HDTV is a tough subject, because the industry has done such a poor job on rolling out HDTV. Not just the manufacturers, but also the stations, cable companies and the damned FCC. But you would think you would know whether or not you have HDTV after seeing what 1080i looks like.
My Toshiba is 1080i ready.. but I'll be damned if I'm paying what they want right now for an HDTiVo for six channels.. two of which are sports I dont watch anyway.
Its a case of consumer stupidity, and salesman at Best Buy not knowing what they are selling, or misusing terms.
I like my TV at 740p when running 2/3 pulldown dvd's.. and I can only dream of how its going to look when HD becomes a reality, rather than a gouge.
But.. until the prices on HD boxes come down.. (I wasnt stupid enough to buy a TV with a built-in decoder.. especially when they havent even really settled on a format yet) I'm just gonna have to live with CNN in all its semi-fuzzy 57" glory.
(ANd I'm happy with that.. I bought the TV to watch movies.. and I'm looking into DVhs now.. also)
Originally NASA had planned to have a mission to fit thrusters to hubble to bring it down in a controlled fashion. As it stands they seem to be planning on doing a controlled landing like they did with spacelab... i.e. "spacelab splashed down safely into the pacific" reading more into this it crashed into Australia. I think I read somewhere that there was a one in seven chance of Hubble hitting civilisation.
Problem is, AFAIK, any attitude jets on Hubble are only enough to orient it.. and I'm not sure they dont orient it with gyroscopic progression, truth be told. (it would make a lot more sense to do it with Gyros anyway).
I think the main issue right now is there isnt enough juice on the thing TO de-orbit predictably.. they can probably predict where and when it will re-enter based on degradation models, but they arent in control of that.
Now.. what would be REALLY freakin cool is to bring the damn thing back the same way it got there.. recover the gold, and stick it in teh SMithsonian as a display.. all pockmarked and star-dusted.
That being said, it brings up concerns that such a device isn't carried with the shuttle on ALL shuttle missions. The capsule itself is really quite tiny, and would be able to transport the crew back to earth in the event of shuttle problems - plus, all of the crew execpt the pilot could return via. the capsule, preventing another columbia-like disaster.
Has there ever been a "space disaster" in which one of these would actually work? I know the two shuttle missions.. there wasnt time to implement it if it HAD been onboard. Challengers explosion was basically instant, and the disintegration of Columbia was fast also.. and they werent even aware they had a problem.
its _possible_ a strengthened crew compartment or something (which was discussed after Challenger) would have allowed the COlumbia nauts to make it back.. but thats theory only. Retrofitting the birds like that is impossible.. though the designs for the Delta Clipper involved something much like that.
Its NASA being paranoid that another loss of astronauts would shut them down, basically.
They are trying for every eventuality, but theres nothing they can really do about an explosion or sudden breakup. Especially at like.. mach 17.
The James Webb Space Telescope is destined to go up in 2011.. so its not like losing hubble (eventually) will be the end of the great astrophysical observatories.
The problem with Hubble is its size.. if it comes back into the atmosphere in a de-orbit, the mirror and the titanium ring holding it will probably make it to terra firma in pretty much one piece.
I _REALLY_ dont want that landing on my house!
At the very least, they need to keep nudging the sucker.. or put a controllable burn-pod on it so they can bump it up remotely, rather than doing the catch and release job they have been with teh Shuttles.
The main reason.. according to a couple of sites I read.. is if something fails on the shuttle while it as at the ISS, they can get home in the "lifeboat". If it fails while they are at Hubble, they are skrewed.
man..can you imagine if cars, or trains, or airplanes were held to the same safety measures as NASA is now holding itself to?
You wouldnt be allowed to leave the house without a bubble on.
Why do I suspect we are going to find all of the assorted junk Mars has eaten, neatly disassembled and stacked in piles according to the flag painted on the equipment?
The first thing to look it is diet and vitamin/mineral deficience.
My son went from straight Fs to a's and b's, in under a month, simply with:
Cutting out artificial colors and flavors getting rid of most artificial preservatives (bread is still an issue) giving him choline, lecithin, calcium, zinc, time release B complex, and vitamin C.
Seriously.. before going on drugs, before any of that other stuff, try a dietary change
The difference is not as "fast" as Ritalin. But what it DOES do is give people something they can use their entire life. As an adult with ADD I can tell you it does NOT just "stop" when ritalin stops working.
By teaching a child how to control it through watching what they eat, you A) give them the power to control it for life, and B) teach them to work within their natural brain, rather than supressing natural brain activity until they hit their mid teens.
Take a look at how many "good kids" who suddenly go shoot up schools, get involved in violent situations, or commit suicide "just got off ritalin".
Here.. read Dr. Lendon Smith's take on the situation:
Actually, "aspartame sparkling water" is the best. You get a soda sensation, they come in many fruity flavors, they fill you up like water, they have no calories (or very few), they're inexpensive compared to regular soda, and they're made with _purified_ water. Walmart's Clear American brand is a good choice. I just bring 'em into work, set them on my desk, and drink them unchilled. They actually taste quite good at room temperature.
Great idea! Cut out calories and such, so you can replace it with Nutrasweet! I'd rather just sit there and drink refined corn syrup, thanks!
There is no problem with it. But if I can't get a BJ in public, then I don't think breasts should be bared in public either (even though its legal for a woman to go shirtless since a man can too in public on the street)
Ahh.. therein lies the rub. You cannot see a womans breasts as anything but a sexual object. THe male organ has two purposes.. both of which are against the law in public, but the breasts are not a sexual organ.. they are a sexual characterstic, and their functional purpose is not sexual. But you cant differentiate that.
