Too many people still believe that a good marriage (or similar) relationship is about love and whatnot.
A good strong healthy marriage starts with commitment. If you and your partner are committed to the relationship, you'll try to solve problems. Divorce will be the absolute last resort; something you wouldn't even consider until there was nothing else left.
Most normal people, if they have a disagreement with their boss, don't think, "Okay, the first thing to do is consider quitting." Most people don't think about quitting a job until they've exhausted other options. How much more important, then, is it to be committed to a marriage?
Maybe I didn't put that well, but I hope you all got the gist.
I developed what I humbly call the "Sean Connery Principle" specifically for H2. I found that the movie wasn't unwatchable while Sean Connery was on screen, but as soon as his character left, I couldn't believe I'd sat through the whole thing.
I must be a terrible power to have, to get the audience to ignore the awfulness of a movie.
Personally, I rate movies by how little I check my watch during them, but maybe that's just me.
What SCOTUS is arguing is that price flooring needs to be decided on it's merits (rule of reason). Oh, goodie! More lawsuits! What a surprise, the judges on the Supreme Court have enacted Yet Another Ruling that will help keep lawyers in business!
I'm sure glad we voted for Bush, who appoints judges that want to increase the amount of lawsuits!
This may be sarcasm. Or scorn. Or something else. I haven't decided yet.
the SERVICE THEY ARE PROVIDING isn't very valuable. And yet, it's valuable enough to rip off.
Such service might be worth *something* monetarily, but far less than consumers are being charged. In other words, because I deem the service too expensive for what I get, I am justified in pirating it?
In a free market economy, the governments ONLY job is to make sure that competition thrives. But in a good and effective free country, another major job of the government is to protect the people from corporations gaining too much power.
The fact that most western governments don't care to do it, doesn't mean it's not their job.
Maybe you don't realize it, but marching bands, hold music, and elevator music *already* pay royalties, and I wouldn't be surprised if theme doorbells do, too.
Music doesn't simply coalesce from some other dimension without having to buy sheet music.
I mean seriously. Are these people hungry? Are they homeless? Are they unable to pay their bills? Is their mansion really too small? Remember -- if someone is richer than me, they should let me have stuff for free, 'cause they don't deserve any more money.
So you have to keep working to get money? What a novel concept. No-one else in the population has to work until retirement age, do they? What makes you think you get to stop working when you hit retirement age, slacker? Lazy people like you are the reason we can't privatize social security!
Obviously, the author could continue to work in the crappy day job, whatever. It's their duty to the world to produce works of art, no matter how little they get paid.
The important thing is that moochers can continue to get stuff for free, justified by modern technology and bad comparisons.
Failure to gain is not loss. Life is not a zero-sum game No, but life is a game where you constantly need replenishment. Some of us call it "food." Also, there's ongoing heating, replacing of clothing that wears out, and etc. If new ideas won't fill my belly, why should I produce them? If I do produce one, why should I go out of my way to share it with others? I'm too busy keeping myself and my family alive to bother with altruism that will probably only benefit someone else!
I'm already bummed that my next Mac will not play it. It's one of the better little 3-D games I've played. Nice gameplay on the levels, good one-on-one, good co-op, etc., etc.
Yeah, it would keep me entertained for a long time, I think.
Ask Jack Thompson if you are unsure as to HOW video games kill bees It doesn't matter how! It only matters that we're sure they do!
Think of the innocent children! Won't somebody please think of the children!
Once again, to quote: "That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make -- believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech".
What a chilling bit of doublespeak. Freedom through security is not freedom, no matter how loudly your boss or your government or your school tells you it is. One bit of doublespeak deserves another, I guess.
While I'm no fan of the Patriot Act and etc., I do know that freedom without some security doesn't mean a whole lot. If you're starving, does it matter if you can criticize the government? If people are shooting at you, does it matter?
On a less strident example, it is clear that a meeting where anyone can say anything at any time will probably not get a lot done, or will be dominated by the loudest people, not necessarily the people with the best ideas. So, to keep a meeting running, we restrict "Free Speech" so that we can have Free Speech.
Look at Robert's Rules of Order sometime. They are designed for deliberative bodies, so that the majority can rule in the vote, but also so the minority has their say before any decision is made. Without those rules in place, there would be less freedom, not more. There are certainly other examples of restricting some freedoms to allow greater freedoms.
No, the government shouldn't have to step in and make us civil. Yes, sometimes (maybe often) the restrictions on freedoms go too far. But everyone using their freedom to say anything often results in nothing being heard. As long as everyone has their say, I see no problems with some restrictions on speech.
