I find it funny that you're using an term "comic book movie", a mashup of three different types of mediums, to refer to specific type with a specific audience with specific needs. Funnier still that I understand exactly what you're talking about.
I'd say that Sandman, while ostensibly a comic book, would make more of a "book movie" than a "comic book movie".
Because Dream in a morally neutral godly powerful main character who ultimately chooses suicide over compromise and not the sort to fill out the good-guy/bad-guy dichotomy.
We had a baby shower at the family reunion. One of the great aunts tried to convince us to have more kids. Said that having a brother and sister was some sort of fundamental experience. She wanted four, two boys and two girls, so each could have a brother and sister.
Thank you, but no, one will do us just fine. If he wants a brother, he can go boss around the cats.
So, two atoms fused together via this magnetic bonding, do they need to be in this ludicrous magnetic field to remain bonded?
If we, somehow, got the teslas to make a molecule or two of these, would they continue to exist outside of the lab? OR, if we went skinny-dipping in a white dwarf and picked up a handful of this crazy goop, and brought it back to earth, would they persist?
Also, does anyone really have even the slightest clue to the properties of these molecules?
So is it a business strategy to dump a big write-off the moment you start to stumble? I could see the reasoning go something like:
Sure, we lost money this year, hell, a LOT of money, but that's just because we wrote off that horrible clusterfuck from 2007. Had call it sometime, might as well do it now. Now, such a big hit is probably going to make some investors squabble, and our stock might even waver a little, but hey, this is a one-time thing. Our company is strong. Trust me.
Ok, I get the sentiment to disarm the populace. I don't particularly agree, but I understand the reasoning.
But I want to know why you make an exception for hunters. Does it somehow become sacred once it's recreational activity? Are you a hunter?
Does someone you know make a living on selling bullets or butchering deer?
I've got nothing. Even if you established a city-based local network, you're still allowing the general public in. Once you do that anyone can lie about where they're at, who they are, and what they're pushing. And my mother can still join.
Apparently I'm ok with Facebook being a college-only thing, since that's what happened with me. While Facebook does technically have a page on me, it's pretty stale. I never connected it with anything other than my.edu email, which hasn't existed forever. At some point facebook became something I wanted to secure, so instead of my throwaway passwords I bumped it up to something stronger... and promptly forgot it. With no accessable accounts hooked it it, that page is orphaned. I could probably bitch to Facebook and somehow get control of it... but meh.
But I guess one answer is that at that point in life you join linkedIn and stop posting pictures of your wild parties. Your past activites in college/facebook don't carry over to the professional world. But hey, that's just me.
Yeah, that was one of the signs for me to get out. Facebook was pretty hip and useful with just the right amount of local connectivity and compartamentalization that I found it useful but not scary. Then they let the highschool kids join. That was a mistake. Facebook was a college thing and highschool kids didn't really need in. No, they really didn't. Facebook handled the immediate events and social circles in college. Prospective students might have an interest, but they didn't need access while still in highschool. If facebook really wanted to enter that market, they should have fired up a seperate server for the school. Or kept a wall between the two groups. Yeah, those walls were important. And when the walls that were around every college broke down and suddenly everyone could be friends with everyone. And everyone could stalk everyone. And when my mother joined. Yep, that was a pretty clear sign that this cool local network was no longer local. Scrutiny would be up. Spam would be up. I was no longer dealing with my just my peers. I was now dealing with EVERYONE.
Now, I appreciate a tool that let's me manage, coordinate, and deal with the masses. But you add my mother to that mix, as much as I love my mother, it becomes lame.
Any party with my mother is just not one I'm going to have a good time at.
Where we remove our hands from the wheel and the car takes over, or it automatically taxis us home when we're drunk.
I just don't think I could put that amount of trust into any corporation. With the massive amount of password leaks lately and just the general track records of greedy corporations, they would need a HUGE incentive to get me on board.
