Pretty mediocre; I've still yet to find anyone who particularly loved it. Typical Arnold Schwartzenegger movie with a theological twist. And twisted theology, at that. You'd be much better off trying to catch Gabriel Byrnes' other recent religion movie, Stigmata. The writers of this movie appeared to have banked on Arnold's name, and not put an ounce of real creativity into the movie; the lunatic priest's name is "Thomas Aquinas". I mean, how lacking in creativity can one writing staff be?
Dogma
Sorry, John, it's only blasphemous if you let it be, and that's what that splinter-group Catholic faction has done. It's not the church as a whole, it's just a small group of people. You run into that with any denomination within the church, any church within the religion, any religion within the world. It was only blasphemous to those who don't want their beliefs to be challeged... really though, if you can't challenge your beliefs about something, you don't really believe.
In any case, this movie was excellent. Chris Rocke wasn't great, but he's a comedian, no one ever said he could act. Silent Bob's (Kevin Smith) rare one-liners were well-placed as always; the constantly-obscene Jay (Jason Mewes) gets the usual, hilarious exposure. Jason Lee was good as Azrael, but I think would have been better-suited for the role originally planned for him (Matt Damon's character, Loki).
Good discussions of faith issues, although I think they could have been longer. However, that would have bored most audiences these days. A lot of blood and guts, but it, like a lot of Smith's work, is intended, hyperbole.
In the end, a really good, really funny movie. No reason to be offended unless you take your faith so seriously (in that sense, I mean mood, not strength) that any criticism pushes your panic button... in which case, I suggest you cozy up with a Good Book.
Oh yeah. Yet Another Hicks Guy (YAHG?) shows up in this movie, too.
Via email, I recently ran into an old bloke I knew from my MajorBBS days... he's now got a bbs on a Linux box, running FalkenBBS; You can telnet in here.
Falken isn't the best bbs software out there, but it's multiline, teleconferenced, and runs on Linux.
There are a handful of us on there, it's not a huge population. However, if you ever bbs'ed in the DC/NoVA area, you might recognise us;).
This famous sci-fi radio broadcast had everyone in America running for their lives, fearing an alien invasion... was probably a catalyst that produced increasing realism in the genre as well.
First of all, I believe the gov't has good intentions in mind with these new regulations. But the problem lay in the reactionary response to said action. For example, to avoid potential lawsuits and other issues with these new regulations, it seems to me very likely that many companies will require, no questions asked, X, Y and Z Ergo components be used by employees.
Now what if, for example, I don't like ergo keyboards (which I don't)? In addition to loss of efficiency in adjusting to the new keyboard (would be a lot of time -- I'm not a particularly orthodox typist), I simply don't find them comfortable... not to mention a wristrest and the occasional position change pretty much solves my problems.
Nonetheless, to avoid potential costly lawsuits, my company could concievably require employees to use said ergonomic components. If they don't? tough... the liability falls on the employee. A regulation created to protect the employee becomes a liability and potential threat to his employment, should he not comply -- or at very least, gives the employer more grounds to dismiss employees on a whim, "those troublemakers, rabblerousers, who can't comply with policy".
Am I overreacting? Perhaps. Is it a possibility? Just watch.
(insert "html shouldn't be used for layout/design" comment here)
I've got a fair amount of tables on my page; I've recently been checking to see how Mozilla renders it.. somewhat akin to the acid test page.
Now, the page itself is pretty much 4.0 compliant, albeit somewhat complex; the W3 validator bitches about ampersands in CGI URIs, so there's nothing I can do about that. In any case...
In MSIE and NS current versions, the page looks pretty much like I'd expect it to. There are minor variations, nothing of great concern.
Now, in M10, The grey box in the middle was shrunken, sorta pushed over to the left a little bit. OK, not exactly what I wanted, but not horrid. In M11, however, the grey box gets shoved waaay over to the right, running into other tables.
