uhh...before asking about a word's meaning, check out www.dictionary.com -- I mean, I'm still a complete fool but at least I'm not asking totally stupid questions.
as for phallus, take your pants off...I imagine you'll see some sort of vestigal organ there.
if not, then you'll see a gap for where this vestigal organ is to be inserted.
The correct spelling for any set of letters that result in a phonetical sound of [ar(e)^g] or [aru^g] is:
"AAArg"(tm)
if in especially strained circumstances one may modify it such that the spelling is not retained but THE CAPITALIZATION AND RELATIVE PORPORTIONS BETWEEN THE LETTERS must be kept faithful to the original rendering of "AAArg"(tm). ie:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrgggggg!!!!!!! (tm)
I have trademarked AAArg(tm): 1) as the handle of Justus Pang the person (in which case spelling of AAArg(tm) must also be correct) 2) and released AAArg(tm) into public circles for the limited usage of AAArg(tm) as a exclaimation of frustration.
I take all trademark violations seriously and will prosecute. I should note there is a case pending against www.aaarg.com but am not at liberty to release any further information.
REDMOND (MSN), April 2, -- Internet users attempting to to access www.microsoft.com yesterday was prevented by doing so due to an April fool's joke. The web messaging board www.Slashdot.org redirected its users to www.microsoft.com resulting in the only event worse a DoS attack -- the "slashdot effect". Bill Gates was quoted.....
[q] Maybe Windows 2000 will be the big answer to your problems. ("Wait for the upgrade"...) [/q]
Since win2k is now a real marketed piece of "software", win2k CANNOT be the answer to our problems (as you stated yourself). We are now looking forward to Win2kx, the upgrade that will be the answer to all our problems.
I hate to say however, that the repitition of a dumb joke several times (and then the increasing hostilities of the responses) is making it VERY entertaining...
[q] As long as they manage to produce something that I (and I suspect most other people) would consider to be a quality product, and not fubar it like last time. I will be more than happy with Netscape 6.0 as my primary browser. [/q]
the problem is that I don't think they HAVE been producing quality products...when I rebuilt my family's pc on with win98 (oops, should have stayed w/ 3.11 IMHO) I remember that netscape required an incredible download time like IE5 AND it was slower.
I hope NS6.0 is 1) Fast, 2) small, 3) reliable.
I don't care for MS any more than anyone else but until then I'll use IE5 cause unlike ns4.5 its at least faster. For god's sake, ns4.6 is slow on my university lab account! I dunno why but I gave up tweaking it and jumped to IE4/5 after a couple months.
[q]I've noticed this come up a lot regarding stuff like celebrity picture pages, arcade ROM archives, etc. People who have gone to the trouble to build a lot of content on their site don't like to have their site hijacked by some jackass with a geocities page and a bunch of links directly to the content.[/q]
apart from the content you provide what IS the point of your site?
IANAL but here is what I think in more quasi moral/legal terms...
"1. A price comparison engine - backed by the database that is built by robots I built that scour other websites product listings."
should be fine: its a service to the community. Its not so common in the physical world because its a bit harder and requires more manpower (and less renumeration) but if someone wanted to do that that would be thier perogative. I imagine there examples of that outside of a basic friend to friend level. I don't think product prices are copyrightable (are they?) and even if they are would it be worth it to enforce it?
"2. Image grabbers. Say I want to have pictures for the products I'm comparing prices for. Is it OK for me to program a robot to retrieve these pictures, if they are publically displayed."
maybe, maybe not. In so far as the images are [most likely] copyrighted -- but I doubt a company, esp. the manufactering company, would have a problem with that...
"3. For that matter, content grabbers. Say I want to have reviews on my comparison engine site. Is it OK for me to grab other reviews from websites? Does it matter whether the content is original or not?"
If you call the content your own ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's called theft and plagerism. I am not allowed to publish a magazine full of articles without each author's consent, but I could publish a magazine that purely a bibliography... Same with the web, you're allowed to refer to but not "publish" other's information.
If its merely a link or even framed to the original AND it is attributed (hell the linked-to page should be self attributing) I don't see why not. I mean that IS the idea of linking right?
When I creat a link to something its different from appropriating it. If I put up a magazine article on my own web page, the author has the right to sue my ass. If I put a link to it he should have no right to sue me. why? because he still has control over the article, he can put up a registration system on his page or take it down all together -- I'm just pointing people his way.
