That's stupid. Scott decided what went into the film and how Deckard was portrayed; he decided that Deckard was a replicant and he directed the film accordingly. If the writers didn't want Deckard to be a replicant, then the movie isn't very faithful to the writing. But in the movie, Deckard was a replicant.
What's wrong with talking on a cell phone in a public place? As long as the user is speaking at an appropriate volume and using appropriate (ie. not vulgar) language, the only difference between a conversation over a cell phone and a conversation without a cell phone is that you only get to eavesdrop on half the cell phone conversation.
If a person is speaking at an innappropriate volume, it's unnacceptable whether he is using a cellular phone or not. If he has to yell into his cellphone because it doesn't pick up his voice very well, the problem should to fix the cellular phone rather than disable it.
And cellular phones should vibrate rather than ring.
The post was on topic, original and made a point, albeit in a non-traditional manner.
It made a point? And what point was that exactly? Were you trying to say that people who use cellphones for their intended purpose deserve to die? Or were to you comparing the "Q-Zone" feature to murder?
Don't get me wrong, I thought your post was funny, but to say it had a point is to go a little too far.
"Poor web design"? That's like calling a burglar someone guilty of "poor money collection strategy".
But in many cases it really is just poor website design. It isn't such an outlandish idea to use a meta refresh tag to reroute your browser to another page; in many cases they just fail to see that it makes browsing tremendously inconvenient.
I don't think the continual spawning of windows is the issue here (although it certainly is annoying). Home Depot's site just redirects you immediately to their main page, so that when you click the "back" button, it takes you to the page that redirects you and you end up looking at the Home Depot main page again.
I considered your post ignorant in the sense that you dismiss people you disagree with as stupid and confused.
I've met a lot of people who say they are libertarians, and no two of them agree on what it means to be a libertarian. Some of them have political views that I agree with, some of them have political views that I disagree with. But if all libertarians have different political views, being a libertarian means absolutely nothing.
I wrote a couple of questions to try and get you to tell me why you think me ignorant or how you think Slashdot affects my political action, but then I read your User Info and determined you to be a troll.
I personally downloaded the Real* programs expecting some sort of "catch."
There's a bigger catch than a marketing spy with an "opt out" feature.
Realvideo and Realaudio are proprietary formats, and there are no converters from Real, but plenty of free converters to Real. So if the current version of RealPlayer expires and they decide to charge for the next one, all the websites that put up Real media because they think everyone can view it for free will be screwed.
Could a javascript program look itself up in cache, and call itself to be run again, this time having local priviledges?
Since currently it doesn't matter where it's run from (because the feature isn't implemented yet) it's really moot. And certainly something that obvious won't slip by.
A "Libiterian" (a misspelling of "Libertarian") is an individual who is confused about his/her own political beliefs. An entire party of such persons exist, and they regularly vote for candidates who are also confused about their own beliefs. Luckily there are not enough of these people to make a difference, and no one else votes with them, so the Libertarian party is like Nature's way of making sure that stupid or confused people don't affect the political state of the country.
There's certainly a difference between a person churning out some JavaScript and a professional programmer, but we're talking about a guy who (unlike the reviewer who accused him of being unprofessional) has written a published book. Not a few lines, a book.
Maybe it would be better to make "offtopic", "troll", and "flamebait" be checkable flags instead of score modifiers. They could still modify karma (and so discourage them) but not modify the score of the comment. Then I could set in my preferences which ones I wanted to read. I personally don't mind an offtopic post, but would rather not have to wade through all the trolls and flamebait.
I've long felt that the final cure for cancer will be a persistent weeding strategy: detect every tiny tumor as it gets started, and cut it out ASAP.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that exactly how the human body naturally prevents cancer? It's been a while since I took biology, but as I remember it little mutations are occuring all the time, and some of them end up being self replicating with an altered growth plan and so develop into cancers. Then T cells float around comparing what cells are with what they should be, and absorbing the mutants. They also catch things like bacteria and cells infected by viruses, and are part of the reason the body rejects organ transplants. But if a cancerous mutation develops that they can't tell is a mutation, they don't get it and it can become deadly.
