I have a couple "dumb fun" films that I watch, so I can't be too critical. Yet I still find it a shame that excellent independent films don't get watched because viewers don't want to take a chance with something new or unexpected, while films like Avatar and Tron makes millions and millions of dollars from people who know that they're lame even as they watch it. My rule: for every dumb action film I watch, I make sure that I've seen at least 2 films that have higher ambitions and greater substance. Otherwise, I am just encouraging stupidity.
People tend to enjoy things more before they understand the field that their in. As (if) you understand how to appreciate anything - music, food, art, film, literature, technology - you will find that things you used to enjoy were actually deeply flawed, that the things you have learned to appreciate work more subtly. In any field, you will find a lot of people in the larval stage of the education of their senses and their perceptions, and they will convey to you the pleasure they take in what others have learned to be dross.
Tron was produced and released before Gibson published Neuromancer. It was badly written, horribly acted, terribly edited, and beautifully rendered and art-directed. And it was, in its way, still prescient.
The sequel is poor-to-mediocre in writing and acting, spends most of its time in the obligatory cliches of an action film, is beautifully filmed, but lacks the same kind of prescience. It is pretty and dumb, and destined to be far less influential than the original. (And yes, I recognize all the messianiac / gnostic / quasi-Mormon metaphysics in the story - it's still a mess.)
I'll be honest with you: I confused your post with someone else's, and thought you'd written that *Israel* hadn't attacked any country in recent history. (The risks of late-night posting.) You're right about Iran; they are, generally, defensive in their stance.
There has been a continuous Jewish presence on the Levant (i.e., present-day Israel/Palestine) since the Old Testament period. Jews and Muslims co-existed throughout much of the Islamic world for centuries. For much of that period of time, it was easier to be Jewish in the Islamic world than to be Jewish in the Christian world.
Most of the people who carried out the Holocaust were nominal Christians, even if some corners of Nazism flirted with varieties of neo-Paganism. And the pogroms were definitely carried out by Christians.
"Publishing" it by releasing it to the mailing list for people who, um, work on that source code *is* verifying/testing it. He's smart enough to know that a good backdoor could escape the notice of only one (even very smart) individual.
If this is what you call being a douche, then let me write a check to the Society for the Preservation of Douches.
Except it isn't bad style. Ending sentences with prepositions is absolutely fine in Germanic languages - it was artificially deemed bad style by Victorian grammarians and teachers applying the rules of Latin grammar to English. (Until the 19th century, english wasn't even taught as a subject.) It is an artificial proscription we are growing out of.
So, ironically: you are ignorant of the history of the terminal preposition, even in a post in which you rail against ignorance. Consider yourself cured.
Everything is context-dependent (Yes, even so-called context-free languages, though that's not what we're talking about.). Not just context-sensitive: context-dependent. Meaning-production relies on an interpretation of the shared context between speaker and audience; in reception, the audience tries to reproduce that interpretation.
The value of the house is in the property, for the most part. Not the building. And it is possible that the house is underwater - you may have heard of a little housing bubble having popped in the last couple of years? That bubble hit San Diego County pretty hard.
The homeowner is going to be lucky to get out without being sued themselves, if there is damage to the neighbors' homes.
The tenant has created a situation which makes the destruction of the house the only responsible course of action, after considerable study of the situation. RTFA, the government is not being reckless in this situation at all.
The landlord probably will recoup insurance, and you will end up paying for it in increased premiums, instead of increased taxes, so don't worry, it's all good!
Don't get me wrong: I disliked Reagan a great deal, and I think his policies were horrible. But he wasn't a vapid movie star. He had considerable experience in industry, was an active union organizer, and had plenty of professional and executive experience. He was reasonably intelligent and well-informed. He was probably dealing with Alzheimer's by his second term, however.
Nonetheless, he wasn't a career celebrity the way that Schwarzenegger was, or that Palin was and is. And Palin's CV is an utter joke: she is stunningly intellectually under-equipped. She makes Chance the Gardener look like President Bartlett.
All rights are the arbitrary creation of people - organized into entities called states, with governments.
If I choose to kill you, the only thing that makes the idea of you having a "right" to live is the decision of a government to enforce it, and punish me. All political rights are a collective fiction.
To have a copyright that you can give to your children, to a buyer, to an estate that will have 70 years of value after you're dead is (in the US) a right of the living. I'm conflicted on IP in general, and I do agree that 70 years is too long in any case, but in principle, it is the guarantee of the persistence of that right for some time after death that makes it valuable: otherwise, a ghoulish opportunism results, and it makes little sense to really use much of anything during the artist's lifetime. One merely need wait in most cases.
