These projects are *all about profit.* There would be no space industry if there were no money in it. Why do you think there's talk of shutting NASA down every six months or so?
"...unless you really believe that all disagreement is that childish. If that's the case, then why bother voicing your opinion in the first place?"
Because, depending on whom you ask, I'm either a genius or a troll. Or both. Or neither. Maybe I'm just crabby some days and maybe I just like stirring up the poop whenever possible.
But since you ask, I didn't particularly feel like bringing it back into the forum because, it didn't seem right. It was a dead thread, which we're apparently keeping alive past its prime.
"...because you yourself couldn't stand someone daring to tell you you're wrong. Do you always refuse to defend your arguments in public when you make them, or is it just this time?"
I usually refuse to defend my arguments, period. I've found in life that it is a very rare thing for an argument/debate to actually solve anything/change any minds. It usually just serves to puff up the participants and make them feel like they have all the answers! Well, we don't. But, here we are, pretending that we do.
"...While I expect to generally be confronted with ad-hominem attacks from people who can't really argue otherwise - hi! - I also run into the odd person who actually takes the time to think about what they say, and possibly consider they're wrong."
Hmm. My memory of the initial thread goes like this. I posted my message. You replied/attacked. When I tried to go private, you opened a new thread and attacked me again. Now, who's the non-arguing debater here?
"...I also have a problem with peoples' thriving on a rampant, kneejerk hatred of any kind of new technology. Most of them pull the sort of claim you seem to be making - "we shouldn't think about doing this until we've solved all our problems on Earth first!" This simultaneously pulls out the fallacy that humanity can only perform one task at a time, and the fallacy that humanity operates as a zero-sum game. The second is merely wrong; the first is an absolutely idiotic assumption that we're little more than ants."
This is some seriously tiresome rhetoric, I think. First, I don't have a kneejerk hatred of new tech. What I have is a mean streak of cynicism for said new technology. Especially the kind that goes way way way off into deep deep space to grab some dust (!) and come back. What possible good to humanity is that going to get us? How can those millions spent on something that might be beneficial fifty years from now be considered a better expense than spending on the problems we have now? Now, humanity doesn't have a one-track mind, but it sure seems that way. The only thing that we consistently do well is fight and kill each other. Wow. That's progress, well worth the money spent. As far it being a zero-sum game, I'd say that it is. The worst part is that no one, over time, wins.
"...I can't help but pity such a narrow, indifferent worldview, and it makes it clear how you have such a limited understanding of technology's benefits."
Nihilism is so moving, after all. But this isn't really about that. So, yea, I'll bite: Ignorance of technology's benefits. I'll cop a plea to that. Because I can't see those benefits in the same bright and shiny way that so many others do. Sue me.
Now, the Tang and Velcro thing apparently also leads us pretty indirectly into the war dead thing later on, right? If, then, your logic says that war and suffering brings us great advances, then maybe we need more space shuttles blowing up than we do space probes gathering dust (intentional pun).
But you still haven't tied the space program directly to war initiatives. Unless you are willing to admit that the military-industrial complex was a very real and very functional part of twentieth century America. Because I'll grant you that the space program was and is nothing more
Funny, I didn't think public forums were the place for pissing matches, but if you think you are up for one, that's fine, we can certainly have one. I've probably tangled with brighter beans than you and you've possibly tangled with nastier people than I.
Either way...
Let me start with this: If you have a problem with people IM'ing you, then perhaps you should follow suit with your apparent desire for privacy (indicated by your non-public email) and remove the link to your screen name. Of course, then, your fans and those with glowing praise for your posts here wouldn't be able to reach you at all. Because it seems you only respond to those who have something nice to say to you.
For people like me, on the other hand, you like to bring these things out into public - for some strange reason. Maybe you enjoy attention and/or abuse, either giving or receiving. Who knows?
But, your condescending attitude towards those that disagree with you leads me to think that it is an abuse thing, both giving and getting. And, since I'm no stranger to giving abuse away, then I'm more than happy to oblige you.
