Then there's the shitty quality of movies in the theater. After watching clear crisp DVDs, a 35mm projected movie looks fuzzy to me. They all do so it couldn't have been a projectionist that didn't know what he was doing.
No, you must be going to shitty theaters. If you projected a DVD at cinema screen sizes, it would look awful. Even in a medium-sized home theater, DVD looks all blocky and crappy.
I think the problem is that they don't employ enough projectionists anymore, and the projectionists don't care. Often they have one projectionist for something like 12 screens. They aren't paying attention to each screen, they are too busy juggling. And new-release movies are so shit, that there's no reason why the projectionist would care about a particular film they way they used to.
Except that one of the groups protesting the filter was actually a "protect the children" type of group - can't remember their name off hand but I dod remember their disdain for the proposed filtering.
Obviously, that group is just a front for a pedophile ring, pretending to be "for the children" as a way of hiding their criminal activity. I hope the government investigates them.
1. we are all born vessels of purity, and the world corrupts us. the idea is to limit exposure to this corruption, and thereby remain a coherent person
2. we are all born with the seeds of rape and murder in our hearts. the idea then is catharsis: express your asocial transgressive tendencies harmlessly on sexual and violent media, and therefore you feel no compulsion to visit those tendencies on real people in real life
Really, only two? Then I must be the world's third-greatest philosopher for having a view of humanity that is neither of those.
Wrong again. 62% of your are begging for the filter:
Sorry, you're wrong. The question that poll gave made no mention of any "internet filter":
To the proposition We need Government regulation of content on the Internet the same as we have Government regulation of content for other media
"Regulation of content for other media" is nothing like the internet filter. There is no mandated filter in people's TV sets that automatically blocks certain content.
There was a Democrat in my district who tried to vote against healthcare, against the stimulus bill, and so on to appease the increasingly anti-government voters. We didn't buy his sudden change. He lost.
So, now you've got a Republican in office. How does that make things better?
Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.
Wait, what? Wikileaks is important for free speech and open societies, so you hope it goes down in flames? That doesn't really compute, unless you hate free speech and open societies and consider them the enemy.
The Americans are so self centred and introverted, they will commit patricide for purely save face.
Unlike the pure, upstanding people from every other country on earth, who would never dream of doing such things? It's not just Americans who suck, it's people in general.
try flipping/scrolling pages when you got your hands full of stuff you wouldn't want anywhere near electronics...
Most decent recipe management software has a "hands free" mode that uses voice commands for "flipping pages." Of course, something like an iPad would be even better, as it doesn't take up so much space (you don't need a keyboard, after all).
I thought the answer to the question was obvious - the IT department goes in the basement. It's a familiar environment for IT workers, and it's easy for the other other employees to avoid.
I've only seen real, live boobies once on Chatroulette, and I'm not even sure they were human. Looked more like a friggin' whale. She got upset when I asked her to do the truffle shuffle.
They advertise an iPad for $499 - they have to sell you the iPad for $499.99.
That's a weird law. If they were advertising it at $499, I would have thought they'd have to sell it at $499, not $499.99. Why would consumer protection laws require products to be sold at 99 cents more than they are advertised at?
The US hasn't built a new nuclear reactor in 30 years. The 'smelly hippies' won.
That's not because of hippies, it's because building nuclear power plants isn't economically favorable. If you really think "smelly hippies" have any kind of political or economic power, you're deluding yourself. You're just using a convenient scapegoat/stereotype as an excuse to avoid reality.
I always just get flashbacks on how BBS'es were going to change the world. There was a dutch innovation program, quite serious, started to have lots of "bbs" parts. X but with a BBS.
Never mind 100 years ago, these sentences were posted 10 minutes ago, and I don't have the foggiest idea what they mean.
... just as people refer to photocopying as "xeroxing" and to facial tissue as "kleenex".
What is this, the 1980s? I haven't heard anybody refer to photocopying as "xeroxing" in the last 15 years, and I haven't heard anybody call a tissue "kleenex" for around 10 years.
