I can believe that an apple computer might last longer but the examples you gave are funny. From what I've heard just reading the posts here, for some reason Adobe is not very efficient in running Flash on Macs compared to Windows PCs. And games? Seriously? If you're into gaming, are you seriously suggesting that Macs are the better value?
I'd love a mac if I could afford one, but not because of it's ability to keep up with the times in Flash and definitely not to play games.
I don't know. If you worked in public relations, for instance, then I'm not so sure your boss would be happy about you also being a vocal political activist. It's not so much that he'd fear reprisals from the government. It could just as easily be boycotts of their products from people of the opposite political persuasion.
We saw this in action a bit with Proposition 8. There were websites listing the highest donors in the area and people boycotted their places of business and even vandalized property. That doesn't mean I would agree with any firings but I can understand wanting anonymity without fearing the government directly or indirectly.
The risky thing here is that newspapers practically need to cover political issues while most religions are fine staying out of political issues except when something covers what they see as a moral issue.
So what happens when the government decides a newspaper is a little too biased in their reporting and claim that it's endorsing another candidate? Will the press have to censor themselves to avoid appearing like an endorsement?
The fact of the matter is that there aren't a lot of R-rated comic franchises that are very well known to the masses. Watchmen is HUGE in the comic world. But compared to Batman, next to no one who follows comics religiously even knew about it.
So besides Batman, what comic franchise do you want to see on the silver screen that would need to be rated R and would also garner a large following outside of the comic fans? Punisher has proven it's not big enough to be a huge blockbuster. Who does that leave us with? Lobo?
The Dark Knight proved that you don't need to be R-rated to be dark and gritty. In fact, I don't think any additions to TDK to make it R would have improved it. Do people really want to see an R-rated Spiderman? Why? Why would Green Lantern or Wonder Woman or Thor need to be R? The only comic character that I think could get some popularity at R might be Wolverine but even that would do better financially by making a PG-13 version for the box office and a Director's cut R version for DVD like the article mentioned.
It's bad enough that PG13 movies get McDonald's Happy Meal toys. If you're going to market a movie to little kids, make it for kids. If you're going to make the movie geared towards older people, then don't market it to kids.
I'm in agreement with you. I'm not defending the actions. I agree that "the responsible people and the school need a severe smack down in civil court."
However, if there wasn't the problem of the other kids and there wasn't ANY evidence that she might have drugs, I would be much more suspicious that the people who had her strip down had sexual intent and should also be smacked down in criminal court.
The fact that they were having problems with other kids ODing doesn't in any way justify their behavior. They were in the wrong and there's no question of that. It does, however, add credibility that the idiots thought they were doing what they had to in order to protect other kids rather than because they had some sexual disorder.
That quote you mentioned threw me for a loop at first, too. Upon reflection, though, I think they weren't trying to say it's okay for girls but not for boys. Rather they are saying that it'd be worse if it was a woman strip searching a boy or a man strip searching a girl. While I still think it was wrong, I have to agree that it would be even more excessive if the student were of a different sex than the adult conducting the search.
As for the age and nature of the suspected infraction, after reading the article in full, I think they might have been referring to two things: first of all, there apparently had been a significant rise in the abuse of prescription drugs for that age group at that time and second that the school was charged with the protection of the (underage) students. The defense seems to be claiming that they thought it was a serious matter and were afraid of having some girl O.D. and then have it discovered that someone had already told them that this girl was supplying OTC drugs to kids and they didn't do enough to stop it immediately. Apparently they felt that strip searching was part and parcel of their doing their due diligence for the safety of the kids.
I can understand schools becoming more and more strict for fear of lawsuits but I don't believe that in any way excuses them. Whatever happened to contacting parents? Heck, if there was a serious concern, why not even have the police investigate it. I seriously doubt that a sue-happy parent could ever successfully win a lawsuit against a school simply because they didn't strip search a girl they suspected might have drugs but couldn't prove via lesser means.
I thought that at first, too. But upon reflection, I think they were referring to the fact that the adults conducting the strip search were of the same sex as the student. It would have been considered excessive if it was a woman strip searching a boy or a man strip searching a girl. At least that's how I interpreted the statement after thinking about it for a bit.
Colbert just made the top of the list of the "Top Ten Suggestions". NASA is naming it Serenity with 70% of the official votes.
