Step 1: Take series that people already have a connection to, getting around having to do so on your own. Step 2: Get rid of everything but the basics of the storyline, including what people liked about the series in the first place. Step 3: Try to reinvent the wheel using the same paint job of the original. Step 4: Release the movies and hope that the fans connection to the previous movies will push them into seeing it, even though it gets bad reviews. Step 5: Find new series, rinse and repeat.
Why don't Facebook and Skype (Microsoft) take these companies to court? Why won't the UK government? These companies are making money off of a tool specifically made to break the law and most likely used to spy on some British citizens (abroad).
Where did I say I was speaking about Christians in my comment?
Yes it is generally agreed upon that all Christians sin in one way or another, but not all sins are equal in the eyes of the Church/culture you live in. For example, materialism (idolatry) is not seen as serious a sin as murder; even though they are both in the ten commandments.
Also please read my comment again and you will see that I am discussing how branding someone immoral opens the door to making someone the "other" and more easily discriminated against because of that.
I agree whole heartedly that the post was very hypocritical, but it did have some truth to it.
Moral and immoral are ways to label what is seen as correct and incorrect to do/think/associate with/etc in a certain culture. When someone is doing something immoral, they are automatically in one's perspective, put in a different sphere than those who are seen as moral people. This creates an "us v.s them" mentality which is the first step in dehumanizing a person/group. Now it depends on how the culture around someone deals with immoral people/groups, which gives a guideline for the extent to which the dehumanizing occurs.
These dichotomies are the seeds of dehumanization which everyone adheers to, to a certain extent.
For example, I know if I were to meet someone who was convicted of pre-meditated murder, I would think of them differently than I would someone who wasn't. It is neither a good or bad reaction. Just human nature.
The game that made me gnash my teeth the most was Spider-Man and the X-Men: Arcade's Revenge for the snes. I still throw that in sometimes and give it a go.
I like the fact that they included lode runner for the nes. That was a very difficult game, but it was also very fair.
I'd be scared to actually play these two games on the Wii(virtual console) since I might actually throw the wiimote at the TV in frustration:)
To power anything of consequence you would need quite a few of these in your blood stream. Also to deliver energy to a specific device, all of these machines would have to be clustered together. Now my question is whether or not these would be a health risk. Our arteries and veins are not very big, and having a lot of nano machines in one place could cause a coronary or a heart attack. In the U.S. people already are having way to many problems with plaque buildup preventing proper blood flow. What would this do?
I have heard about a number of mods getting cease and desist letters, although they all wished to emulate a game/move/tv franchise of some kind. That isn't very uncommon. For example, just about every star wars mod I have seen has received a C&D.
What is the difference between DVDs and Games in this respect? If you look at them, both mediums have a wide variety of genres, content and they both have Non mandated and self governed rating systems for parents. What is the difference here?
Games have been around for a short while compared to movies. Movies in the beginning went through the whole "they are evil and will corrupt our children" phase already. Been there, done that. Games haven't finished with it and it looks like they still have a ways to go. In the public's (or maybe I should say politician's) eyes, games are still seen as primarily for children. This has made it easier to let children buy any game they want. People still think child+game=ok. The last point I want to make is that the people who work at stores that sell games are not told (usually) to match the ESRB rating to the customer. If they aren't somehow motivated to do this, then they probably don't give a shit. I know people who got in trouble when they had summer jobs at a BestBuy and sold R moves to 11 year olds. I doubt they would have had the same thing happen if it was a M rated game.
These are my opinions. I am not an expert, so please don't treat it as if I were.
I do agree with the assertion that it is ultimately up to the parent in these matters. If they choose to not pay attention to their children's game playing habits, they shouldn't have the right to complain. Also how do kids get the money to buy games these days. I don't remember having $50 laying around when I was 9.
Hydro is great, but it has been implemented in just about all the places it can be. To make more hydro power we need to artificially create more suitable areas. The problem with this is that you have to flood HUGE areas which totally destroys large tracts of forests and wetlands. Here in Canada the last few proposals for new hydro plants do just this, and most of the energy they want to produce is meant to be exported to the U.S anyways.
From what I have seen, Korean society compared to North American society is a lot more fast paced. (I currently live in Korea) This faster pace of life is pushed on by a very high level of competition between people. My Korean friends tell me that they play games to relieve stress and get away from their busy life for a bit. I personally believe that the competition and high level of stress, push a few people to become MMORPG addicts. The deaths may be helped by the addiction, but I believe that these people had other health problems to begin with.
Just a note about the instant noodles here. MSG and other flavouring chemicles are still used liberally in the instant noodles. I wouldn't be surprised if these chemicles did a fair amount of damage to the deceased's body.
Your forgetting that people have already seen this coming and have planned accordingly. First world countries have been grooming Africa for a while
to take over the current economic position of China when it reaches the prosperity level of a first world country.
The only problem is that Africa is in the midst of an AIDS epidemic.
There are two good reason for the lack of new nuclear power plants being built since 1978. The first is the very high cost of building the plant in the first place. Second is that without A LOT of government funding and financial aid, nuclear power plants would not be running. They unfortunately don't make any profit for the owners of the plants. Its only the government subsides that keep them in business and therefore running.
Bush's plan will in the short stimulate economic growth by spending tens of billions on building new plants. Once the plants go operational though, they will just be a drain on the government and no one will want to run them.
The post that you are replying to did not mention anything other then nuclear power. Please do not base your arguments over something that wasn't said in the first place.
The author of the post is referring to the "out of sight, out of mind" aspect of how nuclear waste is taken care of. Your argument over the use of the word "sight", does not make much sense to me. Either your talking about how its bad to spread toxic waste all over, or your comparing the disposal of nuclear waste to the pollution from coal burning plants and cars. If the latter is the one your going after, yes they are both pollutants but they are very different in how they effect people and the environment. Nuclear waste will last many magnitudes longer then fossil fuel emissions, and is much more lethal, even in small concentrations. You are correct that fossil fuel emissions are a problem and are not any better then nuclear waste, but comparing the waste management methods of one to the other is apples to oranges.
Here's another thought I'll leave you with. If we develop a cheap source of renewable energy, do you know who will benefit the most? The poor.
If a cheap source of renewable energy is created in the US at this time, the people who will benefit the most will the the company who ownes the patent. It is up to them how much the poor will benefit.
"The American public refuses to accept any danger/risk at all from there medications"
Every once and a while I get to watch the American feed of some tv channels (I live in Canada), and a lot of the commercials I see are for pharmasutical products. At the end of each commercial, there is an announcer reading off a long list of side effects. After reading about this and speaking to a few American MD's, I have found out that people basically watch these commercials and then go to their doctors asking for the advertised drugs directly, and usually get them. The side effects are stated very clearly in these commercials, but it is these advertised drugs that are selling very well. Just something to think about.
If I remember correctly, sea water has nitrogen disolved in it too. Although along with those gases, there are a few others in large quantities like CO2 and Methane. How does this device keep out other gases?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the question is, who will earn a large part of that $1B/year? What "partner" is ready to facilitate this mass wi-fi rollout?
Step 1: Take series that people already have a connection to, getting around having to do so on your own.
Step 2: Get rid of everything but the basics of the storyline, including what people liked about the series in the first place.
Step 3: Try to reinvent the wheel using the same paint job of the original.
Step 4: Release the movies and hope that the fans connection to the previous movies will push them into seeing it, even though it gets bad reviews.
Step 5: Find new series, rinse and repeat.
Why don't Facebook and Skype (Microsoft) take these companies to court? Why won't the UK government?
These companies are making money off of a tool specifically made to break the law and most likely used to spy on some British citizens (abroad).
Need I say more?
Where did I say I was speaking about Christians in my comment?
Yes it is generally agreed upon that all Christians sin in one way or another, but not all sins are equal in the eyes of the Church/culture you live in. For example, materialism (idolatry) is not seen as serious a sin as murder; even though they are both in the ten commandments.
Also please read my comment again and you will see that I am discussing how branding someone immoral opens the door to making someone the "other" and more easily discriminated against because of that.
I agree whole heartedly that the post was very hypocritical, but it did have some truth to it. Moral and immoral are ways to label what is seen as correct and incorrect to do/think/associate with/etc in a certain culture. When someone is doing something immoral, they are automatically in one's perspective, put in a different sphere than those who are seen as moral people. This creates an "us v.s them" mentality which is the first step in dehumanizing a person/group. Now it depends on how the culture around someone deals with immoral people/groups, which gives a guideline for the extent to which the dehumanizing occurs. These dichotomies are the seeds of dehumanization which everyone adheers to, to a certain extent. For example, I know if I were to meet someone who was convicted of pre-meditated murder, I would think of them differently than I would someone who wasn't. It is neither a good or bad reaction. Just human nature.
