His comments demonstrate his mastery of the delicate art of double think.
Two definition of doublethink from Wikipedia and 1984:
? To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself ? that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink. ?
? The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies ? all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth ?
The studios have such a low regard for the Latin American audience, that they never offered good movies in Netflix to begin with.
I buy Blue Ray discs of movies I like, except when they're ridiculously overpriced. So I generally wait a year or so after their release. Before that, I watch them in the movie theater and download them from torrent sites. I don't feel guilty. I'm paying at least twice for them, and waiting over a year for them.
If they were offered at a normal price, 2 weeks after release, I'm sure their sales would go through the roof in Mexico.
I refuse to buy bad movies, pay for cable, or Netflix. I don't want to encourage Hollywood to shoot itself in the foot any further.
I think you _should_ use the word corruption when talking about the RIAA and the MPAA. It's the perfect word for it, and I hadn't seen it. It seems obvious now.
They're focused on infringement, while they've committed bribery and abuse of monopoly, and eroding democracy. They're the ultimate hypocrites!
If you measure the impact of infringement vs the impact of their corruption on the common good, they are the worse offenders.
I do most of my interaction on Facebook with 10 or so friends, and we do see each other in person at least every few days or so. After Google+ and Facebook introduced circles and friend lists, I put those people on a "close friends" group, and share the private stuff only with them.
When I didn't have Facebook I was nagged silly with emails from people inviting me to join. After I joined 5 years ago, I get 1-2 friend requests almost every day.
I used to be very popular (I was in a megachurch worship team in Honduras) and knew 600-800 people by name there. Besides that, I've made several hundred acquaintances in each city I've lived. Them make up the bulk of my fb friends.
I saw Shelly Turkle's most recent TED talk, which explains her attitude much better than the article does...she used to be the type who shared everything online, and advocated others to do so. She still does, but questions herself as to why.
Not at all, I'm a "Facebook whore" with over 1000 fake friends...and that's where my opinion is coming from...I don't share my life with them nor they with me, only a babble of status updates.
I'm from Honduras by the way, but have liven in the US and now live in Mexico.
I think one reason texting, chatting, and even video chat can't replace physical human interaction is bandwidth.
When we are in the same room with someone else, neither of us can control the non-verbal information that makes up about 80% of communication according to some.
Because we only present a squeaky-clean, groomed version of ourselves in our facebook profiles, or anywhere online, we miss out on most of the data about the people we are interacting with.
The sensation of having a human being near you is also much more comforting, they can hug you (or punch you) if you need/deserve it.
I agree with you that tickets are a more important metric than revenue, but not the rest of what I hear you saying. It seems to me that your apparent dislike of Mike's ideas misled you a bit.
Most of the arguments in the article are Roger Ebert's, not Mike's, and I hope you agree Ebert's opinion is not meaningless. He's the leading movie critic in the business. Both are experts within their fields.
Imagine how ridiculously easy it will be to censor books when all the government has to do is "ask" someone to delete a file on a server somewhere.
Hard copies (like physical books) matter. The situation that Mr. Bradbury describes in Fahrenheit 451 is coming true. Should the government censor a book in the near future, the only alternative to preserve it would be a hard copy, or outright memorization. If no hard copies are made, the book will vanish in a puff of bits and electrons.
Au Contraire, Chavez is very smart. He is a skilled strategist and orator. He has millions of followers, made mostly through promises of money and power disguised as concern for the poor and socialism.
He is, in the words of Tolkien, a "wise fool". That's what makes dangerous. He is a traitor to the poor in whose name he governs, and an enemy of democracy in Latin America. But he hides it very well.
I think the government's real accomplishment here is showing everyone that they listen in on every cell phone conversation. Having the government spying on its citizens is very troubling, and makes me wonder how much of it happens on this side of the Pacific Ocean.
I think Google simply wanted everyone to know that Bing was copying, to discourage people from using it, and prevent the sort of wild claims Microsoft is fond of making.
Typo in title
Hello, your friendly neighborhood proofreader/nazi here,
Journailsm vs Journalism.
My fingers type chords all the time, (I "paly" the piano) and my dyslexia does the rest.
:)
And they ripped off Keith Haring's art
It's interesting that the ad they created also clearly copies Keith Haring's work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Haring
Re: Re: Re:
The CC has an anti-Chavista "bias" if you will. But they do acknowledge the disinformation you are mentioning exists, and they don't buy it either.
Read their articles, even if you disagree. they are very informative, and much of their material can be found elsewhere on the web.
Obama a master doublethinker
His comments demonstrate his mastery of the delicate art of double think.
Two definition of doublethink from Wikipedia and 1984:
? To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself ? that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink. ?
