The propaganda machine doesn't care about books (the general public doesn't read enough of them for anyone to care). It's film and TV that matter. And in that field you'll be VERY hard-pressed to find anything that mentions the Soviet space program in anything more than passing (if at all). "The Right Stuff" gives Sputnik about 30 seconds (guess Cosmonauts didn't have the right stuff), "From the Earth to the Moon" pretty much ignores them altogether (hey, where could they find the time to fit them in with a mere 12 hours of miniseries to spare?), "Moonshot," "Apollo 13," and pretty much every documentary out of the U.S. focuses exclusively on NASA and/or Apollo.
AFAIK, the aforementioned "Space Race: The Untold Story" is the only documentary in the English language that even tries to include the Soviet program--and you can't buy it or see it (legally) in the U.S.
Yes, but almost all of those accomplishments are just part-and-parcel of the Apollo 11 mission and the one other just is a silly technical distinction (the first). NASA is to be congratulated on Apollo 11, no doubt. But the Soviets also deserve recognition for so many other meaningful "firsts," and they almost NEVER get it in the U.S. Make no mistake about it, government sanctioned or not, there is a very real propaganda machine in the U.S. that makes the space race sound like it was dominated entirely by the U.S. and NASA. Very rarely is that image ever breached, and when it is, it's usually shut down very quickly.
And example of how difficult it is to pierce that image? Back in 2006, the BBC produced an excellent docudrama miniseries called "Space Race: The Untold Story," that told BOTH the Soviet and NASA space race stories with never-before-seen (or seen since) footage. It aired twice on U.S. television and was effectively banned thereafter. National Geographic has refused to air it since (even though they own the U.S. rights, it's in modern HD, and it got great ratings on its initial airings). Nor has it ever been released on video in the U.S. (about the only modern miniseries to air on National Geographic channel and not be offered for order on video by them or anyone else). It's still to this day only available in Europe and Australia as Region 2 and Region 4 PAL versions. American DVD players won't even play it if you import it.
In all fairness to the second proposal, Darwin has never shown *me* any form of respect--so why should I reciprocate? Of course he has been dead for some time, but a lot of people use that excuse then, don't they?
All well and good, except 2014 is TWO elections away. By Jan 2013 the Congress AND President could be Republican. That would give them plenty of time to repeal it before any of us see any real benefits (and before it became, like medicare and social security before it, politically untouchable).
Sadly, in the U.S., we're only taught NASA's accomplishments (sadly, I'm not kidding). I was in my 20's and researching it on my own before I found out the Soviets did anything other than Sputnik. In fact, the Soviets did pretty much every first except putting a man on the moon. And they probably would have done THAT first if Sergey Korolyov hadn't have died in early 1966.
Last time I checked, Hong Kong was was transfered to full Chinese control about 13 years ago. So is this some sort of symbolic stunt done for some obscure reason, or is it actually supposed to accomplish something? Saying you're going to defy Chinese control by moving your HQ from Beijing to Hong Kong is like saying you're going to get out from under U.S. control by moving from New York to Chicago.
A coop with your own doctors is a great idea until one day you have a heart attack or get into a car crash and they rush you to one of OUR emergency rooms. Then the rest of us are going to be footing your bill, because you're a kook who refused to buy insurance. Either way, we pay. You're "freedom" is nothing of the sort.
The big problem with the McCain proposal was that it made absolutely no provision for those who can't get health insurance because they're high-risk, have a pre-existing condition, or couldn't afford it with a small tax credit anyway. It was just a giveaway aimed at those who could probably already could afford health insurance or who already had it. If you're poor, high-risk, have a pre-existing condition, etc. the McCain credit would have done you no good. But if you're rich or middle class and already had health insurance anyway--here's a tax credit you don't need. It was a joke.
Exactly! That's why health care is not, and cannot be, treated as just another free market enterprise. A hospital is not just another business, and can't be by law.
In any country, you're going to be forced to do a whole lot of stuff that you don't like to benefit the welfare of a larger society. That's why it's called a "country," not a "loose collection of individuals in the same geographic area." I don't like paying taxes, but I realize that--unless I'm willing to start repairing my own roads, housing my own prisoners, fielding my own army, etc.--it's a sacrifice I have to make for the greater good. Most people in the developed world already have health insurance (or universal coverage), and those that don't mostly WANT it. Very few people are walking around in this or any other country saying to themselves "Wow, I wish I had the freedom to *not* have any health insurance, or to not have enough of it." And creating a separate system just to accommodate such kooks is not a reasonable proposition in a world where the vast majority of people are damn glad to have health coverage.
The biggest problem I see with this bill is that it doesn't take effect until 2014. That gives Republicans/Insurance plenty of time to repeal it long before anyone gets to see *any* benefit from it. By 2014 we could well have already had a year of complete Republican rule (White House and Congress), and you know if they retook the White House and Congress, repealing this would be number 1 on their agenda.