WHich explains the "boobies" comments. And you are probably a fan of hardcore porn, as well. (Not that thats a bad thing, but it is definately a demographic thing)
Would it really be so much trouble to ask the lady to simply pump some milk beforehand and feed the baby from a bottle while on a flight?
From what I saw, it wasnt a "planned" thing.. the child began screaming, and the only way she could find to make it calm down was feed it. Now, I agree.. if she had simply asked the stewardess for a blanket, there probably wouldnt have been an issue.. but still.
I just don't understand this obsession with breasteeding in public by some women. Aren't they worried about the perverts out there like me who would stare at them inappropriately until they feel dirty or even worse the violent out of control whackos who may become aroused to the point of attacking them? (I'm not like this second group of guys).
I simply dont understand why someone would stare inapropriately at someone who is doing somethign the way nature intended it, and doing something significantly proven to be more healthy for the child. Are you 12? Are you the kind of person who sits in an art museum and giggles and goes "BOOBIES!" and punches your buddy in the shoulder when you see a Reubens painting? Im just curious. And if some violent out of control whacko decided to attack a breast feeding woman, I would certainly hope someone would penetrate his cranium with enough copper jacketed lead to keep it from being an issue in the future. (Hence, self solving problem).
I really dont understand what problem people have with breastfeeding. Theres nothing dirty about boobs, and it works for every other animal with nipples on the planet, so why not for us?
[1]Here I'd like to add a point about capitalism and freedom to see if you agree with me: it's important to keep "dencency" and other censorship laws as local as possible so as to allow capitalism to work its dynamics in as fluid a way as possible. It also makes for better definitions of "pornography" and other tricky words. What do you think?
Yes.. I have to agree. Pornography laws are actually SUPPOSED to be "local". Community Standards are what they call it. And that used to mean something. But now that Infinity and Clear Channel own what.. 80%? of radio, and syndicate everyone to hell and back, its meaningless. Stern or Imus could certainly (and did certainly) get away with far more just in NYC than they can in Podunk Iowa or Salt Lake City. But the problem with a global society is that legislators feel they have to protect everyone, everywhere. (And totally remove those peoples ability to think for themselves.. or decide what they want their kids to know.)
I do agree with you on that.. and I also do _not_ think a naked woman is pornography. Well, lemme clarify a bit.. an non lurid naked woman. (See, also: medieval art..). HOwever, a lot of what is passing for "art" these days is pornography. Unfortunately, I think the world has done a flip-flop. THe day a woman can get escorted off a plane by air marshals for breast feeding, because a man across the aisle felt sexually harassed, and Maplethorpe gets an NEA grant so he can stick a whip up his ass, we have become Rome. And it has to end soon.
(The breast feeding thing was related on pregnancy BBS that my wife reads.. I do not doubt its truth).
But yes.. I agree with you.. it is up to the parent/consumer to decide what they want to watch/read/listen to. (or their kids, for that matter). I doubt my child will be allowed to watch a Mickey Rourke movie until he is 17 or 18.. simply because the content is not what I want him exposed to. I also think the ending of the second Harry Potter movie was a bit more grisly than it needed to be.. I saw a number of rather disturbed children in that theater when I went to see it.. so the ratings system obviously doesnt work. And now the movie companies are using it as advertised. "Rated R for graphic vampire violence and doe eyed love slave sexuality!". It is just as much a joke as the "parental advisory" stickers were.. bands IMMEDIATELY starting working towards picking them up for themselves because it was a guaranteed sale to rebellious youth.
Again, I think ti is much more a personal choice thing, and should be. Not legislated morality.
"B. The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent. In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent. In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent. "
No, you jackass! Your sales are down for other reasons.. not illegal downloading.
1) Only so many bands can look and sound identical, before people need only buy ONE album and pretend it is five different bands.
2) Music sucks.
3) CD's are overpriced for what you get.. when Rush used to put out albums, five or six songs were GOOD and the rest were OKAY.. now your pablum barfing force fed musicians are wont to put out one hit, on a record that Im payign 16 dollars for.
Bowdlerizing This is the camp that I fall into. I believe that a movie should be in line with your standards concerning watchability by itself, not after editing; therefore, I do not approve of removing content from movies[1]. Wal-Mart does this (at least, they did last time I checked. Blockbuster is bad about this as well). In addition to this annoyance, often times the fact that the movie is edited is not apparent on the box (mostly to not mess with the artwork), so I never know if I'm seeing the movie or not.
But have they actually done this? Can you actually show me one instance where it has happened? I have a _very_ hard time believing that the DVD copy of Scarface I pick up at Walmart is any different from the copy I pick up at Suncoast, or CDnow.. can you give me an actual example where WalMart.. not the studio but WalMart.. ordered the editing of the movie?
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this, as you have a differing one from mine.
But what you are decrying is not censorship. Censorship means it is removed from you.. you cannot get it. you most certainly can still get that version of the movie (if it exists) somewhere else. Walmart just chooses not to carry it. there is a huge difference from one to the other. After all, it is the studio that is making the changes to the film.. not walmart.. and they might well be doing it at walmarts request.. but it is still the person making the product that is making the changes.
