Although I support your right to own guns responsibly, I thought I'd point out that having a gun in the mugging scenario you mentioned would more likely result in your death than not having a gun would.
To the best of my knowledge, linux is not a single person, nor a single-minded group of people, nor even a single corporation or a group of corporations with a single vision, nor even a single super intelligent shade of blue.
Journalism always makes me laugh - the more you know about a particular subject, the more you laugh. Over and over again, we see articles in the press that assume linux is some cohesive movement with a single vision or a single set of goals. But really, the only single thing that all members of the linux community absolutely share in common is the linux kernel. Just about everything else can vary. So when you translate statements by David Reynolds (and admitted mac addict, no less;) ), you get utter nonsense.
Linux has no goals. People who use and develop linux have a wide range of goals, from embedded devices, to desktops, to dedicated gaming systems, to hobby shop experimentation, to back room power. Linux has no threats. People who want to use it, will; people who don't, won't. Linux and other OSes don't have goals or aspirations, or even gratitude for misguided people who waste their time on earth fighting for mindshare on their behalf.
Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, David Reynolds.
Why don't you post you manager's email address, snail mail address, business address, home phone, cell phone, and whatever other contact information you can come up with to this forum. The rest will take care of itself.
You show such indignation that I mention your age and nothing else, yet you ignore the point I bring up in this post and an entire, much longer response I gave to your direct response to me.
The other poster to which you were responding is someone I certainly don't want to defend. Yet in your response, you made one claim that can be easily be rebuked. As in my original foray into this disucussion, I chose that one claim to rebut.
And again, as in your first response to me, you have chosen to ignore the factual rebutal of your very distinct claims and to instead concentrate on dishing out more even more tangential rhetoric.
Let me repeat this futile exercise with you again; the claim you make upon which the indignation of your entire latest response rests is this:
It's interesting that you claim so, when your entire reply consists "I know more than you because I'm older.
Yet any casual observer can see that this claim is clearly wrong. It is the height of arrogance to assume that you can make such a bold claim, and then proceed to chastise me based on that claim, when the world can see that my reply consisted of more than what you claim. Further, the world can see that I dealed with your more relavent (to me) post in more length in another post, yet you chose to repond not to that one, but to the one that ends saying that I am about to retire for the night.
Sure, I only brought up one other point in this post, but how much easier would it have been for you to deal with the one directy claim I make and than proceed to trash me? It would have been easy for you indeed.
My entire interest in discussing this issue with you is impressing upon you that if the world view you espouse rests upon outrageous claims you can't support, you should either
re-examine that world view, or
temper the claims upon which that world view rests and determine whether that view is still tenable
I find it interesting that my start in this thread involed listing movies that counter a very distinct and quantifiable claim you made, yet you haven't said much about the movies I have listed. Do you just take my word for it, or have you seen them, or have you read about them, or does my list of movies have no bearing on your rhetorical goals at this point? I am very curious.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I would appreciate that we start where the slashdot article did - with the movies. The gay-loving, attractive-bashing, republican-hating, evil liberal conspiracy can wait for another day, as far as I am concerned.
Dude, I just read your webpage. I suspect you may be a little naive about the world you live in. I don't mean to disparage you based on your age - I certainly wouldn't categorically dismiss what you have to say only based on your age - I have already given much of my time to this discussion.
However
How-ever
- in all likelyhood, your views will become more tempered as you grow older in the so-called real world. This is just the effect of experience and maturity. It happened to me - it happened to almost everyone I know.
As far as your rebuttal to the previous poster's point about polital leanings vs. education level - 2 things:
1. based on the information in your webpage, I don't think you qualify. No insult intended.;)
2. Look at the exit poll data for the last presidential election. Look at the numbers as they go from HS education, to college education, to masters degree, then to PhD and higher. I don't know if that means anything, but the previous poster was right. People can call themselves whatever they want (and only 51%? come on, that's hardly a convincing number), but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
Much of the rest of what you wrote frankly scares me, but I need to go to bed.
