Yeah, they thankfully got rid of the dubtitles in Spirited Away, plus there are some pretty cool features. But I still don't feel Optimum Releasing put much love into the production. Maybe I'm just getting old:P
But the other DVDs are horrible without exception. Kiki has to be the worst - the only English subtitles are English for the hearing impaired (so you see "dog barking" and "door slamming" etc.), and they are created from the dubtitles. The bit that sticks in my mind is when Kiki is offered a cup of coffee ("koohi" in Japanese) and it is translated as "hot chocolate". As if children aren't allowed to drink coffee! Rah!
Miyazaki may be an ubelievably great artist, but his movies will not bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in movie sales, and billions in merchandizing
... Except in Japan. In Japan, Miyazaki's movies really do bring in this kind of revenue, and he's without question the most popular animator in Japan. Maybe the most popular film-maker in Japan. Of course there are cultural differences, but is the concept of what makes a good story really that different in Japan and America? And by the way, the article is talking about using Miyazaki's approach, not his actual films - Disney have already have already managed to procure global distribution rights to Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke, as well as the video rights to most of the others. (They've done a really poor job of the region 2 DVDs so far, as well.)
But they have to do one of those things or else something bad will be done to them.
That "bad thing" would be confiscation of their property, according to Marx's rule no.4. So there would have to be a viable means of the state taking anyone else's property under Marx's communism. However, I think this would have to be a last resort, just as reposessing someone's home under capitalism is a last resort. I would suggest that people who didn't like their job would probably just do the minimum necessary to get by. And the fact that they can choose how much work to do, as they control their own production capacity, would seem to be an advantage over capitalism.
Communism as its supporters call for is really just a representative democracy that has central control over everything.
Not everything. There would still be a free market, in spite of the high progressive income tax. There would still be free speech. The only huge differences between today's society and an society that is based on Marx's communism, that I can see, are that there would be only one national bank, one state communications company, no-one could be employed by someone else for less than the value of what they produce, and the population would be more evenly spread out across the country.
So that no one person (even a "representative" of the proletariat) should be given that type of control over others.
Isn't that more like an anarchy, not a democracy? The U.S. government has been a "representative of the proletariat" since it's inception, no?
I don't think "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" could be any better a definition of slavery.
Ok, so slavery is where people are forced to work under threat of violence or whatever other means. Nowhere in Marx's rules does it say what work a person would be obligated to do - they could be a farmer, or a rock star, or anything in between. Also, what they produce, they sell, albeit with a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax". This does expose a flaw in Marx's rules though - with such a high income tax rate, there is no incentive for people to do the dirty, boring and ugly jobs that keeps a society running. I do agree that the moment you *force* people to do a particular job then the system would break down, and you could indeed call it slavery. Marx's industrial armies would have to be voluntary, not conscripted.
As to people who don't work, I think that in an enlightened communist society they would have something like the job seekers allowance - they are allowed benefits, but only if they are trying to find work or do something productive. As you can see there are still a lot of things to think about in addition to the 10 rules... Also I'm no Marx scholar, but I think that Marx might have changed his mind about some of these later on in his life. I definitely agree with your point about land, by the way. I hate having to rent, and I'm not averse to a bit of gardening;)
The actual quote from the Comunist Manifesto you're referring to would be:
"Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state." (Being one of the criteria a communist state would have to fulfil)
Note that this doesn't say anything about the content of the communications, only the means. In fact Marx expressly disapproved of censorship, and there is a good quote of his on the subject earlier in the thread.
You're making a subtle error by implying that Marx's communism equates to complete governmental regulation of business. Marx didn't object to free markets, he just wanted the workers to be able to sell the products of their labour, rather than giving the products of their labour to a corporation in exchange for a wage. It is easy to see that this can only happen in terms of more complex commodities with some sort of governmental regulation, but this does not by any means need to be total. Marx himself never created directions for how to run a communist society; he was well aware of the difficulties of such an excersize.
Marx's communism wasn't against a free market. Marx merely thought that everybody should be able to sell the products of their own labour, rather than be forced to sell their labour to others (in other words, working for an hourly wage). Sort of like everyone being a CEO. Having everyone fend for themselves this way seems remarkably like natural selection, unlike capitalism, where the proles are protected from market forces by their corporation.