So instead you trust the bank with all your money? The one with the online automatic payment system with only a password between the general public and your finances?
Ask yourself who would be nefarious with your auto-auto. What incentives THEM to go fuck with you? Sure, there are simply psychopaths who want to watch the world burn, but they're pretty rare and usually get caught after the first time. Maybe the radical offshoot of Mothers Against Automated Drunk Driving, but really, what are their chances? Meanwhile, your MONEY is a pretty big nearly-fungible incentive for a whole underground industry, but we still shuffle money around online.
If my password leaks out of my throw-away starbucks account, no big deal. I got the security that I expected. If my password leaks out of my bank, I'm going to be spitting fire and calling for blood. By and far THERE IS the appropriate amount of security.
It's actually "don't be evil" not "do no evil". You're probably getting confused with the three monkey thing. This is one of those persistent errors that society just don't care to fix.
Also, you know this post would carry a lot more weight if you linked a little sauce in there.
Well I imagine that if you can afford it, you'll simply be able to own the device, data, network, proxy, workaround, or whatever it is to let you use the device as you wish. To an extent. The poor on the other hand, simply can't pay for this stuff. You don't sell to the poor. What facebook has managed to do is sell poor people to marketers. And at the same time they provide an arguably meaningful service to the masses. Likewise Google gives out free services in exchange for ads, which is almost the same thing.
This is what you are afraid of.
But aren't you ok with it? Don't you come to Slashdot, maybe or maybe not view ads, and participate and consume the goodness? The typical.com website runs under this model. Simply by being the sort of person who comes to Slashdot, you've targeted yourself.
However, if you can afford it, and you don't use the government-subsidized Walmart-brand superhappyfuntime Hivemind of the future, I imagine that the government, marketers, salesmen, and other nefarious entities won't have unrestricted access to your dealings. You'll be able to afford privacy.
Kinda sucks for the poor, but it's always sucked to be poor.
Actually, you appear to have missed my 4 points explaining why he got down-modded, and have substituted your own original one I was trying to refute.
Don't be an asshat just because I answered your question in a way you didn't like.
And it's not that I hate him, I just think he's batshit crazy. And not to be a content-less hypocrite, here's why I think he's batshit crazy: He's absolutely fanatical about the free market. He's argumentative against anyone who holds a different opinion. He provides no real argument for his belief. While he does provide points about why capitalism is good, he doesn't listen or refute counter-points, he just continues on little rants about the evils of government. He doesn't acknowledge that some actions of government are good. He's a true believer and to hell with anything that gets in his way. Having read what he's posted here how do you believe he would behave if you sat across from him and tried to convince him that welfare was a good idea in some circumstances?
And this goes beyond his tone. He's trying to apply a model that has prerequisites to items that don't meet those prerequisites. The free market schtick requires competition, informed buyers who can take their business elsewhere, and a legal framework to protect the markets. I think he just don't understand the idea of a natural monopoly. And, from his tone, I don't think there's ever a hope of him educating himself. Certainty not within the confines of this forum.
The idea of the free market, capitalism, and all that jazz is a really good idea. It's a lot better than the alternatives, for some things. It's not one of those perfect things, and we'll never achieve it in absolute, but it's a good thing to work towards. However, where there are monopolies (where someone has simply WON in their field), natural monopolies (there's only so much river), or things you can't put a price on (like security), then capitalism isn't the best solution. It would probably work to a degree, but be rife with problems, and it would be better if we all voted on who gets right of way on the river. Likewise, where someone can compete with the government and provide a better service, capitalism is probably going to win out, like with package delivery.
But oh, I know! How about you blithely ignore everything I've tried to explain to you, claim I'm simply disagreeing, and continue to pat yourself on the back? It really seems to be working for you.
Because all his other posts here are "-1 batshit crazy"?
Because you get the karma you deserve?
Because it's a content-less micro-rant against Government?