"4. News grabbers. Can I take news and stock quotes from other sites and use them on mine?"
nope, see response to 3.
"But being able to aggregate content by myself without having to ask or deal would be a great boon."
To aggregate content/links is legal, open up a standard work and look at thier bibliography and footnotes.
To take someone's work and call it your own is not legal -- plagerism never has been legal.
[q] This decision is *NOT* good for anyone who actually wants to 'do more' on the Internet. [/q]
scenarios (ignoring whether ticket.com was possibly a jackass in the way they deeplinked):
ticketmaster wins, setting precedence to illegalize deep linking, everyone that deep links to someone else is on shaky ground according to the whim of the original content provider. The nature of the web has just been fucked over.
ticketmaster loses, does a tech fix...tickets.com can deep link but an ad for ticketmaster pops up - personally that seems to be a win-win. Customers don't have to go through a shitload of crap just to find one specific event (which seems to be the current disease in dotcom business)
ticketmaster loses, pulls its web page all together (which is thier right) 1) Tickets.com is fucked, ticketmaster is happy. 2) consumers aren't happy, too bad but 3) THE WEB REMAINS WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO DO: share information conviently.
IT IS ONLY COINCIDENTAL THAT since the web shares its information conviently BUSINESSES LIKE TO USE IT FOR COMMERCE. If a business doesn't like how the web works in relation to commerce -- don't fuck with it legally, instead work with it technically or get the off the web.
for me, "doing more" on the internet is about what it was meant for : sharing information, not making kids and monopolies, rich and richer. I mean if it does make people richer and richer, fine, but don't fuck with the gestalt of the web just so that you can make money more conviently.
Don't get me wrong, I have used dotcoms for business (I don't any more after reading about security/privacy issues) but "do whatever I damn well please" is different for different people. ie, for you apparently its to do business conviently, for me its so I can "surf around" and find useful information for whatever project I am working on. What IS the web primarily for? Is it for businesses and consumers or is it for PEOPLE?
[q]I'm in North Carolina, in an area where a couple of teenagers were arrested just the other day on charges that they were planning to kill the employees of a local gun shop and then use the weapons they would steal to kill the usual assortment of teachers, classmates, etc.[/q]
are there any compelling reason NOT to tell the cops? I mean at Berkeley we "hate" cops and protest them for all we can but when shit goes down...
I mean I guess there would be a reason NOT to tell cops in LA, but then again is Pinkerton anymore trustworthy or qualified to take care of shit like this?
[q] Personally coming from Australia, which in fact has one of the world's highest youth suicide rates in the world, it is rather fortunate (in a twisted sense) way that our tough gun laws prevent the distressed from taking out their anger on the rest of society, but onto themselves. I know that I shall be flamed by the pro-gun NRA lobby, but taking away the right to a gun from teenagers is obviously the first step in controlling the situation and reducing violence and copycat incidents in the United States. [/q]
we have a toys for tot's program but not guns for teens. I AM a big supporter for our right to bear arms -- but NOONE (not even the NRA) says that minors should have [unsupervised] access to weaponry.
when teens have guns 2 things have gone wrong: 1)their parents didn't train them to learn to deal with life (and its resultant shit) in a non-violent fashion. 2)thier parents obviously didn't bother locking up thier guns (I know this #2 is a debatable issue but then I'd REALLY be off topic)
[q](b). You have some kind of PROBLEM with depressed kids, or kids carrying weapons, being turned in? Sh*t, if I saw even ONE kid carrying a gun at my local school I'd be DAMN happy to ANONYMOUSLY turn them in. If I thought a student was going to kill themselves, I'd be happy to see them get the treatment they need. [/q]
uhh we HAVE law enforcement to deal with things like that...
I guess this is kinda redundant but there are plenty of checks for young people to "report" other young people so that they can be cared for...or has our schools gone so far down the tubes that a student can't even talk to a close teacher (or even administator) about someone that they feared was going to hurt himher self or others?
This anonymous faceless system that has really no checks on it is not only overkill its setting precedent for scarier stuff.
[q]Ahem, please don't draw conclusions about the United States based on the actions of some Bible-thumping Jesus freaks in North Carolina. There is a little bit of civilization in this country - you just have to know where to look.:)[/q]
random aside: but I'm not so sure that Bible-thumping Jesus freaks are the ones behind this...
The only reason I say this is cause I grew up in a family that would be considered serious bible-thumping Jesus freaks (I was even homeschooled for 4 years) BUT something like this would have got us and our family friends howling.
Personally I think its indicative of big government (yes its a private organization, but its backed by the state) that is trying to take the responsibility of rearing children from their parents and now they are indoctrinating and exploiting the youth for thier own gain. Right now it seems somewhat innocuous (well to some really stupid people in North Carolina) but just wait till the "Red White n' Blue Guards" of Chairman Gore/Bush bursts through your your front door...
[q] But I think this is exactly what needs to happen in order for AOL to change their practices. Here at Dartmouth, the system administrators regularly just stop refusing AOL e-mail onto campus. If enough administrators responded to AOL this way, I think they would wisen up quickly. [/q]
HOLY SHIT!! I mean it sucks to be spammed (I guess I'm particulary kind to AOL cause I haven't had problems with them) but for a university to refuse email from AOL??
did I read that right?
I mean my 2 best friends use AOL...they aren't the computer-savvy types but they still are great people and we communicate through email.
I'm surprised that the students (and related relatives) at dartmouth haven't raised a stink over this. I'd raise holy hell.
A lawsuit, yes, but to unilaterally cut off email from the largest ISP in america, ridiculous. This sounds like that censorshipt/mattel issue: "lets just block any site with 's' 'e' and 'x' on it."
[q]Take a look at this , and then compare it to this (the guy he is responding to). Yes, his voice is absolutely worth listening to. Correctness before prettiness, that's just my two cents... [/q]
well both suck...mainly because of readability
I dunno but I don't like reading black text on yellow background, nor do I care to read light blue and orange text on white backgrounds...
readibility (and quick/easy access) IS the number one reason for the web right? If I wanted arty shit I'd go buy a book on design....
[q]And finally there is the fact that the kid who has the camera, the one who films everything, find beauty everwhere, but only throught the lens of a camera. Gee, more Hollywood self validation. [/q]
I thought that he was capturing the beauty so that it could be viewed again, not that he only saw such beauty through a camera lens.
if so then its EVEN MORE of a self validation congratulatory scene.
The whole CONCEPT of Hollywood is to capture beauty for future reviewing...they want us to think that beauty can be [better] captured by the camera and then have us pay for the experience.
I mean beauty CAN be captured through the camera but its crazy how its seems as if people (noone on/. in mind) often get so enraptured in camera beauty they can't find beauty ANYWHERE outside of the constructed and framed reality of movie or photograph.
That's also why I refuse to attend gatherings (and usually travel) without a camera. I'm there for the experience...not to document the experience for future reference. I use cameras for documentation (I don't have enough skill or desire to produce art using cameras) but I think it a foolish trap to allow the camera dictate one's experience. For God's sake the culture seems to be fixated on the audio-visual medium while forgetting the several other senses we have left.
[q]I've found I tend not to agree with a lot of critics, so I can usually base a lot off of what they think (though sometimes, they are right - a movie is just *bad*). [/q]
well my experience is that there are more bad movies out than good so pure odds are on the side of a reviews that pans any movie.
Bad is usually just plain bad and its easier to get everyone to agree that a bad movie is bad, especially since everyone's conception of "good" is more idiosyncratic its a bit harder to please everyone with thier reviews.
maybe its just cause I'm a critical art/architecture student that doesn't really like movies in general.
then again I like the winner of the 1980 Canne film festival, "Yol" (a turkish film).
Slashdot Mirror
uhh...before asking about a word's meaning, check out www.dictionary.com -- I mean, I'm still a complete fool but at least I'm not asking totally stupid questions.
as for phallus, take your pants off...I imagine you'll see some sort of vestigal organ there.
if not, then you'll see a gap for where this vestigal organ is to be inserted.
hehe dunno why I am still up...but yeah...my brain has been sizzled for quite some time...
I'll try to be a better l33t h4x0r next year...
