I think I refute this. SImply put, I am saying that people aren't allowed to talk about what's decent. At least not in this context. This is not a 'community at large fears harm' issue, this is an issue that hinges on the moral and unprovable version of "hurting others" that one large religious body holds in a country that pointedly disallows the influence of faith in establishing laws.
There is a good reason that "...people who say they should have the right to do whatever they want with their lives without hurting others always seem to reserve the right to define for themselves what "hurting others" means." (sic) It's because the strictest and least permissive groups would always win out if they were allowed the decision. Imagine for a moment your reaction to a statement that "The christian church across from my home erected a cross that I feel hurts me. It reminds me of the trials of my pagan ancestors and the church itself poses a threat to the well being of my developing children. Tear it down, I as member of the community, have a right to demand this." Would you say that was ridiculous?
Here you support the right of a subset of the national community to discuss the outright censorship of arts and expressions provided to us in the 1st amendment of our constitution. In the same sentence you denounce a community that sees the folly inherent in pushing for censorship of arts and media. Should the games media, serious journalists or not, legitimize these functions? Or hsould they vote with their collective absence and shun these radical censors as the rest of the free community should?
Here in America we should hold precious our freedom of speech, our freedom of the press (which honestly should include games and video, whther it does or not, media is media) and our freedom to not only choose our own religion, be it what it may be, but to be free of persecution from other religions.
So don't legislate my F'ing morals, OK? And bully to the games media for not showing up, these people should be ignored at the very least, if not run out of the community like these defenses of censorship and mob rule suggest.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 0
So, it's my problem that the antiquated means by which the broadcasters get their money won't work forever?
If my equipment will edit the signal (which is all that the broadcasters provide, and they provide it at the cost of my cable connection or free by way of the antennae on my roof) and the broadcaster loses advert money because the people providing them with their revenue quit, then the onus is on them to change their business model, is it not? It is not I, the mere consumer, that actually provides any revenues to the broadcaster, not really.
I don't provide the media sources with income from my atttention, I don't provide them with income AT ALL, that is the job of the advertisers, if the advertisers deem the media unworthy of support it dies, which again, is not really my problem.
So, I repeat, in answer to your question of "new business models" it's MY job to come up with these? No. I think not.
I'd have to read it again, but wiki notes aside, I'm about 99 percent positive that it is never implicitly stated in the book or movie that Deckard is or is not a replicant.
*mulitple spoilers*
But in the novel, he is convinced that his neighbor has a real live pet, but it, *like all living things left on the earth (*this is implied) is a facsimile. Also, while Deckard eventually concludes that Rachel is a Replicant, it is based in the end on a guess. I believe that is implicit, I think Deckard says as much to Tyrell when he outs her. Further, I'm pretty sure that the implication at the end of the day was that the other Blade Runner officers weren't real(tm) either.
Nah, I don't like Ipods either. They have fewer features than contemporary devices (archos, nomad) had kess storage space and have the whole Itunes DRM dependancy issue that has been discussed to death here already.
My real bitch with the thing is more with the community that bought them, with superior devices already on the market, it took a swoosh (Nike styly) and flashy aesthetic (not good UI, btw) to sell the pretty plastic players. That little touch discy on the front of your underfeatured (but overpriced) fisher-price mpeg player is about as unintuitive and nuanced a control set that I have found in a handheld. Sure, those that have taken the time and practice to figure the ways might be able to work it, but, an at-a-glance pick-up user will not be able to effecively navigate a (/laugh) "Full-featured" I-pod without making many accidental playlist or song or volume changes. An unavoidable learning curve with such a mulit-purpose contextual control.
After that you'll still have to buy the most recent and expensive version (still with the unintutitive, unlabled, touch-disc UI) to be able to see the 'trickled-out-to-market' tech that was available from other players over 5 years ago (video).
I'm bothered that it takes a flashy package and logo to popularize what was an already available technology, and furhter that the company that popularized it would cripple the feature sets and usability of their device in the process and yet still get praise.
(p.s. I too will buy music if it is both good and available, but the Itunes store has failed me on my last two music searches, though the tracks were pretty popular at the time that they were released (less than 10 years ago) thank god for Torrents or I would have no music.)
Hey dumbass, way to show your mastery of irony. You slam an entire country, larger than most others in population, racial diversity, and square mileage, for rash generalization. Do I need to point your rash generalization out? WTG Idiot.
Further Marshmallows are not an american creation.
Look it up before you open your filthy, ignorant, cake hole.
Re:"Is this the start of the next space race?"
on
US Plans Lunar Motel
·
· Score: 1
No, the Moon is not US soil. It is by treaty international.
Further, a desire for patriotic, soil grubbing, flag waving competition as a means to an end is shallow, divisive and in many ways what is keeping the race from the stars. We should get off the rock because it behooves humanity, not to be cooler than the red team.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I refute this. SImply put, I am saying that people aren't allowed to talk about what's decent. At least not in this context. This is not a 'community at large fears harm' issue, this is an issue that hinges on the moral and unprovable version of "hurting others" that one large religious body holds in a country that pointedly disallows the influence of faith in establishing laws.
