I know the music doesn't really tell the story, but that's exactly my point: The story isn't all there is to Star Wars. The FEEL is such an integral part of the Star Wars experience.
It's weird.. I'm a spoiler junkie who has already read plot synopses of the film.. But yet, I think the soundtrack would be too much of a spoiler. The plot is just a general outline.. But the music is an integral part of the film experience, ESPECIALLY in a Star Wars movie. I think it would take away from watching the movie for the first time in a way that knowing the plot would not.
The problem with this is that high school only lasts 4 years. If something like this were to affect the SAME PEOPLE for years and years, they would get fed up and finally break out and force people to take notice of the problems in a big way (as we can see, killing people obviously doesn't accomplish that.. and has quite the opposite effect).
But sadly, high school only lasts 4 years, and those who are suffering just try to ignore their problems and move on after those 4 years, leaving a fresh batch of victims who know no better and cannot really learn from the experience of those before them.
I think this is really quite exciting because it shows that the open source movement is becoming more than just about software.. It's the whole idea of freeing up information.
The parents aren't able to devote enough time? What kind of bullshit is that? Unless they told their kid not to use the computer through a note on the fridge, I'm sure they had the TIME to do it. They just didn't have the WILL.
These are bad parents who don't want to put the effort into an open, deep relationship with their kid. Taking away the computer is a cop-out.
What do you mean they don't have time to supervise everything the kid does on his computer? Of COURSE they can't watch their kid 24 hours a day! But if they only COMMUNICATED with their kid, they would be able to rest assured their kid had a decent sense of morals and wouldn't do anything awful.
I don't want to go early so I can brag about it. I want to go early to share the sense of excitement with other people.
I mean, I just know that as soon as the STAR WARS logo blares onto the screen, the crow will go absolutely wild.. and I want to be there when it happens.
I totally agree that we'd have better art if the only concern were purely artistic and not monetary, but it takes time to make that art, and artists have to make a living, too. It's far too difficult to do significant amounts of artistic work while working a full-time job. So the upshot is, someone has to PAY these artists to keep them fed and clothed. How should we do that? I think that's a question we need to look into more. I don't know of any really good solution yet.
Btw, this is doubly true in the case of films, which are very expensive to make. There are indy films made on budgets of tens of thousands of dollars, but how could you have something like, say, Star Wars (Ep 1 is an independent film, actually), when they cost millions of dollars to make? You just can't expect people to sink millions of dollars regularly into their work without getting something for it.
Since the people who watch the movies are benefitting from them, it makes sense for these people to pay.
The problem is, I think we'll eventually reach the technological point where information will be so freely available that it becomes impractical (read: impossible) to charge for information. What then? I don't know. We'll see, I guess.
>>This kind of blows her whole argument up in smoke right there. I hope you noticed that she is NOT against videogame violence. In part two, she discusses how central violence in fiction is to kids and so forth.
In fact, this is actually the first time I've seen a PRO game violence article that uses an argument other than "it makes people feel good".
I think one interesting thing to think about is what will happen when photorealistic VR violence comes about. Will we have fun playing Postal when it's indistinguishable from reality? Will THAT be unhealthy or will we still be able to distinguish reality and fiction?
The violence article says that these violent games, including Carmageddon, contain no innovations in gameplay. "Their gameplay, essentially gunning down/driving over anything that moves, is no great invention either." I beg to differ. I think Carmageddon is successful not merely because of the violence, but because of its gameplay. Even without the violence, I'd still enjoy its incredibly detailed physics model and demolition derby aspects. On the other hand, a game where all you do is click on a guy and watch him die or something would hold no entertainment value for me.
The claim that "cleverness has nothing to do with their success" is quite simply patently false. The article assumes that these are the only violent games out there, when in reality there are TONS of violent games out there, but only the popular ones.. i.e. the ones with good gameplay, are well-known enough to be often mentioned!
That would not be faith.. merely pragmatism. Without evidence, there would be no reason to believe anything. Since none of the supernatural claims of any religion have been proven, why should I choose any particular one over another? Only with some evidence of some sort can I decide.
As to naming, yes, "weak atheism" is commonly known as "agnosticism", but that is a misnomer. Strictly speaking, an agnostic is someone who thinks the existence of God is not only unknown, but UNKNOWABLE.
It depends on your definition of atheist. There are "strong atheists" who make the positive assertion that there is no God. I can see how this would be somewhat similar to faith.
