Does it prevent loan fraud -- nope, of course not. Surely no-one with even passing insight into the issue would think otherwise.
It does, however, cause banks some hassle. And, aside from the legal profession, there are fewer institutions on Earth that deserve hassle more than bankers (which rhymes with.....?)
The downside of that though is that you can bet the associated charges (real or imagined by banks) will be passed on to the consumer.
It will further desensitize Joe Sixpack into thinking, "well, maybe fingerprinting people for......(insert any profession you like here) is ok after all, I mean bankers have to do it"
If EVER there was a glaring need for the words "citation needed" then the above statement surely is it. "Decent" and "wikipedia" are not words that should be used together.
It stars an elderly man, whom despite enjoying roguish Sean-Connery-esque charm has never actually had the ability to act more than "let's pretend". That being the method of acting he employs (and I quote).
It also stars a young man who displays all the ability and hype of a young Ikea-nu Reeves. Popular with tweenage girls and middle-aged gay men, but devoid of any, you know, actual acting talent.
It will however make squillions of dollars. And likely send indie filmmakers further into depression and despair at how low-brow the cinema audience really is.
I have no doubt this movie will be a huge cash cow.
However, I have absolutely no understanding why.
Please can someone explain to me, why that when the 1st Star Wars Prequel was widely regarded as a crime against celluloid, and the 2nd Prequel proved, if anything, to be even worse that the 1st, that anyone at all went to see the 3rd Prequel.
George Lucas is a filmmaker that has made an extremely large amount of money based on a very small number of good films made more than 20 years ago, while the majority of his work is very poor indeed. One might also say that for Spielberg too.
If you have high expectations for this movie, then might I suggest that you are possibly suffering from amnesia, or are 5.
GWB has a PC? Maybe someone put a speakandspell there and told him it was a PC. But lets face it, he's going to be a 1st level IT support nightmare -- "Is it plugged in Mr President?...etc".
Unless there's a MS Whitehouse edition? "Who do you want to bomb today?" and "Ah I see you're trying to waterboard someone. I can help with that!"
I must assume Keanu Reeves will play that robot since that's his acting style, anyway.
Hey! I'm a robot, you insensitive clod! And on behalf of robots everywhere I'd like to express how insulted I am and being compared to Ikea Reeves. I've more acting talent in the little diodes on my left side, than he does in his whole body.
meh... the Chinese are amateurs. Come to the UK to see a REAL surveillance system. If you're really lucky, Premier Gordon Brownshirt will allow you to leave too.
Don't worry about it, it's Gartner. Probably the only reason that businesses fail is because they listen to the mindless, erroneous, buzzword-infested garbage that Gartner spews out every so often. Gartner exists for the sake of existing, they add no genuine value to anything, virtual or real.
Fat people are, however, much easier to control. No fat guy ever started, and won, a revolution. They are far too slow and lazy -- too slow to dodge a bullet and too large a target. And, talking of targets, they are also a great target market, you can sell them all sorts of things that people of normal mass will never need.
Fat people are patriots. Fat people won't ever be terrorists.
I kid, I kid...well, sort of... there is some truth there...
And another thing, the price of clothes and many other things is disproportionate. "S" costs the same as "XXL" -- and that's just a tax on the rest of us.
It was made in 1976. Pedophilia was quite in fashion back then.
That's in fact sort of true. The truth is that public perception of what's acceptable has been completely distorted in the past 15-20 years or so -- exclusively in English speaking countries -- and mostly by News Corps International media - Fox News, The Sun, etc, etc.
Take, for example, the movie "Pretty Baby". A 1978 movie, nominated for an Oscar and directed by the celebrated Louis Malle. It has scenes of a naked then 12 year old Brook Shields. I assume the movie is now banned and you'll never get to see it, but at the time it was considered art, and was not especially controversial. (Note also that the 70's were an age where people were more politicized, and human rights and the errors of the past were in the forefront -- and yet, few people had a problem with this movie at the time.)
Bear in mind also if you are an American you age of consent is waay higher than most other countries. Don't get me wrong, I'm in NO WAY advocating exploitation or child porn, but you do need to realise that society has been completely manipulated by the media in this respect. And, importantly, those views have changed beyond all recognition in a short space of time.
And bringing this back on topic, the one vestige of the media that SHOULD be free, and trustworthy -- namely the "wiki-branded" sites -- sadly, are actually some of the least trustworthy and most unreliable sources of information. Not because of "vandalism" or amateur users, but wholly because of deliberate manipulation by cabals and wikiadmins. The buck stops in each and every case with Jimbo Wales, and his reputation and (lack of) integrity has been well discussed here. This article is just one more example of why "wiki" anything must NEVER be trusted, it's just as biased and manipulated as News Corps International media.
This article links to what is basically an infomercial.
