Slashdot Mirror

Puhleeze! Darl has simply become a caricature at this point:

"Protect your intellectual property (IP) now or risk having your business sacked by open source-touting bandits."

Actually, he became a caricature months ago. This just makes it official. What a joke.

Funny you should mention E.E. - I had been going to talk about him, but decided not to. Everything you mention negatively about Snow Crash - character development, plot holes, etc., can be found in spades in the Skylark series, the various short series' (Subspace Explorers, Subspace Encounter, The Galaxy Primes, etc) - but I still love reading them. I just eBay'd for Subspace Explorers (and National Lampoon's Doon, Harry Harrison's Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers, and a couple others). I think it's a shame that Doc Smith's work isn't available on the shelf anymore.

But Doc Smith's work is fundamentally even more flawed than anything I've read from Stephenson. His science is appallingly bad, the never-ending geometric escalation of personal power, material strength, energy availability, etc. are all totally ridiculous. His characters are so thoroughly wooden and caricatured that you can't even talk about them being painted with a broad brush, he just dumps out a gallon of semi-gloss latex and runs. Yet, they're fun to read. Kinda like Stephenson.

I mean, can you really do a serious literary dissection of a novel whose main character is named Hiro Protagonist? I suspect we've got something more like Heinlein's Number of the Beast, which is more about how to (or how NOT to) write SF than it is about the actual plot lines. Maybe I'm giving N.S. more credit than he deserves, but you can tell that even he isn't taking Snow Crash all that seriously.

End of the day, though, I still enjoyed reading Snow Crash much more than, say, the hard and accurate SF of Robert L. Forward.

I think you hit that one right on its metaphorical head. As soon as the word "Manager" shows up in a title, it SHOULD indicate that the focus of the job at that point has moved to working at least as much with other people as with whatever other word or words go with "Manager". A "Finance Manager" should be spending as much time talking to people as sitting in front of a calculator counting dollars(/Euro/Rupees/Pesos/Whatever), for example.

The hard part is striking the right balance - managers who spend ALL of their time "dealing with people" and none of it understanding the technical side of their jobs (IT for IT Managers, Accounting such for Finance managers, etc etc) aren't good for much besides guest appearances as caricatures in Dilbert(tm) comics.

I don't normally expect to have the major features of a browser, any browser, disabled by a site I've visited.

And, while there has been a page or 2 that disabled the print icon in that it was rendered ghosted and non-functional, that is the first time I've had virtually everthing in the upper, controlling, lines of any browser disabled by eraseing them. It left only a pair of caricatured, token shrunken buttons in the back and forward positions. To be able to modify the button image presented took both extraordinary codeing work and the intention to do so.

Adobe may be able to disable the print button by ghosting its image, but they have never modified the image for that or any other button in any other manner.

As far as bugs, I can't say that mozilla is bug free, no software of that complexity will ever be, I've done enough writig of it in the past to know the trueism of that. But thats the first time its ever happened in several major versions. If your page is given a clean bill of health from the verifier at W3C.org, and I'm notified of that, then I'll go back to it and see if it repeats. If it does, then I'll file a bug against mozilla. Thats only fair.

The first post I made was one of those I've got one nerve left and you're standing on it situations.. The present situation vis-a-vis copyrights is wrong, what we have is nothing like the framers intended. If alive today, Ben F., Thomas J., John A. and George W. would all be ordering up more kegs of powder, and staying up late pouring balls and cutting patches in preparation to righting what they would perceive as a terrible injustice.

Cheers, Gene

It's a caricature. It's supposed to be derivative. It distills the accusations of both sides into two 60 seconds of comedy. At least do yourself the favor of watching the whole thing; the overall message of "go vote or let the supreme court decide" is not a bad one. If you don't get the references to the madness of this campaign that's fine, but a lot of people will.

> Resident Evil (the first one) was an excellent movie,
> beautifully paced and choreographed

I'm verging on flamebait here, but the first RE (yes, I have seen it) was the cinematic equivalent of 10-day-old theater popcorn.

Sure it was technically filling, but overall it was a waste of time that left a bad taste in my mouth and a sore feeling in my stomach.

The main problem with the movie (which also plagues all the films of its director, Paul Anderson) is that character and plot development are entirely unattended to - eveything is sub-sumed to "kill" or "puzzle" or "fight" set-pieces. Inconsistency and illogic are used to "work-around" anything that might get in the way of setting up these events.

While this may work in an actual video game, non-interactive storytelling mediums keep the audience engaged in the narrative with characters and story. RE had an elaborate plot, but its characters were entirely plot-driven creatures; there wasn't a single point where they showed actual personalities in any but the crudest, most caricatured ways (and even that was done inconsistently).

The result is that there's not a single person in the film to care about in any way (i.e. wanting the characters to die would've indicated engagement in the film), thus removing the tension from even its best action sequences faster than air from a broken balloon.