Many people, however, (myself included) are "weak atheists" who simply think there is no evidence for God, but would certainly be willing to believe in His existence if it were undeniably demonstrated (i.e. proved). I don't think this category of people can be considered to have "faith" in atheism.
The audio is screwy because it's supposed to be. This is not a real trailer, it's a fan-made one based on footage from the 60-minutes segment with George Lucas recently.
I think that unless we set up quarantine zones by colonizing others planets.. or better yet.. star systems.. What will happen eventually is that some terrorist will brew a genetically engineered virus in a lab somewhere which incubates for a while while it spreads, then all but completely wipe out humanity. Once the technology for this sort of thing becomes more accessible (probably a few more decades), all you'll need is one reasonably intelligent wacko.
I'm a very down-to-earth guy in general, but this is something which rather frightens me. The only reason terrorists haven't nuked anyone yet is because weapons-grade uranium and plutonium is hard to come by. What will happen when genetically engineered virii become reasonably easy to make? (All you need are a few sequencers (which will get cheaper as the cost of computing goes down) and petri dishes (I'm exaggerating a bit).)
Live life while you still can, people!
Coyotes, Insects, and Bacteria
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
Yes, of course it is easier to kill off coyotes, especially on an island, because there are fewer of them and they don't breed very quickly.
Insects are more like bacteria in that there are huge numbers of them, and they breed extremely rapidly, which speeds the rate of evolution.
You hit the nail on the head
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
Exactly!
I also thought it seemed to make far more sense to compare GM foods to penicillin and insects to bacteria then comparing GM foods to some penicillin resistant strain of bacteria.
This would be true but for the fact that the whole point of a "technowar" is that it should be over in a flash. The purpose of the NATO bombing is to get Milosevic to change his ways in a few days, and he hasn't done that, so the bombing is a failure.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the music doesn't really tell the story, but that's exactly my point: The story isn't all there is to Star Wars. The FEEL is such an integral part of the Star Wars experience.
It's weird.. I'm a spoiler junkie who has already read plot synopses of the film..
But yet, I think the soundtrack would be too much of a spoiler. The plot is just a general outline.. But the music is an integral part of the film experience, ESPECIALLY in a Star Wars movie. I think it would take away from watching the movie for the first time in a way that knowing the plot would not.
I wonder if anyone else feels this way?
The problem with this is that high school only lasts 4 years.
If something like this were to affect the SAME PEOPLE for years and years, they would get fed up and finally break out and force people to take notice of the problems in a big way (as we can see, killing people obviously doesn't accomplish that.. and has quite the opposite effect).
But sadly, high school only lasts 4 years, and those who are suffering just try to ignore their problems and move on after those 4 years, leaving a fresh batch of victims who know no better and cannot really learn from the experience of those before them.
Is the Katz Article setting some sort of record?
I don't recall any article ever getting 700 talkback posts....
I think this is really quite exciting because it shows that the open source movement is becoming more than just about software.. It's the whole idea of freeing up information.
The parents aren't able to devote enough time?
What kind of bullshit is that? Unless they told their kid not to use the computer through a note on the fridge, I'm sure they had the TIME to do it.
They just didn't have the WILL.
These are bad parents who don't want to put the effort into an open, deep relationship with their kid. Taking away the computer is a cop-out.
What do you mean they don't have time to supervise everything the kid does on his computer? Of COURSE they can't watch their kid 24 hours a day! But if they only COMMUNICATED with their kid, they would be able to rest assured their kid had a decent sense of morals and wouldn't do anything awful.
I don't want to go early so I can brag about it.
I want to go early to share the sense of excitement with other people.
I mean, I just know that as soon as the STAR WARS logo blares onto the screen, the crow will go absolutely wild.. and I want to be there when it happens.
I think the article has made an error in that they probably meant to say 3pm Eastern Daylight Time, not Eastern Standard Time.
I totally agree that we'd have better art if the only concern were purely artistic and not monetary, but it takes time to make that art, and artists have to make a living, too. It's far too difficult to do significant amounts of artistic work while working a full-time job. So the upshot is, someone has to PAY these artists to keep them fed and clothed. How should we do that? I think that's a question we need to look into more. I don't know of any really good solution yet.
Btw, this is doubly true in the case of films, which are very expensive to make. There are indy films made on budgets of tens of thousands of dollars, but how could you have something like, say, Star Wars (Ep 1 is an independent film, actually), when they cost millions of dollars to make? You just can't expect people to sink millions of dollars regularly into their work without getting something for it.
