I don't think so. I look to the T.V. and see shit like Lost and Heroes and I reach for the hardcopies of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Hunter S. Thompson, or Tom Wolfe among others, without looking back.
You do, sure. For better or for worse, however, you do not represent most people. The book is not the leisure activity of choice for most people these days.
You need a serious PC to run this game at even minimal settings.
Which is ridiculous, because even at max settings, the game looks rather bad. It has the graphics quality of WoW without the pretty art style to distract from it. I played the trial, and couldn't stop noticing how badly textured stuff was.
Because a sequel can actually tarnish an original, that's why.
No it can't! The only way it has power over you is if you let it. If you choose to let something ruin the original for you, that's your own damn fault. Where the hell do people come up with this idiotic idea that something can mystically tarnish the original?
The fourth Indiana Jones was so terrible, I refuse to accept the stories as anything more than a trilogy.
Exactly! Not the bit about the fourth movie, I thought the movie was on-par with the originals (worse than 1&3, better than 2)... but you have hit on exactly what's required. You need to pretend the thing you like doesn't exist. It's not hard. No one has any excuse to claim that something "ruined the original" for them, because you can just ignore it. This idea that one work can somehow taint another, separate work is absurd.
Nah, the Matrix sequels were damn good, I honestly have no idea what anyone is bitching about. I'm guessing it's because I didn't see the first until the second came out, so I didn't have 4 years to build up impossible hopes in my mind.
Now it will just sully everyone's memories of how good the original was...
I have never understood this mentality a bit. You know what I do when I don't like some follow-up to a book/movie/whatever I like? I ignore it. It doesn't ruin the original for me in any way. Seriously, is someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to watch the sequel you don't like? Just ignore it if you hate it!
OK, just for the sake of argument, let's accept your "It's the ancestors' fault" premise as face (and for the record, it sounds silly to me). Even then, why should innocent people be punished today for mistakes they had no control over, and why should you be rewarded for good choices you were not a part of?
I still fail to see what you're trying to get at. Look, stop trying to be clever about it. Explain your point in words, because giving me a bunch of version numbers that mean nothing to me doesn't give me a reason to change my opinion. All I can tell is that it looks like either those are a bunch of different language options, or the Open SSL developers are abusing version numbers too, just in a different way than the KDE developers.
No. Version numbers have a set meaning. You simply don't get to play games with standard accepted terminology, and then hope everyone will accept your bullshit explanation. There's a reason we have terms mean specific things, not just whatever you feel like having it mean.
But, apparently this concept is too difficult for people to understand.
No, the concept of the standard versioning system is too hard for the KDE developers to understand. If the product is labeled 4.0 (and not 4.0 beta, or something like that), it means it's for end users. PERIOD. I don't give a damn what the developers say. If I say that a red car is green, and someone sues me for misrepresenting it, no one is going to have any pity on me. My own damn fault for misusing standard terminology.
As opposed to any other story, which doesn't pose any value to a decent percentage of the crowd? Nothing appeals to everybody, so why make snarky comments about a known fact of life?
If doing the "right thing" now means you lose the support of people whose support you need to do five "right things" in future, what's the net gain?
That's fair, but it's also something we can't know until it happens. If we wish to judge Obama's presidency thus far, we must judge his actions as they stand so far. We can't take possible futures into account, or things get silly fast.
Yes, and the net gain here is still none. Really bad things for which Obama is accountable for: 1. Good things for which Obama should be credited: 1. I fail to see how this is not a net gain of 0 (unless you feel the good should be weighted higher than the bad).
The only way to judge his overall effect is by weighing good done versus bad done. So far, he's done as much bad as good. This may change over time, but for now, it is what it is, and his overall actions so far are a wash.
No, I disagree. The principle either stands or it fails on its own. You are either responsible for actions you allow to continue or you're not. It doesn't matter what the action you allow to continue is, it only matters that you allowed it to continue. The degree of responsibility doesn't change depending on the act, only the punishment/reward.
Even if we accept what you say as given (which I don't), that still leaves you culpable for the bad things you did to get to your goal. Sorry, but you don't get to dodge responsibility for bad things you did under the guise of "But I did good!"
I am not comparing those two things. I am using an extreme example to demonstrate my point: if you can stop an action and don't, you share in the responsibility. I don't think the holocaust and this wrong are similar in the least, but the responsibility Obama has, and the responsibility our theoretical Hitler successor would have, are similar.
No, because propagating a really bad thing (when it's in your power to stop it) carries the same weight as starting a really bad thing. At the risk of someone crying Godwin, if someone had taken over for Hitler and continued his genocide against the Jews, they wouldn't have had a pass because "that was already in place". When it's in your power to stop a bad thing, you are responsible to stop it, or you become culpable.
There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).
I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.
They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.
As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.
Realistically, though, this isn't a change in what we know (or should have known, for those who didn't know this). All Obama has accomplished is shown any supporters who were still blind enough to believe him (after his Senate vote, no less) that he really doesn't support our rights like he claimed he did. His only possible excuse for his actions, that it might sabotage his campaign, has been removed, but his actions have not changed. Surprise, surprise.