But mostly because he didn't actually offer any other solutions. If your counter-argument is that there are alternatives, but you don't list any alternatives, then you're not really arguing. You're just whining. A good debate would have you propose viable alternatives detailing their pros and cons.
Wow, you're a grumpy fool that just lashes out at anyone that disagrees with you. Listen, you're not adding anything useful to this discussion. We'd appreciate it if simply stopped posting and keep your views to yourself.
I'm all for R&D. Maybe not for devices that will makes a nuclear armed force worried about their sovereignty and preemptively strike us, or even worse one which makes our own leaders believe they have a counter-measure to MAD.
But in general, YES, the counter-measure has to actually counter the measure for it to work. Especially if the alternative is complete destruction. You don't get another try. Half a chance is NO BETTER than a zero chance. If they were going to try it, they would send more than one missile. Duh. Now, if you're talking about a SIMULATED success rate, why do we have to buy and build a real version that works half the time? (maybe).
And if you weren't aware, there's currently "drama" concerning the gas pipelines in Poland and Czech. It moves Russian gas to Europe. It's kind of a big deal for everyone involved and we want a military base on top of it.
It's a common misconception.
Also, I believe you meant to say Whig, whateverthatmeans, not wigg.
By "Green" you've got to mean either eco-friendly-in-a-consumerist-sort-of-way, or the green party. Since the environment is not something you can simply ignore and since we have things like the EPA, the USA arguably IS green.
The term "communist" is loaded chock full of different definitions, baggage, history, and "characters". No one could really agree what it meant even when Marx was alive, but BOY did they write a lot about it. But I think it's safe to say that the USA is not a commune.
The term "socialist" is also kind of loaded with it's own baggage, but it's got a more clear definition. And yes, since the USA has welfare programs for people and corporations, we qualify as socialist. I believe the other end of the stick is capitalism, and we do that too.
What? Did you think this was going to be easy? Most of these terms are just handy placeholders to describe common themes and/or labels to describe your political enemies. Their use is tied to the political landscape at the time.
In general though, the argument is that the USA is MORE/LESS ________ than other countries. We are less socialist than Sweden. We are more green than China. We are less... whiggy? than we used to be.
Because the missile shield requires military bases and military involvement in Poland, which is a nice excuse to keep men, guns, and tanks right next door to Russia. You know, to guard the missiles. That's the ticket.
Also, there's not much use for a missle shield that works eventually. You pretty much have one shot at it. If you screw that up, you're all kinda dead.
Republic means the country is devided[sic] into states who have representatives
Not really. Your social studies teacher was just kinda making that up or passing along a falsehood that was spread to her. A "Republic" is really just the alternative to having kings. It just kinda sounds similar so it's a handy way for teachers to explain it. Now, having representatives is certainly one way to impliment a republic, common even. But the word has a meaning and that isn't it.
We're also bound to our flesh, infrastructure, and ambient levels of radiation. Nuclear devices already work pretty well at disrupting those.
The threat of nuclear attacks is the same as it been since I was born.
Ditto for the threat of nuclear missiles.
The missile defense systems in the works likewise haven't changed much. They're attempts at funneling money to the military-industrial-complex for a product that isn't going to be used and probably wouldn't work well if it was.
It took hold when people realized that political worldviews aren't as simple as a single value. Which is more conservative, the religious right or the oil barons? Both are voting republican for entirely different reasons. Can you analyze and understand the motivating forces behind these politics?
Hell, you'd be hard pressed to get a consistent definition of liberal or conservative. No-one even knows what they mean anymore. Arguably, the terms are defined by the current political atmosphere, which constantly changes with the winds.
Trying to pidgeon-hole someone with a label so you can hate them is unfair and unhealthy. The one dimensional political spectrum is oversimplifying serious issues.
Slashdot Mirror
SMBC the movie.
I find it funny that you're using an term "comic book movie", a mashup of three different types of mediums, to refer to specific type with a specific audience with specific needs. Funnier still that I understand exactly what you're talking about.