Thus, on first glance, it appears that something, in one of the milestones, is wrong. I understand that my page might not be really simple, that's an aside, and I will deal with it later. My concern is that the two milestones rendered the page differently. For the longest time, I've heard that Mozilla is (as in, yes, currently, right now) fully 4.0/CSS1/whatever else compliant. However, such observations have me wondering otherwise....? Could someone clarify?
I ask, because many of you probably remember the "name the company" contest Cygnus had a while back. It was rumoured that they wanted to change it because of 1.) a lower neccessity to emphasize "GNU" (cyGNUs), and 2.) because they'd been considering an IPO, whereas there's a Cygnus Pharmaceuticals already.
This said, a while back, the outcome of the contest -- an indefinite delay -- was announced. In this light, such seems fairly interesting.
Then again, I just might have seen one too many X-Files episodes. But I do find the resignation of senior management interesting as well.
...stock options. Some companies offer options up front, in lieu of a higher salary. Granted, this is a gamble in a lot of cases, but with a competitive IT field and a raging stock market, it's nonetheless becoming more and more prevalent.
1. the birthrate will continue on, exponentially, throughout time.
2. the birthrate in third-world countries is astronomical.
#1 is unlikely, though, it is pretty certain that it will go on for some time now. #2 is a fallacy held by massive numbers of people, often used to support #1.
The growth rate in third-world countries is not because birthrate is going up, but because deathrate is going down. Increases in medical technology, etc., means more people are surviving in poor countries these days; The birthrate has not yet dropped accordingly -- thus, the stasis is broken. But it's not as if these people are just popping out kids right and left, more than ever. It is theorized that the birthrates will eventually taper off, as medical technology continues to increase.
The U.S. can be used as an example of this theory. A fully industrialised nation, the population of the U.S. would actually be decreasing, should immigration to the nation cease, because the birthrate in the U.S. is quite low.
The GOP is a political organisation, but not part of the government, nor any governing body. No political parties are written into the constitution; not even a two-party system is suggested. Furthermore, efforts have been made to consider political parties somewhat "privatised" - any donations made to a political party are not tax deductible, for example.
The evolution of the American political process has led people to equate the parties with government, but the fact remains that the Republican and Democratic parties are not part of the government.
To me, the GOP's efforts to secure a.gov, is a brash, overt attempt to usurp some sort of political power, for a private group. Such domains should be reserved for just that -- governmental bodies, lest groups with outside motives use them for political gain.
Granted, I've not read the bill yet, but with the hip buzzword "Cyber-" in the bill title, I already have serious doubts as to how in touch with reality this bill actually is.
If they can't avoid cliches like that, what faith can I have that they'll be any better off in the "business end" of the bill?
Uh, I don't know where you got such an assumption from my post.
I never suggested government intervention; I did suggest that the producers of free services were perhaps being unethical because they weren't monitoring their services. You said "it is for grown adults to take responsibility for their actions". Correct, and this includes running a service that is relatively free of abuse.
If an internet firm cannot control what goes on on their services, they should configure themselves accordingly, rather than exerting the costs of their services (i.e., spam, etc.) on the user.
I wasn't pushing to restrict free access, at least not by legislative means, and I'm not sure where you got that assumption. However, it is the responsibility of the provider to control what resides, and what comes from his/her own system. Thus, yes, a firm should require some sort of verification, to assure that their users -- and thus themselves -- are not putting a burden on the internet at large.
The reason we don't/shouldn't need government intervention on the internet is because it should be able to police itself. The government shouldn't be involved, but I daresay the idea of individuals completely monitoring themselves is somewhat idealistic. If someone refuses to adhere to the net-ethic, then it is the responsibility of the firm through whom they have the services, to deal with it accordingly. To suggest that a firm doesn't, or shouldn't have any responsibility or liability towards the internet community, regarding the actions of its users, is ludicrious.
In any basic economics class, you'll learn that once someone owns property, as opposed to renting/leasing it, it tends to keep its value longer, because it is not abused. Free services are likely to be abused for just this reason, and thus since the likelihood is greater that users will abuse, the responsibility falls on the owner to halt the abuse -- else, as we've seen -- the burden falls on the internet as a whole.