Marx argued that the mechanics of capitalism - the proletariat selling their capacity to work to the bourgeois, rather than selling the products of their work - is the why capitalist societies necessitate poverty. So in a capitalist society, the workers are not fully in control of their capacity to produce goods/render services, and are hence more restricted than they would be under a communist society (and more "enslaved", although that is not an accurate term).
If you count the various authoritarian regimes that claim/claimed to be communist as espousing Marx's ideas then your assertion may well be correct; however this has never been the case, and in fact Marx was wary of creating a recipe for a communist society, knowing the problems it would involve. Not that I fully agree with Marx, but enough people confuse this issue that I feel it's worth explaining.
What isn't clear to me is: does Fedora become a Linux distro on its own? If so, what is the official RedHat distro then? Would that move to (non-free) Enterprise versions then?
Fedora has always been a separate distro, ever since Fedora Core 1 was released in 2003. Red Hat wanted more external developers to work on their code, but if I have been following things correctly, many developers were wary of contributing as Red Hat still had the final say of what was included and what wasn't. Hence Red Hat wanting to completely separate Fedora from the company instead of just the commercial arm of the company - they win the developers' trust, they can still have their individual developers input in the distro, and can still use the resulting code.
But, analysts say, versions of the 970FX technically already fit into the power envelope needed for Apple to offer a mid- to full-size laptop in the 5-7 pound range.
One of the reasons we removed Saddam from power was to prevent him from getting nuclear weapons and becoming another Kim Jong-il.
Actually, it wasn't known that Korea had nuclear weapons until after the end of the Iraq war - the war ended halfway through 2003 and Korea claimed they had nukes in September 2004.
No, "you can not not run on IE" means "you can do anything you like except not run on IE", or more simply "you must at least run on IE". So "can't not" isn't redundant, although it is slightly cumbersome.
It's all about assumptions. In my physics class the teacher used them all the time - pi^2 = 10 being the classic example. Once he even cancelled a 7 on one side of the equation with a 10 on the other side and still got a reasonable answer... (Although that did provoke quite a shocked response from the class! He did say "you're not going to like this" first, to be fair.)
Yay for redundancy! I quite like the idea of IAWWNAL though. Here are some other possible ones:
IAN FLEMING - I Am Not For Lawyers Examining Mindless Internet News Groups
NONLEGAL - Neither Olivia Newton-John, Lee Evans or God Are Lawyers
LARD - Lawyers Are Redundant Deadweight
LAWYERS - Lawyer Acronyms Will Yield Extensive Reduction of Sense
singling-out anti-globalization folks as "The Enemy" and "anti-American,"
I agree. I'd even go one step further and disagree with their use of "anti-American" itself. I mean, it seems that these days all you need to be "anti-American" is to disagree with some of the current US government's policies, the right to which would seem to be a fundamental tenet of democracy. If that's the case then Amnesty International is an "anti-American organization" for protesting about the US government's use of Guantanamo Bay. I live in the UK, and I've never heard anyone utter the words "anti-British"...
"I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason -- because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."
This really concerns me. I'd like to think that politicians would have enough faith in the populace that they could vote against bills they didn't agree with. If someone mentions this as a "doesn't care about the kids" swipe in a campaign brochure, they should respond with a "protecting free speech" piece in theirs. If they made their position clear on this issue before they were elected no-one should be surprised enough about it to vote the other way the next time just because of that. Then the politicians might actually enforce the principles in the manifestos they were voted in on to some extent - imagine that!
When one talks about the "ascent of man", it does not apply to males only. This is one of the idiosyncrasies of the English language - apologies to all the feminists reading. I suppose we can try and use "mankind" instead, but that doesn't change the nature of the word...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, they thankfully got rid of the dubtitles in Spirited Away, plus there are some pretty cool features. But I still don't feel Optimum Releasing put much love into the production. Maybe I'm just getting old :P
But the other DVDs are horrible without exception. Kiki has to be the worst - the only English subtitles are English for the hearing impaired (so you see "dog barking" and "door slamming" etc.), and they are created from the dubtitles. The bit that sticks in my mind is when Kiki is offered a cup of coffee ("koohi" in Japanese) and it is translated as "hot chocolate". As if children aren't allowed to drink coffee! Rah!
