They've been running commercials on IFC for a few days; first time I saw I had a moment of cognitive dissonance--"Wha? What's Richard Stallman doing in my TV? He's supposed to be in my computer..."
We get our water from the Croton system; none comes from the Hudson River anymore, which is probably a good thing. Let's just say I wouldn't want to let any of it get on my skin, let alone in my mouth.
Welcome to era where environmentalist whackos can take your property rights if your water pipe has a leak and makes a pond of standing water in your back yard
Welcome to an era when rabid anti-environmentalists base their wild accusations not on reputable sources but on the editorial comment of some anonymous slashdot story submitter.
I'm fairly sure it was purely the userbase. The PC games market is incredibly competitive, and when you come right down to it not really that profitable; for every Quake you have several dozen games that you've never heard of.
Now imagine 1 percent of that market.
As for your Amiga example, were they selling games, or some other kind of software? The games market is a lot different than the general software market.
Would I rather be stuck on an island with 100 antisocial, arrogant techheads, or 100 dishonest, power-hungry politicians? Hmm...whichever group had the largest subset of attractive females I guess.
It's typical of biz articles to blame the dot com debacle on tech workers.
No it's not. They usually blame the management, not the tech workers.
In particular biz journalists like to blame the young founders of these companies, as if their lack of seriousness and business experience caused the dot com crash.
It WAS in a lot of way their fault. It was this sheer arrogance, this slavish devotion to fads and unproven business plans that caused a lot of these companies to tank.
Revolution involves risk, and politicians don't like to deal with that. They often want to pay a fixed amount for a known risk rather than pay a little more to test something that may save much more money in the long run only if it works.
And neither do engineers apparently.
BTW, what have Dyson and Fuller done to make space exploration itself cheaper-better-faster?
I'm not saying they did anything for space exploration in particular, but that's irrelevant.
Saying we need more Christopher Columbuses in NASA doesn't mean we actually want the 15th century Genoese explorer.
Both of these men have come up with interesting, innovative alternatives to the engineering and scientific problems they've looked at; they thought (before a generation of marketdroids appropriated the term) "outside of the box".
And a lot of decision makers at NASA are engineers and scientists. I just get a little sick of this whole "blame the politicians because the techies are just too c00l to criticize" attitude on slashdot.
Jeremy Irons got only a few minutes of screen time, but managed to make far more of an impact on my mind than Pearce.
I wasn't expecting such a nuanced character, though I think that probably owes more to Irons than the screenwriter.
Orlando Jones' character was also highly interesting, and got very little screen time. Like Irons his attempts to communicate on a more interesting and philosophical level is ignored by Pearce's self-absorbed character, who's obsessed with saving his new chippie. Why is it that Hollywood scientists invariably are incredibly uncurious would-be action heroes who rarely do any actual science?
I was going to get all defensive, but after reading your criticisms, I have to agree with you. Most of the stuff you mentioned could have been cut.
The irritating thing about LoTR was the changes he made were defended by "it would fit into Tolkien's universe if it happened this way". Of course, that's not much of an excuse; if Tolkien wanted Arwen to be involved at the Ford, he would have written it that way.
That being said, I thought it was a great movie (and I'm using "great" in the appropriate sense, not the mindless hype-ish "great" that everyone else tosses around), if not a great adaptation.
If you haven't read the book, you have no idea what his motivations are, who he's is involved with, or why he's making so many staggering decisions about the human race all by himself, in a mili-second.
The book and the movie are almost COMPLETELY different, his motivation is different in the book and in the movie (but god forbid scientific curiousity be a motivation in a Hollywood film), and the book contains nothing about changing the human race.
I mean, why would you say something like this, unless you've never read the book?
It is, however, an excellent book, the text of which is online in several places if anyone wants to read it.
Don't blame the politicians; there are plenty of scientists and engineers who should be held accountable, too.
If NASA had some vision, or even a PLAN for a Mars mission, I'd support them.
But they plan so far ahead into the future, that you can see that they're not doing anything of the sort.
Scientific data is valuable, but the amount that we have to spend to get even a tiny amount of data is ridiculous, and a never-ending supply of expensive satellites that collect the same data as their predecessors, only with minutely greater accuracy, is not necessarily the best way to spend the money.
They need more innovators and less cogs; more Freeman Dysons and Buckminster Fullers and less accountants, scientists, and engineers who are too scared to do anything revolutionary.
Every reasonably educated person of the time period would have known the earth was round, and the "other side of the world" had already been visited, so the analogy doesn't stick.
The difference between Columbus and his contemporaries is that they had conflicting views of the size of the world. He thought it was one size, his opponents thought it was much larger.