Mr. Anonymous Coward:
The correct spelling for any set of letters that result in a phonetical sound of [ar(e)^g] or [aru^g] is:
"AAArg"(tm)
if in especially strained circumstances one may modify it such that the spelling is not retained but THE CAPITALIZATION AND RELATIVE PORPORTIONS BETWEEN THE LETTERS must be kept faithful to the original rendering of "AAArg"(tm). ie:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrgggggg!!!!!!! (tm)
I have trademarked AAArg(tm):
1) as the handle of Justus Pang the person (in which case spelling of AAArg(tm) must also be correct)
2) and released AAArg(tm) into public circles for the limited usage of AAArg(tm) as a exclaimation of frustration.
I take all trademark violations seriously and will prosecute. I should note there is a case pending against www.aaarg.com but am not at liberty to release any further information.
AAArg (tm)
\/\/0r5t 1s th4t 3y3 5t43D \_/p 411 N1t3 5urf1ng D4 \/\/3b 4 4Rt1kl35 4nd 0th3r 4pR1l f00l5 51t35.
huah!
REDMOND (MSN), April 2, -- Internet users attempting to to access www.microsoft.com yesterday was prevented by doing so due to an April fool's joke. The web messaging board www.Slashdot.org redirected its users to www.microsoft.com resulting in the only event worse a DoS attack -- the "slashdot effect". Bill Gates was quoted.....
[q] Maybe Windows 2000 will be the big answer to your problems. ("Wait for the upgrade"...) [/q]
Since win2k is now a real marketed piece of "software", win2k CANNOT be the answer to our problems (as you stated yourself). We are now looking forward to Win2kx, the upgrade that will be the answer to all our problems.
don't worry, it has -- IN BERKELEY OF ALL PLACES!
The problem: They have hit the point of no return.
The solution: keep on going.
if they back down now they will look like a bunch of pusses who could only half baked thier idea.
It'd be rather funny to see how all this works out IMHO.
actually Klingon would be pretty cool...
I hate to say however, that the repitition of a dumb joke several times (and then the increasing hostilities of the responses) is making it VERY entertaining...
I've come to rather like it actually...
WTF??? OOG IN LOWERCASE?? THAT WAS FUNNY!
AAArg
[q] As long as they manage to produce something that I (and I suspect most other people) would consider to be a quality product, and not fubar it like last time. I will be more than happy with Netscape 6.0 as my primary browser. [/q]
the problem is that I don't think they HAVE been producing quality products...when I rebuilt my family's pc on with win98 (oops, should have stayed w/ 3.11 IMHO) I remember that netscape required an incredible download time like IE5 AND it was slower.
I hope NS6.0 is 1) Fast, 2) small, 3) reliable.
I don't care for MS any more than anyone else but until then I'll use IE5 cause unlike ns4.5 its at least faster. For god's sake, ns4.6 is slow on my university lab account! I dunno why but I gave up tweaking it and jumped to IE4/5 after a couple months.
[q]I've noticed this come up a lot regarding stuff like celebrity picture pages, arcade ROM archives, etc. People who have gone to the trouble to build a lot of content on their site don't like to have their site hijacked by some jackass with a geocities page and a bunch of links directly to the content.[/q]
apart from the content you provide what IS the point of your site?
self glorification?
well my own page personal page is...
IANAL but here is what I think in more quasi moral/legal terms...
"1. A price comparison engine - backed by the database that is built by robots I built that scour other websites product listings."
should be fine: its a service to the community. Its not so common in the physical world because its a bit harder and requires more manpower (and less renumeration) but if someone wanted to do that that would be thier perogative. I imagine there examples of that outside of a basic friend to friend level. I don't think product prices are copyrightable (are they?) and even if they are would it be worth it to enforce it?
"2. Image grabbers. Say I want to have pictures for the products I'm comparing prices for. Is it OK for me to program a robot to retrieve these pictures, if they are publically displayed."
maybe, maybe not. In so far as the images are [most likely] copyrighted -- but I doubt a company, esp. the manufactering company, would have a problem with that...
"3. For that matter, content grabbers. Say I want to have reviews on my comparison engine site. Is it OK for me to grab other reviews from websites? Does it matter whether the content is original or not?"
If you call the content your own ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's called theft and plagerism. I am not allowed to publish a magazine full of articles without each author's consent, but I could publish a magazine that purely a bibliography... Same with the web, you're allowed to refer to but not "publish" other's information.
