Slashdot Mirror
Spoonful of Quickies
Darren wrote in to blatantly plug his 'Darren's Penguin Habitat' which aims to be a newbie Linux site.
g8orade wrote in to say that Applix has Applix Anywhere which is apparently a Java compatible suite of mail, word processing, presentation, and spreadsheet software.
jimw wrote in to tell us about Vintage Computer Festival if you're into that old stuff, and near Santa Clara.
yack0 warned us that
Elijah Wood will be Frodo Baggins in the upcoming Lord of
the Rings Trilogy of movies. Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer
is also rumored to have a part.
rawlink sent us a
URL with some Hi Res Fractals that prove
Rob' First Law of Art: All art is better if you can use it as your background image.
An anonymous reader wrote in to plug these Y2k Posters which actually look surprisingly sweet if you're into those classic movie type posters. I dig 'em.
Abe Zuckerman sent us pictures of the new Rios (hint: Butt ugly)
Randy Rathbun wrote in to note that several new pictures of the empeg have appeared on their website.
Mikey LeBeau us pix of a metallic hand-crafted aluminum Palm case for those of us who are entertained by shiny objects.
Scooter sent us a report on how offensive South Park the Movie is. Absolutely Hilarious.
Finally, matthewg pointed us to After Y2K which pokes some fun at Hemos, Martha Stewert, and Me.
I noticed something the Moral Majority left out of their analysis. The major plot point of the South Park movie was demonizing the Moral Majority. Normally they are quick to classify any criticism as evil in itself, whereas they dwelled on the overt language, sexual, and violent elements in the movie.
I didn't agree with them on one point. They make many references to casting Jesus as the part of the female anatomy, but I never made that assumption. Is Jesus the only wise sage you can seek out in the world?
I read the internet for the articles.
OK, let's read through our history books...
:))
Jesus preached love, peace, non-violence and helping your fellow man. So what have Christians done over the years?
War on those that didn't agree with them (and even on some groups that did); genocide; slavery; spread intolerance; destroyed ancient texts (especially in the New World); kept countless groups in subjugation (mostly by preaching that suffering in this world is ok...you'll get your reward after you're dead); and forced conversions by swordpoint and gunpoint; etc. etc. etc....
Oh, and one more thing...the movie also made fun of Jews, Muslims, Satanists *and* atheists. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, you know.
My view of the movie? Don't take your kids to see it. Don't see it yourself if South Park offends you. But as for me, I've seen it 3 times (once after reading the Christian page on it) and will probably see it one more time (need to get a few more quotes straight).
"That movie has warped my fragile little mind" -- Eric T. Cartman (think he's in on the Eric rule?
They say "Microsoft" 131 times? No wonder they claim the movie is "straight from the smoking pits of Hell."
There were rumors that Warwick Davis would make a cameo, but whether there's any truth to that or not I don't know.
But I have heard what you said about using "normal-sized" actors for all the hobbits (and presumably the dwarves) and I must say what a disgraceful idea. I mean, how often is there a mainstream movie in which midgets can play a major part, now here is the perfect movie for them to be in one and instead full-size actors are going to be used and "shrunk" down to hobbit-size. That's just ridiculous! Jackson could better spend that money on the Nazgul, Orcs, Balrog, etc. And I doubt lack of talent is an issue, I mean you'd need what, 4 leads (Frodo, Sam, Merri, Pippin) and a bunch of extras (and of course, an old Bilbo).
I'm not usually one to agree with the contraversies which always come up (for instance, Jar Jar being racist, etc), but I think this will cause somewhat of a contraversy and I think it's perfectly justified. There are going to be a lot of fans of the books who are already nervous about seeing the movie as it is (esp. after the animated ones) and it doesn't need any other contraversy to keep them away.
I've been waiting for a live action LOTR for a long time and whatever decisions are made, it better be good. It may still be good, I think this just adds unecessary complications to the movie.
That Jackson better just watch it!
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
I'm sorry, but let me clear up some points dealt with in that article you linked to.
First of all, Middle Earth *should* seem familiar to us...it's supposed to be prehistoric Europe!
Second, anyone who challenges Tolkien's ability to write is a boob. Tolkien was an accomplished linguist, a student of the English language and mythology (he is the interpreter of Sir Gawain and the Green Night from Old English, many of the Rorrihim names in LOTR are in Old English). Of course his language uses archaic forms!
