Slashdot Mirror

Law & Order ran an episode called "Bogeyman" about this. The people in the movement are said to be working behind the scenes to boost each other into power positions to protect themselves. Naturally, a murder is involved.

Flamebait? Someone's clearly not had their first coffee of the day yet...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/

Eat Genuine RoboFood! It's Good For The Environment and OK For You!"

I also have "L'aile ou la cuisse" (The Wing and the Thigh), with the relevant excerpt.

No, it's not Mary and Susie you're worried about.

Bob and Alice want to exchange information without Carol and Ted pulling an MiTM attack on them. That's why it was referred to back in the 60's as "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064100/
Carol and Ted are in the middle, and would prefer not to have direct, confidential exchange between Bob and Alice.

Whooooooooosh!!

Secondly, there are *many* more offline groups that are more closely related to street gangs in structure and practices than guilds, and no one seems too alarmist about that. Odds are your local church, your business, your college fraternity, even many of your local civic organizations have initiations/hazing/etc. that more closely resemble that of gangs than any guild I've ever been part of. And those are *certainly* more homogeneous in "backgrounds, age groups, and genders" (like most street gangs) than any WoW guild.

In other words, guilds bear a pretty piss-poor correlation to street gangs, compared to just about any small real-world organization. I suspect the authors were either reaching here or were so hopped up on the idea of studying online guilds that they lost their way (the famous line from PCU comes to mind "You can write your thesis on Gameboy if you can bullshit well enough."). And does anyone else find it academically strange that this came from a bunch of grad students in Physics?!?!?

I've worked for a couple of outfits that either build s/w as a part of a product, as its own end product, or just 'did' software to support in-house processes. Every time management would (mis)label their s/w development and/or maintenance people, it was a sign of struggles between internal corporate fiefdoms.

One outfit lumped all their desktop maintenance, server and network administration into the same outfit that did facilities maintenance, calling it 'Central Services' (I don't think the PHBs ever saw Brazil). We used to say that there was one number to call if your toilet backed up or your server didn't.

And then there's the company that builds commercial avionics equipment. Their IT department gobbled up responsibility for all internal software development. From business and accounting apps (payroll) to engineering applications. Finally, they went head to head with engineering and took over responsibility for embedded avionics development. And they'd use the same personnel and processes for developing the company home page as their autopilot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/

I have absolutely no idea what's in that movie, but could some p3rv3rt slashdotter possibly summarize it for the rest of us prude5?

Are you referring to Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472566/
( yes, it has an imdb entry ) /nokarma

For anyone wondering why this story is tagged phaseiv...

I thought it was pretty cool, because AFAI knew I was the only person who remembered this film.

As with most things, the USA is still using the same system as the UK, and it's only mainland Europe that has them reversed. I'm not sure 'God' has anything to do with it.

Of course He has something to do with it. As everyone of note knows, God is an Englishman. (There's even some evidence.)

. If the tools we give them are extremely blunt instruments, like the ability to hold innocent people's data on the DNA database, they're going to use them to their fullest extent. If we want them to behave sensibly, the laws need to be more focused and less open to abuse.

Reminds me of that movie, The Siege where the commander warns them not to send in the military to catch the terrorists.

"Make no mistake, Senator. We will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy. And no card-carrying member of the ACLU is more dead set against it than I am. Which is why I urge you - I implore you. Do not consider this as an option. "

I forget where I saw it; but I once ran across a spoof of the COPS formula, where a besuited white-collar criminal is having is face smashed into the hood of a limo...

You might be thinking of Reno 911. I don't recall seeing an episode where that happened, but it definitely sounds like the type of humour you see in that show, and I definitely have not seen all of the episodes of the series.

No matter who wins, the money still goes to China.

I'm sorry, but that's "No matter who wins... we lose."

(*actually, the quote was "whoever wins... we lose." So, which one is the predator?

