Please. An unarmed man was shot to death by another man in an altercation. Regardless of any other circumstances, this needs to go to trial. Any prosecutor that doesn't take a case like this to trial should be fired.
A writer can sometimes use a comma in place of "and", even if not enumerating a series with more than two items. Newspapers do it all the time on their headlines, even though it's not a very common construct otherwise.
Some links for reference:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1295845
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyndeton
I would imagine that they would be saying something like:
Butthead: "Whoa, uhh... huh, huh, huh... he said coronal hole... huh, huh, huh."
Beavis: "Yeah, yeah... I'm Coronal Holio, and I need TP for my burn hole!"
PS: I hope my karma can withstand the solar flares that will probably result from this post.
Should have previewed first. That was meant to be Touche'.
Touché, AC!
Eh, sorry, but I lost faith in the Bullshit show when I noticed just based on one episode (the Yoga one) that they commit the same error that other rabid skeptics do: they tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. With a simple wave of their hand they pronounce something bullshit instead of pointing out that it has flaws but also some benefits. They also show the most outrageously sensationalistic examples of the flaws that they can find. In other words, the show is not much better than the bullshit they're claiming to expose.
Are you surprised? Look back at the Texas textbook controversy from a couple of years back. The most interesting bit of information to come out of that for me was that Texas somehow supposedly has in their laws that they are required to promote "free enterprise", among other conservative ideals. Now, I don't have a citation for any such law, but check this article for a quick review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history
The relevant quote:
The board is to vote on a sweeping purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school textbooks in favour of what Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy.
"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. [Emphasis mine] There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."
You must know that recycling and anthropogenic global warming are anti-god, anti-patriotic, and anti-free enterprise, right?
So, while you may have been indoctrinated in one direction in Minnesota, a direction motivated a real practical reason (we're quickly running out of resources), your friends in Texas were indoctrinated in the opposite direction, motivated by an ideology of "we don't wanna be no godless commies".
Yes, he was, in fact. The co-driver or navigator in stage rally reads the notes of what is coming up ahead on the road to the driver. For instance, severity of turns, what's after a crest, any surprises (like large rocks on the side of the road), usually a few steps ahead of where they actually are on the road. So they're reading that notebook to the driver during the entire competitive stage that they are racing. This allows the driver to "see" ahead so he can adjust his driving accordingly.
Depends on what you mean by mainstream. There is http://www.livestation.com/ with live streams of Al Jazeera, France 24, Russia Today, and the Wall Street Journal (who now have video news), all in English. Depending on what country you're watching from, they also stream CNN International and BBC World News as well.
"We" (we being the west) cannot fix Africa short of turning it into east Carolina. They need to come up with their own functional modes of government and funding, whatever those are, on their own. The people have no chance when their local tinpot dictators are being propped up by someone with 100x their power and economy.
Good points, but let's give them a chance. They're working on it, but it will take a while. Didn't most countries in Africa only break away from colonial rule in the last 60 years or so? Here's a NY Times article from a couple of days ago describing the slow progress they are making toward being stable democracies, which would be a first step toward making the improvements you mention: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/world/africa/africas-steady-steps-toward-democracy.html
Look into the Netflix streaming "Just for Kids" option. UI designed for kids, using icons of the characters in the movies/tv shows. No ads.
So the "branding responsibility" game ends if other companies make similar ads? Looks like Samsung [youtube.com] has completely let Apple off the hook then - emo types and independent hipsters as far as the eye can see in their ads.
No. But the company that tries to make itself appear more socially and environmentally conscious than their competition opens itself up for more pressure to fulfill that image, which is exactly what has happened to Apple. Sorry, but that Samsung ad is nowhere near the level of "specialness" of any Apple ads.
Which translates to support for better working conditions....how, exactly? Makes as much sense as "Cool and Refreshing"/Global Warming.
Old, entrenched powers are associated with oppression and servitude, which are associated with unfair working conditions. Just look at their famous 1984 ad for a perfect example of how they portray themselves as a new thinking entity that left the old ways behind. Besides, I wasn't only referring to their ads, but also the fact that they do things like issue working conditions rules for their suppliers and then report annually on the violations of those rules. In short, it's a completely different chain of ideas than cool and refreshing vs. global warming.