? The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies ? all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth ?
Avoiding litigation
I suspect these clauses were designed to protect Apple from litigation.
Sound like the setup for a joke
"A philosopher, a scientist and a software engineer" walk into a bar...
We the People
Would this be worth petitioning in the White House's "We the People" site?
Goodbye Star-Wars Commercials
Would the recent appearances of Darth Vader in commercials be possible if Disney held the rights...
NO.
In Mexico, major studio films never got here to begin with
The studios have such a low regard for the Latin American audience, that they never offered good movies in Netflix to begin with.
I buy Blue Ray discs of movies I like, except when they're ridiculously overpriced. So I generally wait a year or so after their release. Before that, I watch them in the movie theater and download them from torrent sites. I don't feel guilty. I'm paying at least twice for them, and waiting over a year for them.
If they were offered at a normal price, 2 weeks after release, I'm sure their sales would go through the roof in Mexico.
I refuse to buy bad movies, pay for cable, or Netflix. I don't want to encourage Hollywood to shoot itself in the foot any further.
Re:
I think you _should_ use the word corruption when talking about the RIAA and the MPAA. It's the perfect word for it, and I hadn't seen it. It seems obvious now.
They're focused on infringement, while they've committed bribery and abuse of monopoly, and eroding democracy. They're the ultimate hypocrites!
If you measure the impact of infringement vs the impact of their corruption on the common good, they are the worse offenders.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bandwith and Fake Interaction
I do most of my interaction on Facebook with 10 or so friends, and we do see each other in person at least every few days or so. After Google+ and Facebook introduced circles and friend lists, I put those people on a "close friends" group, and share the private stuff only with them.
When I didn't have Facebook I was nagged silly with emails from people inviting me to join. After I joined 5 years ago, I get 1-2 friend requests almost every day.
I used to be very popular (I was in a megachurch worship team in Honduras) and knew 600-800 people by name there. Besides that, I've made several hundred acquaintances in each city I've lived. Them make up the bulk of my fb friends.
I saw Shelly Turkle's most recent TED talk, which explains her attitude much better than the article does...she used to be the type who shared everything online, and advocated others to do so. She still does, but questions herself as to why.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bandwith and Fake Interaction
Not at all, I'm a "Facebook whore" with over 1000 fake friends...and that's where my opinion is coming from...I don't share my life with them nor they with me, only a babble of status updates.
I'm from Honduras by the way, but have liven in the US and now live in Mexico.
Re: Re: Bandwith and Fake Interaction
No, I just care about privacy...and employment in my future.
Bandwith and Fake Interaction
I think one reason texting, chatting, and even video chat can't replace physical human interaction is bandwidth.
When we are in the same room with someone else, neither of us can control the non-verbal information that makes up about 80% of communication according to some.
Because we only present a squeaky-clean, groomed version of ourselves in our facebook profiles, or anywhere online, we miss out on most of the data about the people we are interacting with.
The sensation of having a human being near you is also much more comforting, they can hug you (or punch you) if you need/deserve it.
Re:
I agree with you that tickets are a more important metric than revenue, but not the rest of what I hear you saying. It seems to me that your apparent dislike of Mike's ideas misled you a bit.
Most of the arguments in the article are Roger Ebert's, not Mike's, and I hope you agree Ebert's opinion is not meaningless. He's the leading movie critic in the business. Both are experts within their fields.
He's not as crazy as you may believe
Imagine how ridiculously easy it will be to censor books when all the government has to do is "ask" someone to delete a file on a server somewhere.
Hard copies (like physical books) matter. The situation that Mr. Bradbury describes in Fahrenheit 451 is coming true. Should the government censor a book in the near future, the only alternative to preserve it would be a hard copy, or outright memorization. If no hard copies are made, the book will vanish in a puff of bits and electrons.
Re: Re: Understand the frustration, but...
The studios would slam the door in their face, as they did to Google.
Re:
Au Contraire, Chavez is very smart. He is a skilled strategist and orator. He has millions of followers, made mostly through promises of money and power disguised as concern for the poor and socialism.
He is, in the words of Tolkien, a "wise fool". That's what makes dangerous. He is a traitor to the poor in whose name he governs, and an enemy of democracy in Latin America. But he hides it very well.
Self-censorship
I think the government's real accomplishment here is showing everyone that they listen in on every cell phone conversation. Having the government spying on its citizens is very troubling, and makes me wonder how much of it happens on this side of the Pacific Ocean.
Marketing ploy
I think Google simply wanted everyone to know that Bing was copying, to discourage people from using it, and prevent the sort of wild claims Microsoft is fond of making.