Countries do redress when certain conditions are met. One of them, that they have become very rich.
Look at the countries that have done redress, and when: the US, after the post-war period had made it the richest country in the world. The UK, until the accumulated wealth of empire ran out. Japan and Germany, after they had both been beaten, and then, really, after they became rich. Canada, after they were well comfortable and had already made sure that any recognition of native rights wouldn't cost them too much.
And such redress is never to the point of national inconvenience: that is the real point.
The closest thing to a serious, non self-serving attempt to deal with a troubled past was the reconciliation effort in post-apartheid South Africa. New Zealand also deserves credit for trying to reconcile with its own history; Australia a somewhat distant runner-up.
It is above the federal poverty guideline, around the median US income, far above public assistance, and way above anything like the global average income (and even buying power, after accounting for cost of living differences.)
How about comparing an 18-year old with no work experience and no college with a 22-year-old with no work experience and a 4 year degree? Because that's really the difference in comparing career entry points.
But what was the opportunity cost of creating jobs producing goods and services elsewhere? When the Googles move out, there will be a lot of people with local needs, and then an economy can develop to serve it. "Producing jobs" by working for a global employer creates a disconnect and excessive reliance on economic conditions overseas. A lot of countries are wising up about this.
I think you should read the history of the "French and Indian Wars" before coming to too many conclusions about what the framers of the Constitution had experience about. The 21st century is shaping up to be the safest, least violent century for Americans in US history. That's in terms of crime, war, terrorism, you name it. Yet we're all the more terrorized.
Her mother was right there, holding her - there wasn't a lot he could do (one parent consoling an anxious toddler - win; two parents, toddler feels overwhelmed and freaks out more. I gots one, too.). He, the father, is taking a step which could lead to this practice being stopped; also, if things did get messy, he protects himself and his family with the footage.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a couple "dumb fun" films that I watch, so I can't be too critical. Yet I still find it a shame that excellent independent films don't get watched because viewers don't want to take a chance with something new or unexpected, while films like Avatar and Tron makes millions and millions of dollars from people who know that they're lame even as they watch it. My rule: for every dumb action film I watch, I make sure that I've seen at least 2 films that have higher ambitions and greater substance. Otherwise, I am just encouraging stupidity.
It actually said SolarOS. A fictional OS.
People tend to enjoy things more before they understand the field that their in. As (if) you understand how to appreciate anything - music, food, art, film, literature, technology - you will find that things you used to enjoy were actually deeply flawed, that the things you have learned to appreciate work more subtly. In any field, you will find a lot of people in the larval stage of the education of their senses and their perceptions, and they will convey to you the pleasure they take in what others have learned to be dross.
Tron was produced and released before Gibson published Neuromancer. It was badly written, horribly acted, terribly edited, and beautifully rendered and art-directed. And it was, in its way, still prescient.
The sequel is poor-to-mediocre in writing and acting, spends most of its time in the obligatory cliches of an action film, is beautifully filmed, but lacks the same kind of prescience. It is pretty and dumb, and destined to be far less influential than the original. (And yes, I recognize all the messianiac / gnostic / quasi-Mormon metaphysics in the story - it's still a mess.)
I'll be honest with you: I confused your post with someone else's, and thought you'd written that *Israel* hadn't attacked any country in recent history. (The risks of late-night posting.) You're right about Iran; they are, generally, defensive in their stance.
*cough* Lebanon *cough*
Right, North Korea's possession of a nuclear arsenal hasn't kept the US and South Korea from responding to its recent... oh, wait.
Wow - the stupid, it burns.
There has been a continuous Jewish presence on the Levant (i.e., present-day Israel/Palestine) since the Old Testament period. Jews and Muslims co-existed throughout much of the Islamic world for centuries. For much of that period of time, it was easier to be Jewish in the Islamic world than to be Jewish in the Christian world.
Most of the people who carried out the Holocaust were nominal Christians, even if some corners of Nazism flirted with varieties of neo-Paganism. And the pogroms were definitely carried out by Christians.
"Publishing" it by releasing it to the mailing list for people who, um, work on that source code *is* verifying/testing it. He's smart enough to know that a good backdoor could escape the notice of only one (even very smart) individual.
If this is what you call being a douche, then let me write a check to the Society for the Preservation of Douches.