If its merely a link or even framed to the original AND it is attributed (hell the linked-to page should be self attributing) I don't see why not. I mean that IS the idea of linking right?
When I creat a link to something its different from appropriating it. If I put up a magazine article on my own web page, the author has the right to sue my ass. If I put a link to it he should have no right to sue me. why? because he still has control over the article, he can put up a registration system on his page or take it down all together -- I'm just pointing people his way.
"4. News grabbers. Can I take news and stock quotes from other sites and use them on mine?"
nope, see response to 3.
"But being able to aggregate content by myself without having to ask or deal would be a great boon."
To aggregate content/links is legal, open up a standard work and look at thier bibliography and footnotes.
To take someone's work and call it your own is not legal -- plagerism never has been legal.
[q] This decision is *NOT* good for anyone who actually wants to 'do more' on the Internet. [/q]
scenarios (ignoring whether ticket.com was possibly a jackass in the way they deeplinked):
ticketmaster wins, setting precedence to illegalize deep linking, everyone that deep links to someone else is on shaky ground according to the whim of the original content provider. The nature of the web has just been fucked over.
ticketmaster loses, does a tech fix...tickets.com can deep link but an ad for ticketmaster pops up - personally that seems to be a win-win. Customers don't have to go through a shitload of crap just to find one specific event (which seems to be the current disease in dotcom business)
ticketmaster loses, pulls its web page all together (which is thier right) 1) Tickets.com is fucked, ticketmaster is happy. 2) consumers aren't happy, too bad but 3) THE WEB REMAINS WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO DO: share information conviently.
IT IS ONLY COINCIDENTAL THAT since the web shares its information conviently BUSINESSES LIKE TO USE IT FOR COMMERCE. If a business doesn't like how the web works in relation to commerce -- don't fuck with it legally, instead work with it technically or get the off the web.
for me, "doing more" on the internet is about what it was meant for : sharing information, not making kids and monopolies, rich and richer. I mean if it does make people richer and richer, fine, but don't fuck with the gestalt of the web just so that you can make money more conviently.
Don't get me wrong, I have used dotcoms for business (I don't any more after reading about security/privacy issues) but "do whatever I damn well please" is different for different people. ie, for you apparently its to do business conviently, for me its so I can "surf around" and find useful information for whatever project I am working on. What IS the web primarily for? Is it for businesses and consumers or is it for PEOPLE?
[q]I'm in North Carolina, in an area where a couple of teenagers were arrested just the other day on charges that they were planning to kill the employees of a local gun shop and then use the weapons they would steal to kill the usual assortment of teachers, classmates, etc.[/q]
are there any compelling reason NOT to tell the cops? I mean at Berkeley we "hate" cops and protest them for all we can but when shit goes down...
I mean I guess there would be a reason NOT to tell cops in LA, but then again is Pinkerton anymore trustworthy or qualified to take care of shit like this?
[q] Personally coming from Australia, which in fact has one of the world's highest youth suicide rates in the world, it is rather fortunate (in a twisted sense) way that our tough gun laws prevent the distressed from taking out their anger on the rest of society, but onto themselves. I know that I shall be flamed by the pro-gun NRA lobby, but taking away the right to a gun from teenagers is obviously the first step in controlling the situation and reducing violence and copycat incidents in the United States. [/q]
we have a toys for tot's program but not guns for teens. I AM a big supporter for our right to bear arms -- but NOONE (not even the NRA) says that minors should have [unsupervised] access to weaponry.
when teens have guns 2 things have gone wrong:
1)their parents didn't train them to learn to deal with life (and its resultant shit) in a non-violent fashion.
2)thier parents obviously didn't bother locking up thier guns (I know this #2 is a debatable issue but then I'd REALLY be off topic)
Otherwise a very well written post...
[q](b). You have some kind of PROBLEM with depressed kids, or kids carrying weapons, being turned in? Sh*t, if I saw even ONE kid carrying a gun at my local school I'd be DAMN happy to ANONYMOUSLY turn them in. If I thought a student was going to kill themselves, I'd be happy to see them get the treatment they need. [/q]
uhh we HAVE law enforcement to deal with things like that...
I guess this is kinda redundant but there are plenty of checks for young people to "report" other young people so that they can be cared for...or has our schools gone so far down the tubes that a student can't even talk to a close teacher (or even administator) about someone that they feared was going to hurt himher self or others?