My post about the uselessness of space probes made my point. I didn't go into the past, because I don't see a need. I'm not horribly concerned about the "tens of thousands" who died making this world what it is now. Why? 'Cause I wasn't around at the time to think about it, and there's no point thinking about it now. Grief for the past is wasted grief.
As far as advancement is concerned, I fail to see what advances the space program has really brought in this so-called Twenty-First Century. Wow. We got Tang and Velcro, huh? That's pretty good for the billions of dollars poured into it for forty or fifty years.
I'm sure you'll be able to point out a few more of these advances, right? Otherwise, I'll meet you out in my treehouse, right next to OGG.
As far as how you managed to bring 100 million dead from war into this conversation, I have no clue. It would seem like you've not got a decent argument, so you stretch things a bit - which is a theory backed up by your previously-mentioned condescension. Or maybe it's pretention, as evidenced by your use of the word "profundity."
Now, aren't you glad we're doing this in public?
If you'll excuse me now, I've got a Mars Lander to pray against, just like the Luddite Good Book tells me to.
Step 68 Write to President Schwarzenegger When he gets to Washington in, oh, 2012, maybe he can terminate the legislation that mandates insane fixes for digital piracy.
Ah-nuld cannot become President without a Constitutional Amendment. Look it up.
Step 12 Make email addresses portable
Uh-huh. Right. Like there isn't already a jsmith on every server in the world. This won't work at all, so why put it in there? I take that back, it would work, but it would require everyone that wants an email address to just give up on having something cute and useful and take the twelve-digit alphanumeric one they are given. Riiiiight.
Step 28 Simplify disposable addresses
What the fuck does this mean?
Step 50 Add a broadband department to Wal-Mart
Thanks for waving the flag for America's largest wage slave taskmaster.
Step 75 Let us link to a page we hate without boosting its ranking
Let us know when you've worked that one out
That's just a brief review of the ones that are just wasting space in the article. Overall, there are some good ideas in there, but most of them are just pipe dreams.
The internet was created to be a heaving, surging, chaotic mass of mess. The only problem is the surge of people online now who aren't educated enough to protect themselves from that chaos. Well, guess what? Trying to get the government or the corporations to step up and protect those people will only screw over those of us with some clue as to how things work. And why, then, should we pay penalties because someone bought their 70-year old grandmother a computer this Christmas and she opened an email that brought down the backbone?
The only way to save the internet is to just let it run the way it always has.
Five years? They have been floating around since around 1995. A fellow named Shepard Fairey started it amongst some skateboarders and it took hold. Now, he refers to it as "an experiment in Phenomenology
No. It's consumerism. Capitalism says something about better products and services rising to the top. Starbucks ain't got it.
What Starbucks does have is shitty coffee. Overroasted, nasty, burnt up coffee. That, and several layers of middle management straight from the ranks of Taco Bell and Burger King. Which is why many of the comapany's earliest employees left years ago. They realized that quality was being sacrificed in the name of profit and logo.
The proliferation of Starbucks has less to do with good coffee than it does with consumerism and marketing. Now, you think about whether or not you believe in your heart of hearts that people are not sheep before replying to this (offtopic) post.
This story did two things for me. One, it annoyed me that a company would bend so far over backwards to make the government happy and, two, it reminded me that I no longer need my monster account anyways.
So, I went to the site and logged in, hoping to find a nice little link from the Help or FAQ section, or maybe the My Account area that would tell me how to remove my account from monster.com.
I didn't find one. Nor did I find a way to email anyone about this. It isn't listed in the Topics you can email them about. So, what gives? Shall I just load up my resume with bogus references to the Middle East so that they will kick me out? Should I email admin@monster.com in the dim hopes that they have one?
Or should I just sit back and not give a damn one way or another? After all, for three years I've only had my resume seen 15 times and only got one bogus offer from it. So, it's not like it's a big deal or anything.
Still, my question is: Does anyone know how to remove your account from monster.com?
