Ah, but the ratings for violence are different between, say, Germany and the USA. Something considered PG in the United States might get a FSK16 (similar to R) rating in Germany due to violence. On the other hand, a movie that was shown in Germany with a FSK12 (analogue to PG or PG13) would get an R in the States due to mild nudity. That was my point.
I have a problem with claiming that the Colonists were Christians, mostly because of the whole Pilgrims mythology that ignores the more profit-oriented attitudes in Virginia and the other plantation colonies. Most of those coming to the Americas were more interested in making a pile of cash, not in the vaunted religious freedoms. I would have to go do some research again, but IIRC this elevation of the New England colonists over the Virginians came with the US Civil War, bringing with it the reinvention of the Thanksgiving holiday.
The current power of the prudes is more based upon an aphorism that Ben Franklin once put in Poor Richard's Almanac: the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They might not be more than a vocal minority, but boy, are they vocal! No wonder they have gotten their way for so long.
Enough ranting for today.
Actually, this is more the standard in the USA, where violence is tolerated more than nudity. In most European countries, the standard seems to be reversed: American television shows are considered extremely violent and not suitable for children, but you can see billboard advertisements for soap featuring mild nudity (anything except genitals, really). Other parts of the world like Saudi Arabia forbid even showing females in print, which caused a kerfluffle when Ikea photoshopped all women out of the Saudi version of their catalog.
The biggest problem, really, is that obscenity filters are oriented only towards Americans, since the USA has the noisiest "church ladies" and Tipper Gore wannabes (man, I am dating myself here!). The rest of the world is either not big enough a market to filter for, or tolerant anyways so there is no need for more restrictions. So the techies just do enough filtering to cover their asses and can't be bothered to actually maintain said filters, since that isn't really a moneymaker.
I would say the proper term is "plagiarised". What Zynga did was not (as one poster said) adding a moustache to the Mona Lisa and calling it an original, but rather selling copies of a famous painting that is alike except for the signature and the colour of the flowers in the far background. Alike enough to dupe careless buyers, and just different enough to pretend that it is an original work of art.
Considering that most artist work on commission up front, your snark is kind of moot. We're letting a tiny elite control the dialogue, and have long since abandoned the "publish or perish" intent of the original copyright term limits for their benefit.
A lot of studio musicians actually do use this model. They get paid per recording session, or a fixed rate per gig. Composers also often get an upfront fee in lieu of royalties, so in reality we are talking about a very small minority of artists involved, and for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth there is not less money being spent on music, and the amount going to commercial bootleggers and so-called pirates has not increased.
What *is* true is that Apple and Amazon, with their bookkeeping of copied downloaded and/or sold have exposed how often studios and the RIAA would cheat those due royalties. What also is true is that the first copyright laws were not written to protect the authors, but to protect those with printing presses who wanted to cut exclusive deals to offset the cost of their equipment. It is a system that originates from an era when duplication was expensive, when duplication for personal use was unknown.
The same could be said for Sicilians, for that matter. Or any other ethnic group/nationality with a reputation for corruption and/or organised crime.
I think the main reason is that Nigeria is chosen is because it is known for two things: having incredible wealth in natural resources (mostly oil) yet at the same time it's seen as one of the poorest nations in Africa. That disconnect suggests that a lot of corruption exists, thus setting the stage for believing that there really is someone trying to smuggle out millions in ill-gotten gains. It also sets the stage for believing that local officials are corrupt enough to let this happen. Something else I just thought of: ill-gotten wealth from skimming oil profits is also something I imagine sounds less risky than profits from selling, say, blood diamonds - less suggested risk of violent criminals looking for where the money disappeared to.
If it is entertaining, then yes. Think of all the other time wasters like watching TV, playing Angry Birds, reading Slashdot...
I have a hunch that the FunnyJunk owner is not really all that interested any more, and that Carreon picked this fight as a way to gain a reputation. Now his ego won't let him back down, and in his world the Oatmeal is now the Moby Dick to his Ahab, with FunnyJunk tricked into being his Pequod.
Well, from what we know of this guy, it seems he really is the internet version of an ambulance chaser. He got a lucky break in the sex.com brouhaha, and now like a gambler that won a lottery jackpot he's scratching every card he can buy, desperate for the next big win. After all, look at this line from the Comic Riffs blog report:
Carreon tells Comic Riffs one of his goals is to become the go-to attorney for people who feel they have been cyber-vandalized or similarly wronged on the Internet.
We can only hope that his hubris will soon make him the disgraced pariah that he needs to be.
Thank you, this. I was referring to the perceived efficiency, and one of those factors is the ratio of budget spent on actual purpose of the charity as opposed to fundraising and management. SJK is a celebrity case where other charities like the Red Cross and Unicef have also drawn fire, and can be compared to PP. The irony is that donating to SJK is in a way an indirect donation to PP.
If only it were true, but it ends up going into the bank accounts of the traders, who use it not to purchase goods and services but hoard it as a way of keeping score. A lot of the financial industry is only interested in competition on who can collect the most dollars.
Ah, more evidence that the financial industry has been overtaken by the gamblers and card sharps. Only instead of counting cards at the blackjack table, they are gambling that milliseconds of latency will give them an edge over the rubes.
Well, "poorly managed" is an unproven claim. Some are, it is true, but those that I have dealt with have less overhead than most businesses. Take women's health care: The Susan J. Komen turned out to be a vanity charity, but Planned Parenthood actually delivers a surprisingly efficient operation with much less going into bureaucratic and fundraising efforts.
So relax, just consider it giving Matt the money to blow on bears and cancer cures. You're just giving it to him to do with as he pleases, and it pleases him to give it to a couple of charities.
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis
