Relevant tangent: What if the only entities that could contribute money to political contributions were entities that also had the right to vote?
In other words, corporations can't affect the political process by voting, but they can affect it by giving huge amounts of money. Why should they have one and not the other? (No, this doesn't mean they should also get to vote; it means they shouldn't be able to donate.)
Does a troll lose its power if the responder mentions that it's a troll?
Anyway. Woo, 42 people died on roller coasters last year. You know how many people died in car accidents in, say, 1999?
41,345.
Not just a larger number, but a larger number of fatalities per unit time, per distance traveled, etc. Roller coasters are far safer than cars. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make them safer, but why go to the point of removing the entire purpose of coasters (to be fun)?
I can say that I had a near-blackout experience on a coaster once. At Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia (north of Los Angeles), there's a huge orange coaster called Goliath. Smoothest coaster I ever rode, and very fast, too. Anyway, at one point there's a flat 720-degree spiral (the track is parallel to the ground, just goes around clockwise in two circles). The first time I rode it, as we went through the spiral, this dark silvery light (sounds weird, I know) started creeping in from the edge of my vision; it got so bad that I almost couldn't see, but at that moment the spiral straightened out and the silver went away, and I could see again. It didn't hurt; in fact it was kind of cool. On the other hand, nobody else I talked to said they'd had the same experience, so maybe it was just me.
It's only "the Philip Morris argument" if there actually *are* numerous studies linking G-forces to brain injury. If there are numerous (valid) studies showing no connection between G-forces and brain injury, do we simply fall back on our prejudices and say, "Well, they're just liars like the tobacco industry," or do we eventually have to say, "Ok, well, there really doesn't seem to be any connection," and move on with our lives?
I'm not saying either is true -- I don't have any information on studies regarding coaster G-forces and brain injury -- but to simply assume that because someone says there's no evidence to support an idea, means that they're vicious lying greedheads, is not helpful.
It is indeed USC's responsibility to their students to stop illegal activities over their lines. Why? Because USC can be held legally responsible for what happens over those lines. They are not a common carrier like a company (e.g. AT&T); they are a private organization, and are liable for what is done with their resources.
Basically, your entire argument is based on the idea that USC is a common carrier like AT&T. Common carriers are by definition not responsible for the content of any traffic that goes over their lines; entities that are not common carriers are liable. USC is not a common carrier, and your entire argument is spurious.
I've always understood that the big draw behind VOIP (I refuse to lowercase the O!) was that, given a fixed-rate internet connection, you could talk more or less forever without paying anything extra.
The thing is, my current cellphone plan is $30 a month, and with that I get 250 anytime minutes, 1000 night and weekend minutes, and free nationwide long-distance. And I've never used more than 200 minutes in a month. The service area is pretty good (AT&T Wireless), the service quality itself is pretty good, and my phone (Nokia 6162) is well-designed and easy to use. So what does VOIP offer me?
That's nothing -- you should see her in "Mulholland Falls"... topless.
(No, not Lynch's "Mulholland Drive," which is a much better movie. Connelly's chest is just about the only thing to recommend about "Mulholland Falls.")
"Two characters who at first seem to have insurmountable differences meet and, through a series of comic moments, fall in love. A complication threatens to dash their hopes, but at the last moment everything works out."
"Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl dies in tragic blimp accident over the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day."
I'd agree with you about the Bond movies. I'm a latecomer to the series (yes, I know Sean Connery rules, blah blah, but I'm a young'n, and my first real impression of him was as Henry Jones Sr. Roger Moore was always James Bond to me, growing up). That said, I think that in the most recent Bond flick (The World Is Not Enough), we did actually get to see some character development for Bond, which is pretty rare in a series that depends on its main character being more or less unchanged at all times. ("With a cool, dry wit like that, I could be an action star.")
Namely (spoilers ahead, if somehow you care about the details of a three-year old movie), at the end. There's a great internal struggle Bond has, deciding whether or not to kill Electra. And when he does, you can see that he's really unhappy about it. He even tosses off a trademark snappy one-liner, except he does it while barely managing to avoid a nervous breakdown. Unfortunately, he recovers all too quickly. I really think James Bond, of all people, would be great for a character study. Unfortunately, those involved with the production of Bond films are inevitably focused on the big-explosion blockbuster aspect.
Yeah... it's dismaying to see "fellow" geeks going around stereotyping themselves. (But then, I guess some geeks are like that...) I've never watched more than two or three minutes of Iron Chef, mostly because I don't watch much TV at all (Buffy and Angel, that's it, and if they go off the air, I probably won't watch TV at all), and even if I did, I don't find cooking particularly interesting. Or sports, for that matter, which removes the competition angle. I'm not into anime at all, and I don't think Natalie Portman is even remotely hot. She's kind of pretty, but in a dead-eyed kind of way.
Taco should also suggest if that the site owner doesn't want the site cached but also doesn't want to get slashdotted, they should have their web server deny referrers from/. Won't stop everyone, but it would help.
