Daca tot suntem la momentul culturalizari in limba engleza, merita fara indoiala mentionata cam cea mai veche si dupa opinia mea cam cea mai importanta sursa pentru tot ce-i hmmm... nu-s sigur cum s-ar descrie, poate "interesant pentru adolescenti" pe Internet.
Rotten.com are o biblioteca, unde gasiti o groaza de articole pe o groaza de teme importante. Spre deosebire de mizeriile UGC (User Generated Crap) a la wikipedia, acestea-s scrise de un autor, chiar daca anonim, cu o mina sigura, o inteligenta vie si-o expresie fulguranta. Spre deosebire de sursele traditionale de articole scrise de-o mina sigura si-o inteligenta vie, Rotten nu sufera de oboselile batrinicioase atit de specifice academiilor si enciclopediilor, cu teme interzise, exprimari nepermise etc. Intr-un fel este, sau cel putin era in anii '90, stindardul a tot ce-i bun, important, util si valoros pe Internet. Ca intre timp au aparut vinzatorii de piei de closca, "expertii" in nimic anume si site-urile de "facut bani online" aia-i alta poveste : oricind dai tehnologie maselor rezultatul principal va fi o mare maimutareala.
Sa va recomand, ca si-n cazul precedent, citeva articole ca o introducere, urmind sa va ramina la dispozitie, dupa cum va indeamna si cheful si interesul, extinderea ariei de cercetari. Precum urmeaza :
Children are like date rapists: they have to be told repeatedly that no means no. Because concepts like parental respect have grown so inexplicably abstract, the average preadolescent continues nagging his parents upwards of nine times for a desired product. Twelve and thirteen year olds -- the group most targeted by advertisers -- nag their parents more than fifty times, continuing their unrelenting campaigns of harassment for weeks at a time. Can we have a pool, dad? Can we have a pool, dad? When delivered by a parent, phrases like "no, we will not take you to Mount Splashmore" feel less like big red stop signs and more like invitations for continued debate.
The list of "compromises" between liberty and security in the post-September 11 era gets longer every day, but the worst part is that some of those "compromises" make it illegal for anyone to figure out just how many "compromises" have been added to the tote board.
Consider the brave new tool known as the National Security Letter, one of the PATRIOT Act's many Easter Eggs, provided for in Section 215 of the 131-page homeland manifesto. National Security Letters are nothing less than warrantless searches -- so secretive that to disclose the very request is itself a prosecutable violation of national security.
NSLs are issued by FBI agents, without so much as a nod to the courts. They are directed to businesses, usually demanding they cough up information on their customers. The companies must comply and cannot even disclose the fact that a request was received. And if you're thinking this tool is being judiciously and selectively used to protect the United States against terrorists, think again.
More than 30,000 NSLs are issued every year, according to the Washington Post. And that's just an estimate from anonymous sources. The actual number could be far higher, but we'll never know, because -- you guessed it -- it's a national security secret.
"Who wouldn't want to use it? You lose weight and you have great sex." -- Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Laymon
No lengthy, philosophical examination of dog shit would be complete without first pondering more existential questions like why dogs shit, and how. The answers may surprise and delight you. There are many interlocking components to the dog shit process. Food eaten by a dog (cupcakes, floppy disks, corn dogs, Vicodin) must first be processed into simpler, smaller elements suitable for delivery via the bloodstream to muscle and fatty tissue in the canine's body.
The authority of the Roman Catholic church is based entirely on its claim that the papacy represents an unbroken succession from St. Peter the Apostle to the current pope, John Paul II.
There are numerous issues surrounding this claim, but perhaps the most important is that it hinges on two historical figures about whom virtually nothing is known -- St. Linus, the second pope, and St. Cletus, the third pope. In the case of Cletus, even his name is a matter of dispute.
Linus lived in the first century, became pope in 67 C.E. and died around 76 C.E. The first historical record that refers to Linus, purportedly the direct successor of Peter, was written in 189 C.E.
This is a big, big problem. Why? Consider the following question, without resorting to Google:
Who was Benjamin Harrison's vice president? For that matter, name any three historical facts about Benjamin Harrison himself. All right now, that was about 110 years ago, and the name of Levi P. Morton is enshrined in copious official records and history books. Harrison was president of the United States, for God's sake. And yet, our collective memory has already forgotten them both.
In 189 C.E., there were no printing presses, and literacy wasn't a given. The first written record concerning Linus arrived more than 100 years after the date that he died (we think). We can't even be sure that such a person existed, let alone be certain of the details of his life.
Cred ca se vede cam cum devine problema. Restul articolelor, in ordine, aici. Distractie placuta.
PS. Da, inteleg ca un altul in locul meu s-ar fi abtinut de la prostia de-a scrie articolul asta, si-n loc ar fi tradus pe sest macar o suta-doua de articole de-acolo, sa-i fie de material, ca si-asa nu mai tine minte nimeni rotten.com in 2010. Ce fericire ca nu-i altul in locul meu, ce mirare ca nu-s altii in locul vostru, vorba cintecelului.