I will make an example. I am a woodworker. I make boxes based in medieval examples that still survive. I tend not to stain or paint them, rather I oil them. If someone says to me "Please make me one in hot pink" I might. However, if someone buys three, paints them with greatful dead insignia (smelly hippies!@) and sells them as a Maeryk Original, they arent. That is what I mean. I might do it for the money.. I might not.. but that is completely different from some second party doing it and marketing it as original. I have yet to see any proof of that.
but I have no objection to Walmart choosing not to carry certain things. And as much hyperbole as you want to call it, I have a 10 year old, and another child on the way. I try to listen to what my son listens to, and pay attention to it and discuss it with him. but he heard "Stan" somewhere.. and came home terribly upset asking about it. he didnt hear the "dope rhymes" or the backstory.. he just heard about the dead girl off the bridge (or whatever.. I personally hate Eminem..). I would probably sooner let him listen to GWAR than I would most rap artists, or slutty girl bands. (He happens to love Rammstein.. but if he ever learns german, I am probably in trouble!)
But theres a line on what you are calling censorship.. if they must carry the original unedited re-release of Apocalypse now, with the ox sacrifice, and the other narsty scenes, whats to stop them "having" to carry Angel heart, with the bloody sex scene? And then how bout Black Velvet. (blue velvet? I think velvet was in the title.. ). And if they are going to carry that, why not Behind the Green Door.. and hell.. some veronica moser stuff..
Its not like you cant find these things other places.. but walmart is aiming at a very MOR crowd.. not deviants, and not morons really. (Although the stereotype tends to run a bit true.. but hell.. people with no money tend to shop at that kind of place.. if you think walmart is bad, let me take you to a Pennsylvania Dutch Farmers Market sometime.. ). If X town has people who want porn, or want punk rock gear, or want high end bicycle parts, or whatever that is not "MOR mainstream" they will find another place to get them, or some brilliant person will open a store selling them and make a killing.
Fortunately, the free market system does tend to even itself out. YOu may not be able to compete on things that Walmart moves in bulk.. simply because of the sheer quantity they move.. but there are plenty of things they _dont_ carry. You cant compete on their turf.. but specialization is the key.. and many stores are suceeding despite walmarts hulking mass on the horizon.
I found this to be very odd. Here was this big store, and yet they had not one single thing I needed. Groceries? They can't beat Kroger in price or variety or coupon redemption. Entertainment? I can find what I need online, cheaper. Clothes? You got to be kidding.
I agree. I dont shop wallyworld much either.. unless its something I _know_ they carry, at a better price than the competitors and I need it _now_. (Leap product christmas shopping comes to mind..).
However, if they are having a sale on those one-off brand business casual slacks, I'll go buy three pairs. I have to wear em for work. I _only_ wear em for work. So why spend what they want at a "real" store when i'm going to wreck them crawling around under peoples desks anyway?
But I dont really buy much there.. but it totally depends on what kind of town you live in. Wal-mart is useless in say, NYC.. but out in burbzilla.. where you can end up driving forty miles to hit four different stores.. it works. And its attractive to a lot of people.
Walmart the store does not carry the unrated versions of R rated movies that sometimes come out on dvd. Netflix does. So that would lead you to believe that the walmart rental won't carry them either.
Right.. I realize that.. but people are making it sound like they are carrying "cleaned up" versions. (After all.. there is a reason the studio releases an R, an R directors cut, and then an "unrated".. which is pretty bogus anyway.. cause technically all "Unrated" means is it was never run past the MPAA censors. I could sell five hours of a camera pointed at my floor as "Unrated!" for that very reason.)
But nobody is chopping parts out of the movies for sale at Walmart.. they are just choosing what to carry.
Those smaller companies love to hand business to Wal-Mart by failing to compete. Consider the "mom and pop" store that closes at 5:00. Along comes the Wal-Mart staying open past 10:00, attracting the customers the other store could not be bothered to stay open and serve
No doubt! Add to that high prices, and just not having a "local commitment" even though they make their money there.
I like Loews if I need a buttload of stuff.. wood, paint, etc. But right up the street from me is a little hardware store called Heimbach Bros. And it is in fact two brothers.. age indeterminate.. but at least 60's, who own, and run the place. Apparently alone. If you walk in that door, someone is there to help you before the door closes. If you are just looking, say "just looking" and they dissapear. If you need something they dont have in stock, he will have it to you in a day or two (even hard to find stuff.) Thats where the bulk of my hardware money goes.. because I like the service. I like the fact that they bend over backwards just as hard to sell me a 12 cent bolt as they do a 300 dollar stove. THat is something Wal-mart cant compete with, at least for me. But Radio Shack is the other way around.. the greasy overly-perfumed salesmen, the blaring stereo displays, and people trying to shove techno-babble (in some cases complete bullshit babble) down my throat to get a sale on something that isnt a good deal at half the price.. they dont get my money. Unless they have something I simply cannot find anywhere else.
So there you have it.. I dont love walmart.. but they sure beat Rad shack for me.
Well, when smaller companies compete against the likes of Wal-Mart, usually you can be pretty sure C) will happen. And then, Wal-Mart is alone. No competition. No competition = bad. They can then raise the prices up to whatever highest price they know the customers will still accept.
Im not so sure about that. Retail is a tricky thing. I stopped shopping at Kmart long before we had a Wal-mart here, simply because Kmart sold pure crap. It fell apart a week after you bought it. Ames was another one.. slightly better quality, but they never had thier "sales" things in stock, and I had rainchecks rot on the refrigerator waiting for the item in question to come in. Not to mention a 70% off sale with only one register open. All day.
Same problem Kmart had towards the end. (or currently, which pretty much _is_ towards the end).
Wall mart looked kinda poised for a takeover.. but no! Here comes TARGET! the great white savior! (who is usually trumpeted as our champion, yet engaged in exactly the same business practices in the west that Walmart engaged in here in the south and east.)