Like I said, it's been a while since I took a biology class, so if some of that is wrong, sorry.
Gene isn't a professional author, and it shows through in places.
How is Gene Kranz not a professional author? He wrote a book, it was published, and he was paid for it... what more is necessary to being a professional author?
Frankly I expect to pay less if I'm not allowed full use.
And you do. If you buy a CD, you buy the right to play the music on that CD with certain conditions. If you want complete, exclusive control of a song, you can buy that too (if you make the current owners a large enough offer - everyone has their price). The thing is, it will probably cost you thousands or even millions of dollars depending on how popular the song you're trying to buy the rights to is.
That's wrong. If you under 13 and use ICQ anywhere in the world, this will affect you. ICQ is not allowed to collect information about children under 13 as long as ICQ is owned by a company based in the US. It doesn't matter where you are, if you use services provided by an American company, American laws can affect you.
While this of course will not stop 12 year olds from using ICQ, it will prevent profiles from saying that users are 12 years old. This will in a way increase the privacy of children under 13, as it will prevent them involuntarily giving their age out online.
It seems that with 7 of the 9 allegations being tossed right out, they probably didn't have much of a case.
That's a stupid thing to say. If 7 of the 9 allegations were tossed out, that means 2 of them were not tossed out. I don't know too much about the law, but I believe it's fairly standard practice to throw a whole plateful of allegations and see which ones stick. After all, it's the court's job to decide which ones hold water and which ones are just dumb, as they did in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
That's stupid. Scott decided what went into the film and how Deckard was portrayed; he decided that Deckard was a replicant and he directed the film accordingly. If the writers didn't want Deckard to be a replicant, then the movie isn't very faithful to the writing. But in the movie, Deckard was a replicant.
What's wrong with talking on a cell phone in a public place? As long as the user is speaking at an appropriate volume and using appropriate (ie. not vulgar) language, the only difference between a conversation over a cell phone and a conversation without a cell phone is that you only get to eavesdrop on half the cell phone conversation.
If a person is speaking at an innappropriate volume, it's unnacceptable whether he is using a cellular phone or not. If he has to yell into his cellphone because it doesn't pick up his voice very well, the problem should to fix the cellular phone rather than disable it.
And cellular phones should vibrate rather than ring.
That also works for /microsoft/, /xbox/, and /intel/. And probably a bunch of other stuff I was too lazy to try.
The post was on topic, original and made a point, albeit in a non-traditional manner.
It made a point? And what point was that exactly? Were you trying to say that people who use cellphones for their intended purpose deserve to die? Or were to you comparing the "Q-Zone" feature to murder?
Don't get me wrong, I thought your post was funny, but to say it had a point is to go a little too far.
We finally have the source for human beings. Now if only they'd GPL it.
Yeah, too bad they didn't comment it.
There are already plenty of emulators for desktops, so there's really nothing stopping you from playing Mario on your desktop right now.
"Poor web design"? That's like calling a burglar someone guilty of "poor money collection strategy".
But in many cases it really is just poor website design. It isn't such an outlandish idea to use a meta refresh tag to reroute your browser to another page; in many cases they just fail to see that it makes browsing tremendously inconvenient.
I don't think the continual spawning of windows is the issue here (although it certainly is annoying). Home Depot's site just redirects you immediately to their main page, so that when you click the "back" button, it takes you to the page that redirects you and you end up looking at the Home Depot main page again.
I considered your post ignorant in the sense that you dismiss people you disagree with as stupid and confused.
I've met a lot of people who say they are libertarians, and no two of them agree on what it means to be a libertarian. Some of them have political views that I agree with, some of them have political views that I disagree with. But if all libertarians have different political views, being a libertarian means absolutely nothing.
I wrote a couple of questions to try and get you to tell me why you think me ignorant or how you think Slashdot affects my political action, but then I read your User Info and determined you to be a troll.