Free services aren't bad; I never said that, and don't think such is the case. But the fact remains that many of the free services out there, in their frenzy to create a net-presence, neglect to maintain their service according to its usage, neglect netiquette, and thus neglect the internet itself.
If a free service is offered, the service should offer the same level of protection to the 'outside world' of the internet, as it assures to its customers; abuse should be stopped in either direction.
:"I'm closing down these accounts everyday. :I can't stop them," said Opera sales manager :Christian Dysthe.
Is it just me, or is this nothing new, something that every new 'free' service runs into? If it's not a security exploit, it's a dropbox for stolen passwords, or a website to peddle porn... I can't think offhand of a site offering 'free' services that hasn't been used in such a way.
It's the hurry-up syndrome; Ventures are in such a hurry to get on the web that they offer free services to boost membership, methods of verification simply don't exist; They'd rather grow, at the cost of other users of the net.
Of course, commenting about net-ethos anymore is a rather moot point:(
Let's see.. it's a linux distro that behaves with windows... to learn more about it (what.asp), you come to a page with cute women -- the graphic is entitled 'chick.gif', for goodness' sake!
Are they really just using sex appeal to lure people over to the dark side, never to return?;)
Incidentally, I know I've seen that graphic elsewhere before. Anyone know what it's from?
1) Lets say the guy comes to your store once an hour, instead of weekly.
Still brings in customers, doesn't it?
2) Since bandwidth is limited, let's make the comparison that the guy brings 100 people with him, getting in everyones way, so that he can quickly look at every item in your store.
I have a hard time believing this guy is eating up all the bandwidth of eBay. It's just an excuse, somewhat akin to the RIAA saying mp3s are eating up all the industry's sales.
3) In your example the guy making the glossy insert isn't profiting in any way. Lets change it to the guy places an add with your prices saying he will provide the lowest prices if you join his low price club for $FOO.
I figured the fact that he'd make money in those glossies off of ads was somewhat implied. Furthermore, if he advertises that, that's a different issue entirely. if he advertises such, and doesn't follow through, that's false advertising, and the dude should be shut down accordingly. But it has nothing to do with the store's sales.
As for those who mentioned advertising, if you check out ebay, there are *very few* ads on their system, from what I've seen. And I'll reiterate that I bet they (do|will|would) make far more money indirectly through name recognition than their ads.
Let's say I have a grocery store, one of several in a town. It's good, regular customers, I'm doing alright. One day, I open my newspaper to find a new, weekly glossy insert from a firm who goes from grocery store to store, finding the best items for the best price. I guess I could have one of two reactions.
1)I could lavish the guy with praise, because with faith in my service, I know he'll be bringing more customers my way, due in part to name recognition, and in part to the fact that I've got better prices on some items than my competitors.
2)Or, I could have a complete lack of faith in my services, thus basically admitting that others offer a better deal, and try to keep this guy from publishing his rag.
If they don't want this guy searching eBay for deals, how can they even pretend to stand behind their service?
India, Pakistan both suffer from 'brain drain', as their techies move to the U.S. for better job prospects. Is the reverse now true? Are all of our script k1dd13z moving overseas to wreak havoc with webpages?
Not a bad trade, if you ask me;)
Re:Hmmm, so if I start gathering tidbits of info,
on
Who Owns The Database?
·
· Score: 1
Small nitpick, copywrite != copyright, thus copywritten != copyrighted.
copywritten, if I'm not mistaken, refers to actual text/data/whatever being copy-written to some medium; copyright(ing) refers to the protection of intellectual property.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty mediocre; I've still yet to find anyone who particularly loved it. Typical Arnold Schwartzenegger movie with a theological twist. And twisted theology, at that. You'd be much better off trying to catch Gabriel Byrnes' other recent religion movie, Stigmata.
The writers of this movie appeared to have banked on Arnold's name, and not put an ounce of real creativity into the movie; the lunatic priest's name is "Thomas Aquinas". I mean, how lacking in creativity can one writing staff be?