There will always be competition of one kind or another.
Gee, just what I always wanted! A censored DVD rental company! Sigh. I have lost complete and total respect for Wal-Mart over the years. First they started flexing their muscles to censor the video game industry and made it plain that any video game they didn't like wouldn't be sold by Wal-Mart, thus making game companies cave and self-edit their games. Then they pulled some men's magazines off their shelves that had less female skin than most women's magazines these days. Now they want to start renting out DVDs, which I'm quite sure are censored? Heh, good luck.
YEah! I DEMAND streaming porn on the projector at elementary schools! Who is WalMart to tell us what they will and wont sell! HOW DARE THEY have some morals and make decisions that they feel protect their clientele!
Sheesh.. the NERVE of walmart to think that someone like me may not want my six year old son asking why a mostly naked wrestling chick is on the front cover of STUFF magazine in the checkout line! (Stacy Kiebler.. next month).
Well.. I think I'll take my dollar right down to the local dark wank-in-the-back porn shop to show my outrage! (end sarcastic rant).
Dude.. its their store. They can sell, or not sell, whatever the hell they want. If you dont like it, dont shop there, but dont act like its some crime against humanity that Wal-mart doesnt carry pimply faced teenager prot0-spank material at their registers anymore.
carry such exotic fare as the non-rated version of "Embrace of the Vampire". So what good is the service? Seriously, Wal-Mart will heavily sensor the movies they carry. I say screw-em.
Do you have ANY proof of Wal-mart censoring movies? I keep hearing this.. but I keep seeing "the good stuff" at their checkout counters.. the Kevin Smith stuff, Pulp Fiction, other "controversial" titles.. (sure.. they arent likely to have Angel Heart.. but then neither does my brick-n-mortar rental place down the street.)
People who want non-rated embrace of the vampire are probably _not_ the target audience for this service. The target audience is people like me who buy the oddball stuff when they find it, but refuse to spend 30 bucks to go see a movie with my wife, and will wait a couple more days to get it from Netflix rather than pay twice Netflix amount to rent it from BallBuster. (who has several times sold me bad "previewed" movies, and given me lip about returning them.. ).
I really don't mean this to be a troll... but it occurs to me that Wal-mart's core customer group are not exactly likely to own DVD players.
You kidding me? Where else can you get a DVD player for 40 bucks? not Rad Shack.. anything they sell has to be at least 80.. or they wont sell it. Walmart can hook you up with a passable home theater for under 500 bucks.. and they stock a fairly reasonable selection of DVDs and videos. (And yes, even pulp fiction, uncut, last time I was there looking).
So this is the next logical step for them. Super Walmarts have replaced the shopping mall for all intents and purposes. (Sure.. they sell Kmart level CRAP in most cases, but in some instances you can get good deals there.) The one here has a pharmacy, a grocery store, a pearle vision center, automotive, the usual Walmart crap, a decent electronics and sporting goods area, and an outdoors home decor shop. There really isnt any reason to shop anywhere else. (Unless you want to go to home despot for hardware..).
This is exactly the demographic they want.. the kind of people who are at wal-mart three times a week grocery shopping anyway. The difference between a scheme like this and the ill fated VHS in grocery stores, would be selection.
How exactly is this bad for business? Is it bad for business like Canon coming out with copiers was bad for Xerox business? You know, where it drove the exhorbitant price of copiers down to where most of us have them built into our 300 dollar printer? Yeah.. I see how bad that has been for Xerox.
Its not "bad" for business, it is just business. It is competition. If walmart undercuts NetFlix by.50c, netflix can A) price to match, B) add a benefit that makes their slightly higher-than-the-otherguy price worth it, C) go out of business. Either way, its good for the consumer, and thats pretty much the bottom line.
I tend to not shop Amazon, beause I dont like thier policies, and i can usually find something at close to the same price. (And, I can usually get brick and mortar stores to match Amazon's price to get my sale.) I suspect the same thing will happen here. A lot of people DONT LIKE Wal-Mart.. and wont rent from them. But anything that kills BLockbuster and 48Hours is good, imho. I still think the ridiculously high price that they charge for DVD's will come down as people find it cheaper to rent them enough to get tired of them. (Okay.. so its not so ridiculous anymore, but why does it seem the more successful the film in the theaters, the cheaper it is to get, but it costs three times that for something that is slightly more obscure? The costs of production of the DVD's should be about the same, shouldnt they?)
Easier video conferencing or a tool for the governement (i.e. Big Brother). Or maybe they'll create special TV's just for the neilson families or worse they'll end up like the TV's in Max Headroom - always on sending realtime feedback to the networks about viewers.
Uhh.. Tivo, Replay-TV, On-Demand TV, most digital cable boxes.. its already happening.
Slashdot Mirror
HDTV is a tough subject, because the industry has done such a poor job on rolling out HDTV. Not just the manufacturers, but also the stations, cable companies and the damned FCC. But you would think you would know whether or not you have HDTV after seeing what 1080i looks like.
My Toshiba is 1080i ready.. but I'll be damned if I'm paying what they want right now for an HDTiVo for six channels.. two of which are sports I dont watch anyway.
Its a case of consumer stupidity, and salesman at Best Buy not knowing what they are selling, or misusing terms.
I like my TV at 740p when running 2/3 pulldown dvd's.. and I can only dream of how its going to look when HD becomes a reality, rather than a gouge.
