We have traditions of what pieces of information are matters of public record, and over time, what seems reasonable to be there was shaped by a certain model of access--physical presence for example, or identifying oneself to view it.
As we deal with the fact that "public record" now means something entirely different from our model of what it used to mean, we may find we need to adjust what appears there and on what basis. That's all.
Good point. If she is a developer, more likely than not she will NOT have access to sensitive financial information. That's one of the reasons that they generally keep developers out of production systems. There's lots of oversight involved in developing software in an financial services company. A sort of "office space" exploit isn't going to happen if it's just one rogue developer (or even 3).
I think you have a rather fantastic notion of what that oversight and QA can accomplish. I've worked with financial and other highly-regulated systems and it's not just easy to slip bugs--by accident --through these processes, it's almost guaranteed. A smart person doing so on purpose? A slam dunk.
In some shops, the production dbas don't even have access to the production data.
Yeah, I've been a DBA in one such "shop," and this restriction is a joke.
There are a number of rules which cover who is responsible for what--sometimes it's as you describe, and sometimes it's not. There's a difference between using a company car for your own purposes as a perk; using a company-provided rental car while on business travel, and operating a vehicle (like a delivery truck) in the execution of your job.
Who probably does something else equally as offensive to the concept of freedom? Like drug testing?
In my experience (yes, I've worked for dot-coms and have lots of friends who do) most dot-coms, at least in California, where you're likely to find many of them, do not do drug testing or any of those "offensive to the concept of freedom" things.
I used to be upset about companies that require drug screening, but I found out that in the U.S. you can't fire someone who is on drugs, even when it is affecting their job (they don't show up or satisfy the job requirements), as long as they say they are seeking treatment. This is a trap an employer could be in for years, so I'm sympathetic to the idea of limiting their risk in this case.
These are the same banks that are taking care of your money--to be honest, the idea that the entity taking care of my money wouldn't take the basic step of knowing for sure who their trusted employees are and whether they've stolen in the past would be offensive to the concept of keeping my money safe.
I'd say an actual armed robber would be one person who wouldn't bother to obey the sign. Meanwhile, a friendly customer who might have drawn his weapon to protect the store will be unarmed. You might as well put up a sign saying, "STEALING NOT ALLOWED ON THE PREMISES!"
I suppose this might make some sense if people only came in two flavors: armed robbers and perfect gun owners, who shoot perfectly, are always perfectly equipped, have perfect judgment in every situation, weild magical guns that can never be taken away, and have psychic precognition that is also perfect and completely reliable and allows them to completely foresee the consequences of any of their actions. In fact, I agree with you, so I'm going to lobby my local businesses for a new sign:
MAGICAL GUNS BY PERFECT, PSYCHIC, INFALLIBLE BEINGS PERMITTED
OTHER FIREARMS PROHIBITED
You cannot name a major single city or country where a person
cannot fairly easily obtain a gun and ammunition. Not one! You can _talk_
about theory until you're blue in the face, but Britain, Canada, Japan, Russia
(every country) still have shootings. Get my drift?
This is a terrible argument for a gun advocate to make. Comparing gun crime
crime statistics for the UK vs. the U.S. greatly supports the notion that gun
controls make you less likely to get shot. Of course there are still shootings
in the UK, but they are a tiny, tiny fraction of what they are in the
U.S. Essentially what is a common occurrence in the U.S. (tens and thousands
of gun deaths each year) is a freak occurrence in the UK (negligible in
number: 100s, for a country around a quarter of the size of the population of
the U.S.).
The entire gun advocate position is based on making up stories, using
powerful imagery like that of a teacher or student taking the VA Tech shooter
down. It's based on the idea that we must protect ourselves against the
exceedingly rare but sensational (the VA Tech shooting), at the expense of the
common (theft of firearms, use in crimes of impulse, etc.).