The problem with applying the "free market" model to health care is that this is not, in practice, how the American people treat it. When your kid is seriously injured or has a high fever, you don't expect to be turned away from an emergency room because you couldn't pass a credit check. As the GP said, it's more like auto liability insurance, where you pay for it one way or another (which is why most states have mandated auto insurance for drivers). Whether someone has insurance or not, they're going to find a way to get treatment if they're ill or injured. It's just a question of whether you let them see a regular physician or force them to go to the (more expensive) emergency room.
To truly turn health care into a free market, you would have to create a system that is much more callous than almost anyone would be willing to tolerate. But, I guess if you're a free market thinker, every problem looks like a nail.
I would be more inclined to believe it was collusion if you could watch Hulu on a 360, but not a PS3. But, as it stands, neither can view Hulu without some kind of hack (nor can any other set-top box anymore, sadly). I got so frustrated trying to deal with Hulu, YouTube, and video codec finickiness that I finally stopped playing around with all the media streaming set-top boxes and just hooked up a netbook to my TV. It's the only sure-fire way to get everything on your TV these days.
The BDA was created and is still largely controlled by Sony and everyone knows it. Sony were the ones behind blu-ray--they developed the technology, they pushed it, they championed it. They only established the BDA because the DVD Forum was chaired by Toshiba (who were developing the competing HD-DVD standard), and so they needed a competing forum to give some legitimacy to their chosen format in a format war.
Re:Oh great, Sony
on
I Want My GTV
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That must be why they developed blu-ray with TWO levels of encryption and region-locking, because they're moving to be more open.
You're definitely the exception. In most places, Avatar's 3-D screenings cost a lot more than other 2-D movies. Here is an interesting commentary on this 3-D "inflation" from Film School Rejects.
It's odd, but IMHO the best 3D scenes in Avatar were the simplest ones. All the action scenes and fight scenes looked bad to me (as I said, like flat 2D layers on top of each other). But little scenes like the guy sitting with a bunch of other soldiers in the transport, the scene in the field with the dandelion-like things floating around--simple scenes like that looked really good.
Oh great, Sony
on
I Want My GTV
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If Sony's consistent behavior in the past is any indication, it will be encrypted, region-locked, proprietary, and it will only work with some weird storage or media type that only Sony makes. It will also require you to install a rootkit on your TV and let them search all your media files for pirated songs and movies before you can use it. And you'll have to submit a DNA sample and retina scan to buy one, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and Apple is going to remove it "fast as a rocket" too.
Steve doesn't compete. He tells you what you can have, and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.
The propaganda machine doesn't care about books (the general public doesn't read enough of them for anyone to care). It's film and TV that matter. And in that field you'll be VERY hard-pressed to find anything that mentions the Soviet space program in anything more than passing (if at all). "The Right Stuff" gives Sputnik about 30 seconds (guess Cosmonauts didn't have the right stuff), "From the Earth to the Moon" pretty much ignores them altogether (hey, where could they find the time to fit them in with a mere 12 hours of miniseries to spare?), "Moonshot," "Apollo 13," and pretty much every documentary out of the U.S. focuses exclusively on NASA and/or Apollo.
AFAIK, the aforementioned "Space Race: The Untold Story" is the only documentary in the English language that even tries to include the Soviet program--and you can't buy it or see it (legally) in the U.S.
Yes, but almost all of those accomplishments are just part-and-parcel of the Apollo 11 mission and the one other just is a silly technical distinction (the first). NASA is to be congratulated on Apollo 11, no doubt. But the Soviets also deserve recognition for so many other meaningful "firsts," and they almost NEVER get it in the U.S. Make no mistake about it, government sanctioned or not, there is a very real propaganda machine in the U.S. that makes the space race sound like it was dominated entirely by the U.S. and NASA. Very rarely is that image ever breached, and when it is, it's usually shut down very quickly.
And example of how difficult it is to pierce that image? Back in 2006, the BBC produced an excellent docudrama miniseries called "Space Race: The Untold Story," that told BOTH the Soviet and NASA space race stories with never-before-seen (or seen since) footage. It aired twice on U.S. television and was effectively banned thereafter. National Geographic has refused to air it since (even though they own the U.S. rights, it's in modern HD, and it got great ratings on its initial airings). Nor has it ever been released on video in the U.S. (about the only modern miniseries to air on National Geographic channel and not be offered for order on video by them or anyone else). It's still to this day only available in Europe and Australia as Region 2 and Region 4 PAL versions. American DVD players won't even play it if you import it.
In all fairness to the second proposal, Darwin has never shown *me* any form of respect--so why should I reciprocate? Of course he has been dead for some time, but a lot of people use that excuse then, don't they?
All well and good, except 2014 is TWO elections away. By Jan 2013 the Congress AND President could be Republican. That would give them plenty of time to repeal it before any of us see any real benefits (and before it became, like medicare and social security before it, politically untouchable).
Sadly, in the U.S., we're only taught NASA's accomplishments (sadly, I'm not kidding). I was in my 20's and researching it on my own before I found out the Soviets did anything other than Sputnik. In fact, the Soviets did pretty much every first except putting a man on the moon. And they probably would have done THAT first if Sergey Korolyov hadn't have died in early 1966.
