Perhaps it's because comics rely heavily on word balloons
Western comics, yes. Manga tends to be far more filmic with lots of dialog-free passages.
I re-read Watchmen a few months ago when I heard about the film project, and it struck me that it was a story which would have done very well as a 6 or 12 part TV series. Not sure how they're going to manage to pack all of that into a movie without it feeling rushed. I guess we'll see.
I think if you expect it to be a film of the graphic novel you are bound to be disappointed. Moving any creative work to a different medium is itself a creative task and results in an entirely new work.
The problem is with the singular and definite "The Anthropic Principle". There are at least four Anthropic Principles, the Weak, Strong, Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles (WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP). The Weak Anthropic Principle is so uncontroversial it's virtually a platitude. At the other end of the scale the Final Anthropic Principle is so way out that Martin Gardner suggested it would be better renamed the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle, if only that had a convenient abbreviation. A lot of the argument over "The" Anthropic Principle comes about because people are arguing about different Anthropic Principles.
No, it's necessary for the scientific worldview as well. If only I (believe that I) have observed a phenomenon, it's strictly subjective. If others report that they have observed it too it starts to merit a claim of objectivity. If the right people start to claim it then science start to treat it as objective. When examined closely, objectivity (in the sense of "objective" data, not in the sense of the existence of an "objective" reality, which is another can of worms) is actually a social construct.
Perhaps it's clearer in Swedish -- Swedish Chef, that is...
Legu ves neer het Ioorupese-a Huff fun joostitie-a gestept in de-a streejd tegee de-a Cunedese-a cuncoorrent Mega Brunds, deee-a iee blukje-a oop de-a merkt heefft gebrecht det pest oop deee-a fun Legu. Het Huff oourdeelde-a fundeeg det het oontverp fun Legu neeet is beschermd duur het Ioorupees merkenrecht ee det ir doos geee spreke-a meg zeejn fun elleenrecht.
For many who identify themselves as Jewish it describes a cultural and/or racial identity rather than a religion. Most still consider themselves Jewish even if they don't believe the religion.
Incidentally, how long before a Londoner of Bangladeshi background is no longer Bangladeshi and is just a Londoner? Three generations? Four?
As long as they like. It's their choice whether they identify most strongly with their Banladeshi or their English background. Actually, for most I know it's not either/or, but both. They're Bangladeshi Londoners. After all, how long before a New Yorker of Jewish background is no longer Jewish and just a New Yorker?
I don't think GP was suggesting that Microsoft should be treated differently to any other (potential) government contractor. If someone wins a contract and produces crap, they are liable (depending on terms of contract, I suppose)
Yep. Although it's so expensive to hold them to that liability that it's hardly ever done.
get a bad reputation and are not hired again
Nope. When I was assessing bids under EU contract rules I had to do it according to a strict points scheme, and was specifically not allowed to take past performance of the company into account. I was only permitted to assess the bid based on the actual contents of the bid. That was a few years ago now, but I don't think it's changed.
"That all well and good, however, before I grant you everything you've asked for just where is the other side in this to tell their story?"
It's not for the plaintiff to present the defence's case -- fortunately, because they're hardly likely to do a good job of it.
Instead of that, even in the cases where sound legal arguments are actually presented by those actually able to get to the court in time, along with serious allegations of illegal misconduct by the plaintiffs, too often the judge rules that this will all be settled at trial, which ignores 2 very crucial facts:
Whatever it ignores, the judge shouldn't decide the case based on allegations of illegal conduct. The illegal conduct needs to be proven in court. Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but when judges start deciding guilt based just on allegations it will be even worse.
The judge who declines to prevent this misuse of the judicial system from happening is a very bad judge indeed.
The judge probably doesn't have the power to prevent this misuse of the judicial system, and the judge who abuses their power is an even worse judge.
Does Google Documents include support for user-defines templates yet? Without them, I don't consider them to be in competition with offline office apps. I don't want to have to set up my letterhead and so on every time I type a letter.
"Since it's quite terse and provide powerful features for succinctness, it should be very maintainable." Yeah, sure. We all know how maintainable APL and Forth are. Wikipedia identifies as a feature of write-only code "syntax which permits (or encourages) the writing of very dense code." I can't help thinking that "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
If ioke delivers a best-yet mix of these trade offs, then it stands a chance to become the Next Big Thing.
I'm glad you said a best mix, not the best mix, because the best trade offs depends on what you're actually doing, which is why the good programmer will have at least a couple of languages under their belt.
Which, as court employees (they work FOR THE COURT first), would be "not making bullshit cases up". Also, this is very definitely broken as an anbsolute when you consider "Contempt of court" charges. No evidence of that is *presented* to them. Yet they "judge" such to have happened.
And they don't get sacked.
A Judge has to also tell the jury to ignore evidence that is inappliccable. This is not "evidence presented" but is MOST CERTAINLY their job.
The judge, after all, is not there to say "guilty". The Jury does that.
So if he doesn't say "guilty/not guilty" and cannot consider (in your view) anything that is not evidence presented to them, what the hell are they there for?