Granted, there may only be two plots in all of cinema (there aren't, but I'll grant you this one), and granted, most movies have terrible or - at least - sub-par acting (they don't, but I'm feeling good tonight). What's left then is my particular gripe with how the exposition of the film is handled. Since you don't deal with this in your reply, I can draw one of two conclusions. One, you don't know what exposition is or, two, you know damn well what exposition is and you know I am right about it.
So, for the benefit of slashdotters who aren't movie geeks, a definition. Exposition is using a character to fill in background details or explain scientific/technological/etc issues that arise in a movie. Now, in Ghostbusters (which is just shy of being a truly great movie, due to some *serious* issues dealing with time), there isn't much discussion about what the guys do, or how it works. At least, unless Venkman or Zeddmore are involved. Why? Because those two know about as much as the audience does about proton packs, ghost traps and containment units. That's why the exposition in Ghostbusters works.
Now, in The Matrix, we have Neo (The One! Get it? Shall I use a Hammer?) - ahem - Neo, who is supposedly this super bright guy. Right? Who knows a lot about computers. Right? Then why does he not know about Electromagnetic Pulses? Or, for that matter, AI? He doesn't know, because the oh-so-brilliant-whatchamacallum-brothers needed someone for exposition. And they chose Neo. Here's a lesson for out brilliant filmmakers: If you must treat the audience as stupid, don't make your lead character the dumb one. If you must educate, and you can't script a better way then you should just make something else up entirely. Really.
The notion that Matrix is a "well made film" is just not right. It's not "well made." It fails in just about every single aspect of filmmaking. Oh, except of course those way-cool effects.
...how such a terrible film like The Matrix can be such a big thing to so many people? The plot is terrible (on top of cliche and overdone), the acting is sub-par, the exposition is awkward ("EMP? What's that?" - "AI? You mean Artificial Intelligence") and the whole concept just stinks.
Too many people bought into the film's effects and overwrought Jesus thing to notice that it was a really, really, really bad film.
That being said, yes, I do own a copy of The Matrix on DVD. No, I didn't buy it, it was a gift. Yes, I do watch it, but I can only stand to watch the movie with the composer's audio track selected. On a visual level, with the soundtrack as the only thing to focus on, it is a stunning piece of work. Unfortunately, this alone doesn't make the film anything special.
I'd admit it were pure, adulterated nonsense if it were 45-year old mullets buying all that fucking Skynard. But it isn't. It's 18 year-old kids stuck in a "retro" trip.
Why retro? Because their own, mass marketed, youth culture sucks ass. They'd rather feed off the ghosts of the past than starve with the shades of present.
While there are a certain number of people who reach a point where "nostalgia" becomes important to them and "new and shiny" is just not acceptable, I don't think that it invalidates my argument at all. After all, there is plenty of corporate music out there that is "new" that appeals to the "old" tastes, eh? And where are the sales of those groups? Down in the gutters with all the other new artists.
This piece really hits the mark in a very roundabout sort of way. The RIAA is not, by any means, interested in "sales" or "artist's livelihood." What the RIAA is interested in is keeping a very tight rein on what is seen as cool, what is heard on the radio, and what makes their profit margins exceed their own expectations.
RIAA wants to stop peer-to-peer through actions like its lawsuit against Verizon because those actions threaten their stranglehold on commercial music. As I've often said before, plenty of people think that radio and music in general truly suck in these days and times (how many people do you know that haven't bought a "new artist" cd in the last five years, perferring to spend $11.98 on "Skynard's Greatest Hits" or what ever?)
You obviously haven't found the best commentary on the disc, then. The audio-only track with commentary from the composer is the only reason to own a copy of The Matrix on DVD. The dialogue is lame, the plot is weak and the effects were just a pimp show for prime-time football the following year.
By the way, the upcoming Matrix theatre bits don't look so great, either. "This is a war, and we're all in it?" This isn't an intelligent sci-fi series, this is the worst form of pandering pulp fiction passing itself off as High and Wonderful art.
"Perhaps we can get a new section for Denial of Services, or perhaps, a wider umbrella would be a 'teenage HaX0r' section where we can put DDOSs, Web Defacements and Case Mods all together. (That way, people who have lives can choose the option not to display any of that shit on the front page)
Slashdot Mirror
On the intraweb? Chaos?