Dogma
Sorry, John, it's only blasphemous if you let it be, and that's what that splinter-group Catholic faction has done. It's not the church as a whole, it's just a small group of people. You run into that with any denomination within the church, any church within the religion, any religion within the world. It was only blasphemous to those who don't want their beliefs to be challeged... really though, if you can't challenge your beliefs about something, you don't really believe.
In any case, this movie was excellent. Chris Rocke wasn't great, but he's a comedian, no one ever said he could act. Silent Bob's (Kevin Smith) rare one-liners were well-placed as always; the constantly-obscene Jay (Jason Mewes) gets the usual, hilarious exposure. Jason Lee was good as Azrael, but I think would have been better-suited for the role originally planned for him (Matt Damon's character, Loki).
Good discussions of faith issues, although I think they could have been longer. However, that would have bored most audiences these days. A lot of blood and guts, but it, like a lot of Smith's work, is intended, hyperbole.
In the end, a really good, really funny movie. No reason to be offended unless you take your faith so seriously (in that sense, I mean mood, not strength) that any criticism pushes your panic button... in which case, I suggest you cozy up with a Good Book.
Oh yeah. Yet Another Hicks Guy (YAHG?) shows up in this movie, too.
Via email, I recently ran into an old bloke I knew from my MajorBBS days... he's now got a bbs on a Linux box, running FalkenBBS; You can telnet in here.
;).
Falken isn't the best bbs software out there, but it's multiline, teleconferenced, and runs on Linux.
There are a handful of us on there, it's not a huge population. However, if you ever bbs'ed in the DC/NoVA area, you might recognise us
This famous sci-fi radio broadcast had everyone in America running for their lives, fearing an alien invasion... was probably a catalyst that produced increasing realism in the genre as well.
dammit, that got screwed up.
it is supposed to say "green laser pointer"
Laser pointers used to be hip in the geek world (a paradox?). However, now everyone and their dog has one.
However, all those people just have a plain old 5 dollar red laser pointer. What youwant is a pointer.
They ain't cheap though. Usually around $270 and up.
First of all, I believe the gov't has good intentions in mind with these new regulations. But the problem lay in the reactionary response to said action. For example, to avoid potential lawsuits and other issues with these new regulations, it seems to me very likely that many companies will require, no questions asked, X, Y and Z Ergo components be used by employees.
Now what if, for example, I don't like ergo keyboards (which I don't)? In addition to loss of efficiency in adjusting to the new keyboard (would be a lot of time -- I'm not a particularly orthodox typist), I simply don't find them comfortable... not to mention a wristrest and the occasional position change pretty much solves my problems.
Nonetheless, to avoid potential costly lawsuits, my company could concievably require employees to use said ergonomic components. If they don't? tough... the liability falls on the employee. A regulation created to protect the employee becomes a liability and potential threat to his employment, should he not comply -- or at very least, gives the employer more grounds to dismiss employees on a whim, "those troublemakers, rabblerousers, who can't comply with policy".
Am I overreacting? Perhaps. Is it a possibility? Just watch.
I guess we'll be seeing terms like Sc*entlogy and H*bbard, now.
seriously, though, I wonder how hard it is to fight the Sc*entologists in court. Celebrities generally have pretty deep pockets.
(insert "html shouldn't be used for layout/design" comment here)
I've got a fair amount of tables on my page; I've recently been checking to see how Mozilla renders it.. somewhat akin to the acid test page.
Now, the page itself is pretty much 4.0 compliant, albeit somewhat complex; the W3 validator bitches about ampersands in CGI URIs, so there's nothing I can do about that. In any case...
In MSIE and NS current versions, the page looks pretty much like I'd expect it to. There are minor variations, nothing of great concern.
Now, in M10, The grey box in the middle was shrunken, sorta pushed over to the left a little bit. OK, not exactly what I wanted, but not horrid. In M11, however, the grey box gets shoved waaay over to the right, running into other tables.
Thus, on first glance, it appears that something, in one of the milestones, is wrong. I understand that my page might not be really simple, that's an aside, and I will deal with it later. My concern is that the two milestones rendered the page differently. For the longest time, I've heard that Mozilla is (as in, yes, currently, right now) fully 4.0/CSS1/whatever else compliant. However, such observations have me wondering otherwise....? Could someone clarify?
