The Union Protocol is open source, fool. Nowhere is it written that a union must suck in exactly the way you describe. Why not fork the protocol, and implement a much better version?
For example, you could form a union with bylaws that specified: a) Optional union dues--you don't pay, you don't get union support. b) Merit-based pay (maybe tied to a certifaction system or something). c) Simple, practical rules for firing deadweight.
Your union doesn't have to be like everybody else's. Why do you start by assuming you'll do exactly all the things you hate?
According to the article, this is just the prototype. They're talking about partnering w/ a big player in the security industry to design and implement the production model.
I'd expect the commercial release to be a lot more capable.
According to this smarty man, there's probably not enough plutonium inside a pacemaker to poison a small bunny rabbit. I imagine the crash testing is still pretty rigorous, though.
Well, if Peter Pan was originally a gimmicky idea wrapped in a weak story and minimal audience involvement, then yes, a remake that replaced the gimmicks with modern FX, fleshed out the story, and increased audience involvement and interaction with the characters--a remake like that would certainly be a cure. Not a cure for obsolescence (which usually isn't a real concern in movies), but a cure for a bad movie.
Since the original (Disney) version of the movie was not gimmicky, had a solid story, and engaged the audience, such a remake would be a waste of time, and Disney will wisely stick to re-releasing the original on each new media type to hit the market.
Dragon's Lair, on the other hand, was very gimmicky, &c. The idea of the game appealed to me very much, but the space-chimp gameplay prevented me from spending more than 50 cents on it in 30 years. If they re-release it using modern game design principles instead of that stupid laser-disc twitch bullshit, I might just have to get me a new coffee table--er, XBox.
On the off-chance that you haven't seen the film...
I didn't need to see the film: I saw the trailer.
Isn't it funny how movie trailers are always either Early Warning Systems ("That movie will obviously suck"), or Defilers of All That Is Good ("Gandalf survived?")?
Give me movie teasers any day. Enough footage to build interest and suspense, and not nearly enough time to work in a decent spoiler--let alone all of them.
I guess they figured everyone has read the books already which a very dumbass mistake.
It's actually a lot worse than that: The people who produce trailers are invariably clueless fuckwads who apparently get paid a living wage to violently rip the newness out of any movie they work on.
Your only hope is to keep reminding yourself that it's the producer's fault, not the director's.
It's kind of lame to arbitrarily restrict yourself to a subset of nature's built-in rules. If the bull isn't smart enough to build a millenial civilazation that strictly limits opportunities for humans to kill bulls, that's their problem. My idea of a fair fight is everybody using everything they've got. The bull gets his horns, and I get my cell phone.
Live action and anime are both human artifacts. They mean whatever we humans say they mean. If "99%" of humans classify anime as a subset of (live action) movies, then isn't that exactly what they are?
If you're going to insist that it's the other way around, then you should at least establish a criteria for classifying movies that's independent of human culture and perception. Without that other criteria, your assertion is untrue.
Additionally, a huge portion of the article is about how real animation can be, especially in context. Did you even read the article?
Please. Akira is all about annoying bouncing kids. Where "bouncing" means either "bursting with deadly psychic power" or "member of a punkass motorcycle gang", or both, depending on the character.
Many of your complaints seem to be about differences of style, rather than differences of skill.
As far as animation techniques go, don't you think it's a little naive to compare CG studios like Pixar to manual and mixed-media studios?
I'll admit that there's a lot of ass "anime" out there--just like there's a lot of ass "cartoons" out there (seen the new He-Man recently?). Compare the majority of the two animation genres (American and Japanese), and it feels like you're juding a competition for the worst animation ever.
On the other hand, if you look at the high end of manual and mixed-media Japanese animation, you get things like Akira, Ghost, Lain, Metropolis, and Princess Mononoke. All of these compare favorably with the best American and European works, not just in story, but also in animation techniques and and artistic merit. I can't do anything about your style complaints, but if the biggest problem you have with anime is that "everybody's drawn funny", then anime at least has The Simpsons for company.
Thanks, I'm familiar with all three sites. I actually have found no good reason to doubt the moon landings, so you don't need to waste any time there. As for creationism, I'm of the opinion that it's more properly in the realm of metaphysics, rather than science per se--at least until our science advances quite a bit farther than its current state. Meanwhile, I admit I'm a little dissapointed, probably because I didn't make myself clear: I was hoping you could summarize your arguments in your own words, perhaps along the lines of "I find the existence of a god to be an unreasonable proposition, for the following reasons...". Surely your belief system is an intensly personal thing, and not just a pointer to talkorigins.org!
Kathleen Goonan writes SF with a strong metaphysical sensibility, if not quite the "religious" SF you may have in mind.
Masamune Shirow manages to combine hardboiled SWAT action with solid discussions of human spirituality, in a tale of postapocalyptic utopia that is anything but typical of the genre. Pick up Appleseed wherever fine comics are sold!
If you can see the religion in Card's works, you should have no problem finding it in the Culture novels of Iain M. Banks. Fair warning, though: Banks comes at it from the opposite direction.
Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am an ignorant idiot. Since I've not been diagnosed with delusional paranoia (yet), there is some hope that my idiocy is the kind that can be cured. Ignorance, as we all know, can be cured by reason and facts. What are your reason and facts?
I can only assume that you have one or more solid, rational arguments, based on commonly accepted facts, to support your position. What are they?
This isn't meant to be a flamewar, mind you. If you have strong arguments on which you base your beliefs, I'm sincerely eager to know them.
Care to show some sort of logical relationship between creation science, theories of human reproduction, and moon landing conspiracies? Or do we just have to trust your angry little mind to figure it all out for us?
And what, if anything, does your ranting have to do with giving specific examples of school districts where teachers disbelieve the moon landings?
I guess that when all you have is an axe to grind, everything looks like a whetstone.
Yay. Hundreds of SUV owners use their SUVs in some close approximation of how the television tells them it should be used.
Compare that to the thousands who use them almost exclusively to commute, pick up groceries, or take the kids to soccer practice.
Not to mention the whole debate you hinted at--that these vehicles aren't actually even appropriate for the kind of use that the television proposes. Or the debate about whether or not the drivers are properly qualified for these fantastical depictions of "extreme driving".
Your Landrover website aside, the trend seems to be as follows: Your television tells you to buy the SUV for its extreme driving capability. You do what you television tells you to do, and then use the SUV almost exclusively for mundane driving tasks.
Meanwhile, companies like Subaru and Volvo are making AWD cars that not only have superior extreme driving capabilities, but have smaller footprints, better mileage, better price points, and significantly less emissions.
I have no patience for your Landrover enthusiasts. The amount of money they're spending to bounce over muddy tussocks is laughable. The visual obstruction they pose on the highway, and the level of pollution they contribute in pursuit of their own amusement, promptly drains all the humor out of the situation. Go offroad all you want. I'm not against having fun. But keep your over-sized, gas-guzzling, luxury follies the fuck away from my commute.
You can show undeniable evidence that god doesn't exist...
You can? That's pretty funny, since I though proving the absolute non-existence of something was a logical impossibility. Meanwhile, in the real world, I have yet to see any such "undeniable evidence". If I did see such evidence, and it really did stand up to the standard tests of reason, then I certainly wouldn't cop out with some sort of excuse like the one you suggest. I'd change my beliefs to something more reasonable.
Meanwhile, I wonder what the canonical atheist cop-out would be, should he or she be shown undeniable evidence that god does exist.
Are you sure about that? Last time I checked the moon did rotate, such that the same face always pointed towards the earth during its orbit. You may have meant that there's no "dark side" of the moon, since it shows all of its surface to the sun during its orbit(s).
Slashdot Mirror
The Union Protocol is open source, fool. Nowhere is it written that a union must suck in exactly the way you describe. Why not fork the protocol, and implement a much better version?