...you could have caught David Tennant singing to a plate of chips (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408375//).

But... but... isn't Heroin illegal? I thought that was an integral part of Trainspotting

I was referencing Pontypool but that Monty Python skit is also relevant.

For better or worse, there's one in pre-production. Lots of IMDB message board comments.

For better or worse, there's one in pre-production. Lots of IMDB message board comments.

true, LoK series is simply an example of wordsmithing mastery, narration and dialogues in games of the series are nothing short of pure genius. Another example of such a linguisitic brilliance would be Planescape: Torment and there is nothing that comes even close to these two.
person that fleshed out the LoK's world of Nosgoth would be Amy Hennig, though i am not sure if she was personally responsible for the spoken lines
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0377339/

"Scantily Clothed Girls with Guns."

Only if you want a sucky movie made based on the game.

Or, you could watch GoldenEye.

Also, for those that are not visually impaired, a Satellite View (2.6MB) and an Airplane View (3.5 MB)

And that's why I liked last year's Moon .

I don't think that Science Fiction has run out of steam completely, but some authors aren't hanging the carrot far enough ahead of the mule so to say, which means that what they "predict" may already have happened.

If you go back to the grand old writers like Asimov, Heinlein and Dickson you will find that they play less on the science than on the social effects on the science as well as they are pushing ideas rather than technology. Sure they use technology to pave the way for a story, so in that way they are writing Science Fiction.

And don't forget that science is progressing - in leaps. And sometimes the technology is already there before it is known that it is there. It did take a while before the SR-71 and U2 were known to the public. Sometimes it's because it's used for covert ops, sometimes it's because the inventor isn't ready and sometimes its because others are jealous and don't want to allow that discovery/technology to be the right way. (Think of the continental drift theory)

But another factor that also causes Science Fiction to go over the edge is all those extreme special effects that Hollywood are pouring into the movies without consideration for the general story. Some Science Fiction movies/shows seems to be more of a special effects masturbation than support for the story. Just compare the Episode IV-VI of Star Wars with Episode I-III of Star Wars. In a way the special effects in the earlier movies weren't overwhelming us with "awesomeness" but kept on the level of necessity.

Another example of a well carried out story is Babylon 5 (R.I.P. Richard Biggs) where the special effects are a bit crude, but they weren't taking over the show. Even the old Star Trek had special effects, but some of them were a bit too crude to keep up to par with the expectation of realism. But the stories weren't bad, which is why we actually can enjoy the old classic episodes even today. So my advise to whoever is writing - don't play so much with the special effect, use various subplots and have things happen in the background. You never know when a subpart may come in handy. And if you are working with actors and write as the show goes on you may have great use for a subplot if one of your main actors suddenly is unavailable. Of course, you don't have to worry about missing actors when you write a book.

Too many Science Fiction stories of today are also focused heavily on action and less on the afterthought part. It's a bit too much about good person v.s. evil person and less about the inner conflict or different perspective. Just keep in mind the Heinlein quote: "Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind, it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly."

Anyway - there are authors of today that are keeping Science Fiction vital; Jack McDevitt, Mike Resnik, Sarah Zettel, Eric Brown, Ann Aguirre, Iain M. Banks...

And there are writers that are writing Science Fiction, but that isn't playing that much with general ideas - like David Weber, Elisabeth Moon, David Drake...

The main thing here isn't really the individual story, but some stories is just a story and doesn't contain a deeper core of an idea aside from the story idea which ends when the book ends. The point is to get a core idea in a story which allow us to see, feel and visualize when the book / show has ended and we want to see more - and know that we ourselves may be a part of that "more". The idea can be a question "Are we alone - and what can we do to see if we are or not?" And questions like this can awake seekers that catches on to an idea and plays with it. If they play hard enough they may actually end up with an awesome result.

Remember the rolling blackouts?

The rolling blackouts where caused by the greedy white men from Texas running Enron calling power generating stations and taking them offline - there was no real shortage of electric power generation at the time. You need to watch Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room sometime.