And Columbus was wrong, and all the other explorers and geographers were right; the world WAS much larger than he thought, and if the Americas hadn't been there he would never have reached his original goal.
So to tell the truth, if Columbus had come to me for money in the 15th century, I would have turned him down, as his navigational calculations were completely off base, and the resources could be better spent on other things.
Don't pretend dumb luck was any sort of wisdom or visionary thinking.
China is not "in the tropics". Part of it is, of course, but the area where Chinese civilization developed isn't.
And China wasn't more advanced than Europe in the 1800s. You'd have to go back over a hundred years or so until you reach a point where China MIGHT have an edge in technology.
They were able to subjugate the continent due to the European diseases that swept through it. How would the fact that it was accidently brought over be disproved by the fact that they used the advantage it gave them successfully?
Slashdot, as can be found out by looking at the Presidental poll from the 2000 election, is mostly democrat.
Where did THAT come from? Slashdot readers (or at least people who post) tend to be mainly right-wing; anti-environment, anti-regulation, anti-social spending.
the Republicans for the most part think the bill would wrong the American public.
The Republicans resent the fact that the bill is being introduced by a Democrat, and that the entertainment industry gives the Democrats more money.
Republicans help big business! Democrats help the common man! Perhaps we should re-evaluate their views.
Fine, re-evaluate their views. The evaluation will come out to the same thing; Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of corporations and the rich. Just because on one issue they're right doesn't mean they don't shill for corporations a lot more than the Democrats.
I just wish the cartoon network would take the initiative. Print out a million copies of a form letter spelling out the difference between children's cartoons and adult-oriented anime, then every time they get a complaint, mail it out.
Most parents won't even SEE the damn cartoons. Why not use the average person's ignorance for their benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
They've been running commercials on IFC for a few days; first time I saw I had a moment of cognitive dissonance--"Wha? What's Richard Stallman doing in my TV? He's supposed to be in my computer..."
There isn't an unlimited supply of potable water.
Uhhhhh.....disturbing.
He became a US citizen to skirt the laws in this country prohibiting non-citizens from owning media outlets.
It's funny how the usual conservative xenophobes in Congress were quiet when it was one of their big donors doing this.
Good. We SHOULD pay more for water, maybe that way people won't keep assuming we have an unlimited supply.
We get our water from the Croton system; none comes from the Hudson River anymore, which is probably a good thing. Let's just say I wouldn't want to let any of it get on my skin, let alone in my mouth.
Welcome to era where environmentalist whackos can take your property rights if your water pipe has a leak and makes a pond of standing water in your back yard
Welcome to an era when rabid anti-environmentalists base their wild accusations not on reputable sources but on the editorial comment of some anonymous slashdot story submitter.
I'm fairly sure it was purely the userbase. The PC games market is incredibly competitive, and when you come right down to it not really that profitable; for every Quake you have several dozen games that you've never heard of.
Now imagine 1 percent of that market.
As for your Amiga example, were they selling games, or some other kind of software? The games market is a lot different than the general software market.
Would I rather be stuck on an island with 100 antisocial, arrogant techheads, or 100 dishonest, power-hungry politicians? Hmm...whichever group had the largest subset of attractive females I guess.
It's typical of biz articles to blame the dot com debacle on tech workers.
No it's not. They usually blame the management, not the tech workers.
In particular biz journalists like to blame the young founders of these companies, as if their lack of seriousness and business experience caused the dot com crash.
It WAS in a lot of way their fault. It was this sheer arrogance, this slavish devotion to fads and unproven business plans that caused a lot of these companies to tank.
Oh please.
How would "surprising military developments" that did NOT involve nuclear attacks WARRANT nuclear attacks?
Revolution involves risk, and politicians don't like to deal with that. They often want to pay a fixed amount for a known risk rather than pay a little more to test something that may save much more money in the long run only if it works.
And neither do engineers apparently.
BTW, what have Dyson and Fuller done to make space exploration itself cheaper-better-faster?
I'm not saying they did anything for space exploration in particular, but that's irrelevant.
Saying we need more Christopher Columbuses in NASA doesn't mean we actually want the 15th century Genoese explorer.
Both of these men have come up with interesting, innovative alternatives to the engineering and scientific problems they've looked at; they thought (before a generation of marketdroids appropriated the term) "outside of the box".
And a lot of decision makers at NASA are engineers and scientists. I just get a little sick of this whole "blame the politicians because the techies are just too c00l to criticize" attitude on slashdot.
Actually, the theater I saw it at charged six bucks. Not sure why; most New York theaters charge at least 9, and occasionally more.