I hope you are still following this thread - I apologize for my delay in replying. I think the problem I am having with you is that I perceive that you live in a very "black and white" world. This is evidenced by the original claim you made, the only claim I chose to respond to. Let me reiterate this claim for the purposes of my argument:
That has to do primarily with the liberal establishment in Hollywood. Can you name one film in the last ten years that bashed a homosexual, liberal, or ugly person? The fact is, political correctness says that it's just wrong to insult gays, liberals, or the ugly, but you're welcome to go all out in insulting conservatives, attactive people, or straights.
This statement you made is so outrageous that it has to be either some kind of manipulative rhetoric or the symptom of a seriously deluded mind - hence my original idiot comment. Let me be clear - I am not angry with you or trying to insult you in any other way than to say that what you have written is complete and utter bullshit.
You claim there is no "X". I clearly demonstrate that yes, there is some non-zero amount of X, and instead of re-evaluating your position upon which the claim that there is no "X" rests, you move the goal posts, use slight of hand arguments to side step the fact that I have shown your claim to be wrong.
The rest of your arguments may or may not stand up to scrutiny, but until you can admit that your are wrong about this one thing, I really don't owe you any argumentation on your additional points.
There are many movies out there which challenge your claim and your notion that all of hollywood is controlled by liberals who only put out movies supporting the so-called liberal agenda. You admit this is a weak way when say:
but they serve as the exception that prove the rule.
I listed 3 specific movies and a whole class of movies in general that demolish your claims. I am no movie expert, but it was easy in the 10 or so minutes I devoted to replying to you to think of these movies. Perhaps you choose to see the wrong type of movies? How can you call yourself a libertarian and at the same time take exception to the fact that America has voted with its dollars to support movies that go against your notions of political decency?
I will be the first to agree that most of what comes out of hollywood is complete and utter garbage. It's garbage on many more levels than the single problem you cite (if true) that they categorically avoid insulting anyone but those with your particular political leanings: writing is horrible, originality is scarce, acting is frequently poor, and the movies are infused with product placements. Yet I love good movies, I seek out good movies, with a little effort I find good ones or at least ones with enough redeeming qualities to be watchable, and I recommend those to others. Perhaps you should be more discriminating in what you watch? Hollywood doesn't owe you movies you agree with, hollywood will make movies people go to watch.
This brings up another problem I have with what
your writings. IMO, movies are (or rather can be) a very distinct and powerful form of art. Crappy movies that I've been talking about up until this point hardly qualify, but the beauty of the cinema is the rare gem that is a work of art. Art shocks. Art challenges. Art sometimes scares. Art is creative - by definition something new - something changed from what you already have. A copy of a Picasso is not art. A painting that uses a copy-cat style of a Picasso is not art. What I am trying to say (in the most long-winded way possile) is that if we consider movies to be art at all, we must accept that they must be creative, must involve new things, changes, challenges to our notions of normalcy and decency. In a word - art is liberal. Perhaps you've heard the term"liberal arts"?
Of course, one can not separate "art" and "politics". So yes, a hacking hollywood will likely be liberally biased - both in the traditional sense of the word and as a political barometer reading. But many artists (or so called artists;) ) are conservative in other parts of life. You can't be conservative artist, but you can be an artist that is conservative politically, financially, socially, religiously, etc. Arnold Schwarzneger and Charlton Heston are a couple names (perhaps artists) that come to mind as conservative cardre in the Hollywood Corps.
However, I refuse to accept your claim that the Media in general is liberally biased. From my point of view, the media is incredibly balanced - there are sources that lean both ways. Furthermore, most of the media would value a good story over any political leanings they might have. How do you rectify the amount of coverage that the Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky affair received with the notion that the Media is liberal? Should not have the media have turned a blind eye, ignored the situation, etc? There were many media defenders of Clinton - but everyone covered the case - every last sordid detail - and there were just as many attackers as defenders, in my view.
I am sorry you think most actors are stupid. That may or may not be true, I might even suspect it, but I doubt you have reason to know the truth of that claim with any certainty. How many successful actors have you met, high school theater members aside? Actors, I am sure, have many flaws, but If you think that makes them special among your fellow americans, you are seriously deluded. Who cares how fast they lose all their money?