There's nothing wrong with the government monitoring you while you're doing so - your freedom is not threatened.
(Bold emphasis is mine.) You wrote the wrong word there -- what you probably meant was that there's nothing unconstitutional about the government monitoring you for no good reason. There IS something very wrong with the government monitoring you for no good reason. My rights may not be violated, but my freedom is very well threatened by the government monitoring me without a good reason.
Occam's Razor would suggest that the downturn in the economy the last two to three years would be responsible for the decline in music sales. Another poster said it better than I can, but your assumptions about the quality of music are all, essentially, false.
Whether or not something is a "moon" is really a function of the language, more than the details of its size, orbital distance, etc. Remember that, at least in English, dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive -- that is, they give usages, not definitions. The language changes and evolves on its own; what is considered "correct" is really nothing more than popular opinion. Of course, different ways of communicating can be more or less useful or efficient, so it's not like it doesn't matter whether we use a word to mean one thing or another.
But there's no "official" definition of what a "moon" is, unless you happen to accept the particular definition of a particular person or group. If it's useful to call this 3-mile chunk of rock a "moon," then people probably will. If it's misleading or confusing, then (hopefully) people won't.
Even then, it's not a perfect measure. The number of tickets sold by movies released in different years is also affected by the total population, what percentage of people go to the movies, the strength of the economy, the availability of other forms of entertainment, etc.
The upshot is, there is no perfect relative measure of the material success of a movie. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how much money a movie makes, because I'm not the one getting the money. Mostly what I care about is whether a movie is entertaining or not. (And, depending on the movie, its other cinematic virtues.) It annoys me more and more that there's far more focus on how much money a movie makes than there is on a movie's content, values, societal impact, etc. (With rare exceptions, like "The Matrix," but even in cases like that, the movie's financial success is what leads to widespread analysis of its content. Perhaps they're inextricable, but why be so interested in how much money "Signs" made this weekend, when a far more useful topic would be its treatment of religious credulity?)
I don't personally encourage or recommend this, but if this kind of erosion of our rights keeps happening, I seriously predict that people are going to start trying to assassinate Bill Gates, and those in power who think like him.
They're taking away our freedoms, and the morally right way of fighting them (using the political/legal/economic system) can't be used, because they own the system and are already entrenched. Eventually someone will figure this out, get angry enough, and resort to violence. I don't support violence as a means to most ends, but I can't say that I support using money and power to strip others of their rights, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Another door?
Okay.
Fine.
I'll say it.
*sigh*
What's behind door number 2, Johnny?
Okay. So make it illegal for a corporation to pay individuals to lobby on their behalf. Now what?
Relevant tangent: What if the only entities that could contribute money to political contributions were entities that also had the right to vote?
In other words, corporations can't affect the political process by voting, but they can affect it by giving huge amounts of money. Why should they have one and not the other? (No, this doesn't mean they should also get to vote; it means they shouldn't be able to donate.)
I liked your post, I just have one nitpick... it's La Jolla, not La Hoya. (In Spanish, J is pronounced like H, and double-l is pronounced like Y.) :)
Does a troll lose its power if the responder mentions that it's a troll?
Anyway. Woo, 42 people died on roller coasters last year. You know how many people died in car accidents in, say, 1999?
41,345.
Not just a larger number, but a larger number of fatalities per unit time, per distance traveled, etc. Roller coasters are far safer than cars. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make them safer, but why go to the point of removing the entire purpose of coasters (to be fun)?
I can say that I had a near-blackout experience on a coaster once. At Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia (north of Los Angeles), there's a huge orange coaster called Goliath. Smoothest coaster I ever rode, and very fast, too. Anyway, at one point there's a flat 720-degree spiral (the track is parallel to the ground, just goes around clockwise in two circles). The first time I rode it, as we went through the spiral, this dark silvery light (sounds weird, I know) started creeping in from the edge of my vision; it got so bad that I almost couldn't see, but at that moment the spiral straightened out and the silver went away, and I could see again. It didn't hurt; in fact it was kind of cool. On the other hand, nobody else I talked to said they'd had the same experience, so maybe it was just me.
It's only "the Philip Morris argument" if there actually *are* numerous studies linking G-forces to brain injury. If there are numerous (valid) studies showing no connection between G-forces and brain injury, do we simply fall back on our prejudices and say, "Well, they're just liars like the tobacco industry," or do we eventually have to say, "Ok, well, there really doesn't seem to be any connection," and move on with our lives?
I'm not saying either is true -- I don't have any information on studies regarding coaster G-forces and brain injury -- but to simply assume that because someone says there's no evidence to support an idea, means that they're vicious lying greedheads, is not helpful.
It is indeed USC's responsibility to their students to stop illegal activities over their lines. Why? Because USC can be held legally responsible for what happens over those lines. They are not a common carrier like a company (e.g. AT&T); they are a private organization, and are liable for what is done with their resources.
