Posts by 81stcolumn
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Am I really that naïve ?
I have back purchased most of my LP collection and just about all of the pirated stuff from a few years back when I had loans to pay.
My purchase rate has gone down largely because I have recovered all my back catalogue and because they only way new music gets to me (except via elsewhere) is from friends sending me non-DRM MP3’s.
To try and use legislation to wind back the clock because a format shift was missed by the recording industry just seems dumb. Serves them right, they made a killing over the shift to CD’s. They surely can’t imagine guys like me will continue to repurchase in a third format can they ?
-
Pressure cookers usually solve that problem
-
there is nothing more cruel nor inhumane than meat and 3 veg. britain's vicious legacy to the civilized world
and one dish to rule them........
why have 3 veg when you can have them all!
-
One of the major criticisms of Bush from the Left (and from anyone, I hope) is that he has apparently completely ignored the Saudi role in 9/11 and in funding Al Qaeda and in spreading fundamentalist Islam via Wahhabi schools, and basically giving carte blanche to the Saudis as long as the oil keeps flowing.
This sounds a bit too Michael Moore for me.
i) Please do not forget that good old Osama was trained with the Afghan Mujahideen by erm the CIA. To suggest that the Saudis funded Al Qaeda on the understanding that they would undertake acts such as 9/11 is disingenuous to say the least.
ii) Most Saudis prefer the term Salafi. If we were to swap Catholic or Judaic for Salafi I think you might grasp the scale of the insult. Yep terrorists and dangerous people do get educated in sectarian schools.
iii) I’m interested in what constitutes “Carte Blanche” - although two wrongs rarely make a right a cheap response would involve Israel.
iv) The Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) was founded in 1938; any indulgence extended by the Bush government is quite likely an extension of a precedent established more than 60 years ago.Having lived in Saudi I’m comfortable with saying there is some good to the nation, though not a lot of good in the government. But this has to be set against the context of a nation that is not yet 100 years old; less time than it took from the instigation of a suffrage movement to the granting of universal suffrage in the UK (1928). There is no Magan Carta, Reformation, Renaissance, or Enlightenment for the Saudis. The evolution of stable modern government is slow and in need of education above all. It should be noted that Saudi has rarely brought serious pressure to bear on more liberal neighbours in the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain for example despite a growing divergence of politics.
Sorry but I really have grown quite sensitive to what I perceive to be unreasonable Arab bashing. It seems only to reinforce the "Filthy Raghead" stereotype and I won't start on where I think that came from or who took advantage of it........
-
Please ignore the above I had actually decided not to post it.......bad bad bad bad....
-
and whom shall deem my assessment of risk to be reasonable or not stephen?
Not wishing to be awkward but it clearly shouldn't be journalists.
Its so much easier to mix notoriety, ignorance and basic mortal fear than it is to generate hysteria over germs, falls etc. (not for want of trying on a bad news day !) The latter issues are looked upon with "common sense", to view mental illness as common sense appears an oxymoron.
-
What I really don't want to know is how many people would have paid to watch the infamous outpatient shovel shit, effectively behind bars.
I'm not sure the Zoo would want to either.
Me, I'd far rather watch tabloid journalists shovel shit behind bars.
-
As a bookend, the following articles recently appeared in New Scientist:
-
Sorry if my math/algebra has got a bit rusty but have we not arrived at the inverse of Godwins law ?
-
Bart:
By all means, let’s agree to disagree on our faith in the review process…
Russell:
The reporting thing is bang on. It is strange to see pseudo-balanced reporting of what in some cases is quite an unbalanced process. The uncertainty it creates is perplexing to say the least.
But this is the issue that worries me most.
I think there is increasingly a trend for some of the top journals to publish more controversial, provocative, salacious and/or quirky papers than some of the lower ranked journals.
I agree and I think it is because academic publishing is now in many areas more likely to be subject to market forces and answerable to shareholder interests. I know for certain, that journal editors are frequently “advised” by marketing execs. Marketing departments appear to have really got stuck into the issue of impact factor and its power to keep journals on subscription lists. This stretches as far as putting pressure on editorial boards to increase frequency of publication which inflates the impact factor of a journal through increased citations. Increasing frequency means more papers to review and more pressure on reviewers sometimes at the expense of overall quality. Clearly being controversial would be another tactic employed in order to increase citations.
I think there is a difference between increased readership and increased market share.