In order to accept the premise that the RIAA "controls" music I'd have to accept that people don't decide for themselves what they like.
I don't think the argument is so much that "people don't decide for themselves what they like" but rather that people don't get a say in what choices they get to choose from. Through the Internet, not only have I found contemporary music that I never hear through industry channels, I've found a lot of music from many years ago that I'd had never heard of at the time because the industry didn't deem it worthy of my consideration. I certainly decided for my self what I liked out of what was available to me, but I did not get to decide about the stuff I never got to hear due to corporate control of music distribution channels.
They don't want their crotch-fruit to catch sight of a tit until they're 18, fine. They've no right to make that determination for the rest of us under the guise of "it'll warp their poor lil' minds!".
Where does this idea that tits are inappropriate for children come from, anyway? They're MADE FOR CHILDREN!!
IANAC(hemist), but it was my recollection that mercuric oxide was potentially *more* toxic than elemental mercury as it more readily absorbed. Santería adherents are known to swallow elemental mercury with no evident harm as very very little gets absorbed, but mercuric oxide would be more readily absorbed and likely kill or incapacitate the ingester.
OK, what is the new word for physical addiction, like with heroin or alcohol, where you can die from not getting your drug?
I believe that "chemical dependence" is the current term in vogue.
It was cocaine and crack that turned that idea on its head...prior to the late '70s cocaine was not considered a truly "addictive" drug because cessation does not have the clear physical manifestations of opiate, alcohol, or barbiturate withdrawal. Nevertheless, the psychological dependence of cocaine seems to be just as powerful as addictions to any of these other substances.
While I'm totally on the same page about the folly of the war on some drugs, I do think that there is good reason for the medical community to focus on addiction as a mostly psychological, rather than physical, phenomenon. As just one data point, I've read in multiple sources how the statistics show that it is fairly rare for a person with no prior substance abuse issues who gets long-term and/or high dosages of opiates for pain management to become subsequently addicted after being weaned off them. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is the psychological aspect that is the much stronger determinant of why people become "addicted", and many would even suggest that the mindset is more important than the particular drug (or behavior) in question.
However, that just makes the idea of officially labelling "internet addiction" all the more empty and irrelevant. If "addiction" in the end is really mostly about the person rather than the substance/behavior, then really why does internet addiction need a truly specific designation aside from TV, sports, shopping or any other behavorial addiction?
The client should be expected to try to get as much as they can for as little as they can, and in this case that was 2 weeks of your work and for nothing. Makes good business sense for them.
Unfortunately, too many "business people" think that unfettered cheapness *is* good business sense, but the fact is that is often not the case.
I learned a lesson about this in one of my earliest jobs. A company I worked for had just hired a young woman to handle their accounting/bookkeeping that was formerly done by the owner's wife. Shortly after she was hired and while the boss was away on vacation, she looked through the bills for office supplies and determined that many items could be more cheaply procured elsewhere, so she established an account with a cheaper vendor and order the cheaper items. When the boss got back from vacation, the original vendor called him back very upset, as they had had an agreement where the company was getting very favorable prices on big ticket items which was balanced out by paying somewhat higher prices for the nickel-and-dime stuff, not to mention the fact that their service was always great. So the boss went back to the new bookkeeper, had her cancel the account with the new cheaper vendor, and made a point to explain in the presence of all of us that business relationships are not always determined by the absolutely cheapest price, and that honoring agreements and preserving your good reputation are often more valuable than saving a few bucks. That was a lesson that has always stuck with me.
Unfortunately, concepts such as "honor" and "good reputation" seem long forgotten in much of the business world today. More people need to adopt the position of the GP and when people play cut-throat, refuse to do business with them.
I live in Fanny Bay, which may or may not be Comox Valley depending on who you ask. I work in Campbell River, though, so I'm probably even closer than you think. Small world, eh?:-)
I live about an hour north of Nanaimo, and I just told a bunch of my co-workers about the characterization of Nanaimo as a "coal mining town", which caused a pretty good round of laughter. Vancouver Island coal mining has been nearly dead for about a half a century.
The economy here is doing fairly well, considering that coastal BC seems to be one of the few places in North America where real estate is not plummetting, but I don't think they'll be making any man-made islands soon, especially since we have no shortage of natural ones.
Interesting, I didn't know any of that. I was recollecting stuff I had read many years ago, and as you are likely aware, rock journalism of the '70s was more fable than fact. Thanks for setting the record straight.
A better prior art example might be Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, a 1975 double album of nothing but constant overdubbed guitar feedback. Although Reed claimed at the time that it was a serious artistic endeavor, it was widely speculated that it was made entirely for the purpose of getting his record contract terminated, and I remember reading somewhere that he once admitted to never even having listened to the album all the way through.
Slashdot Mirror
Lassie Peterson? What, Scott killed the dog, too?