Basically, your entire argument is based on the idea that USC is a common carrier like AT&T. Common carriers are by definition not responsible for the content of any traffic that goes over their lines; entities that are not common carriers are liable. USC is not a common carrier, and your entire argument is spurious.
I've always understood that the big draw behind VOIP (I refuse to lowercase the O!) was that, given a fixed-rate internet connection, you could talk more or less forever without paying anything extra.
The thing is, my current cellphone plan is $30 a month, and with that I get 250 anytime minutes, 1000 night and weekend minutes, and free nationwide long-distance. And I've never used more than 200 minutes in a month. The service area is pretty good (AT&T Wireless), the service quality itself is pretty good, and my phone (Nokia 6162) is well-designed and easy to use. So what does VOIP offer me?
That's nothing -- you should see her in "Mulholland Falls"... topless.
(No, not Lynch's "Mulholland Drive," which is a much better movie. Connelly's chest is just about the only thing to recommend about "Mulholland Falls.")
I have come up with the most remarkable science-based movie script, but it's too large to fit into the text box.
It's about some guy named Pierre.
I bet you found all those by searching on Google, didn't you?
"Goodyear?"
"No, the worst." -- The Naked Gun
I'd agree with you about the Bond movies. I'm a latecomer to the series (yes, I know Sean Connery rules, blah blah, but I'm a young'n, and my first real impression of him was as Henry Jones Sr. Roger Moore was always James Bond to me, growing up). That said, I think that in the most recent Bond flick (The World Is Not Enough), we did actually get to see some character development for Bond, which is pretty rare in a series that depends on its main character being more or less unchanged at all times. ("With a cool, dry wit like that, I could be an action star.")
Namely (spoilers ahead, if somehow you care about the details of a three-year old movie), at the end. There's a great internal struggle Bond has, deciding whether or not to kill Electra. And when he does, you can see that he's really unhappy about it. He even tosses off a trademark snappy one-liner, except he does it while barely managing to avoid a nervous breakdown. Unfortunately, he recovers all too quickly. I really think James Bond, of all people, would be great for a character study. Unfortunately, those involved with the production of Bond films are inevitably focused on the big-explosion blockbuster aspect.
Yeah... it's dismaying to see "fellow" geeks going around stereotyping themselves. (But then, I guess some geeks are like that...) I've never watched more than two or three minutes of Iron Chef, mostly because I don't watch much TV at all (Buffy and Angel, that's it, and if they go off the air, I probably won't watch TV at all), and even if I did, I don't find cooking particularly interesting. Or sports, for that matter, which removes the competition angle. I'm not into anime at all, and I don't think Natalie Portman is even remotely hot. She's kind of pretty, but in a dead-eyed kind of way.
Taco should also suggest if that the site owner doesn't want the site cached but also doesn't want to get slashdotted, they should have their web server deny referrers from /. Won't stop everyone, but it would help.
Occam's Razor would suggest that the downturn in the economy the last two to three years would be responsible for the decline in music sales. Another poster said it better than I can, but your assumptions about the quality of music are all, essentially, false.
Whether or not something is a "moon" is really a function of the language, more than the details of its size, orbital distance, etc. Remember that, at least in English, dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive -- that is, they give usages, not definitions. The language changes and evolves on its own; what is considered "correct" is really nothing more than popular opinion. Of course, different ways of communicating can be more or less useful or efficient, so it's not like it doesn't matter whether we use a word to mean one thing or another.
But there's no "official" definition of what a "moon" is, unless you happen to accept the particular definition of a particular person or group. If it's useful to call this 3-mile chunk of rock a "moon," then people probably will. If it's misleading or confusing, then (hopefully) people won't.
Do you really think AOTC is gonna make up a $100 million difference this way?
Even then, it's not a perfect measure. The number of tickets sold by movies released in different years is also affected by the total population, what percentage of people go to the movies, the strength of the economy, the availability of other forms of entertainment, etc.
The upshot is, there is no perfect relative measure of the material success of a movie. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how much money a movie makes, because I'm not the one getting the money. Mostly what I care about is whether a movie is entertaining or not. (And, depending on the movie, its other cinematic virtues.) It annoys me more and more that there's far more focus on how much money a movie makes than there is on a movie's content, values, societal impact, etc. (With rare exceptions, like "The Matrix," but even in cases like that, the movie's financial success is what leads to widespread analysis of its content. Perhaps they're inextricable, but why be so interested in how much money "Signs" made this weekend, when a far more useful topic would be its treatment of religious credulity?)
I don't personally encourage or recommend this, but if this kind of erosion of our rights keeps happening, I seriously predict that people are going to start trying to assassinate Bill Gates, and those in power who think like him.
They're taking away our freedoms, and the morally right way of fighting them (using the political/legal/economic system) can't be used, because they own the system and are already entrenched. Eventually someone will figure this out, get angry enough, and resort to violence. I don't support violence as a means to most ends, but I can't say that I support using money and power to strip others of their rights, either.
Heh... thanks for the laugh, that was a good one :)