And the way Tolkien downplays many of the more "fantastic" aspects of the story is a great style, IMO. It allows the world to blend together comfortably, like the Ted Nasmith paintings depicting it. Any AD&D book can give you vivid discriptions of the wonderful golden dragon; Tolkien makes you think that it's real. And as for being down to earth, Tolkien is nothing of the sort; his writing is fantastical in its best-- if you want extensive descriptions of the mundane, read Raymond Feist (whom I also enjoy). I admit that LOTR is not all that fast-moving, but one's displeasement with this is more a testament to their attention span than the author's skill. Tolkien was writing an epic, not a serial, and so he had the time and space to stretch his arms out and build an entire world.
About the only good point the article made was that Tolkien and Le Guin have different styles of writing. I read the Wizard of Earthsea and liked it, but for different reasons. Anyone who demands conformance to one style is limiting themselves.
Of course, if Tolkien's writing style is not one you enjoy then feel free not to read it; but to imply that he is not talented? Well ask yourself where your writings will be 100 years later and where will Tolkien's be?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Yeah, I kind of agree with you, especially since I am contemplating whether I should buy one. Cyberian Outpost has the Palm V for $380 and the Palm IIIx for $300 (no tax, free shipping); not bad prices compared to other places. Still, I wish that they were about a $100 cheaper.
I really like the Palm V primarily because of the battery, styling, screen, size and weight. Size, weight, and Mac compatibility is really important to me. I'm not a suit (hell, I wear shorts to work during the summer and I work for the man!), and don't carry a backpack or an attache case; if it has to fit in my pocket.
And damn if I will run wince.
I welcome all recommendations and advice concerning the Palm V, IIIx, or other PDA's.
You know, this is the country of Freedom of Religion. That means anybody in this country can practice any religion, parody any religion, or choose not to have any religion at all. And nobody has a right to denegrate anybody's religion, or lack thereof. If people disagree with somebody's religious viewpoints - fine. Saying you're right and everybody else is wrong and will be eternally damned if you don't believe them is not. I happen to take great pleasure in any group that takes itself just alittle too seriously - and this CAP warning definately fits the bill nicely.
Combining pseudo-science and mock-seriousness just about had me floored in fits of laughter. What's even better is the idea that merely watching a movie will earn you eternal damnation. Most religious groups that take themselves this seriously wind up on 60 minutes, or the evening news along with the latest FBI embarassement.
But since I know nothing less than a philosophical debate will satisfy things to certain people, I offer this brief insight into the world of theology - it is my opinion that finding God is a personal experience, and not one you can find simply reading scripture. CAP alerts, speeches about eternal damnation, and the latest Rush Limbaugh episode will not find you God. Only you can find Him, and only if you want to.
--
While I understand that people could be worried about the intolerance shown on the web site (I personally thought his objection to men wearing pink underwear was the most amusing part), I think it's all to easy for us to be intolerant in return.
I should point out that I haven't seen the movie -- I haven't even seen the TV show, and it is unlikely to ever make it to Japan.
But why can't people at least acknowledge the validity of some of his points, instead of issuing blanket condemnations. You don't have to agree, but you should admit when some points are valid.
He was shocked by images of children suffering and dying. Can any of you say that that is a negative thing?
It seems to be popular to find someone, declare him intolerant, and beat him with a metaphorical stick. I'd say that many of the views expressed here are just as intolerant.
You may think the guy is a goof, a moron, and dangerous, but sticking labels on him and dismissing everything he says is no better.
Very, very few things in this world are absolutely evil, or absolutely good. Hitler probably had some good qualities, although they were completely overshadowed by the evil he did. Likewise with Hussein, Qadaffi, or the current flavour of the enemy-of-the-month. Anyone can be right sometimes, no matter how much you dislike them.
I just don't like the practice of dogmatically opposing people because you decide that they are fill in the blank. If you can't acknowledge when your opponent is right (as in our current political situation), everyone suffers as a result.
I don't hate religion, but bigots who fight as hard as they can to avoid thinking about *gasp* the flip side of the coin really drive me nuts.
These CAP movie reviews are a perfect example. I know plenty of good, nice people that are active in christian churches, but I can have conversations with them about things that Catholic doctrine isn't 100% behind. In fact, this whole movie review thing seems like a generally good idea to me - a bunch of people with similiar values have a site they can go to for info on what movies they would probably like to see, and which to avoid.
