the burden of proof lies on whichever opinion is largely considered to be false and unproven
Science is not a popularity contest. Not to a start a flame war, but the example that comes to mind is evolution. Evolution is largely considered to be false and unproven. Those beliefs don't change scientific facts.
My point is, in the realm of technological achievements, in how many cases can I say "I could do it 30 years ago, but can't do it now" and believed?
Kennedy gave his speech on the challenge of putting a man on the moon in 1961. Man landing on the moon in 1969. If a round trip to moon was an 8 year endeavor from public declaration to goal in the 1960s, how could it take longer in the 2000s?
If I told you I spent 8 years in the 1960s developing a car that got 200 miles per gallon of gas, but if you wanted that car now, it would take more time to redevelop, would you be skeptical? With all the advances in computing and engineering, on top of all my notes from the first time around, shouldn't it be a quicker job the second time around? Wouldn't you think, maybe my 60s technology wasn't as advanced as I claim?
If I told you in I spent 8 years in the 1960s building the world's tallest skyscraper, but to build the same building now would take longer and cost more money, wouldn't you think something fishy was going on? Maybe increased cost could be inflation in material costs, but I'm not starting from scratch. I have all the preparations I did on the first building, plus any knowledge gained during construction, plus any advances in technology in the intervening 30 years.
So here we have NASA saying, we sent people to the moon in the 60s. We did it multiple times. But to do it again will take longer. Am I the only one that suspects the folks at NASA (or at least the manned mission department) have spent the last 30 years huffing propane and burning their notes? Is the moon that much further away now than it was then? Did they learn nothing from the first trips to the moon that might aid in return trips?
I do not think the moon landings were faked or a hoax. I do think there is something fishy going on here, and I don't see any one else addressing the issue. Cars in the 2000s are faster, safer, more fuel efficient than those of the 1960s. Cars in the 00s are build on technology advanced from that in the 60s. Airplanes are likewise advanced. Computers, materials, bioengineering, medicine, communications...can you think of any area of technology or engineering where there was a significant milestone reached in the 60s, but we subsequently trashed all the work done, started from scratch, and have not yet caught up to where we were then?
NASA is further away from putting a man on the moon now than it was in 1961. In those terms, the moon landings in the 60s might as well have been a hoax.
"In my judgment, we can go to the moon. We can go to Mars. We can't do them quite as quickly as we did during Apollo, but we can do it."
We never sent anyone to the moon. Michael Griffin has all but admitted the Apollo missions were a big hoax. Here's the science.
I usually write-off the "moon landing was a hoax" crowd as nuts and crackpots. But lately I've realized, those nuts do not have to prove we did not go to the moon. The scientific method is never about proving something hasn't or can't be done. Quite the opposite, it's the other party that has the burden of proof to back up and assertions.
Say you've got a cold fusion reactor giving off 10 times as much energy as it takes in? I don't have to prove you don't; it's your burden to prove it works--repeat your experiments, publish in a peer review journal so others can test your claims, etc. Say you've concocted a serum that cures any cancer with no side affects? I don't have to prove you haven't; it's your burden to run the clinical trials, document the treatment, etc.
Say you've not only sent people to the moon but gotten them back alive? I don't have to prove you didn't; it's your burden of proof.
Now think about it, when developing our new moon mission, not only do we have all the advances in technology in the last 30 years--huge advances in computers, sensors, materials, physics, all the biological data on how people react to extended time in space--but we have all the practical experience of the Apollo missions.
If we've done nothing, if we've had no advancement in technology, worse case scenario would be it takes just as long to get to the moon now as it took to get to the moon then. Add in just the barest advantage of having done it before, and with the most meager goal of just repeating what has already been done, you'd at least have the blueprint of what worked last time.
Then consider all the incredible developments in all those different areas of science and technology, and there is no farking way it takes longer to get to the moon in the 2000s than it did in the 1960s.
If the head of Sony came out and said they can repeat the glory of the Atari 2600, but it would cost more and take longer, you'd rightly say, "bullshit." If the head of Ford came out and said they're coming out with a new Pinto, but it will cost more and take longer to design a car that good, you'd rightly say, "bullshit."
Well, the head of NASA just came out and said they are going to try to reproduce technology they supposedly had 40 years ago, but it will cost more and take longer to develop. I say, "bullshit."
