The launches you should worry about are the launches they don't announce! But I guess it's no fun being paranoid if you can't point to actual new items that "justify" your paranoia!
Stupid, I agree. But censorship isn't about logic. It's about squeaky wheels and grease.
TV violence is more pornographic in its way than any "real" porn. And I'd rather small kids see the occasional tit than all the violence they're exposed to day in and day out. But violence doesn't get the same response as "indecency". People complain about it, but not with the same level of Satan-is-amongst-us self-righteousness.
Also, come to think of it, there's the matter of who's bothered by TV violence. It's people like you and me, who've stopped to think about what actually has a bad social effect, as opposed to what offends them personally. And such people tend to be against censorship on principle.
Before getting up in arms, why didn't anybody at LinuxToday ask what was going on? They've just gone and jumped to the conclusion that IW is somehow attempting to censor LinuxToday. Maybe it's just some kind of attempt to prevent deep linking. Maybe some nitwit at IW saw a bunch of referrals from LT and thought it was a DoS attack.
(No, don't respond to this post telling me why these things can't be true. Arguing about what it could be is just as stupid as the original assumption as to what it is. This is like arguing about what time it is, when the real question should be "Who's got a watch?")
Plus it's dumb to assume that IW did this without attempting to contact LT. Maybe the LT email server is broken? The message got discarded by an spam filter? The recipient discarded it without reading it? Happens all the time.
When you have a problem like this, you should work with the other party to solve it. If they refuse to cooperate or explain, then you have something to complain about. Going immediately into crusade mode based on total ignorance is childish.
You obviously haven't seen most of the earlier episodes. The Tardis supposedly has hundreds, maybe thousands of rooms, most of which The Doctor has simply forgotten about. This includes multiple control rooms. Whenever they decided to totally redesign the set (minor redesigns did not require explanation), The Doctor would wander into an unfamiliar room and say, "Oh, here's a fine control room I forgot I had! I think I'll use it instead!"
What's lame about this is that the Doctor is rarely shown in any room except the control room. There's always a door on the left that leads to the outside world, and a door on the right that leads to the rest of the Tardis. He often comes and goes through the right-hand door, where he presumably eats, sleeps, etc. But this is almost never shown.
Obviously they don't have the budget for a lot of sets, but they could be more creative with the sets they have. One thing I liked about the movie was that it made the Tardis's expansiveness visisble. The set was a lot fancier than the BBC version, but there was more to it than that. The Hollywood set designers had more imagination.
Of course, I just got through pointing out that non-lameness is not part of the Doctorverse. So I shouldn't carp.
No it's not. If you want to tell me why you think I am, I'll tell you why I think you're wrong. But I'm not going to trade meaningless one-liners with a lurker.
...than employers demanding 5 years Java experience -- 2 or 3 years after the language was invented?
But it is mind-boggling what people can get away with on their resumes. Knew a guy who claimed to have graduate degrees from schools whose names he couldn't spell. You'd think employers would spot that, but no -- he actually held a couple of director-level jobs at the height of the bubble.
I really should get a little more creative with my resume. People who see it always ask why I don't mention where I got my 4-year degree. Answer: I don't have one. Which is a pain -- some companies won't even talk to me because of it. I could fudge up a degree from Whatsamatter U (double major, computer engineering and journalism). I'm sure nobody'd check. But I'm too much of a coward to pull off that kind of fib!
Oops. Just had a thought. I know Java. My credentials are impeccable: I wrote the JDK release notes for almost a year, and I once played a video game with James Gosling! But I've never worked as a Java programmer, being absolutely the worst coder on the planet. But if the shortage of Java programmers is that bad, maybe that's not such a problem!
Non-lameness does not a good Doctor make.
on
New Dr Who Actor Named
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Lame as it was, the movie doesn't begin to compare with most of the BBC scripts. Tom Baker once told an interviewer that his famous puzzled expression was not acting -- he often had no idea what was supposed to be going on, the script usually not being finished until shooting was well underway!
I wonder if the Beeb will just pretend the movie never happened? They certainly can't afford to reproduce Hollywood's version of the Tardis.
