If there were children in the theater, they should not have been there without their parents. That is a separate problem, and one that was recently addressed when the theater owners stated that they would begin enforcing the ratings rules more strictly. I have seen evidence of this. They were carding people at a theater I went to last weekend.
It does seem to be a very unfair and dishonest review though. It does not mention any of the good messages that were in the movie. Perhaps this is because the reviewer doesn't agree with those messages. Tolerance and accountability are not high on the christian extremists' list of Good Things.
You must look at his accomplishments prior to WWII. He was one of the greatest leaders ever.
Being a leader is not something that I would consider a good point for Hitler. Anyone can lead by telling the people the lies they want to hear and get them to follow. A real leader wouldn't have to lie to get people to follow.
He managed to bring the country out of the worst inflationary depressions ever seen in the world, and picked up the shambles of his country to build a successful, thriving country prior to his atempt at world domination.
Of course he did. You can't kill millions of people without some cash to build weapons and gather supplies. Again, while he did accomplish something, I don't think it was a good thing that he accomplished. He built a thriving country and made it the focal point for the hate of the world. Building weapons is not a good way for a healthy economy to come into being. It means that there must be a war to support it. Since that was what Hitler intended, I don't think that he really did anything good for the country. If he'd been able to build up an economy that could stand on its own in peacetime, that would be an accomplishment.
"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."
Yeah. I'm sure Lucas is terribly worried about the CAP score his movies get.:)
and that angels are likely more respectable and wholesome since they are representatives appointed by the Holy Father."
You mean like how the ultimate embodiment of evil, Satan, was appointed by God? Sure, he got tossed out, but that only tells us that God has his limits. If an angel can be that evil, why couldn't some others be less than 100% purely respectable? Michael was far from evil. He just had a bit of a hygiene problem and was a tad eccentric in some ways.
Re:Religion: REALITY CHECKPOINT - do not pass!
on
Spoonful of Quickies
·
· Score: 1
I think it's rather ironic how people are tolerant to most everything - except intolerance.
The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I don't have a problem tolerating someone else's religion, but if that person refuses to tolerate mine and harrasses or threatens me because of it, then I don't see any way that that can be tolerated.
Why should someone else care that I don't believe the same thing as him? It sounds like a big case of insecurity to me. They want everyone to believe the same as they do so that we're all in the same boat. If it turns out that they're wrong, they don't want anyone else to be right. Misery loves company.
Again, for a society that tries really hard to be non-judgmental, being hostile to those who _are_ judgmental is still wrong.
Wrong? Maybe. Unavoidable? Probably. You simply can't be non-judgemental about a group that passes judgement on you and tries to make you do things their way. The christian groups around the country constantly lobby for things that will make people do things their way by preventing us from doing things that they don't like. You can't force religion or morality on someone. Maybe someday they'll understand that.
I mean, what's the use of believing in a religion if you're not going to take it seriously? How useless is that?
You can take your religion seriously while still retaining an open mind. Just because you're a Christian, doesn't mean you have to shut out everything that doesn't agree 100% with you. No religion has been proven to be true. That's the reason it's called faith. Is your faith so week that it can't stand up to a challenge? Is it so shaky that it can be toppled by a movie? Many of the things we do on faith don't make sense to us. We do it because a book says we should and we happen to believe that that book is the word of our god. It can be funny to step back and look at our faith and the things that we do because of it. It doesn't mean our faith is wrong, but it can sometimes point out things that we may want to look into to make sure we are truly doing the right thing. We don't always have a perfect understanding of things and unfortunately this can be exploited by those who would use our faith to further their own agendas. There are a lot of personal decisions involved that can't be made for you by your church.
Assuming that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, finding God through the Bible doesn't really seem to me like inappropriate conclusion.
If you make that assumption, then I guess it's ok. I don't know exactly why you would make that assumption though. I don't think I'll ever understand why the Bible exists if it is truly God's word. If God wanted us to know his word, then we wouldn't have to deal with bad translations or selective translations. We wouldn't have to deal with a book at all. He could simply have included the true word in our minds in a way we could understand. That would have solved a lot of problems I think. Maybe prevented a bunch of wars and countless senseless deaths. I guess we just have to keep taking for granted that we can't possibly understand God's reasons.
Re:Religion: REALITY CHECKPOINT - do not pass!
on
Spoonful of Quickies
·
· Score: 1
It's designed for the typical christian parent who maybe doesn't watch too much TV (maybe no cable...) and who has little kids that want to go see this movie. The parent doesn't know much about the movie. Obviously this little kid shouldn't see the movie.
