Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you. It makes you look petty and discourages others from changing their opinions in favor of yours in the future.
This is that attitude that has led to two major political parties with the most vocal members being the least competent. Basically, what you said was, "Don't do what's right, do what wins."
I'm pro-everyone-being-happy. That doesn't mean it's a realistic scenario. Until Ron and Rand Paul come to understand pragmatism, they'll do nothing but take up space and waste time in Washington.
Exactly -- I've never visited Facebook (on my computer -- I've seen it on others'), but this article made me curious so I checked out my cookies. Surprise surprise, I have cookies from Facebook, a website I've never directed my browser to.
I accept all cookies b/c browsing the internet without doing so is just a hassle. But it should be reasonable to expect a company to keep their data off my computer when I've never visited their site. Fuck Facebook. And Fuck CNN for putting a Facebook cookie on my computer.
For me it depended on the browser. With Firefox it was slow, okay with Safari, and seamless with Chrome. Not surprising, and probably wouldn't still be the case had they not abandoned the project. Although it's a niche product, it's really good at what it does and has the potential to be great. Hopefully the open source community does some neat things with it.
There is a major difference here. Movies and books, for example, have the ability to make one think and provide culture. MMOs make one NOT think. Clothes with nifty logos have two major benefits over ones that do not: quality of aesthetics and quality of materials. Lets face it, cheap clothes don't last long and are ugly. They aren't made in the same Cambodian factory as your Wal-Mart sweatpants (they're made in a different Cambodian factory -- the laborers are still treated like shit but the materials and machinery are better). Special paint jobs on a car have an aesthetic value. While, for the cost, it does seem like an absurd thing to spend money on unless your car actually needs new paint, it doesn't suck up all your time (even if you paint the car yourself, you'll spend less time than getting to lvl 80 in WoW. You'll also be practicing a real skill and actually be doing something).
A table has functional value, buying a matching one makes sense b/c it's the type of item you keep for a long time. Wine glasses have a functional value as well, and just like the table you buy ones you like b/c you plan on keeping them around.
The point of the article is that people once spent money on video games for the experience of playing video games. Starcraft and chess provide a great mental exercise involving strategy and intuition. Metal Gear Solid combines strategy, action, and great storytelling -- after completing one of those games there is much to think about (so much more than "I won!"). Sim City is educational and helps to exercise one's ability to think pragmatically and logically. Gran Turismo can be hooked up to a quality steering wheel and teach one to be a better driver. Grand Theft Auto forces one to examine American culture from a critical perspective through satire.
There are things that have value, including video games. But MMOs -- WoW, FF, Everquest, City of Heroes, ect. ect. -- these games (and their predecessors such as Diablo -- once an addiction of my own) don't do anything but turn the brain off. They get us to zone out. It's no different than reality TV, it's an utter waste of time. At least, when I play chess, I'm bettering myself. Human beings, unlike any other animal, have the ability of will. What distinguishes us from animals is our ability and decision to utilize our vast intellectual capacity. When you put 50+ hours a week into a MMO or a FPS, you're just grazing on their pasteur, willfully making yourself livestock for their farm.
You brought up a very good point concerning breeds. There are a vast amount of dog breeds which vary in extreme ways: some are much larger than house cats, some are much smaller. Some dogs, like bloodhounds, are extremely stupid but have an extremely acute sense of smell. So the cat/dog comparison never actually works because it entirely depends on what type of dog one is talking about. Cats, on the other hand, tend to display less variation from one breed to another (and humans have less of a tendency to breed cats for specific traits). One would think that Oxford Scientists would have realized how this fact makes all of their research moot. How does one compare:
Too bad you don't love humans half as much as you love dogs. Perhaps when our alien overlords stop by looking for food, you can offer yourself up as a tasty treat. Damn humanity and all those evil things we've done to dogs. . . like CREATE THEM. What could be more evil and sadistic than hurting a dog? Gee, it couldn't be genocide or torture or rape or dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. . .
