People, I think we are forgetting that a lot of this "ostrich" behaviour is not relating to a lack of evidence. We have mountains of evidence, some from the very left, some from the very right, some right down the middle...
The problem, I believe, falls with our inability to accept responsibility for our actions. (Or to put it another way, it's psychology not information that is the problem).
Admitting that global warming is occurring is basically the same as saying "Yeah, we screwed up" for most. And you all know how often that occurs without some serious prodding or some ulterior motive. (Look at the legal cases on the books, your neighbours, and yourselves. Its not a 100% thing, but like most behaviour, if enough people act in a particular fashion, the rest will find some way to be inclusive in that pattern. (Again, not a 100%.. I would venture to say that the majority of the Slashdot crowd are not followers to any significant degree. Quite a few of us are iconoclasts *grin*)
But, though we are not followers in this regard, we are still part of the problem. We take the same behaviour as the rest precisely because we are to a greater or lesser extent, outcasts. So we don't rock the boat. We will wax soporific about the woes of the environment and the dangers of greenhouse gases, but we won't do anything about it because its one of the few tendrils of inclusion we have. For some, that IS their sense of inclusion (what we call the "tree huggers" or "eco-nuts")
Even an ostrich with its head buried in the sand can't help but notice that it's getting wetter. *grin*.
I think the problem here is that various groups (age, gender, etc...) that the other group(s) is the problem.. (the young think the age don't have a clue, the old think the young are stupid, the women think the men want to see tramps, the men think the women want to see tear jerkers, etc...)
I'm sure you have all seen comments revolving around these themes.
That fragmentation is what the movie industry hates, and loves. (hates it because they can't get a line on what the MAJORITY want. But they love it because that fragmentation is their excuse.. "We made it for this group, but they really don't want that, they wanted something else.. so no.. our movie doesn't suck.. you people don't tell us what you want"). So they take the stand of, (MOVIE LINE COMING:) if you build it, they will come.
Of course it does add one positive.. it tries to force movies to be somewhat representative of us. (humourous at times, frightening at others, dramatic, stupid and smart, etc..)
The long and short of it is that, as one person mentioned earlier: The movie industry is not a industry that is interested in makeing the BEST product.. they are interested in making a product that they can SELL the most of. (so, you aim for the lowest common denominator. (a liberal amount of big guns, a heaping portion of big boobs, a dash low brow comedy, a touch of little emotion, just a sprinkle of intelligence, and pinch of originality... and presto.. a masterpiece). As a VC'er I can tell you that my group never wants something that will LAST.. we want something that we can SELL.. (once the demand is there, we can attempt to improve on it.. but first.. lets recoup our expenses.
The reason most of us tend to head for arthouse films and "foriegn filsm" is because of the challenge they tend to offer.. (not always, but better than the local hogwash).
speaking as someone who has spend a lot of time in japan. (12 years now). for the most part people in asia tend to have much less taboos and relationships and sex. European culture (stemmed mostly from the church) has always pushed that sex was evil. (do it if you must, but its bad, evil, etc... basically guilt) and since men have been traditionally the sexual aggressors, their form was mostly hidden. asian culture has always accepted sex as just a normal part of being human. (some sects practice vows of abstenence and/or celebacy but in general, there is no shame or stigma attached to sex.)
by extension, when you remove the guilt/shame of an act, you remove the need to hide it, and so disaplays of affection are normal. (to members of the same gender.. different gender.. well people just assume.. and you know the line about that).
Ok, so you have claimed quite a few were bad. And you site Battlestar Galactica as a good example (which quite frankly makes you very suspect in my book). Any others that you feel deserve merit?
As a person who has seen all of them, am something of a sci-fi fan, not for its sci-fi nature, but a good story is a good story (backdrop is not REQUIRED). B5 was indeed a good story. Please half the people in the NYT review section claim that the every video and movie clip longer than 5 seconds is the greatest thing since sliced bread (no George Carlin replies please). I am not going to say it was perfect, because NOTHING ever is.. If it finds a strong following in one camp, it will not in another. One has to remember that Sci-Fi has ALWAYS been viewed as a niche market (stereotypical demographic is: male 12 - 35, unmarried, and loaner).. Time is proving that to be wrong, but you can't fight what they want to believe. Becuase of which, anything that does not pull numbers like crazy and has an immediate following is snuffed.
A good story takes time to tell, but a good story that takes time to tell doesn't sell ad bucks the way they want.. And lest we forget, THAT is why stations put stuff (good and bad) on the air.. to sell AD space. If they don't feel they will get the market demographic they want in front of the tube at that time, they will move it, or cancel it, to find some other palp that will bring in the dollars.. (Big Guns (above and below the waist line), humour so bad and transparent that my blind dog gets it, and a plot line so thin that it takes 2 minutes to wrap it up, the rest being just filler).
Think of most of the sucessful shows on TV (and the even smaller set of sci-fi).. Very few have a story arch that spans more than 3 episodes, why because most people can/will not follow something that requires some knowledge of the previous. People don't want fantasy rooted in reality, they want fantasy with no basis, so they can shut off the brain.
Its a bit of a rant, but come on, lets understand what we are dealing with, a system that is not driven by quality, but by quantity (of dollars, ad space, etc..).
And before I hear the words Nelson Ratings come out of the woodworks, understand, the nelson households try to find what they believe to be a "typical" household demographic that in theory represents the nation as a whole. Does anyone here feel a show like "Jerry Springer" or "Sisters" or "2 guys and a Kid" represent them?..
1. 3PO and R2 have their memory wiped. I seem to recall in the SW universe more than just those two droids floating about.. And its not like he is going to question each droid he encounters. (He wouldn't have any time to kill).. (bad pun intentional)
2. Luke and Leia are born and the grand idea to protect them is... A little silly.. but it makes sense. If you were preparing for another battle, you would want someone as close to the enemy as possible. If both of them are on backwater planets, they would not understand that fighting requires BOTH diplomacy and Brute Force. She brings the rational knowledge of being in governement all her life. He brings the simplicity of a farmboy to the picture. The uncomplicated view of someone that has never had to play those dirty games. (hence Leia's location) I would also say that because leia is less force sensitive than luke (just a guess given the fact that he is not even aware she has any ability other than through lineage until he starts to test her) means that luke should not be that close. Also given the family history.. (probubly a good idea to keep him away from an environment that is full of emotion and double-dealing).
3. Padme dies of a 'broken heart'? Well, lets see, if your spouse was responsible for the slaughter of countless billions, of plunging the galaxy into chaos, destroying EVERYTHING you fought for (remember, she was a senator fighting for a universal "better life"), has just tried to kill you, and is not the least bit upset about any of this.. Yeah, I would say she has a good reason to have a "broken heart" Especially when you think that a large part of this may be linked to you.. (ie: Jedi are not supposed to Marry.. are not supposed to Fall in love.. etc..) I think we have all had a breakup where we asked ourselves "what could we have done different".. at least in our cases, its limited only to a damaged teddy bear and some books.. not, ummm.. the whole human race.
4. Yoda 'failed'? How did he fail? This is more of a matter of opinion. Yoda failed because his teachings failed.. Because not only his old Padewan (Count Dooku) tried to kill him (and the Jedi, and the republic).. but also an even greater evil he did not see essentially walked in and took a VERY powerful jedi and corrupted him. Don't forget, one reason the Sith keep a master/apprentice relationship is because that "bond" gives them power.
5. What exactly compelled Yoda and Obi to go into exile? See my previous comments.. but they needed to go into hiding until the evil has shown its head to the "world". Remember.. Palpy has control over the senate. Has just said: I've been attacked by jedi. they want to take over. It doesn't do good to go storming to try and kill him.. You need to wait until the right moment.. until more people have seen the truth. Constructed Chaos is more effective than a blaster any day.
All that being said.. yes.. ROTS was a let down.. Lucas had all the tools to make a good movie.. but failed.. Started off with a real sabre battle and switches to CG. Skip the romance.. we know the love (such as it was) from the previous movie.. This one should have shown more of anakin's decent.. it should have shown more of the darkness.. It would have been a great contrast to the next 3.. (The light struggling to shine)
Well, in every book, its already been pointed out that the Sith Apprentice only rises to the level of "Master" by actually killing his master, and they usually do that just before or just after taking an apprentice of their own.. (hence Yoda's comment in Ep.2 that with the sith there are always two.. one master and one apprentice)
ITs ths classic case of "be careful what you wish for".
I don't think the balance was a simple as numbers.. (two weak/old jedi (technically 4 if you want to count force capable people meaning Luke and Leia at the time in addition to Yoda and Ben).. vs. 2 Rather Powerful Dark Jedi.
I think someone else mentioned it.. the Balance was more about bringing releasing the constraints of the sterility of the "light" jedi.. but still keeping away from the dangerous parts of the dark side. Power without passion is doomed, but passion without restraint is just as dangerious.
I think the point ROTS brings out is exactly what you mentioned.. The Jedi are very narrow.. it is a path that, though has great potential.. is far too restrictive. Where the Jedi practice abasiance/restriction/and isolation.. The sith practice just the opposite.
The bottom line that its a morality play.. Neither side is right or wrong (completely), but its the middle ground that most seek.
Correction.. lemmings.. not sheep.. (sheep are mild, but if you jab them hard enough, they will move).. Lemmings on the other hand, only follow the ass of the another lemming.. and the majority will do just that out of fear of being not being part of the crowd.
Of course it was related.. You know those pesky Tsunami's are a danger to democracy.. not to mention the fact that if we don't know where you are, and WHO you are.. how do I know WHAT you are capable of?..