I'm sure Joss Whedon fans may have had something to do with it, but naming Node 3 'Serenity' after Node 1 was named 'Unity' and Node 2 was named 'Harmony' doesn't seem that odd.
Okay, I misunderstood what you meant. That's a much more reasonable claim than what I thought you were saying. Even still, of the 10.7 million blu ray machines sold in that time frame over 6 million were PS3s. To me this dampens the strength of the claim as proof that care about blu ray as a significant chunk didn't buy the PS3 for its blu ray capabilities. I do think that probably most PS3 owners have at least tried blu ray movies and perhaps owning the system has even increased interest in blu ray however I'm not sure how many would go out and consider getting another blu ray machine for the spare tv, for instance. I'd guess that a much higher percentage of the DVD player purchasers were eyeing a time to buy a second player when the price came down enough.
How many PS3 owners are really interested in getting a second blu ray player for a second tv? How many even have a high enough quality second TV in which a blu ray machine would show a noticable improvement?
Citation needed. Where do you get that? I just did a search and everything I've found showed BR holding only 3.5%-10% of the market. I'm sure there are individual movies where bluray sold as well or better than dvd but overall it hasn't from what I can see.
What makes you think Nintendo cares? They may warn you not to share if you don't want to play with strangers but I doubt they really care if you do end up playing with strangers. The problem I've heard is that there are so few games that actually have online play.
The problem is that before their market was anyone who wants a game system. Now their market has shrunk to only those that want a game system AND a bluray player and/or a pvr and/or a digital music/video streamer. You may be in that market. I'm not in that market. Neither are MANY other people.
I don't buy tons of DVDs. I check out DVDs from the library. I don't own an HD TV. I get a satisfactory DVR from the Dish Network thrown in as part of my satellite TV package. The PS3 has little to offer me and the many others out there like me.
I don't think that the PS3 is a bad deal for EVERYONE (it does seem like it has served you splendidly) but it has a relatively small market compared to those who just want a reasonably priced game system. The PS2 had a huge market. If ALL the game systems out there had a PVR and cost in the $400+ range then the PS3's market would be pretty broad. But considering that they are competing against a much cheaper game system that didn't throw in everything and the kitchen sink their market has considerably narrowed. The wii basically stole a huge chunk of the market that Sony was previously counting on (or if they weren't counting on it, then they decided to throw away a large chunk of the market they used to have with the PS2).
I'd agree with previous posters but I'd also add that another reason that so many people aren't self-taught to the degree you are is because many MANY people aren't sure yet what they have a passion for. You were incredibly lucky to find something that you've "always had an interest in."
Many of your peers likely dabbled in a lot of different areas but nothing yet has caught their attention enough to devote the effort to learn much more. It doesn't mean they are retarded or incredibly lazy. In fact, many of them may be harder working and more intelligent than you are but are simply still exploring their possibilities. That's not too much of a problem at that age although it might start to be in a few years.
I'm not sure about lawyers, engineers or doctors but I'm pretty sure that psychologists and psychiatrists lose their licenses all the time. Do a google search with the terms: psychiatrists, lost, and license to see what you come up with (then substitute in psychologists). It happens. One of my psychology professors warned us that no matter how unattractive we might think we are, just based on the nature of our relationship with our clients it is guaranteed that one will find you attractive and attempt to flirt or otherwise make passes at you. He was warning us because he has known others who have lost their license over how they responded to this. He wanted us to know this WILL happen so you need to decide now how you'll handle it. While plenty may get away with indiscretions for quite some time (particularly when the client is a willing and obsessive adult) plenty of others eventually get caught and don't just get a slap on the wrist.
I suspect the same is true of doctors and lawyers (although not quite so sure about engineers).
Re:But without copyright protections...
on
So Amazing, So Illegal
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ah, but without that passionate hatred, his music would have suffered and we wouldn't even know his name much like those child actors that we wonder whatever happened to (and what their names were). =)
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: Energon Cubes!
What about:
...
Profit!
Now the question is whether CADIE will be allowed through China's firewall with her Poke the Panda banner ads.
I thought the download page was nearly as funny as the facial expressions the guy was making.
I can believe that an apple computer might last longer but the examples you gave are funny. From what I've heard just reading the posts here, for some reason Adobe is not very efficient in running Flash on Macs compared to Windows PCs. And games? Seriously? If you're into gaming, are you seriously suggesting that Macs are the better value?