The greatest moral perversion of this age, aside from egoism, is the "animal rights" whackos who prioritize the wellbeing of animals over that of human beings. Those who equate the value of life with the ability to suffer, such as Peter Singer. Dogs are dumb, the fact that they have a broad range of emotions doesn't change that. They're our slaves, both physically and mentally bread to be so. A dog not enslaved to humanity is a wolf, hyena, or fox.
One of my friends recently got a kitten to take care of his mouse problem. He's a dog person who never really liked cats but the cat was cheaper than pest control. The other day I was visiting and he had the cat in his dog's cage b/c he was trying to train it not to go upstairs by putting it in the cage whenever he caught it up there. This made me laugh, and I explained it to him this way, "The cat will never learn that it's bad to be upstairs, it will only learn that it's bad to be CAUGHT upstairs."
It's this resistance to conditioning that not only make cats more intelligent than dogs, but also makes them psychologically more similar to humans than dogs. We both find it degrading to be manipulated by another and will fight against such manipulation even to our own detriment.
The art corporations flog is not really art. It's production. Art captures something outside of the capitalist formula; something that is always edited out by corporations. Artists have a choice; sell your soul to the corporations, sell your soul to the devil, or paint flower pots (although it could be argued that painting flower pots is mark one for the devil). There hasn't been an artist to walk the Earth that chose to suffer in stride for his creation without personal sacrifice.
Oh please. You're talking in absolutes, in black and white, as if the world really operates that way. That's a false dilemma.
I think MoH presents a pretty good case that videogames aren't likely to be able to do serious treatments of current wars. But then, maybe it's just the genre? Would a suvival-horror based game, or a small-squad RTS (a la Dawn of War 2) have more luck?
MoH can't be a serious treatment of a current war in the same way that Hollywood can no longer produce ground breaking cinema. They're both subject to a cookie cutter creation method that stifles any innovation that isn't purely technical. I can absolutely guarantee that there are games no one has ever heard of that do a spectacular job of talking about war. The problem is, no multi billion dollar corporation will ever produce them.
One of the many things capitalism has a vastly negative effect on is art, and if MoH is a good case for any argument, it's that one.
1. Jarhead 2. Metal Gear Solid
The most popular/profitable movies/games may be the cookie-cutter crap you're complaining about, but groundbreaking cinema and video games do exist (and even ones about war!). Capitalism has nothing to do with good art or bad art. That's a cultural issue. Most war movies, just like war video games, are not art. Most people who are in the market to immerse themselves in fictional warfare aren't interested in reflecting on greater issues. But for artsy weirdos such as myself, there are movies and games that take these things seriously. Just because they're not the most popular doesn't mean they don't and can't exist.
Latest version of Lotus Symphony is yet another fork and it has the best Excel compatibility of all the ooo variants. It is free but not open source however (look at SISSL license conditions).
I just want to thank you, but I wish I had seen this comment a month ago! After years of getting away without MS Office installed on my computer, I caved and did it b/c of an Excel document my boss needed me to touch up and OpenOffice/NeoOffice had a terrible time displaying it. I just downloaded Lotus and opened that file and Lotus displayed it perfectly. I had previously assumed that Lotus would just have the same problems as OOo. Guess that's what I get for assuming.
Can anyone convince me that there's no reason to fear the Oracle OpenOffice.org? Will it remain the de facto standard?
That made me chuckle.. I'm pretty sure at this point Microsoft Office is the de facto standard (even if it doesn't follow standards). The other chuckle I got was I was actually able to paste into a slashdot comment using Chrome again! Finally!
1. The Open Document Format -- what's important is that the format becomes the de facto standard, not the application that runs it. OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Lotus Symphony, NeoOffice -- the most popular should be the most stable and feature rich, nothing else really matters. No one can own or monopolize the document format, so the application really shouldn't matter. Kind of like the internet and web browsers.
2. I'm pretty sure that Sun had OpenOffice under a license that Oracle won't be able to abuse. They may be able to abuse the copyrights, but not the code/patents/forks.
