I'm not saying it's "as good", I'm merely talking about the effect on culture. I'm not really a huge Star Wars fan.
Anyway, your argument is really just posturing. What do you mean by more "humanity" and "thickness"? These are empty words to make yourself sound more sophisticated--I'm not falling for it.
I'm not emotionally attached to the movies, in all honesty I don't remember the original 3 very well.
The "story is crap"? The "characters empty"? That's your contemporary opinion, but IF, IF Star Wars last I wonder if that will be the opinion of the future. If this all was true no one would even like Star Wars.
Of course, your argument is really all just your opinion, and thus is worthless--the only thing that matters is whether Star Wars lasts or not, what people in general think, not what you think. I don't know if Star Wars will last but I suspect it would.
So yeah, you can attack Star Wars and defend all the classics with essentially meaningless words in order to try to win an argument about how long SW will last using only your opinion, but it doesn't make you any smarter....and how about the Bible? Now there's a boring, drawn-out piece of literature there...! Shallow characters, plot lines are non-existent, virtually no character development. Greek mythology is so much RICHER and more SOPHISTICATED.... maybe I could say there is more THICKNESS and HUMANITY in the Greek mythologies...!
cosplaying, IRL role-playing, etc, are not nerd behaviors... nerds frequently laugh at such antics. There's really no word that describes that level of depravity, actually.
No, it really has shaped the course of human history. Of course, you can say that about anything (butterfly's wings causing a tornado in china blah blah) but Star Wars has had a massive cultural effect on us.
Has The Iliad changed history? Of course. Machiavelli's The Prince? What about da Vinci's Mona Lisa? What about Shakespeare and his works? Each work, whether artistic or philosophical, greatly influences later works and Star Wars (the original three) are a benchmark by which much sci-fi is compared to--even the newer, crappier three.
I doubt that hundreds of years from now history will forget Star Wars and other films. It's possible, but considering we still have Beowulf and Romeo and Juliet and such, I think it's safe to say that yes, Star Wars (whether you like it or hate it) has had a great cultural impact on us.
Bullshit, not because they won't remove videos, but because youtube is notorious for removing "offensive" material--whether it's insulting women or even something like bashing religion, presumably because people don't like having their dogmas trampled-- or just plain removing material on rather spurious grounds, and I'm not even talking about removing videos wrongly due to DMCA complaints.
Of course they'll leave up terrorist videos because it'll get them more hits.
Semantic wankery. Technology has increased our lifespans, has cured diseases and medical ailments, etc.
You can say technology doesn't solve problems, only by denying what is and isn't a problem and trying to claim things that are problems (to at least post people) are not. Naturally it depends on what you think the problem is, but to say technology doesn't solve problems is ridiculous. Take your Luddite nonsense somewhere that isn't a nerd/technology/computer website...
You're right, it's more of a safe haven for pedophiles and people with weird beliefs and ideological bents to make sure the articles are as "NPOV" (read: slanted towards their delusions) as possible.
At one time, the majority thought it was OK to enslave people.
Your apology for atrocities because the majority of people in a place are bigots means nothing to me. Even if one person wants to exercise his right to look at pornography, then he damn well should without the rest of the world's assholes interfering with him.
In those cases, the constitution is amended; both the reinterpreted sections, "general welfare", "necessary and proper", and a host of other clauses, including probably the second amendment next, are not being reinterpreted due to "unforeseen" things happening but because of the political climate changing.
So only happly-tingly feely emotions, right? Whether the reasons are true or not? That's downright frightening... "You will love us, or we will lock you up"
That's the stance the courts have taken, but that only works if you ignore the fact that the founding fathers were extremely big on "enumerated powers"; the fact that what the government could do had to be specifically mentioned by the constitution.
In fact, that's the particular reason we had a constitution--theoretically, at least, so the "people" had a contract with the government. You also have to remember, back then, statehood meant something different than today--in fact, people identified themselves more by their states and often identified their loyalty with their state; this has been eroded over time.
People like to treat the Constitution like they do a religious document and view it through contemporary beliefs and lenses instead of what the writers thought. I'm not even arguing that they were right or were making a good government back then, merely that relying on the courts or contemporary beliefs doesn't change what the law was, and that it's kind of shady and intellectually dishonest to try to change the law by reinterpretation.
I do think that the best course of action is to continually review and tweak the law instead of playing word games or relying on semantics, like the whole arguments over the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses. "Vague" terminology in laws scare me; there's something really unsettling to me on debates over what the law is.
Naturally, though, once people got in power they discovered that they didn't have the authority to do what they wanted to do so they found ways to try to do it anyway. That's the way of things, I guess--.
If your ISP lets you, that's wonderful, but not all ISPs do. I doubt most even do.
Additionally, you mistake that even though the feds may not be able to win against you in COURT, they can still TAKE you to court, and can steal, er, take your computers as part of the investigation and maybe give them back to you next year if you're lucky.
I didn't say you'd end up in prison for a reason--I simply meant that the government will go after you; innocent or guilty, it hurts the same either way.
And in regards to cable stealing, one could also technically run the coaxial to a neighbor's house, and to everyone in the neighborhood, but I'm pretty sure that's not legal either.
I know the slashdot crowd is a big fan of free things, aren't we all, but when you sign on for internet you agree it's for your household, apartment, or whatever, not for you to provide publicly (even though many people inadvertently do with unsecured wireless networks).
Just like you can't steal cable or run a cable over to your neighbor's, you can't steal internet service either.
Likewise, when someone pirates something using your network, the person getting sued will probably be the person that pays the bill--you. And just think what would happen if someone downloads child pornography on your connection...!
Service is intended for one household only. And you're going "OMG GREEDY ISPS!!!" because they want to make money? It's their service! The greedy bastard here, is you.
Newsflash: It's not your service. Feel free to make a personal wireless network that doesn't connect to the ISP's network, but don't be stealing their service "just because you can".
Bad as the media companies for wanting "control over networks"? Here they'd just stop it because it's people are breaking the terms of agreement. It's NO DIFFERENT THAN COMMON CABLE THEFT. Oh, do you support stealing that, too?
Slashdot Mirror
I recall a certain minority "sending a signal" over buses once upon a time... with success. It can work.
I'm not saying it's "as good", I'm merely talking about the effect on culture. I'm not really a huge Star Wars fan.
...and how about the Bible? Now there's a boring, drawn-out piece of literature there...! Shallow characters, plot lines are non-existent, virtually no character development. Greek mythology is so much RICHER and more SOPHISTICATED.... maybe I could say there is more THICKNESS and HUMANITY in the Greek mythologies...!
Anyway, your argument is really just posturing. What do you mean by more "humanity" and "thickness"? These are empty words to make yourself sound more sophisticated--I'm not falling for it.
I'm not emotionally attached to the movies, in all honesty I don't remember the original 3 very well.
The "story is crap"? The "characters empty"? That's your contemporary opinion, but IF, IF Star Wars last I wonder if that will be the opinion of the future. If this all was true no one would even like Star Wars.
Of course, your argument is really all just your opinion, and thus is worthless--the only thing that matters is whether Star Wars lasts or not, what people in general think, not what you think. I don't know if Star Wars will last but I suspect it would.
So yeah, you can attack Star Wars and defend all the classics with essentially meaningless words in order to try to win an argument about how long SW will last using only your opinion, but it doesn't make you any smarter.
And what if one thinks the Iliad was a heap of crap? Shakespeare had his fiery critics, too.
It doesn't matter how you feel, it matters what its lasting value is, and I think Star Wars is "here to stay".
cosplaying, IRL role-playing, etc, are not nerd behaviors... nerds frequently laugh at such antics. There's really no word that describes that level of depravity, actually.
No, it really has shaped the course of human history. Of course, you can say that about anything (butterfly's wings causing a tornado in china blah blah) but Star Wars has had a massive cultural effect on us.
Has The Iliad changed history? Of course. Machiavelli's The Prince? What about da Vinci's Mona Lisa? What about Shakespeare and his works? Each work, whether artistic or philosophical, greatly influences later works and Star Wars (the original three) are a benchmark by which much sci-fi is compared to--even the newer, crappier three.
I doubt that hundreds of years from now history will forget Star Wars and other films. It's possible, but considering we still have Beowulf and Romeo and Juliet and such, I think it's safe to say that yes, Star Wars (whether you like it or hate it) has had a great cultural impact on us.
Bullshit, not because they won't remove videos, but because youtube is notorious for removing "offensive" material--whether it's insulting women or even something like bashing religion, presumably because people don't like having their dogmas trampled-- or just plain removing material on rather spurious grounds, and I'm not even talking about removing videos wrongly due to DMCA complaints.
Of course they'll leave up terrorist videos because it'll get them more hits.
Semantic wankery. Technology has increased our lifespans, has cured diseases and medical ailments, etc.
You can say technology doesn't solve problems, only by denying what is and isn't a problem and trying to claim things that are problems (to at least post people) are not. Naturally it depends on what you think the problem is, but to say technology doesn't solve problems is ridiculous. Take your Luddite nonsense somewhere that isn't a nerd/technology/computer website...
What are you blabbering about? TECHNOLOGY IS FOR SOLVING HUMAN PROBLEMS. That's the whole point of technology!
I can't believe you got modded up as insightful.
You're right, it's more of a safe haven for pedophiles and people with weird beliefs and ideological bents to make sure the articles are as "NPOV" (read: slanted towards their delusions) as possible.
Lowest child abuse rate, or lowest REPORTED child abuse rate--especially for a country that has placed a high emphasis on shame, so to speak.
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.
Yeah, for a few nights here in Omaha I've found my connection shut off ~2AM only to come back on an hour later. This probably skews results...?
Unfortunately, it was also a movie nobody else wanted him to have made, after they saw it.
At one time, the majority thought it was OK to enslave people.
Your apology for atrocities because the majority of people in a place are bigots means nothing to me. Even if one person wants to exercise his right to look at pornography, then he damn well should without the rest of the world's assholes interfering with him.
Once "free speech" means "socially acceptable" speech then it's no longer "free speech" at all, and thus it becomes another meaningless buzzword.
In those cases, the constitution is amended; both the reinterpreted sections, "general welfare", "necessary and proper", and a host of other clauses, including probably the second amendment next, are not being reinterpreted due to "unforeseen" things happening but because of the political climate changing.
Are you defaming his human integrity by accusing him of being ridiculous? He has RIGHTS, you know.
You'll be slapped in chains shortly.
So only happly-tingly feely emotions, right? Whether the reasons are true or not? That's downright frightening... "You will love us, or we will lock you up"
That's the stance the courts have taken, but that only works if you ignore the fact that the founding fathers were extremely big on "enumerated powers"; the fact that what the government could do had to be specifically mentioned by the constitution.
In fact, that's the particular reason we had a constitution--theoretically, at least, so the "people" had a contract with the government. You also have to remember, back then, statehood meant something different than today--in fact, people identified themselves more by their states and often identified their loyalty with their state; this has been eroded over time.
People like to treat the Constitution like they do a religious document and view it through contemporary beliefs and lenses instead of what the writers thought. I'm not even arguing that they were right or were making a good government back then, merely that relying on the courts or contemporary beliefs doesn't change what the law was, and that it's kind of shady and intellectually dishonest to try to change the law by reinterpretation.
I do think that the best course of action is to continually review and tweak the law instead of playing word games or relying on semantics, like the whole arguments over the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses. "Vague" terminology in laws scare me; there's something really unsettling to me on debates over what the law is.
Naturally, though, once people got in power they discovered that they didn't have the authority to do what they wanted to do so they found ways to try to do it anyway. That's the way of things, I guess--.
If your ISP lets you, that's wonderful, but not all ISPs do. I doubt most even do.
Additionally, you mistake that even though the feds may not be able to win against you in COURT, they can still TAKE you to court, and can steal, er, take your computers as part of the investigation and maybe give them back to you next year if you're lucky.
I didn't say you'd end up in prison for a reason--I simply meant that the government will go after you; innocent or guilty, it hurts the same either way.
And in regards to cable stealing, one could also technically run the coaxial to a neighbor's house, and to everyone in the neighborhood, but I'm pretty sure that's not legal either.
I know the slashdot crowd is a big fan of free things, aren't we all, but when you sign on for internet you agree it's for your household, apartment, or whatever, not for you to provide publicly (even though many people inadvertently do with unsecured wireless networks).
Just like you can't steal cable or run a cable over to your neighbor's, you can't steal internet service either.
Likewise, when someone pirates something using your network, the person getting sued will probably be the person that pays the bill--you. And just think what would happen if someone downloads child pornography on your connection...!
Service is intended for one household only. And you're going "OMG GREEDY ISPS!!!" because they want to make money? It's their service! The greedy bastard here, is you. Newsflash: It's not your service. Feel free to make a personal wireless network that doesn't connect to the ISP's network, but don't be stealing their service "just because you can". Bad as the media companies for wanting "control over networks"? Here they'd just stop it because it's people are breaking the terms of agreement. It's NO DIFFERENT THAN COMMON CABLE THEFT. Oh, do you support stealing that, too?
Why Flamebait? The WHO is a left-wing organization.