We will only receive real art instead of the worthless "spam" these people have been shoveling into audiovisual arts since recordings were first created.
Remove the corporate powerhouses and the cultural landscape will be enriched through sheer removal of pollution.
I have always found it's the midrange and not just the low end Dell machines that have much more competitive pricing than Mac notebooks. The XPS and Studio XPS notebooks (~$1000-$1800) are really at the sweet spot of performance and pricing, while Macs really have a big gap here. You can get a MacBook which has a low end graphics card for the price of a mid range Dell, or you have to step up to the MacBook Pro ($2000-$2800). I think this is one major reason why Macs are considered more expensive.
2000-1800 = 200 bucks
200 dollar difference between midrange dell and low end (mid-range spec) macbook pro.
Nowhere in the parent to you post, nor in your own, is ID mentioned. The only theory named is evolution. It's also named in the parent in the context of being "questioned", which is then the topic of your post.
You should be embarrassed. Getting caught like this.
Oh my god, I didn't directly reference the obvious target of my post! Subtlety is not your forte is it?
You're absolutely hopeless.
Maybe one day you will find actual, productive therapy rather than coming to this forum to search high and low for someone to hate, then invent it when it does not present itself.
I'm not sure that anything involving regulation of the market such as ratings can be said in any meaningful sense to be a "free market". The point is that ratings are not merely a guideline, they are enforced with restrictions (obviously, who can see them, but there may also be issues with who may stock them - e.g., for games I believe it's the case in the US that may retailers don't want to stock an adult rated game at all, even if they're able to restrict the sale to adults). There may be other restrictions (e.g., advertising?)
Yes, it's true that there'll be less demand for a product that has Government imposed restrictions, and further restrictions added by retailers, but that's pointing out the bleeding obvious. This is not in any sense a "free market" where people are choosing what type of films they want to see.
and then create an R rated super hero movie
As pointed out, it doesn't help when all the copyrights of comic books seem to be owned perpetually by one big movie company now.
But his impromptu libertarian diatribe was so starry-eyed and romantic.. how dare you point out how utterly unrealistic it is!
Honestly the frequency of R-ratings have gone up for all movies. I remember when there were countless great movies from the 1980s that were all rated PG. Now most comedies seem to be rated PG-13 and R. I don't personally have anything against R-rated movies being that I use "fuck" as a comma and have nothing against watching on-screen violence, but I'm wondering if the movie industry is hoping to move back to where it was 20 years ago. Hell, we say that they need to change how they do business, perhaps this is a step in that direction--something which they hope they will get back to a time when they feel that they were a little more successful?
Obviously they thought that their core demographic required that they have a movie rated R to attract viewers. Instead of flashy CGI they're moving to over-the-top language and T&A to cover the fact that the dialogue kinda fucking sucks. IMHO Iron Man, while rated PG-13, wouldn't have gained anything by becoming rated R.
the "ratings drift" has less to do with the content of the movies changing and more to do with the rightward shift of the US as a whole causing the ratings themselves to skew.
For another more polar example of this see the "virgin killer" album cover, which was displayed in neighborhood record stores in the 70's and is now on CP blacklists in several nations.
yes, god forbid the crippled be able to take advantage of the facility.
Any crippled and disabled people to use stairs could have used the first floor. Fact is it's stupid to force the cancellation of a homeless shelter just because disabled did not have an elevator to use. And I say that as someone who has a disability. Adding costs that are not needed only serves to restrict help for everyone.
Falcon
And whose fault is it that the project was cancelled?
I bet a million dollars the "sources" projected false "causation" to the correlation between the government's insistence on disability access and the cancellation of the project.
So which source was it?
the ACU? the mackinac group? the heritage foundation?
It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.
Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.
or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.
If the "letter" is delivered via email, it's merely an empty gesture.
If it's delivered by snail mail, I'd consider it a form of harassment, as i've heard it mentioned here by lawyers that "notice and takedown" only applies to intermediaries such as webhosts/isp's. If it's against the terms of service cancel the service, otherwise don't worry people or get kids in trouble based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.
The government is superior in this regard to a charity
Citation needed.
Did you know that Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in New York City? She dropped the plan after NYC insisted an elevator be installed in the 2 buildings? A private group wanted to help people but then government came and stopped it.
Falcon
yes, god forbid the crippled be able to take advantage of the facility.