3. Oracle has the same interest in OOo that Sun had -- it's a thorn in the side of Microsoft. Neither Ellison nor McNealy are shy about their distaste for MS, and I doubt Ellison would pass up an opportunity to take money away from MS's #2 moneymaker for the sake of locking down OOo. OpenOffice doesn't stand a chance of ever being profitable, just look at what happened when it was StarOffice. But that thorn can get pushed further and further into Microsoft's side.
Or just Yao and it will open up all sorts of opportunities for the Chinese market. They could have the biggest man in China (literally) as their spokesman. As long as they don't have a problem with censorship, of course. . .
He is in India. So he talks nice to India. WOW! Welcome to politics 101. I am sure he will say the opposite when he is somewhere else. That is what politicians do.
A president is still a politician. Do not think he is above any other politician, even if you might want or expect it.
That's bullshit and you know it.
1. One isn't born a politician. They're not some animal with specific behavioral patterns. Believe it or not, they're people, and just because some are motivated by greed or glory or some other ignoble impulse, it doesn't mean they all are.
2. By espousing this bogus belief that all politicians are by some strange nature lying opportunists, you imply that nothing less should be expected of a politician, so those who believe your crap will become apathetic to political corruption. Why expect better, why demand better, why believe in better; when the honorable politician is nothing but a myth? It's the same apathy displayed by the "I-don't vote" crowd. When you declare a person to be a liar without any evidence they no longer have much of a reason to tell you the truth. Why should they when you'll accuse them of lying anyhow? So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lying opportunists become politicians because people like you begrudgingly accept that to be a politician's role rather than becoming outraged when a politician is caught lying and holding them accountable.
I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point. The question is, do you think the sentence is fair? That's what makes this story interesting. Not the crime, the excessive punishment.
I just think it's bizarre that they concluded that post-Valentine's Day break-ups have to do with disappointed women on Valentine's day. I've heard this sentiment expressed, and I believe it has something to do with it: "I'm going to break up with him, but Valentine's Day is coming up and I know he has something special planned."
1. A pre-Valentine's Day break-up means the woman loses out on whatever she would have gotten
2. It also means that she runs the risk of being single on Valentine's Day, a situation few women have the self-esteem to deal with.
I think the cinemas problems is not the Hussleman video taping in the theater but the shitty movies Hollywood gives you to present. They may not want to discourage moviegoers any more than Hollywood has.
Okay, this is like the tenth post I've read complaining about the quality of movies Hollywood puts out. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Hollywood puts out great movies every year and there are even more great independent films put out every year. There is no shortage of great movies. The fact that the best selling movies happen to be the worst quality have more to do with the audience than Hollywood. Good movies have a tendency to lose money, but fortunately there are enough moviemakers with the prestige and financial backing to get quality films released year after year.
If you're tired of watching shitty movies then stop using advertisements to decide which movie to go see. Pay attention to who wrote/directed works that you really enjoyed and follow their work. Discover a critic who you shares your views. I hate shitty movies too, but it doesn't take a genius to avoid the really bad ones. Shitty movies are popular because most Americans are too stupid to understand good movies, too immature to appreciate them, and too uncultured to appreciate their value.
Well, I'd have to agree there's no reason to change the spelling from UK English to U.S. It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books. And/. readers should be intelligent enough to realize that the post didn't spell "colour" wrong, it's just non-American English. Shame on the editor in that case.
What I was complaining about is how when commenting on a political story I may say something like "we need to vote for candidate X" and then some snarky foreigner says, "I'm not American you insensitive clod! Who's this 'we' you speak of?"
Slashdot Mirror
Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you. It makes you look petty and discourages others from changing their opinions in favor of yours in the future.
This is that attitude that has led to two major political parties with the most vocal members being the least competent. Basically, what you said was, "Don't do what's right, do what wins."
Very good interview done within the last few days. Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?
Anarchists don't make good candidates. I wonder why. . .
Which would be fitting, considering that Assange isn't even in Sweden right now, just like how Osama was out of Afghanistan by the time we got there.
Most utopian idealists are worthless politicians.