But.. until the prices on HD boxes come down.. (I wasnt stupid enough to buy a TV with a built-in decoder.. especially when they havent even really settled on a format yet) I'm just gonna have to live with CNN in all its semi-fuzzy 57" glory.
(ANd I'm happy with that.. I bought the TV to watch movies.. and I'm looking into DVhs now.. also)
Maeryk
Originally NASA had planned to have a mission to fit thrusters to hubble to bring it down in a controlled fashion. As it stands they seem to be planning on doing a controlled landing like they did with spacelab... i.e. "spacelab splashed down safely into the pacific" reading more into this it crashed into Australia. I think I read somewhere that there was a one in seven chance of Hubble hitting civilisation.
Problem is, AFAIK, any attitude jets on Hubble are only enough to orient it.. and I'm not sure they dont orient it with gyroscopic progression, truth be told. (it would make a lot more sense to do it with Gyros anyway).
I think the main issue right now is there isnt enough juice on the thing TO de-orbit predictably.. they can probably predict where and when it will re-enter based on degradation models, but they arent in control of that.
Now.. what would be REALLY freakin cool is to bring the damn thing back the same way it got there.. recover the gold, and stick it in teh SMithsonian as a display.. all pockmarked and star-dusted.
Maeryk
That being said, it brings up concerns that such a device isn't carried with the shuttle on ALL shuttle missions. The capsule itself is really quite tiny, and would be able to transport the crew back to earth in the event of shuttle problems - plus, all of the crew execpt the pilot could return via. the capsule, preventing another columbia-like disaster.
Has there ever been a "space disaster" in which one of these would actually work? I know the two shuttle missions.. there wasnt time to implement it if it HAD been onboard. Challengers explosion was basically instant, and the disintegration of Columbia was fast also.. and they werent even aware they had a problem.
its _possible_ a strengthened crew compartment or something (which was discussed after Challenger) would have allowed the COlumbia nauts to make it back.. but thats theory only. Retrofitting the birds like that is impossible.. though the designs for the Delta Clipper involved something much like that.
Its NASA being paranoid that another loss of astronauts would shut them down, basically.
They are trying for every eventuality, but theres nothing they can really do about an explosion or sudden breakup. Especially at like.. mach 17.
Maeryk
The James Webb Space Telescope is destined to go up in 2011.. so its not like losing hubble (eventually) will be the end of the great astrophysical observatories.
The problem with Hubble is its size.. if it comes back into the atmosphere in a de-orbit, the mirror and the titanium ring holding it will probably make it to terra firma in pretty much one piece.
I _REALLY_ dont want that landing on my house!
At the very least, they need to keep nudging the sucker.. or put a controllable burn-pod on it so they can bump it up remotely, rather than doing the catch and release job they have been with teh Shuttles.
The main reason.. according to a couple of sites I read.. is if something fails on the shuttle while it as at the ISS, they can get home in the "lifeboat". If it fails while they are at Hubble, they are skrewed.
man..can you imagine if cars, or trains, or airplanes were held to the same safety measures as NASA is now holding itself to?
You wouldnt be allowed to leave the house without a bubble on.
Maeryk
and spinner hubs, worth more than the vehicle they are bolted to.
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhht (chirp) faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhht (chirp) faaaaaaaaaa....)
Maeryk
(thumpa thumpa thumpa faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
See.. Beagle didnt fail.. it transformed. Out came the titanium pick on the air cylinder, and the saw blades on the grapple arms.
And it sat.. covered in martian dust.. WAITING for Spirit to leave its safety nest in the landing pod..
the only thing missing is an announcer trying to sound worked up over the idea of two robots tearing each other to pieces!
Maeryk
I knew that.. I couldnt remember how to spell that when I first stuck it in there.. hehe.
Should be fixed now. (Either that, or it was over the character limit)
maeryk
(thanks)
and a far muffler from Walmart.. dont forget the fart muffler.
Three weapon-R stickers.. thats worth another 30 HP, and a bigass cheap kicker box, with 24 inch bass cones made of recycled toiletpaper.
Maeryk
Why do I suspect we are going to find all of the assorted junk Mars has eaten, neatly disassembled and stacked in piles according to the flag painted on the equipment?
Maeryk
I am ADD/ADHD. My son is too.
The first thing to look it is diet and vitamin/mineral deficience.
My son went from straight Fs to a's and b's, in under a month, simply with:
Cutting out artificial colors and flavors
getting rid of most artificial preservatives (bread is still an issue)
giving him choline, lecithin, calcium, zinc, time release B complex, and vitamin C.
Seriously.. before going on drugs, before any of that other stuff, try a dietary change
The difference is not as "fast" as Ritalin. But what it DOES do is give people something they can use their entire life. As an adult with ADD I can tell you it does NOT just "stop" when ritalin stops working.
By teaching a child how to control it through watching what they eat, you A) give them the power to control it for life, and B) teach them to work within their natural brain, rather than supressing natural brain activity until they hit their mid teens.
Take a look at how many "good kids" who suddenly go shoot up schools, get involved in violent situations, or commit suicide "just got off ritalin".
Here.. read Dr. Lendon Smith's take on the situation:
(This works.. I and my child are living proof!)
http://www.smithsez.com/ADHDandADD.html
Maeryk
Actually, "aspartame sparkling water" is the best. You get a soda sensation, they come in many fruity flavors, they fill you up like water, they have no calories (or very few), they're inexpensive compared to regular soda, and they're made with _purified_ water. Walmart's Clear American brand is a good choice. I just bring 'em into work, set them on my desk, and drink them unchilled. They actually taste quite good at room temperature.