For example, you could form a union with bylaws that specified:
a) Optional union dues--you don't pay, you don't get union support.
b) Merit-based pay (maybe tied to a certifaction system or something).
c) Simple, practical rules for firing deadweight.
Your union doesn't have to be like everybody else's. Why do you start by assuming you'll do exactly all the things you hate?
I like H. G. Wells' version better: One day the geeks emerge from their underground lairs and feast on the Eloi like the tasty veal they are.
I'd expect the commercial release to be a lot more capable.
According to this smarty man, there's probably not enough plutonium inside a pacemaker to poison a small bunny rabbit. I imagine the crash testing is still pretty rigorous, though.
Actually, I've got all three. What does that mean?
1. Buy Microsoft products
2. Exploit MS security holes
3. Disclose information about the break-in
4. ???
5. Profit!
May I be excused, now?
Well, if Peter Pan was originally a gimmicky idea wrapped in a weak story and minimal audience involvement, then yes, a remake that replaced the gimmicks with modern FX, fleshed out the story, and increased audience involvement and interaction with the characters--a remake like that would certainly be a cure. Not a cure for obsolescence (which usually isn't a real concern in movies), but a cure for a bad movie.
Since the original (Disney) version of the movie was not gimmicky, had a solid story, and engaged the audience, such a remake would be a waste of time, and Disney will wisely stick to re-releasing the original on each new media type to hit the market.
Dragon's Lair, on the other hand, was very gimmicky, &c. The idea of the game appealed to me very much, but the space-chimp gameplay prevented me from spending more than 50 cents on it in 30 years. If they re-release it using modern game design principles instead of that stupid laser-disc twitch bullshit, I might just have to get me a new coffee table--er, XBox.
I didn't need to see the film: I saw the trailer.
Isn't it funny how movie trailers are always either Early Warning Systems ("That movie will obviously suck"), or Defilers of All That Is Good ("Gandalf survived?")?
Give me movie teasers any day. Enough footage to build interest and suspense, and not nearly enough time to work in a decent spoiler--let alone all of them.
It's actually a lot worse than that: The people who produce trailers are invariably clueless fuckwads who apparently get paid a living wage to violently rip the newness out of any movie they work on.
Your only hope is to keep reminding yourself that it's the producer's fault, not the director's.
It's kind of lame to arbitrarily restrict yourself to a subset of nature's built-in rules. If the bull isn't smart enough to build a millenial civilazation that strictly limits opportunities for humans to kill bulls, that's their problem. My idea of a fair fight is everybody using everything they've got. The bull gets his horns, and I get my cell phone.
Does this mean that if I'm smarter than you, then you're a valid meal for me?
Live action and anime are both human artifacts. They mean whatever we humans say they mean. If "99%" of humans classify anime as a subset of (live action) movies, then isn't that exactly what they are?
If you're going to insist that it's the other way around, then you should at least establish a criteria for classifying movies that's independent of human culture and perception. Without that other criteria, your assertion is untrue.
Additionally, a huge portion of the article is about how real animation can be, especially in context. Did you even read the article?
Please. Akira is all about annoying bouncing kids. Where "bouncing" means either "bursting with deadly psychic power" or "member of a punkass motorcycle gang", or both, depending on the character.
Clearly, Buffy must be an inferior show. After all, "Corporate Troll" doesn't like it.
Oh, wait... damn.
Many of your complaints seem to be about differences of style, rather than differences of skill.
As far as animation techniques go, don't you think it's a little naive to compare CG studios like Pixar to manual and mixed-media studios?
I'll admit that there's a lot of ass "anime" out there--just like there's a lot of ass "cartoons" out there (seen the new He-Man recently?). Compare the majority of the two animation genres (American and Japanese), and it feels like you're juding a competition for the worst animation ever.