Since the people who watch the movies are benefitting from them, it makes sense for these people to pay.
The problem is, I think we'll eventually reach the technological point where information will be so freely available that it becomes impractical (read: impossible) to charge for information. What then?
I don't know. We'll see, I guess.
>>This kind of blows her whole argument up in smoke right there.
I hope you noticed that she is NOT against videogame violence. In part two, she discusses how central violence in fiction is to kids and so forth.
In fact, this is actually the first time I've seen a PRO game violence article that uses an argument other than "it makes people feel good".
I think one interesting thing to think about is what will happen when photorealistic VR violence comes about. Will we have fun playing Postal when it's indistinguishable from reality? Will THAT be unhealthy or will we still be able to distinguish reality and fiction?
The violence article says that these violent games, including Carmageddon, contain no innovations in gameplay. "Their gameplay, essentially gunning down/driving over anything that moves, is no great invention either."
I beg to differ. I think Carmageddon is successful not merely because of the violence, but because of its gameplay. Even without the violence, I'd still enjoy its incredibly detailed physics model and demolition derby aspects. On the other hand, a game where all you do is click on a guy and watch him die or something would hold no entertainment value for me.
The claim that "cleverness has nothing to do with their success" is quite simply patently false.
The article assumes that these are the only violent games out there, when in reality there are TONS of violent games out there, but only the popular ones.. i.e. the ones with good gameplay, are well-known enough to be often mentioned!
That would not be faith.. merely pragmatism.
Without evidence, there would be no reason to believe anything. Since none of the supernatural claims of any religion have been proven, why should I choose any particular one over another? Only with some evidence of some sort can I decide.
As to naming, yes, "weak atheism" is commonly known as "agnosticism", but that is a misnomer. Strictly speaking, an agnostic is someone who thinks the existence of God is not only unknown, but UNKNOWABLE.
It depends on your definition of atheist.
There are "strong atheists" who make the positive assertion that there is no God. I can see how this would be somewhat similar to faith.
Many people, however, (myself included) are "weak atheists" who simply think there is no evidence for God, but would certainly be willing to believe in His existence if it were undeniably demonstrated (i.e. proved). I don't think this category of people can be considered to have "faith" in atheism.
The audio is screwy because it's supposed to be.
This is not a real trailer, it's a fan-made one based on footage from the 60-minutes segment with George Lucas recently.
brian?
Huh?
Who's brian?
I think that unless we set up quarantine zones by colonizing others planets.. or better yet.. star systems..
What will happen eventually is that some terrorist will brew a genetically engineered virus in a lab somewhere which incubates for a while while it spreads, then all but completely wipe out humanity. Once the technology for this sort of thing becomes more accessible (probably a few more decades), all you'll need is one reasonably intelligent wacko.
I'm a very down-to-earth guy in general, but this is something which rather frightens me. The only reason terrorists haven't nuked anyone yet is because weapons-grade uranium and plutonium is hard to come by. What will happen when genetically engineered virii become reasonably easy to make? (All you need are a few sequencers (which will get cheaper as the cost of computing goes down) and petri dishes (I'm exaggerating a bit).)
Live life while you still can, people!
Yes, of course it is easier to kill off coyotes, especially on an island, because there are fewer of them and they don't breed very quickly.
Insects are more like bacteria in that there are huge numbers of them, and they breed extremely rapidly, which speeds the rate of evolution.
Exactly!
I also thought it seemed to make far more sense to compare GM foods to penicillin and insects to bacteria then comparing GM foods to some penicillin resistant strain of bacteria.
The scary thing is that you only say, "This is so wrong," to those things on topics you know well.
Think of all the articles on topics you DON'T know well where you tend to take what the journalists say for granted.
THAT's the scary part.
I like this idea a lot, at least for negative default scores. After all, like someone else pointed out, people can just make new accounts anyway.
This would be true but for the fact that the whole point of a "technowar" is that it should be over in a flash. The purpose of the NATO bombing is to get Milosevic to change his ways in a few days, and he hasn't done that, so the bombing is a failure.
Or Battle Droids on STAPs!
One of the pages on the site says that FTP download will be available "soon".
>You'd think it should be the other way around...very odd.
I don't think so. After all, openness = security is what open source advocates have been preaching all along, no?