I'm pro-everyone-being-happy. That doesn't mean it's a realistic scenario. Until Ron and Rand Paul come to understand pragmatism, they'll do nothing but take up space and waste time in Washington.
Exactly -- I've never visited Facebook (on my computer -- I've seen it on others'), but this article made me curious so I checked out my cookies. Surprise surprise, I have cookies from Facebook, a website I've never directed my browser to.
I accept all cookies b/c browsing the internet without doing so is just a hassle. But it should be reasonable to expect a company to keep their data off my computer when I've never visited their site. Fuck Facebook. And Fuck CNN for putting a Facebook cookie on my computer.
For me it depended on the browser. With Firefox it was slow, okay with Safari, and seamless with Chrome. Not surprising, and probably wouldn't still be the case had they not abandoned the project. Although it's a niche product, it's really good at what it does and has the potential to be great. Hopefully the open source community does some neat things with it.
There is a major difference here. Movies and books, for example, have the ability to make one think and provide culture. MMOs make one NOT think. Clothes with nifty logos have two major benefits over ones that do not: quality of aesthetics and quality of materials. Lets face it, cheap clothes don't last long and are ugly. They aren't made in the same Cambodian factory as your Wal-Mart sweatpants (they're made in a different Cambodian factory -- the laborers are still treated like shit but the materials and machinery are better). Special paint jobs on a car have an aesthetic value. While, for the cost, it does seem like an absurd thing to spend money on unless your car actually needs new paint, it doesn't suck up all your time (even if you paint the car yourself, you'll spend less time than getting to lvl 80 in WoW. You'll also be practicing a real skill and actually be doing something).
A table has functional value, buying a matching one makes sense b/c it's the type of item you keep for a long time. Wine glasses have a functional value as well, and just like the table you buy ones you like b/c you plan on keeping them around.
The point of the article is that people once spent money on video games for the experience of playing video games. Starcraft and chess provide a great mental exercise involving strategy and intuition. Metal Gear Solid combines strategy, action, and great storytelling -- after completing one of those games there is much to think about (so much more than "I won!"). Sim City is educational and helps to exercise one's ability to think pragmatically and logically. Gran Turismo can be hooked up to a quality steering wheel and teach one to be a better driver. Grand Theft Auto forces one to examine American culture from a critical perspective through satire.
There are things that have value, including video games. But MMOs -- WoW, FF, Everquest, City of Heroes, ect. ect. -- these games (and their predecessors such as Diablo -- once an addiction of my own) don't do anything but turn the brain off. They get us to zone out. It's no different than reality TV, it's an utter waste of time. At least, when I play chess, I'm bettering myself. Human beings, unlike any other animal, have the ability of will. What distinguishes us from animals is our ability and decision to utilize our vast intellectual capacity. When you put 50+ hours a week into a MMO or a FPS, you're just grazing on their pasteur, willfully making yourself livestock for their farm.
You brought up a very good point concerning breeds. There are a vast amount of dog breeds which vary in extreme ways: some are much larger than house cats, some are much smaller. Some dogs, like bloodhounds, are extremely stupid but have an extremely acute sense of smell. So the cat/dog comparison never actually works because it entirely depends on what type of dog one is talking about. Cats, on the other hand, tend to display less variation from one breed to another (and humans have less of a tendency to breed cats for specific traits). One would think that Oxford Scientists would have realized how this fact makes all of their research moot. How does one compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cat_breeds
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds
?
Too bad you don't love humans half as much as you love dogs. Perhaps when our alien overlords stop by looking for food, you can offer yourself up as a tasty treat. Damn humanity and all those evil things we've done to dogs. . . like CREATE THEM. What could be more evil and sadistic than hurting a dog? Gee, it couldn't be genocide or torture or rape or dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. . .
The greatest moral perversion of this age, aside from egoism, is the "animal rights" whackos who prioritize the wellbeing of animals over that of human beings. Those who equate the value of life with the ability to suffer, such as Peter Singer. Dogs are dumb, the fact that they have a broad range of emotions doesn't change that. They're our slaves, both physically and mentally bread to be so. A dog not enslaved to humanity is a wolf, hyena, or fox.