It's the same kind of argument we see when we have discussions about what
to do about terrorism. These security discussions are characterized by the
description of sensational past and future events, and how to deal with this
or that specific attack ("What if they attack the Super Bowl? Or they could
put ebola in the water supply!"). Bruce Schneier writes eloquently about
"movie plot" threats and the way they lead us to make irrational securty
decisions, born of fear, out of all proportion to the actual risk that we're
dealing with.
It's pretty simple: The actual risk of being shot by Seung-Hui Cho or
someone like him is vanishingly small. The risk of being shot by some yabbo
who's pissed at you and happens to have a gun handy is, relative to that,
pretty high. Making the former less likely and the latter more likely is bad
trade-off. It's too bad so many people are seduced by the cinematic scenario of
getting into a shoot-out with the bad guys to notice this, or allow
rationality, rather than their power fantasies, to dictate public policy.
Yes, and this isn't some secret, either. The issue is that "the theater experience" is less attractive these days, due to a variety of insults, such as home theater, better TV, worse movies, whatever. People in the movie business have said a number of times that they're looking to bring technology into the theater that will jazz it up beyond what people can get at home, to get them to come back to the movies.
Even with regard to sex, the Puritans incorporated premarital sex into courtship into a specific bedroom ritual between prospective mates. What's happened is that people have confused Victorian attitudes toward sex with the Puritans' rigid restrictions on many forms of recreation. And reports of Victorian negativity toward sex are probably overblown, even at that.
You'd think this would be the same, but it's not. They're just not. It's the same in restaurants. People on the phone talk much louder than they would to someone sitting next to them. I think it's a combination of trying to get through, having to say more because you're not communicating with body language, and a psychological thing.
There is also something more irritating about someone blathering into a cell phone than having a conversation with someone else who is also there. Psychology again? Some kind of dissonance? The fact that most such people are complete tools?
I don't know, but whatever the reason, it's just more irritating.
There's a balance between influence (whether through popularity or whatever) and originalness, in lists like these. The first mouse, the first computer-to-computer network, the first version of Unix... these things are interesting but not in themselves influential. Then, the most popular later iteration of these things are also not influential. It looks like they're trying to pick the products where a particular technology "came into its own", for some subjective value of that measure. I don't think they did that bad a job, but for my part I would have picked the Laserjet II for this and not the 4L.
But a fairy tale is exactly what Star Wars is. It's epic fantasy. It had knights, magic, races (goblins, orcs, etc., though by different names), sword fighting, an armored baddie with an extravagant helmet, a wise old wizard, a roguish adventurer, a beautiful princess, a dungeon, the sewers under the city, monsters, lizard-riders and more. It wasn't set in the future, it had nothing to do with our time or our experience. Things don't happen in the storytelling universe of Star Wars the way they do in the real universe. Fantasy is exactly what it is.
Honestly? Adoption. It's very likely, wherever you're working, you'll be the first to adopt or be interested in Erlang. As far as I can tell, Erlang as a language would pretty much be good at everything: its asynchronous message-passing and easy concurrency are useful for GUI apps to network servers to parallel processing. One thing you might find lacking is (native) efficient string-handling, but there are binary string implementations that can help you there (but I've never used them).
Erlang's syntax may be closer to Haskell than it first appeared to you, I think digging a little deeper would be rewarding (Erlang seems to make richer use of pattern-matching, since it also uses it for message receipt and a few other places). Erlang makes no secret of not being side-effect-free: I'm not familiar enough with Haskell's monads to know if this takes adjusting to or not.
As for math libraries, I don't know of any. There's an easy and robust way (actually, several) to extend Erlang using C, I suppose that might be an approach.
The only truly smart sunglasses will be able to skitter off of my seat before I sit down on them
I really, really need sunglasses that follow me the hell around. I don't know how many sunglasses I've left at restaurants, on trains, or, as far as I can tell, just jumping off my head when I wasn't paying attention.
I think this is a worthwhile question to consider, not so much in the expectation that critics would make great pieces of work, but in evaluating how much such criticism is actually worth. It's not that unusual for critics to "cross the fence" (Ebert himself wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls) and enjoy no particular acclaim for it.
