Wait what? Is it automatically ok if the skewed / whitewashed role is written into the script? You do know that this kind of skew doesn't come about by the kkk kidnapping black actors at gunpoint in the middle of filming and replacing them with white ones?

If a Japanese director were to make a movie about the civil war, but chose to make it about a Japanese fighter who comes to the US, becomes the most kickass soldier of the Union, makes personal friends with Lincoln, and convinces him to stay the course on emancipation... that would be pretty weird, even if the argument went that this was the only way a Japanese audience could identify with this obscure historic time.

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

WTF?!? "Tangible plan"? What on earth could you possibly mean by that?
The "plan" to round up over 11 million people and deport them, but with zero details about it?
The "plan" to make Mexico pay to build a 2500 mile wall, with zero details about how?
The "plan" to illegally deny fugitives entry to states because, you know, Muslims are bad...MmmmK?
The "plan" to skew the tax system even more in favor of those in the top 5%, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes?
His "plan" to be a smarmy, dickish, douchebag to anyone that isn't in his camp...but also to completely control those people to make them do exactly what he wants...again with zero details how he plans to do so?
The "plan" to force China to...I don't know...ignore all our debt and treat us like the boss we are?

As for Clinton's being 'currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department.'...the "email scandal" has, just like Benghazi, turned up absolutely zero illegal behavior and is nothing more than a red herring designed by the (absolutely not) "conservative" side of our political system, has gone absolutely no where, and only matters to people who would NEVER have voted for her in the first place...if you think differently, you really need to get out of the Fox bubble and look around at reality for a bit.

Little could be more disastrous for the country than having that vitriolic humanoid pumpkin as our 'leader', since the only successful leading he's ever done is leading people to hate each other, and leading far more people to hate HIM. He's a fairly terrible business man, successful only due to starting with a "tiny loan" (his words, really more of a gift from daddy) of a million dollars and being forced to allow others to take control of his investments. He's a bold faced liar, in fact the truth does not seem to be palatable to him in the least....and he's clearly admitted that in his books and sees it as a good thing to hyper exaggerate and minimize. He's a 'good Christian', who's been divorced how many times? There's no way on earth his plans would even be tried. He (and other republican candidates) don't even have a grasp of what the president does or how, claiming they'll 'repeal the ACA on day one', and they'll discard multiple government departments...somethings the president simply CAN'T just do...along with most of their other ridiculous, impossible 'plans'. They all know they wouldn't actually have that power, yet they all lie to you and tell you they will do the hateful things they've convinced you are the right thing to do by themselves. Fortunately our system is designed so that one nutjob, or even one party of nutjobs can't change laws precipitously.

I hate to tell you, but Bernie Sanders is not excluded for being honest and knowledgeable. ALL candidates are socialist, he's just honest enough to admit it. Tax breaks for the rich...socialism. Bailouts for the airlines and banks...socialism. Social security...socialism. Medicare...socialism. "jobs programs"...socialism. Public parks...socialism. Public roads...socialism. Need I go on?

Your mischaracterization of Obama's record is so patently ridiculous it's not worth contradicting.

Agreed.

And @newtboy is right. In the media, men are being pushed into unnatural representations of men's physiques now, in a way they haven't been in the past.

It is the comic book, super hero, action hero thing.

Again selling to men but the sexual aspect of it is skewed differently. More like -- men want to LOOK like them, not penetrate them. Ha. But the destructive message is the same to men as it is to women -- you are not worthy enough if you don't look like this.

Hence my comment said that the makeup of the future would enhance their masculinity, not make them sexually desirable. More manly, to be attractive to women, not to men.

Did you know that all that ab action in the movies is not "natural"? That right before a movie scene is going to filmed, the actor works with his nutritionist and personal trainer for at least a couple of days beforehand? They work to minimize body fat for just that day. Makeup is also used to enhance the ab definition. And that right before the camera rolls, the men do crunches to make the muscles stand out even more?

I say this because I read an interview/article about a man who was working hard to look like those guys in the movies. He was so relieved to learn that his failure to exercise his way into looking like those movie images wasn't his fault.

He didn't know. HE DIDN'T KNOW.

This is not good for men's psyches, goldurn it.

Here we go with generalizations again.

Let's completely forget the Air Traffic Controller comparison because it's just plain stupid.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States




Secondly, you've confirmed that cops can and will lie whenever they need to.

The number of "justifiable homicides" is skewed because cops will lie and plant evidence.
e.g. Walter Scott video shows the cop planting his tazer.

(well at least three cops- your buddy, you and slager)

We'll never truly know how many cases like this are covered-up.

So we'll never know how many victims truly "had it coming".



Thirdly, there's a complete difference between a "slip & catch error"..

And "accidentally" choking Eric Garner to death..

Or "accidentally" severing Freddie Grey's spine..

Or "accidentally" shooting Akai Gurley to death in a darkened stairwell that you were NEVER supposed to be in the fucking first place..


Those were NOT "mistakes", they were pure negligence and incompetence.. Full Stop.


Those "occasions" weren't few and far between.. they're monthly, weekly, if not DAILY occurrences.


If you don't like when society labels all LEOs as Bad Cops..

Stop making generalization, Lantern.

Because if anyone on here said:

"the vast major of police & soldiers who get killed had it coming"

You would flip your shit.




Seriously, I'm trying to be civil with you now.

But you keep saying crazy insensitive sociopathic shit.

It's a good thing she told us she's not racist, or we might have gotten the wrong idea.
Now, if only the rest of these people that LOOK and ACT racist would tell us they aren't, racism would be over.
Then we can just wait and hope that cops will tell us how they aren't bullies, thieves, or murderers and we can all relax knowing they're just there to help us and only appear to be acting criminally because of my skewed, ignorant, liberal bias, and not when viewed through a rational examination of their actions.
Then we can move on to politicians hash tagging their lack of influence peddling, underhanded backroom dealing, and selling of our government to the highest bidder.
It's sure going to be nice to have these issues resolved.

No, a couple of polls have shown his viewers to be more knowledgeable about current events, not taking into account other possible sources of their information. Another poll showed the exact opposite regarding his coverage of the 2004 elections. The show's writers and Mr. Stewart himself both do not consider the program to be a source of actual news per their own statements.

The show covers news that it's creative talent wishes to satirize, which means if we are going to criticize Fox for skewing the outlook of it's viewers, we must point the same finger at TDS.

Yes, but who's the developer...developer of what? The game, or the mod? If that means the mod developer has the option, that's better.
I read it as 25-30% to Valve/Steam...the remaining 70-75% to be split between the game creator, and the mod creator, on a split to be determined by the game creator, usually giving the mod developer what amounts to 25-30% of the total. That seemed fair to me, since that means the work product is worth 75% of selling price, and the original creator did way more than 2/3 of that work...meaning the mod developer gets a great deal at 25%.
Auto repair is not analogous. Making a replica/kit car is closer, and I believe they do pay royalties...certainly replica car makers do. If the mod makers were fixing the game, that would be different, but they are not. Shelby and Ford had contracts where they shared profits, as do many other professional car modders.
It is a problem if someone takes a game, mods it, then sells the mod as if they created the entire thing...they did not. They used someone's work product to create something else. Without the original program, they would have nothing.
These companies are under no compulsion to allow mods, and if they believe charging for the privilege is a good business model, they have every right to try. I think it's a toss up. People expect them for free at this point, but developers have a right to demand payment for their product...and any new product based on their product.
Really, I have no idea what I'm talking about? I've played many a mod, and 'playable fan fiction' is an apt description to my eyes. (see Blood Dragon) It's taking a known series and skewing it in some way. What you end up with is BASED on the original, is created using the original as a 'template' (and in the case of games using the program itself), is using/riding the popularity of the original to be seen at all, and would not exist without the original. To me that's pretty damn close.
I think it's actually more analogous to plagiarism, which is actionable...or may be condoned and/or licensed....but it's up to the creator of the original to decide that.

I rather feel that that puts the argument in a skewed light. Essentially, we are either in full awareness of the facts and long term results of fracking or we are not. If we are not yet, why on earth would we pursue it now? We have alternative forms of energy production, it's just a whole bunch of very rich people aren't quite done selling us oil yet.

The shale will still be there, and we may have developed more efficient and safer means of extracting it. And we will have to deal without oil eventually, what better time to begin, whilst we still have some that we can get if we utterly must? We are not yet in crisis but they want to take a risk, that's got to make you ask a few questions. I don't have a detailed scientific knowledge of the subject, but i would know if it was proven safe, and it isn't yet.

Incidentally or otherwise, the first earthquake that i've ever felt in my life happened very shortly after they began a new testing site for fracking nearby - one of two earthquakes that happened in short succession after the first wave of tests. I live in the north of england.. they never happen. It's worth looking into before we start doing it.. the last person i'm going to trust with the future of this planet is an oil baron.

@BoneRemake - let me know which bit of my horseshit you want me to look past and i'll attempt to look past it and see what you describe. Or was it an empty sound-bite? My criticism was valid - newt said everything that needed to be said on that subject, and yes i can in retrospect see the value of the video as a demonstration of the fracking process. But you don't have to be a hippy to try and see positive and informed decisions made in the world, but if it makes me one then i'm glad to be one. What does that make you? No need for name calling, it generally means you've not got an argument.

I'd just like to mention that it really, really suits the pro-fracking lobbyists to try and ridicule people and try to conjure mental images of the long-haired flower-child hugging trees and not showering and wearing tinfoil hats. It turns real, intelligent, professional people who care about what happens around them into caricatures, and it belittles their reasoned and sensible argument without even addressing it. It is a tactic as old as the hills.. i'm sure you're not a lobbyist, but i can't help think they're smiling knowing that the old seeds they scattered around took root somewhere..!

Show me some proof that it was a retired cop singing this song. Otherwise, Newtboy, you are just as skewed as Al Sharpton or any other race-baiting lowlife. Nowhere on the youtube description does it state that it is a retired cop, only that some retired cops may have been in the audience.