The Republican party is not the voice of selfishness, rather it is the voice of local control. Charitable giving is higher among Republicans than Democrats. Rather than let the government spend taxes in large lumps, Republicans would rather those who earned it through free exchange of work and goods and who therefore are most responsive to subtle shifts in the marketplace spend their own money. There is a rift in the party (see those that threw Palin under the bus vs those enthralled with her), and it is possible we could see a realignment, after all union workers' values are more in line with social conservatism than environmentalism, gay rights and abortion.
no union man will vote for someone who wants their managers to be able to keep all their "well expoit.. earned" money.
The problem with having personal control over money disbursed to the disadvantaged is the lack of knowledge and/or perspective about the means of becoming disadvantaged.
The vast, vast majority of wealthy people don't understand in the slightest what it's like to be in that situation or how people get there, they don't understand the myriad of circumstances which can lead to that and thus cannot target them all.
Government in a representative republic, however, is accessible to all these groups, and capable of pooling their varied perspectives to provide more effective and equal aid.
The government is superior in this regard to a charity, which cherry picks their clientele.
Their values are ingrained deeply in about half our populace. They won't go away that easily because they represent the (NECESSARY) voice of selfishness in this nation
So Republicans are selfish?
Wow.
That's a lovely troll you crafted there.
(before you start your all-out blitz attack against the "supposed Republicker who dun took umbrage to whut you said", realize I'm not a Republican. Just someone pointing out your amazingly arrogant and false statement.)
except its not a troll, it's observed fact.
Their entire position as a party is people keeping what money/power they have, no matter how grossly disproportionate that may be or how many social maladies stem from it.
In moderation this viewpoint is helpful, constructive input from this perspective (as a strongly represented opposition party) will produce social safety net programs and regulations which are more tightly targeted and less likely to be gamed.
In excess they result in the erosion of consumer rights, civil liberties, and the american middle class.
<quote><p>Seriously, for the country that's supposed to be the most modern and have the best technology (all ofcourse delivered through scientific study), it remains unbelievable that evolution is even questioned.</p><p>No such thing in Europe. Not even the Vatican and the Church of England (both the foundations for the US churches) doubt evolution theory. They even support it !</p><p>Wake up, Americans:-)</p></quote>
<p>Questioning a theory is far from wrong, but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students.</p></quote>
Right, any questioning of theories should be in the realm of academia, grade schoolers should be taught the facts as we understand them, and the scientific method. They can go on to question things later in life, grade school is where you get your grounding in the basics. The theory of evolution should be questioned and tested, but not in grade school, most of them aren't equipped to, or desire to, question things scientifically. Until there is substantial proof for some other explanation, they should continue to teach evolution as is.
Exactly. I'm glad you're reading my comment as intended. Sadly many others fail at such basic reading and comprehension.
I'm thinking I may cease posting to slashdot after witnessing this gross inability to cogitate.
"Questioning a theory is far from wrong, but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students."
If you're saying there is no proof, it's impossible to "prove" without a time machine. However, there's a tremendous amount of strong, dramatic evidence. Certainly there's far more evidence in favour of evolution than there is evidence supporting creationism/intelligent design. If that's not enough, we'll also have to take all other "theories" out of the classroom, starting with the theory of gravity. After all, we only have a large body of evidence that our model of gravity works.
What else are you willing to sacrifice in favour of trimming out all topics but the completely, irrevocably proven ones? Certainly the biology, chemistry and physics textbooks are completely laden with theories as opposed to proven facts.
Social studies, philosophy, and history have also got to go. They are the very definition of theoretical topics. Every article is written by somebody with a subjective viewpoint, and some events reported in the history books probably never happened.
Please re-read my comment rather than railing on against a creationist philosophy i opposed
So, it is bad to provoke thought and questions regarding evolution? Gosh, that would lead people to possibly re-evaluate observations. That would be dangerous because.... We have a lot more recorded data than Darwin had available to him in much more widely accessible forms. Obviously, challenging his conclusions and conclusions based on his conclusions is bad. It would almost be, well, blasphemy? The science community sure seems unscientific some time.
The currently accepted theory should be taught to beginners until enough proof arises in the upper echelons of academia--enough discriminating Ph.D's are convinced--to replace that accepted theory.
This is how it worked for the big bang.
Until bell labs discovered the echoes of the big bang in their horn antenna in the 60's the "steady state" theory had more credibility.
Seriously, for the country that's supposed to be the most modern and have the best technology (all ofcourse delivered through scientific study), it remains unbelievable that evolution is even questioned.
No such thing in Europe. Not even the Vatican and the Church of England (both the foundations for the US churches) doubt evolution theory. They even support it !
Wake up, Americans:-)
Questioning a theory is far from wrong, but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students.
I'm getting really tired of hearing about the immanent death of the republican party.