Looks like they bit off more than they can chew, even before winning a single case
All the SCO stories, and most of the subsequent posts, have Slashdotters alternately enraged by SCO's evil ways and chortling at their supposed stupidity. The assumptions are that SCO invented Creative Litigation, and that none of their lawyers ever cracted a law book. In reality, the courts have always been full of people suing each other for weird, seemingly illogical reasons. And I'd guess that there's more legal expertise in the secretarial pool of SCO's law firm then there is in all of Slashdot.
A business with a lot of cash is not like a family with a lot of cash. The family can think about a few more luxuries, send the kids to a good school, maybe take some time off from work. No downside, except for greedy relatives.
For a big corporation, a big bank account doesn't mean that management can kick back, or employees can feel more secure about their jobs. The VCs will still give you a hard time if they think your expenses are too high. And if your business starts to tank, you can't the investors, "It's ok, we've got enough cash to keep the lights on without generating income." They'll actually give you a harder time than if you had no cash. Because if you can't convince them them things will turn around, they're going to want to liquidate the business and divvy up the pile. Not an option they have if you're broke, or just have a reasonable operating reserve.
My former employer just laid off a bunch of people. (Probably would have included me if I hadn't already left.) For an ordinary person's point of view, these layoffs were absurd. The company did have a bad quarter, but it was the first unprofitable quarter in several years. And they had half a billion dollars (over two years gross revenue) in cash. So why the layoffs? Because cash or no, management has to convince its investors that its assets are performing. The employees weren't generating enough revenue to justify their continue employment.
(No, it doesn't make sense to me either. But that's the way Wall Street does things.)
Bottom line: no amount of cash can save Apple from dying. It just means that if they do die, their investors will do better at the liquidation. The only way Apple can stay in business is by selling enough Macs and iPods, and doing so with enough of a profit margin, to satisfy Wall Street. If they can't do this, they're history.
Really good points, And I seem to recall that Albuquerque is not that far from Santa Fe, which is a cultural mecca of sorts.
I wasn't considering leaving Silicon Valley when this discussion started. But now I'll have to give it some serious thought!
The only downside I see to living in New Mexico is that when you travel to the rest of the country, you keep having to explain to geographical ignoramuses that you're not a furrener. I believe that's why New Mexico is the only state that puts "USA" on its license plates!
I knew I'd get this response. There's always a lot of loyal Tivo users who just can't understand how anybody could claim the product is flawed. I guess that, when it does work, the product inspires such rabid loyalty that any criticism of the product sounds demented. I can understand that -- when I first got my Tivo I was totally besotted with the thing. It wasn't just that it was more convenient than a VCR. It was the way the thing kept finding and recording good shows ("good" defined as "stuff I like to watch") without even being asked.
But the device is a long way from perfect. There are design flaws, quality control issues, and nasty software bugs. I won't go into specifics, because I've had this argument umpteen times, and I lack any inclination to have it again. Nor will I argue figures. I'm sure there are a lot of people who've never had trouble with their Tivos and never will. But there are also a lot who've had trouble from day one.
How many? Darned if I know. But a lot more than there should be for a consumer device.
I'm glad your Tivo has always worked for you. But please don't fall into the standard Slashdot fallacy, which goes, "This is my experience with technology X. Any conflicting reports must be bogus."
The Tivo device will be replaced by generic PVRs, just as the IBM PC was replaced by the generic "IBM-compatible". There might still be a Tivo-branded device, but I think/hope that Tivo will concentrate on just providing listings.
I love my Tivo -- when it's working. But it mostly doesn't because it's really a nasty piece of engineering. You take a basic PC chassis, you change to a PowerPC CPU, you kludge in a lot of DSP hardware, and you hack linux to give the whole thing a consumer-friendly front end. The result is a device that can't quite decide whether its a hacker toy, or a turnkey consumer device, and doesn't really work well as either.
Problems like this get solved when a lot of companies are competing to solve it. But Tivo doesn't have any real competition -- UltimateTV is history, and ReplayTV soon will be. What would be ideal is a bunch of companies competing to implement the Tivo platform, with Tivo just selling them technology licenses, and selling consumers access to the listings database.
I checked with Elvis (he lives next door to me) and he pointed out that if people want to believe something, there's not a lot you can do about it. Look at how many people believe that Hoover damn is full of dead construction workers, or that the Apollo program only happened on a Hollywood sound stage. That's not just bad science, that's a total defiance of common sense. But these urban legends appeal to people, and all the debunking in the world won't change it.