I've wasted way too much time complaining about this film, but the fact that you rate this an an "excellent" or "great" movie really indicates that you need to watch a wider selection of movies.

(Heck, most entries in the Zombie genre alone blow RE away. Check out anything by Romero or Argento)

I have frequently seen that argument: "The less expensive option is Linux, they can reuse existing hardware (PC's) to run it." Obviously they have no intention of reusing existing hardware: they wouldn't consider OS X. Existing hardware is reused occasionally. Big firms generally love to be "locked" with one vendor. They don't buy hardware, then software. they buy solutions, and they love to deal with one partner. Why risk, when you have a problem, to have your hardware vendor saying: No, we can't do anything, see with your software provider, and the latter saying: Oh no, it's obviously a hardware problem? (this is a little caricatural, but you got the idea)

On July 31, 1932, Hitler's Nazi party won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making it the majority party, but he was not yet in power. It was several years before Hitler became the cosmically evil war criminal. On January 30, 1933, Hitler was finally sworn in as Chancellor. Historian Alan Bullock describes it: "Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months.... Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue." At the time, most Germans couldn't imagine that Hitler would last long because his bombastic and swaggering manner and his overly simplistic speeches about Germany's social, economic, and political problems were a "joke." Politically sophisticated Germans dismissed Hitler as an inept caricature, but he and his accomplices consolidated their power by passing national security legislation supported by a stacked court. During these critical times of concentrating power, der Schutzstaffein (SS) made sure that Hitler's critics and opponents were kept far away and silenced so that it would appear as though he had complete national support and, indeed, a mandate. Thus peacefully began Nazi totalitarianism.

RITTER: What makes them convinced? What evidence do they have? We're talking about going to war here, Paula. [...] So frankly speaking, I'm going to need a hell of a lot more than some aluminum tubes before I'm convinced there's a case for war. The bottom line is in 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iraq had no nuclear weapons capability, none whatsoever, zero. So how suddenly are they now an emerging nuclear threat? We'd better have a heck of a lot more to go on than some aluminum pipes.

ZAHN: Let's talk more about what some say is the only independent voice in this whole argument, and that is the International Institute for Strategic Studies. And you just cited the study. In this report, it suggests -- and this report is just out this morning -- that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months if it had foreign help.

Let me read to you what the conclusion was, that, "War sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded but not eliminated Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capabilities, nor removed Baghdad's enduring interest in developing these capabilities."

RITTER: Paula, what do we have here? Rhetoric? Where's the facts? Enduring interest in weapons capability? What does that mean? What evidence do they cite for this enduring interest? You know, ballistic missiles, they say he has 12. What, did they grow? Where are they? They didn't have 12 when I was a weapons inspector.

Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? They talk about bulk agent in terms of Iraq's biological weapons program. What bulk agent? Where did they make it? Bulk agent has a three year lifetime in terms of storage in ideal conditions. The last time Iraq was known to have produced bulk agent was in 1990. That stuff, even if they held onto it, is no longer viable. So to have bulk agent today, Iraq would have had to reconstitute a manufacturing base in biological weapons. Where is it?

This report is absurd. It has zero factual basis. It's all rhetoric. It's all speculative and, frankly speaking, it's meaningless without, you know, with the sad exception that hawks in the Bush administration are going to point to this as justification for war.

We need a heck of a lot more than this if we're going to talk about sending our forces off to fight in a war in Iraq.

Scott Ritter was bashed by the media, who painted him as a traitor to the United States for failing to accept the White House's justifications. It's interesting how the media, often accused of being quite liberal, went out of their way to discredit Ritter and show loyalty to the White House in late 2002, yet reported of just which mouths had engulfed Clinton's penis could hardly be avoided during Monicagate.

The real story here isn't that the White House lied -- if you pay attention, White House officials "flip-flop" so much over the supposed motivations for war that even their caricature of Kerry looks rock solid. The real story here is that the media fell for the Iraq justification (or lack thereof) hook, line, and sinker, while doing the dirty work of discrediting Scott Ritter and ignoring or discrediting any other voices asking for more investigation for military action against Iraq.

You want links? Try these:

Documentation of "flip-flops" by the "liberal" media -- reporting the truth (that UN inspectors voluntarily left in December 1998), then

I played Sam & Max and Day of the Tentacle a little while ago when I got myself vdmsound. The reason why I love these games is the same why I love cartoons like Roadrunner, Bugs Bunny, etc. There's no need for realism, everything is a caricature of itself, colours just clash. The whole idea is to have an adventure just for laughs, not to save the world from demons from hell (sort of).
Now I have to admit I haven't been looking much into the games section in the stores, but I haven't seen games like this for quite some time.