Suppose it were only some $12 a month like Dialup is now. They'd like it.
Except they wouldn't. Availability and price concerns, combined, only cover 1/3 of Americans without broadband (per TFS). So no, for the other 2/3, it doesn't matter what the price is, they aren't interested in it.
Ah, so voting for the amendment to remove telco immunity is my imagination. Got it.
And also a meaningless gesture. It doesn't matter what road he took to get to his final vote, his final vote is what counts. Get that straight, because if you don't, you'll be deceived left and right by politicians for the rest of your life, and they'll screw you over, while you blindly accept it because they took superficial action you supported before they bent you over.
you and I are deliberately setting ourselves up for disappointment by setting the bar impossibly high.
No, I set the bar at a reasonable level: I want the man to be honest with me, and protect my rights. He failed at both of these before he was even elected. That was while he had incentive to do right by the people. Now he has no such incentive, since he got to the office. Just like any other politician, it's only sensible to bet that his behavior will degrade once he gets what he wants, and his behavior was shitty to begin with.
Ah but see, I do understand what you are saying...
No, you don't understand a damn bit of what I'm saying.
ou can't say "I don't want him to be perfect" in one sentence, and then say "He has failed because he didn't do something that would be impossible to do" in the next
I never said he didn't do something that would be impossible to do. He had a vote. He chose to vote against the people on the FISA issue, rather than for them. Would the bill have passed without his vote? Probably, but that's irrelevant. By voting like he did, at the very least, he shows that he's willing to harm us as long as it furthers his political career. Well, fuck him, then. I want a representative who puts my interests ahead of his.
After all, if what you said here was true, then you'd already be admitting you are at least partially wrong...
I already have. Again, you show that you haven't bothered to really pay attention to what I said. To quote myself, from my very first post in this thread: "Let's not pretend the man is unblemished. At the same time, let's not pretend he's worthless either, since he seems to be doing some good." I already recognize that he seems to be doing good so far.
So make whatever superficial claim otherwise you wish. The deeper meaning is clear.
Ah, yes. "I see what you have said but I wish to put other words in your mouth, so I am expressly ignoring what you say." Classic material there. You are reading into my words things that aren't there. You are, as they say, so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. I look to the T.V. and see shit like Lost and Heroes and I reach for the hardcopies of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Hunter S. Thompson, or Tom Wolfe among others, without looking back.
You do, sure. For better or for worse, however, you do not represent most people. The book is not the leisure activity of choice for most people these days.
Jedi Outcast (no)
Not the best example, because Jedi Outcast has no copy protection whatsoever. Was a really great thing, too bad they stopped that in Jedi Academy.
You need a serious PC to run this game at even minimal settings.
Which is ridiculous, because even at max settings, the game looks rather bad. It has the graphics quality of WoW without the pretty art style to distract from it. I played the trial, and couldn't stop noticing how badly textured stuff was.
Because a sequel can actually tarnish an original, that's why.
No it can't! The only way it has power over you is if you let it. If you choose to let something ruin the original for you, that's your own damn fault. Where the hell do people come up with this idiotic idea that something can mystically tarnish the original?
The fourth Indiana Jones was so terrible, I refuse to accept the stories as anything more than a trilogy.
Exactly! Not the bit about the fourth movie, I thought the movie was on-par with the originals (worse than 1&3, better than 2)... but you have hit on exactly what's required. You need to pretend the thing you like doesn't exist. It's not hard. No one has any excuse to claim that something "ruined the original" for them, because you can just ignore it. This idea that one work can somehow taint another, separate work is absurd.
Nah, the Matrix sequels were damn good, I honestly have no idea what anyone is bitching about. I'm guessing it's because I didn't see the first until the second came out, so I didn't have 4 years to build up impossible hopes in my mind.
Now it will just sully everyone's memories of how good the original was...
I have never understood this mentality a bit. You know what I do when I don't like some follow-up to a book/movie/whatever I like? I ignore it. It doesn't ruin the original for me in any way. Seriously, is someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to watch the sequel you don't like? Just ignore it if you hate it!
OK, just for the sake of argument, let's accept your "It's the ancestors' fault" premise as face (and for the record, it sounds silly to me). Even then, why should innocent people be punished today for mistakes they had no control over, and why should you be rewarded for good choices you were not a part of?
I still fail to see what you're trying to get at. Look, stop trying to be clever about it. Explain your point in words, because giving me a bunch of version numbers that mean nothing to me doesn't give me a reason to change my opinion. All I can tell is that it looks like either those are a bunch of different language options, or the Open SSL developers are abusing version numbers too, just in a different way than the KDE developers.
Considering I have no idea what you just said, why would I?
No. Version numbers have a set meaning. You simply don't get to play games with standard accepted terminology, and then hope everyone will accept your bullshit explanation. There's a reason we have terms mean specific things, not just whatever you feel like having it mean.
But, apparently this concept is too difficult for people to understand.