But I'm sorry, the implementation of this concept is just plain awful. The reviewer's method apparently involves going to the movie with a form to fill out. It probably has "W I S D O M" written across the top (an acronym representing the different types of offenses used on charts in the reviews, in case you didn't follow the link). And he attempts to write down and categorize each un-christian image/utterance/implication in the movie, and keep careful count of which words are uttered how many times, and by whom, as evidenced byt the south park review. Even after the number hit 3 digits he kept counting. This is very funny to me. Reminds me of a great many pointless assignments I have had in high school.
And all this counting is the meat of the reviews! They have this graph rating system which basically rests on the number and variety of offenses in the movie, and each movie is given a number. The text part of the reviews is mostly "this was said ___ times and this was done __ times".
It's like the guy senses on some level that his beliefs and convictions that he holds dear are being examined, and if they aren't lovingly stroked by the movie he feels threatened. Truthfully, though, I don't think that any kind of messages, warning flags of satire, or any information at all not put front and center in the movies made it past the reviewer's thick skull.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I read several reviews, and these had the funniest, most beautiful irony:
A *deep breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Matilda - didn't even watch the whole thing he was so upset over the challenges to christian values. It's a kid's movie! He sat through many R rated movies! This one, aparently, subtely corrupts kids.
Michael - He's most upset about inaccuracies in what angels can and can't do - "be prepared to quickly explain that angels do not have the power to resurrect anything let alone dogs, that angels are neither born nor do they die, and that angels are likely more respectable and wholesome since they are representatives appointed by the Holy Father."
Pleasantville - "a slam against the wholesomeness and cleanness of the TV series of yesteryear in favor of hedonistic selfness." That one made me laugh for almost a full minute.
Tarzan - Apparently it preaches evolution.
And, saving the absolute best for last:
Star wars (episode I but really the whole series) - Serious concerns in the offense to god arena. He's concerned about Anakin's immaculate conception and especially anything relating to the Force. Blasphemy!!!! But there's more. THis one takes the cake:
"I challenge you to keep matters of unholiness out of the next one, which I hope you will make. See if you can make a CAP score of 100 in the Offense to God Investigation Area."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Right. Keep up the good work but episodes 2 and 3, just take out that one little bit about the Force.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I am a teen that, without his parents really having absolutely any idea at all, has been all around the web. Yeah, that includes all those places kids shouldn't see. When we first got unlimited access, I just went around, clicking absolutely anything that piqued my curiosity, disregarding those stupid "adults only" warnings the way that south park kid did. The porn sites, the anarchist's cookbook and related mailing lists and sites, the warez kiddies, the hate sites, everything. I think I turned out ok.
You know what? I ended up here (meaning Slashdot). My "fragile little mind" just sort of lost interest in those places quickly because they weren't restricted and really didn't have anything interesting to say. I think I'm better off now, as a matter of fact. Having seen hate sites, I now have a pretty good idea of how bigots think, and in any situation I can "try on" their point of view (and debunk it of course). Funny how people think we need to be "protected". I would rather shape my own point of view - I think it came out pretty balanced.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
But he's going to use normal-sized actors for everything and shrink them down, so they'll at least look "together". If he uses minnie-me, that'll be one of the few actual small people he uses.
How could Peter Jackson screw this up? He created Meet the Feebles!!! Same deal.
P.S. (to my previous post) While I was typing, several other posters entered comments which weren't anti-Christian, and to those folks I offer my gratitude and thanks.
P.P.S. Just in case you are wondering I would be just as ashamed of the movie if S.P had made the same kind of fun of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, or any other religions or peoples.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I don't agree with everything on the CAP site either (unfairly critical in many reviews, I'd say.)
I'm just getting tired of the Christian bashing, because most of the I know of that call themselves Christians are pretty darn good folks.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Huh? I don't understand what this part of your comment is referring to. Please explain.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Whoever marked it as a troll -- catch a clue!! On /. we have the right to disagree, and his writing was well done. His message got downgraded as a "troll", but it was well written and deserves better treatment.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
A documentary about the Holocaust shows where race or religious bigotry and intolerance can lead, if not checked by (as Abraham Lincoln put it) "the better angels of our nature".
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Well, I don't see many moderate Christians going out of their way to stand up for non-Christians who have to endure the religious Reich's abuse.
Count me as a Christian moderate that stands with you in your right to practice your religion as I practice mine, without being an object of bigotry yourself.