I don't think the argument is so much that "people don't decide for themselves what they like" but rather that people don't get a say in what choices they get to choose from. Through the Internet, not only have I found contemporary music that I never hear through industry channels, I've found a lot of music from many years ago that I'd had never heard of at the time because the industry didn't deem it worthy of my consideration. I certainly decided for my self what I liked out of what was available to me, but I did not get to decide about the stuff I never got to hear due to corporate control of music distribution channels.
Which, ironically, may be the two most admirable things in his biography.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but gunfire....OOF!!!"
I had to check the calendar. I thought this might have been a more subtle version of "OMG PONIES!!!"
In other words, Web Asshole 2.0.
Where does this idea that tits are inappropriate for children come from, anyway? They're MADE FOR CHILDREN!!
Please elaborate...I'm intrigued about this idea of storing politicians in the septic tank.
University of Pennsylvania, not Penn State.
"Torrents of the outputs from said Helms floating around on The Pirate Bay."
Not in my VR helmet, thank you very much...
IANAC(hemist), but it was my recollection that mercuric oxide was potentially *more* toxic than elemental mercury as it more readily absorbed. Santería adherents are known to swallow elemental mercury with no evident harm as very very little gets absorbed, but mercuric oxide would be more readily absorbed and likely kill or incapacitate the ingester.
Well, I've done some inspired coding with Bombay Sapphire. Tanqueray, not so much, and the ol' Knotty Head will have you debugging for a week after.
NSFW?!? Not safe, period!!!!
I believe that "chemical dependence" is the current term in vogue.
It was cocaine and crack that turned that idea on its head...prior to the late '70s cocaine was not considered a truly "addictive" drug because cessation does not have the clear physical manifestations of opiate, alcohol, or barbiturate withdrawal. Nevertheless, the psychological dependence of cocaine seems to be just as powerful as addictions to any of these other substances.
While I'm totally on the same page about the folly of the war on some drugs, I do think that there is good reason for the medical community to focus on addiction as a mostly psychological, rather than physical, phenomenon. As just one data point, I've read in multiple sources how the statistics show that it is fairly rare for a person with no prior substance abuse issues who gets long-term and/or high dosages of opiates for pain management to become subsequently addicted after being weaned off them. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is the psychological aspect that is the much stronger determinant of why people become "addicted", and many would even suggest that the mindset is more important than the particular drug (or behavior) in question.
However, that just makes the idea of officially labelling "internet addiction" all the more empty and irrelevant. If "addiction" in the end is really mostly about the person rather than the substance/behavior, then really why does internet addiction need a truly specific designation aside from TV, sports, shopping or any other behavorial addiction?
Now there's a wonderful irony of modern society.
Good point. While Eliot Spitzer might not have been an expert in assembly, he did seem to at least know "push" and "pop". Look where that got him.
True, however, sometimes fear of change is quite rational. As with most things, xkcd best illustrates this point.
Cool...I bet you must have the lowest ID on the island.
If you can call credit unions an industry...
Unfortunately, too many "business people" think that unfettered cheapness *is* good business sense, but the fact is that is often not the case.
I learned a lesson about this in one of my earliest jobs. A company I worked for had just hired a young woman to handle their accounting/bookkeeping that was formerly done by the owner's wife. Shortly after she was hired and while the boss was away on vacation, she looked through the bills for office supplies and determined that many items could be more cheaply procured elsewhere, so she established an account with a cheaper vendor and order the cheaper items. When the boss got back from vacation, the original vendor called him back very upset, as they had had an agreement where the company was getting very favorable prices on big ticket items which was balanced out by paying somewhat higher prices for the nickel-and-dime stuff, not to mention the fact that their service was always great. So the boss went back to the new bookkeeper, had her cancel the account with the new cheaper vendor, and made a point to explain in the presence of all of us that business relationships are not always determined by the absolutely cheapest price, and that honoring agreements and preserving your good reputation are often more valuable than saving a few bucks. That was a lesson that has always stuck with me.
Unfortunately, concepts such as "honor" and "good reputation" seem long forgotten in much of the business world today. More people need to adopt the position of the GP and when people play cut-throat, refuse to do business with them.
I live in Fanny Bay, which may or may not be Comox Valley depending on who you ask. I work in Campbell River, though, so I'm probably even closer than you think. Small world, eh? :-)
I live about an hour north of Nanaimo, and I just told a bunch of my co-workers about the characterization of Nanaimo as a "coal mining town", which caused a pretty good round of laughter. Vancouver Island coal mining has been nearly dead for about a half a century.
The economy here is doing fairly well, considering that coastal BC seems to be one of the few places in North America where real estate is not plummetting, but I don't think they'll be making any man-made islands soon, especially since we have no shortage of natural ones.
Die, Ty, die!!
Interesting, I didn't know any of that. I was recollecting stuff I had read many years ago, and as you are likely aware, rock journalism of the '70s was more fable than fact. Thanks for setting the record straight.
A better prior art example might be Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, a 1975 double album of nothing but constant overdubbed guitar feedback. Although Reed claimed at the time that it was a serious artistic endeavor, it was widely speculated that it was made entirely for the purpose of getting his record contract terminated, and I remember reading somewhere that he once admitted to never even having listened to the album all the way through.