There is a certain sort of very clever person who is hopelessly incapable of anything resembling empathy towards his fellow humans, and that combination (or the perception thereof) is absolute death for politicians - c.f. Michael Dukakis, for example.

Agreed. Warmth means a lot in the political popularity context.

It is, of course, bad to be caught acting without thinking, but being seen as indecisive is a graver sin than being seen as rash, for whatever reason. Don't ask me why, but that's how it appears.

I'd say it's because acting without thought is a lot easier than thinking without acting. Letting your emotions guide your actions doesn't require any introspection or analysis. Maybe people see rash action by a political leader as a (positive?!) reflection upon themselves ("Hey, he's rash, just like me!"), and so find it endearing, so long as the rashness doesn't get too out of hand.

Or it sounds Martian because it is Martian - don't discount the simple explanation out of hand ;)

I don't know if the explanation "That idea literally originated on the planet Mars" is really any simpler ;)

allow me to report that the caricature that they hate us because we're free is probably less widely held on the right than the left might wish to think.

Probably. And probably less of the left holds that caricature of the right than the right thinks the left does. (Ahh! Recursion!)

They hate you because you're strong and they're weak. They hate you because you're rich and they're poor. They hate you because you're secular/atheistic and modern, and they long for the glory days of the 13'th century. They hate you because you can impose your will on them, which we do from time to time, rather than them being able to impose their will on you, which they desperately desire to do but cannot.

I don't think that any of those reasons is a major factor in this particular situation. At least, whenever a prominent anti-Western Muslim talks about why he's anti-Western, it's virtually always because we're interfering in their affairs, not because we have freedoms but keep to ourselves.

In short, there's a large group of people out there who will not have their hatred of you cured by anything you can do, unless you're willing to become someone else's vassal, or better yet, simply cease to exist. I understand perfectly why they hate us - I simply don't care.

I don't want to say, "You should care," but, uh... :) Even if they will "always" hate us, there's a difference between, "I hate those guys who are tromping all over our lands, so I think I'll attack them," and "I hate those guys who live half a world away, but whatever, I've got other problems closer to home."

Action, reaction. Why are we there? Why do we have military forces there? Would we be there at all if Islamic "civil" society wasn't constantly teetering on the brink of complete dysfunction, wholly incapable of restraining its own homegrown monsters? Rather than embracing them in the name of some absurd pan-Arab fantasy?

Presumably we wouldn't be there at all if we didn't have an interest in being there. But I don't think the first "we" and the second "we" in that sentence are necessarily the same entity. One interpretation is, "Presumably the U.S. military wouldn't be there if the U.S. didn't have an interest in being there." Another is, "Presumably the U.S. military wouldn't be there if Bush didn't have a personal interest in them being there." The implication is that Bush uses the invasion of Iraq for a two-fold purpose: one, to make himself more popular (everyone loves a war), and two, to allow his friends more chances at aggrandizement, at the dual expenses of the U.S. budget and the Iraqi po

Of course, but we're really not talking about Ramsey Clark and Paul Wolfowitz - we know quite well what they think of each other, obviously - but rather about what that vast, mushy middle group thinks and perceives to be the case. There is a certain sort of very clever person who is hopelessly incapable of anything resembling empathy towards his fellow humans, and that combination (or the perception thereof) is absolute death for politicians - c.f. Michael Dukakis, for example.

It's not as if the entire might of the U.S. hinges on whatever the president is doing at that exact moment; there are millions of people involved in something like the invasion of Iraq. Plenty of people can be acting while others are thinking.

True enough, but then again, the context here is the presidency, and who's going to sit at that desk come January. There is a time for a politician to think, and a time for him to act, and heaven help the political man who gets stuck thinking when the consensus is that it's time to act. It is, of course, bad to be caught acting without thinking, but being seen as indecisive is a graver sin than being seen as rash, for whatever reason. Don't ask me why, but that's how it appears.

Well sure, it's just like whenever anyone hears doubt expressed about anything they fervently believe in.

Or it sounds Martian because it is Martian - don't discount the simple explanation out of hand ;)

As far as I know, most of the left is of the opinion that negative attitudes toward the U.S. are the result of foreign policy decisions over the years, which, frankly, is a simpler, much more obvious explanation than the idea that "Al Qaeda terrorists hate our freedoms." It has better evidence, too.

You're probably right. As someone meeting in the middle of the river here, however temporarily, allow me to report that the caricature that they hate us because we're free is probably less widely held on the right than the left might wish to think. Of course there are those, but there is also a strong contingent for whom the proper answer to the question "Why do they hate us so?" is "Who gives a fuck?" They hate you because you're strong and they're weak. They hate you because you're rich and they're poor. They hate you because you're secular/atheistic and modern, and they long for the glory days of the 13'th century. They hate you because you can impose your will on them, which we do from time to time, rather than them being able to impose their will on you, which they desperately desire to do but cannot. In short, there's a large group of people out there who will not have their hatred of you cured by anything you can do, unless you're willing to become someone else's vassal, or better yet, simply cease to exist. I understand perfectly why they hate us - I simply don't care.