Their values are ingrained deeply in about half our populace. They won't go away that easily because they represent the (NECESSARY) voice of selfishness in this nation, its just that enough people are now on the wrong side of selfish policies that they're realizing that side of the government needs to be toned back down a bit.
People screaming about how the republican party is dying because they lost a few rounds in the elections are the same people who claim the US is "declining" whenever there's a recession.
In a couple election cycles they'll gain more representation and will resume pissing me off every day of the week : ) !
This guy may be right about serious tension which will result in transformation, but transformation does not necessarily indicate secession.
His predictions are clearly ludicrous if you look at the map at the bottom.
all those republican bloc states siding with new england? That's like photoshopping KKK Members into an NAACP meeting!
The Orrin Hatch republic of utah siding with california? HAH!
I can, however, see michigan seeking to join canada rather than fall in with all the red states which surround it. It would be a harper province in canada, which is still more liberal than the prevailing attitude in the territories surrounding it.
Things will not change as long as the people with the gold are able to make the rules by buying lawmakers.
The fix is that candidates should only be permitted to accept campaign funds from people who are allowed to vote for them.
People should lose their right to vote once their income exceeds 99% of the rest of their nation.
This is not so bad as it seems. There will still be hangers on who will parlay for their interests, they will just, themselves, be unable to vote, and by doing so they will be disallowed from disbursing assets from any of their holdings toward political parties.
"libertarian" approaches to economics are what brought our economy to this state.
Capitalism is not some perfect, immutable, and self sustaining system. Checks and balances must be put into place to prevent the many from becoming serfs, and the few from becoming tyrants.
For all its flaws, government is the only other entity with enough centralized power to reign in corporate abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
I say good on them for vanishing then.
We will only receive real art instead of the worthless "spam" these people have been shoveling into audiovisual arts since recordings were first created.
Remove the corporate powerhouses and the cultural landscape will be enriched through sheer removal of pollution.
I have always found it's the midrange and not just the low end Dell machines that have much more competitive pricing than Mac notebooks. The XPS and Studio XPS notebooks (~$1000-$1800) are really at the sweet spot of performance and pricing, while Macs really have a big gap here. You can get a MacBook which has a low end graphics card for the price of a mid range Dell, or you have to step up to the MacBook Pro ($2000-$2800). I think this is one major reason why Macs are considered more expensive.
2000-1800 = 200 bucks
200 dollar difference between midrange dell and low end (mid-range spec) macbook pro.
holy crap call the cops what a fraud.
Nowhere in the parent to you post, nor in your own, is ID mentioned. The only theory named is evolution. It's also named in the parent in the context of being "questioned", which is then the topic of your post.
You should be embarrassed. Getting caught like this.
Oh my god, I didn't directly reference the obvious target of my post! Subtlety is not your forte is it?
You're absolutely hopeless.
Maybe one day you will find actual, productive therapy rather than coming to this forum to search high and low for someone to hate, then invent it when it does not present itself.
Nudity and violence are what life is based on.
and here i thought life was based on water and carbon
I'm not sure that anything involving regulation of the market such as ratings can be said in any meaningful sense to be a "free market". The point is that ratings are not merely a guideline, they are enforced with restrictions (obviously, who can see them, but there may also be issues with who may stock them - e.g., for games I believe it's the case in the US that may retailers don't want to stock an adult rated game at all, even if they're able to restrict the sale to adults). There may be other restrictions (e.g., advertising?)
Yes, it's true that there'll be less demand for a product that has Government imposed restrictions, and further restrictions added by retailers, but that's pointing out the bleeding obvious. This is not in any sense a "free market" where people are choosing what type of films they want to see.
and then create an R rated super hero movie
As pointed out, it doesn't help when all the copyrights of comic books seem to be owned perpetually by one big movie company now.
But his impromptu libertarian diatribe was so starry-eyed and romantic.. how dare you point out how utterly unrealistic it is!
Honestly the frequency of R-ratings have gone up for all movies. I remember when there were countless great movies from the 1980s that were all rated PG. Now most comedies seem to be rated PG-13 and R. I don't personally have anything against R-rated movies being that I use "fuck" as a comma and have nothing against watching on-screen violence, but I'm wondering if the movie industry is hoping to move back to where it was 20 years ago. Hell, we say that they need to change how they do business, perhaps this is a step in that direction--something which they hope they will get back to a time when they feel that they were a little more successful?