What a sec...wasn't part of the original premise that the entire SW epic was told as seen through the sensors of R2D2 and C3PO?
Back in the day ep. I, II, and III were about the rise of the empire, not necessarily Darth Vador's origins, and the common characters from the first to second (and ultimately third) trilogy were R2 and C3. Since C3 is built by Anakin in TPM, there can be no prequels.
Look at the scene at the beginning of ep III (which I swore I wouldn't see, then good reviews came out) where the ship tilts 90s. The gravity inside the ship also changes direction 90 degrees. Why? Is the ship just hovering in space, with no orbit?
spoilers below (eh, who am I kidding? we've all seen it already.)
That's what bothers you about ep III? Not the fact, if the jedi has any kind of health care, none of this would have ever happened? (Elder care for Anakin's mom (heck, just buy her out of slavery, give her a job mopping floors at jedi school) or prenatal care for Natalie)
You're bothered by the gravity in some ship, not that Obe Wan leaves Anakin for dead at the end. Not only does he not make any attempt to help him after he is burned, he doesn't even have the decency to do what any one of us would do for a dying animal on the side of the road. He's lost he hands, legs below the knee, burned all over--come on ya farkin' jedi, have some sympathy and put the poor thing out of his misery. Is it any wonder Anakin might hold a little grudge against the jedi? They really did treat him like shit and fark up his whole life.
I think a more plausible ending to whole series is Darth explaining to Luke just how he ended up a freak trapped behind a mask and his whole family dead. Luke comes to the realization, Kenobe really is a royal A-hole, they join forces to do the galaxy a huge favor and finish off those damn jedi once and for all.
Really, what is it about Moore's work that has inspired such a following? I respect the graphic novel as an art form, but the best I could say about Moore's writing is it's above average.
[spoiler alert]
I picked up Watchmen after hearing about it for years. Yeah, it's an entertaining read, but the big twist is the bad guy is really one of the good guys? Wasn't that also the big twist in LOEG?
Where it really falls apart is with whats-his-name, the blue guy. Dr. Manhattan. Here Moore follows the same script every other writer uses when dealing with all-powerful characters. First, the more power you have, the less you care. Which makes sense, because if the super-powerful guy who can control the very subatomic particles that make up the bad guys decides to foil the plot before it starts, you have a very short comic book. But it does not make for a very interesting character.
Then, when the super-hero does decide to get involved, he has to have some random weakness or blind spot, again because he is otherwise so powerful as to destroy any hope of suspense or plot development. "There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet." And later, "I read atoms, Laurie. I see the ancient spectacle that birthed the rubble." (Emphasis from the original.)
That very scene then slides into writing that can be described as average at best. "I return to Earth at some point in my future. There are streets full of corpses. The details are vague." Huh? What happened to all time is simultaneous? You read atoms but now the details are vague? Wot happened? "I'm not sure. There's some sort of static obscuring the future, preventing any clear impression." Hmmm. I see. So what Dr. Manhattan is saying--and please correct me if I'm reading this wrong--is, on page 6, there is no future, and he can see all time simultaneously. But on page 17, there is future, and it is obscured? If that's among the best work in comics, then it is a 2nd rate art form at best. (Note: I'm not saying the graphic novel is a 2nd rate art form; I'm saying surely it has better artists than Alan Moore.)
If I were to look for some comic books to read, I would probably start with Gaiman and Moore. But I think the trite ending to what is an otherwise entertaining Watchmen is one of the main reasons I'm not looking for some comic books to read.
100%- Simply treat them ALL as phishes. There is NO legit reason why my bank (or whatever) would be emailing me, asking me to click a link in the email.
Besides, I don't have an account with any of those companies, so I know they are all false.;-)
100% correct. Even for companies I do have an account with, no reason there would ever be a link in an email I need to click. I do have one credit card set up to send me an email when the monthly statement is ready, but when I view that statement, I'll sure use my bookmark, not a link in the email.
Of course most phishing attempts are from companies I have no association with, so that's easy to catch. And 100% of phishing emails I get are filtered by SpamBayes.
Private businesses which dont generate huge profits/growth, dont survive. Unless you know of some examples.
I'm going to skip over all the mom and pop shop down the street, part of the community, doin' it for the love anecdotes. Here's an example; super markets. Yes, they exist to generate profit/growth, but huge got nothing to do with it. Folks down at at Winn Dixie are eeking out closer to 2% margin. 20% ain't even in their dreams.