On the other hand, if you look at the high end of manual and mixed-media Japanese animation, you get things like Akira, Ghost, Lain, Metropolis, and Princess Mononoke. All of these compare favorably with the best American and European works, not just in story, but also in animation techniques and and artistic merit. I can't do anything about your style complaints, but if the biggest problem you have with anime is that "everybody's drawn funny", then anime at least has The Simpsons for company.
Who do real anarchists vote for?
Thanks, I'm familiar with all three sites. I actually have found no good reason to doubt the moon landings, so you don't need to waste any time there. As for creationism, I'm of the opinion that it's more properly in the realm of metaphysics, rather than science per se--at least until our science advances quite a bit farther than its current state. Meanwhile, I admit I'm a little dissapointed, probably because I didn't make myself clear: I was hoping you could summarize your arguments in your own words, perhaps along the lines of "I find the existence of a god to be an unreasonable proposition, for the following reasons...". Surely your belief system is an intensly personal thing, and not just a pointer to talkorigins.org!
Masamune Shirow manages to combine hardboiled SWAT action with solid discussions of human spirituality, in a tale of postapocalyptic utopia that is anything but typical of the genre. Pick up Appleseed wherever fine comics are sold!
If you can see the religion in Card's works, you should have no problem finding it in the Culture novels of Iain M. Banks. Fair warning, though: Banks comes at it from the opposite direction.HTH. HAND!
I can only assume that you have one or more solid, rational arguments, based on commonly accepted facts, to support your position. What are they?
This isn't meant to be a flamewar, mind you. If you have strong arguments on which you base your beliefs, I'm sincerely eager to know them.
Bitter much?
Care to show some sort of logical relationship between creation science, theories of human reproduction, and moon landing conspiracies? Or do we just have to trust your angry little mind to figure it all out for us?
And what, if anything, does your ranting have to do with giving specific examples of school districts where teachers disbelieve the moon landings?
I guess that when all you have is an axe to grind, everything looks like a whetstone.
Yay. Hundreds of SUV owners use their SUVs in some close approximation of how the television tells them it should be used.
Compare that to the thousands who use them almost exclusively to commute, pick up groceries, or take the kids to soccer practice.
Not to mention the whole debate you hinted at--that these vehicles aren't actually even appropriate for the kind of use that the television proposes. Or the debate about whether or not the drivers are properly qualified for these fantastical depictions of "extreme driving".
Your Landrover website aside, the trend seems to be as follows: Your television tells you to buy the SUV for its extreme driving capability. You do what you television tells you to do, and then use the SUV almost exclusively for mundane driving tasks.
Meanwhile, companies like Subaru and Volvo are making AWD cars that not only have superior extreme driving capabilities, but have smaller footprints, better mileage, better price points, and significantly less emissions.
I have no patience for your Landrover enthusiasts. The amount of money they're spending to bounce over muddy tussocks is laughable. The visual obstruction they pose on the highway, and the level of pollution they contribute in pursuit of their own amusement, promptly drains all the humor out of the situation. Go offroad all you want. I'm not against having fun. But keep your over-sized, gas-guzzling, luxury follies the fuck away from my commute.
You can? That's pretty funny, since I though proving the absolute non-existence of something was a logical impossibility. Meanwhile, in the real world, I have yet to see any such "undeniable evidence". If I did see such evidence, and it really did stand up to the standard tests of reason, then I certainly wouldn't cop out with some sort of excuse like the one you suggest. I'd change my beliefs to something more reasonable.
Meanwhile, I wonder what the canonical atheist cop-out would be, should he or she be shown undeniable evidence that god does exist.
Are you sure about that? Last time I checked the moon did rotate, such that the same face always pointed towards the earth during its orbit. You may have meant that there's no "dark side" of the moon, since it shows all of its surface to the sun during its orbit(s).
I'm curious to know what districts are teaching that the moon landing never happened. Do you happen to have any examples handy?
I spend most days pissed off at the world, too, and I'm only about 1/3 German!