It's been suggested to me that going through college so early deprived him of opportunities to acquire necessary social skills, so at times he does things that don't reflect what you and I would consider common sense.
You know, totally off-topic... but this is one of the reasons I dislike the idea of skipping lots of grades, of going to college years in advance, of home schooling, and so forth -- youngsters need social contact with people their own age. People can bring all sorts of exceptions like "bah, I hated all the people my own age at my school" (hell, I hated all the people at my high school), but I still say this contact is extremely important. There's no reason to be in such a huge hurry.. don't struggle to graduate college by age 20.. try to enjoy life a little as well. };P
this is a scared, young, (overly?) idealistic young man who has been trying to act honorably towards a system
Uhh.. he has? Seems like he's been acting pretty dishonorably and foolishly so far.
What on earth does 'leet-speak sound like anyway? I always imagined a person sounding like Sean Penn in "I am Sam" -- idiocy and childishness approaching mental redardation.
My comment was meant to say: if his judgement was so erratic and poor, how could he have managed to hack his way into such prominent sites? eBay and Lycos (et. al.) must be attacked quite regularly and we don't hear of them being cracked very often...
I'd say the fact that he tried to hack into eBay and Lycos shows pretty poor judgement in itself, regardless of success or failure.
its only a hop skip and a jump from there to have the judge decide that he ALWAYS shows a lack of judgement, and its a medical condition.
Andrea Yates's defense couldn't convince the court enough that she was insane, at least enough to save her. I somehow doubt "Sk8" will fare better than her.
- makes it really easy to spy on the users of the OS. Database triggers and stored procedures
could be written so that every time you save an MP3 on your hard drive, it checks to see if it is copyrighted material and if so sends the info to the RIAA (for example). You will not even know these triggers run.
It probably won't be hard to detect. After all, no matter what nonsense they put into the OS, you should still be able to packet-sniff it.
I agree with... most of your points. Jar Jar was completely unessential to the plot, and was really only there for merchandising reasons. Hell, he more unessential than the Ewoks, who at least seemed to have purpose. But...
And of course, they're led into battle by "General" Jar Jar, who surrenders at the first opportunity (To an army with orders to commit genocide, no less! "Wipe them out--All of them!" Surrender means certain death!).
Ok, it's been awhile since I've seen Episode I, but.. how was Jar Jar supposed to know that genocide was the goal of the robot army? We had the luxury of seeing the Sith Lord's orders to the evildoers, so we knew what was up, but none of the good guys were ever told about that. In fact, the main role of the Gungan army was simply to distract the forces on the planet (not destroy the entire army) while the robot base was taken out from orbit. Given all that, surrendering was not a stupid move from their side, since there was no reason for them to think that they would be killed after surrendering -- these were simply merchants in a trade route dispute with a small army of disablable robots. Committing genocide would be extremely uncharacteristic of them (from the good guys' perspective), especially considering how the Senate might have come down on them hard for such an action.
What the heck does "Maxi big da force" mean anyway
Heheh, I always thought he was saying "Maxi dig da force," though it's not like that's any less stupid.;-)
Two capital ships dueling with weapons that could level an entire planet is infinitely more cool than a bunch of little starfighters (that are never, ever going to exist in real life)
Why not?
somehow blowing apart a ship hundreds of times larger by ramming into its bridge.
Don't you remember the Kamikaze's from WW2? Imagine if those little fighter planes were stocked with nuclear/anti-matter weapons/material designed to detonate on impact. Seems to me a smaller/more manueverable craft might be a better choice since immense firepower does not necessarily require immense size.
A massive confrontation like this unfortunately leaves little room for personal interaction. Sure, you might have the last minute Kennedy to Khrushchev calls, but other than that, the plot would involve millions of people being blown up without even knowing the individual who pressed the button. Moviegoers want to watch movies that have some relevance to their life, and interpersonal relationships is one of the more complex and challenging topics for movies to explore.
These two features are not mutually exclusive though. You can have personal interaction and much of the high-intensity impact the original poster was talking about. The problem is that it would be a very difficult stunt to pull off and would require a truly talented set of filmmakers to do it. It's not an impossible task, just one that would be difficult to do well.
Lucas's movies from the 70's are the primary reason (debatably equal with Spielberg's movies) for the "blockbuster-centric" state of the movie industry today. (i.e. opening weekend-oriented, with receipts fading fast even for popular films, therefore "hyper-able" films with a fast return get the most attention).