That reminds me of a particular line from the film, My Cousin Vinny :

Vinny Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?

Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?

Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.

I loved the movie The President's Analyst !

It's been done.

This is true, but it doesn't address the argument that CG looks fundamentally unreal in a way that a physical object (even a lame puppet) does not...

This simply isn't true anymore. There are a very large number of computer generated objects in films that people don't notice. Some even need proof to make sure it isn't a real object like in the case of the cow being hit by a vehicle in "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?"

The American Humane Association, an organization that protects animal rights, mistook a computer-generated cow in the movie for a real animal and demanded proof before they would allow the use of their famous disclaimer, "No animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture." After seeing a demonstration at Digital Domain of how the cow was created, the Humane Association added the now-familiar (but then much rarer) "Scenes which may appear to place an animal in jeopardy were simulated."

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou

Well my clone will be a witty and sarcastic teenaged version of myself.

Surprised they haven't made a movie out of it a la 300.

They did. Sort of.

Looker came out in 1980, and that featured some cool wireframe models of humans. IIRC it also had textures. Not sure if it was entirely CGI, but it looked wonderful nonetheless

No dude, Looker was cool, but Susan Dey is what looked wonderful!

That's right, kids: no computers were used in the making of "2001". Pretty remarkable.

It's ironic: in "2001" (the movie) Kubrick had to use analog methods to simulate digital technology. But by 2001 (the year), filmmakers were using digital technology to simulate analog objects.

They did make a movie out of it; it's called The Warriors.

Wrong movie. The 1st villain in 9 was a sort of robotic cat.

( "battle without mercy" kill bill sound track).

"Battle Without Honor or Humanity" - and its inspired by the series of yakuza movies of a similar same name.

I'm thinking we need a return of Adam Quark!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066

you could probably get people to believe it in this day and age

The same concept worked on TV.

Okay, let's round up all the people that believe 2012 is in any way related to actual scientific fact, and let them go see The Invention of Lying. If they don't get the coincidence, explain to them it already is 2012 according to the Gregorian calendar...

Hey, don't bash that movie!

Its made by Roland Emmerich, who made other films of "obvious scientific accuracy" like Universal Soldier, Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day after Tomorrow!

Okay, let's round up all the people that believe 2012 is in any way related to actual scientific fact, and let them go see The Invention of Lying. If they don't get the coincidence, explain to them it already is 2012 according to the Gregorian calendar...

Hey, don't bash that movie!

Its made by Roland Emmerich, who made other films of "obvious scientific accuracy" like Universal Soldier, Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day after Tomorrow!

Why would people believe the world is ending in 2012 when there's clear evidence that the Earth/mankind survive until the 23rd century?

(Hey, if people will believe that 2012 is a documentary showing the end of the world, maybe they'll buy this!)

Okay, let's round up all the people that believe 2012 is in any way related to actual scientific fact, and let them go see The Invention of Lying. If they don't get the coincidence, explain to them it already is 2012 according to the Gregorian calendar...

Okay, let's round up all the people that believe 2012 is in any way related to actual scientific fact, and let them go see The Invention of Lying. If they don't get the coincidence, explain to them it already is 2012 according to the Gregorian calendar...

It worked in Brazil first.

I really doubt there would NOT be any problems to release a game where you're an Iraqi fighting against the invading your country by American soldiers, trying to protect your country from the "bad".

There have been several similar games created in the past. Iran's "Rescue the Nuke Scientists" (yeah, shitty title) is one example. There have also been movies which paint American troops as evil rapists/murderers/baby-eaters. None of them have ever been banned in the US. You won't find them in your local Walmart because they don't have any market appeal, but you can track down rare copies in specialty stores, and you can buy them online. If you really think that the US would or could pull a product like that, then you don't understand anything about how the American government is structured.