Jeremy Irons got only a few minutes of screen time, but managed to make far more of an impact on my mind than Pearce.
I wasn't expecting such a nuanced character, though I think that probably owes more to Irons than the screenwriter.
Orlando Jones' character was also highly interesting, and got very little screen time. Like Irons his attempts to communicate on a more interesting and philosophical level is ignored by Pearce's self-absorbed character, who's obsessed with saving his new chippie. Why is it that Hollywood scientists invariably are incredibly uncurious would-be action heroes who rarely do any actual science?
I was going to get all defensive, but after reading your criticisms, I have to agree with you. Most of the stuff you mentioned could have been cut.
The irritating thing about LoTR was the changes he made were defended by "it would fit into Tolkien's universe if it happened this way". Of course, that's not much of an excuse; if Tolkien wanted Arwen to be involved at the Ford, he would have written it that way.
That being said, I thought it was a great movie (and I'm using "great" in the appropriate sense, not the mindless hype-ish "great" that everyone else tosses around), if not a great adaptation.
If you haven't read the book, you have no idea what his motivations are, who he's is involved with, or why he's making so many staggering decisions about the human race all by himself, in a mili-second.
The book and the movie are almost COMPLETELY different, his motivation is different in the book and in the movie (but god forbid scientific curiousity be a motivation in a Hollywood film), and the book contains nothing about changing the human race.
I mean, why would you say something like this, unless you've never read the book?
It is, however, an excellent book, the text of which is online in several places if anyone wants to read it.
Don't blame the politicians; there are plenty of scientists and engineers who should be held accountable, too.
If NASA had some vision, or even a PLAN for a Mars mission, I'd support them.
But they plan so far ahead into the future, that you can see that they're not doing anything of the sort.
Scientific data is valuable, but the amount that we have to spend to get even a tiny amount of data is ridiculous, and a never-ending supply of expensive satellites that collect the same data as their predecessors, only with minutely greater accuracy, is not necessarily the best way to spend the money.
They need more innovators and less cogs; more Freeman Dysons and Buckminster Fullers and less accountants, scientists, and engineers who are too scared to do anything revolutionary.
Every reasonably educated person of the time period would have known the earth was round, and the "other side of the world" had already been visited, so the analogy doesn't stick.
The difference between Columbus and his contemporaries is that they had conflicting views of the size of the world. He thought it was one size, his opponents thought it was much larger.
And Columbus was wrong, and all the other explorers and geographers were right; the world WAS much larger than he thought, and if the Americas hadn't been there he would never have reached his original goal.
So to tell the truth, if Columbus had come to me for money in the 15th century, I would have turned him down, as his navigational calculations were completely off base, and the resources could be better spent on other things.
Don't pretend dumb luck was any sort of wisdom or visionary thinking.
China is not "in the tropics". Part of it is, of course, but the area where Chinese civilization developed isn't.
And China wasn't more advanced than Europe in the 1800s. You'd have to go back over a hundred years or so until you reach a point where China MIGHT have an edge in technology.
Piri Reis drew an accurate map of the globe way before then, if we are to believe Von Daniken's books and research previous.
Approach von Daniken's books very, very suspiciously.
That's a non-sequitur.
They were able to subjugate the continent due to the European diseases that swept through it. How would the fact that it was accidently brought over be disproved by the fact that they used the advantage it gave them successfully?
Your argument doesn't make sense.
Yeah, they do that, but show still manages to remain entertaining? I used to make fun of it until I started watching it...
but he's Alan Cox, so he must know :)"
...and there, ladies and gentleman, is one of the main problems with the open source movement, the computer industry, and society in general
Slashdot, as can be found out by looking at the Presidental poll from the 2000 election, is mostly democrat.
Where did THAT come from? Slashdot readers (or at least people who post) tend to be mainly right-wing; anti-environment, anti-regulation, anti-social spending.
the Republicans for the most part think the bill would wrong the American public.
The Republicans resent the fact that the bill is being introduced by a Democrat, and that the entertainment industry gives the Democrats more money.
Republicans help big business! Democrats help the common man! Perhaps we should re-evaluate their views.
Fine, re-evaluate their views. The evaluation will come out to the same thing; Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of corporations and the rich. Just because on one issue they're right doesn't mean they don't shill for corporations a lot more than the Democrats.
I just wish the cartoon network would take the initiative. Print out a million copies of a form letter spelling out the difference between children's cartoons and adult-oriented anime, then every time they get a complaint, mail it out.
Most parents won't even SEE the damn cartoons. Why not use the average person's ignorance for their benefit.