One of my friends recently got a kitten to take care of his mouse problem. He's a dog person who never really liked cats but the cat was cheaper than pest control. The other day I was visiting and he had the cat in his dog's cage b/c he was trying to train it not to go upstairs by putting it in the cage whenever he caught it up there. This made me laugh, and I explained it to him this way, "The cat will never learn that it's bad to be upstairs, it will only learn that it's bad to be CAUGHT upstairs."
It's this resistance to conditioning that not only make cats more intelligent than dogs, but also makes them psychologically more similar to humans than dogs. We both find it degrading to be manipulated by another and will fight against such manipulation even to our own detriment.
The art corporations flog is not really art. It's production. Art captures something outside of the capitalist formula; something that is always edited out by corporations. Artists have a choice; sell your soul to the corporations, sell your soul to the devil, or paint flower pots (although it could be argued that painting flower pots is mark one for the devil). There hasn't been an artist to walk the Earth that chose to suffer in stride for his creation without personal sacrifice.
Oh please. You're talking in absolutes, in black and white, as if the world really operates that way. That's a false dilemma.
I think MoH presents a pretty good case that videogames aren't likely to be able to do serious treatments of current wars. But then, maybe it's just the genre? Would a suvival-horror based game, or a small-squad RTS (a la Dawn of War 2) have more luck?
MoH can't be a serious treatment of a current war in the same way that Hollywood can no longer produce ground breaking cinema. They're both subject to a cookie cutter creation method that stifles any innovation that isn't purely technical. I can absolutely guarantee that there are games no one has ever heard of that do a spectacular job of talking about war. The problem is, no multi billion dollar corporation will ever produce them.
One of the many things capitalism has a vastly negative effect on is art, and if MoH is a good case for any argument, it's that one.
1. Jarhead
2. Metal Gear Solid
The most popular/profitable movies/games may be the cookie-cutter crap you're complaining about, but groundbreaking cinema and video games do exist (and even ones about war!). Capitalism has nothing to do with good art or bad art. That's a cultural issue. Most war movies, just like war video games, are not art. Most people who are in the market to immerse themselves in fictional warfare aren't interested in reflecting on greater issues. But for artsy weirdos such as myself, there are movies and games that take these things seriously. Just because they're not the most popular doesn't mean they don't and can't exist.
Latest version of Lotus Symphony is yet another fork and it has the best Excel compatibility of all the ooo variants. It is free but not open source however (look at SISSL license conditions).
I just want to thank you, but I wish I had seen this comment a month ago! After years of getting away without MS Office installed on my computer, I caved and did it b/c of an Excel document my boss needed me to touch up and OpenOffice/NeoOffice had a terrible time displaying it. I just downloaded Lotus and opened that file and Lotus displayed it perfectly. I had previously assumed that Lotus would just have the same problems as OOo. Guess that's what I get for assuming.
Can anyone convince me that there's no reason to fear the Oracle OpenOffice.org? Will it remain the de facto standard?
That made me chuckle.. I'm pretty sure at this point Microsoft Office is the de facto standard (even if it doesn't follow standards). The other chuckle I got was I was actually able to paste into a slashdot comment using Chrome again! Finally!
1. The Open Document Format -- what's important is that the format becomes the de facto standard, not the application that runs it. OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Lotus Symphony, NeoOffice -- the most popular should be the most stable and feature rich, nothing else really matters. No one can own or monopolize the document format, so the application really shouldn't matter. Kind of like the internet and web browsers.
2. I'm pretty sure that Sun had OpenOffice under a license that Oracle won't be able to abuse. They may be able to abuse the copyrights, but not the code/patents/forks.
3. Oracle has the same interest in OOo that Sun had -- it's a thorn in the side of Microsoft. Neither Ellison nor McNealy are shy about their distaste for MS, and I doubt Ellison would pass up an opportunity to take money away from MS's #2 moneymaker for the sake of locking down OOo. OpenOffice doesn't stand a chance of ever being profitable, just look at what happened when it was StarOffice. But that thorn can get pushed further and further into Microsoft's side.