My final thought is in response to your claim that:
"Liberalism's form of currency is emotion. Conservative's form of currency is logic"
My main problem with conservativism as it is manifests itself in this country is the "us vs. them" mentality portrayed. Many people have more complex politcal beliefs that merely convserative vs. liberal, or democratic vs. republic, yet the conservative mantra's seems to be it's "us" versus everyone else. Liberal is not a dirty word. Repeat that 20 times. Liberal is not a dirty word. You have been brainwashed. Repeat it 20 more times. Liberal is not a dirty word. Change can be good, must be considered, and in the end, is unavoidable. Logic is important. So is emotion. In the words of the band Live -
"This is not a black and white world - to be alive, the colors must swirl."
Sorry for the idiot comment - I'm not gratuitously angry, though. You made an outrageous claim and I called you on it. Now you put some qualifiers on that claim in order to justify that outrageous claim. Yet even your modified claim does not stand up to scrutiny. "Last Supper" is a movie that seriously attacks liberals, although you may argue (if you have seen it) that that attack is merely an attempt to make an ironic statement on the dangers of extremism.
Go back and read your original claim that I addressed. You said no movies insult gays, liberals, or the ugly, when they clearly do. Why should the use of humor disqualify those movies?
I can't tell you about a "cinema movement against homosexuals", but why should there by one? How would that balance things out for you? Is there a cinema movement against heterosexuals?
Yet homosexual characters are frequently used as the butt of jokes, or their behavior is stereotyped, but those insults don't count with you?
I've never seen "the contender" (but I could have been one) - I read the summary from IMDB - and it doesn't say anything about the point of the movie being to demonize republicans for their desire to carry out the law. Gary oldman played a detestable republican, so why take that personally? Have you ever seen "Hurly Burly" (last 10 years)? The characters in that movie are hollywood film people, clearly liberal (though not politicians), and also clearly detestable.
Here's another movie that challenger your claim: "Citizen Ruth" that's a movie that takes a politicaly polarizing issue - abortion - and evenly attacks people on both side of the issue - that movie was made in 1996.
You say that political good guys are always democrats. I disagree - I think more often than not both the good guys and the bad guys are not identified with either party.
Regarding this comment:
In regards to the making fun of the ugly, I doubt there is anyone who finds humor is mercilously making fun of the less fortunate.
Ugly people are made fun of all the time in real life and in the movies. Almost every stupid high-school movie ever made has some throwaway characters that is a nerd or ugly or awkward and the only purpose of the character if for a few laughs.
I have heard many people who talk about "the liberal establishment" in hollywood or the "liberal media", but they never seem to be able to back up their claims. The "liberal media" meme is just a conservative demon. The truth of the matter is that there is media in the US that is conservative and media that is liberal, the balance of which nicely reflects the distribution of politcal thought of people in this country. Guess what? I have one more insult for you: political parties are for idiots
Good point - I think if you look at the signal to noise ration of all Katz articles, as measured by percentage of posts that are at 0 or -1 scores, you will find that Katz articles score lower than any other author, topic, or category on slashdot.
He wants so bad to make slashdot a movie review site - most of what he writes can surely be considered "Off Topic" to slashdot now.
That has to do primarily with the liberal establishment in Hollywood. Can you name one film in the last ten years that bashed a homosexual, liberal, or ugly person? The fact is, political correctness says that it's just wrong to insult gays, liberals, or the ugly, but you're welcome to go all out in insulting conservatives, attactive people, or straights.
Oh please - one film in the last 10 years? How about anything by the farley brothers? I could name many many others - you're either an idiot or being purposefully obtuse.
Yeah, but when you get your bill for your
800 number and notice it went through the
roof, maybe you'll think twice about using
SPAM as a marketing tool, and would refrain
from hiring spammers in the future. No
market, no problem.
Then they are idiots. I guess that fact wasn't really disputed. What I try to do, not everytime, is to be more of a pain in the ass to them than they are to me. I would disagree with you that the worth in $$ of knowing that my email address is valid exceeds the cost in $$ of a call to their 1-800 number, for example. How would they determine, even if they got my phone number when I called, that my email is valid?
Next question: do you think they have the knowledge to associate http transaction from my @home email IP with my @home email address? I doubt it, so ordering bogus stuff from their web site also doesn't risk validating my email address, but might might possibly cause them some pain and suffering.
Mailing to complaint addresses on their webpage is most effective in combination with complaints to abuse@ISP as you suggest.