Even Debbie Does Dallas from my understanding had a high production value though i've not seen it.
I've seen Debbie Does Dallas. It has all the high production value of an SCTV skit. Unlike toady's 'gonzo' pr0n, it does have a plot and an actual attempt at acting, but it's closer to a film school project than to a big budget production like Caligula.
If you're interested in DDD and have the appropriate moral/ethical temperment, there's a torrent floating around. It's about 850 MB mpg. If buying stuff is your bag, clicky clicky.
Another fun pr0n industry nugget, #1 company in dirty movies? Marriott. All that in-room PPV adds up.
If anyone's generating stupid publicity, it's Duke University. The article just tries to figure out what effect (if any) it has had on students and their learning and interaction methods.
Duke sucks?
/It's not news for nerds? //I'm in the wrong place, aren't I?
Or, alternatively if you are not running Firefox or not using Adblock, add an entry to your host file of 127.0.0.1 for ad1.hardware.no
0.0.0.0 is better for using the HOST file to block sites if you have a web server running. 127.0.0.1 is a valid IP, so your computer will look for the blocked content at that address.
If you don't run a local web server, either will work.
I have no time for those who think life is too short to take the time to comment on someone commenting about a comment about who takes time to make some sort of crap.
I agreed with what you posted, but remember The Greatest Generation by TOM BROKAW and all its hype? It doesn't seem anymore correct to use war, instead of pop-culture, as a hook.
Argh! Straying off topic for a moment, I'd like to corner Brokaw and needle him about his so-called 'Greatest Generation.'
Certainly he looks at a period of time with many great individuals and great accomplishments, but we shouldn't forget, after these brave men and women fought for freedom in Europe, Asia, and Africa, they came home and murdered people for trying to vote. They murdered people because a man with dark skin looked the wrong way at a woman with light skin. They murdered because little black children wanted to go to decent schools with little white children. And we're not talking about isolated incidents or a 'few bad apples,' police, politicians, in some cases whole towns were accomplices to cold-blooded murder. In some instances whole communities were wiped out.
Looking abroad, the mess we're involved with in Iraq? Doesn't that go back to national boundaries arbitrarily draw by western back-room politicians of the Greatest Generation? The Islamic Revolution in Iran and the hostage crisis of '79/'80? Gee, that was a direct result of our Greatest Generation supporting the Shah. Trouble with the Palestinians? I support the state of Israel, but at best you could say that was the result of a so-so generation. There must have been some way to establish a jewish state without putting the arab world into a murderous rage for the next 50+ years.
But they did give us the TV dinner. Greatest Generation indeed.
That actually got me laughing out loud. I'd mod you up, but I already posted to this thread =)
And just a P.S., I'm not against serious examination of elements of popular culture. I'm against using pop culture as a short cut past doing good work.
I've read a couple of these books, and they just were not well written. And from reading the reviews on Amazon, I have no desire to read futher in this area.
Maybe in the English dept. of the local community college analyzing the Simpsons over rehashing the latest wisdom on Shakespeare or O'Neill is ground breaking, but out here in the real world, you have to actually do the work and write a good book.
Simpsons did it
on
Planet Simpson
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The book bills itself as "the first trade book to take a look at The Simpsons as a microcosm of the Western culture that it has both influenced and reflected."
Seriously, I [heart] the Simpsons, but I'd like to [club] pseudo-intellectual wanna-bes who think they can pose as avant-guard by doing a serious analysis of something as frivolous as a cartoon. Guess what? It's been done! They aren't breaking new ground; they don't challenge our ideas about culture.
Baseball players on steroids isn't news. (Seriously, did you think Mark Mcguire's neck looked like a roast beef naturally?) Avril Lavigne isn't punk. And leeching off of Matt Groening's genius and writing a book on the Simpsons isn't interesting or insightful.
"The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales, An Empirical Analysis" http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March 2004.pdf which found: "We find that file sharing has no statistically significant effect on purchases of the average album in our sample. Moreover, the estimates are of rather modest size when compared to the drastic reduction in sales in the music industry. At most, file sharing can explain a tiny fraction of this decline. This result is plausible given that movies, software, and video games are actively downloaded, and yet these industries have continued to grow since the advent of file sharing."
Unrestricted exact digital copies transferred at high speed to anyone who wants one will end the music industry, and end it all very quickly.