I'd say that Sandman, while ostensibly a comic book, would make more of a "book movie" than a "comic book movie".
Because Dream in a morally neutral godly powerful main character who ultimately chooses suicide over compromise and not the sort to fill out the good-guy/bad-guy dichotomy.
We had a baby shower at the family reunion. One of the great aunts tried to convince us to have more kids. Said that having a brother and sister was some sort of fundamental experience. She wanted four, two boys and two girls, so each could have a brother and sister.
Thank you, but no, one will do us just fine. If he wants a brother, he can go boss around the cats.
So, two atoms fused together via this magnetic bonding, do they need to be in this ludicrous magnetic field to remain bonded?
If we, somehow, got the teslas to make a molecule or two of these, would they continue to exist outside of the lab? OR, if we went skinny-dipping in a white dwarf and picked up a handful of this crazy goop, and brought it back to earth, would they persist?
Also, does anyone really have even the slightest clue to the properties of these molecules?
Have you thought about carrying around a wireless keyboard? Maybe one of those collapsible ones?
So is it a business strategy to dump a big write-off the moment you start to stumble? I could see the reasoning go something like:
Sure, we lost money this year, hell, a LOT of money, but that's just because we wrote off that horrible clusterfuck from 2007. Had call it sometime, might as well do it now. Now, such a big hit is probably going to make some investors squabble, and our stock might even waver a little, but hey, this is a one-time thing. Our company is strong. Trust me.
Ok, I get the sentiment to disarm the populace. I don't particularly agree, but I understand the reasoning.
But I want to know why you make an exception for hunters. Does it somehow become sacred once it's recreational activity? Are you a hunter? Does someone you know make a living on selling bullets or butchering deer?
I've got nothing. Even if you established a city-based local network, you're still allowing the general public in. Once you do that anyone can lie about where they're at, who they are, and what they're pushing. And my mother can still join.
.edu email, which hasn't existed forever. At some point facebook became something I wanted to secure, so instead of my throwaway passwords I bumped it up to something stronger... and promptly forgot it. With no accessable accounts hooked it it, that page is orphaned. I could probably bitch to Facebook and somehow get control of it... but meh.
Apparently I'm ok with Facebook being a college-only thing, since that's what happened with me. While Facebook does technically have a page on me, it's pretty stale. I never connected it with anything other than my
But I guess one answer is that at that point in life you join linkedIn and stop posting pictures of your wild parties. Your past activites in college/facebook don't carry over to the professional world. But hey, that's just me.
Yeah, that was one of the signs for me to get out. Facebook was pretty hip and useful with just the right amount of local connectivity and compartamentalization that I found it useful but not scary. Then they let the highschool kids join. That was a mistake. Facebook was a college thing and highschool kids didn't really need in. No, they really didn't. Facebook handled the immediate events and social circles in college. Prospective students might have an interest, but they didn't need access while still in highschool. If facebook really wanted to enter that market, they should have fired up a seperate server for the school. Or kept a wall between the two groups. Yeah, those walls were important. And when the walls that were around every college broke down and suddenly everyone could be friends with everyone. And everyone could stalk everyone. And when my mother joined. Yep, that was a pretty clear sign that this cool local network was no longer local. Scrutiny would be up. Spam would be up. I was no longer dealing with my just my peers. I was now dealing with EVERYONE.
Now, I appreciate a tool that let's me manage, coordinate, and deal with the masses. But you add my mother to that mix, as much as I love my mother, it becomes lame.
Any party with my mother is just not one I'm going to have a good time at.
Well what's his middle name?
Edwin?
That means he's officially Tim E Lord
Sometimes it's nice to be reminded that we really are living in the future.
Where we remove our hands from the wheel and the car takes over, or it automatically taxis us home when we're drunk. I just don't think I could put that amount of trust into any corporation. With the massive amount of password leaks lately and just the general track records of greedy corporations, they would need a HUGE incentive to get me on board.