Obviously they thought that their core demographic required that they have a movie rated R to attract viewers. Instead of flashy CGI they're moving to over-the-top language and T&A to cover the fact that the dialogue kinda fucking sucks. IMHO Iron Man, while rated PG-13, wouldn't have gained anything by becoming rated R.
the "ratings drift" has less to do with the content of the movies changing and more to do with the rightward shift of the US as a whole causing the ratings themselves to skew.
For another more polar example of this see the "virgin killer" album cover, which was displayed in neighborhood record stores in the 70's and is now on CP blacklists in several nations.
yes, god forbid the crippled be able to take advantage of the facility.
Any crippled and disabled people to use stairs could have used the first floor. Fact is it's stupid to force the cancellation of a homeless shelter just because disabled did not have an elevator to use. And I say that as someone who has a disability. Adding costs that are not needed only serves to restrict help for everyone.
Falcon
And whose fault is it that the project was cancelled?
I bet a million dollars the "sources" projected false "causation" to the correlation between the government's insistence on disability access and the cancellation of the project.
So which source was it?
the ACU?
the mackinac group?
the heritage foundation?
I will spell it out to you since you seem incapable of understanding it the first two times I said it:
the theory of INTELLIGENT DESIGN must be proven substantially to supplant evolution in grade schools.
get it now?
I'm absolutely embarrassed to point out such "epic fail" at reading comprehension.
You are slamming Mother Teresa? Oh man, you need to read up on some history.
False dichotomy
Defending the government does not equate to slamming mother teresa.
You need to brush up on what "theory" and "proof" means in science.
And the same goes for the ones who moderated your post "Insightful".
and you need to brush up on your reading and comprehension if you believe my post was promoting creationism.
its sad the number of people who are incapable of this on slashdot, just look at all these post denigrating me for something I never said.
based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.
don't know if this is a typo or freudian slip, but "sent" is the proper spelling.
It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.
Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.
or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.
Tortious interference
It's rather unfortunate that ISP contracts can be changed at will by the ISP but not the customer.
The ISP can merely add a clause including the MAFIAA as a party to the contract and suddenly this possible angle for lawsuits disappears.
If the "letter" is delivered via email, it's merely an empty gesture.
If it's delivered by snail mail, I'd consider it a form of harassment, as i've heard it mentioned here by lawyers that "notice and takedown" only applies to intermediaries such as webhosts/isp's. If it's against the terms of service cancel the service, otherwise don't worry people or get kids in trouble based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.
The government is superior in this regard to a charity
Citation needed.
Did you know that Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in New York City? She dropped the plan after NYC insisted an elevator be installed in the 2 buildings? A private group wanted to help people but then government came and stopped it.
Falcon
yes, god forbid the crippled be able to take advantage of the facility.
The Republican party is not the voice of selfishness, rather it is the voice of local control. Charitable giving is higher among Republicans than Democrats. Rather than let the government spend taxes in large lumps, Republicans would rather those who earned it through free exchange of work and goods and who therefore are most responsive to subtle shifts in the marketplace spend their own money. There is a rift in the party (see those that threw Palin under the bus vs those enthralled with her), and it is possible we could see a realignment, after all union workers' values are more in line with social conservatism than environmentalism, gay rights and abortion.
no union man will vote for someone who wants their managers to be able to keep all their "well expoit.. earned" money.
The problem with having personal control over money disbursed to the disadvantaged is the lack of knowledge and/or perspective about the means of becoming disadvantaged.
The vast, vast majority of wealthy people don't understand in the slightest what it's like to be in that situation or how people get there, they don't understand the myriad of circumstances which can lead to that and thus cannot target them all.
Government in a representative republic, however, is accessible to all these groups, and capable of pooling their varied perspectives to provide more effective and equal aid.
The government is superior in this regard to a charity, which cherry picks their clientele.
Their values are ingrained deeply in about half our populace. They won't go away that easily because they represent the (NECESSARY) voice of selfishness in this nation
So Republicans are selfish?
Wow.
That's a lovely troll you crafted there.
(before you start your all-out blitz attack against the "supposed Republicker who dun took umbrage to whut you said", realize I'm not a Republican. Just someone pointing out your amazingly arrogant and false statement.)
except its not a troll, it's observed fact.
Their entire position as a party is people keeping what money/power they have, no matter how grossly disproportionate that may be or how many social maladies stem from it.
In moderation this viewpoint is helpful, constructive input from this perspective (as a strongly represented opposition party) will produce social safety net programs and regulations which are more tightly targeted and less likely to be gamed.
In excess they result in the erosion of consumer rights, civil liberties, and the american middle class.