I'd love a mac if I could afford one, but not because of it's ability to keep up with the times in Flash and definitely not to play games.
I don't know. If you worked in public relations, for instance, then I'm not so sure your boss would be happy about you also being a vocal political activist. It's not so much that he'd fear reprisals from the government. It could just as easily be boycotts of their products from people of the opposite political persuasion.
We saw this in action a bit with Proposition 8. There were websites listing the highest donors in the area and people boycotted their places of business and even vandalized property. That doesn't mean I would agree with any firings but I can understand wanting anonymity without fearing the government directly or indirectly.
The risky thing here is that newspapers practically need to cover political issues while most religions are fine staying out of political issues except when something covers what they see as a moral issue.
So what happens when the government decides a newspaper is a little too biased in their reporting and claim that it's endorsing another candidate? Will the press have to censor themselves to avoid appearing like an endorsement?
Anonymous Coward? You're so old you don't even have a user ID!
The fact of the matter is that there aren't a lot of R-rated comic franchises that are very well known to the masses. Watchmen is HUGE in the comic world. But compared to Batman, next to no one who follows comics religiously even knew about it.
So besides Batman, what comic franchise do you want to see on the silver screen that would need to be rated R and would also garner a large following outside of the comic fans? Punisher has proven it's not big enough to be a huge blockbuster. Who does that leave us with? Lobo?
The Dark Knight proved that you don't need to be R-rated to be dark and gritty. In fact, I don't think any additions to TDK to make it R would have improved it. Do people really want to see an R-rated Spiderman? Why? Why would Green Lantern or Wonder Woman or Thor need to be R? The only comic character that I think could get some popularity at R might be Wolverine but even that would do better financially by making a PG-13 version for the box office and a Director's cut R version for DVD like the article mentioned.
It's bad enough that PG13 movies get McDonald's Happy Meal toys. If you're going to market a movie to little kids, make it for kids. If you're going to make the movie geared towards older people, then don't market it to kids.
I wonder if the kid from that same school that had recently gotten hospitalized from ibuprofen overdose thinks it's not a big issue.
I'm in agreement with you. I'm not defending the actions. I agree that "the responsible people and the school need a severe smack down in civil court."
However, if there wasn't the problem of the other kids and there wasn't ANY evidence that she might have drugs, I would be much more suspicious that the people who had her strip down had sexual intent and should also be smacked down in criminal court.
The fact that they were having problems with other kids ODing doesn't in any way justify their behavior. They were in the wrong and there's no question of that. It does, however, add credibility that the idiots thought they were doing what they had to in order to protect other kids rather than because they had some sexual disorder.
The girl was accused of being a supplier to at least one other child. That's what started the whole thing.
That quote you mentioned threw me for a loop at first, too. Upon reflection, though, I think they weren't trying to say it's okay for girls but not for boys. Rather they are saying that it'd be worse if it was a woman strip searching a boy or a man strip searching a girl. While I still think it was wrong, I have to agree that it would be even more excessive if the student were of a different sex than the adult conducting the search.
As for the age and nature of the suspected infraction, after reading the article in full, I think they might have been referring to two things: first of all, there apparently had been a significant rise in the abuse of prescription drugs for that age group at that time and second that the school was charged with the protection of the (underage) students. The defense seems to be claiming that they thought it was a serious matter and were afraid of having some girl O.D. and then have it discovered that someone had already told them that this girl was supplying OTC drugs to kids and they didn't do enough to stop it immediately. Apparently they felt that strip searching was part and parcel of their doing their due diligence for the safety of the kids.
I can understand schools becoming more and more strict for fear of lawsuits but I don't believe that in any way excuses them. Whatever happened to contacting parents? Heck, if there was a serious concern, why not even have the police investigate it. I seriously doubt that a sue-happy parent could ever successfully win a lawsuit against a school simply because they didn't strip search a girl they suspected might have drugs but couldn't prove via lesser means.
I thought that at first, too. But upon reflection, I think they were referring to the fact that the adults conducting the strip search were of the same sex as the student. It would have been considered excessive if it was a woman strip searching a boy or a man strip searching a girl. At least that's how I interpreted the statement after thinking about it for a bit.