Sorry, that industry propaganda has been debunked completely by a little detail called the FACTS. CD sales were up for 2004, despite the spread of Bit Torrent and the usual P2P suspects.
And remember when Eminem's 'The Eminem Show' was so widely spread as "digital copies transferred at high speed" that it was the #2 CD played on PCs BEFORE it was released? Did that send M back to the trailer park? Oh no, it debuted as the #1 selling CD. No end to the industry there.
(http://www.buffzone.com/business/world/31bcd.html)
And since we're being real here, for a second, what about all those surveys and sales figures from the wild west Napster and MP3.com days that showed while music sales were down all over in the US of A, and music sales were down in areas of colleges and universities that blocked access from their networks to Napster, music sales were down BY A LESSER AMMOUNT near colleges and universities that did NOT block access to Napster?
1998 to 2002 CD sales were down all over. The economy was in recession, fewer titles were released by RIAA artists, the big sellers like Britany were in a slump, things were bad all over for the RIAA. Yet, sales were better in areas where students had access to "unrestricted exact digital copies transferred at high speed." Seems people actually do use the internet to 'try before they buy.'
(http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/07/21/000721hnnapsterboost.html)
So, looking at the FACTS, unrestricted exact digital copies transferred at high speed to anyone who wants one will HELP the music industry. Do you disagree?
This last comment is disputed by retired Microsoft researcher Karen Jensen, who developed part of the underlying technology; "Only by knowing that 'Gates' probably refers to Bill Gates -- and not to the plural of the movable portion of a fence -- would the program know to suggest using 'does' instead."
Okay, so the grammar check doesn't know 'Gates' is a proper noun and not a plural.
"Television ads do good marketing job in Microsoft."
Oh yeah, that's better.
Why not just say the grammar check is a tool for assistance and not a replacement for using your own farking brain to put together a clear sentence?
If memory serves, the idea of a Star Trek series based on the Academy has come up a time or two. The concept has potential to not suck and is probably the best next step for the franchise.
HOWEVER, the idea of using existing characters is horrid, especially as students. Biographies for TOS are complete to the point that for this series to be interesting and entertaining, you'd either have to have no knowledge of the ST universe or be fed lithium until you don't notice the continuity errors and contradictions that will inevitably pop up every 10 seconds.
They should do ST: The Academy, but with all original characters. An exception can be made if CleverNickName wants to do a turn as a young prof. And of course Denise Crosby is always welcome. She makes me feel funny down there.
1) Yes, he's doing a mix of hard rock / rap these days. His new album is pretty good. And he's a juggalo (re: Insane Clown Posse) which is a guaranteed million or so fans. Most juggalos (and I am one) know of him and like his new stuff. It didn't hurt that he was on surreal life sporting juggalo gear every week.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is not a popularity contest. Not to a start a flame war, but the example that comes to mind is evolution. Evolution is largely considered to be false and unproven. Those beliefs don't change scientific facts.
My point is, in the realm of technological achievements, in how many cases can I say "I could do it 30 years ago, but can't do it now" and believed?
Kennedy gave his speech on the challenge of putting a man on the moon in 1961. Man landing on the moon in 1969. If a round trip to moon was an 8 year endeavor from public declaration to goal in the 1960s, how could it take longer in the 2000s?
If I told you I spent 8 years in the 1960s developing a car that got 200 miles per gallon of gas, but if you wanted that car now, it would take more time to redevelop, would you be skeptical? With all the advances in computing and engineering, on top of all my notes from the first time around, shouldn't it be a quicker job the second time around? Wouldn't you think, maybe my 60s technology wasn't as advanced as I claim?
If I told you in I spent 8 years in the 1960s building the world's tallest skyscraper, but to build the same building now would take longer and cost more money, wouldn't you think something fishy was going on? Maybe increased cost could be inflation in material costs, but I'm not starting from scratch. I have all the preparations I did on the first building, plus any knowledge gained during construction, plus any advances in technology in the intervening 30 years.
So here we have NASA saying, we sent people to the moon in the 60s. We did it multiple times. But to do it again will take longer. Am I the only one that suspects the folks at NASA (or at least the manned mission department) have spent the last 30 years huffing propane and burning their notes? Is the moon that much further away now than it was then? Did they learn nothing from the first trips to the moon that might aid in return trips?