Quite correct. It does. There's also no news here whatsoever. It's good to know that it's not only readers that don't read TFA, the editors -- and even Taco -- don't always read it either.
We have a massive increase in the number of UAV flights. You know, because of the "terrorists". This is (allegedly) primarily to stop "terrorists" getting on board planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
Now, these same UAV's are in danger of hitting planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
I ask you, even if you believe in "terrorists", which is more dangerous: "terrorists", or your Government?
We need to change perceptions. A baseball cap is, in fact, a symbol of relative freedom. A business suit -- well, specifically the tie -- is a symbol of modern slavery.
The irony is that society perceives the tie to be a symbol of someone successful -- where in reality it's most usually a symbol of someone trapped by their own lack of creativity and intellect.
A tie = a slave collar. The tie is otherwise the singular, most useless, garment on Earth.
No. Not really, though some seem misguidedly to think so. The Irish are like Glaswegians (or the Glasgow conurbation -- about a 5th of the population), because much of Glaswegian ancestry is Irish. The rest of the inhabitants of Scotland aren't really much like the Irish at all.
If you've ever tried to get funding from the Lottery Fund you'll also find out that if you face doesn't fit, you'll not be getting the money.
Like most everything in the UK government, NGO's or Quangos, the Lottery fund is run by petty bureaucrats who have no sense of creativity, substance, heritage, or in fact anything else. Like most bureaucrats, they are bureaucrats because they've no imagination, nor ambition, nor skills. And the bad news is that they've also sucked up a lot of finds from The Arts Council and a few other organisations (whom, admittedly, were just as corrupt, nepotistic and ineffectual).
If you are good at filling in forms and using the correct NeuesLabourRegime-socio-buzz-codewords on your grant application, and you are a freemason, and have a brother in local government, or are in some way related to Premier Gordon Brownshirt, you'll get on just fine.
...and if you don't the best way of getting lottery funding is to pay a pound and fill in the 6 numbers every week.
Seriously though, anyone with high expectations of this movie hasn't seen a movie made by George Lucas in the past 20 years. It'll make a ton of cash, regardless -- that's the really tragic thing.
For all the money spent on this movie you could fast-track the careers of at least one thousand, really talented, new filmmakers.
What if you can do it provided you license that well-known song for the purpose for which you intend to use it?
While this is indeed the RIAA's mercenary position, that doesn't make it fair or reasonable. The OP is correct. It should be fair use to use a piece of music in the example quoted, provided there's no intent to make money from it.
Those bastards in the RIAA want to have their cake and eat it too. They practice payola to promote songs so that they get heard, and then once they get heard they charge radio stations for playing them.
While they are slowly dying as a result of failing to adapt, there's still much to be done to make the record labels die faster. Take wikipedia for example -- it feels like every second page has a sentence or paragraph that promotes some band, or song. You know the "The Blahblah, wrote a song about the French Revolution, it's on the XYZ album" Yep... That's spam. Wikipedia is absolutely full of it. Even most music articles (that actually have sources) quote sources that are media articles derived from RIAA press releases, or direct to the band's own marketing devices such as their MySpace or Website. That's how the Record Labels make more money. That sort of crap needs to be stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
And for once, it's not just a meme, I really mean it when I say:
"I, for one, welcome our new geek overlords!"
and the first customers will be... Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Small molecules can get in the spaces between cells cause and cancer. That's not new, just ask benzene.
Sometimes I wonder if some scientists are so specialized they can't see the forest for the trees.
I forgot to add...
It stars an elderly man, whom despite enjoying roguish Sean-Connery-esque charm has never actually had the ability to act more than "let's pretend". That being the method of acting he employs (and I quote).
It also stars a young man who displays all the ability and hype of a young Ikea-nu Reeves. Popular with tweenage girls and middle-aged gay men, but devoid of any, you know, actual acting talent.
It will however make squillions of dollars. And likely send indie filmmakers further into depression and despair at how low-brow the cinema audience really is.
I have no doubt this movie will be a huge cash cow.
However, I have absolutely no understanding why.
Please can someone explain to me, why that when the 1st Star Wars Prequel was widely regarded as a crime against celluloid, and the 2nd Prequel proved, if anything, to be even worse that the 1st, that anyone at all went to see the 3rd Prequel.
George Lucas is a filmmaker that has made an extremely large amount of money based on a very small number of good films made more than 20 years ago, while the majority of his work is very poor indeed. One might also say that for Spielberg too.
If you have high expectations for this movie, then might I suggest that you are possibly suffering from amnesia, or are 5.
I guarantee that in the Special editions Indy will whip first.
Unless there's a MS Whitehouse edition? "Who do you want to bomb today?" and "Ah I see you're trying to waterboard someone. I can help with that!"
meh... the Chinese are amateurs. Come to the UK to see a REAL surveillance system. If you're really lucky, Premier Gordon Brownshirt will allow you to leave too.