I think the response "Can you do better?" is a valid one, since so much of (useful) criticism is explaining how it can be done better. Saying "the pacing is bad" and "a third of the movie should be cut" is useless blather without some understanding of how differently to pace it or which third should be cut. To be honest, most criticism is probably not that useful, and we read it more because the writers put things in an entertaining way. It's worth examining and realizing that, and also realizing that because Gabe and Tycho say a game sucks does not actually mean it sucks, or that you won't enjoy it.
While it's not fair, probably, to expect "the greatest... game of all time" from Gabe and Tycho, it's probably fair to expect not to number among its shortcomings things they've criticized before about other games.
I don't know why you would exclude Erlang from this. It's a real "where the rubber meets the road language" and it's really being used. Erlang's qualities map extremely well in the server application and web spaces. In the project I work on (where Erlang is used for some components) we spend hours talking about how to get Java to do things Erlang does out of the box (you should see what we need to do for message queues or scheduled parallelism in Java--ugh!).
The primary goals of Erlang are programmer productivity, performance, and reliability which are truly excellent goals--in every other language I know of these are goals after the fact; that is, they may allow you to be productive, they may have high performance, and they may be reliable, but these features are incorporated after the fact and steal from each other, so that no language I know of combines all three. It also comes with a large library of useful applications. What it needs now is just more attention and "third party" reusable components for it. Give it something like Rails and it'll explode.
Or maybe not. Programmers I know are almost masochistic in their resistance to learning new languages. Seriously, most of the people I work with do not see that, hey, maybe if you can't actually remember what to type, so you have to have an IDE generate half your code, your language's syntax and structure is not serving you well! And when you keep getting called in the middle of the night because it's not robust--hm, maybe there's something better!? I don't know. I know better rarely if ever wins but I'll still keep using Erlang where I can.
Sorry, I know your heart is in the right place, but there's a fundamental misconception behind your post. People do not starve because food isn't available. Without genetically enhanced foods we can grow plenty of nutritious food for everyone in the world, and many more (and we do). People starve for social and political reasons. Much of the food that is already sent to relief doesn't get to the people who need it, because it's diverted, managed by incompetent agencies, etc. We don't need genetically modified food to feed people. We need social, economic and political commitment to doing it. That's it. It has nothing to do with food production.
Second, countries in need of food relief, such as Zimbabwe, are rejecting genetically modified grain for legal reasons, that is fear of patent enforcement if unmilled grain is planted in Zimbabwe. Greenpeace isn't doing that.
I appreciate your help! However, that is not what I want. For the most part, I want to concentrate on one opponent until it's down. I don't want the fact that a bat flies closer to the leader to stop him pounding on the spider, know what I mean?
I have followed your suggestion and it works "fine," I definitely appreciate it, but it's not quite what I want and I'm surprised I can't do something I want to do so early in figuring it out.
In a strange way it's like programing is lisp.
It seems more like Prolog to me, but I take your meaning. Thanks again!
Granted, I'm only a bit in, but what I want to do is choose an opponent and have each of the physical fighters in the party concentrate on that one. I don't want them choosing nearest (because they will not then concentrate), and for the leader, I want to choose what to attack, so that their target does not change. From your post, it doesn't sound like I can do that (at the moment?).
What I don't want to have happen is for the leader to change their target unless I intervene. I don't want the leader targeting nearest because a rat comes up and changes everyone's target. Essentially the same shift and/or ambiguity would happen with foe targeting leader (there could be more than one and it can change. Should I just turn gambits off for the leader if all I want him to do is pound something?
See, I do have a background in programming, but the gambits are "smart-ish" in an ambiguous way (for example, the way the First Aid action happens upon an ally getting damaged, rather than whenever there's someone to heal--that's not "obvious", you have to understand the undocumented rule about how that works.