I am not offended by a Pentagram, or any other display of religious symbols, (although I'm sorry to say that I don't know what a triskele is.) In fact, if we were to meet in person I would commend you for standing up to be heard with your perception the "Religious Reich" in this post.
One more thought....and I don't believe the fanatics would have gotten as far as they have without tacit support, or at least a willingness to look the other way, from the majority of the Christian population.
This seems to me to be the root of the problem here...I don't think the majority is on the side of the fanatics, I think we're against them, and the fanatics know it, which is why they scream so loud. (even via the CAP web site). They also verbally attack anyone not as fanatical as them as apathetic and weak.
As far as I'm concerned, in this they are not much removed from the Pharisees in the first century a.d. that used the Romans to kill their opposition -- a wandering preacher from Galilee named Jesus Christ.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Yes. And my Jewish friends, and the African Americans, the people from Latin America, and a few others. No, I didn't stand up for the evils perpetrated by the Crusaders, because as far as I can tell, the whole political/religious framework back then was an inextricably combined, corrupt mess that had little to do with Christ's message and everything to do with worldly power and totalitarian control.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
- Great satire does not rely nearly exclusively on obscenity and vulgarity for comedic effect.
- Great satire has an obvious and focused target-- around which the story is focused. From what I've read, the writers of South Park simply chose to be equal opportunity offenders.
- Great satire
- Great satire (2nd webster's definition) involves using trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.
So unless you call standing up for one's beliefs a "vice" or "folly", I have trouble calling the S.P. movie a satire.holds up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. AFAICT, South park merely parades the vices, and ridicules and scorns anything opposed to those same vices.
A couple of last things: why should I pay even one red cent to the maker's of an offensive movie, when they could have spent the same amount of money making something without the obscenity, vulgarity, etc.? As to my friends, yes, I explained why I wouldn't go, because there isn't much I would consider hilarious. Funny thing is, I didn't blow my credibility -- something about not having to stand in the s--- to smell it and move away, if you catch my drift.
You asked How do you know, without having seen the movie, that it is as bad as the review said it is? You may notice that I have never said it was a "bad" movie. I merely state (and restate and restate) that I don't condone vulgarity, obscenity, and bigotry by paying money to those who continue to serve it up in the media. And that I'm uncomfortable when people bash other people with beliefs different from their own.
Finally, I don't thing that the majority of /. readers or writers are bigots. But if I had stayed silent, I would have been tacitly agreeing with the few that are.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I go to movies in order to challenge my beliefs and to push the envelope of what I'm willing to consider worthy. After noting that the CAP site completely missed the point with South Park, I browsed some of their other reviews. I suggest others do to. They walked out of the Birdcage because it contained homosexuality? The Matrix is evil because it offers an implementation of the "brains in vats" theory? Mary Poppins IS the best example of American Pop Culture?
Excuse me for being immoral, but movies about fringe topics change minds and offer a check against conservative bigots in control. This is not an attack on religion/Christianity. Finding and keeping individual faith is what life is all about. But any and all zealots that want to stop the flow of ideas through my head will have to fight to do so - with these Christians I'll fight back.
Nobody at CAP even considered the plot of South Park and certainly nobody there realized they were its targets. No, it wasn't that great of a movie. But it was about an unacceptable movie, its influence, and relative unimportance with respect to how censors react.
"The concept is very simple. Convince the flock to procreate. More babies. More Catholics. More money!"
I assume that counter is counting all the gods
from all the religions in the world? =)
Oh I forgot... it's a christian site, where there
is only one true god/religion.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Personally I believe in the Christian faith (note I didn't call myself a christian because that would make me as much as a hypocrite as the rest of em). But I hate groups like CAP who give a bad name to normal moderate christians, who can often have an open mind and see things for what they truly are. This movie had a message, on that slashdot has been commited (ok.. maby half-assed) to spreading ever since the columbine shootings, and before. That you simply can't go around blaming other people, especially the media for societies problems. Though sites like this would love us to believe that violent movies are to blame. What I find interesting though, is that while violence in movies are at almost an all time high, youth violence is the lowest for the decade. Don't believe me, check out DJJ's statistics yourself.. For a Chart
or for a slighly easier to read table
Well I didn't delimit skew of obfuscate those charts in any way. They are if you note, on the DOJ web site. I only put them there because I happed to ran across them the other day and while I was writting the above comment I remembered them and thought others might find them insteresting.
fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan
where's the insult?