Great idea! Cut out calories and such, so you can replace it with Nutrasweet! I'd rather just sit there and drink refined corn syrup, thanks!
You can keep your killer nutrasweet.
Maeryk
There is no problem with it. But if I can't get a BJ in public, then I don't think breasts should be bared in public either (even though its legal for a woman to go shirtless since a man can too in public on the street)
Ahh.. therein lies the rub. You cannot see a womans breasts as anything but a sexual object. THe male organ has two purposes.. both of which are against the law in public, but the breasts are not a sexual organ.. they are a sexual characterstic, and their functional purpose is not sexual. But you cant differentiate that.
WHich explains the "boobies" comments. And you are probably a fan of hardcore porn, as well.
(Not that thats a bad thing, but it is definately a demographic thing)
maeryk
Would it really be so much trouble to ask the lady to simply pump some milk beforehand and feed the baby from a bottle while on a flight?
From what I saw, it wasnt a "planned" thing.. the child began screaming, and the only way she could find to make it calm down was feed it. Now, I agree.. if she had simply asked the stewardess for a blanket, there probably wouldnt have been an issue.. but still.
I just don't understand this obsession with breasteeding in public by some women. Aren't they worried about the perverts out there like me who would stare at them inappropriately until they feel dirty or even worse the violent out of control whackos who may become aroused to the point of attacking them? (I'm not like this second group of guys).
I simply dont understand why someone would stare inapropriately at someone who is doing somethign the way nature intended it, and doing something significantly proven to be more healthy for the child. Are you 12? Are you the kind of person who sits in an art museum and giggles and goes "BOOBIES!" and punches your buddy in the shoulder when you see a Reubens painting? Im just curious. And if some violent out of control whacko decided to attack a breast feeding woman, I would certainly hope someone would penetrate his cranium with enough copper jacketed lead to keep it from being an issue in the future. (Hence, self solving problem).
I really dont understand what problem people have with breastfeeding. Theres nothing dirty about boobs, and it works for every other animal with nipples on the planet, so why not for us?
Maeryk
[1]Here I'd like to add a point about capitalism and freedom to see if you agree with me: it's important to keep "dencency" and other censorship laws as local as possible so as to allow capitalism to work its dynamics in as fluid a way as possible. It also makes for better definitions of "pornography" and other tricky words. What do you think?
Yes.. I have to agree. Pornography laws are actually SUPPOSED to be "local". Community Standards are what they call it. And that used to mean something. But now that Infinity and Clear Channel own what.. 80%? of radio, and syndicate everyone to hell and back, its meaningless. Stern or Imus could certainly (and did certainly) get away with far more just in NYC than they can in Podunk Iowa or Salt Lake City. But the problem with a global society is that legislators feel they have to protect everyone, everywhere. (And totally remove those peoples ability to think for themselves.. or decide what they want their kids to know.)
I do agree with you on that.. and I also do _not_ think a naked woman is pornography. Well, lemme clarify a bit.. an non lurid naked woman. (See, also: medieval art..). HOwever, a lot of what is passing for "art" these days is pornography. Unfortunately, I think the world has done a flip-flop. THe day a woman can get escorted off a plane by air marshals for breast feeding, because a man across the aisle felt sexually harassed, and Maplethorpe gets an NEA grant so he can stick a whip up his ass, we have become Rome. And it has to end soon.
(The breast feeding thing was related on pregnancy BBS that my wife reads.. I do not doubt its truth).
But yes.. I agree with you.. it is up to the parent/consumer to decide what they want to watch/read/listen to. (or their kids, for that matter). I doubt my child will be allowed to watch a Mickey Rourke movie until he is 17 or 18.. simply because the content is not what I want him exposed to. I also think the ending of the second Harry Potter movie was a bit more grisly than it needed to be.. I saw a number of rather disturbed children in that theater when I went to see it.. so the ratings system obviously doesnt work. And now the movie companies are using it as advertised. "Rated R for graphic vampire violence and doe eyed love slave sexuality!". It is just as much a joke as the "parental advisory" stickers were.. bands IMMEDIATELY starting working towards picking them up for themselves because it was a guaranteed sale to rebellious youth.
Again, I think ti is much more a personal choice thing, and should be. Not legislated morality.
Maeryk
"B. The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent. "
No, you jackass! Your sales are down for other reasons.. not illegal downloading.
1) Only so many bands can look and sound identical, before people need only buy ONE album and pretend it is five different bands.
2) Music sucks.
3) CD's are overpriced for what you get.. when Rush used to put out albums, five or six songs were GOOD and the rest were OKAY.. now your pablum barfing force fed musicians are wont to put out one hit, on a record that Im payign 16 dollars for.
4) see #2
5) ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!
Thank you.
Maeryk
Bowdlerizing
This is the camp that I fall into. I believe that a movie should be in line with your standards concerning watchability by itself, not after editing; therefore, I do not approve of removing content from movies[1]. Wal-Mart does this (at least, they did last time I checked. Blockbuster is bad about this as well). In addition to this annoyance, often times the fact that the movie is edited is not apparent on the box (mostly to not mess with the artwork), so I never know if I'm seeing the movie or not.
But have they actually done this? Can you actually show me one instance where it has happened? I have a _very_ hard time believing that the DVD copy of Scarface I pick up at Walmart is any different from the copy I pick up at Suncoast, or CDnow.. can you give me an actual example where WalMart.. not the studio but WalMart.. ordered the editing of the movie?
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this, as you have a differing one from mine.