No, the concept of the standard versioning system is too hard for the KDE developers to understand. If the product is labeled 4.0 (and not 4.0 beta, or something like that), it means it's for end users. PERIOD. I don't give a damn what the developers say. If I say that a red car is green, and someone sues me for misrepresenting it, no one is going to have any pity on me. My own damn fault for misusing standard terminology.
You still need separate completely off line and off site backups.
If you don't have the data replicated periodically outside the RAID, it's not a backup solution at all...
Wow, I think this is a new low for /. I understand not RTFA, and I even sort of understand not RTFS, but not RTFP is pathetic, man.
Fair enough, but for real bonus points, you need to go for a score of 5, Troll/Flamebait. ;)
As opposed to any other story, which doesn't pose any value to a decent percentage of the crowd? Nothing appeals to everybody, so why make snarky comments about a known fact of life?
If doing the "right thing" now means you lose the support of people whose support you need to do five "right things" in future, what's the net gain?
That's fair, but it's also something we can't know until it happens. If we wish to judge Obama's presidency thus far, we must judge his actions as they stand so far. We can't take possible futures into account, or things get silly fast.
Yes, and the net gain here is still none. Really bad things for which Obama is accountable for: 1. Good things for which Obama should be credited: 1. I fail to see how this is not a net gain of 0 (unless you feel the good should be weighted higher than the bad).
The only way to judge his overall effect is by weighing good done versus bad done. So far, he's done as much bad as good. This may change over time, but for now, it is what it is, and his overall actions so far are a wash.
They are only similar if you equate the two.
No, I disagree. The principle either stands or it fails on its own. You are either responsible for actions you allow to continue or you're not. It doesn't matter what the action you allow to continue is, it only matters that you allowed it to continue. The degree of responsibility doesn't change depending on the act, only the punishment/reward.
Even if we accept what you say as given (which I don't), that still leaves you culpable for the bad things you did to get to your goal. Sorry, but you don't get to dodge responsibility for bad things you did under the guise of "But I did good!"
I am not comparing those two things. I am using an extreme example to demonstrate my point: if you can stop an action and don't, you share in the responsibility. I don't think the holocaust and this wrong are similar in the least, but the responsibility Obama has, and the responsibility our theoretical Hitler successor would have, are similar.
No, because propagating a really bad thing (when it's in your power to stop it) carries the same weight as starting a really bad thing. At the risk of someone crying Godwin, if someone had taken over for Hitler and continued his genocide against the Jews, they wouldn't have had a pass because "that was already in place". When it's in your power to stop a bad thing, you are responsible to stop it, or you become culpable.
There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).
I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.
They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.
As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.
Realistically, though, this isn't a change in what we know (or should have known, for those who didn't know this). All Obama has accomplished is shown any supporters who were still blind enough to believe him (after his Senate vote, no less) that he really doesn't support our rights like he claimed he did. His only possible excuse for his actions, that it might sabotage his campaign, has been removed, but his actions have not changed. Surprise, surprise.
Suppose it were only some $12 a month like Dialup is now. They'd like it.
Except they wouldn't. Availability and price concerns, combined, only cover 1/3 of Americans without broadband (per TFS). So no, for the other 2/3, it doesn't matter what the price is, they aren't interested in it.
Ah, so voting for the amendment to remove telco immunity is my imagination. Got it.
And also a meaningless gesture. It doesn't matter what road he took to get to his final vote, his final vote is what counts. Get that straight, because if you don't, you'll be deceived left and right by politicians for the rest of your life, and they'll screw you over, while you blindly accept it because they took superficial action you supported before they bent you over.
you and I are deliberately setting ourselves up for disappointment by setting the bar impossibly high.
No, I set the bar at a reasonable level: I want the man to be honest with me, and protect my rights. He failed at both of these before he was even elected. That was while he had incentive to do right by the people. Now he has no such incentive, since he got to the office. Just like any other politician, it's only sensible to bet that his behavior will degrade once he gets what he wants, and his behavior was shitty to begin with.
Ah but see, I do understand what you are saying...
No, you don't understand a damn bit of what I'm saying.
ou can't say "I don't want him to be perfect" in one sentence, and then say "He has failed because he didn't do something that would be impossible to do" in the next
I never said he didn't do something that would be impossible to do. He had a vote. He chose to vote against the people on the FISA issue, rather than for them. Would the bill have passed without his vote? Probably, but that's irrelevant. By voting like he did, at the very least, he shows that he's willing to harm us as long as it furthers his political career. Well, fuck him, then. I want a representative who puts my interests ahead of his.
After all, if what you said here was true, then you'd already be admitting you are at least partially wrong...
I already have. Again, you show that you haven't bothered to really pay attention to what I said. To quote myself, from my very first post in this thread: "Let's not pretend the man is unblemished. At the same time, let's not pretend he's worthless either, since he seems to be doing some good." I already recognize that he seems to be doing good so far.
So make whatever superficial claim otherwise you wish. The deeper meaning is clear.
Ah, yes. "I see what you have said but I wish to put other words in your mouth, so I am expressly ignoring what you say." Classic material there. You are reading into my words things that aren't there. You are, as they say, so full of shit your eyes are brown.