<quote>
<quote><p>Seriously, for the country that's supposed to be the most modern and have the best technology (all ofcourse delivered through scientific study), it remains unbelievable that evolution is even questioned.</p><p>No such thing in Europe. Not even the Vatican and the Church of England (both the foundations for the US churches) doubt evolution theory. They even support it !</p><p>Wake up, Americans :-)</p></quote>
<p>Questioning a theory is far from wrong, but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students.</p></quote>
Right, any questioning of theories should be in the realm of academia, grade schoolers should be taught the facts as we understand them, and the scientific method. They can go on to question things later in life, grade school is where you get your grounding in the basics. The theory of evolution should be questioned and tested, but not in grade school, most of them aren't equipped to, or desire to, question things scientifically. Until there is substantial proof for some other explanation, they should continue to teach evolution as is.
Exactly. I'm glad you're reading my comment as intended. Sadly many others fail at such basic reading and comprehension.
I'm thinking I may cease posting to slashdot after witnessing this gross inability to cogitate.
"Questioning a theory is far from wrong, but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students."
If you're saying there is no proof, it's impossible to "prove" without a time machine. However, there's a tremendous amount of strong, dramatic evidence. Certainly there's far more evidence in favour of evolution than there is evidence supporting creationism/intelligent design. If that's not enough, we'll also have to take all other "theories" out of the classroom, starting with the theory of gravity. After all, we only have a large body of evidence that our model of gravity works.
What else are you willing to sacrifice in favour of trimming out all topics but the completely, irrevocably proven ones? Certainly the biology, chemistry and physics textbooks are completely laden with theories as opposed to proven facts.
Social studies, philosophy, and history have also got to go. They are the very definition of theoretical topics. Every article is written by somebody with a subjective viewpoint, and some events reported in the history books probably never happened.
Please re-read my comment rather than railing on against a creationist philosophy i opposed
So, it is bad to provoke thought and questions regarding evolution? Gosh, that would lead people to possibly re-evaluate observations. That would be dangerous because .... We have a lot more recorded data than Darwin had available to him in much more widely accessible forms. Obviously, challenging his conclusions and conclusions based on his conclusions is bad. It would almost be, well, blasphemy? The science community sure seems unscientific some time.
The currently accepted theory should be taught to beginners until enough proof arises in the upper echelons of academia--enough discriminating Ph.D's are convinced--to replace that accepted theory.
This is how it worked for the big bang.
Until bell labs discovered the echoes of the big bang in their horn antenna in the 60's the "steady state" theory had more credibility.
Seriously, for the country that's supposed to be the most modern and have the best technology (all ofcourse delivered through scientific study), it remains unbelievable that evolution is even questioned.
No such thing in Europe. Not even the Vatican and the Church of England (both the foundations for the US churches) doubt evolution theory. They even support it !
Wake up, Americans :-)
Questioning a theory is far from wrong, but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students.
I'm getting really tired of hearing about the immanent death of the republican party.
Their values are ingrained deeply in about half our populace. They won't go away that easily because they represent the (NECESSARY) voice of selfishness in this nation, its just that enough people are now on the wrong side of selfish policies that they're realizing that side of the government needs to be toned back down a bit.
People screaming about how the republican party is dying because they lost a few rounds in the elections are the same people who claim the US is "declining" whenever there's a recession.
In a couple election cycles they'll gain more representation and will resume pissing me off every day of the week : ) !
This guy may be right about serious tension which will result in transformation, but transformation does not necessarily indicate secession.
His predictions are clearly ludicrous if you look at the map at the bottom.
all those republican bloc states siding with new england? That's like photoshopping KKK Members into an NAACP meeting!
The Orrin Hatch republic of utah siding with california? HAH!
I can, however, see michigan seeking to join canada rather than fall in with all the red states which surround it. It would be a harper province in canada, which is still more liberal than the prevailing attitude in the territories surrounding it.
Things will not change as long as the people with the gold are able to make the rules by buying lawmakers.
The fix is that candidates should only be permitted to accept campaign funds from people who are allowed to vote for them.
People should lose their right to vote once their income exceeds 99% of the rest of their nation.
This is not so bad as it seems. There will still be hangers on who will parlay for their interests, they will just, themselves, be unable to vote, and by doing so they will be disallowed from disbursing assets from any of their holdings toward political parties.
"libertarian" approaches to economics are what brought our economy to this state.
Capitalism is not some perfect, immutable, and self sustaining system. Checks and balances must be put into place to prevent the many from becoming serfs, and the few from becoming tyrants.
For all its flaws, government is the only other entity with enough centralized power to reign in corporate abuse.