*growning under the weight of the sarcastic retort*
I think the person is inferring that because the issue was never really rasied in public.. (almost secret except for those who actually take/have the time to watch) its may constitute a lack of democracy. The arguement is that Democracy is about having a actual choice, not simply a "bullet or poison?" offer.
--The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away.
-Um. Huh? With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?
Its not the fact that you are giving away information (we do that everytime we give our DL, SS, or any other form of numner).. its the aggrigation method.. and don't believe for a second that it won't be used as a method to reduce, restrict, or eliminate people based on whatever qualifier they choose).
If, again, the argument is "ease", thanks to a technological change or technology itself, then why do slashdotters always argue in favor of technology elsewhere, but against it here?
Because governments traditionally have used technology to restrict or oppress their populus under the guise of "life improvement".
The card will still be issued by your state motor vehicle agency. It will merely be a federally approved, standardized version of your state Driver's License or state Identification Card.
Read your history... this one is too easy (see above comment)
- The process to obtain the card will be more rigorous, and you will have to provide more documents to prove your identity.
Granted..
- The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant
It is entirely relevant because with it attached to the military spending package, no one is going to vote against it for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". Otherwise it would have a shot at being reviewed and at least amended.
- IF the standardized "machine readable technology" (which almost all state issues IDs already have in the form of a bar code, magnetic strip, etc.) ends up being RFID, you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen.
So, let me understand this... moving from actually inserting a card in a machine (which reduces the possibility of passive theft (an RFID scanner in the hands of an unauthorized person) to a method that allows what I just mentioned makes it "easier"? and "consistant"?.. (if by consistant, you mean having human robots read and issue a pass/block on the data that comes up.. regardless of the situation. Then I see your point.. otherwise.. I'm lost.
-All of the information on all of the cards is already accessible to any entity that requests identification, such as banks. However, the information will now be presented and stored in a uniform manner.
See above comment.
- If you think that all of these actions are designed exlusively to institute a 1984-style police state by evil conservatives, you probably don't see the illogic in opposing simple standardization of ID cards that already exist.
Why do you think people have been fighting all of these things> because of the trials and pain they have ALREADY gone through and left countries that have been under this oppression. It is frightening to see the same foolishness occur in the US. (what, you think east germany said to the population: "Yup, we are going to pursecute you, and isolate you, and lock you up if you even consider doing anything that we don't want. What do you think?.. Good idea, yeah?").. Of course not.. everything was done under the statement and intention of a "good idea".. (which went horribly wrong). And if you think we don't repeat those mistakes.. again, I direct you to history.. (pick any chapter you want).
- All of the items listed - opening bank accounts, collecting social security checks, travelling by air, etc. - already require ID (and if you want to get retarded about the whole air travel thing, go for it. John Gilmore already found
I think the point our poster is trying to make is that traditionally, we have not been beholden to companies to consistantly affirm the right and (in most cases) ability to purchase, execute, and run applications purchased. People do make a good point.. (What if company A is absorbed by Company B.. there are no promises that Company B will uphold your ability to use that product.. if they don't.. then your X dollar purchase just became void. Not so bad with a 50 - 100 purchase.. but when you are talking in the thousands and hundreds of thousands... it makes a BIG difference).. Or company A decides that in addition to whatever initial provisions are made to use the software, you now have to activate it via this SPECIFIC ISP.. (not such a far fetched idea as lets be honest.. everyone need to do what they think will enable them to survive and grow)
Lets also be clear here.. yes, there are some indivduals for whom all software (in their eyes) is to be free. But the percentage is VERY small relatively speaking. Most users agree that talent (and the firms that represent them) need to be compensated. (if this were not the case, valve would have just enforced a purchase online policy and there would be no shrink wrapped issues.. (its significantly cheaper for them to do so..)
What we are seeing here with this activation trash is the notion that they might loose 3 cents to the 5 people that did not purchase the software over the 5000 that did.
I believe there have been numerious studies from our dear friends at the RIAA and others which, dispite their cries, show that those 5 people don't make a bit of difference in their profits..(in fact, in many cases they help in the "advertisement" of the product itself).
Personally, I refuse to make use of any product (hardware or software), regardless of method or means, that forces my use down a path that THEY enforce. This is a personal choice so lets not start flaming here. For others, they choose to wave that right (ie: choice) in favor of doing what they wish to do..
But I do have a problem with the masses that hand over their supposed rights (little tested as they are) in favor of the simple rewards they think they have.
I think we've already proven so far with the courts that anti-trust suits don't work if the "enemy" is large enough. I mean come on, Microsoft got the equivalent of a velvet glove slap.. (50 years ago, similar sized companies, though granted, not as purvasive) were forced to be broken up.