Say it ain't so.
"..people were going where they shouldn't, exposing the systems weaknesses.."
No, again I say! No!
And now, with the mars lander apparently dead....
Because, depending on whom you ask, I'm either a genius or a troll. Or both. Or neither. Maybe I'm just crabby some days and maybe I just like stirring up the poop whenever possible.
But since you ask, I didn't particularly feel like bringing it back into the forum because, it didn't seem right. It was a dead thread, which we're apparently keeping alive past its prime.
I usually refuse to defend my arguments, period. I've found in life that it is a very rare thing for an argument/debate to actually solve anything/change any minds. It usually just serves to puff up the participants and make them feel like they have all the answers! Well, we don't. But, here we are, pretending that we do.
Hmm. My memory of the initial thread goes like this. I posted my message. You replied/attacked. When I tried to go private, you opened a new thread and attacked me again. Now, who's the non-arguing debater here?
This is some seriously tiresome rhetoric, I think. First, I don't have a kneejerk hatred of new tech. What I have is a mean streak of cynicism for said new technology. Especially the kind that goes way way way off into deep deep space to grab some dust (!) and come back. What possible good to humanity is that going to get us? How can those millions spent on something that might be beneficial fifty years from now be considered a better expense than spending on the problems we have now? Now, humanity doesn't have a one-track mind, but it sure seems that way. The only thing that we consistently do well is fight and kill each other. Wow. That's progress, well worth the money spent. As far it being a zero-sum game, I'd say that it is. The worst part is that no one, over time, wins.
Nihilism is so moving, after all. But this isn't really about that. So, yea, I'll bite: Ignorance of technology's benefits. I'll cop a plea to that. Because I can't see those benefits in the same bright and shiny way that so many others do. Sue me.
Now, the Tang and Velcro thing apparently also leads us pretty indirectly into the war dead thing later on, right? If, then, your logic says that war and suffering brings us great advances, then maybe we need more space shuttles blowing up than we do space probes gathering dust (intentional pun).
But you still haven't tied the space program directly to war initiatives. Unless you are willing to admit that the military-industrial complex was a very real and very functional part of twentieth century America. Because I'll grant you that the space program was and is nothing more
Funny, I didn't think public forums were the place for pissing matches, but if you think you are up for one, that's fine, we can certainly have one. I've probably tangled with brighter beans than you and you've possibly tangled with nastier people than I.
Either way...
Let me start with this: If you have a problem with people IM'ing you, then perhaps you should follow suit with your apparent desire for privacy (indicated by your non-public email) and remove the link to your screen name. Of course, then, your fans and those with glowing praise for your posts here wouldn't be able to reach you at all. Because it seems you only respond to those who have something nice to say to you.
For people like me, on the other hand, you like to bring these things out into public - for some strange reason. Maybe you enjoy attention and/or abuse, either giving or receiving. Who knows?
But, your condescending attitude towards those that disagree with you leads me to think that it is an abuse thing, both giving and getting. And, since I'm no stranger to giving abuse away, then I'm more than happy to oblige you.
My post about the uselessness of space probes made my point. I didn't go into the past, because I don't see a need. I'm not horribly concerned about the "tens of thousands" who died making this world what it is now. Why? 'Cause I wasn't around at the time to think about it, and there's no point thinking about it now. Grief for the past is wasted grief.
As far as advancement is concerned, I fail to see what advances the space program has really brought in this so-called Twenty-First Century. Wow. We got Tang and Velcro, huh? That's pretty good for the billions of dollars poured into it for forty or fifty years.
I'm sure you'll be able to point out a few more of these advances, right? Otherwise, I'll meet you out in my treehouse, right next to OGG.
As far as how you managed to bring 100 million dead from war into this conversation, I have no clue. It would seem like you've not got a decent argument, so you stretch things a bit - which is a theory backed up by your previously-mentioned condescension. Or maybe it's pretention, as evidenced by your use of the word "profundity."
Now, aren't you glad we're doing this in public?
If you'll excuse me now, I've got a Mars Lander to pray against, just like the Luddite Good Book tells me to.