</End Rant>
A qualifier - that should be UK region 2 DVDs. Japan uses region 2 as well.
Miyazaki may be an ubelievably great artist, but his movies will not bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in movie sales, and billions in merchandizing
... Except in Japan. In Japan, Miyazaki's movies really do bring in this kind of revenue, and he's without question the most popular animator in Japan. Maybe the most popular film-maker in Japan. Of course there are cultural differences, but is the concept of what makes a good story really that different in Japan and America? And by the way, the article is talking about using Miyazaki's approach, not his actual films - Disney have already have already managed to procure global distribution rights to Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke, as well as the video rights to most of the others. (They've done a really poor job of the region 2 DVDs so far, as well.)
But they have to do one of those things or else something bad will be done to them.
That "bad thing" would be confiscation of their property, according to Marx's rule no.4. So there would have to be a viable means of the state taking anyone else's property under Marx's communism. However, I think this would have to be a last resort, just as reposessing someone's home under capitalism is a last resort. I would suggest that people who didn't like their job would probably just do the minimum necessary to get by. And the fact that they can choose how much work to do, as they control their own production capacity, would seem to be an advantage over capitalism.
Communism as its supporters call for is really just a representative democracy that has central control over everything.
Not everything. There would still be a free market, in spite of the high progressive income tax. There would still be free speech. The only huge differences between today's society and an society that is based on Marx's communism, that I can see, are that there would be only one national bank, one state communications company, no-one could be employed by someone else for less than the value of what they produce, and the population would be more evenly spread out across the country.
So that no one person (even a "representative" of the proletariat) should be given that type of control over others.
Isn't that more like an anarchy, not a democracy? The U.S. government has been a "representative of the proletariat" since it's inception, no?
Counterstrike maps!
I don't think "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" could be any better a definition of slavery.
;)
Ok, so slavery is where people are forced to work under threat of violence or whatever other means. Nowhere in Marx's rules does it say what work a person would be obligated to do - they could be a farmer, or a rock star, or anything in between. Also, what they produce, they sell, albeit with a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax". This does expose a flaw in Marx's rules though - with such a high income tax rate, there is no incentive for people to do the dirty, boring and ugly jobs that keeps a society running. I do agree that the moment you *force* people to do a particular job then the system would break down, and you could indeed call it slavery. Marx's industrial armies would have to be voluntary, not conscripted.
As to people who don't work, I think that in an enlightened communist society they would have something like the job seekers allowance - they are allowed benefits, but only if they are trying to find work or do something productive. As you can see there are still a lot of things to think about in addition to the 10 rules... Also I'm no Marx scholar, but I think that Marx might have changed his mind about some of these later on in his life. I definitely agree with your point about land, by the way. I hate having to rent, and I'm not averse to a bit of gardening
The actual quote from the Comunist Manifesto you're referring to would be:
"Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state." (Being one of the criteria a communist state would have to fulfil)
Note that this doesn't say anything about the content of the communications, only the means. In fact Marx expressly disapproved of censorship, and there is a good quote of his on the subject earlier in the thread.
You're making a subtle error by implying that Marx's communism equates to complete governmental regulation of business. Marx didn't object to free markets, he just wanted the workers to be able to sell the products of their labour, rather than giving the products of their labour to a corporation in exchange for a wage. It is easy to see that this can only happen in terms of more complex commodities with some sort of governmental regulation, but this does not by any means need to be total. Marx himself never created directions for how to run a communist society; he was well aware of the difficulties of such an excersize.
Marx's communism wasn't against a free market. Marx merely thought that everybody should be able to sell the products of their own labour, rather than be forced to sell their labour to others (in other words, working for an hourly wage). Sort of like everyone being a CEO. Having everyone fend for themselves this way seems remarkably like natural selection, unlike capitalism, where the proles are protected from market forces by their corporation.
Marx argued that the mechanics of capitalism - the proletariat selling their capacity to work to the bourgeois, rather than selling the products of their work - is the why capitalist societies necessitate poverty. So in a capitalist society, the workers are not fully in control of their capacity to produce goods/render services, and are hence more restricted than they would be under a communist society (and more "enslaved", although that is not an accurate term).