So is a Kleenex, a Band-Aid, a coke and yet those words are still commonly used without meaning the brand they represent.
Not for much longer. Even today, not many people use these brands in favor of their more generic alternatives.
Does anybody actually say "Kleenex" instead of "tissue" anymore? When people say "Coke" they usually mean Coca-Cola, not anything else. I think Band-Aid is still the most common, that's in regular use. But give it a decade or so, and it will no longer be.
"Well-regulated" at the time meant "well-adjusted" or "in accurate operating condition", not "under the rule of a government official". Like a voltage regulator, not a beaurocrat. A clock was "well-regulated" to keep accurate time. A double-barreled shotgun was "well regulated" if the shot patterns from both barrels hit the same spot.
If we take that meaning, then it implies that members of the Tea Party, right-wing whackos, left-wing anarchists, etc, should not have the right to bear arms? A lot of gun owners aren't particularly well-adjusted or calibrated.
This demonstrates, again, how it's really the freakishly skewed perceptions of people playing politics that drive "environmentalism" as it is currently practiced, and it doesn't have much of anything to do with the real environment.
Actually, the people who are serious about environmentalism do care when it happens in Nigeria or other "off the radar" places. They actually expend a lot of energy trying to draw people's attention to these areas.
What you are seeing has nothing to do with environmentalism, but with the mass media, which naturally reports on things that are sensational, easy, and nearby.
My suspicion is that if this were a story about environmentalists trying to expose an environmental disaster in Nigeria, you'd be lambasting them for focusing on such a trivial issue that's not relevant to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Then there's the shitty quality of movies in the theater. After watching clear crisp DVDs, a 35mm projected movie looks fuzzy to me. They all do so it couldn't have been a projectionist that didn't know what he was doing.
No, you must be going to shitty theaters. If you projected a DVD at cinema screen sizes, it would look awful. Even in a medium-sized home theater, DVD looks all blocky and crappy.
I think the problem is that they don't employ enough projectionists anymore, and the projectionists don't care. Often they have one projectionist for something like 12 screens. They aren't paying attention to each screen, they are too busy juggling. And new-release movies are so shit, that there's no reason why the projectionist would care about a particular film they way they used to.
Would that be a bad thing?
Probably. It puts cultural creation in the hands of the wealthy and elite. It means art is more likely to be used for propaganda.
Yeah, where's the investment? Sounds more like charity to me, the cinematic equivalent of a Paypal "donate" link on a blog.
Except that one of the groups protesting the filter was actually a "protect the children" type of group - can't remember their name off hand but I dod remember their disdain for the proposed filtering.
Obviously, that group is just a front for a pedophile ring, pretending to be "for the children" as a way of hiding their criminal activity. I hope the government investigates them.
A Tattoo on a woman is like marking up the Mona Lisa with a magic marker.
You mean, like this guy did? They call that art.
1. we are all born vessels of purity, and the world corrupts us. the idea is to limit exposure to this corruption, and thereby remain a coherent person
2. we are all born with the seeds of rape and murder in our hearts. the idea then is catharsis: express your asocial transgressive tendencies harmlessly on sexual and violent media, and therefore you feel no compulsion to visit those tendencies on real people in real life
Really, only two? Then I must be the world's third-greatest philosopher for having a view of humanity that is neither of those.
Wrong again. 62% of your are begging for the filter:
Sorry, you're wrong. The question that poll gave made no mention of any "internet filter":
To the proposition We need Government regulation of content on the Internet the same as we have Government regulation of content for other media
"Regulation of content for other media" is nothing like the internet filter. There is no mandated filter in people's TV sets that automatically blocks certain content.
There was a Democrat in my district who tried to vote against healthcare, against the stimulus bill, and so on to appease the increasingly anti-government voters. We didn't buy his sudden change. He lost.
So, now you've got a Republican in office. How does that make things better?
Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.
Wait, what? Wikileaks is important for free speech and open societies, so you hope it goes down in flames? That doesn't really compute, unless you hate free speech and open societies and consider them the enemy.