Personally, to allow another company who knows nothing of my needs and interests, to dictate terms to me, is pretty much the final nail in this little coffin of a police country we call america.
Umm.. If they started public executions because gross violations of the "laws" then the US would be no different than the countries they claim to be "aiding by bringing democracy to them".
Oh, wait a tick.. The US has had public executions, just not a large number of them.. (4 - 5 by my count)..
Umm..
So, a One Silly SOB who abuses power and acts out of fear and ignorence is bad.. but Several Silly SOB's who do the exact same thing are good?
Does anyone see the similarity between SCO's attempts to extort money and Unisys when they tried to strong arm the graphics world by demanding payment for LZW compression in GIF?
This is pretty foolish longterm for SCO.. as the whole reason groups (IBM and others) are throwing their weight behind linix is the UNIX community needs a homginous platform.. This will allow the groups to thrive and compete against the ever hungry Micro$haft..
But I find it a little odd tht just as SCO's death knell was being sounded, they got a infusion of cash from some strange source.. And now we have this FUD being tossed about.... with the real damage being done to the GPL.. as its never been tested in court. If you can scare people from using GPL based products, then linux's adoption will be slowed again.. (We all know how managers think... "If we don't know WHO is accountable for the product.. then we risk legal entanglements")
Don't you mean, its the %99.99999999 that spoil it for the 0.000000001 that are ok (not good, just ok)..
I've been assulted, ignored, and in general mis-treated by every freaking offiicer in this bloody country.. (I travel quite a bit, so I get around). I've only met one that was decent, and I say decent, because at least when I was shot (by two bums who were doing a B&E at a bank 30 yards away).. he say, PLEASE get on the ground.. (not GET ON THE GROUND YOU @$@%@%@%@%@).
And people wonder why no one really likes the US. Umm.. I'm not sure.
I completely agree with you that a head-on confrontation with a different perspective is a good way to test the validity of your argument and how strongly you agree with it..
HOWEVER... as a political move for getting through the university, its not going to garner you any points with a closed minded professor.. and, depending on how much of a jerk the are, may get you black listed from other educators of a similar mind set.
The question is.. if you have a system that is set up to encourage free thought (yeah, right.. in this country? don't make me laugh) then a difference of opinion that can be discussed is good.. I say bring out your intellectual guns and "lay some duke nuk'em on there arse" If not, you are only wasting your breath and limiting your ability to advance in that system.
The purpose of a school is to education by exposure and train students on HOW to acquire information..
We can not simply accept something because on the very surface it looks good. Yes, I agree that schools do need equipment, and the fact that apple and micro$haft are helping in that regard, but have you looked at a ULA lately?.. A school is essentially REQUIRED to continue down the path of the dark side...
On that note, we are essentially teaching that its ok to be evil, provided that you look good doing it. (come to think of it.. that's how politicians.. umm.. nevermind)
As its been pointed out on this thread.. this is a purely political move, but has wide reaching effects..
I think what he means is that the flurry of purchasers think the 17 inch baby (my newest child.. *sniff*) may be a little too big and so some customers are staying away from it..
But my own personal opinion is that the 17's are not selling as fast as the 15's is that there have been LOTS of rumours floating about relating to the new PPC chip coming out.. (and who wants to spend ANOTHER 4K for a latop that you JUST purchased)..
How do you figure that... Sure the entrenched provider will be shaking in their STBs.. but for the players who have been trying to crack into the market.. its gold for them.
Of course... lets be real here.. MSO's ride a fine line of profit... they are not going to make a mass switch (even with a second source.. a second source supplier is just that).. because the cost (labor, training, support, hardware, etc....) is too high.. Oh, they will dangle that carrot out in front of their suppliers.. (drop your prices or else).. but its like a business deciding on the next 400 machines they purchase will be MACs not PCs.. the labor, training, support, etc.. costs are too high for that to happen... as much as I would love to see it occur)
Just my 3 1/2 cents (isn't inflation great?, more money, less buying power)
There are not too many MSO's in the US that have a DOCSIS DBDS system.. most (if not 99%) of them are DAVIC here in the US.. Sony does not produce a DAVIC box here because its main market is international (where DAVIC is the poor step child that no one wants.. and rightly so). So passage is a way for them to get their foot in the door with a recognizable consumer name so that when the change comes.. its "Hey, remember we made it easier for you to change"
But of course, MSO's have a long history of sticking with main providers (Motorola/GI, SA, even "shudder" PACE, and Pioneer)
Slashdot Mirror
People, I think we are forgetting that a lot of this "ostrich" behaviour is not relating to a lack of evidence. We have mountains of evidence, some from the very left, some from the very right, some right down the middle...
The problem, I believe, falls with our inability to accept responsibility for our actions. (Or to put it another way, it's psychology not information that is the problem).