... Eyes Wide Shut: a gigantic orgy that is as stimulating as a high church service. No way all those old VIP's could actually get it up under those conditions.)
The sterile tone of the orgy was clearly intentional and crafted with excruciating care. Don't you wonder what the intended meaning of the scene was and how it fit into the themes of sexuality and fidelity present throughout the movie? No, you're just sorry you didn't get turned on by yet another hollywood rendition of an orgy. Maybe VIPs can be turned on by other things than just sensuality (hint: power, sacrafice, ritual, anonymity, cruelty, etc).
Feel free to dislike EWS, but at least dislike it for what it is, not what you think it is.
Let's see, they sent out 50,000,000 emails, and
successfully suckered 12,000 people? This seems like a phenomenol hit rate - 1 in ~4100 or so. Considering many emails were probably never delivered, or rejected by filters, that's much better than I thought it would be. A sucker logs on every minute
Slashdot Mirror
Would it bother you if you were wrong?
Although I support your right to own guns responsibly, I thought I'd point out that having a gun in the mugging scenario you mentioned would more likely result in your death than not having a gun would.
Journalism always makes me laugh - the more you know about a particular subject, the more you laugh. Over and over again, we see articles in the press that assume linux is some cohesive movement with a single vision or a single set of goals. But really, the only single thing that all members of the linux community absolutely share in common is the linux kernel. Just about everything else can vary. So when you translate statements by David Reynolds (and admitted mac addict, no less ;) ), you get utter nonsense.
Linux has no goals. People who use and develop linux have a wide range of goals, from embedded devices, to desktops, to dedicated gaming systems, to hobby shop experimentation, to back room power. Linux has no threats. People who want to use it, will; people who don't, won't. Linux and other OSes don't have goals or aspirations, or even gratitude for misguided people who waste their time on earth fighting for mindshare on their behalf.
Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, David Reynolds.
The other poster to which you were responding is someone I certainly don't want to defend. Yet in your response, you made one claim that can be easily be rebuked. As in my original foray into this disucussion, I chose that one claim to rebut.
And again, as in your first response to me, you have chosen to ignore the factual rebutal of your very distinct claims and to instead concentrate on dishing out more even more tangential rhetoric.
Let me repeat this futile exercise with you again; the claim you make upon which the indignation of your entire latest response rests is this:
Yet any casual observer can see that this claim is clearly wrong. It is the height of arrogance to assume that you can make such a bold claim, and then proceed to chastise me based on that claim, when the world can see that my reply consisted of more than what you claim. Further, the world can see that I dealed with your more relavent (to me) post in more length in another post, yet you chose to repond not to that one, but to the one that ends saying that I am about to retire for the night.
Sure, I only brought up one other point in this post, but how much easier would it have been for you to deal with the one directy claim I make and than proceed to trash me? It would have been easy for you indeed.
My entire interest in discussing this issue with you is impressing upon you that if the world view you espouse rests upon outrageous claims you can't support, you should either
I find it interesting that my start in this thread involed listing movies that counter a very distinct and quantifiable claim you made, yet you haven't said much about the movies I have listed. Do you just take my word for it, or have you seen them, or have you read about them, or does my list of movies have no bearing on your rhetorical goals at this point? I am very curious.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I would appreciate that we start where the slashdot article did - with the movies. The gay-loving, attractive-bashing, republican-hating, evil liberal conspiracy can wait for another day, as far as I am concerned.
Have a nice day
Scotch
However
How-ever
- in all likelyhood, your views will become more tempered as you grow older in the so-called real world. This is just the effect of experience and maturity. It happened to me - it happened to almost everyone I know.
As far as your rebuttal to the previous poster's point about polital leanings vs. education level - 2 things:
1. based on the information in your webpage, I don't think you qualify. No insult intended. ;)
2. Look at the exit poll data for the last presidential election. Look at the numbers as they go from HS education, to college education, to masters degree, then to PhD and higher. I don't know if that means anything, but the previous poster was right. People can call themselves whatever they want (and only 51%? come on, that's hardly a convincing number), but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
Much of the rest of what you wrote frankly scares me, but I need to go to bed.
Another day my young conservative (alas) friend.