There are a number of reasons for the high opening draw which drops rather quickly. Back in the 80's or 70's, what were the chances of getting in to see a hot movie on the opening weekend if you didn't want to stand in line? Not very good. Today, the chances are pretty good to excellent, depending where you live. The difference? The number of screens showing the movie. In today's age of huge cinema multiplexes, you have far more showings of first-weekend movies than you did a few decades ago. Then, you might have had to wait a weekend or two to see a movie, but now there are so many screens that everyone can go on the opening weekend without too much trouble (especially for the theaters which sell tickets in advance online -- that's how I saw LotR on opening night). So now you can get the large push on one weekend, and then there is a huge dropoff since most of the people who wanted to see it already have. It's the special movies that people truly like that don't have the sharp dropoff. The huge opening weekend+dropoff model has actually been better for the movie companies, since word-of-mouth for a poor movie doesn't have enough time to do major damage by then. So yes, you might be able to blame moviemakers like Lucas for that behavior, but I'd say the largest reason for it is the greater number of screens.
Unfortunately, John Williams has his ups and downs. If it were not for Harry Potter, I would have thought that he had run out of gas, much like Jerry Goldsmith seems to very rarely turn out a good soundtrack these days. The soundtrack for Episode I was extremely disappointing, the only positives being the Duel of the Fates and very few sections where music from the original movie was pulled in. The rest of the soundtrack was easily forgettable fluff.
Sorry, doesn't pan out. You're basically putting A New Hope and Jedi in the same boat as Episode 1.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. Maybe the curse works on trilogies. The first trilogy (1-3) sucks, the second is good (4-6), the third will suck as well? Doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth, but it sounds realistic.
Besides, ST:Insurrection was bad ass.
Whoops! You made a typo. I think you meant to say "ST:Insurrection was bad & assinine."
Excellent point -- personally, I enjoyed Final Fantasy quite a bit. However, I'm a huge fan of the series, so I understood the underlying Gia themes. (It crops up several times throughout the series.)
Understanding the Gaia theme doesn't require familiarity with the game series; it's not a tricky concept. The movies downfall was its lack of interesting characters, the absolutely terrible bottom-of-the-barrel dialogue (much coming from the supporting actors -- I really like Steve Buscemi, but he was badly used in this movie), and the uninteresting character development. Hell, I was glad when the supporting characters were killed off because I knew I wouldn't have to listen to them yapping anymore. It wasn't a moment of sadness, it was a moment of relief, which I doubt the movie was aiming for.
There are also a bunch of browser plugins for Netscape whose installations are poorly designed. Macromedia Flash is one of them... they won't install for Mozilla, only Netscape. Some plugins are actually friendly and the installations let you choose whatever directory to install it into, but other install programs are too smart for their own good and assume that the Netscape plugin will always be used with Netscape instead of a Netscape-plugin-compatible browser.
Erm, wait a minute. You admire a number of Libertarian philosophies, and are considering voting for either the Republicans or Greens next election? Can't decide between Republicans and Greens? The only party that has more fundamental philosophical disagreements with the Green Party than the Republicans is the Libertarian Party. On the political spectrum, the Green Party is about as far away from Libertarianism (and Republicanism) as two parties can get. If you're thinking of voting Republican but also consider dallying with the Green Party, then you don't know very much about the Green Party (and vice versa).
Hey, I agree with most of your points. I suppose the difference is that the public at large cannot be trusted to simply abide by the honor system when asked to pair their fair share for the costs of making and distributing music.
And with all manner of distribution media available, why not allow music be distrubuted free (via any medium) using a shareware system and let people pay what they think each track or 'album' is worth?
Because unfortunately, most people are dishonest. Sometimes lazy to boot. Look at the dismal failure of Fairtunes, for example.
With the CD, we crossed the Digital Divide, and suddenly we're not buying media, we're buying a license.
You're thinking of software, not music. Nowhere on any of the music CDs I have does it claim I'm buying a license. Same with my DVDs. The only thing they really warn about is unauthorized duplication.
Of course, keep in mind Napster was designed specifically for illegal downloading. The Napster execs kindof screwed themselves with those internal memos.
Even if you but 100 audio CDs, and distribute them for free to your friends.. that is STILL LEGAL.
No it's not.
here is a tax on audio format CDs that takes into consideration this very thing. The "tax" pays for copyrighted songs you would be pirating.
