Furry Porn, it is totally acceptable for kids, and anyone that would say otherwise must be the one with a problem.
I don't understand this mentality. You are saying that because some applications will not be really good user experiences, that it would be crazy to not lock users out of them, as well as thousands of apps that would work just fine? It's not like all of the native apps are going to be good user experiences anyway. Your premise makes no sense.
I don't line up 100% with your post, but for the most part you are hitting the core subject. My example isn't South Park cartoons, but the movie Shrek 2. It has been a very popular movie. Parents let their kids watch it all the time. It was targeted to kids. No one seems to be phased by the fact that in one scene there is a character sitting in the castle courtyard giving himself a blowjob. Not discreetly. Not in the background. It fills the whole screen and is the premise of the scene.
When pointed out, the standard response is "Ohhh... That's a cat, and cats do that." The fact is that it isn't "a cat". It walks on two legs. It speaks English. It has a French accent. It wears cloths, and uses tools. It an anthropomorphized cat, and thus is designed to be viewed as human. In fact, what would best describe it is calling it a "Furry". So, somehow, the vast majority of parents have concluded that their kids watching a 20' tall furry give himself a blowjob is cute.
Now, if the parent is aware that it is there and decides to let their kid watch anyway, fine. The big problem is the parents like your teacher who just ignore what they are feeding their kids.
It is sad that so many people don't understand this.
True that Monopoly isn't violent, but if your worried about games causing your child to do bad things, Monopoly should be at the top of your list. It seems to be lost on modern society that Monopoly was designed specifically to be a warning. Unlike your average first person shooter, when your kid grows up and tries to emulate their Monopoly behavior in real life, people will pat them on the back and tell them how good their destructive behavior is. YOU very well might pat them on the back and tell them how proud you are of them for their destructive behavior.
Smart phones and tablets are just as much general computing devices as our computers of the past were. The fact that I can run Frodo, DosBox, and UAE on them means that to claim they are not general-purpose computing devices you must redefine computers in their entirety.