How people expected a movie to be like a collection of short stories is beyond me.:-) Yeah, it would be like making a Twilight Zone movie, clearly impossible:\ (1) Twilight zone was an adaptation of TV-style-20-minute-long episodes.
(2) And that sort of proves my point -- how many movies like that have done well at the box office? Most haven't, and there are precious few that even try.
Slashdot Mirror
I despair that, on a site boasting "News for Nerds," there are so very many stupid and deliberately ignorant people.
How is it possible, in this modern world, that people don't understand the basics of how a cell phone works?
"You had ones? We had to use the letter L!"
Our ability to make fertilizer (not to mention transporting said fertilizer) is at least partially dependent upon the supply of oil.
Too many people still believe that a good marriage (or similar) relationship is about love and whatnot.
A good strong healthy marriage starts with commitment. If you and your partner are committed to the relationship, you'll try to solve problems. Divorce will be the absolute last resort; something you wouldn't even consider until there was nothing else left.
Most normal people, if they have a disagreement with their boss, don't think, "Okay, the first thing to do is consider quitting." Most people don't think about quitting a job until they've exhausted other options. How much more important, then, is it to be committed to a marriage?
Maybe I didn't put that well, but I hope you all got the gist.
I developed what I humbly call the "Sean Connery Principle" specifically for H2. I found that the movie wasn't unwatchable while Sean Connery was on screen, but as soon as his character left, I couldn't believe I'd sat through the whole thing.
I must be a terrible power to have, to get the audience to ignore the awfulness of a movie.
Personally, I rate movies by how little I check my watch during them, but maybe that's just me.
Two words: Ice Pirates.
Five words: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
If American workers are being laid off in favor of foreign workers, I sure hope the foreign workers can afford your product.
It's like a pyramid scheme -- it only works if only a comparatively few people do it.
I'm sure glad we voted for Bush, who appoints judges that want to increase the amount of lawsuits!
This may be sarcasm. Or scorn. Or something else. I haven't decided yet.
Yeah! Everybody knows that Gah Lak Tus is really an hive mind of huge robotic drones that attack worlds to destroy sentient life.
He wasn't talking about a boycott. He was talking about doing the ethical thing.
Maybe you don't realize it, but marching bands, hold music, and elevator music *already* pay royalties, and I wouldn't be surprised if theme doorbells do, too. Music doesn't simply coalesce from some other dimension without having to buy sheet music.
And, once again, art pre-imitates reality: http://www.improveverywhere.com/2002/01/19/writers -against-piracy/
Obviously, the author could continue to work in the crappy day job, whatever. It's their duty to the world to produce works of art, no matter how little they get paid. The important thing is that moochers can continue to get stuff for free, justified by modern technology and bad comparisons.
I'm already bummed that my next Mac will not play it. It's one of the better little 3-D games I've played. Nice gameplay on the levels, good one-on-one, good co-op, etc., etc. Yeah, it would keep me entertained for a long time, I think.
OhMyHeck, the Utah Legislature is listening to some rich business owners! That's certainly the first time that has happened!
What a chilling bit of doublespeak. Freedom through security is not freedom, no matter how loudly your boss or your government or your school tells you it is. One bit of doublespeak deserves another, I guess.
While I'm no fan of the Patriot Act and etc., I do know that freedom without some security doesn't mean a whole lot. If you're starving, does it matter if you can criticize the government? If people are shooting at you, does it matter?
On a less strident example, it is clear that a meeting where anyone can say anything at any time will probably not get a lot done, or will be dominated by the loudest people, not necessarily the people with the best ideas. So, to keep a meeting running, we restrict "Free Speech" so that we can have Free Speech.
Look at Robert's Rules of Order sometime. They are designed for deliberative bodies, so that the majority can rule in the vote, but also so the minority has their say before any decision is made. Without those rules in place, there would be less freedom, not more. There are certainly other examples of restricting some freedoms to allow greater freedoms.
No, the government shouldn't have to step in and make us civil. Yes, sometimes (maybe often) the restrictions on freedoms go too far. But everyone using their freedom to say anything often results in nothing being heard. As long as everyone has their say, I see no problems with some restrictions on speech.
The Falcon would win in a fight...the Serenity isn't even armed. 8)
Nonsense! On board Serenity is none other than Jayne Cobb, the Hero of Canton! He is science fiction's answer to Chuck Norris!
Jayne doesn't just shoot first, he shoots *before* first!
(2) And that sort of proves my point -- how many movies like that have done well at the box office? Most haven't, and there are precious few that even try.