True they also bring a knowledge of the law. But if any judge tried to say "The plaintiff is a known villain, case dismissed", which seems to be what Non du Keyboard was suggesting then I would fear for the justice system.
Any judge these days who buys into the RIAA's bullshit as an absolute moron and should be impeached immediately for a lack of reasoning ability and common sense.
Any judge who decides on anything other than the evidence presented to them should be impeached immediately for breach of professional standards.
... and right of assembly, and right to peaceful protest. As I said, I think nulab are worse, but only because they have the technology available. Thatcher took away all the civil liberties that she could at the time. Nulab did actually give us back some of the rights that Thatcher took from us, when they passed the Human Rights Act.
Deciding that the country should no longer have any production industries such as manufacturing and should depend entirely on the service sector, which still leaves us more vulnerable to recession than the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the world? Biggest political screwup of my lifetime.
Good point. Blair + Brown have presided over a larger drop on civli liberties, in my opinion.
Yes, but only because they have 21st century technology available. Thatcher presided over as much of a drop in civil liberties as she could. A Private Eye (UK satirical magazine) gag of the time was that Thatcher's policy was to make everybody in the country a criminal so that the government could decide who would be in prison and who would be out. This isn't about Labour and Conservative, this is about "shit floats". Nobody attains high political office by being a person of integrity who cares about their country.
I'm increasingly amazed (well, until my amaz-o-meter reached $FF a while back) at the Orwellian policies being established in the home of Orwell.
You shouldn't be -- 1984 was a parody of the European governments of the time (1948), they just didn't have the technology then.
I haven't been to the UK in several years. Could someone explain how these projects have any kind of public support at all? Even in the US -- hardly a standard-bearer for liberal thought -- the UK proposals would produce an uproar.
What is the underlying sentiment of the people that continues to produce these ideas?
There is an uproar, and there are groups such as Liberty (approximately equivalent to the ACLU) organising opposition, but there are also an awful lot of people who believe the lie that if you don't do anything wrong you don't have anything to fear from these policies. Which would only be true if everybody with access to the data were (a) competent and (b)benign. Even those who believe (b) should think long and hard about (a).
Slashdot Mirror
Not making money by supporting their software would be the easy hit there...
Perhaps it's because comics rely heavily on word balloons
Western comics, yes. Manga tends to be far more filmic with lots of dialog-free passages.
I re-read Watchmen a few months ago when I heard about the film project, and it struck me that it was a story which would have done very well as a 6 or 12 part TV series. Not sure how they're going to manage to pack all of that into a movie without it feeling rushed. I guess we'll see.
I think if you expect it to be a film of the graphic novel you are bound to be disappointed. Moving any creative work to a different medium is itself a creative task and results in an entirely new work.
But Tintin is neither a comic nor a graphic novel -- it's a "Band Dessine"...
The problem is with the singular and definite "The Anthropic Principle". There are at least four Anthropic Principles, the Weak, Strong, Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles (WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP). The Weak Anthropic Principle is so uncontroversial it's virtually a platitude. At the other end of the scale the Final Anthropic Principle is so way out that Martin Gardner suggested it would be better renamed the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle, if only that had a convenient abbreviation. A lot of the argument over "The" Anthropic Principle comes about because people are arguing about different Anthropic Principles.
No, it's necessary for the scientific worldview as well. If only I (believe that I) have observed a phenomenon, it's strictly subjective. If others report that they have observed it too it starts to merit a claim of objectivity. If the right people start to claim it then science start to treat it as objective. When examined closely, objectivity (in the sense of "objective" data, not in the sense of the existence of an "objective" reality, which is another can of worms) is actually a social construct.
But at least it makes googlewhacking more challenging.
Perhaps it's clearer in Swedish -- Swedish Chef, that is... Legu ves neer het Ioorupese-a Huff fun joostitie-a gestept in de-a streejd tegee de-a Cunedese-a cuncoorrent Mega Brunds, deee-a iee blukje-a oop de-a merkt heefft gebrecht det pest oop deee-a fun Legu. Het Huff oourdeelde-a fundeeg det het oontverp fun Legu neeet is beschermd duur het Ioorupees merkenrecht ee det ir doos geee spreke-a meg zeejn fun elleenrecht.
For many who identify themselves as Jewish it describes a cultural and/or racial identity rather than a religion. Most still consider themselves Jewish even if they don't believe the religion.
Incidentally, how long before a Londoner of Bangladeshi background is no longer Bangladeshi and is just a Londoner? Three generations? Four?
As long as they like. It's their choice whether they identify most strongly with their Banladeshi or their English background. Actually, for most I know it's not either/or, but both. They're Bangladeshi Londoners. After all, how long before a New Yorker of Jewish background is no longer Jewish and just a New Yorker?
My dog has no nose
Jamaica?