Mod parent up.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/15/184204
The game that made me gnash my teeth the most was Spider-Man and the X-Men: Arcade's Revenge for the snes. I still throw that in sometimes and give it a go. I like the fact that they included lode runner for the nes. That was a very difficult game, but it was also very fair. I'd be scared to actually play these two games on the Wii(virtual console) since I might actually throw the wiimote at the TV in frustration :)
To power anything of consequence you would need quite a few of these in your blood stream. Also to deliver energy to a specific device, all of these machines would have to be clustered together. Now my question is whether or not these would be a health risk. Our arteries and veins are not very big, and having a lot of nano machines in one place could cause a coronary or a heart attack. In the U.S. people already are having way to many problems with plaque buildup preventing proper blood flow. What would this do?
I have heard about a number of mods getting cease and desist letters, although they all wished to emulate a game/move/tv franchise of some kind. That isn't very uncommon. For example, just about every star wars mod I have seen has received a C&D.
Games have been around for a short while compared to movies. Movies in the beginning went through the whole "they are evil and will corrupt our children" phase already. Been there, done that. Games haven't finished with it and it looks like they still have a ways to go. In the public's (or maybe I should say politician's) eyes, games are still seen as primarily for children. This has made it easier to let children buy any game they want. People still think child+game=ok. The last point I want to make is that the people who work at stores that sell games are not told (usually) to match the ESRB rating to the customer. If they aren't somehow motivated to do this, then they probably don't give a shit. I know people who got in trouble when they had summer jobs at a BestBuy and sold R moves to 11 year olds. I doubt they would have had the same thing happen if it was a M rated game. These are my opinions. I am not an expert, so please don't treat it as if I were.
I do agree with the assertion that it is ultimately up to the parent in these matters. If they choose to not pay attention to their children's game playing habits, they shouldn't have the right to complain. Also how do kids get the money to buy games these days. I don't remember having $50 laying around when I was 9.
Hydro is great, but it has been implemented in just about all the places it can be. To make more hydro power we need to artificially create more suitable areas. The problem with this is that you have to flood HUGE areas which totally destroys large tracts of forests and wetlands. Here in Canada the last few proposals for new hydro plants do just this, and most of the energy they want to produce is meant to be exported to the U.S anyways.
Just a note about the instant noodles here. MSG and other flavouring chemicles are still used liberally in the instant noodles. I wouldn't be surprised if these chemicles did a fair amount of damage to the deceased's body.
The only problem is that Africa is in the midst of an AIDS epidemic.
I call it the Catapult.
Bush's plan will in the short stimulate economic growth by spending tens of billions on building new plants. Once the plants go operational though, they will just be a drain on the government and no one will want to run them.
The author of the post is referring to the "out of sight, out of mind" aspect of how nuclear waste is taken care of. Your argument over the use of the word "sight", does not make much sense to me. Either your talking about how its bad to spread toxic waste all over, or your comparing the disposal of nuclear waste to the pollution from coal burning plants and cars. If the latter is the one your going after, yes they are both pollutants but they are very different in how they effect people and the environment. Nuclear waste will last many magnitudes longer then fossil fuel emissions, and is much more lethal, even in small concentrations. You are correct that fossil fuel emissions are a problem and are not any better then nuclear waste, but comparing the waste management methods of one to the other is apples to oranges.
Here's another thought I'll leave you with. If we develop a cheap source of renewable energy, do you know who will benefit the most? The poor.
If a cheap source of renewable energy is created in the US at this time, the people who will benefit the most will the the company who ownes the patent. It is up to them how much the poor will benefit.
http://www.filerush.com/torrents/fewgoodgmen.mov.t orrent
Every once and a while I get to watch the American feed of some tv channels (I live in Canada), and a lot of the commercials I see are for pharmasutical products. At the end of each commercial, there is an announcer reading off a long list of side effects. After reading about this and speaking to a few American MD's, I have found out that people basically watch these commercials and then go to their doctors asking for the advertised drugs directly, and usually get them. The side effects are stated very clearly in these commercials, but it is these advertised drugs that are selling very well. Just something to think about.
try http://www.pricenetwork.ca/ and http://www.redflagdeals.com/.
Pshhh....umm because its IN SPACE. Yeesh.
If I remember correctly, sea water has nitrogen disolved in it too. Although along with those gases, there are a few others in large quantities like CO2 and Methane. How does this device keep out other gases?
Skype and the like are free, so there are no prices to regulate.
it just forces the market into only working with it, plain and simple That is exactly what its best for.