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
While looking for particularly bad reviews in the 'CAP' thing, I came acrost this one, of a holocost documentary:
"The Last Days" -- truly! This is NOT a movie for entertainment. It is a documentary about the final days of millions of Jews: the Holocaust! Spielberg of Dreamworks(tm) has amassed miles of film file footage about the Holocaust -- but why? Is there some need for my children or yours to watch nude brutalized and skeletonized humans stumbling about? Why was this movie released to the general public as PG-13 through entertainment movie houses if it was not intended to be seen by children?
um... yes there is
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I love every comment made to this... they all say "Christians are...", "Christians do...", etc.
I'd just like to point out that their are MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF CHRISTIANS! "Christian" is a very diverse term that can mean Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalean (sp?), or any of a number of groups. All with different philosphies and interpretations of "Christianity."
Basically the only things that make a person a "Christian" is (1) They believe in the same God that Moses did. (2) They believe that Jesus is the living son of said God. (3) They believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, so that whoever believes (1) and (2) will be forgiven their transgressions.
Beyond that, "Christians" have many different beliefs. So, you people who generalize Christians as being "super-right-wing extremists who hate everybody but their own kind" is about the equivalent of saying "every black man is a gun-toting, gang-banging murderer." Prejudice. Generalizing the entire group into the category of the most visible members.
I, for one, am sick of it. I AM a Christian. But, I don't fall into very many (if any) of you people's generalizations. I have a lot of friends just like me. We don't hate people. I don't hate people who do what I percieve as wrong. I don't like what they do... but I'm not the one to tell them what to do now, am I? "Love thy neigbor." That is a key verse in the Bible. It can basically be "Love the sinner, not the sin."
All I ask is that you people quit generalizing that EVERY Christian is a "right-wing extremist, hateful, bigoted, Bible-thumping freak." There are those who are, but there a many of us who aren't. I don't go around calling you a "fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan" because you don't believe as I do. Quit doing that to me.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
The South Park movie is designed to offend people. To push buttons. To slaughter sacred cows. As such, we can use the movie to see what our sacred cows are, where our buttons are, and how we might be offended. With this knowledge, we are less likely to be distracted by unproductive emotions which may follow from offense. A condemnation of this movie is in some sense a vote for emotional weakness.
-- $SIGNATURE
It's a funny one this. I almost never swear, I'm put off by swearing (in real life), I'm a Christian. I'm frequently bored by stand up comics who think they can get a laugh by adding a few obscenities to an otherwise dull routine, and depressed to find that often they can.
South Park was the funniest movie I have ever seen.
I guess the issue might be that South Park pokes fun at the Moral Majority. If you're not part of it, and don't take yourself too seriously, then its funny.
Here's another odd thing: Sabrina, Buffy and Daria all feature attractive heroines who feel rejected by the fashionable set. Are they pandering to geek fantasies, or the inadaquacy/rejection thing is far more widespread, with personal significance to the majority of the population? I suspect the latter.
But what I can do is compare it with other books. Now I admit that if you compare LotR with a lot of other fantasy, it comes off quite well.
It is more difficult to compare across genres, but I think you can compare universal elements such as prose style and characterisation. And when I compare the style with some mainstream novels, it seems somehow lacking:
- For an example of deep and moving characterisation, try 'Portrait of a Lady' by Henry James.
- For an example of beautiful prose, try '100 years of Solitude' by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
- Iain Banks 'The Bridge' and 'Walking on Glass' paint vivid worlds. The latter has a gripping plot or three.
I don't think the literary style in LotR can seriously be compared with any of these.I wouldn't recommend the first two as fun books to read, the first is depressing and the second is very slow, but at the same time, both are unforgetable. The two Banks novels I mention because the first is science fiction(ish), and the second has fantasy elements.
What is the point I am trying to make? I'm not really sure. But it is something like this:
There are books you read and remember for the rest of your life. And there are books you grab to read on a plane because it is fun and passes the time, but once you throw them away they're forgotten.
Going back to LotR after 15 years and a lot of reading, it feels as though it should be in the second group. But it isn't. The only reason I can give is that it was my first fantasy, just as 'Islands in the Sky' was my first SF, and both have a special place, not for any particular technical merit, but because they were first.
But then again, I don't know anything about writing. All I can say is that I've read a bit of everything.