Yes there is a tax on the audio CDs, but there are a few points you need to keep in mind:
I doubt the taxes taken for audio CDs come to anything greater than a small fraction of the "losses" the RIAA claims to incur for sharing of CDs.
A tax on CDs still does not make CD sharing legal. All it means is you get taxed while the music companies can still complain about piracy.
It makes me feel better morally about letting a friend copy one of my CDs though, since if I'm going to have to pay a piracy tax, I might as well get my money's worth.
They aren't lowering the cost of rent, though. They expect that people will continue to pay the outrageous rents that the dot-coms paid.
Oh now, they've been lowering the rents in San Francisco. That apartment that cost $1800/month might only rent for $1700/month now. This is how the landlords there think -- when you have to lower prices, do it by an insignificant amount, say, $100/month or so. But when you can raise prices, jack them up really high (if lack of rent control lets you get away with it), an increase of $300+/month. If you would graph the average prices of SF apartments, I bet it would look like a steep wavey staircase.
... and maybe someone can help me with this. I simply can NOT stand Paypal's constant insistance that you link up a -Bank Account- to them. A credit card is simply not good enough for them -- there are credit card options hidden somewhere in their system, but after browsing through their limited options for 20 minutes, I still can't find the option I used to use to withdraw from my credit card (which I've done several times in the past). All over the place it's all "Withdraw from your debit/ATM card to pay for your purchases!" "link your bank account to us!" "Earn interest on the money you transfer from your bank account!" I can deal with giving sites like Paypal access to my credit card, but there's no way in hell I'm giving ANY site on the Internet, besides my bank, access to my checking account! That's simply insane.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, totally off-topic... but this is one of the reasons I dislike the idea of skipping lots of grades, of going to college years in advance, of home schooling, and so forth -- youngsters need social contact with people their own age. People can bring all sorts of exceptions like "bah, I hated all the people my own age at my school" (hell, I hated all the people at my high school), but I still say this contact is extremely important. There's no reason to be in such a huge hurry.. don't struggle to graduate college by age 20.. try to enjoy life a little as well. };P
this is a scared, young, (overly?) idealistic young man who has been trying to act honorably towards a system
Uhh.. he has? Seems like he's been acting pretty dishonorably and foolishly so far.
What on earth does 'leet-speak sound like anyway? I always imagined a person sounding like Sean Penn in "I am Sam" -- idiocy and childishness approaching mental redardation.
I'd say the fact that he tried to hack into eBay and Lycos shows pretty poor judgement in itself, regardless of success or failure.
Andrea Yates's defense couldn't convince the court enough that she was insane, at least enough to save her. I somehow doubt "Sk8" will fare better than her.
It probably won't be hard to detect. After all, no matter what nonsense they put into the OS, you should still be able to packet-sniff it.
mp3.com is not insignificant?
And of course, they're led into battle by "General" Jar Jar, who surrenders at the first opportunity (To an army with orders to commit genocide, no less! "Wipe them out--All of them!" Surrender means certain death!).
Ok, it's been awhile since I've seen Episode I, but.. how was Jar Jar supposed to know that genocide was the goal of the robot army? We had the luxury of seeing the Sith Lord's orders to the evildoers, so we knew what was up, but none of the good guys were ever told about that. In fact, the main role of the Gungan army was simply to distract the forces on the planet (not destroy the entire army) while the robot base was taken out from orbit. Given all that, surrendering was not a stupid move from their side, since there was no reason for them to think that they would be killed after surrendering -- these were simply merchants in a trade route dispute with a small army of disablable robots. Committing genocide would be extremely uncharacteristic of them (from the good guys' perspective), especially considering how the Senate might have come down on them hard for such an action.
What the heck does "Maxi big da force" mean anyway
Heheh, I always thought he was saying "Maxi dig da force," though it's not like that's any less stupid. ;-)
Why not?
somehow blowing apart a ship hundreds of times larger by ramming into its bridge.
Don't you remember the Kamikaze's from WW2? Imagine if those little fighter planes were stocked with nuclear/anti-matter weapons/material designed to detonate on impact. Seems to me a smaller/more manueverable craft might be a better choice since immense firepower does not necessarily require immense size.
These two features are not mutually exclusive though. You can have personal interaction and much of the high-intensity impact the original poster was talking about. The problem is that it would be a very difficult stunt to pull off and would require a truly talented set of filmmakers to do it. It's not an impossible task, just one that would be difficult to do well.