To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country, until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam." As far as I know, he's never said that he's angry or upset about the fact that we have freedoms here at home in the U.S.; the whole thing has to do with the U.S. (and our allies) having military forces in Muslim countries.

Action, reaction. Why are we there? Why do we have military forces there? Would we be there at all if Islamic "civil" society wasn't constantly teetering on the brink of complete dysfunction, wholly incapable of restraining its own homegrown monsters? Rather than embracing them in the name of some absurd pan-Arab fantasy?

I think not. If people elsewhere want to shit in their own dinner plates, so be it, but I elect a government to pursue my interests and the inte

...randomly mentioning Different Things You've Heard Of contributes nothing but pretentiousness.

Don't they teach American history anymore? Omaha Beach and Tarawa were major WWII battles American soldiers fought and died in, in Normandy and in the Pacific, respectively.

Lexington and Concord were of course two of the earliest battles of the American Revolution.

All are examples of Americans paying the butcher's bill, either to establish our democracy or to defend our liberties.

Second, I wasn't addressing your (uncontroversial, if banal) point, but rather the caricature and ridicule with which it was expressed.

Then you really did miss the point, friend, when you lambasted me for "racism"; the caricature and ridicule weren't directed at the stereotypical Indian -- who does vote, Indian independence being within living memory --, but at the sort of American who is too lazy to care about exercising the political rights our forefathers bought with their blood and sweat.

Second, I wasn't addressing your (uncontroversial, if banal) point, but rather the caricature and ridicule with which it was expressed.

HTH. HAND.

I'm a GOP block captain, so maybe I do work for Bush. It's not compensated work. It's the same grassroots stuff we've been good at for decades.

Look, I don't like the Keyes race either, although I love Allen Keyes. He's having to say a bunch of stupid things, becoming a caricature of himself in the process, and go back on many things he's said in the past. He definitely DID give HC hell for running in NY as a carpetbagger. It was going to be an embarrassment not to have a viable Illinois Senate candidate, and Ditka wouldn't run. And I think I know why, they would have run that video of him grabbing his crotch over and over and over and over. Not Senatorial.

Perhaps I was a little upset in my last response. I apologize. But you received huge moderation points for pointing out that you don't like the fact that Republicans want to control things. Which could only happen on /.

THEY ALL WANT TO CONTROL THINGS. They are POLITICIANS. My chief counsel is somewhere to the left of Karl freakin' Marx and even he agrees with me. Perhaps they were a little MIFFED that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate for 40 YEARS STRAIGHT. 40 YEARS, with big media backing? It's intellectually dishonest in the extreme for you to imply that Democrats don't want to be running the show.

Why would you ever want to vote for a politician who didn't want his party to be in control anyway? What other way is there for you to get your interests represented and passed as law? I didn't reply to your point because I just fail to understand it.

If we ever get the entire population to live for 100+ years, just think of how bad it's going to get. There will be fuel shortages. There will be food shortages. (some say there already are). Air and Water will be dirtier and dirtier.

But the Earth has enough resources. Assume fusion or really good solar cells and energy isn't a problem. One of those (or something totally different) will almost certainly happen.

If we do it right, we could have most people in the world living well, getting education and safety. People living well don't get as many children -- the ones getting large families are the poor.

Eventually, we will get to a point where the seas are over-fished, the ground is over-farmed, and then we're ALL screwed.

I have to laugh at this IBM lovefest because I remember when IBM was considered every bit the nemesis that Microsoft is considered today, by the same sorts of people.

Since I've now seen it with my own eyes, I have proof that it's possible that the next generation will astound many of you by embracing Microsoft as their hero.

It doesn't pay to get too carried away in your caricatures of heroes and villains.

You were warned....

seriously, isn't it time that everyone moved beyond the one-dimensional caricature of gates?

No.

there's only one reason slashdot posts stories like that: to give people an excuse to take cheap potshots at gates and microsoft. bonus points to samzenpus for priming the pump with the bright blue paint comment.

seriously, isn't it time that everyone moved beyond the one-dimensional caricature of gates?

The country is sliding back into the condition it was in before we invaded.

I know a couple of people from Afghanistan, and I can tell that the country is still a hell-hole by any reasonable standards, but it is a lot better than under the previous "government". Everyone but the Taliban seems to agree on this. The same is apparently not true for Iraq.

Of course, life in Afghanistan could not get a lot worse in the first place. Schools, western goods, and some caricature of a medical system are godsends there. Six people a day still step on Soviet landmines, but the country feels like it has a future now.

Most of the constructive work is being done by the UN, and most of the destructive work was done by the North Alliance, but the US did make a good contribution.