Thousands died while science looked to the stars.
Step 68 Write to President Schwarzenegger When he gets to Washington in, oh, 2012, maybe he can terminate the legislation that mandates insane fixes for digital piracy.
Ah-nuld cannot become President without a Constitutional Amendment. Look it up.
Step 12 Make email addresses portable
Uh-huh. Right. Like there isn't already a jsmith on every server in the world. This won't work at all, so why put it in there? I take that back, it would work, but it would require everyone that wants an email address to just give up on having something cute and useful and take the twelve-digit alphanumeric one they are given. Riiiiight.
Step 28 Simplify disposable addresses
What the fuck does this mean?
Step 50 Add a broadband department to Wal-Mart
Thanks for waving the flag for America's largest wage slave taskmaster.
Step 75 Let us link to a page we hate without boosting its ranking
Let us know when you've worked that one out
That's just a brief review of the ones that are just wasting space in the article. Overall, there are some good ideas in there, but most of them are just pipe dreams.
The internet was created to be a heaving, surging, chaotic mass of mess. The only problem is the surge of people online now who aren't educated enough to protect themselves from that chaos. Well, guess what? Trying to get the government or the corporations to step up and protect those people will only screw over those of us with some clue as to how things work. And why, then, should we pay penalties because someone bought their 70-year old grandmother a computer this Christmas and she opened an email that brought down the backbone?
The only way to save the internet is to just let it run the way it always has.
Simplify Web publishing Why can't we post files from our desktop to a Web site in one drag-and-drop move?
I suppose opening an ftp connection from the browser is just oh-so-hard?
Duder, if yr headed that far out into the boonies, you might as well pawn the damn computers and buy an axe and a box of matches. Seriously.
You also pay a slew of private, corporate interests for the crap you see on those public airwaves.
By the way, a true libertarian would want the dissolution of the FCC outright. A Libertarian, on the other hand....
Five years? They have been floating around since around 1995. A fellow named Shepard Fairey started it amongst some skateboarders and it took hold. Now, he refers to it as "an experiment in Phenomenology
They sound awful, anyway.
No. It's consumerism. Capitalism says something about better products and services rising to the top. Starbucks ain't got it.
What Starbucks does have is shitty coffee. Overroasted, nasty, burnt up coffee. That, and several layers of middle management straight from the ranks of Taco Bell and Burger King. Which is why many of the comapany's earliest employees left years ago. They realized that quality was being sacrificed in the name of profit and logo.
The proliferation of Starbucks has less to do with good coffee than it does with consumerism and marketing. Now, you think about whether or not you believe in your heart of hearts that people are not sheep before replying to this (offtopic) post.
performance art: people in public pretending to be artists.
artist: a jobless hack pretending to have talent.
i think i remember this, from around the netscape 1 and 2 days. for mac users, you could just trash the prefs file and restart the browser.
please mod this -1 offtopic and -1 nostalgic
This story did two things for me. One, it annoyed me that a company would bend so far over backwards to make the government happy and, two, it reminded me that I no longer need my monster account anyways.
So, I went to the site and logged in, hoping to find a nice little link from the Help or FAQ section, or maybe the My Account area that would tell me how to remove my account from monster.com.
I didn't find one. Nor did I find a way to email anyone about this. It isn't listed in the Topics you can email them about. So, what gives? Shall I just load up my resume with bogus references to the Middle East so that they will kick me out? Should I email admin@monster.com in the dim hopes that they have one?
Or should I just sit back and not give a damn one way or another? After all, for three years I've only had my resume seen 15 times and only got one bogus offer from it. So, it's not like it's a big deal or anything.
Still, my question is: Does anyone know how to remove your account from monster.com?
Granted, there may only be two plots in all of cinema (there aren't, but I'll grant you this one), and granted, most movies have terrible or - at least - sub-par acting (they don't, but I'm feeling good tonight). What's left then is my particular gripe with how the exposition of the film is handled. Since you don't deal with this in your reply, I can draw one of two conclusions. One, you don't know what exposition is or, two, you know damn well what exposition is and you know I am right about it.
