Agree - absurd theory. Just some nutty self-serving individuals. The only reason to even bring this up is an attempt to blindly play on the "big, bad, scary communist government" theme.
The truth is, the PRC is completely clueless about PR (public relations) and will continue to be roundly slaughtered in the court of public opinion because of this.
What was the point of landing on the moon? Advancement of humanity, or inspiring the nation? "Propaganda benefits", you could say. We just really, really needed to prove that we could beat the Soviets.
I don't know what point it serves. Take it up with Zhang Yimou, who directed the ceremonies. Maybe he just wanted the impressive spectacle around the city, for people who were not at the Bird's Nest to see.
Does it really matter what point the fireworks served? They were neat, you could say symbolic, and you could also say wasteful or pointless. Whatever.
Sure. Maybe they could have had a series of remote cameras. But maybe they didn't want a sequence of 5-second stationary shots. I imagine the whole point was they wanted a shot actually following the footsteps. When they decided that it was not technically feasible, they made as accurate a CGI sequence as possible. And talked about the making of that sequence in the papers afterward.
Oh, but maybe it was actually technically possible, but for some nefarious, hidden agenda-type reason, they decided that they would cheat people out of it, because... er, they're just that cold-hearted and mean? Right. Perfect logic. And they would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky...wait a minute, didn't they bring it up and talk all about the making of the sequence in those ah, state-run, heavily censored, communist newspaper outlets?
It's a spectacle. That's all it was. Was it disappointing that they couldn't film it live? Yeah. Morally treacherous? Hardly.
But regardless of whether or not you were able to enjoy the opening ceremonies, I think that we can agree that the intent of the summary was disingenuous, or just severely misinformed.
No, you're not correct. The people in the stadium didn't see the real minute-long or so footsteps sequence either (except for the last one or maybe two, which were right at the stadium) because they watched the footsteps on giant screens.
They didn't see it because it was a series of 28 fireworks that started in one area of Beijing, and moved progressively towards the stadium. It covered a lot of ground. It wasn't a bunch of fireworks that were just released right at the bird's Nest.
Besides, if that was such a concocted reason, what was the real reason? Money? Um, no. They spared no expense for those ceremonies. They just decided that they couldn't do it that way.
Of course, all the other fireworks, the ones set off from the stadium, were just filmed directly from the stadium and not CGI generated. That's exactly my problem with the summary, because it's really misleading.
All the fireworks were real. The thing you're referring to is a sequence of fireworks that wasn't filmed for television and was replaced by CGI.
The reason that the sequence - a series of giant "footsteps" across parts of Beijing - was not filmed was that it was deemed too dangerous to follow the fireworks with a helicopter and camera.
The fireworks, of course, actually happened, and the stadium coverage of the fireworks were all real. Get your facts straight.
You're right, college is about the 'life experience' too. So it makes perfect sense for colleges to judge, based on facebook profile information, whether or not you would fit into their offered "life experience"?
Yes, when it comes down to it, you are responsible for your actions.
But in my opinion it's irresponsible for college admissions officials to make dubious personal judgments based on pictures or wall messages or whatever. Depending on the college, I suppose (perhaps the Naval Academy has an argument here).
It's simply not fair. It isn't part of the application. Those who don't have facebook profiles or myspace profiles are at an advantage, but it doesn't mean they don't drink or get crazy photos taken of them. But they are rewarded?
Typically college admissions people, I don't think, are in the discussion about applicants they know personally. For example, if their nephew or friend's kid who is frequently over for dinner is applying. I think that this kind of snooping broaches that area of personal judgment.
Maybe he doesn't deserve your vote. You might not even agree with his Libertarian Party platform. But it's not about him; it's about the Big Party guys.
Does whether or not this Barr guy (I know nothing about him) would be a good president affect whether or not the two powerful parties in the US should be held accountable? I think that's the point.
And seriously, third parties have it kind of bad here. They have trouble getting on the ballot in all states, and I'm not surprised that they'd pull out all the stops to improve their situation.
Personally, I don't like it this two-party dominance a whole lot. Their collective monopoly of power is a little scary.
Hm, holding people accountable for rules without considering who they are or how powerful they are. Man, what an asshole.
You bring up an interesting analogy, but with a problem: if you miss the tax filing deadline, you are subject to penalties. Those are the rules, and it's well known.
I don't know the specifics of the election rules, but I suspect the stipulation is that if you miss the filing deadline, you won't get on the ballot. And not that if you miss the filing deadline, you'll get a fine.
Is that reasonable? Is that even true? I don't know. But seriously, bending rules out of convenience or _perceived_necessity? you're kidding, right?
You mean beyond *reasonable* doubt (in criminal cases...civil trials require only a preponderance of evidence).
There's a little more gray area as to what is reasonable doubt than there is as to what is the most fleeting, flickering, existential shadow that would gloriously prevent justice from miscarrying.
(didn't read the article, but...I wonder how different this can be, from an admissible-in-court standpoint, to polygraph tests.
I think you are missing the point. I have not set up the two as polar opposites, or as mutually exclusive things.
I don't know that the world wasn't created using evolution. And yes, evolution does not disprove creation; it doesn't mean there can't be a God who used it to make the world.
That doesn't change the point: evolution and creationism are not equal, competing theories.
This isn't, say, the Bohr model competing with the plum-pudding model.
My point is this: you can teach evolution in a science class, but you can't teach Creationism in a science class. I know Palin didn't push it, but that's what she believes...
There's no reason to spend time in a biology class teaching these so-called "alternative" theories, when they aren't theories at all, but beliefs held by certain groups of people based on faith.
How is this a knee jerk reaction? Creationism as you say, is not worth being called a science. You don't teach evolution and creationism side-by-side. Agree with other comments here: teach about it, fine, in a *world religions* class. Not present it as an alternative to the evolution model, which it is not.
Palin sounds so very reasonable when she says those things. Fact is, she believes creationism is an alternative theory on equal grounding with evolution. Psh. "Healthy debate is so important." Hah.
There's no debate here: evolution is biology, creationism is not.
We're talking about high speed trains in China, and relating it high speed trains in the US. Fair? And while we're at it, talking about how the US spends its money, fair? The US is _currently_ spending a lot of money on Iraq, no?
Yeah, and China isn't as totalitarian as you might like to believe (but *that* is beside the point). So no, Nazi Germany is not even remotely relevant, because we're talking about governments implementing train systems, not expounding the glory of democracy.
But whatever; IMO, rules of what should and should not be talked about are silly.
Ah, I see. So our invasion of Iraq...was to improve our living conditions. That makes me feel much better.
You make a good point - historically, war has been the great motivator; the 'fire', if you will.
But I don't agree that the people who start wars view it as an 'investment.' Those people don't sit back and think, "Well, we need some new technology. Let's start a war!" (at least, I hope not). Spurring technology development has been a side effect of it, done because war creates the urgency, the necessity, the 'fire.'
Other side effects include depression, nausea, massive death and destruction.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree - absurd theory. Just some nutty self-serving individuals. The only reason to even bring this up is an attempt to blindly play on the "big, bad, scary communist government" theme.
The truth is, the PRC is completely clueless about PR (public relations) and will continue to be roundly slaughtered in the court of public opinion because of this.
Really, they should just hire the Falun Gong people. Experts at protesting and garnering sympathy. This hunger strike just looks kind of stupid.
Sorry if this has been asked before. I'm kind of surprised that the article claims that the age has been lowered.
I mean, when did say, cavemen, have kids? Probably not after they've settled down into a home and job.
I would have thought that modern luxuries, as well as increased lifespan, has RAISED the age when people have kids.
He who made the rhyme, did the crime...
(I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin'...)
