To find Van Goghs, draw a whirlpool. To find Pollocks, draw a can of paint. To find Warhols, draw four cans of paint. To find modern art sculptures, throw the tablet against a wall.
You just need a rapid prototyper. Hook it up to your computer, feed it some wax or vinyl, and it can cut the discs for you! You'll be back in the physical music piracy business in no time.
Now if I can get mine to rapidly prototype me a cheeseburger . . . Or some Earl Grey tea.
So, it appears that the chances of pre-ordering are Wii-mote?
I don't understand why these game systems are shortaged at launch. 80 or a 100 XBox360s for a town of 130k people? One or two PS3s or Wiis per game store? Are they trying to funnel them through the big box stores? Are they under-estimating demand or trying to create artificial scarcity?
If a car company could only supply one new car of each type per dealer per town, they would look foolish. Why is the same kind of behavior normal when applied to game consoles?
I never said those things didn't happen. Nor I did imply that they could not have happened. Whites were cruel to blacks, Indians, and whites from other countries. Tribes fought each other. Hundreds of tribes were decimated, destroyed, or forced from their ancenstral lands. All of these things happened. Most of them were despicable. However, the United States invented none of these practices. The Spaniards were stealing land and butchering empires long before there was an America.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Empty-street gunfights, quick-draw artists, and all the other pulp-Western tropes, were not as plentiful as portrayed by Hollywood. The Indians were not as savage or ignorant, the Whites not as innocent or heroic. Hollywood gets lots of things wrong all the time.
Ok, I'll bite. Firstly, which Wild West are we talking about? The Wild West of history or Hollywood?
The typical pattern of behavior in the Wild West went like this: Settlers move into new area, seeking either homesteads or easy money. If they were seeking homesteads, they were comparatively civilized, at least with their own ethnicities. If they were looking for easy money, more chaos and lawlessness ensued - Tombstone, Dodge City, etc. Hollywood liked to portray every little town as a Tombstone or Dodge City, but the incidence of violence was exaggerated to sell tickets. After all, who wants to watch John Wayne cut trees every day for a year?
Secondly, yes, it still is, at least to some degree. Each nation is bound only by treaties to which it consents to be bound. There is no over-arching body with the power or the authority to make or enforce laws to govern governments, except where the governed have entered willingly (i.e., the EU). Thus, by definition, nations co-exist in a state of quasi-lawlessness. Governments can abide by, abrogate, violate, or ignore treaties at will, and the deal with the consequences. Super-national bodies like the UN can pass resolutions all they want, but in the end, their enforcement powers are limited by the will and compliance of the governed. If you have any doubts about this, just observe the behavior of the North Korean government.
Fox News already does this. They have this 3D logo in the corner. It turns whenever they're spinning something. They say they made it spinny to prevent tube burn in because some people watch constantly. I don't think it was spinning when they explained that, though.
Quoth the poster: The primary aim of this demonstration is to bolster support for the upcoming house and senate elections on November 7th.
That makes more sense, both in terms of aims and timing. Thank you for the clarification on both counts (journalism and the specific protests planned for Thursday). I understood regime change to mean "immediate (dis|re)placement of the current Executive," rather than trying to shape the Legislative (possibly as a counterweight to the Executive), so the whole idea made very little sense. I'm still dubious about the methods, but best of luck to you. I hope it benefits us all, both now and in the future.
Quoth the Poster: Mods, considering the nature of this thread topic (growing "citizen journalism" movement) please be kind.
Why? You're off-topic. Citizens' journalism should not be equated with citizens' activism. Simplify the terms and you get what ought to be axiomatic: journalism should not be equated with activism. The inverse is also true. A journalist's function is not to opine, to analyze, or to lobby. It is to inform - to go places I can't and collect information I might find useful, without violating any standards of ethics, law, decency, or essential privacy.
Activism and bias (present and past, latent and overt) are partly to blame for some journalists' current lack of credibility. I can't trust Fox News to tell the whole story now, only the part that favors Bush. During the Clinton years, I didn't trust CNN either, only the parts that were less likely to damage Clinton. The situation has reversed in re CNN, however.