The Americans are so self centred and introverted, they will commit patricide for purely save face.
Unlike the pure, upstanding people from every other country on earth, who would never dream of doing such things? It's not just Americans who suck, it's people in general.
try flipping/scrolling pages when you got your hands full of stuff you wouldn't want anywhere near electronics...
Most decent recipe management software has a "hands free" mode that uses voice commands for "flipping pages." Of course, something like an iPad would be even better, as it doesn't take up so much space (you don't need a keyboard, after all).
Woz on the other hand was The Geek.
That's very insulting to the Woz. He is a nerd, not a geek. How dare you sully his fine reputation!
I thought the answer to the question was obvious - the IT department goes in the basement. It's a familiar environment for IT workers, and it's easy for the other other employees to avoid.
I've only seen real, live boobies once on Chatroulette, and I'm not even sure they were human. Looked more like a friggin' whale. She got upset when I asked her to do the truffle shuffle.
Don't worry, that was just Cowboy Neal.
Begging the question: was it Slashdot?
No, it was a site dedicated to open source software, not poorly edited sensationalistic articles and tired jokes.
They advertise an iPad for $499 - they have to sell you the iPad for $499.99.
That's a weird law. If they were advertising it at $499, I would have thought they'd have to sell it at $499, not $499.99. Why would consumer protection laws require products to be sold at 99 cents more than they are advertised at?
Building nuclear power plants are just as economically feasible as building coal plants.
Right. Which is why they aren't building many new coal plants, either.
The US hasn't built a new nuclear reactor in 30 years. The 'smelly hippies' won.
That's not because of hippies, it's because building nuclear power plants isn't economically favorable. If you really think "smelly hippies" have any kind of political or economic power, you're deluding yourself. You're just using a convenient scapegoat/stereotype as an excuse to avoid reality.
I always just get flashbacks on how BBS'es were going to change the world. There was a dutch innovation program, quite serious, started to have lots of "bbs" parts. X but with a BBS.
Never mind 100 years ago, these sentences were posted 10 minutes ago, and I don't have the foggiest idea what they mean.
... just as people refer to photocopying as "xeroxing" and to facial tissue as "kleenex".
What is this, the 1980s? I haven't heard anybody refer to photocopying as "xeroxing" in the last 15 years, and I haven't heard anybody call a tissue "kleenex" for around 10 years.
So is a Kleenex, a Band-Aid, a coke and yet those words are still commonly used without meaning the brand they represent.
Not for much longer. Even today, not many people use these brands in favor of their more generic alternatives.
Does anybody actually say "Kleenex" instead of "tissue" anymore? When people say "Coke" they usually mean Coca-Cola, not anything else. I think Band-Aid is still the most common, that's in regular use. But give it a decade or so, and it will no longer be.
Unfortunately, that describes the education system in most countries far too well.
The joy of repetition really is in you.
"Well-regulated" at the time meant "well-adjusted" or "in accurate operating condition", not "under the rule of a government official". Like a voltage regulator, not a beaurocrat. A clock was "well-regulated" to keep accurate time. A double-barreled shotgun was "well regulated" if the shot patterns from both barrels hit the same spot.
If we take that meaning, then it implies that members of the Tea Party, right-wing whackos, left-wing anarchists, etc, should not have the right to bear arms? A lot of gun owners aren't particularly well-adjusted or calibrated.
... and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests...
So, how does this work grammatically? Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest?
This demonstrates, again, how it's really the freakishly skewed perceptions of people playing politics that drive "environmentalism" as it is currently practiced, and it doesn't have much of anything to do with the real environment.
Actually, the people who are serious about environmentalism do care when it happens in Nigeria or other "off the radar" places. They actually expend a lot of energy trying to draw people's attention to these areas.
What you are seeing has nothing to do with environmentalism, but with the mass media, which naturally reports on things that are sensational, easy, and nearby.
My suspicion is that if this were a story about environmentalists trying to expose an environmental disaster in Nigeria, you'd be lambasting them for focusing on such a trivial issue that's not relevant to you.