What was the point of landing on the moon? Advancement of humanity, or inspiring the nation? "Propaganda benefits", you could say. We just really, really needed to prove that we could beat the Soviets.
You mean the fireworks that actually happened? How much do you know about your supposed fake fireworks anyway?
Why is this modded troll?
Seriously, guys.
I don't know what point it serves. Take it up with Zhang Yimou, who directed the ceremonies. Maybe he just wanted the impressive spectacle around the city, for people who were not at the Bird's Nest to see.
Does it really matter what point the fireworks served? They were neat, you could say symbolic, and you could also say wasteful or pointless. Whatever.
Sure. Maybe they could have had a series of remote cameras. But maybe they didn't want a sequence of 5-second stationary shots. I imagine the whole point was they wanted a shot actually following the footsteps. When they decided that it was not technically feasible, they made as accurate a CGI sequence as possible. And talked about the making of that sequence in the papers afterward.
Oh, but maybe it was actually technically possible, but for some nefarious, hidden agenda-type reason, they decided that they would cheat people out of it, because ... er, they're just that cold-hearted and mean? Right. Perfect logic. And they would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky...wait a minute, didn't they bring it up and talk all about the making of the sequence in those ah, state-run, heavily censored, communist newspaper outlets?
It's a spectacle. That's all it was. Was it disappointing that they couldn't film it live? Yeah. Morally treacherous? Hardly.
But regardless of whether or not you were able to enjoy the opening ceremonies, I think that we can agree that the intent of the summary was disingenuous, or just severely misinformed.
No, you're not correct. The people in the stadium didn't see the real minute-long or so footsteps sequence either (except for the last one or maybe two, which were right at the stadium) because they watched the footsteps on giant screens.
They didn't see it because it was a series of 28 fireworks that started in one area of Beijing, and moved progressively towards the stadium. It covered a lot of ground. It wasn't a bunch of fireworks that were just released right at the bird's Nest.
Besides, if that was such a concocted reason, what was the real reason? Money? Um, no. They spared no expense for those ceremonies. They just decided that they couldn't do it that way.
Of course, all the other fireworks, the ones set off from the stadium, were just filmed directly from the stadium and not CGI generated. That's exactly my problem with the summary, because it's really misleading.
No. The fireworks were CGI on TV screens only. They actually happened and were actually set off in Beijing. Real.
But the footage shown on TV wasn't real, no. Because it would be dangerous to have a helicopter trail the fireworks series live.
That's just so hideous and corrupt, huh.
"After faking their fireworks?"
Please.
All the fireworks were real. The thing you're referring to is a sequence of fireworks that wasn't filmed for television and was replaced by CGI.
The reason that the sequence - a series of giant "footsteps" across parts of Beijing - was not filmed was that it was deemed too dangerous to follow the fireworks with a helicopter and camera.
The fireworks, of course, actually happened, and the stadium coverage of the fireworks were all real. Get your facts straight.
You're right, college is about the 'life experience' too. So it makes perfect sense for colleges to judge, based on facebook profile information, whether or not you would fit into their offered "life experience"?
Yes, when it comes down to it, you are responsible for your actions.
But in my opinion it's irresponsible for college admissions officials to make dubious personal judgments based on pictures or wall messages or whatever. Depending on the college, I suppose (perhaps the Naval Academy has an argument here).
It's simply not fair. It isn't part of the application. Those who don't have facebook profiles or myspace profiles are at an advantage, but it doesn't mean they don't drink or get crazy photos taken of them. But they are rewarded?
Typically college admissions people, I don't think, are in the discussion about applicants they know personally. For example, if their nephew or friend's kid who is frequently over for dinner is applying. I think that this kind of snooping broaches that area of personal judgment.
Ah, OK. You make a very important clarification. Thanks for informing me - as noted, I didn't know anything about the specifics of the code.
If so then, it does indeed seem like this actually is not such a big deal, or at least, not in the way it is presented by Mr. Barr.