As opposed to...every other commercial company on the planet, no matter what the product? Making your product seem different from everyone else is pretty much Branding 101.
Understand that I'm not arguing that Apple does something that no other company in their market does, only that they try much harder to make that impression of environmental and social consciousness, and that is what the bulk of their customers has come to expect from them, more so than from any other company in their market. Combine that with being the richest company in the world, and you have a recipe for extra public pressure. It's the old idea that the first one to stand taller than the rest is the first one to get chopped down.
Any more reasons why 100% of the blame should be focused on 10% of the problem?
I never said that, so you're twisting my words. I said that one of the reasons why they are more pressured about these things is the image of themselves that they have built in the public's eye.
No. Pepsi's and Budweiser's marketing is par for the course within their market segments ("our products are cold and refreshing, and you will be happy if you drink them").
In contrast, think of the image that Apple presents of itself in its marketing. They portray and call themselves "different" from any other computer/electronics company. They sell themselves as a symbol of freedom and breaking away from the old establishment. Furthermore, they actually do make some effort to try to fulfill the expectations of those people that buy that image from them: they list all the environmental features of their products, issue reports on the working conditions at their factories, etc.
In short, Apple tries really hard to show themselves as different (specifically better in terms that would appeal to environmentally and socially conscious consumers) from any other company in their market segments.
No problem, I had to run off as well. Thanks too!
And I could produce an endless example of innovation prevented or hampered by onerous copyright durations, and examples of creation that came as a result of works lapsing in to the public domain.
Absolutely. But then it would be down to a possible public good vs. denying someone income from their own work. I imagine that if it came down to that choice the courts would side with the individual.
I'm not sure how your proposal fixes this. You said that copyright terms should last as long as the public values and demands a work, and while the author lives. Joe's work obviously fell from popularity or was very obscure until the studio picked it up. What happened there? Did Joe lose his copyright during the obscure years, to regain it when the song became popular?
The scenario was based on the idea of copyrights only lasting 15 years. Anyway, I didn't mean that both conditions had to be true for the copyright to be maintained. What I meant was that as long as Joe was alive, he had a right to any profits made from his creations. I think that a lot of the issues that exist could be resolved by going back to the idea of a shorter initial copyright renewable for a longer time. Something like initial 20 or 30, renewable up to 70 or even 100 (given expected longer lifespans, etc) in steps of 10 years at a time. The creator would have to be the one to make the renewal, so if he dies there are no more renewals.
If Joe is still producing music 15 years later, one would hope that in that time he's been able to come up with something else to pay the bills (unless his music is more a hobby). We shouldn't provide these long copyright terms on the off-chance that song/story x could in 15 years time be used commercially. 15 years to me seems a reasonably amount of time for someone to control a work and pursue profit from it. Joe was either remiss in his efforts to profit from his work or the later success of his song is a bit of a freak occurrence.
Sure, but sometimes art is a very unpredictable business, just look at all the one hit wonders. Also, if you slightly modify my scenario with one of these one hit wonders having their one hit 15 years ago it may make a bit more sense. A lot of old popular songs are revived by covers, movies, TV shows years after original publication.
The idea of copyright only be owned by creators is a nice one, albeit problematic. I should have the right to sell the rights to my work to anyone I chose, which is why I think that copyright terms should simply be fixed periods. I'm presuming when you say that creators should be the only ones to profit, that this would include some scope for licencing works? Otherwise I don't see how publishers could exist, and although many of these companies are vultures (particularly on the music side) they do serve a purpose in the physical world. I would hope though that the move to digital distribution reduces their power.
I agree. Going with a renewable schedule like I mentioned above, the creator could sell the rights to those songs for those specific windows of copyright, after which the copyright would revert to the creator, and he or she would have the option to renew it, and sell the rights for the next window.
Maybe 15 is too short for all cases, but certainly I think we agree that the idea of copyright persisting after death is perverse and morbid. History records no instances of creation from beyond the grave.
Yes, we agree on that, and I think we agree on the general idea that there should be a better balance between the public interest and the interest of the creator of the work when it comes to copyright laws. I think it's mostly a discussion of how to fine tune it to best achieve that balance.
Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner
