Except for the 2302 people who gave it a 1. And before you go off saying "oh those people are fanatics that just have an ax to grind" the inverse could just as easily be said about those who gave it a 10.
As for me and my bunch of people having a problem, I don't think that's a valid conclusion. I've talked to more people (in real life) that thought it was a bad movie than thought it was a great movie. IMDB's ratings are skewed because the sample is not representative of the general population, i.e. the geek crowd is over-represented. And LoTR clearly appeals to the geek crowd.
How can LoTR REALLY win more Oscars? How about by making a movie that wasn't terribly boring to sit through for over three hours, with no suspense and no ending whatsoever (yes I'm well aware that it's a trilogy, but the original 3 Star Wars episodes were a trilogy as well, and each one had a distinct conclusion). I saw the movie with three other people, none of whom enjoyed it at all, and one actually got up and left for an hour because she thought it was so bad. Can I see how people thought this was a decent movie? Definitely. But best movie of all time, or even this year? No way. The effects and animation were impressive, but that still doesn't make a movie great. And as a side note, I am happy to see that The Godfather has reclaimed the top spot on IMDB's Top 250 poll - although I am eagerly anticipating The Shawshank Redemption reclaiming #2. Oh wait, I just checked and apparently it did just in the past several days. What a relief.
Re:Why does the academy love Mentally ill/challeng
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 1
For example Rain Man, Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind.
Gee, I don't know, perhaps because all of the movies you listed were good movies?
Of course, this from the same class of salespeople who said "if you hook a DVD player into a VCR, the VCR will probably fry, so you best avoid going through the VCR, or else you mught void the warranty and have to get a new VCR..."
No, but hooking your DVD player through a VCR often won't work because of copy-protection. So you won't break your VCR (duh) but with most DVD discs you probably won't get a good picture showing up on your TV.
Cyrix chips also had compatability issues with Intel processors. Although I must say, I used to work in a computer store and we would always explain the whole PR thing to customers, and upon hearing that, most didn't want the Cyrix. People are just too fixated on sheer MHz.
I believe that original article was about government issued driver's licenses being used to collect data.
Yes, but more specifically, the article was about government-issued drivers' licenses being used by businesses in the private sector to collect data. The government just issued the DL, it's the companies that are (mis?)using the data.
You think it's bad now, just wait until a Nationally Uniform Driver's License/State ID (i.e. Personal ID card) is made law.
With respect to the article, it won't make a difference. From the sounds of it, the data on current cards is standard (and in a more-or-less standard format from state to state, or possibly the card readers can read all the different formats from each state; whichever the case may be is irrelevant), so a license from any state can be read. A federally-issued ID will change nothing in that regard.
But they can track your travel habits... your criminal record, etc
Are you saying the government SHOULDN'T track a person's criminal record???? I (and probably 99% of the population) would have to disagree with you there. No they probably shouldn't know how much money you have in your bank account, but since you (supposedly) report all your income and certain major expenditures to the IRS, they can probably make a rough guess even without looking at your bank statement.
I don't buy into Pascal's wager either, but there's a fundamental difference between its application to religion and its application here. With religion, you have to take into consideration WHICH supreme being you're supposed to believe in. If I believe in the christian god and the Hindus are right, I'll come back as an ant. Since there's so many religions, picking one to believe in doesn't really do much to improve your chances. And there's still the possibility that a supreme being exists, but none of the world's religions have it right.
However, with the environment, you're either screwed or you're not. And with acid rain there is TANGIBLE evidence that our actions are adversely affecting the environment (if you don't believe me, try catching a fish in many of the lakes in the Adirondacks). To me that's more compelling than the environmental version of Pascal's wager, but even without any evidence at all, the environment is still a better bet than religion.
UNIVERSITIES should not be using software that they have to pay for
You're joking, right? So every computer on every campus in the world should run either Linux or FreeBSD? What if it's a machine that Linux doesn't support, i.e. SGI (it actually does "works" on some systems, for lack of a better word)? Graphics design majors shouldn't be exposed to Photoshop, they should learn on the GIMP just on principle? Word shouldn't be available to students, even though (unfortunately) it is the de-facto standard word processor file format in the "real world"? What about AutoCAD? You're clearly insane.
The one built by DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency? Defense as in U.S. Department of Defense? Somehow I doubt the US government "wrote off" its expenses, considering it doesn't pay taxes to itself. And the government spends extraordinary amounts of money on countless research projects just like darpanet, expecting a return on investment on only a few of them. The government can do that. Corporations can't, unless there is a reasonable expectation for success. And judging by the number of failed/failing open source companies out there right now, why should there be any expectation for success in that field?
The problem is, in most cases under Windows, you don't need a HOWTO to get your zip drive working, or your cd burner working. The hardware is plugged in, the machine turned on, the driver CD inserted, and away you go. As much as you want to bury your head in the sand and say "Linux isn't that hard to use," until the HOWTOs for basic things (like CD burning and zip drives) are unnecessary, Windows will still have the upper hand.
Now before you start flaming me saying "yeah in most cases, but what about the cases where everything doesn't play nice," things don't always play nice under Linux either.
And before you mod me down for being a Windows luser, I haven't had a Microsoft product on my system in almost 4 years.
Please... When has MS looking bad ever really hurt them? Do we remember back not so long ago, during the anti-trust trial, how many times their people left the stand with egg on their faces? And how much has that hurt their market share? Sure this might make them look bad to/. readers, but they looked bad to us already. The average PC user isn't even going to hear about this, much less care.
I think you missed the original poster's point. Whatever you were talking about had nothing to do w/ what he said.
Perhaps you were trying to reply to this comment?
Someone broke the window of my car and stole my stereo. What I don't get: Why is there need for a legal remedy here? Why didn't I just use existing technology to prevent this person from breaking into my car? I could have used bullet-proof glass in my windows, or installed a car alarm.
Re-read the website you linked to, or better yet go up a level. Even better, I'll give you a direct link. The original "circuit courts" were abolished in 1912, and were replaced with the "circuit courts of appeals," which were established in 1891. These courts do not have original jurisdiction, only appellate jurisdiction. If I remember correctly from Rehnquist's book on the Supreme Court, the courts of appeals were established in order to limit the growing load on the Supreme Court (prior to the establishment of the appeals courts, the Supreme Court was the only court with appellate jurisdiction - appeals went straight from the district courts to the Supreme Court).
This issue has NOTHING to do with deep linking of pages. It concerns, for instance, cnn.com putting in a page on their site. BIG difference, since your average clueful surfer would have NO idea that the image comes from someone else's server (unless of course your idea of a clueful surfer is someone who views webpages by telnet'ing to port 80 and reading the raw html =)
One might as well count the drug lords in South America as philanthropists as well.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Are these men donating billions of dollars to charity? No, they are getting rich off the millions of dollars that junkies in America and other developed nations steal from legitimate citizens in order to fund their drug habit. And their "product" is lethal. How many people do you know have gotten killed by WindowsXP or Office?
The fact that Bill Gates is giving away money doesn't make him generous.
Yes, in fact it does. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines generous as "liberal in giving." I would say that someone who donates billions of dollars, no matter what his ulterior motives may be, is generous.
artificially raised the price of Microsoft software.
Software such as Windows? Which has cost the same amount for years now? The price hasn't even followed inflation, so therefore the real price of Windows has declined over the years.
Do you really believe that the man who claimed that church was a waste of time is giving money for purely altruistic reasons?
As a devout atheist, I take offense to this. I claim that church is a waste of time too. Does this mean any gifts I give to charity are for selfish reasons? Why does someone's ability to be altruistic depend on his religious inclinations?
The U.S. forefathers may have intended the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, but they also believed that it was the duty of patriots to overthrow oppressive or tyranical government.
Funny, then, that treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 3).
Jefferson is quoted as saying that revolution is, in fact, needed every 20 years or so.
Washington took office in 1789. Jefferson left office is 1809, 20 years later. Apparently revolution was about due, and he was in a position to lead one, so why didn't he?
Microsoft is a called a monopoly, yet still there are other OS's, other browsers and other Office Suites.
Microsoft was not charged with having a monopoly over the browser and office suite industry, they were charged with having an OS monopoly and unfairly using that monopoly to gain advantage in the browser and office suite world. A question, since IANAL: Microsoft charged for its OSes, whereas AOL gives away AIM for free. Does this make a difference in terms of one being a monopoly and the other not?
Advertisment as a revenue stream is insane in my opinion.
I agree with you, but apparently most companies don't. Or else no one would pay $2 million for a 30-second ad spot for the Super Bowl. And yes, these ads will be played no matter how many people are watching at the time, but how much the advertiser pays for the ad depends on how many people are expected to be watching.
Slashdot Mirror
5XORROT13
Damn... that's the combination on my luggage!
Except for the 2302 people who gave it a 1. And before you go off saying "oh those people are fanatics that just have an ax to grind" the inverse could just as easily be said about those who gave it a 10.
As for me and my bunch of people having a problem, I don't think that's a valid conclusion. I've talked to more people (in real life) that thought it was a bad movie than thought it was a great movie. IMDB's ratings are skewed because the sample is not representative of the general population, i.e. the geek crowd is over-represented. And LoTR clearly appeals to the geek crowd.
(watching karma fall through the floor...)
How can LoTR REALLY win more Oscars? How about by making a movie that wasn't terribly boring to sit through for over three hours, with no suspense and no ending whatsoever (yes I'm well aware that it's a trilogy, but the original 3 Star Wars episodes were a trilogy as well, and each one had a distinct conclusion). I saw the movie with three other people, none of whom enjoyed it at all, and one actually got up and left for an hour because she thought it was so bad. Can I see how people thought this was a decent movie? Definitely. But best movie of all time, or even this year? No way. The effects and animation were impressive, but that still doesn't make a movie great. And as a side note, I am happy to see that The Godfather has reclaimed the top spot on IMDB's Top 250 poll - although I am eagerly anticipating The Shawshank Redemption reclaiming #2. Oh wait, I just checked and apparently it did just in the past several days. What a relief.
For example Rain Man, Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind.
Gee, I don't know, perhaps because all of the movies you listed were good movies?
Of course, this from the same class of salespeople who said "if you hook a DVD player into a VCR, the VCR will probably fry, so you best avoid going through the VCR, or else you mught void the warranty and have to get a new VCR..."
No, but hooking your DVD player through a VCR often won't work because of copy-protection. So you won't break your VCR (duh) but with most DVD discs you probably won't get a good picture showing up on your TV.
Cyrix chips also had compatability issues with Intel processors. Although I must say, I used to work in a computer store and we would always explain the whole PR thing to customers, and upon hearing that, most didn't want the Cyrix. People are just too fixated on sheer MHz.
I believe that original article was about government issued driver's licenses being used to collect data.
... your criminal record, etc
Yes, but more specifically, the article was about government-issued drivers' licenses being used by businesses in the private sector to collect data. The government just issued the DL, it's the companies that are (mis?)using the data.
You think it's bad now, just wait until a Nationally Uniform Driver's License/State ID (i.e. Personal ID card) is made law.
With respect to the article, it won't make a difference. From the sounds of it, the data on current cards is standard (and in a more-or-less standard format from state to state, or possibly the card readers can read all the different formats from each state; whichever the case may be is irrelevant), so a license from any state can be read. A federally-issued ID will change nothing in that regard.
But they can track your travel habits
Are you saying the government SHOULDN'T track a person's criminal record???? I (and probably 99% of the population) would have to disagree with you there. No they probably shouldn't know how much money you have in your bank account, but since you (supposedly) report all your income and certain major expenditures to the IRS, they can probably make a rough guess even without looking at your bank statement.
I don't buy into Pascal's wager either, but there's a fundamental difference between its application to religion and its application here. With religion, you have to take into consideration WHICH supreme being you're supposed to believe in. If I believe in the christian god and the Hindus are right, I'll come back as an ant. Since there's so many religions, picking one to believe in doesn't really do much to improve your chances. And there's still the possibility that a supreme being exists, but none of the world's religions have it right.
However, with the environment, you're either screwed or you're not. And with acid rain there is TANGIBLE evidence that our actions are adversely affecting the environment (if you don't believe me, try catching a fish in many of the lakes in the Adirondacks). To me that's more compelling than the environmental version of Pascal's wager, but even without any evidence at all, the environment is still a better bet than religion.
UNIVERSITIES should not be using software that they have to pay for
You're joking, right? So every computer on every campus in the world should run either Linux or FreeBSD? What if it's a machine that Linux doesn't support, i.e. SGI (it actually does "works" on some systems, for lack of a better word)? Graphics design majors shouldn't be exposed to Photoshop, they should learn on the GIMP just on principle? Word shouldn't be available to students, even though (unfortunately) it is the de-facto standard word processor file format in the "real world"? What about AutoCAD? You're clearly insane.
First compilers are the MOST useful compilers since they are the ones that will be used to create the later ones.
Yeah, once. And then you use the later (better?) one to build itself.
What about the original darpa net
The one built by DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency? Defense as in U.S. Department of Defense? Somehow I doubt the US government "wrote off" its expenses, considering it doesn't pay taxes to itself. And the government spends extraordinary amounts of money on countless research projects just like darpanet, expecting a return on investment on only a few of them. The government can do that. Corporations can't, unless there is a reasonable expectation for success. And judging by the number of failed/failing open source companies out there right now, why should there be any expectation for success in that field?
The problem is, in most cases under Windows, you don't need a HOWTO to get your zip drive working, or your cd burner working. The hardware is plugged in, the machine turned on, the driver CD inserted, and away you go. As much as you want to bury your head in the sand and say "Linux isn't that hard to use," until the HOWTOs for basic things (like CD burning and zip drives) are unnecessary, Windows will still have the upper hand.
Now before you start flaming me saying "yeah in most cases, but what about the cases where everything doesn't play nice," things don't always play nice under Linux either.
And before you mod me down for being a Windows luser, I haven't had a Microsoft product on my system in almost 4 years.
Please... When has MS looking bad ever really hurt them? Do we remember back not so long ago, during the anti-trust trial, how many times their people left the stand with egg on their faces? And how much has that hurt their market share? Sure this might make them look bad to /. readers, but they looked bad to us already. The average PC user isn't even going to hear about this, much less care.
I think you missed the original poster's point. Whatever you were talking about had nothing to do w/ what he said. Perhaps you were trying to reply to this comment?
Maybe it's rude, but it's not illegal.
The court deciding the case disagrees with you.
Someone broke the window of my car and stole my stereo. What I don't get: Why is there need for a legal remedy here? Why didn't I just use existing technology to prevent this person from breaking into my car? I could have used bullet-proof glass in my windows, or installed a car alarm.
Re-read the website you linked to, or better yet go up a level. Even better, I'll give you a direct link. The original "circuit courts" were abolished in 1912, and were replaced with the "circuit courts of appeals," which were established in 1891. These courts do not have original jurisdiction, only appellate jurisdiction. If I remember correctly from Rehnquist's book on the Supreme Court, the courts of appeals were established in order to limit the growing load on the Supreme Court (prior to the establishment of the appeals courts, the Supreme Court was the only court with appellate jurisdiction - appeals went straight from the district courts to the Supreme Court).
The courts are not interfering with your right to link to ANYTHING. Putting up a link (as in an tag) to anywhere, no matter if it's linked deeply into a site or not, saying "click here to see this image" is not declared illegal by this decision. In the text of the decision, what the defendant did was incorporated the linked image into their OWN page. As in, It wasn't as if the thumbnail link went DIRECTLY to the image on the other server, where anyone with a clue could look at their location bar and say "oh lookie there, I'm at this other site now!" The thumbnail link went to ANOTHER one of the defandant's pages, which had the image in-lined, in the defendant's own context. As the decision says, displaying the image out of the creator's context violates the creator's exclusive right to publicly display his work. And as for my personal opinion on the matter, I have a webpage with lots of pictures on the Adirondack Mountains (shameless plug: www.adirondack-park.net), and if one day I was surfing the net and found someone doing this with one of my pictures, I'd be pissed.
This issue has NOTHING to do with deep linking of pages. It concerns, for instance, cnn.com putting in a page on their site. BIG difference, since your average clueful surfer would have NO idea that the image comes from someone else's server (unless of course your idea of a clueful surfer is someone who views webpages by telnet'ing to port 80 and reading the raw html =)
I realize this is a troll, but I'll bite...
One might as well count the drug lords in South America as philanthropists as well.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Are these men donating billions of dollars to charity? No, they are getting rich off the millions of dollars that junkies in America and other developed nations steal from legitimate citizens in order to fund their drug habit. And their "product" is lethal. How many people do you know have gotten killed by WindowsXP or Office?
The fact that Bill Gates is giving away money doesn't make him generous.
Yes, in fact it does. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines generous as "liberal in giving." I would say that someone who donates billions of dollars, no matter what his ulterior motives may be, is generous.
artificially raised the price of Microsoft software.
Software such as Windows? Which has cost the same amount for years now? The price hasn't even followed inflation, so therefore the real price of Windows has declined over the years.
Do you really believe that the man who claimed that church was a waste of time is giving money for purely altruistic reasons?
As a devout atheist, I take offense to this. I claim that church is a waste of time too. Does this mean any gifts I give to charity are for selfish reasons? Why does someone's ability to be altruistic depend on his religious inclinations?
C# has three kinds of pointers-- managed, unmanaged and transient.
Sounds like a mess. Too complicated.
And Java has 4 types of references: strong, soft, weak, and phantom, but nobody ever complains that that's a mess or "too complicated."
the much cheaper, easier to license, and GPLed MySql
You forgot to include "much less functional" in your list. Try doing label security in MySQL.
The U.S. forefathers may have intended the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, but they also believed that it was the duty of patriots to overthrow oppressive or tyranical government.
Funny, then, that treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 3).
Jefferson is quoted as saying that revolution is, in fact, needed every 20 years or so.
Washington took office in 1789. Jefferson left office is 1809, 20 years later. Apparently revolution was about due, and he was in a position to lead one, so why didn't he?
Microsoft is a called a monopoly, yet still there are other OS's, other browsers and other Office Suites.
Microsoft was not charged with having a monopoly over the browser and office suite industry, they were charged with having an OS monopoly and unfairly using that monopoly to gain advantage in the browser and office suite world. A question, since IANAL: Microsoft charged for its OSes, whereas AOL gives away AIM for free. Does this make a difference in terms of one being a monopoly and the other not?
Advertisment as a revenue stream is insane in my opinion.
I agree with you, but apparently most companies don't. Or else no one would pay $2 million for a 30-second ad spot for the Super Bowl. And yes, these ads will be played no matter how many people are watching at the time, but how much the advertiser pays for the ad depends on how many people are expected to be watching.