But what you are decrying is not censorship. Censorship means it is removed from you.. you cannot get it. you most certainly can still get that version of the movie (if it exists) somewhere else. Walmart just chooses not to carry it. there is a huge difference from one to the other. After all, it is the studio that is making the changes to the film.. not walmart.. and they might well be doing it at walmarts request.. but it is still the person making the product that is making the changes.
I will make an example. I am a woodworker. I make boxes based in medieval examples that still survive. I tend not to stain or paint them, rather I oil them. If someone says to me "Please make me one in hot pink" I might. However, if someone buys three, paints them with greatful dead insignia (smelly hippies!@) and sells them as a Maeryk Original, they arent. That is what I mean. I might do it for the money.. I might not.. but that is completely different from some second party doing it and marketing it as original. I have yet to see any proof of that.
but I have no objection to Walmart choosing not to carry certain things. And as much hyperbole as you want to call it, I have a 10 year old, and another child on the way. I try to listen to what my son listens to, and pay attention to it and discuss it with him. but he heard "Stan" somewhere.. and came home terribly upset asking about it. he didnt hear the "dope rhymes" or the backstory.. he just heard about the dead girl off the bridge (or whatever.. I personally hate Eminem..). I would probably sooner let him listen to GWAR than I would most rap artists, or slutty girl bands. (He happens to love Rammstein.. but if he ever learns german, I am probably in trouble!)
But theres a line on what you are calling censorship.. if they must carry the original unedited re-release of Apocalypse now, with the ox sacrifice, and the other narsty scenes, whats to stop them "having" to carry Angel heart, with the bloody sex scene? And then how bout Black Velvet. (blue velvet? I think velvet was in the title.. ). And if they are going to carry that, why not Behind the Green Door.. and hell.. some veronica moser stuff..
Its not like you cant find these things other places.. but walmart is aiming at a very MOR crowd.. not deviants, and not morons really. (Although the stereotype tends to run a bit true.. but hell.. people with no money tend to shop at that kind of place.. if you think walmart is bad, let me take you to a Pennsylvania Dutch Farmers Market sometime.. ).
If X town has people who want porn, or want punk rock gear, or want high end bicycle parts, or whatever that is not "MOR mainstream" they will find another place to get them, or some brilliant person will open a store selling them and make a killing.
Fortunately, the free market system does tend to even itself out. YOu may not be able to compete on things that Walmart moves in bulk.. simply because of the sheer quantity they move.. but there are plenty of things they _dont_ carry.
You cant compete on their turf.. but specialization is the key.. and many stores are suceeding despite walmarts hulking mass on the horizon.
)You did ask my opinion, right?(
maeryk
I found this to be very odd. Here was this big store, and yet they had not one single thing I needed. Groceries? They can't beat Kroger in price or variety or coupon redemption. Entertainment? I can find what I need online, cheaper. Clothes? You got to be kidding.
I agree. I dont shop wallyworld much either.. unless its something I _know_ they carry, at a better price than the competitors and I need it _now_. (Leap product christmas shopping comes to mind..).
However, if they are having a sale on those one-off brand business casual slacks, I'll go buy three pairs. I have to wear em for work. I _only_ wear em for work. So why spend what they want at a "real" store when i'm going to wreck them crawling around under peoples desks anyway?
But I dont really buy much there.. but it totally depends on what kind of town you live in. Wal-mart is useless in say, NYC.. but out in burbzilla.. where you can end up driving forty miles to hit four different stores.. it works. And its attractive to a lot of people.
Maeryk
Walmart the store does not carry the unrated versions of R rated movies that sometimes come out on dvd. Netflix does. So that would lead you to believe that the walmart rental won't carry them either.
Right.. I realize that.. but people are making it sound like they are carrying "cleaned up" versions. (After all.. there is a reason the studio releases an R, an R directors cut, and then an "unrated".. which is pretty bogus anyway.. cause technically all "Unrated" means is it was never run past the MPAA censors. I could sell five hours of a camera pointed at my floor as "Unrated!" for that very reason.)
But nobody is chopping parts out of the movies for sale at Walmart.. they are just choosing what to carry.
Maeryk
Those smaller companies love to hand business to Wal-Mart by failing to compete. Consider the "mom and pop" store that closes at 5:00. Along comes the Wal-Mart staying open past 10:00, attracting the customers the other store could not be bothered to stay open and serve
No doubt! Add to that high prices, and just not having a "local commitment" even though they make their money there.
I like Loews if I need a buttload of stuff.. wood, paint, etc. But right up the street from me is a little hardware store called Heimbach Bros. And it is in fact two brothers.. age indeterminate.. but at least 60's, who own, and run the place. Apparently alone. If you walk in that door, someone is there to help you before the door closes. If you are just looking, say "just looking" and they dissapear. If you need something they dont have in stock, he will have it to you in a day or two (even hard to find stuff.) Thats where the bulk of my hardware money goes.. because I like the service. I like the fact that they bend over backwards just as hard to sell me a 12 cent bolt as they do a 300 dollar stove. THat is something Wal-mart cant compete with, at least for me. But Radio Shack is the other way around.. the greasy overly-perfumed salesmen, the blaring stereo displays, and people trying to shove techno-babble (in some cases complete bullshit babble) down my throat to get a sale on something that isnt a good deal at half the price.. they dont get my money. Unless they have something I simply cannot find anywhere else.
So there you have it.. I dont love walmart.. but they sure beat Rad shack for me.
Maeryk
Well, when smaller companies compete against the likes of Wal-Mart, usually you can be pretty sure C) will happen. And then, Wal-Mart is alone. No competition. No competition = bad. They can then raise the prices up to whatever highest price they know the customers will still accept.