No, that negates them as a source of 'information' on the subject.
(facepalm)

EDIT: By now, I think you know the difference between scientific organizations and political ones masquerading as scientific organizations. You have a habit of listening to, and quoting political organizations as if they were not propaganda machines. it has been pointed out to you over and over again.
I think you also know the difference between someone pointing out your source is not credible and someone saying your point is wrong. When your source is not credible, it's likely your point is wrong, but often I don't even deal with that until you get the facts right, then I'll move on to conclusions. When you consistently want to listen to, and quote those who have the facts wrong, because they come from organizations not interested in fact but interested in furthering their own pre-conceived notions (one's they are paid to hold), there's little point in discussing your conclusions before debunking your 'facts' and sources.
If you could start with non-politically skewed 'facts' we could move on to your conclusions about them.

Pshaw.

That's a valid explanation for how your changing the past can skew the future timeline after the manipulation took place.

There's no such valid excuse for the simple act of going backwards in time landing you in a different parallel universe that is totally unrelated to the universe from which the time traveler left.

We, meaning people, but yes, I did really mean America, the most prolific space fairing nation in the past. The Chinese may go there again soon, but not yet. I'll reserve my opinion about their ability until I see their manned rocket land there and return.

Florida is thousands of times the size of Kiribati and probably tens of thousands of times the population...and is FAR from the only place in jeopardy. I was not ignoring Kiribati, or the dozens of other island nations, or Venice, or Alaska, or, well, any place with a coast line, I was giving one example. It's a little funny that you decided to say 'Florida?!? It's far worse over in Kiribati' while you're trying also to say 'Don't panic, it's not bad'. WHAT?!? I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic! ;-)

That's not the data I've seen. What I've read (from numerous sources) said the rate of rise is accelerating, not a steady rate over the last 100+ years, and it is expected to continue accelerating. When you say they can "cope" with it, what do you mean, because even the little amount of rise we've seen so far has already displaced tens of thousands of people, and very few have just adapted to the new situation? What evidence have you that there's a solution to the loss of useable land?
Oh, from your volcano example, I see that by "cope" you mean "die". That's not how I intend to "cope", thanks. ;-)
Kiribati has seen tsunamis, and survived them. Being in open ocean, most are barely perceptible. There's no continental shelf to make them 'grow'. That said, 1 foot of sea rise puts a large portion of the island underwater and makes the rest FAR more susceptible to damage from even a small tsunami.

Really? That's not what I've been reading for decades. California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food, is in the worst drought ever recorded due to climate change, and production is falling like a stone there. They are not alone by any means. Africa, Australia, etc have the same issues. It's not mainly an issue of violence world wide, it's an issue of lack of water. The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so. Africa did have the means to grow their own food, before they stopped getting enough water. That's the biggest road block, the seed can be donated and fertilizer only increases yields, it's not needed in most cases to sustain crops.
Because some war torn countries have issues with roving gangs of gun toting thugs does not make gun toting thugs the reason Africa is food poor. The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear, it still gets eaten, and there's still a huge famine, so.....

Yes, adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon, just not for the oil companies in this instance. Just consider the adoption of the automobile, it was fast, and great for the economy in numerous ways.

EDIT:And I have said clearly that I don't think anything done today will effect 2100. The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere that long or longer, so today's change in emissions will only equate to a change in the climate after 2115, so we can't avoid 1 foot of sea level rise. We can, however, stop increasing the rate of change (the system reacts to greenhouse gas addition right away, but takes 100+ years to react to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can make it worse, but not better than that prediction...and that's the road we're on, making it worse daily).

Yes, changing the resolution changed the measurements ON THAT ONE OUTLYING GLACIER ONLY. It explained why it alone wasn't following the models, which was because a large portion of it was incredibly high up, making it colder, but on average it was below the 'melt line', skewing the data.
78% less glacier (your figures) still mean more than 78% less runoff, so >78% less water....in areas that are already completely dependent on glacial water to support humans and already have water supply issues today. Even the low 65% number is disastrous.
The glaciers do not need to be gone in order to be useless as sources of fresh water. I did not say all glaciers would be 'gone' I said they would no longer supply the demand, and there's no known tech in the pipeline that can.
So, in short, please stop twisting and exaggerating what I write to create strawman arguments to shoot down. It gets old fast.

The tank mods are added by retailers and print shops. You're right about how the system works -- the lines run from the big tanks and are inserted through a hole drilled into the carts small reservoir.

One issue with that is that most cartridges have a software page count that is used to tell you that the ink is running low / empty after a certain number of prints. So, along with the tank install, most shops will put in an aftermarket chip or PCB that resets or bypasses that counter.

For the other question, I think that Thailand still relies on printed documents more than in the US, but it is going down. I undoubtedly have a somewhat skewed opinion on things since I am a teacher, though. I teach 18 different classes of roughly 40 kids once a week, with a worksheet or some other printout being used nearly every week -- so I probably burn 700+ pages each week through my school's copy machines. Then I teach smaller private classes at home, with maybe 100 or so pages a week on my own printer(s). I have one inkjet with those tanks installed, 2 mono lasers, and 1 color laser... So yeah, I probably am a much heavier user of printed stuff than your average person.