So instead you trust the bank with all your money? The one with the online automatic payment system with only a password between the general public and your finances?
Ask yourself who would be nefarious with your auto-auto. What incentives THEM to go fuck with you? Sure, there are simply psychopaths who want to watch the world burn, but they're pretty rare and usually get caught after the first time. Maybe the radical offshoot of Mothers Against Automated Drunk Driving, but really, what are their chances? Meanwhile, your MONEY is a pretty big nearly-fungible incentive for a whole underground industry, but we still shuffle money around online.
If my password leaks out of my throw-away starbucks account, no big deal. I got the security that I expected. If my password leaks out of my bank, I'm going to be spitting fire and calling for blood. By and far THERE IS the appropriate amount of security.
It's actually "don't be evil" not "do no evil". You're probably getting confused with the three monkey thing. This is one of those persistent errors that society just don't care to fix.
Also, you know this post would carry a lot more weight if you linked a little sauce in there.
Well I imagine that if you can afford it, you'll simply be able to own the device, data, network, proxy, workaround, or whatever it is to let you use the device as you wish. To an extent. The poor on the other hand, simply can't pay for this stuff. You don't sell to the poor. What facebook has managed to do is sell poor people to marketers. And at the same time they provide an arguably meaningful service to the masses. Likewise Google gives out free services in exchange for ads, which is almost the same thing.
.com website runs under this model. Simply by being the sort of person who comes to Slashdot, you've targeted yourself.
This is what you are afraid of.
But aren't you ok with it? Don't you come to Slashdot, maybe or maybe not view ads, and participate and consume the goodness? The typical
However, if you can afford it, and you don't use the government-subsidized Walmart-brand superhappyfuntime Hivemind of the future, I imagine that the government, marketers, salesmen, and other nefarious entities won't have unrestricted access to your dealings. You'll be able to afford privacy.
Kinda sucks for the poor, but it's always sucked to be poor.
Nice to know you at least listened to the end of my post.
Actually, you appear to have missed my 4 points explaining why he got down-modded, and have substituted your own original one I was trying to refute.
Don't be an asshat just because I answered your question in a way you didn't like.
And it's not that I hate him, I just think he's batshit crazy. And not to be a content-less hypocrite, here's why I think he's batshit crazy: He's absolutely fanatical about the free market. He's argumentative against anyone who holds a different opinion. He provides no real argument for his belief. While he does provide points about why capitalism is good, he doesn't listen or refute counter-points, he just continues on little rants about the evils of government. He doesn't acknowledge that some actions of government are good. He's a true believer and to hell with anything that gets in his way. Having read what he's posted here how do you believe he would behave if you sat across from him and tried to convince him that welfare was a good idea in some circumstances?
And this goes beyond his tone. He's trying to apply a model that has prerequisites to items that don't meet those prerequisites. The free market schtick requires competition, informed buyers who can take their business elsewhere, and a legal framework to protect the markets. I think he just don't understand the idea of a natural monopoly. And, from his tone, I don't think there's ever a hope of him educating himself. Certainty not within the confines of this forum.
The idea of the free market, capitalism, and all that jazz is a really good idea. It's a lot better than the alternatives, for some things. It's not one of those perfect things, and we'll never achieve it in absolute, but it's a good thing to work towards. However, where there are monopolies (where someone has simply WON in their field), natural monopolies (there's only so much river), or things you can't put a price on (like security), then capitalism isn't the best solution. It would probably work to a degree, but be rife with problems, and it would be better if we all voted on who gets right of way on the river. Likewise, where someone can compete with the government and provide a better service, capitalism is probably going to win out, like with package delivery.
But oh, I know! How about you blithely ignore everything I've tried to explain to you, claim I'm simply disagreeing, and continue to pat yourself on the back? It really seems to be working for you.
Because all his other posts here are "-1 batshit crazy"?