This does not take into account the bogosity of your cause and its methods. You'd like me to burn a personal day that I might need later to protest and hopefully shorten the presidency of a lame duck? With whom would he be replaced? Given the chain of succession, we would replace Bush with Cheney. Is that a desirable goal? Suppose Bush and Cheney both go? Condoleeza Rice? That might work, but if the "World Can't Wait for regime change", where are you going to dig up the shadow government with which to replace the current POTUS and VPOTUS (and Cabinet)? I'm sorry, but we don't have a true parliamentary system. There are no replacements to be had. We're still two years away from electing them.
I'll sum it up in true Texas fashion. Thank you kindly, but that dog don't hunt.
As a sovereign nation, it does control its airspace. However, I think airspace must be limited to sub-orbital space and below. I'm not sure of the laws, but it makes sense that a country can't own space any more than it can own a piece of Antarctica.
If Apple wanted to take podcasting out of the vernacular, it should have done it a year or two ago. (I don't own an iPod, and I probably never will). I can remember when Rush Limbaugh started plugging his podcasts. That was probably 15 or 18 months ago. At the time, it seemed like a new-ish idea, though it was becoming more common for radio personalities and independent musicians to podcast their stuff. Now we all know what "to podcast" means. What good will it do to make content creators stop using the word?
"I hate George W.?" That's a very American thing to say, don't you think? Just add something about stolen elections or killing babies and you'll be speaking Democrat.
I propose they also sue the movie industry: They're heating the air by talking (particularly when discussing politics but not filming), shooting chase scenes (or bedroom scenes) and blowing things up. By their own accounting methods, they never turn a profit, so they clearly add nothing to the economy or environment except hot air.
Slashdot Mirror
To find Van Goghs, draw a whirlpool.
To find Pollocks, draw a can of paint.
To find Warhols, draw four cans of paint.
To find modern art sculptures, throw the tablet against a wall.
You just need a rapid prototyper. Hook it up to your computer, feed it some wax or vinyl, and it can cut the discs for you! You'll be back in the physical music piracy business in no time.
Now if I can get mine to rapidly prototype me a cheeseburger . . . Or some Earl Grey tea.
Thank you. I aim to please.
So, it appears that the chances of pre-ordering are Wii-mote?
I don't understand why these game systems are shortaged at launch. 80 or a 100 XBox360s for a town of 130k people? One or two PS3s or Wiis per game store? Are they trying to funnel them through the big box stores? Are they under-estimating demand or trying to create artificial scarcity?
If a car company could only supply one new car of each type per dealer per town, they would look foolish. Why is the same kind of behavior normal when applied to game consoles?
I never said those things didn't happen. Nor I did imply that they could not have happened. Whites were cruel to blacks, Indians, and whites from other countries. Tribes fought each other. Hundreds of tribes were decimated, destroyed, or forced from their ancenstral lands. All of these things happened. Most of them were despicable. However, the United States invented none of these practices. The Spaniards were stealing land and butchering empires long before there was an America.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Empty-street gunfights, quick-draw artists, and all the other pulp-Western tropes, were not as plentiful as portrayed by Hollywood. The Indians were not as savage or ignorant, the Whites not as innocent or heroic. Hollywood gets lots of things wrong all the time.
Quoth the poster: its not the wild west anymore
Ok, I'll bite. Firstly, which Wild West are we talking about? The Wild West of history or Hollywood?
The typical pattern of behavior in the Wild West went like this: Settlers move into new area, seeking either homesteads or easy money. If they were seeking homesteads, they were comparatively civilized, at least with their own ethnicities. If they were looking for easy money, more chaos and lawlessness ensued - Tombstone, Dodge City, etc. Hollywood liked to portray every little town as a Tombstone or Dodge City, but the incidence of violence was exaggerated to sell tickets. After all, who wants to watch John Wayne cut trees every day for a year?
Secondly, yes, it still is, at least to some degree. Each nation is bound only by treaties to which it consents to be bound. There is no over-arching body with the power or the authority to make or enforce laws to govern governments, except where the governed have entered willingly (i.e., the EU). Thus, by definition, nations co-exist in a state of quasi-lawlessness. Governments can abide by, abrogate, violate, or ignore treaties at will, and the deal with the consequences. Super-national bodies like the UN can pass resolutions all they want, but in the end, their enforcement powers are limited by the will and compliance of the governed. If you have any doubts about this, just observe the behavior of the North Korean government.