Maybe he doesn't deserve your vote. You might not even agree with his Libertarian Party platform. But it's not about him; it's about the Big Party guys.
Does whether or not this Barr guy (I know nothing about him) would be a good president affect whether or not the two powerful parties in the US should be held accountable? I think that's the point.
And seriously, third parties have it kind of bad here. They have trouble getting on the ballot in all states, and I'm not surprised that they'd pull out all the stops to improve their situation.
Personally, I don't like it this two-party dominance a whole lot. Their collective monopoly of power is a little scary.
Hm, holding people accountable for rules without considering who they are or how powerful they are. Man, what an asshole.
You bring up an interesting analogy, but with a problem: if you miss the tax filing deadline, you are subject to penalties. Those are the rules, and it's well known.
I don't know the specifics of the election rules, but I suspect the stipulation is that if you miss the filing deadline, you won't get on the ballot. And not that if you miss the filing deadline, you'll get a fine.
Is that reasonable? Is that even true? I don't know. But seriously, bending rules out of convenience or _perceived_necessity? you're kidding, right?
You mean beyond *reasonable* doubt (in criminal cases...civil trials require only a preponderance of evidence).
There's a little more gray area as to what is reasonable doubt than there is as to what is the most fleeting, flickering, existential shadow that would gloriously prevent justice from miscarrying.
(didn't read the article, but...I wonder how different this can be, from an admissible-in-court standpoint, to polygraph tests.
Whew! Good thing I'm in America.
...because, creationism is biology, and evolution isn't?
>_>
What're you trying to say here?
I think you are missing the point. I have not set up the two as polar opposites, or as mutually exclusive things.
I don't know that the world wasn't created using evolution. And yes, evolution does not disprove creation; it doesn't mean there can't be a God who used it to make the world.
That doesn't change the point: evolution and creationism are not equal, competing theories.
This isn't, say, the Bohr model competing with the plum-pudding model.
My point is this: you can teach evolution in a science class, but you can't teach Creationism in a science class. I know Palin didn't push it, but that's what she believes...
There's no reason to spend time in a biology class teaching these so-called "alternative" theories, when they aren't theories at all, but beliefs held by certain groups of people based on faith.
How is this a knee jerk reaction? Creationism as you say, is not worth being called a science. You don't teach evolution and creationism side-by-side. Agree with other comments here: teach about it, fine, in a *world religions* class. Not present it as an alternative to the evolution model, which it is not.
Palin sounds so very reasonable when she says those things. Fact is, she believes creationism is an alternative theory on equal grounding with evolution. Psh. "Healthy debate is so important." Hah.
There's no debate here: evolution is biology, creationism is not.
You'd only need a college undergraduate degree to understand these things, according to the description.
So privacy policies are great -- for BS.
We're talking about high speed trains in China, and relating it high speed trains in the US. Fair? And while we're at it, talking about how the US spends its money, fair? The US is _currently_ spending a lot of money on Iraq, no?
Yeah, and China isn't as totalitarian as you might like to believe (but *that* is beside the point). So no, Nazi Germany is not even remotely relevant, because we're talking about governments implementing train systems, not expounding the glory of democracy.
But whatever; IMO, rules of what should and should not be talked about are silly.
It is irritating how often it's brought up - but I think there's a big difference: Iraq is current and relevant. Nazi Germany is not.
This isn't a vague, poof!-out-of-the-air, absurd reference attempting to compare some situation today to something Hitler related.
Ah, I see. So our invasion of Iraq...was to improve our living conditions. That makes me feel much better.
You make a good point - historically, war has been the great motivator; the 'fire', if you will.
But I don't agree that the people who start wars view it as an 'investment.' Those people don't sit back and think, "Well, we need some new technology. Let's start a war!" (at least, I hope not). Spurring technology development has been a side effect of it, done because war creates the urgency, the necessity, the 'fire.'
Other side effects include depression, nausea, massive death and destruction.