To give some extra perspective to the game, the American soldiers could be raping your families and completely destroying your country (interestingly that's not even made up story, as it's real [bbc.co.uk]).

Well, if you really wanted to maintain realism, you'd then have to have the soldiers being rounded up by the MP's, put in front of a military tribunal, and sentenced to 90 years in prison. Somehow I get the feeling that you'd like that part left out, though.

Or where you would be designing terrorist attacks against USA. Do you really think that would be allowed?

I know that would "be allowed". Seriously, take the time to familiarize yourself with US law. ESPECIALLY if you're a US citizen.

But there's no need to think what would happen. It would be banned for obscene material and the creators sent to jail, like in earlier case

That's a complete non-sequitur. Unless your hypothetical video game features sexually explicit material, there's no chance in hell of such charges ever being brought. Take out that scene of Obama Bin Laden having a romantic liaison with a goat, and you've got nothing to worry about. Even if you included some pornographic material, chances are you'd have nothing to worry about since the majority of sexual acts would pass the Miller Test. And, in the unlikely scenario that your game DOES fail the miller test, you can always challenge the constitutionality of obscenity laws - something which Extreme Associates was in the process of doing (and had a lot of luck with) until they, for some weird reason, decided to plead guilty. The case against them had already been thrown out once.

On the other hand, the list of societies that have been irreparably damaged by westerners who thought they knew better trying to 'civilise the barbarians' is long.

Yeah. Thank god Westerners didn't go into South Africa, Rhodesia, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, India, North America, Mexico, or Honk Kong. Those places are much better off right now, not having had our terrible influence.

Well, let's see. South Africa -- umm, apartheid?
Rhodesia resulted in a race war that has devolved into the current situation of child warfare, heavily armed strife between western-created ethnic groups, and general brutality, plus the rise of Mugabe.
Australia -- nowhere near the current population levels prior to the arrival of the white man, but go watch Rabbit-Proof Fence sometime if you're wondering how well the native population got along.
New Zealand -- the Maori are now extinct as a pure racial group, but thanks to western rifles, they managed to exterminate each other in unprecedented numbers first.
Brazil -- Eh, I can't be bothered on this one. Suffice it to say that there's a lot fewer tribal groups living their lives undisturbed in the rain forest than without us.
India -- oh come on. You really want to make a "White Man's Burden" argument?
North America -- Yeah, the Native Americans are SURE glad the Europeans showed up.
Mexico -- The Maya people were displeased. Not to mention the whole "Montezuma" thing further north.
"Honk" Kong -- okay, true, the British did build the city from pretty much nothing. That said is it really any better off right now than anywhere else in China?

The native populations of all the places you've listed have suffered terribly as a result of colonialism. I mean, in a lot of cases they were displaced and rendered irrelevant, but that's not exactly to their benefit.

None of this means that the ways of life of the people who lived there were inherently better than our western one, but the argument you're making here is a non-starter. Particularly when you consider the way that westernization has happened quite effectively without colonialism, like say in Turkey under Ataturk.

I've never been able to work out why people hate the movie so much

Gosh, I dont know, maybe the total lack of the MI armor and capsules that kinda define a "cap trooper".
Oh and "Doogie Hauser, Phd", (deliberate mis-spell) talk about unpleasant memory http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065819/ (Great book too).

This whole thing reminds me of the movie "Hard Wired' with Val Kilmer , Cuba Gooding Jr. About a brain implant to enforce ads. yes you heard it Ads.

It's probably too late to post this, but seriously? This is Slashdot. Half the people here are trekkers, and you couldn't name Jeffrey Hunter? While I'll admit he wasn't at the same level as, say, Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino, he was certainly on par with people like James Garner or Clint Eastwood - or at least he would have been, had he not died young.

Honestly, I'd bet almost all of you can name the actress who played the green chick, in "Whom Gods Destroy". At least Hunter could act, which is more than you can say for William Shatner.