This anonymous faceless system that has really no checks on it is not only overkill its setting precedent for scarier stuff.
[q]Ahem, please don't draw conclusions about the United States based on the actions of some Bible-thumping Jesus freaks in North Carolina. There is a little bit of civilization in this country - you just have to know where to look. :)[/q]
random aside: but I'm not so sure that Bible-thumping Jesus freaks are the ones behind this...
The only reason I say this is cause I grew up in a family that would be considered serious bible-thumping Jesus freaks (I was even homeschooled for 4 years) BUT something like this would have got us and our family friends howling.
Personally I think its indicative of big government (yes its a private organization, but its backed by the state) that is trying to take the responsibility of rearing children from their parents and now they are indoctrinating and exploiting the youth for thier own gain. Right now it seems somewhat innocuous (well to some really stupid people in North Carolina) but just wait till the "Red White n' Blue Guards" of Chairman Gore/Bush bursts through your your front door...
This is scary...
is there a copy of this list online...if so where?
[q] But I think this is exactly what needs to happen in order for AOL to change their practices. Here at Dartmouth, the system administrators regularly just stop refusing AOL e-mail onto campus. If enough administrators responded to AOL this way, I think they would wisen up quickly. [/q]
HOLY SHIT!! I mean it sucks to be spammed (I guess I'm particulary kind to AOL cause I haven't had problems with them) but for a university to refuse email from AOL??
did I read that right?
I mean my 2 best friends use AOL...they aren't the computer-savvy types but they still are great people and we communicate through email.
I'm surprised that the students (and related relatives) at dartmouth haven't raised a stink over this. I'd raise holy hell.
A lawsuit, yes, but to unilaterally cut off email from the largest ISP in america, ridiculous. This sounds like that censorshipt/mattel issue: "lets just block any site with 's' 'e' and 'x' on it."
funny thing...the only spam I get from AOL are from some gullible friends of mine...
the only unsolicited emails I get are from dotcoms and this Asian American psycho political group 80-20.
The only time I've ever had problem with spam was in my youth when I tried out AOhelL for 2 months.
[q]Take a look at this , and then compare it to this (the guy he is responding to). Yes, his voice is absolutely worth listening to. Correctness before prettiness, that's just my two cents... [/q]
well both suck...mainly because of readability
I dunno but I don't like reading black text on yellow background, nor do I care to read light blue and orange text on white backgrounds...
readibility (and quick/easy access) IS the number one reason for the web right? If I wanted arty shit I'd go buy a book on design....
[q]And finally there is the fact that the kid who has the camera, the one who films everything, find beauty everwhere, but only throught the lens of a camera. Gee, more Hollywood self validation. [/q]
/. in mind) often get so enraptured in camera beauty they can't find beauty ANYWHERE outside of the constructed and framed reality of movie or photograph.
I thought that he was capturing the beauty so that it could be viewed again, not that he only saw such beauty through a camera lens.
if so then its EVEN MORE of a self validation congratulatory scene.
The whole CONCEPT of Hollywood is to capture beauty for future reviewing...they want us to think that beauty can be [better] captured by the camera and then have us pay for the experience.
I mean beauty CAN be captured through the camera but its crazy how its seems as if people (noone on
That's also why I refuse to attend gatherings (and usually travel) without a camera. I'm there for the experience...not to document the experience for future reference. I use cameras for documentation (I don't have enough skill or desire to produce art using cameras) but I think it a foolish trap to allow the camera dictate one's experience. For God's sake the culture seems to be fixated on the audio-visual medium while forgetting the several other senses we have left.
[q]I've found I tend not to agree with a lot of critics, so I can usually base a lot off of what they think (though sometimes, they are right - a movie is just *bad*). [/q]
well my experience is that there are more bad movies out than good so pure odds are on the side of a reviews that pans any movie.
Bad is usually just plain bad and its easier to get everyone to agree that a bad movie is bad, especially since everyone's conception of "good" is more idiosyncratic its a bit harder to please everyone with thier reviews.
maybe its just cause I'm a critical art/architecture student that doesn't really like movies in general.
then again I like the winner of the 1980 Canne film festival, "Yol" (a turkish film).