I don't think that's what he's talking about. I'm only a few hours in, and I think I have set my gambits correctly, but darn if Vaan doesn't just sit there in combats not attacking anything. I'm not talking about the 2-3s wait for his action bar to fill up--it doesn't fill up, he doesn't attack anything, even when he's the leader, his one gambit is to attack the foe the leader is targeting, gambits are enabled and I've chosen the Attack action to the foe I want to concentrate on. I can't figure it out--it's causing problems with the battery mimics. I'm just assuming I've missed something and hoping the fix will occur to me, but yeah, so far I'm just getting frustrated by it.
Of course, you have the problem that when you go to play back the record of the battle, it's gone and changed your voice to someone else's, painted rings around the explosions and made everything sound richer.
"Subspace" from Star Trek is the same concept, through which all your faster-than-light communication and travel can take place. It's semantically the opposite of "hyperspace."
I'm always on the fence on stuff like this. On the one hand, these would all be important considerations in a movie on password-guessing; but even movies about hackers are not movies about hacking, and these things just aren't that important.
But then, it's not like it's much harder to make these things sound plausible than to make them sound ridiculous. It was a jarring moment in Breach, for example--otherwise a decent, serious, if rather boring, movie--when the "computer security" character started spewing nonsense. But this moment didn't have anything to do with the story--it's just a bit of technobabble which is literally meant to be taken as such in the script (that is, the other characters don't understand what he's saying).
So I dunno. Sometimes I'm in the mood to not care, sometimes I do. Presumably it's the same for anyone with specialized knowledge when their particular bailiwick is treated on-screen. See Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story for a good send-up of the kinds of qualities battle re-enactors might look to see in a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
We have traditions of what pieces of information are matters of public record, and over time, what seems reasonable to be there was shaped by a certain model of access--physical presence for example, or identifying oneself to view it.
As we deal with the fact that "public record" now means something entirely different from our model of what it used to mean, we may find we need to adjust what appears there and on what basis. That's all.
I think you have a rather fantastic notion of what that oversight and QA can accomplish. I've worked with financial and other highly-regulated systems and it's not just easy to slip bugs--by accident --through these processes, it's almost guaranteed. A smart person doing so on purpose? A slam dunk.
Yeah, I've been a DBA in one such "shop," and this restriction is a joke.
There are a number of rules which cover who is responsible for what--sometimes it's as you describe, and sometimes it's not. There's a difference between using a company car for your own purposes as a perk; using a company-provided rental car while on business travel, and operating a vehicle (like a delivery truck) in the execution of your job.
In my experience (yes, I've worked for dot-coms and have lots of friends who do) most dot-coms, at least in California, where you're likely to find many of them, do not do drug testing or any of those "offensive to the concept of freedom" things.
I used to be upset about companies that require drug screening, but I found out that in the U.S. you can't fire someone who is on drugs, even when it is affecting their job (they don't show up or satisfy the job requirements), as long as they say they are seeking treatment. This is a trap an employer could be in for years, so I'm sympathetic to the idea of limiting their risk in this case.
These are the same banks that are taking care of your money--to be honest, the idea that the entity taking care of my money wouldn't take the basic step of knowing for sure who their trusted employees are and whether they've stolen in the past would be offensive to the concept of keeping my money safe.
I suppose this might make some sense if people only came in two flavors: armed robbers and perfect gun owners, who shoot perfectly, are always perfectly equipped, have perfect judgment in every situation, weild magical guns that can never be taken away, and have psychic precognition that is also perfect and completely reliable and allows them to completely foresee the consequences of any of their actions. In fact, I agree with you, so I'm going to lobby my local businesses for a new sign:
Awesome, sir, you are a genius.
This is a terrible argument for a gun advocate to make. Comparing gun crime crime statistics for the UK vs. the U.S. greatly supports the notion that gun controls make you less likely to get shot. Of course there are still shootings in the UK, but they are a tiny, tiny fraction of what they are in the U.S. Essentially what is a common occurrence in the U.S. (tens and thousands of gun deaths each year) is a freak occurrence in the UK (negligible in number: 100s, for a country around a quarter of the size of the population of the U.S.).