Don't worry about it, it's Gartner. Probably the only reason that businesses fail is because they listen to the mindless, erroneous, buzzword-infested garbage that Gartner spews out every so often. Gartner exists for the sake of existing, they add no genuine value to anything, virtual or real.
Fat people are, however, much easier to control. No fat guy ever started, and won, a revolution. They are far too slow and lazy -- too slow to dodge a bullet and too large a target. And, talking of targets, they are also a great target market, you can sell them all sorts of things that people of normal mass will never need.
Fat people are patriots. Fat people won't ever be terrorists.
I kid, I kid...well, sort of... there is some truth there...
And another thing, the price of clothes and many other things is disproportionate. "S" costs the same as "XXL" -- and that's just a tax on the rest of us.
Take, for example, the movie "Pretty Baby". A 1978 movie, nominated for an Oscar and directed by the celebrated Louis Malle. It has scenes of a naked then 12 year old Brook Shields. I assume the movie is now banned and you'll never get to see it, but at the time it was considered art, and was not especially controversial. (Note also that the 70's were an age where people were more politicized, and human rights and the errors of the past were in the forefront -- and yet, few people had a problem with this movie at the time.)
Bear in mind also if you are an American you age of consent is waay higher than most other countries. Don't get me wrong, I'm in NO WAY advocating exploitation or child porn, but you do need to realise that society has been completely manipulated by the media in this respect. And, importantly, those views have changed beyond all recognition in a short space of time.
And bringing this back on topic, the one vestige of the media that SHOULD be free, and trustworthy -- namely the "wiki-branded" sites -- sadly, are actually some of the least trustworthy and most unreliable sources of information. Not because of "vandalism" or amateur users, but wholly because of deliberate manipulation by cabals and wikiadmins. The buck stops in each and every case with Jimbo Wales, and his reputation and (lack of) integrity has been well discussed here. This article is just one more example of why "wiki" anything must NEVER be trusted, it's just as biased and manipulated as News Corps International media.
So let's get this straight...
We have a massive increase in the number of UAV flights. You know, because of the "terrorists". This is (allegedly) primarily to stop "terrorists" getting on board planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
Now, these same UAV's are in danger of hitting planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
I ask you, even if you believe in "terrorists", which is more dangerous: "terrorists", or your Government?
We need to change perceptions. A baseball cap is, in fact, a symbol of relative freedom. A business suit -- well, specifically the tie -- is a symbol of modern slavery.
The irony is that society perceives the tie to be a symbol of someone successful -- where in reality it's most usually a symbol of someone trapped by their own lack of creativity and intellect.
A tie = a slave collar. The tie is otherwise the singular, most useless, garment on Earth.
If you've ever tried to get funding from the Lottery Fund you'll also find out that if you face doesn't fit, you'll not be getting the money.
...and if you don't the best way of getting lottery funding is to pay a pound and fill in the 6 numbers every week.
Like most everything in the UK government, NGO's or Quangos, the Lottery fund is run by petty bureaucrats who have no sense of creativity, substance, heritage, or in fact anything else. Like most bureaucrats, they are bureaucrats because they've no imagination, nor ambition, nor skills. And the bad news is that they've also sucked up a lot of finds from The Arts Council and a few other organisations (whom, admittedly, were just as corrupt, nepotistic and ineffectual).
If you are good at filling in forms and using the correct NeuesLabourRegime-socio-buzz-codewords on your grant application, and you are a freemason, and have a brother in local government, or are in some way related to Premier Gordon Brownshirt, you'll get on just fine.
The UK Lottery = Government Stupidity Tax.
...I am not alone when I sincerely say, "I will never, under any circumstances, say the word Chumby."
In the special edition Indy will whip first.
Seriously though, anyone with high expectations of this movie hasn't seen a movie made by George Lucas in the past 20 years. It'll make a ton of cash, regardless -- that's the really tragic thing.
For all the money spent on this movie you could fast-track the careers of at least one thousand, really talented, new filmmakers.
... so this is to complement Big Bang Theory?
I think perhaps they deserve each other.
THEM!
Those bastards in the RIAA want to have their cake and eat it too. They practice payola to promote songs so that they get heard, and then once they get heard they charge radio stations for playing them.
While they are slowly dying as a result of failing to adapt, there's still much to be done to make the record labels die faster. Take wikipedia for example -- it feels like every second page has a sentence or paragraph that promotes some band, or song. You know the "The Blahblah, wrote a song about the French Revolution, it's on the XYZ album" Yep... That's spam. Wikipedia is absolutely full of it. Even most music articles (that actually have sources) quote sources that are media articles derived from RIAA press releases, or direct to the band's own marketing devices such as their MySpace or Website. That's how the Record Labels make more money. That sort of crap needs to be stopped.