864 karma · joined March 3, 2011
What do you feel you gain by excising the objectionable portions of a work?
Regardless, the end effect on the viewers (both willing and unwilling) is that they have not seen the work. They may in fact have a completely different understanding of the film or show than someone who actually has seen the work. A morally ambiguous character becomes wholly righteous. A villain becomes the hero. Violent acts cease to have a consequence of gore, perhaps of pain or death. Romance no longer leads to sex. Dialogue cut for swearing completely changes the perception of a character, the story, and the world.
In the end you have seen something worse than nothing at all--a cartoon caricature of what the creators intended. You have wasted your own time, perverted the aims of the artists behind the work, and done your children a disservice.
If you maxed out the RAM, have you thought about doing a RAM disk?
The transformation of the Arts District has been truly incredible. Virtually unrecognizable from what it was 5 years ago. It's interesting how the original anchor location for that transformation, The Brewery, has been more or less ignored as development focused on the area just east of 2nd and Alameda. As restaurants like Wurstkuche, Zip, R23, and Church & State became popular, the housing developments around the area sprang up virtually overnight. It would be interesting to do a visualization of that based on liquor permit applications and construction permits, since I can't say for certain which happened first. Certainly the currently under construction aircraft carrier sized white condo complex on the edge of the river is in response to the restaurant/bar scene that has developed.
As an aside, if anyone is looking to locate a startup in Los Angeles, do your future employees a favor and avoid Santa Monica. Downtown LA and Culver City are far more sensible options and allow for a reasonable commute and/or nearby housing at lower prices than Santa Monica.
I find the language of the memo and the motivations behind it execrable. I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong with flat organizational structures and there's perhaps even some justification for using novel terminology to describe them. Valve's employee handbook is a great example of a flat org description done right. Eventually maybe Zappos will end up with a similar document. It's maybe a little harsh to judge them based on a rambling, incoherent, and cultish internal memo, but I know that I'm not inclined to work for Lead Link Grand Wizard Hsieh if this is the way he communicates.
The OED doesn't have anything resembling this. Neither does etymonline. So I'm curious where this comes from.
The OED defines "technology" and offers references dating to 1615. I'll reproduce the OED's definitions here briefly:
1a: A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific study of the practical or industrial arts. 1b: Practical arts collectively. 1c: A particular practical or industrial art.
Even looking at the stem techno, you will not find anything approaching Horowitz's value judgment that he has inserted: better. Or worse for that matter. This sort of misappropriation of language is not only lazy, it's dangerous, and unfortunately it is pervasive.
Words lacking from the video: can, will, does, now, reality
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-an-ice-ball-make...