WP7 pushes the industry in a number of ways
How?
Or just Yao and it will open up all sorts of opportunities for the Chinese market. They could have the biggest man in China (literally) as their spokesman. As long as they don't have a problem with censorship, of course. . .
Forget the hookers and blackjack and just give me the internet.
I thought hookers and blackjack ARE the internet! You mean it does more?
He is in India. So he talks nice to India. WOW! Welcome to politics 101.
I am sure he will say the opposite when he is somewhere else. That is what politicians do.
A president is still a politician. Do not think he is above any other politician, even if you might want or expect it.
That's bullshit and you know it.
1. One isn't born a politician. They're not some animal with specific behavioral patterns. Believe it or not, they're people, and just because some are motivated by greed or glory or some other ignoble impulse, it doesn't mean they all are.
2. By espousing this bogus belief that all politicians are by some strange nature lying opportunists, you imply that nothing less should be expected of a politician, so those who believe your crap will become apathetic to political corruption. Why expect better, why demand better, why believe in better; when the honorable politician is nothing but a myth? It's the same apathy displayed by the "I-don't vote" crowd. When you declare a person to be a liar without any evidence they no longer have much of a reason to tell you the truth. Why should they when you'll accuse them of lying anyhow? So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lying opportunists become politicians because people like you begrudgingly accept that to be a politician's role rather than becoming outraged when a politician is caught lying and holding them accountable.
>Which brings us to the question: if i do not hack servers but pay for servers to make the DDOS, can the DDOS then be considered free speech?
Good luck getting a judge to understand that argument.
I think they would applaud the execution of someone who DDoSed WikiLeaks. I also doubt you are telling the truth.
Yup. If someone won't admit to having the hard-lined extremist stance you accuse them of having, they're lying.
I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point. The question is, do you think the sentence is fair? That's what makes this story interesting. Not the crime, the excessive punishment.
Remember how many people have been called "racist" for disagreeing with Obama's politics?
You mean those people at rallies with confederate flags and racist signs?
I just think it's bizarre that they concluded that post-Valentine's Day break-ups have to do with disappointed women on Valentine's day. I've heard this sentiment expressed, and I believe it has something to do with it: "I'm going to break up with him, but Valentine's Day is coming up and I know he has something special planned."
1. A pre-Valentine's Day break-up means the woman loses out on whatever she would have gotten
2. It also means that she runs the risk of being single on Valentine's Day, a situation few women have the self-esteem to deal with.
I think the cinemas problems is not the Hussleman video taping in the theater but the shitty movies Hollywood gives you to present. They may not want to discourage moviegoers any more than Hollywood has.
Okay, this is like the tenth post I've read complaining about the quality of movies Hollywood puts out. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Hollywood puts out great movies every year and there are even more great independent films put out every year. There is no shortage of great movies. The fact that the best selling movies happen to be the worst quality have more to do with the audience than Hollywood. Good movies have a tendency to lose money, but fortunately there are enough moviemakers with the prestige and financial backing to get quality films released year after year.
If you're tired of watching shitty movies then stop using advertisements to decide which movie to go see. Pay attention to who wrote/directed works that you really enjoyed and follow their work. Discover a critic who you shares your views. I hate shitty movies too, but it doesn't take a genius to avoid the really bad ones. Shitty movies are popular because most Americans are too stupid to understand good movies, too immature to appreciate them, and too uncultured to appreciate their value.
Well, I'd have to agree there's no reason to change the spelling from UK English to U.S. It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books. And /. readers should be intelligent enough to realize that the post didn't spell "colour" wrong, it's just non-American English. Shame on the editor in that case.
What I was complaining about is how when commenting on a political story I may say something like "we need to vote for candidate X" and then some snarky foreigner says, "I'm not American you insensitive clod! Who's this 'we' you speak of?"