The entire gun advocate position is based on making up stories, using powerful imagery like that of a teacher or student taking the VA Tech shooter down. It's based on the idea that we must protect ourselves against the exceedingly rare but sensational (the VA Tech shooting), at the expense of the common (theft of firearms, use in crimes of impulse, etc.).
It's the same kind of argument we see when we have discussions about what to do about terrorism. These security discussions are characterized by the description of sensational past and future events, and how to deal with this or that specific attack ("What if they attack the Super Bowl? Or they could put ebola in the water supply!"). Bruce Schneier writes eloquently about "movie plot" threats and the way they lead us to make irrational securty decisions, born of fear, out of all proportion to the actual risk that we're dealing with.
It's pretty simple: The actual risk of being shot by Seung-Hui Cho or someone like him is vanishingly small. The risk of being shot by some yabbo who's pissed at you and happens to have a gun handy is, relative to that, pretty high. Making the former less likely and the latter more likely is bad trade-off. It's too bad so many people are seduced by the cinematic scenario of getting into a shoot-out with the bad guys to notice this, or allow rationality, rather than their power fantasies, to dictate public policy.
Yes, and this isn't some secret, either. The issue is that "the theater experience" is less attractive these days, due to a variety of insults, such as home theater, better TV, worse movies, whatever. People in the movie business have said a number of times that they're looking to bring technology into the theater that will jazz it up beyond what people can get at home, to get them to come back to the movies.
Even with regard to sex, the Puritans incorporated premarital sex into courtship into a specific bedroom ritual between prospective mates. What's happened is that people have confused Victorian attitudes toward sex with the Puritans' rigid restrictions on many forms of recreation. And reports of Victorian negativity toward sex are probably overblown, even at that.
In a see of Futurama references, I salute you, sir. In severe cases of cat-juggling, surely robots could apply deadly force.
You'd think this would be the same, but it's not. They're just not. It's the same in restaurants. People on the phone talk much louder than they would to someone sitting next to them. I think it's a combination of trying to get through, having to say more because you're not communicating with body language, and a psychological thing.
There is also something more irritating about someone blathering into a cell phone than having a conversation with someone else who is also there. Psychology again? Some kind of dissonance? The fact that most such people are complete tools?
I don't know, but whatever the reason, it's just more irritating.
There's a balance between influence (whether through popularity or whatever) and originalness, in lists like these. The first mouse, the first computer-to-computer network, the first version of Unix... these things are interesting but not in themselves influential. Then, the most popular later iteration of these things are also not influential. It looks like they're trying to pick the products where a particular technology "came into its own", for some subjective value of that measure. I don't think they did that bad a job, but for my part I would have picked the Laserjet II for this and not the 4L.
But a fairy tale is exactly what Star Wars is. It's epic fantasy. It had knights, magic, races (goblins, orcs, etc., though by different names), sword fighting, an armored baddie with an extravagant helmet, a wise old wizard, a roguish adventurer, a beautiful princess, a dungeon, the sewers under the city, monsters, lizard-riders and more. It wasn't set in the future, it had nothing to do with our time or our experience. Things don't happen in the storytelling universe of Star Wars the way they do in the real universe. Fantasy is exactly what it is.
Honestly? Adoption. It's very likely, wherever you're working, you'll be the first to adopt or be interested in Erlang. As far as I can tell, Erlang as a language would pretty much be good at everything: its asynchronous message-passing and easy concurrency are useful for GUI apps to network servers to parallel processing. One thing you might find lacking is (native) efficient string-handling, but there are binary string implementations that can help you there (but I've never used them).