Admitting that global warming is occurring is basically the same as saying "Yeah, we screwed up" for most. And you all know how often that occurs without some serious prodding or some ulterior motive. (Look at the legal cases on the books, your neighbours, and yourselves. Its not a 100% thing, but like most behaviour, if enough people act in a particular fashion, the rest will find some way to be inclusive in that pattern. (Again, not a 100%.. I would venture to say that the majority of the Slashdot crowd are not followers to any significant degree. Quite a few of us are iconoclasts *grin*)
But, though we are not followers in this regard, we are still part of the problem. We take the same behaviour as the rest precisely because we are to a greater or lesser extent, outcasts. So we don't rock the boat. We will wax soporific about the woes of the environment and the dangers of greenhouse gases, but we won't do anything about it because its one of the few tendrils of inclusion we have. For some, that IS their sense of inclusion (what we call the "tree huggers" or "eco-nuts")
Even an ostrich with its head buried in the sand can't help but notice that it's getting wetter. *grin*.
I think the problem here is that various groups (age, gender, etc...) that the other group(s) is the problem.. (the young think the age don't have a clue, the old think the young are stupid, the women think the men want to see tramps, the men think the women want to see tear jerkers, etc...)
I'm sure you have all seen comments revolving around these themes.
That fragmentation is what the movie industry hates, and loves. (hates it because they can't get a line on what the MAJORITY want. But they love it because that fragmentation is their excuse.. "We made it for this group, but they really don't want that, they wanted something else.. so no.. our movie doesn't suck.. you people don't tell us what you want"). So they take the stand of, (MOVIE LINE COMING:) if you build it, they will come.
Of course it does add one positive.. it tries to force movies to be somewhat representative of us. (humourous at times, frightening at others, dramatic, stupid and smart, etc..)
The long and short of it is that, as one person mentioned earlier: The movie industry is not a industry that is interested in makeing the BEST product.. they are interested in making a product that they can SELL the most of. (so, you aim for the lowest common denominator. (a liberal amount of big guns, a heaping portion of big boobs, a dash low brow comedy, a touch of little emotion, just a sprinkle of intelligence, and pinch of originality... and presto.. a masterpiece). As a VC'er I can tell you that my group never wants something that will LAST.. we want something that we can SELL.. (once the demand is there, we can attempt to improve on it.. but first.. lets recoup our expenses.
The reason most of us tend to head for arthouse films and "foriegn filsm" is because of the challenge they tend to offer.. (not always, but better than the local hogwash).
speaking as someone who has spend a lot of time in japan. (12 years now). for the most part people in asia tend to have much less taboos and relationships and sex. European culture (stemmed mostly from the church) has always pushed that sex was evil. (do it if you must, but its bad, evil, etc... basically guilt) and since men have been traditionally the sexual aggressors, their form was mostly hidden. asian culture has always accepted sex as just a normal part of being human. (some sects practice vows of abstenence and/or celebacy but in general, there is no shame or stigma attached to sex.)
by extension, when you remove the guilt/shame of an act, you remove the need to hide it, and so disaplays of affection are normal. (to members of the same gender.. different gender.. well people just assume.. and you know the line about that).
just my two cents.
Ok, so you have claimed quite a few were bad. And you site Battlestar Galactica as a good example (which quite frankly makes you very suspect in my book). Any others that you feel deserve merit?
As a person who has seen all of them, am something of a sci-fi fan, not for its sci-fi nature, but a good story is a good story (backdrop is not REQUIRED). B5 was indeed a good story. Please half the people in the NYT review section claim that the every video and movie clip longer than 5 seconds is the greatest thing since sliced bread (no George Carlin replies please). I am not going to say it was perfect, because NOTHING ever is.. If it finds a strong following in one camp, it will not in another. One has to remember that Sci-Fi has ALWAYS been viewed as a niche market (stereotypical demographic is: male 12 - 35, unmarried, and loaner).. Time is proving that to be wrong, but you can't fight what they want to believe. Becuase of which, anything that does not pull numbers like crazy and has an immediate following is snuffed.
A good story takes time to tell, but a good story that takes time to tell doesn't sell ad bucks the way they want.. And lest we forget, THAT is why stations put stuff (good and bad) on the air.. to sell AD space. If they don't feel they will get the market demographic they want in front of the tube at that time, they will move it, or cancel it, to find some other palp that will bring in the dollars.. (Big Guns (above and below the waist line), humour so bad and transparent that my blind dog gets it, and a plot line so thin that it takes 2 minutes to wrap it up, the rest being just filler).
Think of most of the sucessful shows on TV (and the even smaller set of sci-fi).. Very few have a story arch that spans more than 3 episodes, why because most people can/will not follow something that requires some knowledge of the previous. People don't want fantasy rooted in reality, they want fantasy with no basis, so they can shut off the brain.