Last time I checked, Hong Kong was was transfered to full Chinese control about 13 years ago. So is this some sort of symbolic stunt done for some obscure reason, or is it actually supposed to accomplish something? Saying you're going to defy Chinese control by moving your HQ from Beijing to Hong Kong is like saying you're going to get out from under U.S. control by moving from New York to Chicago.
Yeah, well I have a big gang of marauders with shotguns and dunebuggies, and we say you're WRONG!
A coop with your own doctors is a great idea until one day you have a heart attack or get into a car crash and they rush you to one of OUR emergency rooms. Then the rest of us are going to be footing your bill, because you're a kook who refused to buy insurance. Either way, we pay. You're "freedom" is nothing of the sort.
The big problem with the McCain proposal was that it made absolutely no provision for those who can't get health insurance because they're high-risk, have a pre-existing condition, or couldn't afford it with a small tax credit anyway. It was just a giveaway aimed at those who could probably already could afford health insurance or who already had it. If you're poor, high-risk, have a pre-existing condition, etc. the McCain credit would have done you no good. But if you're rich or middle class and already had health insurance anyway--here's a tax credit you don't need. It was a joke.
Exactly! That's why health care is not, and cannot be, treated as just another free market enterprise. A hospital is not just another business, and can't be by law.
In any country, you're going to be forced to do a whole lot of stuff that you don't like to benefit the welfare of a larger society. That's why it's called a "country," not a "loose collection of individuals in the same geographic area." I don't like paying taxes, but I realize that--unless I'm willing to start repairing my own roads, housing my own prisoners, fielding my own army, etc.--it's a sacrifice I have to make for the greater good. Most people in the developed world already have health insurance (or universal coverage), and those that don't mostly WANT it. Very few people are walking around in this or any other country saying to themselves "Wow, I wish I had the freedom to *not* have any health insurance, or to not have enough of it." And creating a separate system just to accommodate such kooks is not a reasonable proposition in a world where the vast majority of people are damn glad to have health coverage.
The biggest problem I see with this bill is that it doesn't take effect until 2014. That gives Republicans/Insurance plenty of time to repeal it long before anyone gets to see *any* benefit from it. By 2014 we could well have already had a year of complete Republican rule (White House and Congress), and you know if they retook the White House and Congress, repealing this would be number 1 on their agenda.
The problem with applying the "free market" model to health care is that this is not, in practice, how the American people treat it. When your kid is seriously injured or has a high fever, you don't expect to be turned away from an emergency room because you couldn't pass a credit check. As the GP said, it's more like auto liability insurance, where you pay for it one way or another (which is why most states have mandated auto insurance for drivers). Whether someone has insurance or not, they're going to find a way to get treatment if they're ill or injured. It's just a question of whether you let them see a regular physician or force them to go to the (more expensive) emergency room.
To truly turn health care into a free market, you would have to create a system that is much more callous than almost anyone would be willing to tolerate. But, I guess if you're a free market thinker, every problem looks like a nail.
"Zero tolerance" all-too-often ends up translating to "Zero common sense."
I would be more inclined to believe it was collusion if you could watch Hulu on a 360, but not a PS3. But, as it stands, neither can view Hulu without some kind of hack (nor can any other set-top box anymore, sadly). I got so frustrated trying to deal with Hulu, YouTube, and video codec finickiness that I finally stopped playing around with all the media streaming set-top boxes and just hooked up a netbook to my TV. It's the only sure-fire way to get everything on your TV these days.
Oh jeez, MORE walking?!?!?
It's a great solution until the FBI kicks down the doors at the company that makes it and arrests them for violating the DMCA.
The BDA was created and is still largely controlled by Sony and everyone knows it. Sony were the ones behind blu-ray--they developed the technology, they pushed it, they championed it. They only established the BDA because the DVD Forum was chaired by Toshiba (who were developing the competing HD-DVD standard), and so they needed a competing forum to give some legitimacy to their chosen format in a format war.
That must be why they developed blu-ray with TWO levels of encryption and region-locking, because they're moving to be more open.
Bah, if you're not lucky enough to hsve a *Cinerama* Shocking 2D theater in your area, you're missing out.
You're definitely the exception. In most places, Avatar's 3-D screenings cost a lot more than other 2-D movies. Here is an interesting commentary on this 3-D "inflation" from Film School Rejects.
It's odd, but IMHO the best 3D scenes in Avatar were the simplest ones. All the action scenes and fight scenes looked bad to me (as I said, like flat 2D layers on top of each other). But little scenes like the guy sitting with a bunch of other soldiers in the transport, the scene in the field with the dandelion-like things floating around--simple scenes like that looked really good.
If Sony's consistent behavior in the past is any indication, it will be encrypted, region-locked, proprietary, and it will only work with some weird storage or media type that only Sony makes. It will also require you to install a rootkit on your TV and let them search all your media files for pirated songs and movies before you can use it. And you'll have to submit a DNA sample and retina scan to buy one, of course.
Now I can install a stock market app on my windshield that lets me watch GM stock fall in real time.