Im not so sure about that. Retail is a tricky thing. I stopped shopping at Kmart long before we had a Wal-mart here, simply because Kmart sold pure crap. It fell apart a week after you bought it. Ames was another one.. slightly better quality, but they never had thier "sales" things in stock, and I had rainchecks rot on the refrigerator waiting for the item in question to come in. Not to mention a 70% off sale with only one register open. All day.
Same problem Kmart had towards the end. (or currently, which pretty much _is_ towards the end).
Wall mart looked kinda poised for a takeover.. but no! Here comes TARGET! the great white savior! (who is usually trumpeted as our champion, yet engaged in exactly the same business practices in the west that Walmart engaged in here in the south and east.)
There will always be competition of one kind or another.
Maeryk
Gee, just what I always wanted! A censored DVD rental company! Sigh. I have lost complete and total respect for Wal-Mart over the years. First they started flexing their muscles to censor the video game industry and made it plain that any video game they didn't like wouldn't be sold by Wal-Mart, thus making game companies cave and self-edit their games. Then they pulled some men's magazines off their shelves that had less female skin than most women's magazines these days. Now they want to start renting out DVDs, which I'm quite sure are censored? Heh, good luck.
YEah! I DEMAND streaming porn on the projector at elementary schools! Who is WalMart to tell us what they will and wont sell! HOW DARE THEY have some morals and make decisions that they feel protect their clientele!
Sheesh.. the NERVE of walmart to think that someone like me may not want my six year old son asking why a mostly naked wrestling chick is on the front cover of STUFF magazine in the checkout line! (Stacy Kiebler.. next month).
Well.. I think I'll take my dollar right down to the local dark wank-in-the-back porn shop to show my outrage! (end sarcastic rant).
Dude.. its their store. They can sell, or not sell, whatever the hell they want. If you dont like it, dont shop there, but dont act like its some crime against humanity that Wal-mart doesnt carry pimply faced teenager prot0-spank material at their registers anymore.
Maeryk
carry such exotic fare as the non-rated version of "Embrace of the Vampire". So what good is the service? Seriously, Wal-Mart will heavily sensor the movies they carry. I say screw-em.
Do you have ANY proof of Wal-mart censoring movies? I keep hearing this.. but I keep seeing "the good stuff" at their checkout counters.. the Kevin Smith stuff, Pulp Fiction,
other "controversial" titles.. (sure.. they arent likely to have Angel Heart.. but then neither does my brick-n-mortar rental place down the street.)
People who want non-rated embrace of the vampire are probably _not_ the target audience for this service. The target audience is people like me who buy the oddball stuff when they find it, but refuse to spend 30 bucks to go see a movie with my wife, and will wait a couple more days to get it from Netflix rather than pay twice Netflix amount to rent it from BallBuster. (who has several times sold me bad "previewed" movies, and given me lip about returning them.. ).
Maeryk
I really don't mean this to be a troll... but it occurs to me that Wal-mart's core customer group are not exactly likely to own DVD players.
You kidding me? Where else can you get a DVD player for 40 bucks? not Rad Shack.. anything they sell has to be at least 80.. or they wont sell it. Walmart can hook you up with a passable home theater for under 500 bucks.. and they stock a fairly reasonable selection of DVDs and videos. (And yes, even pulp fiction, uncut, last time I was there looking).
So this is the next logical step for them. Super Walmarts have replaced the shopping mall for all intents and purposes. (Sure.. they sell Kmart level CRAP in most cases, but in some instances you can get good deals there.) The one here has a pharmacy, a grocery store, a pearle vision center, automotive, the usual Walmart crap, a decent electronics and sporting goods area, and an outdoors home decor shop. There really isnt any reason to shop anywhere else. (Unless you want to go to home despot for hardware..).
This is exactly the demographic they want.. the kind of people who are at wal-mart three times a week grocery shopping anyway. The difference between a scheme like this and the ill fated VHS in grocery stores, would be selection.
Maeryk
How exactly is this bad for business? Is it bad for business like Canon coming out with copiers was bad for Xerox business? You know, where it drove the exhorbitant price of copiers down to where most of us have them built into our 300 dollar printer? Yeah.. I see how bad that has been for Xerox.
.50c, netflix can A) price to match, B) add a benefit that makes their slightly higher-than-the-otherguy price worth it, C) go out of business. Either way, its good for the consumer, and thats pretty much the bottom line.
Its not "bad" for business, it is just business. It is competition. If walmart undercuts NetFlix by
I tend to not shop Amazon, beause I dont like thier policies, and i can usually find something at close to the same price. (And, I can usually get brick and mortar stores to match Amazon's price to get my sale.) I suspect the same thing will happen here. A lot of people DONT LIKE Wal-Mart.. and wont rent from them. But anything that kills BLockbuster and 48Hours is good, imho. I still think the ridiculously high price that they charge for DVD's will come down as people find it cheaper to rent them enough to get tired of them.
(Okay.. so its not so ridiculous anymore, but why does it seem the more successful the film in the theaters, the cheaper it is to get, but it costs three times that for something that is slightly more obscure? The costs of production of the DVD's should be about the same, shouldnt they?)
maeryk
Easier video conferencing or a tool for the governement (i.e. Big Brother). Or maybe they'll create special TV's just for the neilson families or worse they'll end up like the TV's in Max Headroom - always on sending realtime feedback to the networks about viewers.
Uhh.. Tivo, Replay-TV, On-Demand TV, most digital cable boxes.. its already happening.
Maeryk