Its a bit of a rant, but come on, lets understand what we are dealing with, a system that is not driven by quality, but by quantity (of dollars, ad space, etc..).
And before I hear the words Nelson Ratings come out of the woodworks, understand, the nelson households try to find what they believe to be a "typical" household demographic that in theory represents the nation as a whole. Does anyone here feel a show like "Jerry Springer" or "Sisters" or "2 guys and a Kid" represent them?..
Just my 3.5 cents
Ok.. I have to add my 3.5 cents to this.
1. 3PO and R2 have their memory wiped. I seem to recall in the SW universe more than just those two droids floating about.. And its not like he is going to question each droid he encounters. (He wouldn't have any time to kill).. (bad pun intentional)
2. Luke and Leia are born and the grand idea to protect them is... A little silly.. but it makes sense. If you were preparing for another battle, you would want someone as close to the enemy as possible. If both of them are on backwater planets, they would not understand that fighting requires BOTH diplomacy and Brute Force. She brings the rational knowledge of being in governement all her life. He brings the simplicity of a farmboy to the picture. The uncomplicated view of someone that has never had to play those dirty games. (hence Leia's location) I would also say that because leia is less force sensitive than luke (just a guess given the fact that he is not even aware she has any ability other than through lineage until he starts to test her) means that luke should not be that close. Also given the family history.. (probubly a good idea to keep him away from an environment that is full of emotion and double-dealing).
3. Padme dies of a 'broken heart'? Well, lets see, if your spouse was responsible for the slaughter of countless billions, of plunging the galaxy into chaos, destroying EVERYTHING you fought for (remember, she was a senator fighting for a universal "better life"), has just tried to kill you, and is not the least bit upset about any of this.. Yeah, I would say she has a good reason to have a "broken heart" Especially when you think that a large part of this may be linked to you.. (ie: Jedi are not supposed to Marry.. are not supposed to Fall in love.. etc..) I think we have all had a breakup where we asked ourselves "what could we have done different".. at least in our cases, its limited only to a damaged teddy bear and some books.. not, ummm.. the whole human race.
4. Yoda 'failed'? How did he fail? This is more of a matter of opinion. Yoda failed because his teachings failed.. Because not only his old Padewan (Count Dooku) tried to kill him (and the Jedi, and the republic).. but also an even greater evil he did not see essentially walked in and took a VERY powerful jedi and corrupted him. Don't forget, one reason the Sith keep a master/apprentice relationship is because that "bond" gives them power.
5. What exactly compelled Yoda and Obi to go into exile? See my previous comments.. but they needed to go into hiding until the evil has shown its head to the "world". Remember.. Palpy has control over the senate. Has just said: I've been attacked by jedi. they want to take over. It doesn't do good to go storming to try and kill him.. You need to wait until the right moment.. until more people have seen the truth. Constructed Chaos is more effective than a blaster any day. All that being said.. yes.. ROTS was a let down.. Lucas had all the tools to make a good movie.. but failed.. Started off with a real sabre battle and switches to CG. Skip the romance.. we know the love (such as it was) from the previous movie.. This one should have shown more of anakin's decent.. it should have shown more of the darkness.. It would have been a great contrast to the next 3.. (The light struggling to shine)
Oh well.. shows over folks.
Well, in every book, its already been pointed out that the Sith Apprentice only rises to the level of "Master" by actually killing his master, and they usually do that just before or just after taking an apprentice of their own.. (hence Yoda's comment in Ep.2 that with the sith there are always two.. one master and one apprentice)
Proof that Bluetooth is dead..
*grin*
(I had to say it)
ITs ths classic case of "be careful what you wish for".
I don't think the balance was a simple as numbers.. (two weak/old jedi (technically 4 if you want to count force capable people meaning Luke and Leia at the time in addition to Yoda and Ben).. vs. 2 Rather Powerful Dark Jedi.
I think someone else mentioned it.. the Balance was more about bringing releasing the constraints of the sterility of the "light" jedi.. but still keeping away from the dangerous parts of the dark side. Power without passion is doomed, but passion without restraint is just as dangerious.
I think the point ROTS brings out is exactly what you mentioned.. The Jedi are very narrow.. it is a path that, though has great potential.. is far too restrictive. Where the Jedi practice abasiance/restriction/and isolation.. The sith practice just the opposite.
The bottom line that its a morality play.. Neither side is right or wrong (completely), but its the middle ground that most seek.
Dude, by that right, the US congress/senate qualifies for the defination.
Oh.. wait.. Umm.. That makes sense.
Correction.. lemmings.. not sheep.. (sheep are mild, but if you jab them hard enough, they will move).. Lemmings on the other hand, only follow the ass of the another lemming.. and the majority will do just that out of fear of being not being part of the crowd.
Lets not insult sheep people.
I have to agree with you..
EVERY country/group that has had this idea in mind, has ultimately used it to abuse their population.. The US will be no different.