I don't think GP was suggesting that Microsoft should be treated differently to any other (potential) government contractor. If someone wins a contract and produces crap, they are liable (depending on terms of contract, I suppose)
Yep. Although it's so expensive to hold them to that liability that it's hardly ever done.
get a bad reputation and are not hired again
Nope. When I was assessing bids under EU contract rules I had to do it according to a strict points scheme, and was specifically not allowed to take past performance of the company into account. I was only permitted to assess the bid based on the actual contents of the bid. That was a few years ago now, but I don't think it's changed.
Perhaps it's the state designator for the People's Republic of Eugene? Has it finally declared UDI from the rest of Oregon?
the predicate calculus, which is boring.
Speak for yourself! I love predicate calculus (which is probably why I also enjoy formal methods and specialise in system safety).
"That all well and good, however, before I grant you everything you've asked for just where is the other side in this to tell their story?"
It's not for the plaintiff to present the defence's case -- fortunately, because they're hardly likely to do a good job of it.
Instead of that, even in the cases where sound legal arguments are actually presented by those actually able to get to the court in time, along with serious allegations of illegal misconduct by the plaintiffs, too often the judge rules that this will all be settled at trial, which ignores 2 very crucial facts:
Whatever it ignores, the judge shouldn't decide the case based on allegations of illegal conduct. The illegal conduct needs to be proven in court. Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but when judges start deciding guilt based just on allegations it will be even worse.
The judge who declines to prevent this misuse of the judicial system from happening is a very bad judge indeed.
The judge probably doesn't have the power to prevent this misuse of the judicial system, and the judge who abuses their power is an even worse judge.
Does Google Documents include support for user-defines templates yet? Without them, I don't consider them to be in competition with offline office apps. I don't want to have to set up my letterhead and so on every time I type a letter.
"Since it's quite terse and provide powerful features for succinctness, it should be very maintainable."
Yeah, sure. We all know how maintainable APL and Forth are. Wikipedia identifies as a feature of write-only code "syntax which permits (or encourages) the writing of very dense code." I can't help thinking that "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
Oh, please. There's a macro for this:
Surely
(p_best_part_exists 'lisp)
If ioke delivers a best-yet mix of these trade offs, then it stands a chance to become the Next Big Thing.
I'm glad you said a best mix, not the best mix, because the best trade offs depends on what you're actually doing, which is why the good programmer will have at least a couple of languages under their belt.
Which, as court employees (they work FOR THE COURT first), would be "not making bullshit cases up".
Also, this is very definitely broken as an anbsolute when you consider "Contempt of court" charges. No evidence of that is *presented* to them. Yet they "judge" such to have happened.
And they don't get sacked.
A Judge has to also tell the jury to ignore evidence that is inappliccable. This is not "evidence presented" but is MOST CERTAINLY their job.
The judge, after all, is not there to say "guilty". The Jury does that.
So if he doesn't say "guilty/not guilty" and cannot consider (in your view) anything that is not evidence presented to them, what the hell are they there for?
True they also bring a knowledge of the law. But if any judge tried to say "The plaintiff is a known villain, case dismissed", which seems to be what Non du Keyboard was suggesting then I would fear for the justice system.
Any judge these days who buys into the RIAA's bullshit as an absolute moron and should be impeached immediately for a lack of reasoning ability and common sense.
Any judge who decides on anything other than the evidence presented to them should be impeached immediately for breach of professional standards.
... and right of assembly, and right to peaceful protest. As I said, I think nulab are worse, but only because they have the technology available. Thatcher took away all the civil liberties that she could at the time. Nulab did actually give us back some of the rights that Thatcher took from us, when they passed the Human Rights Act.
Deciding that the country should no longer have any production industries such as manufacturing and should depend entirely on the service sector, which still leaves us more vulnerable to recession than the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the world? Biggest political screwup of my lifetime.
You weren't around under Thatcher, then?
Good point. Blair + Brown have presided over a larger drop on civli liberties, in my opinion.
Yes, but only because they have 21st century technology available. Thatcher presided over as much of a drop in civil liberties as she could. A Private Eye (UK satirical magazine) gag of the time was that Thatcher's policy was to make everybody in the country a criminal so that the government could decide who would be in prison and who would be out. This isn't about Labour and Conservative, this is about "shit floats". Nobody attains high political office by being a person of integrity who cares about their country.
I'm increasingly amazed (well, until my amaz-o-meter reached $FF a while back) at the Orwellian policies being established in the home of Orwell.
You shouldn't be -- 1984 was a parody of the European governments of the time (1948), they just didn't have the technology then.
I haven't been to the UK in several years. Could someone explain how these projects have any kind of public support at all? Even in the US -- hardly a standard-bearer for liberal thought -- the UK proposals would produce an uproar.
What is the underlying sentiment of the people that continues to produce these ideas?
There is an uproar, and there are groups such as Liberty (approximately equivalent to the ACLU) organising opposition, but there are also an awful lot of people who believe the lie that if you don't do anything wrong you don't have anything to fear from these policies. Which would only be true if everybody with access to the data were (a) competent and (b)benign. Even those who believe (b) should think long and hard about (a).
Can you provide the encryption key? No? Then it's prison for you if you live in England.
Blair + Brown are the worst government we have had.
You weren't around under Thatcher, then?