So, for the benefit of slashdotters who aren't movie geeks, a definition. Exposition is using a character to fill in background details or explain scientific/technological/etc issues that arise in a movie. Now, in Ghostbusters (which is just shy of being a truly great movie, due to some *serious* issues dealing with time), there isn't much discussion about what the guys do, or how it works. At least, unless Venkman or Zeddmore are involved. Why? Because those two know about as much as the audience does about proton packs, ghost traps and containment units. That's why the exposition in Ghostbusters works.
Now, in The Matrix, we have Neo (The One! Get it? Shall I use a Hammer?) - ahem - Neo, who is supposedly this super bright guy. Right? Who knows a lot about computers. Right? Then why does he not know about Electromagnetic Pulses? Or, for that matter, AI? He doesn't know, because the oh-so-brilliant-whatchamacallum-brothers needed someone for exposition. And they chose Neo. Here's a lesson for out brilliant filmmakers: If you must treat the audience as stupid, don't make your lead character the dumb one. If you must educate, and you can't script a better way then you should just make something else up entirely. Really.
The notion that Matrix is a "well made film" is just not right. It's not "well made." It fails in just about every single aspect of filmmaking. Oh, except of course those way-cool effects.
Too many people bought into the film's effects and overwrought Jesus thing to notice that it was a really, really, really bad film.
That being said, yes, I do own a copy of The Matrix on DVD. No, I didn't buy it, it was a gift. Yes, I do watch it, but I can only stand to watch the movie with the composer's audio track selected. On a visual level, with the soundtrack as the only thing to focus on, it is a stunning piece of work. Unfortunately, this alone doesn't make the film anything special.
It's only rarely that I think of the periodic table.
Get it?
For God's sake! The disasters this could cause! Remember the Hindenberg!!!!
Two, actually. They're called, "delete" and "filter."
I'd admit it were pure, adulterated nonsense if it were 45-year old mullets buying all that fucking Skynard. But it isn't. It's 18 year-old kids stuck in a "retro" trip.
Why retro? Because their own, mass marketed, youth culture sucks ass. They'd rather feed off the ghosts of the past than starve with the shades of present.
While there are a certain number of people who reach a point where "nostalgia" becomes important to them and "new and shiny" is just not acceptable, I don't think that it invalidates my argument at all. After all, there is plenty of corporate music out there that is "new" that appeals to the "old" tastes, eh? And where are the sales of those groups? Down in the gutters with all the other new artists.
This piece really hits the mark in a very roundabout sort of way. The RIAA is not, by any means, interested in "sales" or "artist's livelihood." What the RIAA is interested in is keeping a very tight rein on what is seen as cool, what is heard on the radio, and what makes their profit margins exceed their own expectations.
RIAA wants to stop peer-to-peer through actions like its lawsuit against Verizon because those actions threaten their stranglehold on commercial music. As I've often said before, plenty of people think that radio and music in general truly suck in these days and times (how many people do you know that haven't bought a "new artist" cd in the last five years, perferring to spend $11.98 on "Skynard's Greatest Hits" or what ever?)
You obviously haven't found the best commentary on the disc, then. The audio-only track with commentary from the composer is the only reason to own a copy of The Matrix on DVD. The dialogue is lame, the plot is weak and the effects were just a pimp show for prime-time football the following year.
By the way, the upcoming Matrix theatre bits don't look so great, either. "This is a war, and we're all in it?" This isn't an intelligent sci-fi series, this is the worst form of pandering pulp fiction passing itself off as High and Wonderful art.
"Perhaps we can get a new section for Denial of Services, or perhaps, a wider umbrella would be a 'teenage HaX0r' section where we can put DDOSs, Web Defacements and Case Mods all together. (That way, people who have lives can choose the option not to display any of that shit on the front page)
We already have that.
"Can someone please explain why this was put under the topic of "BSD", and why such a thing was even mentioned in the "article" by Hemos?"
Golly, I sure can explain this. It's cause it's their site, not yours.
If you need that in hypertext:
Complaint Form