There are a number of reasons for the high opening draw which drops rather quickly. Back in the 80's or 70's, what were the chances of getting in to see a hot movie on the opening weekend if you didn't want to stand in line? Not very good. Today, the chances are pretty good to excellent, depending where you live. The difference? The number of screens showing the movie. In today's age of huge cinema multiplexes, you have far more showings of first-weekend movies than you did a few decades ago. Then, you might have had to wait a weekend or two to see a movie, but now there are so many screens that everyone can go on the opening weekend without too much trouble (especially for the theaters which sell tickets in advance online -- that's how I saw LotR on opening night). So now you can get the large push on one weekend, and then there is a huge dropoff since most of the people who wanted to see it already have. It's the special movies that people truly like that don't have the sharp dropoff. The huge opening weekend+dropoff model has actually been better for the movie companies, since word-of-mouth for a poor movie doesn't have enough time to do major damage by then. So yes, you might be able to blame moviemakers like Lucas for that behavior, but I'd say the largest reason for it is the greater number of screens.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. Maybe the curse works on trilogies. The first trilogy (1-3) sucks, the second is good (4-6), the third will suck as well? Doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth, but it sounds realistic.
Besides, ST:Insurrection was bad ass.
Whoops! You made a typo. I think you meant to say "ST:Insurrection was bad & assinine."
Heh, well, wasn't he supposed to be a hick anyway? From a little backwater village...
Sure sounds impressive when he's voiced by James Earl Jones though...
Understanding the Gaia theme doesn't require familiarity with the game series; it's not a tricky concept. The movies downfall was its lack of interesting characters, the absolutely terrible bottom-of-the-barrel dialogue (much coming from the supporting actors -- I really like Steve Buscemi, but he was badly used in this movie), and the uninteresting character development. Hell, I was glad when the supporting characters were killed off because I knew I wouldn't have to listen to them yapping anymore. It wasn't a moment of sadness, it was a moment of relief, which I doubt the movie was aiming for.
There are also a bunch of browser plugins for Netscape whose installations are poorly designed. Macromedia Flash is one of them... they won't install for Mozilla, only Netscape. Some plugins are actually friendly and the installations let you choose whatever directory to install it into, but other install programs are too smart for their own good and assume that the Netscape plugin will always be used with Netscape instead of a Netscape-plugin-compatible browser.
Erm, wait a minute. You admire a number of Libertarian philosophies, and are considering voting for either the Republicans or Greens next election? Can't decide between Republicans and Greens? The only party that has more fundamental philosophical disagreements with the Green Party than the Republicans is the Libertarian Party. On the political spectrum, the Green Party is about as far away from Libertarianism (and Republicanism) as two parties can get. If you're thinking of voting Republican but also consider dallying with the Green Party, then you don't know very much about the Green Party (and vice versa).
Because unfortunately, most people are dishonest. Sometimes lazy to boot. Look at the dismal failure of Fairtunes, for example.
You're thinking of software, not music. Nowhere on any of the music CDs I have does it claim I'm buying a license. Same with my DVDs. The only thing they really warn about is unauthorized duplication.
Of course, keep in mind Napster was designed specifically for illegal downloading. The Napster execs kindof screwed themselves with those internal memos.
No it's not.
here is a tax on audio format CDs that takes into consideration this very thing. The "tax" pays for copyrighted songs you would be pirating.
Yes there is a tax on the audio CDs, but there are a few points you need to keep in mind:
- I doubt the taxes taken for audio CDs come to anything greater than a small fraction of the "losses" the RIAA claims to incur for sharing of CDs.
- A tax on CDs still does not make CD sharing legal. All it means is you get taxed while the music companies can still complain about piracy.
It makes me feel better morally about letting a friend copy one of my CDs though, since if I'm going to have to pay a piracy tax, I might as well get my money's worth.It shows up fine for me using Mozilla 0.9.8 on both Linux and Windows.
Oh now, they've been lowering the rents in San Francisco. That apartment that cost $1800/month might only rent for $1700/month now. This is how the landlords there think -- when you have to lower prices, do it by an insignificant amount, say, $100/month or so. But when you can raise prices, jack them up really high (if lack of rent control lets you get away with it), an increase of $300+/month. If you would graph the average prices of SF apartments, I bet it would look like a steep wavey staircase.