No you moron. You missed my point. It's not that he was drawing attention to himself. It was primarily the "deathstick" thing. I mean come on... if he's gonna include a public service message, he can do it without whacking the audience upside the head with it. Hell, there are drugs in the Star Wars books, but you'll never hear mention of anything called a "deathstick." Subtlety seems to be lost on Mr. Lucas.
Gotta agree with you on the fighting style. While I have no doubt that Yoda should be able to manage flinging himself about like he did due to his mastery of the force, you're right about the fighting style not making a lot of sense.
Well, it may suck for snowboarding, etc., but it should rock for most mech-type games. Perhaps tank-games too. Besides, it's up to each and every person to decide if the controller and game are worth the price to them. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I, for one, find console controllers to be one of their main limitations. I hate playing most genres on console because most games just work better with my keyboard/mouse and/or joystick on the PC.
Yoda is supposed to be the wiser, more thoughtful jedi. IMO Yoda is more like the emperor. "We don't need no steenking lightsabers." Just some subtle power.
Says who? Yoda is quite powerful, but that would seem to allow him to move like he did. He doesn't have the physical ability to do so, but when he relies on the force to move himself he could be quite agile. If Yoda could just wave his hand and take out Dooku, then there would probably be nothing that could defeat him. Even Palpatine. We know that's not true, so there must be more limitation to his abilities, at least when confronted with a powerful jedi or sith lord. Their abilities nearly cancel each other out, so it comes down to physical combat. Yoda should be quite good with a lightsaber given that he's had over 800 years to practice. That would explain why Dooku beat a hasty retreat by distracting Yoda long enough to allow his escape.
No kidding. That scene actually made me groan out loud. It was horrible. I mean it's not that it's hard to believe that there would be drug dealers on Coruscant, or that Jedi would not approve of it, it's just that the dialog was so ham-fisted. A little subtlety would have gone a long way there.
I also thought that the bad parts of AOTC (any love scene, any one liner by mcgregor, any scene with 3cpo talking) were an order of magnitude worse than TPM.
Yeah, sucks to have a story involved. There should've just been lots of fights to watch and then we'd go home. Without those scenes there would be practically no development of Anakin and then nothing would make sense (where'd Luke come from?? Why does he turn to the dark side??).
There were also many scenes that were blatant sell-out type scenes that the purist in me sees as a blatant travisty to the universe (yoda, r2 flying, the jedi sacraficing themselves uselessly).
I'll agree with the R2 flying part. That just struck me as being dumb when you consider the original movies. As for Yoda, I don't know about it. He was supposed to be a great warrior. It's nice to see him doing something besides spouting jedi philosophy. Sure, it was a scene that would appeal to many just because it's a little green muppet jumping around and kicking ass with a lightsaber, but I think that those of us that grew up with the original films always wondered about Yoda's fighting skills. Luke was obviously shocked to find out that the great jedi master was such a little goofy looking guy. So were the rest of us. It worked for the movie, but this being a prequel, we want to see the great warrior for ourselves. Finally, on the subject of the jedi sacrificing themselves, I don't think that was their intent. I was fairly sceptical about the way that scene played out anyway. Why did they have hordes of battle-droids waiting right outside the arena doors? The jedi knew there was a droid army, but I don't see how they could have expected a fight like what they ended up with. I think they thought they would be able to take control of the situation pretty quickly, but it didn't work out for them.
Oh yeah... and I loved Spiderman. For the reasons you said, plus Dunst definitely does it for me.
Unfortunately, if we give them that control, they'll completely fuck up the computer industry, which would make me profoundly unhappy. I don't think I like that solution.
Thanks to their theft, they can afford lots of lawyers. Kinda sad. When a guy robs a bank, they don't let him use the money to pay his lawyers. Have they frozen the assets of these guys? Even if they're convicted, they'll probably never spend any time in jail. Hell, there was a case here a few weeks ago where a guy committed insurance fraud and ripped people off for about 3.5 million. Caught red-handed, he got 12 years. That's freaking it. If I stole $1000 bucks I'd probably do 20.
Bell had the most lines and the patent on the telephone, so it was common sense to give him a regulated monopoly for wires in the ground and to install phone service everywhere.
Giving them a monopoly isn't the problem. It was the right thing to do at the time. The problem is that due to that monopoly they have become very well entrenched and competition doesn't stand a chance without access to the infrastructure. The government created the monster, they need to control it. This ruling just shows that that isn't happening.
If the Bells weren't being handed their monopoly back, the whole market could be served because niche providers would pop up to serve those with needs greater than the Bells can meet. The fact that this will no longer happen proves that competition is not sufficient, and it's obviously due to the fact that the Bells control the copper. They city should control the copper and all comers should be allowed to provide service over it. Anything else would be stupid.
Sure you could sell phone service, but that won't be enough to recoup your costs when you're attempting to compete against a well entrenched competitor. The Bells never would have made it if they hadn't been handed a monopoly over service.
Note the Enron is bankrupt now, no larger a bazillion dollar firm. If they really got any meaningful help they would still be a huge firm.
Note that the top Enron execs made out like bandits. If they had really received no help, they probably would have lost their shirts too. The only help they needed was to delay the news long enough for them to cash out.
How do you think the Bells got all that wiring? They were granted a monopoly, which made it possible to pay for all of it. How come nobody else gets such help from the government? The Bells wouldn't have that wiring if it weren't for the government. The government didn't want everyone and their brother laying wire all over the city. So they only allowed one company to do it. Now they turn those companies loose with no competition. Nobody else is going to be able to build that kind of infrastructure again because nobody else is going be be handed a monopoly by the government. The only sane solution is for the city to own the infrastructure and allow all of the various service providers to have equal access to it.
Ok, good point. How about private investigators and others that seem to have easy access to this sort of information. How do they manage it? Are they acting illegally?
When I apply for a job, they do a background check, including finding out whether or not I've committed any felonies. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same?
I'm running on a fast box (Athlon 1800XP w/512MB) with cablemodem and Mozilla RC2 renders at least as fast as IE, and on some sites noticeably faster. Are there specific sites that Mozilla renders slower? I'd like to try them and see what you're talking about.
I think we're looking at it from a different perspective. What's right for Microsoft is probably not right for the rest of us. Of course since Bill is richer than God, he can do what he pleases, but many of us don't like the "right" decisions that Microsoft makes because they tend to benefit nobody but Microsoft. This decision, on the other hand, will benefit everyone except RealNames, which is a Good Thing. So, from our perspective, this decision was "right," a rare thing for Microsoft.
I've not seen or heard of anything that requires a god to explain its existence. There is much that we don't know, but the fact that we don't understand, and may never understand, certain things, does not mean that it must be attributed to some deity. Let alone a deity that would have anything at all to do with human religions.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
(Don't tell me that its because those countries can't afford them. If you don't lower your price to the maximum limit a customer can afford, then you're losing a sale.)
The way I understand it, they don't want to sell the drugs cheaply to third world countries because they fear that if they do, it will create a much larger black market for the drugs where they are bought cheaply and then sold to places where the drugs normally sell for more, namely the US and EU.
I don't know of anyone that steals CDs. I know quite a few that download mp3s of songs they are interested in though. Hardly the same, especially since it appears to drive up sales of CDs as well, which would seem to jive with the stories of most who download mp3 to decide what they like and then buy the CDs.
The problem was not priests, per se, but priests who thought that God wasn't good enough to sort out the leadership by Himself.
Sounds like the priests were the problem to me. They almost always become a problem eventually. That's the problem with believing in something that you can't reasonably demonstrate. You often end up having to set aside logic and rationality, and that leaves you vulnerable to becoming a blind follower. You learn not to ask for proof or evidence because that shows that you lack faith. There are those that will always seek to take advantage of such a situation, using the followers for their own purposes. Obviously this does not apply to everyone, but it does apply to a large percentage of people. Back when I did go to church, most of the people there hadn't even read the Bible. They simply listened to the sermons and accepted what was they were told.
Slashdot Mirror
No you moron. You missed my point. It's not that he was drawing attention to himself. It was primarily the "deathstick" thing. I mean come on... if he's gonna include a public service message, he can do it without whacking the audience upside the head with it. Hell, there are drugs in the Star Wars books, but you'll never hear mention of anything called a "deathstick." Subtlety seems to be lost on Mr. Lucas.
Gotta agree with you on the fighting style. While I have no doubt that Yoda should be able to manage flinging himself about like he did due to his mastery of the force, you're right about the fighting style not making a lot of sense.
Well, it may suck for snowboarding, etc., but it should rock for most mech-type games. Perhaps tank-games too. Besides, it's up to each and every person to decide if the controller and game are worth the price to them. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I, for one, find console controllers to be one of their main limitations. I hate playing most genres on console because most games just work better with my keyboard/mouse and/or joystick on the PC.
Yes, you and the other poster have the same idea. But Yoda is a good guy, so he wouldn't take that route, thus the saber-fight.
Yoda is supposed to be the wiser, more thoughtful jedi. IMO Yoda is more like the emperor. "We don't need no steenking lightsabers." Just some subtle power.
Says who? Yoda is quite powerful, but that would seem to allow him to move like he did. He doesn't have the physical ability to do so, but when he relies on the force to move himself he could be quite agile. If Yoda could just wave his hand and take out Dooku, then there would probably be nothing that could defeat him. Even Palpatine. We know that's not true, so there must be more limitation to his abilities, at least when confronted with a powerful jedi or sith lord. Their abilities nearly cancel each other out, so it comes down to physical combat. Yoda should be quite good with a lightsaber given that he's had over 800 years to practice. That would explain why Dooku beat a hasty retreat by distracting Yoda long enough to allow his escape.
Somewhere around here I have a copy of DOS 3.3. Will that work?
Yeah, but the chick will be really old and ugly, and you'll have to do ALL the work.
No kidding. That scene actually made me groan out loud. It was horrible. I mean it's not that it's hard to believe that there would be drug dealers on Coruscant, or that Jedi would not approve of it, it's just that the dialog was so ham-fisted. A little subtlety would have gone a long way there.
I also thought that the bad parts of AOTC (any love scene, any one liner by mcgregor, any scene with 3cpo talking) were an order of magnitude worse than TPM.
Yeah, sucks to have a story involved. There should've just been lots of fights to watch and then we'd go home. Without those scenes there would be practically no development of Anakin and then nothing would make sense (where'd Luke come from?? Why does he turn to the dark side??).
There were also many scenes that were blatant sell-out type scenes that the purist in me sees as a blatant travisty to the universe (yoda, r2 flying, the jedi sacraficing themselves uselessly).
I'll agree with the R2 flying part. That just struck me as being dumb when you consider the original movies. As for Yoda, I don't know about it. He was supposed to be a great warrior. It's nice to see him doing something besides spouting jedi philosophy. Sure, it was a scene that would appeal to many just because it's a little green muppet jumping around and kicking ass with a lightsaber, but I think that those of us that grew up with the original films always wondered about Yoda's fighting skills. Luke was obviously shocked to find out that the great jedi master was such a little goofy looking guy. So were the rest of us. It worked for the movie, but this being a prequel, we want to see the great warrior for ourselves. Finally, on the subject of the jedi sacrificing themselves, I don't think that was their intent. I was fairly sceptical about the way that scene played out anyway. Why did they have hordes of battle-droids waiting right outside the arena doors? The jedi knew there was a droid army, but I don't see how they could have expected a fight like what they ended up with. I think they thought they would be able to take control of the situation pretty quickly, but it didn't work out for them.
Oh yeah... and I loved Spiderman. For the reasons you said, plus Dunst definitely does it for me.
Unfortunately, if we give them that control, they'll completely fuck up the computer industry, which would make me profoundly unhappy. I don't think I like that solution.
Thanks to their theft, they can afford lots of lawyers. Kinda sad. When a guy robs a bank, they don't let him use the money to pay his lawyers. Have they frozen the assets of these guys? Even if they're convicted, they'll probably never spend any time in jail. Hell, there was a case here a few weeks ago where a guy committed insurance fraud and ripped people off for about 3.5 million. Caught red-handed, he got 12 years. That's freaking it. If I stole $1000 bucks I'd probably do 20.
Bell had the most lines and the patent on the telephone, so it was common sense to give him a regulated monopoly for wires in the ground and to install phone service everywhere.
Giving them a monopoly isn't the problem. It was the right thing to do at the time. The problem is that due to that monopoly they have become very well entrenched and competition doesn't stand a chance without access to the infrastructure. The government created the monster, they need to control it. This ruling just shows that that isn't happening.
If the Bells weren't being handed their monopoly back, the whole market could be served because niche providers would pop up to serve those with needs greater than the Bells can meet. The fact that this will no longer happen proves that competition is not sufficient, and it's obviously due to the fact that the Bells control the copper. They city should control the copper and all comers should be allowed to provide service over it. Anything else would be stupid.
Sure you could sell phone service, but that won't be enough to recoup your costs when you're attempting to compete against a well entrenched competitor. The Bells never would have made it if they hadn't been handed a monopoly over service.
Note the Enron is bankrupt now, no larger a bazillion dollar firm. If they really got any meaningful help they would still be a huge firm.
Note that the top Enron execs made out like bandits. If they had really received no help, they probably would have lost their shirts too. The only help they needed was to delay the news long enough for them to cash out.
How do you think the Bells got all that wiring? They were granted a monopoly, which made it possible to pay for all of it. How come nobody else gets such help from the government? The Bells wouldn't have that wiring if it weren't for the government. The government didn't want everyone and their brother laying wire all over the city. So they only allowed one company to do it. Now they turn those companies loose with no competition. Nobody else is going to be able to build that kind of infrastructure again because nobody else is going be be handed a monopoly by the government. The only sane solution is for the city to own the infrastructure and allow all of the various service providers to have equal access to it.
Ok, good point. How about private investigators and others that seem to have easy access to this sort of information. How do they manage it? Are they acting illegally?
When I apply for a job, they do a background check, including finding out whether or not I've committed any felonies. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same?
Not even the source code. They said that they couldn't reveal certain APIs and protocols even. That's fucking sad.
I'm running on a fast box (Athlon 1800XP w/512MB) with cablemodem and Mozilla RC2 renders at least as fast as IE, and on some sites noticeably faster. Are there specific sites that Mozilla renders slower? I'd like to try them and see what you're talking about.
I think we're looking at it from a different perspective. What's right for Microsoft is probably not right for the rest of us. Of course since Bill is richer than God, he can do what he pleases, but many of us don't like the "right" decisions that Microsoft makes because they tend to benefit nobody but Microsoft. This decision, on the other hand, will benefit everyone except RealNames, which is a Good Thing. So, from our perspective, this decision was "right," a rare thing for Microsoft.
Cut Microsoft some slack... this might be the only time they ever get to be right. Give them the benefit of the doubt :)
I've not seen or heard of anything that requires a god to explain its existence. There is much that we don't know, but the fact that we don't understand, and may never understand, certain things, does not mean that it must be attributed to some deity. Let alone a deity that would have anything at all to do with human religions.
(Don't tell me that its because those countries can't afford them. If you don't lower your price to the maximum limit a customer can afford, then you're losing a sale.)
The way I understand it, they don't want to sell the drugs cheaply to third world countries because they fear that if they do, it will create a much larger black market for the drugs where they are bought cheaply and then sold to places where the drugs normally sell for more, namely the US and EU.
I don't know of anyone that steals CDs. I know quite a few that download mp3s of songs they are interested in though. Hardly the same, especially since it appears to drive up sales of CDs as well, which would seem to jive with the stories of most who download mp3 to decide what they like and then buy the CDs.
The problem was not priests, per se, but priests who thought that God wasn't good enough to sort out the leadership by Himself.
Sounds like the priests were the problem to me. They almost always become a problem eventually. That's the problem with believing in something that you can't reasonably demonstrate. You often end up having to set aside logic and rationality, and that leaves you vulnerable to becoming a blind follower. You learn not to ask for proof or evidence because that shows that you lack faith. There are those that will always seek to take advantage of such a situation, using the followers for their own purposes. Obviously this does not apply to everyone, but it does apply to a large percentage of people. Back when I did go to church, most of the people there hadn't even read the Bible. They simply listened to the sermons and accepted what was they were told.