The common thread in all of this is greed and power. (constitution be damned)
Of course it was related.. You know those pesky Tsunami's are a danger to democracy.. not to mention the fact that if we don't know where you are, and WHO you are.. how do I know WHAT you are capable of?..
*growning under the weight of the sarcastic retort*
I think the person is inferring that because the issue was never really rasied in public.. (almost secret except for those who actually take/have the time to watch) its may constitute a lack of democracy. The arguement is that Democracy is about having a actual choice, not simply a "bullet or poison?" offer.
--The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away.
-Um. Huh? With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?
Its not the fact that you are giving away information (we do that everytime we give our DL, SS, or any other form of numner).. its the aggrigation method.. and don't believe for a second that it won't be used as a method to reduce, restrict, or eliminate people based on whatever qualifier they choose).
If, again, the argument is "ease", thanks to a technological change or technology itself, then why do slashdotters always argue in favor of technology elsewhere, but against it here?
Because governments traditionally have used technology to restrict or oppress their populus under the guise of "life improvement".
The card will still be issued by your state motor vehicle agency. It will merely be a federally approved, standardized version of your state Driver's License or state Identification Card.
Read your history... this one is too easy (see above comment)
- The process to obtain the card will be more rigorous, and you will have to provide more documents to prove your identity.
Granted..
- The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant
It is entirely relevant because with it attached to the military spending package, no one is going to vote against it for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". Otherwise it would have a shot at being reviewed and at least amended.
- IF the standardized "machine readable technology" (which almost all state issues IDs already have in the form of a bar code, magnetic strip, etc.) ends up being RFID, you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen.
So, let me understand this... moving from actually inserting a card in a machine (which reduces the possibility of passive theft (an RFID scanner in the hands of an unauthorized person) to a method that allows what I just mentioned makes it "easier"? and "consistant"?.. (if by consistant, you mean having human robots read and issue a pass/block on the data that comes up.. regardless of the situation. Then I see your point.. otherwise.. I'm lost.
-All of the information on all of the cards is already accessible to any entity that requests identification, such as banks. However, the information will now be presented and stored in a uniform manner.
See above comment.
- If you think that all of these actions are designed exlusively to institute a 1984-style police state by evil conservatives, you probably don't see the illogic in opposing simple standardization of ID cards that already exist.
Why do you think people have been fighting all of these things> because of the trials and pain they have ALREADY gone through and left countries that have been under this oppression. It is frightening to see the same foolishness occur in the US. (what, you think east germany said to the population: "Yup, we are going to pursecute you, and isolate you, and lock you up if you even consider doing anything that we don't want. What do you think?.. Good idea, yeah?").. Of course not.. everything was done under the statement and intention of a "good idea".. (which went horribly wrong). And if you think we don't repeat those mistakes.. again, I direct you to history.. (pick any chapter you want).
- All of the items listed - opening bank accounts, collecting social security checks, travelling by air, etc. - already require ID (and if you want to get retarded about the whole air travel thing, go for it. John Gilmore already found
I think the point our poster is trying to make is that traditionally, we have not been beholden to companies to consistantly affirm the right and (in most cases) ability to purchase, execute, and run applications purchased. People do make a good point.. (What if company A is absorbed by Company B.. there are no promises that Company B will uphold your ability to use that product.. if they don't.. then your X dollar purchase just became void. Not so bad with a 50 - 100 purchase.. but when you are talking in the thousands and hundreds of thousands... it makes a BIG difference).. Or company A decides that in addition to whatever initial provisions are made to use the software, you now have to activate it via this SPECIFIC ISP.. (not such a far fetched idea as lets be honest.. everyone need to do what they think will enable them to survive and grow)
Lets also be clear here.. yes, there are some indivduals for whom all software (in their eyes) is to be free. But the percentage is VERY small relatively speaking. Most users agree that talent (and the firms that represent them) need to be compensated. (if this were not the case, valve would have just enforced a purchase online policy and there would be no shrink wrapped issues.. (its significantly cheaper for them to do so..)
What we are seeing here with this activation trash is the notion that they might loose 3 cents to the 5 people that did not purchase the software over the 5000 that did.
I believe there have been numerious studies from our dear friends at the RIAA and others which, dispite their cries, show that those 5 people don't make a bit of difference in their profits..(in fact, in many cases they help in the "advertisement" of the product itself).
Personally, I refuse to make use of any product (hardware or software), regardless of method or means, that forces my use down a path that THEY enforce. This is a personal choice so lets not start flaming here. For others, they choose to wave that right (ie: choice) in favor of doing what they wish to do..
But I do have a problem with the masses that hand over their supposed rights (little tested as they are) in favor of the simple rewards they think they have.
Of course, that is just my 2 cents.