Because you get the karma you deserve?
Because it's a content-less micro-rant against Government?
But mostly because he didn't actually offer any other solutions. If your counter-argument is that there are alternatives, but you don't list any alternatives, then you're not really arguing. You're just whining. A good debate would have you propose viable alternatives detailing their pros and cons.
Wow, you're a grumpy fool that just lashes out at anyone that disagrees with you. Listen, you're not adding anything useful to this discussion. We'd appreciate it if simply stopped posting and keep your views to yourself.
Nonsense! Look at how much money RIAA pays out to the artists!
I'm all for R&D. Maybe not for devices that will makes a nuclear armed force worried about their sovereignty and preemptively strike us, or even worse one which makes our own leaders believe they have a counter-measure to MAD.
But in general, YES, the counter-measure has to actually counter the measure for it to work. Especially if the alternative is complete destruction. You don't get another try. Half a chance is NO BETTER than a zero chance. If they were going to try it, they would send more than one missile. Duh. Now, if you're talking about a SIMULATED success rate, why do we have to buy and build a real version that works half the time? (maybe).
And if you weren't aware, there's currently "drama" concerning the gas pipelines in Poland and Czech. It moves Russian gas to Europe. It's kind of a big deal for everyone involved and we want a military base on top of it.
It's a common misconception.
Also, I believe you meant to say Whig, whatever that means, not wigg.
By "Green" you've got to mean either eco-friendly-in-a-consumerist-sort-of-way, or the green party. Since the environment is not something you can simply ignore and since we have things like the EPA, the USA arguably IS green.
The term "communist" is loaded chock full of different definitions, baggage, history, and "characters". No one could really agree what it meant even when Marx was alive, but BOY did they write a lot about it. But I think it's safe to say that the USA is not a commune.
The term "socialist" is also kind of loaded with it's own baggage, but it's got a more clear definition. And yes, since the USA has welfare programs for people and corporations, we qualify as socialist. I believe the other end of the stick is capitalism, and we do that too.
What? Did you think this was going to be easy? Most of these terms are just handy placeholders to describe common themes and/or labels to describe your political enemies. Their use is tied to the political landscape at the time.
In general though, the argument is that the USA is MORE/LESS ________ than other countries. We are less socialist than Sweden. We are more green than China. We are less... whiggy? than we used to be.
Because the missile shield requires military bases and military involvement in Poland, which is a nice excuse to keep men, guns, and tanks right next door to Russia. You know, to guard the missiles. That's the ticket.
Also, there's not much use for a missle shield that works eventually. You pretty much have one shot at it. If you screw that up, you're all kinda dead.
Republic means the country is devided[sic] into states who have representatives
Not really. Your social studies teacher was just kinda making that up or passing along a falsehood that was spread to her. A "Republic" is really just the alternative to having kings. It just kinda sounds similar so it's a handy way for teachers to explain it. Now, having representatives is certainly one way to impliment a republic, common even. But the word has a meaning and that isn't it.
We're also bound to our flesh, infrastructure, and ambient levels of radiation. Nuclear devices already work pretty well at disrupting those.
The threat of nuclear attacks is the same as it been since I was born.
Ditto for the threat of nuclear missiles.
The missile defense systems in the works likewise haven't changed much. They're attempts at funneling money to the military-industrial-complex for a product that isn't going to be used and probably wouldn't work well if it was.
It took hold when people realized that political worldviews aren't as simple as a single value. Which is more conservative, the religious right or the oil barons? Both are voting republican for entirely different reasons. Can you analyze and understand the motivating forces behind these politics?
Hell, you'd be hard pressed to get a consistent definition of liberal or conservative. No-one even knows what they mean anymore. Arguably, the terms are defined by the current political atmosphere, which constantly changes with the winds.
Trying to pidgeon-hole someone with a label so you can hate them is unfair and unhealthy. The one dimensional political spectrum is oversimplifying serious issues.