...that Transmeta owns "CRUSOE.COM", which also points to the same place.
I've not searched for any other domains, though.
...how long has the deal been in the works?
I ask, because many of you probably remember the "name the company" contest Cygnus had a while back. It was rumoured that they wanted to change it because of 1.) a lower neccessity to emphasize "GNU" (cyGNUs), and 2.) because they'd been considering an IPO, whereas there's a Cygnus Pharmaceuticals already.
This said, a while back, the outcome of the contest -- an indefinite delay -- was announced. In this light, such seems fairly interesting.
Then again, I just might have seen one too many X-Files episodes. But I do find the resignation of senior management interesting as well.
...stock options. Some companies offer options up front, in lieu of a higher salary. Granted, this is a gamble in a lot of cases, but with a competitive IT field and a raging stock market, it's nonetheless becoming more and more prevalent.
...how would I go about using the infamous shift-FUND cheat in SC for Palm? Would I have to write it with my right hand, or something?
;)
1. the birthrate will continue on, exponentially, throughout time.
2. the birthrate in third-world countries is astronomical.
#1 is unlikely, though, it is pretty certain that it will go on for some time now. #2 is a fallacy held by massive numbers of people, often used to support #1.
The growth rate in third-world countries is not because birthrate is going up, but because deathrate is going down. Increases in medical technology, etc., means more people are surviving in poor countries these days; The birthrate has not yet dropped accordingly -- thus, the stasis is broken. But it's not as if these people are just popping out kids right and left, more than ever. It is theorized that the birthrates will eventually taper off, as medical technology continues to increase.
The U.S. can be used as an example of this theory. A fully industrialised nation, the population of the U.S. would actually be decreasing, should immigration to the nation cease, because the birthrate in the U.S. is quite low.
...and with this new announcement today of a security flaw in Microsoft's VM (haven't seen it posted yet today), it's all the better.
The GOP is a political organisation, but not part of the government, nor any governing body. No political parties are written into the constitution; not even a two-party system is suggested. Furthermore, efforts have been made to consider political parties somewhat "privatised" - any donations made to a political party are not tax deductible, for example.
.gov, is a brash, overt attempt to usurp some sort of political power, for a private group. Such domains should be reserved for just that -- governmental bodies, lest groups with outside motives use them for political gain.
The evolution of the American political process has led people to equate the parties with government, but the fact remains that the Republican and Democratic parties are not part of the government.
To me, the GOP's efforts to secure a
Granted, I've not read the bill yet, but with the hip buzzword "Cyber-" in the bill title, I already have serious doubts as to how in touch with reality this bill actually is.
If they can't avoid cliches like that, what faith can I have that they'll be any better off in the "business end" of the bill?
Uh, I don't know where you got such an assumption from my post.
I never suggested government intervention; I did suggest that the producers of free services were perhaps being unethical because they weren't monitoring their services. You said "it is for grown adults to take responsibility for their actions". Correct, and this includes running a service that is relatively free of abuse.
If an internet firm cannot control what goes on on their services, they should configure themselves accordingly, rather than exerting the costs of their services (i.e., spam, etc.) on the user.
I wasn't pushing to restrict free access, at least not by legislative means, and I'm not sure where you got that assumption. However, it is the responsibility of the provider to control what resides, and what comes from his/her own system. Thus, yes, a firm should require some sort of verification, to assure that their users -- and thus themselves -- are not putting a burden on the internet at large.
The reason we don't/shouldn't need government intervention on the internet is because it should be able to police itself. The government shouldn't be involved, but I daresay the idea of individuals completely monitoring themselves is somewhat idealistic. If someone refuses to adhere to the net-ethic, then it is the responsibility of the firm through whom they have the services, to deal with it accordingly. To suggest that a firm doesn't, or shouldn't have any responsibility or liability towards the internet community, regarding the actions of its users, is ludicrious.