Except it isn't bad style. Ending sentences with prepositions is absolutely fine in Germanic languages - it was artificially deemed bad style by Victorian grammarians and teachers applying the rules of Latin grammar to English. (Until the 19th century, english wasn't even taught as a subject.) It is an artificial proscription we are growing out of.
So, ironically: you are ignorant of the history of the terminal preposition, even in a post in which you rail against ignorance. Consider yourself cured.
Everything is context-dependent (Yes, even so-called context-free languages, though that's not what we're talking about.). Not just context-sensitive: context-dependent. Meaning-production relies on an interpretation of the shared context between speaker and audience; in reception, the audience tries to reproduce that interpretation.
You so need to RTFA. I mean, now, before you keep yapping that brain-dead mouth of yours.
The value of the house is in the property, for the most part. Not the building. And it is possible that the house is underwater - you may have heard of a little housing bubble having popped in the last couple of years? That bubble hit San Diego County pretty hard.
The homeowner is going to be lucky to get out without being sued themselves, if there is damage to the neighbors' homes.
The tenant has created a situation which makes the destruction of the house the only responsible course of action, after considerable study of the situation. RTFA, the government is not being reckless in this situation at all.
The landlord probably will recoup insurance, and you will end up paying for it in increased premiums, instead of increased taxes, so don't worry, it's all good!
Don't get me wrong: I disliked Reagan a great deal, and I think his policies were horrible. But he wasn't a vapid movie star. He had considerable experience in industry, was an active union organizer, and had plenty of professional and executive experience. He was reasonably intelligent and well-informed. He was probably dealing with Alzheimer's by his second term, however.
Nonetheless, he wasn't a career celebrity the way that Schwarzenegger was, or that Palin was and is. And Palin's CV is an utter joke: she is stunningly intellectually under-equipped. She makes Chance the Gardener look like President Bartlett.
All rights are the arbitrary creation of people - organized into entities called states, with governments.
If I choose to kill you, the only thing that makes the idea of you having a "right" to live is the decision of a government to enforce it, and punish me. All political rights are a collective fiction.
To have a copyright that you can give to your children, to a buyer, to an estate that will have 70 years of value after you're dead is (in the US) a right of the living. I'm conflicted on IP in general, and I do agree that 70 years is too long in any case, but in principle, it is the guarantee of the persistence of that right for some time after death that makes it valuable: otherwise, a ghoulish opportunism results, and it makes little sense to really use much of anything during the artist's lifetime. One merely need wait in most cases.
Countries do redress when certain conditions are met. One of them, that they have become very rich.
Look at the countries that have done redress, and when: the US, after the post-war period had made it the richest country in the world. The UK, until the accumulated wealth of empire ran out. Japan and Germany, after they had both been beaten, and then, really, after they became rich. Canada, after they were well comfortable and had already made sure that any recognition of native rights wouldn't cost them too much.
And such redress is never to the point of national inconvenience: that is the real point.
The closest thing to a serious, non self-serving attempt to deal with a troubled past was the reconciliation effort in post-apartheid South Africa. New Zealand also deserves credit for trying to reconcile with its own history; Australia a somewhat distant runner-up.
It is above the federal poverty guideline, around the median US income, far above public assistance, and way above anything like the global average income (and even buying power, after accounting for cost of living differences.)
Recognize your privilege.
How about comparing an 18-year old with no work experience and no college with a 22-year-old with no work experience and a 4 year degree? Because that's really the difference in comparing career entry points.
But what was the opportunity cost of creating jobs producing goods and services elsewhere? When the Googles move out, there will be a lot of people with local needs, and then an economy can develop to serve it. "Producing jobs" by working for a global employer creates a disconnect and excessive reliance on economic conditions overseas. A lot of countries are wising up about this.
If the intersection between Y and Z, "people who aren't eating bacon cheeseburgers," is significant, then yes.
If cell phone drivers were only a menace to themselves, your analogy would make sense.
... and it was about the security line at the Hermitage, so you're still on topic.
I think you should read the history of the "French and Indian Wars" before coming to too many conclusions about what the framers of the Constitution had experience about. The 21st century is shaping up to be the safest, least violent century for Americans in US history. That's in terms of crime, war, terrorism, you name it. Yet we're all the more terrorized.
You're drinking the fear.
Her mother was right there, holding her - there wasn't a lot he could do (one parent consoling an anxious toddler - win; two parents, toddler feels overwhelmed and freaks out more. I gots one, too.). He, the father, is taking a step which could lead to this practice being stopped; also, if things did get messy, he protects himself and his family with the footage.