This statement you made is so outrageous that it has to be either some kind of manipulative rhetoric or the symptom of a seriously deluded mind - hence my original idiot comment. Let me be clear - I am not angry with you or trying to insult you in any other way than to say that what you have written is complete and utter bullshit.
You claim there is no "X". I clearly demonstrate that yes, there is some non-zero amount of X, and instead of re-evaluating your position upon which the claim that there is no "X" rests, you move the goal posts, use slight of hand arguments to side step the fact that I have shown your claim to be wrong.
The rest of your arguments may or may not stand up to scrutiny, but until you can admit that your are wrong about this one thing, I really don't owe you any argumentation on your additional points.
There are many movies out there which challenge your claim and your notion that all of hollywood is controlled by liberals who only put out movies supporting the so-called liberal agenda. You admit this is a weak way when say:
I listed 3 specific movies and a whole class of movies in general that demolish your claims. I am no movie expert, but it was easy in the 10 or so minutes I devoted to replying to you to think of these movies. Perhaps you choose to see the wrong type of movies? How can you call yourself a libertarian and at the same time take exception to the fact that America has voted with its dollars to support movies that go against your notions of political decency?
I will be the first to agree that most of what comes out of hollywood is complete and utter garbage. It's garbage on many more levels than the single problem you cite (if true) that they categorically avoid insulting anyone but those with your particular political leanings: writing is horrible, originality is scarce, acting is frequently poor, and the movies are infused with product placements. Yet I love good movies, I seek out good movies, with a little effort I find good ones or at least ones with enough redeeming qualities to be watchable, and I recommend those to others. Perhaps you should be more discriminating in what you watch? Hollywood doesn't owe you movies you agree with, hollywood will make movies people go to watch.
This brings up another problem I have with what your writings. IMO, movies are (or rather can be) a very distinct and powerful form of art. Crappy movies that I've been talking about up until this point hardly qualify, but the beauty of the cinema is the rare gem that is a work of art. Art shocks. Art challenges. Art sometimes scares. Art is creative - by definition something new - something changed from what you already have. A copy of a Picasso is not art. A painting that uses a copy-cat style of a Picasso is not art. What I am trying to say (in the most long-winded way possile) is that if we consider movies to be art at all, we must accept that they must be creative, must involve new things, changes, challenges to our notions of normalcy and decency. In a word - art is liberal. Perhaps you've heard the term"liberal arts"?
Of course, one can not separate "art" and "politics". So yes, a hacking hollywood will likely be liberally biased - both in the traditional sense of the word and as a political barometer reading. But many artists (or so called artists ;) ) are conservative in other parts of life. You can't be conservative artist, but you can be an artist that is conservative politically, financially, socially, religiously, etc. Arnold Schwarzneger and Charlton Heston are a couple names (perhaps artists) that come to mind as conservative cardre in the Hollywood Corps.
However, I refuse to accept your claim that the Media in general is liberally biased. From my point of view, the media is incredibly balanced - there are sources that lean both ways. Furthermore, most of the media would value a good story over any political leanings they might have. How do you rectify the amount of coverage that the Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky affair received with the notion that the Media is liberal? Should not have the media have turned a blind eye, ignored the situation, etc? There were many media defenders of Clinton - but everyone covered the case - every last sordid detail - and there were just as many attackers as defenders, in my view.
I am sorry you think most actors are stupid. That may or may not be true, I might even suspect it, but I doubt you have reason to know the truth of that claim with any certainty. How many successful actors have you met, high school theater members aside? Actors, I am sure, have many flaws, but If you think that makes them special among your fellow americans, you are seriously deluded. Who cares how fast they lose all their money?
My final thought is in response to your claim that:
My main problem with conservativism as it is manifests itself in this country is the "us vs. them" mentality portrayed. Many people have more complex politcal beliefs that merely convserative vs. liberal, or democratic vs. republic, yet the conservative mantra's seems to be it's "us" versus everyone else. Liberal is not a dirty word. Repeat that 20 times. Liberal is not a dirty word. You have been brainwashed. Repeat it 20 more times. Liberal is not a dirty word. Change can be good, must be considered, and in the end, is unavoidable. Logic is important. So is emotion. In the words of the band Live -
"This is not a black and white world - to be alive, the colors must swirl."
Go back and read your original claim that I addressed. You said no movies insult gays, liberals, or the ugly, when they clearly do. Why should the use of humor disqualify those movies?
I can't tell you about a "cinema movement against homosexuals", but why should there by one? How would that balance things out for you? Is there a cinema movement against heterosexuals? Yet homosexual characters are frequently used as the butt of jokes, or their behavior is stereotyped, but those insults don't count with you?
I've never seen "the contender" (but I could have been one) - I read the summary from IMDB - and it doesn't say anything about the point of the movie being to demonize republicans for their desire to carry out the law. Gary oldman played a detestable republican, so why take that personally? Have you ever seen "Hurly Burly" (last 10 years)? The characters in that movie are hollywood film people, clearly liberal (though not politicians), and also clearly detestable.
Here's another movie that challenger your claim: "Citizen Ruth" that's a movie that takes a politicaly polarizing issue - abortion - and evenly attacks people on both side of the issue - that movie was made in 1996.
You say that political good guys are always democrats. I disagree - I think more often than not both the good guys and the bad guys are not identified with either party. Regarding this comment:
Ugly people are made fun of all the time in real life and in the movies. Almost every stupid high-school movie ever made has some throwaway characters that is a nerd or ugly or awkward and the only purpose of the character if for a few laughs.
I have heard many people who talk about "the liberal establishment" in hollywood or the "liberal media", but they never seem to be able to back up their claims. The "liberal media" meme is just a conservative demon. The truth of the matter is that there is media in the US that is conservative and media that is liberal, the balance of which nicely reflects the distribution of politcal thought of people in this country. Guess what? I have one more insult for you: political parties are for idiots
He wants so bad to make slashdot a movie review site - most of what he writes can surely be considered "Off Topic" to slashdot now.
Oh please - one film in the last 10 years? How about anything by the farley brothers? I could name many many others - you're either an idiot or being purposefully obtuse.
(pedantic = true) what's that 768 millibits? Almost a full bit of RAM - should be quite a server ;)
yes "natalie portman" > /proc/kcore
mod this funny Jane Fonda loving bastard up!!!
Yeah, but when you get your bill for your 800 number and notice it went through the roof, maybe you'll think twice about using SPAM as a marketing tool, and would refrain from hiring spammers in the future. No market, no problem.
I guess 100 a week is average.
Both, depends on my mood. So sue me.
Then they are idiots. I guess that fact wasn't really disputed. What I try to do, not everytime, is to be more of a pain in the ass to them than they are to me. I would disagree with you that the worth in $$ of knowing that my email address is valid exceeds the cost in $$ of a call to their 1-800 number, for example. How would they determine, even if they got my phone number when I called, that my email is valid?
Next question: do you think they have the knowledge to associate http transaction from my @home email IP with my @home email address? I doubt it, so ordering bogus stuff from their web site also doesn't risk validating my email address, but might might possibly cause them some pain and suffering.
Mailing to complaint addresses on their webpage is most effective in combination with complaints to abuse@ISP as you suggest.
Thanks for playing
-
If the SPAM has a website, I'll got to that site, and look for a complaint form or email there.
- If the web site has an order form, I'll fill it out with bogus information like name="spam sucks", address="1600 pennsylvania ave", etc
- If they have a 1-800 number, I call that and leave a short message telling them no one likes spam
Any other good ideas (that won't get me arrested, hopefully)?The sterile tone of the orgy was clearly intentional and crafted with excruciating care. Don't you wonder what the intended meaning of the scene was and how it fit into the themes of sexuality and fidelity present throughout the movie? No, you're just sorry you didn't get turned on by yet another hollywood rendition of an orgy. Maybe VIPs can be turned on by other things than just sensuality (hint: power, sacrafice, ritual, anonymity, cruelty, etc).
Feel free to dislike EWS, but at least dislike it for what it is, not what you think it is.
Yeah, you're probably right.
- Do you need 3D acceleration?
- Only fast 2D?
- Is dual head something you're interested in?
If all you need is good 2D support, there are many cheap cards that will work for you.If you need good 3D performance, then your options are more limited, though I'm sure most of your responses will focus on this area.