In any basic economics class, you'll learn that once someone owns property, as opposed to renting/leasing it, it tends to keep its value longer, because it is not abused. Free services are likely to be abused for just this reason, and thus since the likelihood is greater that users will abuse, the responsibility falls on the owner to halt the abuse -- else, as we've seen -- the burden falls on the internet as a whole.
Free services aren't bad; I never said that, and don't think such is the case. But the fact remains that many of the free services out there, in their frenzy to create a net-presence, neglect to maintain their service according to its usage, neglect netiquette, and thus neglect the internet itself.
If a free service is offered, the service should offer the same level of protection to the 'outside world' of the internet, as it assures to its customers; abuse should be stopped in either direction.
:"I'm closing down these accounts everyday.
:I can't stop them," said Opera sales manager
:Christian Dysthe.
Is it just me, or is this nothing new, something that every new 'free' service runs into? If it's not a security exploit, it's a dropbox for stolen passwords, or a website to peddle porn... I can't think offhand of a site offering 'free' services that hasn't been used in such a way.
It's the hurry-up syndrome; Ventures are in such a hurry to get on the web that they offer free services to boost membership, methods of verification simply don't exist; They'd rather grow, at the cost of other users of the net.
Of course, commenting about net-ethos anymore is a rather moot point
...to exterminate all linux users.
;)
#include xfiles.h
Let's see.. it's a linux distro that behaves with windows... to learn more about it (what.asp), you come to a page with cute women -- the graphic is entitled 'chick.gif', for goodness' sake!
Are they really just using sex appeal to lure people over to the dark side, never to return?
Incidentally, I know I've seen that graphic elsewhere before. Anyone know what it's from?
...can I assume this is pronounce "Ar-mhed"?
Otherwise it sounds like some high crypto/security release:
"Man, you're not running *BSD; from my perspective, you're a security risk."
"No way dude, my Linux box is ARMED!
1) Lets say the guy comes to your store once an hour, instead of weekly.
Still brings in customers, doesn't it?
2) Since bandwidth is limited, let's make the comparison that the guy brings 100 people with him, getting in everyones way, so that he can quickly look at every item in your store.
I have a hard time believing this guy is eating up all the bandwidth of eBay. It's just an excuse, somewhat akin to the RIAA saying mp3s are eating up all the industry's sales.
3) In your example the guy making the glossy insert isn't profiting in any way. Lets change it to the guy places an add with your prices saying he will provide the lowest prices if you join his low price club for $FOO.
I figured the fact that he'd make money in those glossies off of ads was somewhat implied.
Furthermore, if he advertises that, that's a different issue entirely. if he advertises such, and doesn't follow through, that's false advertising, and the dude should be shut down accordingly. But it has nothing to do with the store's sales.
As for those who mentioned advertising, if you check out ebay, there are *very few* ads on their system, from what I've seen. And I'll reiterate that I bet they (do|will|would) make far more money indirectly through name recognition than their ads.
Let's say I have a grocery store, one of several in a town. It's good, regular customers, I'm doing alright. One day, I open my newspaper to find a new, weekly glossy insert from a firm who goes from grocery store to store, finding the best items for the best price. I guess I could have one of two reactions.
1)I could lavish the guy with praise, because with faith in my service, I know he'll be bringing more customers my way, due in part to name recognition, and in part to the fact that I've got better prices on some items than my competitors.
2)Or, I could have a complete lack of faith in my services, thus basically admitting that others offer a better deal, and try to keep this guy from publishing his rag.
If they don't want this guy searching eBay for deals, how can they even pretend to stand behind their service?
from the welcome-to-our-website-customer-ID-128723598756 dept.
...That's my customer ID!
India, Pakistan both suffer from 'brain drain', as their techies move to the U.S. for better job prospects. Is the reverse now true? Are all of our script k1dd13z moving overseas to wreak havoc with webpages?
;)
Not a bad trade, if you ask me
Small nitpick, copywrite != copyright, thus copywritten != copyrighted.
;).
copywritten, if I'm not mistaken, refers to actual text/data/whatever being copy-written to some medium; copyright(ing) refers to the protection of intellectual property.
I've made the same mistake in the past