What's really disgusting is the way the media is cynically exploiting these beliefs. But I view that as just another symptom of the "1000 channels and nothing's on" syndrome. Which is a result of so much media being controlled by so few companies, so that real creativity or insight has no chance in the mass media. Crap is easy to produce and has a high profit margin, so that's what the media monopolies give us. That's of a lot more immediate importance that any silly arguments over the Mars Face.
It being a kid's movie just makes it worse. The books' main merit is that they stimulate kids' imaginations. Hollywood want kids to just sit back and enjoy the ride.
I saw the first cube movie and hated it. What was the point? A bunch of people are stuck in a giant cube, and have to solve silly puzzles to find their way out. All the questions I wanted answered (Who? Why? How?) are not part of the story. If you're a horror fan (I'm not) I suppose you get off on all the nasty things that happen to them when they get the wrong answers. But that's not enough to make a decent story.
I didn't really think there was a conspiracy. I was just hoping...
In point of fact, Exxon actually spent a lot of money, back in the 80s, trying to develop a cheap rechargable battery. They figured that when the gas ran out, people would switch to electric cars, and they'd go to an Exxon station whenver they needed to swap out their batteries. Alas, the gas never ran out...
Slashdot Mirror
The launches you should worry about are the launches they don't announce! But I guess it's no fun being paranoid if you can't point to actual new items that "justify" your paranoia!
TV violence is more pornographic in its way than any "real" porn. And I'd rather small kids see the occasional tit than all the violence they're exposed to day in and day out. But violence doesn't get the same response as "indecency". People complain about it, but not with the same level of Satan-is-amongst-us self-righteousness.
Also, come to think of it, there's the matter of who's bothered by TV violence. It's people like you and me, who've stopped to think about what actually has a bad social effect, as opposed to what offends them personally. And such people tend to be against censorship on principle.
(No, don't respond to this post telling me why these things can't be true. Arguing about what it could be is just as stupid as the original assumption as to what it is. This is like arguing about what time it is, when the real question should be "Who's got a watch?")
Plus it's dumb to assume that IW did this without attempting to contact LT. Maybe the LT email server is broken? The message got discarded by an spam filter? The recipient discarded it without reading it? Happens all the time.
When you have a problem like this, you should work with the other party to solve it. If they refuse to cooperate or explain, then you have something to complain about. Going immediately into crusade mode based on total ignorance is childish.
What's lame about this is that the Doctor is rarely shown in any room except the control room. There's always a door on the left that leads to the outside world, and a door on the right that leads to the rest of the Tardis. He often comes and goes through the right-hand door, where he presumably eats, sleeps, etc. But this is almost never shown.
Obviously they don't have the budget for a lot of sets, but they could be more creative with the sets they have. One thing I liked about the movie was that it made the Tardis's expansiveness visisble. The set was a lot fancier than the BBC version, but there was more to it than that. The Hollywood set designers had more imagination.
Of course, I just got through pointing out that non-lameness is not part of the Doctorverse. So I shouldn't carp.
So why didn't they do that in the movie?
No it's not. If you want to tell me why you think I am, I'll tell you why I think you're wrong. But I'm not going to trade meaningless one-liners with a lurker.
But it is mind-boggling what people can get away with on their resumes. Knew a guy who claimed to have graduate degrees from schools whose names he couldn't spell. You'd think employers would spot that, but no -- he actually held a couple of director-level jobs at the height of the bubble.
I really should get a little more creative with my resume. People who see it always ask why I don't mention where I got my 4-year degree. Answer: I don't have one. Which is a pain -- some companies won't even talk to me because of it. I could fudge up a degree from Whatsamatter U (double major, computer engineering and journalism). I'm sure nobody'd check. But I'm too much of a coward to pull off that kind of fib!
Oops. Just had a thought. I know Java. My credentials are impeccable: I wrote the JDK release notes for almost a year, and I once played a video game with James Gosling! But I've never worked as a Java programmer, being absolutely the worst coder on the planet. But if the shortage of Java programmers is that bad, maybe that's not such a problem!
I wonder if the Beeb will just pretend the movie never happened? They certainly can't afford to reproduce Hollywood's version of the Tardis.
Sorry, not funny. In fact, your town seems to have many of the same urban issues that motivated this discussion in the first place.