If you count the various authoritarian regimes that claim/claimed to be communist as espousing Marx's ideas then your assertion may well be correct; however this has never been the case, and in fact Marx was wary of creating a recipe for a communist society, knowing the problems it would involve. Not that I fully agree with Marx, but enough people confuse this issue that I feel it's worth explaining.
I think you'll find that true communism in the spirit of Marx doesn't have anything to do with censorship.
What isn't clear to me is: does Fedora become a Linux distro on its own? If so, what is the official RedHat distro then? Would that move to (non-free) Enterprise versions then?
Fedora has always been a separate distro, ever since Fedora Core 1 was released in 2003. Red Hat wanted more external developers to work on their code, but if I have been following things correctly, many developers were wary of contributing as Red Hat still had the final say of what was included and what wasn't. Hence Red Hat wanting to completely separate Fedora from the company instead of just the commercial arm of the company - they win the developers' trust, they can still have their individual developers input in the distro, and can still use the resulting code.
But, analysts say, versions of the 970FX technically already fit into the power envelope needed for Apple to offer a mid- to full-size laptop in the 5-7 pound range.
And at that price, who could refuse?
<ducks>
One of the reasons we removed Saddam from power was to prevent him from getting nuclear weapons and becoming another Kim Jong-il.
Actually, it wasn't known that Korea had nuclear weapons until after the end of the Iraq war - the war ended halfway through 2003 and Korea claimed they had nukes in September 2004.
No, "you can not not run on IE" means "you can do anything you like except not run on IE", or more simply "you must at least run on IE". So "can't not" isn't redundant, although it is slightly cumbersome.
I could see Sun offering tightly bundled turnkey installations.
The first time I read that as "tightly bundled turkey installations". Time to get some sleep...
It's all about assumptions. In my physics class the teacher used them all the time - pi^2 = 10 being the classic example. Once he even cancelled a 7 on one side of the equation with a 10 on the other side and still got a reasonable answer... (Although that did provoke quite a shocked response from the class! He did say "you're not going to like this" first, to be fair.)
I am way way not a lawyer, IANAL.
Yay for redundancy! I quite like the idea of IAWWNAL though. Here are some other possible ones:
IAN FLEMING - I Am Not For Lawyers Examining Mindless Internet News Groups
NONLEGAL - Neither Olivia Newton-John, Lee Evans or God Are Lawyers
LARD - Lawyers Are Redundant Deadweight
LAWYERS - Lawyer Acronyms Will Yield Extensive Reduction of Sense
I have two words for you: Shadowrun MMOG
;)
That's five words!
Milhouse: Check it out, Bart, X-ray specs!. Hey, these don't work!
Shop Owner: Ah....err...lead shirt!
Milhouse: I'll take three pairs!
singling-out anti-globalization folks as "The Enemy" and "anti-American,"
I agree. I'd even go one step further and disagree with their use of "anti-American" itself. I mean, it seems that these days all you need to be "anti-American" is to disagree with some of the current US government's policies, the right to which would seem to be a fundamental tenet of democracy. If that's the case then Amnesty International is an "anti-American organization" for protesting about the US government's use of Guantanamo Bay. I live in the UK, and I've never heard anyone utter the words "anti-British"...
"I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason -- because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."
This really concerns me. I'd like to think that politicians would have enough faith in the populace that they could vote against bills they didn't agree with. If someone mentions this as a "doesn't care about the kids" swipe in a campaign brochure, they should respond with a "protecting free speech" piece in theirs. If they made their position clear on this issue before they were elected no-one should be surprised enough about it to vote the other way the next time just because of that. Then the politicians might actually enforce the principles in the manifestos they were voted in on to some extent - imagine that!
Property is an artificial construct of law.
Intellectual property doubly so.
Absolutely. Now to buy myself some lunch...
human != man
When one talks about the "ascent of man", it does not apply to males only. This is one of the idiosyncrasies of the English language - apologies to all the feminists reading. I suppose we can try and use "mankind" instead, but that doesn't change the nature of the word...
Geocities isn't exactly a reliable source for information.
;)
Ok, so here's the Wikipedia link. (Oh the irony...