I do not think the moon landings were faked or a hoax. I do think there is something fishy going on here, and I don't see any one else addressing the issue. Cars in the 2000s are faster, safer, more fuel efficient than those of the 1960s. Cars in the 00s are build on technology advanced from that in the 60s. Airplanes are likewise advanced. Computers, materials, bioengineering, medicine, communications...can you think of any area of technology or engineering where there was a significant milestone reached in the 60s, but we subsequently trashed all the work done, started from scratch, and have not yet caught up to where we were then?
NASA is further away from putting a man on the moon now than it was in 1961. In those terms, the moon landings in the 60s might as well have been a hoax.
We never sent anyone to the moon. Michael Griffin has all but admitted the Apollo missions were a big hoax. Here's the science.
I usually write-off the "moon landing was a hoax" crowd as nuts and crackpots. But lately I've realized, those nuts do not have to prove we did not go to the moon. The scientific method is never about proving something hasn't or can't be done. Quite the opposite, it's the other party that has the burden of proof to back up and assertions.
Say you've got a cold fusion reactor giving off 10 times as much energy as it takes in? I don't have to prove you don't; it's your burden to prove it works--repeat your experiments, publish in a peer review journal so others can test your claims, etc. Say you've concocted a serum that cures any cancer with no side affects? I don't have to prove you haven't; it's your burden to run the clinical trials, document the treatment, etc.
Say you've not only sent people to the moon but gotten them back alive? I don't have to prove you didn't; it's your burden of proof.
Now think about it, when developing our new moon mission, not only do we have all the advances in technology in the last 30 years--huge advances in computers, sensors, materials, physics, all the biological data on how people react to extended time in space--but we have all the practical experience of the Apollo missions.
If we've done nothing, if we've had no advancement in technology, worse case scenario would be it takes just as long to get to the moon now as it took to get to the moon then. Add in just the barest advantage of having done it before, and with the most meager goal of just repeating what has already been done, you'd at least have the blueprint of what worked last time.
Then consider all the incredible developments in all those different areas of science and technology, and there is no farking way it takes longer to get to the moon in the 2000s than it did in the 1960s.
If the head of Sony came out and said they can repeat the glory of the Atari 2600, but it would cost more and take longer, you'd rightly say, "bullshit." If the head of Ford came out and said they're coming out with a new Pinto, but it will cost more and take longer to design a car that good, you'd rightly say, "bullshit."
Well, the head of NASA just came out and said they are going to try to reproduce technology they supposedly had 40 years ago, but it will cost more and take longer to develop. I say, "bullshit."
What form do satellite radio antennae take? If it fits into a wire like an FM antenna, could it be wired into the headphones?
What a sec...wasn't part of the original premise that the entire SW epic was told as seen through the sensors of R2D2 and C3PO?
Back in the day ep. I, II, and III were about the rise of the empire, not necessarily Darth Vador's origins, and the common characters from the first to second (and ultimately third) trilogy were R2 and C3. Since C3 is built by Anakin in TPM, there can be no prequels.
Or is it just my imagination?
spoilers below (eh, who am I kidding? we've all seen it already.)
That's what bothers you about ep III? Not the fact, if the jedi has any kind of health care, none of this would have ever happened? (Elder care for Anakin's mom (heck, just buy her out of slavery, give her a job mopping floors at jedi school) or prenatal care for Natalie)
You're bothered by the gravity in some ship, not that Obe Wan leaves Anakin for dead at the end. Not only does he not make any attempt to help him after he is burned, he doesn't even have the decency to do what any one of us would do for a dying animal on the side of the road. He's lost he hands, legs below the knee, burned all over--come on ya farkin' jedi, have some sympathy and put the poor thing out of his misery. Is it any wonder Anakin might hold a little grudge against the jedi? They really did treat him like shit and fark up his whole life.
I think a more plausible ending to whole series is Darth explaining to Luke just how he ended up a freak trapped behind a mask and his whole family dead. Luke comes to the realization, Kenobe really is a royal A-hole, they join forces to do the galaxy a huge favor and finish off those damn jedi once and for all.
[spoiler alert] I picked up Watchmen after hearing about it for years. Yeah, it's an entertaining read, but the big twist is the bad guy is really one of the good guys? Wasn't that also the big twist in LOEG?
Where it really falls apart is with whats-his-name, the blue guy. Dr. Manhattan. Here Moore follows the same script every other writer uses when dealing with all-powerful characters. First, the more power you have, the less you care. Which makes sense, because if the super-powerful guy who can control the very subatomic particles that make up the bad guys decides to foil the plot before it starts, you have a very short comic book. But it does not make for a very interesting character.
Then, when the super-hero does decide to get involved, he has to have some random weakness or blind spot, again because he is otherwise so powerful as to destroy any hope of suspense or plot development. "There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet." And later, "I read atoms, Laurie. I see the ancient spectacle that birthed the rubble." (Emphasis from the original.)
That very scene then slides into writing that can be described as average at best. "I return to Earth at some point in my future. There are streets full of corpses. The details are vague." Huh? What happened to all time is simultaneous? You read atoms but now the details are vague? Wot happened? "I'm not sure. There's some sort of static obscuring the future, preventing any clear impression." Hmmm. I see. So what Dr. Manhattan is saying--and please correct me if I'm reading this wrong--is, on page 6, there is no future, and he can see all time simultaneously. But on page 17, there is future, and it is obscured? If that's among the best work in comics, then it is a 2nd rate art form at best. (Note: I'm not saying the graphic novel is a 2nd rate art form; I'm saying surely it has better artists than Alan Moore.)
If I were to look for some comic books to read, I would probably start with Gaiman and Moore. But I think the trite ending to what is an otherwise entertaining Watchmen is one of the main reasons I'm not looking for some comic books to read.
100% correct. Even for companies I do have an account with, no reason there would ever be a link in an email I need to click. I do have one credit card set up to send me an email when the monthly statement is ready, but when I view that statement, I'll sure use my bookmark, not a link in the email.
Of course most phishing attempts are from companies I have no association with, so that's easy to catch. And 100% of phishing emails I get are filtered by SpamBayes.
It's called acting!
I'm going to skip over all the mom and pop shop down the street, part of the community, doin' it for the love anecdotes. Here's an example; super markets. Yes, they exist to generate profit/growth, but huge got nothing to do with it. Folks down at at Winn Dixie are eeking out closer to 2% margin. 20% ain't even in their dreams.
I've seen Debbie Does Dallas. It has all the high production value of an SCTV skit. Unlike toady's 'gonzo' pr0n, it does have a plot and an actual attempt at acting, but it's closer to a film school project than to a big budget production like Caligula.
If you're interested in DDD and have the appropriate moral/ethical temperment, there's a torrent floating around. It's about 850 MB mpg. If buying stuff is your bag, clicky clicky.
Another fun pr0n industry nugget, #1 company in dirty movies? Marriott. All that in-room PPV adds up.
F.U. Teddy Beartuzzi. I did have stuff I wanted to get done this afternoon, ya know.
(I was able to consistenly get to around 50 mines left.)
(BTW (Best. Nickname. Ever.))
Hay Winston, why not try fighting them in Germany?
Duke sucks?
0.0.0.0 is better for using the HOST file to block sites if you have a web server running. 127.0.0.1 is a valid IP, so your computer will look for the blocked content at that address.
If you don't run a local web server, either will work.
I have no time for those who think life is too short to take the time to comment on someone commenting about a comment about who takes time to make some sort of crap.
Argh! Straying off topic for a moment, I'd like to corner Brokaw and needle him about his so-called 'Greatest Generation.'
Certainly he looks at a period of time with many great individuals and great accomplishments, but we shouldn't forget, after these brave men and women fought for freedom in Europe, Asia, and Africa, they came home and murdered people for trying to vote. They murdered people because a man with dark skin looked the wrong way at a woman with light skin. They murdered because little black children wanted to go to decent schools with little white children. And we're not talking about isolated incidents or a 'few bad apples,' police, politicians, in some cases whole towns were accomplices to cold-blooded murder. In some instances whole communities were wiped out.
Looking abroad, the mess we're involved with in Iraq? Doesn't that go back to national boundaries arbitrarily draw by western back-room politicians of the Greatest Generation? The Islamic Revolution in Iran and the hostage crisis of '79/'80? Gee, that was a direct result of our Greatest Generation supporting the Shah. Trouble with the Palestinians? I support the state of Israel, but at best you could say that was the result of a so-so generation. There must have been some way to establish a jewish state without putting the arab world into a murderous rage for the next 50+ years.
But they did give us the TV dinner. Greatest Generation indeed.
That actually got me laughing out loud. I'd mod you up, but I already posted to this thread =)
And just a P.S., I'm not against serious examination of elements of popular culture. I'm against using pop culture as a short cut past doing good work.
I've read a couple of these books, and they just were not well written. And from reading the reviews on Amazon, I have no desire to read futher in this area.
Maybe in the English dept. of the local community college analyzing the Simpsons over rehashing the latest wisdom on Shakespeare or O'Neill is ground breaking, but out here in the real world, you have to actually do the work and write a good book.
Kinda sounds like The Simpsons And Society: An Analysis Of Our Favorite Family And Its Influence In Contemporary Society
Just like The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer
Seriously, I [heart] the Simpsons, but I'd like to [club] pseudo-intellectual wanna-bes who think they can pose as avant-guard by doing a serious analysis of something as frivolous as a cartoon. Guess what? It's been done! They aren't breaking new ground; they don't challenge our ideas about culture.
Baseball players on steroids isn't news. (Seriously, did you think Mark Mcguire's neck looked like a roast beef naturally?) Avril Lavigne isn't punk. And leeching off of Matt Groening's genius and writing a book on the Simpsons isn't interesting or insightful.
"Napster Helps RIAA Again; RIAA Still Ungrateful (Updated)"1 3
0 2
5 2
h 2004.pdf
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/26/18122
"Napster Spurs CD Sales; Gets Sued Again Anyway"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/31/16372
"RIAA Almost Down To Pre-Napster Revenues"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/27/02132
"RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy"
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
"The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales, An Empirical Analysis"
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_Marc
which found:
"We find that file sharing has no statistically significant effect on purchases of the average
album in our sample. Moreover, the estimates are of rather modest size when compared
to the drastic reduction in sales in the music industry. At most, file sharing can explain a
tiny fraction of this decline. This result is plausible given that movies, software, and
video games are actively downloaded, and yet these industries have continued to grow
since the advent of file sharing."
So, yes, let's be real for more than a second.
Sorry, that industry propaganda has been debunked completely by a little detail called the FACTS. CD sales were up for 2004, despite the spread of Bit Torrent and the usual P2P suspects.
And remember when Eminem's 'The Eminem Show' was so widely spread as "digital copies transferred at high speed" that it was the #2 CD played on PCs BEFORE it was released? Did that send M back to the trailer park? Oh no, it debuted as the #1 selling CD. No end to the industry there.l )
(http://www.buffzone.com/business/world/31bcd.htm
And since we're being real here, for a second, what about all those surveys and sales figures from the wild west Napster and MP3.com days that showed while music sales were down all over in the US of A, and music sales were down in areas of colleges and universities that blocked access from their networks to Napster, music sales were down BY A LESSER AMMOUNT near colleges and universities that did NOT block access to Napster?
1998 to 2002 CD sales were down all over. The economy was in recession, fewer titles were released by RIAA artists, the big sellers like Britany were in a slump, things were bad all over for the RIAA. Yet, sales were better in areas where students had access to "unrestricted exact digital copies transferred at high speed." Seems people actually do use the internet to 'try before they buy.'1 /000721hnnapsterboost.html)
(http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/07/2
So, looking at the FACTS, unrestricted exact digital copies transferred at high speed to anyone who wants one will HELP the music industry. Do you disagree?
best advice of the thread. (Add english, history, whatever non-technical pre-reqs you'll need for the 4-year degree)
Just beware when it becomes interactive (overflow)!
Okay, so the grammar check doesn't know 'Gates' is a proper noun and not a plural.
"Television ads do good marketing job in Microsoft."
Oh yeah, that's better.
Why not just say the grammar check is a tool for assistance and not a replacement for using your own farking brain to put together a clear sentence?
If memory serves, the idea of a Star Trek series based on the Academy has come up a time or two. The concept has potential to not suck and is probably the best next step for the franchise.
HOWEVER, the idea of using existing characters is horrid, especially as students. Biographies for TOS are complete to the point that for this series to be interesting and entertaining, you'd either have to have no knowledge of the ST universe or be fed lithium until you don't notice the continuity errors and contradictions that will inevitably pop up every 10 seconds.
They should do ST: The Academy, but with all original characters. An exception can be made if CleverNickName wants to do a turn as a young prof. And of course Denise Crosby is always welcome. She makes me feel funny down there.
Juggalo? What ever happened to 'whigger'?