About those roaches. A little boric acid can work wonders. I'll resist the temptation to offer suggestions on your other problem!
For a big corporation, a big bank account doesn't mean that management can kick back, or employees can feel more secure about their jobs. The VCs will still give you a hard time if they think your expenses are too high. And if your business starts to tank, you can't the investors, "It's ok, we've got enough cash to keep the lights on without generating income." They'll actually give you a harder time than if you had no cash. Because if you can't convince them them things will turn around, they're going to want to liquidate the business and divvy up the pile. Not an option they have if you're broke, or just have a reasonable operating reserve.
My former employer just laid off a bunch of people. (Probably would have included me if I hadn't already left.) For an ordinary person's point of view, these layoffs were absurd. The company did have a bad quarter, but it was the first unprofitable quarter in several years. And they had half a billion dollars (over two years gross revenue) in cash. So why the layoffs? Because cash or no, management has to convince its investors that its assets are performing. The employees weren't generating enough revenue to justify their continue employment.
(No, it doesn't make sense to me either. But that's the way Wall Street does things.)
Bottom line: no amount of cash can save Apple from dying. It just means that if they do die, their investors will do better at the liquidation. The only way Apple can stay in business is by selling enough Macs and iPods, and doing so with enough of a profit margin, to satisfy Wall Street. If they can't do this, they're history.
What's with the robotics icon?
Business plan: start a rural wireless ISP.
Consider bankruptcy. It's not just for evil corporations anymore!
I wasn't considering leaving Silicon Valley when this discussion started. But now I'll have to give it some serious thought!
The only downside I see to living in New Mexico is that when you travel to the rest of the country, you keep having to explain to geographical ignoramuses that you're not a furrener. I believe that's why New Mexico is the only state that puts "USA" on its license plates!
Thanks for the update. Add NH to the list of regions it's just a little to late to "escape" to.
But the device is a long way from perfect. There are design flaws, quality control issues, and nasty software bugs. I won't go into specifics, because I've had this argument umpteen times, and I lack any inclination to have it again. Nor will I argue figures. I'm sure there are a lot of people who've never had trouble with their Tivos and never will. But there are also a lot who've had trouble from day one.
How many? Darned if I know. But a lot more than there should be for a consumer device.
I'm glad your Tivo has always worked for you. But please don't fall into the standard Slashdot fallacy, which goes, "This is my experience with technology X. Any conflicting reports must be bogus."
I love my Tivo -- when it's working. But it mostly doesn't because it's really a nasty piece of engineering. You take a basic PC chassis, you change to a PowerPC CPU, you kludge in a lot of DSP hardware, and you hack linux to give the whole thing a consumer-friendly front end. The result is a device that can't quite decide whether its a hacker toy, or a turnkey consumer device, and doesn't really work well as either.
Problems like this get solved when a lot of companies are competing to solve it. But Tivo doesn't have any real competition -- UltimateTV is history, and ReplayTV soon will be. What would be ideal is a bunch of companies competing to implement the Tivo platform, with Tivo just selling them technology licenses, and selling consumers access to the listings database.
What's really disgusting is the way the media is cynically exploiting these beliefs. But I view that as just another symptom of the "1000 channels and nothing's on" syndrome. Which is a result of so much media being controlled by so few companies, so that real creativity or insight has no chance in the mass media. Crap is easy to produce and has a high profit margin, so that's what the media monopolies give us. That's of a lot more immediate importance that any silly arguments over the Mars Face.
There could be a problem with any marriage. Diagnosing said problems on the basis of a short online message is arrogant, patronizing, and stupid.
BSD Trolls are Dying!
I saw the first cube movie and hated it. What was the point? A bunch of people are stuck in a giant cube, and have to solve silly puzzles to find their way out. All the questions I wanted answered (Who? Why? How?) are not part of the story. If you're a horror fan (I'm not) I suppose you get off on all the nasty things that happen to them when they get the wrong answers. But that's not enough to make a decent story.
Of course, you could never make Keanu Reeves movie about bacteria...
In point of fact, Exxon actually spent a lot of money, back in the 80s, trying to develop a cheap rechargable battery. They figured that when the gas ran out, people would switch to electric cars, and they'd go to an Exxon station whenver they needed to swap out their batteries. Alas, the gas never ran out...