Quoth the Poster: Whoa.. I wonder if I can make a creature that kills everything on sight
World of Sporecraft?
And there was much rejoicing.
Fox News already does this. They have this 3D logo in the corner. It turns whenever they're spinning something. They say they made it spinny to prevent tube burn in because some people watch constantly. I don't think it was spinning when they explained that, though.
Also, I hope I didn't negatively impact your karma. If I did, I apologize, though it sucks that I can't restore yours by losing some of mine.
Quoth the poster: The primary aim of this demonstration is to bolster support for the upcoming house and senate elections on November 7th.
That makes more sense, both in terms of aims and timing. Thank you for the clarification on both counts (journalism and the specific protests planned for Thursday). I understood regime change to mean "immediate (dis|re)placement of the current Executive," rather than trying to shape the Legislative (possibly as a counterweight to the Executive), so the whole idea made very little sense. I'm still dubious about the methods, but best of luck to you. I hope it benefits us all, both now and in the future.
Quoth the Poster: Mods, considering the nature of this thread topic (growing "citizen journalism" movement) please be kind.
Why? You're off-topic. Citizens' journalism should not be equated with citizens' activism. Simplify the terms and you get what ought to be axiomatic: journalism should not be equated with activism. The inverse is also true. A journalist's function is not to opine, to analyze, or to lobby. It is to inform - to go places I can't and collect information I might find useful, without violating any standards of ethics, law, decency, or essential privacy.
Activism and bias (present and past, latent and overt) are partly to blame for some journalists' current lack of credibility. I can't trust Fox News to tell the whole story now, only the part that favors Bush. During the Clinton years, I didn't trust CNN either, only the parts that were less likely to damage Clinton. The situation has reversed in re CNN, however.
This does not take into account the bogosity of your cause and its methods. You'd like me to burn a personal day that I might need later to protest and hopefully shorten the presidency of a lame duck? With whom would he be replaced? Given the chain of succession, we would replace Bush with Cheney. Is that a desirable goal? Suppose Bush and Cheney both go? Condoleeza Rice? That might work, but if the "World Can't Wait for regime change", where are you going to dig up the shadow government with which to replace the current POTUS and VPOTUS (and Cabinet)? I'm sorry, but we don't have a true parliamentary system. There are no replacements to be had. We're still two years away from electing them.
I'll sum it up in true Texas fashion. Thank you kindly, but that dog don't hunt.
As a sovereign nation, it does control its airspace. However, I think airspace must be limited to sub-orbital space and below. I'm not sure of the laws, but it makes sense that a country can't own space any more than it can own a piece of Antarctica.
Humor, like fashion, is a matter of taste, I suppose. I found it funny, anyway.
It would work, I suppose. They even used a set of mirrors in TFA to demonstrate that it was actually happening.
If only I could mod and comment on the same thread... That's + 1 Funny, to me. A nice sardonic take on the overlords joke.
I'm not sure I understand the reference, but if banging the side of the laptop is a good way to switch display modes, I may steer clear of Macbooks.
Is a user with three sets of eyes.
If Apple wanted to take podcasting out of the vernacular, it should have done it a year or two ago. (I don't own an iPod, and I probably never will). I can remember when Rush Limbaugh started plugging his podcasts. That was probably 15 or 18 months ago. At the time, it seemed like a new-ish idea, though it was becoming more common for radio personalities and independent musicians to podcast their stuff. Now we all know what "to podcast" means. What good will it do to make content creators stop using the word?
So, they've called something that's intended to be small and is presently of dubious usefulness ".mobi"? Wouldn't that make ".mobi" and moby antonyms?
That was my point. Hating or bashing GW seems like a popular pastime the world over.
"I hate George W.?" That's a very American thing to say, don't you think? Just add something about stolen elections or killing babies and you'll be speaking Democrat.
Whom do you serve?
Whom do you trust?
Where are you going?
I propose they also sue the movie industry: They're heating the air by talking (particularly when discussing politics but not filming), shooting chase scenes (or bedroom scenes) and blowing things up. By their own accounting methods, they never turn a profit, so they clearly add nothing to the economy or environment except hot air.
The junior Senator from New York says "I haven't." Her wife ("co-Senator"?) is apparently a maschocist.