There is a good reason that "...people who say they should have the right to do whatever they want with their lives without hurting others always seem to reserve the right to define for themselves what "hurting others" means." (sic) It's because the strictest and least permissive groups would always win out if they were allowed the decision. Imagine for a moment your reaction to a statement that "The christian church across from my home erected a cross that I feel hurts me. It reminds me of the trials of my pagan ancestors and the church itself poses a threat to the well being of my developing children. Tear it down, I as member of the community, have a right to demand this." Would you say that was ridiculous?
Here you support the right of a subset of the national community to discuss the outright censorship of arts and expressions provided to us in the 1st amendment of our constitution. In the same sentence you denounce a community that sees the folly inherent in pushing for censorship of arts and media. Should the games media, serious journalists or not, legitimize these functions? Or hsould they vote with their collective absence and shun these radical censors as the rest of the free community should?
Here in America we should hold precious our freedom of speech, our freedom of the press (which honestly should include games and video, whther it does or not, media is media) and our freedom to not only choose our own religion, be it what it may be, but to be free of persecution from other religions.
So don't legislate my F'ing morals, OK? And bully to the games media for not showing up, these people should be ignored at the very least, if not run out of the community like these defenses of censorship and mob rule suggest.
So, it's my problem that the antiquated means by which the broadcasters get their money won't work forever?
If my equipment will edit the signal (which is all that the broadcasters provide, and they provide it at the cost of my cable connection or free by way of the antennae on my roof) and the broadcaster loses advert money because the people providing them with their revenue quit, then the onus is on them to change their business model, is it not? It is not I, the mere consumer, that actually provides any revenues to the broadcaster, not really.
I don't provide the media sources with income from my atttention, I don't provide them with income AT ALL, that is the job of the advertisers, if the advertisers deem the media unworthy of support it dies, which again, is not really my problem.
So, I repeat, in answer to your question of "new business models" it's MY job to come up with these? No. I think not.
I'd have to read it again, but wiki notes aside, I'm about 99 percent positive that it is never implicitly stated in the book or movie that Deckard is or is not a replicant.
*mulitple spoilers*
But in the novel, he is convinced that his neighbor has a real live pet, but it, *like all living things left on the earth (*this is implied) is a facsimile. Also, while Deckard eventually concludes that Rachel is a Replicant, it is based in the end on a guess. I believe that is implicit, I think Deckard says as much to Tyrell when he outs her. Further, I'm pretty sure that the implication at the end of the day was that the other Blade Runner officers weren't real(tm) either.
Nah, I don't like Ipods either. They have fewer features than contemporary devices (archos, nomad) had kess storage space and have the whole Itunes DRM dependancy issue that has been discussed to death here already. My real bitch with the thing is more with the community that bought them, with superior devices already on the market, it took a swoosh (Nike styly) and flashy aesthetic (not good UI, btw) to sell the pretty plastic players. That little touch discy on the front of your underfeatured (but overpriced) fisher-price mpeg player is about as unintuitive and nuanced a control set that I have found in a handheld. Sure, those that have taken the time and practice to figure the ways might be able to work it, but, an at-a-glance pick-up user will not be able to effecively navigate a (/laugh) "Full-featured" I-pod without making many accidental playlist or song or volume changes. An unavoidable learning curve with such a mulit-purpose contextual control. After that you'll still have to buy the most recent and expensive version (still with the unintutitive, unlabled, touch-disc UI) to be able to see the 'trickled-out-to-market' tech that was available from other players over 5 years ago (video). I'm bothered that it takes a flashy package and logo to popularize what was an already available technology, and furhter that the company that popularized it would cripple the feature sets and usability of their device in the process and yet still get praise. (p.s. I too will buy music if it is both good and available, but the Itunes store has failed me on my last two music searches, though the tracks were pretty popular at the time that they were released (less than 10 years ago) thank god for Torrents or I would have no music.)
The RFID tag goes in the long bone before the first knuckle at the base of your thumb.
Have a nice day, Citizen.
Hey dumbass, way to show your mastery of irony. You slam an entire country, larger than most others in population, racial diversity, and square mileage, for rash generalization. Do I need to point your rash generalization out? WTG Idiot.
u estion128.htm&url=http://www.faqs.org/faqs/food/ca ndy/peeps/section-12.html
Further Marshmallows are not an american creation.
Look it up before you open your filthy, ignorant, cake hole.
S-F-B.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=q
http://home.howstuffworks.com/question128.htm
No, the Moon is not US soil. It is by treaty international. Further, a desire for patriotic, soil grubbing, flag waving competition as a means to an end is shallow, divisive and in many ways what is keeping the race from the stars. We should get off the rock because it behooves humanity, not to be cooler than the red team.