I was thinking of replying to a previous post about Beatles being outdated, but I'd rather not. Especially now that I see your post, which articulates the concept more clearly than merely saying, "...these are words that go together well," still applies today as much as it did when they were written and put to music.

When I clicked to read the slashdot comments for this article, the quote at the bottom of the page reads:

"I consider a new device or technology to have been culturally accepted when it has been used to commit a murder. -- M. Gallaher"

Thar it is!

I use Adobe on Mac instead of Windows not because I hate/love either operating system, but because I have 20 years worth of Applescript built for a unique workflow that involves much more than Adobe/Apple/Microsoft products.

As someone who just fairly recently subscribed to Netflix in defiance to all video stores, redboxes, cable and satellite plans, I just wanna say....

THANK YOU!!!

"What really is the difference between saying 'I took a dump' and 'I took a shit'? They mean exactly the same thing, but for some reason shit is a dirty word."

My (step)son completed his Freshman term last year at a private Canadian High School. For your example "dump" *is* a dirty word in that context, and if said that way he can get into as much trouble as if he had used the word "shit" (in any context). Same goes for "frig" and many other seemingly innocent words that kids are using as codewords for naughty words.

"DSL which was close to $50 when it first came out can be had for $15 a month these days."

Lucky you. DSL is more or less the same price when it came out as it is today in my area. Sure, there's all of two providers for ISP using DSL that compete at exactly one cent per month difference, but sadly there is only one provider of the POTS landline that makes DSL possible in my home and both DSL providers require it - one of them is the same provider of the landline service, which adds to the cost of the DSL service fee even if I don't use POTS at all. I hear that if I push the issue then I can make it a "naked DSL" service line, but it still works out to more than $50/month and I have to go with just that one ISP provider.

Ya, thot so. Vague memory of being told, "That's illegal," when someone burnt a bill in protest or for a magic act or something.

Thanks for not taking my mention as an argument against your stance, as I also do not speak for the US govt (tho as a citizen of the US, I can - the whole of the people thing).

Plus, I feel better about my other reply to the parent, er, maybe gp, post when I said that burning money is as "wrong" as burning a book - both only have value that we assign to them, rather than an intrinsic value. Merely, we've assigned a very high value to a publication if it's money (so much so it is, indeed, illegal to burn it and therefore any exception to First Amendment protection is probably handled on a case by case basis).

As you state, Flag burning is more apt as a comparison to book burning (especially that it's codified by a 1989 Supreme Court ruling).

Ya, I've been all over different discussions about the whole 451 acts lately, being a literary buff and all; which is the only reason I now know that about flag burning laws.

Had to think for a minute, maybe even retract my first reply to the parent of your reply, but... I can't remember; isn't there some federal statute about the only people who can burn money is the federal mint? Otherwise, I believe, it's illegal as far as destruction of federal property (ie, no, we don't own the script, we merely use it under the conditions imposed by the real owner - the US Treasury).

I sense that you are trying to be sarcastic, but I see it as a very apt substitution. Currency has no value other than what we assign it, just like books.

Narcotic, then?

Friend of mine explained the secret to me. If you go to your doctor and say you want marijuana because it's medicine that alleviates pain the doctor will prescribe you pain killers, not pot. If you go to the doctor and say you want marijuana because you're in pain and when you smoke pot you don't care about the pain and feel better from the high, then they prescribe it to you. If you go to your doctor and say the chemotherapy has depressed you and destroyed your appitite, the doctor recommends pot so you can feel better and get the munchies.

The medicinal properties of marijuana are one; it's a euphoric barbituate.

I can't let you do that, Dave.

I'd laugh very hard with you and the Funny mod except you have completely captured the quintessential essense of my hate for that application.

Ya, that was implied in the interview, too. I'd never seen more than glimpses of PBS news shows. Kinda party for the Democrats, but not any where as egregious as other spin machines. I actually appreciated their attempts at neutrality - for the other news show that preceded I mean, the interview was very focused, non-partisan, and non-infotainment; it all looked like real journalism!

Because he was telling his story and complaining on television about no one televising his story and complaints. Okay, maybe not ironic in a literal sense, but still kind of silly. His point was not lost on me nor on the interviewer, since the overall poor state of 15 minute journalism overshadows the one hour of fame he got, especially in the way the lack of journalism in Haiti during relief efforts effects public perception (and donations/volunteering) about the real situation in Haiti. Essentially, there was lots of coverage of the carnage right after the earthquake, but no coverage of the fallout and struggles that followed. So when journalists came back in six months to follow up they couldn't get a clear picture of "what happened" as to why the relief efforts weren't "working" as well as people assumed they would.