What about parents of older children who could benefit from this movie? The review makes it sound like buying a ticket to this movie is the same as buying a ticket to hell. They don't even consider any of the good things in the film. The CAP rating is completely negative. Of course, groups like this probably wouldn't agree with many of the things I consider to be good in this movie. They don't seem to want to hear anything that doesn't profess that gays are bad, parents are always right, the media is to blame for the country's problems, etc. I guess when you look at it that way, their ratings make sense.
I think that if your beliefs can't stand up to a bit of mocking, then they might not be as worthy as you think. Since nobody is making them go see the movie, I don't see how their beliefs are really being mocked anyway. Sure, behind their backs maybe, but then the people who wrote the review are not at all respectful of other people's beliefs either. They are as convinced as anyone that their way is the One True Way. Everyone else is damned to hell.
Loki isn't the company that created Myth 2. Bungie created it. Loki is porting it to Linux. That's what you're paying for. If you don't like it, then tell Bungie to start writing their games for Linux and selling all versions in one box. At least Loki is making the games available for Linux users.
I have a TNT and an SBLive!, but the support is not as good as I would like yet. I hope it will get better. It kinda sucks that only 3Dfx cards get any real support under Linux.
Actually, Loki isn't in the business of selling Windows games. They're trying to get more games ported to Linux. If Bungie wants to start making their games available for Linux as well as Windows and Mac, then they should probably all come in the same box since Windows and Mac already do. If a game is released for Windows only, then Loki can do a Linux port and sell it. They don't have any incentive to add the Windows binaries as well. Bungie is the one with the incentive to add binaries for multiple OSes. They get a broader customer base then. Loki only caters to Linux users, so they can reach their entire customer base just by distributing the Linux version.
Some types of research are still simply to costly to be done for profit, even though it will give tremendous benefits in the long run.
I think his point was who gets to reap the benefits? Answer: The company that is in a position to take the quickest advantage of the information that comes out of the space program. So, we taxpayers are funding major research that will be used by corporations to create stuff that we will have to pay for again. What did they put up? What did they risk? Nada. Where is the payback for us? What do we get out of our tax dollars?
I see your point, but my point is that the corporations are some of the people. Those people already get a vote and are already allowed to contribute to campaigns. Why then should a corporation be allowed to contribute? It seems to just put more power and influence in the hands of those businesses who do it, while it detracts from the influence of individuals.
I don't think the whole "direct democracy" thing would work. We've had this discussion here too many times. With that many people involved, there's no way to have a real discussion of the topic with every voter, so you end up with people voting on something they don't have all (or even most of) the facts about. That would lead to some really bad decisions. I don't like politicians much at all, but I think direct democracy would be much worse.
Good point. I thought about this, and figured that if there were enough restrictions on the money, not many people would run unless they were really serious. I do agree that it would be wise to have a total cap though. I'm sure we'd eventually run into problems without it.
Sure, they pay taxes. So what? They get quite a few privileges and protections from our government as well. Each and every person in that corporation could make a campaign contribution if they want to. The corporation itself should not be allowed to. It undermines the system by putting the power in the hands of those with the most money. Let them individually contribute if they want.
I personally think that the whole contribution thing is crazy anyway. The government should give each candidate a specific budget that must be fully accounted for. They can use it to promote themselves as much as they want. They cannot use it to buy personal items (no buying yourself a car and then losing on purpose). That would put the candidates on equal footing and remove some of the influence of big money on the election. I'm sure corporations will run their own commercials and whatnot for their candidate. Can't stop them there, but let's at least try to do whatever possible to stop the direct transfer of funds. Candidates should not be allowed to make deals for support with corporations. I have obviously not thought this all the way through, but it's equally obvious that the current system is screwed up. Might as well start thinking up alternatives. Basically, we need to let THE PEOPLE vote for their choice. I don't want someone in office who is indebted to those people who paid for his campaign. It's a conflict of interest.
Since when does the ATF go hunting for unlicensed gun owners? If you think that's why they were after him, you need to do some reading.
So becuase New York police are violent... um, what does this have to do with privacy again?
It has to do with people's rights. If they don't even respect people's basic human rights, what makes you think they will respect your privacy which is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution in so many words? Most U.S. citizens consider privacy to be a right. I believe most government officials consider it to be a right as well. We all want our privacy, but some groups want to be able to violate that privacy on a whim.
Packet Storm was broght down becuase it voilated the TOS of its Host, maybe the threat of legal action helped this along, but that is irrelavant.
It is not irrelevant. The school had no problem with him until some guy decides he doesn't like what the website says and decides to threaten to sue. Now, the school doesn't want to have this show up in the news, so it caves in and shuts the site down. It doesn't matter to the school whether he actually said anything wrong or not. They are just afraid of the guy taking legal action that might get them some bad press. It shows that simply by threatening legal action, you can interfere with someone's right to free speech. You don't even have to prove a thing in court.
How about AOL giving out user information to the Navy without any authorisation, either from a court or from the user, whatsoever? How about the fact that someone can have your identity revealed just by alleging that you have said something libelous in an anonymous post? It doesn't matter whether it was legal or not. They will know who you are. How about the fact that most people can't even afford to defend their rights in court? It costs money to exercise your rights. What a country.
Again, NYC can fall into the ocean for all I care.
Great argument. You can't just explain it away, so you decide to ignore it. Too bad there are so many people like you.
Probably, if the public defender had gotten 12 more juriors who had the intellegence of the common carrot.
Let's see. The better attorney will likely be the one who has more experience, a better track record, and can demand a higher rate of pay. The public defender is often not as experienced and certainly not as well paid, even though he/she probably has a bigger case-load. I wonder who will be able to offer the better defense? Since both attorneys have a say in picking the jury, it's not just up to the public defender to get a better jury. Would you go with a public defender if you could afford a more expensive attorney who specializes in your type of case? I doubt it.
Actually, there are many people who are concerned with privacy. Those people do try to limit their exposure. Unfortunately, business is making that harder and harder to do.
Hooray for ad hominem arguments. Without them, the Anonymous Cowards around here wouldn't have much to say.
If you think about what he said, he has a pretty decent point. Without adding new features, how can Microsoft justify selling a new version? Answer: They can't. It's not that farfetched to believe that they might start taking a lot of suggestions from a few consumers here and there that would otherwise have never even been considered. It might be something that a couple of people want, but Microsoft has hundreds of millions of customers that don't want or need that feature. It gets tossed in anyway to add another bullet to the feature list on the back of the box. Looks impressive, no?
How does clean/tight code result in bloat? Sounds mutually exclusive to me. What you seem to be saying is that clean/tight code results in more bugs than bloated code, which is something else altogether and I wouldn't want to get involved if you decide to start telling coders that their nice slim programs must be full of bugs while MS Word is relatively bug-free by comparison. What you're saying is probably irrelevant. Not only would I not agree with you, but the whole thing would get real ugly.
Any other suggestions?
on
GEEK Unions?
·
· Score: 1
One problem with spontaneous unity is that it often leads to little real effect. Not many people care that they've just ticked off a bunch of geeks. Sure, maybe they will try to take your web server down or some such thing, but overall, not much impact. Unless there is some danger to their political survival, politicians don't really care who they tick off. Making the big companies mad will definitely hurt them in a tangible way. They will lose votes and a lot of campaign contributions. Is there a way to make annoying geeks a bad political move for these guys? I don't know. You're right about geeks being like cats. It's tough to get them to do anything in unison in order to have a real effect.
A few geeks walking off the job as a response to a bad political decision wouldn't do anything to help. Those few would be fired and replaced as a warning to others. Unless it was a massive walk-out, there would only be bad results for geeks. Since a massive walk-out would be extremely difficult to organize, for all the reasons Jon and the above poster have pointed out, there isn't much danger to politicians and businesses.
About the only thing I can think of that might help is to promote voting among geeks and designate a non-partisan website as the central repository for all the facts on the candidates and how they have voted on issues and what their public positions are on other important issues (geek-related and otherwise. Their are lots of important issues that aren't just related to computers and e-issues). There are already several sites attempting to do this, but they are incomplete at best. One or two of them need to really get their act together and become complete sources for this information. Perhaps then we can have a clearer view of the candidates and at least vote for the lesser evil.
I doubt any movie could make me laugh as hard as I did reading that review! I almost fell out of my chair! I think I'll have to pass around that link:) Way too funny...
I wonder though, what happened to these people that made them the way they are? It seems like they have the ultimate guilty conscience or something. It's kinda scary. Seems like these kind of people are the ones who cause so many problems in this world. They are about the most intolerant bunch I've come across yet. They hate too many things. Not a recipe for peace and happiness.
Same here... I knew many of the common commands, but couldn't always remember the arguments and didn't always get the format right... this is not that farfetched at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If there were children in the theater, they should not have been there without their parents. That is a separate problem, and one that was recently addressed when the theater owners stated that they would begin enforcing the ratings rules more strictly. I have seen evidence of this. They were carding people at a theater I went to last weekend.
It does seem to be a very unfair and dishonest review though. It does not mention any of the good messages that were in the movie. Perhaps this is because the reviewer doesn't agree with those messages. Tolerance and accountability are not high on the christian extremists' list of Good Things.
You must look at his accomplishments prior to WWII. He was one of the greatest leaders ever.
Being a leader is not something that I would consider a good point for Hitler. Anyone can lead by telling the people the lies they want to hear and get them to follow. A real leader wouldn't have to lie to get people to follow.
He managed to bring the country out of the worst inflationary depressions ever seen in the world, and picked up the shambles of his country to build a successful, thriving country prior to his atempt at world domination.
Of course he did. You can't kill millions of people without some cash to build weapons and gather supplies. Again, while he did accomplish something, I don't think it was a good thing that he accomplished. He built a thriving country and made it the focal point for the hate of the world. Building weapons is not a good way for a healthy economy to come into being. It means that there must be a war to support it. Since that was what Hitler intended, I don't think that he really did anything good for the country. If he'd been able to build up an economy that could stand on its own in peacetime, that would be an accomplishment.
"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."
Yeah. I'm sure Lucas is terribly worried about the CAP score his movies get. :)
and that angels are likely more respectable and wholesome since they are representatives appointed by the Holy Father."
You mean like how the ultimate embodiment of evil, Satan, was appointed by God? Sure, he got tossed out, but that only tells us that God has his limits. If an angel can be that evil, why couldn't some others be less than 100% purely respectable? Michael was far from evil. He just had a bit of a hygiene problem and was a tad eccentric in some ways.
I think it's rather ironic how people are tolerant to most everything - except intolerance.
The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I don't have a problem tolerating someone else's religion, but if that person refuses to tolerate mine and harrasses or threatens me because of it, then I don't see any way that that can be tolerated.
Why should someone else care that I don't believe the same thing as him? It sounds like a big case of insecurity to me. They want everyone to believe the same as they do so that we're all in the same boat. If it turns out that they're wrong, they don't want anyone else to be right. Misery loves company.
Again, for a society that tries really hard to be non-judgmental, being hostile to those who _are_ judgmental is still wrong.
Wrong? Maybe. Unavoidable? Probably. You simply can't be non-judgemental about a group that passes judgement on you and tries to make you do things their way. The christian groups around the country constantly lobby for things that will make people do things their way by preventing us from doing things that they don't like. You can't force religion or morality on someone. Maybe someday they'll understand that.
I mean, what's the use of believing in a religion if you're not going to take it seriously? How useless is that?
You can take your religion seriously while still retaining an open mind. Just because you're a Christian, doesn't mean you have to shut out everything that doesn't agree 100% with you. No religion has been proven to be true. That's the reason it's called faith. Is your faith so week that it can't stand up to a challenge? Is it so shaky that it can be toppled by a movie? Many of the things we do on faith don't make sense to us. We do it because a book says we should and we happen to believe that that book is the word of our god. It can be funny to step back and look at our faith and the things that we do because of it. It doesn't mean our faith is wrong, but it can sometimes point out things that we may want to look into to make sure we are truly doing the right thing. We don't always have a perfect understanding of things and unfortunately this can be exploited by those who would use our faith to further their own agendas. There are a lot of personal decisions involved that can't be made for you by your church.
Assuming that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, finding God through the Bible doesn't really seem to me like inappropriate conclusion.
If you make that assumption, then I guess it's ok. I don't know exactly why you would make that assumption though. I don't think I'll ever understand why the Bible exists if it is truly God's word. If God wanted us to know his word, then we wouldn't have to deal with bad translations or selective translations. We wouldn't have to deal with a book at all. He could simply have included the true word in our minds in a way we could understand. That would have solved a lot of problems I think. Maybe prevented a bunch of wars and countless senseless deaths. I guess we just have to keep taking for granted that we can't possibly understand God's reasons.
It's designed for the typical christian parent who maybe doesn't watch too much TV (maybe no cable...) and who has little kids that want to go see this movie. The parent doesn't know much about the movie. Obviously this little kid shouldn't see the movie.
What about parents of older children who could benefit from this movie? The review makes it sound like buying a ticket to this movie is the same as buying a ticket to hell. They don't even consider any of the good things in the film. The CAP rating is completely negative. Of course, groups like this probably wouldn't agree with many of the things I consider to be good in this movie. They don't seem to want to hear anything that doesn't profess that gays are bad, parents are always right, the media is to blame for the country's problems, etc. I guess when you look at it that way, their ratings make sense.
I think that if your beliefs can't stand up to a bit of mocking, then they might not be as worthy as you think. Since nobody is making them go see the movie, I don't see how their beliefs are really being mocked anyway. Sure, behind their backs maybe, but then the people who wrote the review are not at all respectful of other people's beliefs either. They are as convinced as anyone that their way is the One True Way. Everyone else is damned to hell.
Loki isn't the company that created Myth 2. Bungie created it. Loki is porting it to Linux. That's what you're paying for. If you don't like it, then tell Bungie to start writing their games for Linux and selling all versions in one box. At least Loki is making the games available for Linux users.
I have a TNT and an SBLive!, but the support is not as good as I would like yet. I hope it will get better. It kinda sucks that only 3Dfx cards get any real support under Linux.
Actually, Loki isn't in the business of selling Windows games. They're trying to get more games ported to Linux. If Bungie wants to start making their games available for Linux as well as Windows and Mac, then they should probably all come in the same box since Windows and Mac already do. If a game is released for Windows only, then Loki can do a Linux port and sell it. They don't have any incentive to add the Windows binaries as well. Bungie is the one with the incentive to add binaries for multiple OSes. They get a broader customer base then. Loki only caters to Linux users, so they can reach their entire customer base just by distributing the Linux version.
Some types of research are still simply to costly to be done for profit, even though it will give tremendous benefits in the long run.
I think his point was who gets to reap the benefits? Answer: The company that is in a position to take the quickest advantage of the information that comes out of the space program. So, we taxpayers are funding major research that will be used by corporations to create stuff that we will have to pay for again. What did they put up? What did they risk? Nada. Where is the payback for us? What do we get out of our tax dollars?
I see your point, but my point is that the corporations are some of the people. Those people already get a vote and are already allowed to contribute to campaigns. Why then should a corporation be allowed to contribute? It seems to just put more power and influence in the hands of those businesses who do it, while it detracts from the influence of individuals.
I don't think the whole "direct democracy" thing would work. We've had this discussion here too many times. With that many people involved, there's no way to have a real discussion of the topic with every voter, so you end up with people voting on something they don't have all (or even most of) the facts about. That would lead to some really bad decisions. I don't like politicians much at all, but I think direct democracy would be much worse.
Good point. I thought about this, and figured that if there were enough restrictions on the money, not many people would run unless they were really serious. I do agree that it would be wise to have a total cap though. I'm sure we'd eventually run into problems without it.
Sure, they pay taxes. So what? They get quite a few privileges and protections from our government as well. Each and every person in that corporation could make a campaign contribution if they want to. The corporation itself should not be allowed to. It undermines the system by putting the power in the hands of those with the most money. Let them individually contribute if they want.
I personally think that the whole contribution thing is crazy anyway. The government should give each candidate a specific budget that must be fully accounted for. They can use it to promote themselves as much as they want. They cannot use it to buy personal items (no buying yourself a car and then losing on purpose). That would put the candidates on equal footing and remove some of the influence of big money on the election. I'm sure corporations will run their own commercials and whatnot for their candidate. Can't stop them there, but let's at least try to do whatever possible to stop the direct transfer of funds. Candidates should not be allowed to make deals for support with corporations. I have obviously not thought this all the way through, but it's equally obvious that the current system is screwed up. Might as well start thinking up alternatives. Basically, we need to let THE PEOPLE vote for their choice. I don't want someone in office who is indebted to those people who paid for his campaign. It's a conflict of interest.
Because he was an religious unlicensed gun nut.
Since when does the ATF go hunting for unlicensed gun owners? If you think that's why they were after him, you need to do some reading.
So becuase New York police are violent... um, what does this have to do with privacy again?
It has to do with people's rights. If they don't even respect people's basic human rights, what makes you think they will respect your privacy which is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution in so many words? Most U.S. citizens consider privacy to be a right. I believe most government officials consider it to be a right as well. We all want our privacy, but some groups want to be able to violate that privacy on a whim.
Packet Storm was broght down becuase it voilated the TOS of its Host, maybe the threat of legal action helped this along, but that is irrelavant.
It is not irrelevant. The school had no problem with him until some guy decides he doesn't like what the website says and decides to threaten to sue. Now, the school doesn't want to have this show up in the news, so it caves in and shuts the site down. It doesn't matter to the school whether he actually said anything wrong or not. They are just afraid of the guy taking legal action that might get them some bad press. It shows that simply by threatening legal action, you can interfere with someone's right to free speech. You don't even have to prove a thing in court.
How about AOL giving out user information to the Navy without any authorisation, either from a court or from the user, whatsoever? How about the fact that someone can have your identity revealed just by alleging that you have said something libelous in an anonymous post? It doesn't matter whether it was legal or not. They will know who you are. How about the fact that most people can't even afford to defend their rights in court? It costs money to exercise your rights. What a country.
Again, NYC can fall into the ocean for all I care.
Great argument. You can't just explain it away, so you decide to ignore it. Too bad there are so many people like you.
Probably, if the public defender had gotten 12 more juriors who had the intellegence of the common carrot.
Let's see. The better attorney will likely be the one who has more experience, a better track record, and can demand a higher rate of pay. The public defender is often not as experienced and certainly not as well paid, even though he/she probably has a bigger case-load. I wonder who will be able to offer the better defense? Since both attorneys have a say in picking the jury, it's not just up to the public defender to get a better jury. Would you go with a public defender if you could afford a more expensive attorney who specializes in your type of case? I doubt it.
I can read, but there is a local ordinance against selling/lending this book.
Where do you live? I would like to avoid going there.
Actually, there are many people who are concerned with privacy. Those people do try to limit their exposure. Unfortunately, business is making that harder and harder to do.
Hooray for ad hominem arguments. Without them, the Anonymous Cowards around here wouldn't have much to say.
If you think about what he said, he has a pretty decent point. Without adding new features, how can Microsoft justify selling a new version? Answer: They can't. It's not that farfetched to believe that they might start taking a lot of suggestions from a few consumers here and there that would otherwise have never even been considered. It might be something that a couple of people want, but Microsoft has hundreds of millions of customers that don't want or need that feature. It gets tossed in anyway to add another bullet to the feature list on the back of the box. Looks impressive, no?
How does clean/tight code result in bloat? Sounds mutually exclusive to me. What you seem to be saying is that clean/tight code results in more bugs than bloated code, which is something else altogether and I wouldn't want to get involved if you decide to start telling coders that their nice slim programs must be full of bugs while MS Word is relatively bug-free by comparison. What you're saying is probably irrelevant. Not only would I not agree with you, but the whole thing would get real ugly.
One problem with spontaneous unity is that it often leads to little real effect. Not many people care that they've just ticked off a bunch of geeks. Sure, maybe they will try to take your web server down or some such thing, but overall, not much impact. Unless there is some danger to their political survival, politicians don't really care who they tick off. Making the big companies mad will definitely hurt them in a tangible way. They will lose votes and a lot of campaign contributions. Is there a way to make annoying geeks a bad political move for these guys? I don't know. You're right about geeks being like cats. It's tough to get them to do anything in unison in order to have a real effect.
A few geeks walking off the job as a response to a bad political decision wouldn't do anything to help. Those few would be fired and replaced as a warning to others. Unless it was a massive walk-out, there would only be bad results for geeks. Since a massive walk-out would be extremely difficult to organize, for all the reasons Jon and the above poster have pointed out, there isn't much danger to politicians and businesses.
About the only thing I can think of that might help is to promote voting among geeks and designate a non-partisan website as the central repository for all the facts on the candidates and how they have voted on issues and what their public positions are on other important issues (geek-related and otherwise. Their are lots of important issues that aren't just related to computers and e-issues). There are already several sites attempting to do this, but they are incomplete at best. One or two of them need to really get their act together and become complete sources for this information. Perhaps then we can have a clearer view of the candidates and at least vote for the lesser evil.
Exactly, and without them to tell C3PO what to do, the ewoks wouldn't have done anything but run and hide.
I think I'll make the safe assumption that that was a joke. Some people are a bit too sensitive and/or have rather weak sense of humor...
I doubt any movie could make me laugh as hard as I did reading that review! I almost fell out of my chair! I think I'll have to pass around that link :) Way too funny...
I wonder though, what happened to these people that made them the way they are? It seems like they have the ultimate guilty conscience or something. It's kinda scary. Seems like these kind of people are the ones who cause so many problems in this world. They are about the most intolerant bunch I've come across yet. They hate too many things. Not a recipe for peace and happiness.
Same here... I knew many of the common commands, but couldn't always remember the arguments and didn't always get the format right... this is not that farfetched at all.