Colbert just made the top of the list of the "Top Ten Suggestions". NASA is naming it Serenity with 70% of the official votes.
I'm sure Joss Whedon fans may have had something to do with it, but naming Node 3 'Serenity' after Node 1 was named 'Unity' and Node 2 was named 'Harmony' doesn't seem that odd.
The final vote shows Serenity with 70%
Colbert is just listed in the "Top 10 Suggestions"
Yeah, can you believe it? They didn't even ban solving Rubik's Cubes. Can you imagine driving while solving a Rubik's cube?
Okay, I misunderstood what you meant. That's a much more reasonable claim than what I thought you were saying. Even still, of the 10.7 million blu ray machines sold in that time frame over 6 million were PS3s. To me this dampens the strength of the claim as proof that care about blu ray as a significant chunk didn't buy the PS3 for its blu ray capabilities. I do think that probably most PS3 owners have at least tried blu ray movies and perhaps owning the system has even increased interest in blu ray however I'm not sure how many would go out and consider getting another blu ray machine for the spare tv, for instance. I'd guess that a much higher percentage of the DVD player purchasers were eyeing a time to buy a second player when the price came down enough.
How many PS3 owners are really interested in getting a second blu ray player for a second tv? How many even have a high enough quality second TV in which a blu ray machine would show a noticable improvement?
Citation needed. Where do you get that? I just did a search and everything I've found showed BR holding only 3.5%-10% of the market. I'm sure there are individual movies where bluray sold as well or better than dvd but overall it hasn't from what I can see.
What makes you think Nintendo cares? They may warn you not to share if you don't want to play with strangers but I doubt they really care if you do end up playing with strangers. The problem I've heard is that there are so few games that actually have online play.
The problem is that before their market was anyone who wants a game system. Now their market has shrunk to only those that want a game system AND a bluray player and/or a pvr and/or a digital music/video streamer. You may be in that market. I'm not in that market. Neither are MANY other people.
I don't buy tons of DVDs. I check out DVDs from the library. I don't own an HD TV. I get a satisfactory DVR from the Dish Network thrown in as part of my satellite TV package. The PS3 has little to offer me and the many others out there like me.
I don't think that the PS3 is a bad deal for EVERYONE (it does seem like it has served you splendidly) but it has a relatively small market compared to those who just want a reasonably priced game system. The PS2 had a huge market. If ALL the game systems out there had a PVR and cost in the $400+ range then the PS3's market would be pretty broad. But considering that they are competing against a much cheaper game system that didn't throw in everything and the kitchen sink their market has considerably narrowed. The wii basically stole a huge chunk of the market that Sony was previously counting on (or if they weren't counting on it, then they decided to throw away a large chunk of the market they used to have with the PS2).
I'd agree with previous posters but I'd also add that another reason that so many people aren't self-taught to the degree you are is because many MANY people aren't sure yet what they have a passion for. You were incredibly lucky to find something that you've "always had an interest in."
Many of your peers likely dabbled in a lot of different areas but nothing yet has caught their attention enough to devote the effort to learn much more. It doesn't mean they are retarded or incredibly lazy. In fact, many of them may be harder working and more intelligent than you are but are simply still exploring their possibilities. That's not too much of a problem at that age although it might start to be in a few years.
I'm not sure about lawyers, engineers or doctors but I'm pretty sure that psychologists and psychiatrists lose their licenses all the time. Do a google search with the terms: psychiatrists, lost, and license to see what you come up with (then substitute in psychologists). It happens. One of my psychology professors warned us that no matter how unattractive we might think we are, just based on the nature of our relationship with our clients it is guaranteed that one will find you attractive and attempt to flirt or otherwise make passes at you. He was warning us because he has known others who have lost their license over how they responded to this. He wanted us to know this WILL happen so you need to decide now how you'll handle it. While plenty may get away with indiscretions for quite some time (particularly when the client is a willing and obsessive adult) plenty of others eventually get caught and don't just get a slap on the wrist.
I suspect the same is true of doctors and lawyers (although not quite so sure about engineers).
Ah, but without that passionate hatred, his music would have suffered and we wouldn't even know his name much like those child actors that we wonder whatever happened to (and what their names were). =)
Don't worry. The $31 million will just barely cover the costs of the lawyers. The government won't see a dime.