I think we've already proven so far with the courts that anti-trust suits don't work if the "enemy" is large enough. I mean come on, Microsoft got the equivalent of a velvet glove slap.. (50 years ago, similar sized companies, though granted, not as purvasive) were forced to be broken up.
Personally, to allow another company who knows nothing of my needs and interests, to dictate terms to me, is pretty much the final nail in this little coffin of a police country we call america.
A notionI find very amusing...
Umm.. If they started public executions because gross violations of the "laws" then the US would be no different than the countries they claim to be "aiding by bringing democracy to them".
Oh, wait a tick.. The US has had public executions, just not a large number of them.. (4 - 5 by my count)..
Umm..
So, a One Silly SOB who abuses power and acts out of fear and ignorence is bad.. but Several Silly SOB's who do the exact same thing are good?
This whole thing is half a joke..
Does anyone see the similarity between SCO's attempts to extort money and Unisys when they tried to strong arm the graphics world by demanding payment for LZW compression in GIF?
This is pretty foolish longterm for SCO.. as the whole reason groups (IBM and others) are throwing their weight behind linix is the UNIX community needs a homginous platform.. This will allow the groups to thrive and compete against the ever hungry Micro$haft..
But I find it a little odd tht just as SCO's death knell was being sounded, they got a infusion of cash from some strange source.. And now we have this FUD being tossed about.... with the real damage being done to the GPL.. as its never been tested in court. If you can scare people from using GPL based products, then linux's adoption will be slowed again.. (We all know how managers think... "If we don't know WHO is accountable for the product.. then we risk legal entanglements")
Umm... But no.. that can't be it..
Don't you mean, its the %99.99999999 that spoil it for the 0.000000001 that are ok (not good, just ok)..
I've been assulted, ignored, and in general mis-treated by every freaking offiicer in this bloody country.. (I travel quite a bit, so I get around). I've only met one that was decent, and I say decent, because at least when I was shot (by two bums who were doing a B&E at a bank 30 yards away).. he say, PLEASE get on the ground.. (not GET ON THE GROUND YOU @$@%@%@%@%@).
And people wonder why no one really likes the US. Umm.. I'm not sure.
I agree and disagree...
I completely agree with you that a head-on confrontation with a different perspective is a good way to test the validity of your argument and how strongly you agree with it..
HOWEVER... as a political move for getting through the university, its not going to garner you any points with a closed minded professor.. and, depending on how much of a jerk the are, may get you black listed from other educators of a similar mind set.
The question is.. if you have a system that is set up to encourage free thought (yeah, right.. in this country? don't make me laugh) then a difference of opinion that can be discussed is good.. I say bring out your intellectual guns and "lay some duke nuk'em on there arse" If not, you are only wasting your breath and limiting your ability to advance in that system.
I don't agree with that statement...
.. umm.. nevermind)
The purpose of a school is to education by exposure and train students on HOW to acquire information..
We can not simply accept something because on the very surface it looks good. Yes, I agree that schools do need equipment, and the fact that apple and micro$haft are helping in that regard, but have you looked at a ULA lately?.. A school is essentially REQUIRED to continue down the path of the dark side...
On that note, we are essentially teaching that its ok to be evil, provided that you look good doing it. (come to think of it.. that's how politicians
As its been pointed out on this thread.. this is a purely political move, but has wide reaching effects..
I think what he means is that the flurry of purchasers think the 17 inch baby (my newest child.. *sniff*) may be a little too big and so some customers are staying away from it..
But my own personal opinion is that the 17's are not selling as fast as the 15's is that there have been LOTS of rumours floating about relating to the new PPC chip coming out.. (and who wants to spend ANOTHER 4K for a latop that you JUST purchased)..
How do you figure that... Sure the entrenched provider will be shaking in their STBs.. but for the players who have been trying to crack into the market.. its gold for them.
Of course... lets be real here.. MSO's ride a fine line of profit... they are not going to make a mass switch (even with a second source.. a second source supplier is just that).. because the cost (labor, training, support, hardware, etc....) is too high.. Oh, they will dangle that carrot out in front of their suppliers.. (drop your prices or else).. but its like a business deciding on the next 400 machines they purchase will be MACs not PCs.. the labor, training, support, etc.. costs are too high for that to happen... as much as I would love to see it occur)
Just my 3 1/2 cents (isn't inflation great?, more money, less buying power)
You are forgetting one little catch here..
There are not too many MSO's in the US that have a DOCSIS DBDS system.. most (if not 99%) of them are DAVIC here in the US.. Sony does not produce a DAVIC box here because its main market is international (where DAVIC is the poor step child that no one wants.. and rightly so). So passage is a way for them to get their foot in the door with a recognizable consumer name so that when the change comes.. its "Hey, remember we made it easier for you to change"
But of course, MSO's have a long history of sticking with main providers (Motorola/GI, SA, even "shudder" PACE, and Pioneer)