I personally downloaded the Real* programs expecting some sort of "catch."
There's a bigger catch than a marketing spy with an "opt out" feature.
Realvideo and Realaudio are proprietary formats, and there are no converters from Real, but plenty of free converters to Real. So if the current version of RealPlayer expires and they decide to charge for the next one, all the websites that put up Real media because they think everyone can view it for free will be screwed.
Could a javascript program look itself up in cache, and call itself to be run again, this time having local priviledges?
Since currently it doesn't matter where it's run from (because the feature isn't implemented yet) it's really moot. And certainly something that obvious won't slip by.
Troll or not, he's got a good solid point which I happen to agree with.
A "Libiterian" (a misspelling of "Libertarian") is an individual who is confused about his/her own political beliefs. An entire party of such persons exist, and they regularly vote for candidates who are also confused about their own beliefs. Luckily there are not enough of these people to make a difference, and no one else votes with them, so the Libertarian party is like Nature's way of making sure that stupid or confused people don't affect the political state of the country.
There's certainly a difference between a person churning out some JavaScript and a professional programmer, but we're talking about a guy who (unlike the reviewer who accused him of being unprofessional) has written a published book. Not a few lines, a book.
Maybe it would be better to make "offtopic", "troll", and "flamebait" be checkable flags instead of score modifiers. They could still modify karma (and so discourage them) but not modify the score of the comment. Then I could set in my preferences which ones I wanted to read. I personally don't mind an offtopic post, but would rather not have to wade through all the trolls and flamebait.
I've long felt that the final cure for cancer will be a persistent weeding strategy: detect every tiny tumor as it gets started, and cut it out ASAP.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that exactly how the human body naturally prevents cancer? It's been a while since I took biology, but as I remember it little mutations are occuring all the time, and some of them end up being self replicating with an altered growth plan and so develop into cancers. Then T cells float around comparing what cells are with what they should be, and absorbing the mutants. They also catch things like bacteria and cells infected by viruses, and are part of the reason the body rejects organ transplants. But if a cancerous mutation develops that they can't tell is a mutation, they don't get it and it can become deadly.
Like I said, it's been a while since I took a biology class, so if some of that is wrong, sorry.
Methinks someone involved with this review isn't a professional author, but is isn't Gene Kranz.
Gene isn't a professional author, and it shows through in places.
How is Gene Kranz not a professional author? He wrote a book, it was published, and he was paid for it... what more is necessary to being a professional author?
Frankly I expect to pay less if I'm not allowed full use.
And you do. If you buy a CD, you buy the right to play the music on that CD with certain conditions. If you want complete, exclusive control of a song, you can buy that too (if you make the current owners a large enough offer - everyone has their price). The thing is, it will probably cost you thousands or even millions of dollars depending on how popular the song you're trying to buy the rights to is.
the company still thought I was a good credit risk. They were sadly mistaken.
Were they? I'm betting they eventually ended up with a whole wad of interest on overdue payments.
I'm also willing to bet there are a LOT of people out there OVER 18 who don't have credit cards.
Not to mention that there are pleny of people under 18 who have credit cards, making it a totally useless form of age verification.
so this should not affect me.
That's wrong. If you under 13 and use ICQ anywhere in the world, this will affect you. ICQ is not allowed to collect information about children under 13 as long as ICQ is owned by a company based in the US. It doesn't matter where you are, if you use services provided by an American company, American laws can affect you.
While this of course will not stop 12 year olds from using ICQ, it will prevent profiles from saying that users are 12 years old. This will in a way increase the privacy of children under 13, as it will prevent them involuntarily giving their age out online.
It seems that with 7 of the 9 allegations being tossed right out, they probably didn't have much of a case.
That's a stupid thing to say. If 7 of the 9 allegations were tossed out, that means 2 of them were not tossed out. I don't know too much about the law, but I believe it's fairly standard practice to throw a whole plateful of allegations and see which ones stick. After all, it's the court's job to decide which ones hold water and which ones are just dumb, as they did in this case.