Erlang's syntax may be closer to Haskell than it first appeared to you, I think digging a little deeper would be rewarding (Erlang seems to make richer use of pattern-matching, since it also uses it for message receipt and a few other places). Erlang makes no secret of not being side-effect-free: I'm not familiar enough with Haskell's monads to know if this takes adjusting to or not.
As for math libraries, I don't know of any. There's an easy and robust way (actually, several) to extend Erlang using C, I suppose that might be an approach.
I really, really need sunglasses that follow me the hell around. I don't know how many sunglasses I've left at restaurants, on trains, or, as far as I can tell, just jumping off my head when I wasn't paying attention.
I think this is a worthwhile question to consider, not so much in the expectation that critics would make great pieces of work, but in evaluating how much such criticism is actually worth. It's not that unusual for critics to "cross the fence" (Ebert himself wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls ) and enjoy no particular acclaim for it.
I think the response "Can you do better?" is a valid one, since so much of (useful) criticism is explaining how it can be done better. Saying "the pacing is bad" and "a third of the movie should be cut" is useless blather without some understanding of how differently to pace it or which third should be cut. To be honest, most criticism is probably not that useful, and we read it more because the writers put things in an entertaining way. It's worth examining and realizing that, and also realizing that because Gabe and Tycho say a game sucks does not actually mean it sucks, or that you won't enjoy it.
While it's not fair, probably, to expect "the greatest ... game of all time" from Gabe and Tycho, it's probably fair to expect not to number among its shortcomings things they've criticized before about other games.
I don't know why you would exclude Erlang from this. It's a real "where the rubber meets the road language" and it's really being used. Erlang's qualities map extremely well in the server application and web spaces. In the project I work on (where Erlang is used for some components) we spend hours talking about how to get Java to do things Erlang does out of the box (you should see what we need to do for message queues or scheduled parallelism in Java--ugh!).
The primary goals of Erlang are programmer productivity, performance, and reliability which are truly excellent goals--in every other language I know of these are goals after the fact; that is, they may allow you to be productive, they may have high performance, and they may be reliable, but these features are incorporated after the fact and steal from each other, so that no language I know of combines all three. It also comes with a large library of useful applications. What it needs now is just more attention and "third party" reusable components for it. Give it something like Rails and it'll explode.
Or maybe not. Programmers I know are almost masochistic in their resistance to learning new languages. Seriously, most of the people I work with do not see that, hey, maybe if you can't actually remember what to type, so you have to have an IDE generate half your code, your language's syntax and structure is not serving you well! And when you keep getting called in the middle of the night because it's not robust--hm, maybe there's something better!? I don't know. I know better rarely if ever wins but I'll still keep using Erlang where I can.
Hey, who'd a thunk that computer science was about the telescopes?!
Sorry, I know your heart is in the right place, but there's a fundamental misconception behind your post. People do not starve because food isn't available. Without genetically enhanced foods we can grow plenty of nutritious food for everyone in the world, and many more (and we do). People starve for social and political reasons. Much of the food that is already sent to relief doesn't get to the people who need it, because it's diverted, managed by incompetent agencies, etc. We don't need genetically modified food to feed people. We need social, economic and political commitment to doing it. That's it. It has nothing to do with food production.
Second, countries in need of food relief, such as Zimbabwe, are rejecting genetically modified grain for legal reasons, that is fear of patent enforcement if unmilled grain is planted in Zimbabwe. Greenpeace isn't doing that.
I appreciate your help! However, that is not what I want. For the most part, I want to concentrate on one opponent until it's down. I don't want the fact that a bat flies closer to the leader to stop him pounding on the spider, know what I mean?
I have followed your suggestion and it works "fine," I definitely appreciate it, but it's not quite what I want and I'm surprised I can't do something I want to do so early in figuring it out.
It seems more like Prolog to me, but I take your meaning. Thanks again!
Granted, I'm only a bit in, but what I want to do is choose an opponent and have each of the physical fighters in the party concentrate on that one. I don't want them choosing nearest (because they will not then concentrate), and for the leader, I want to choose what to attack, so that their target does not change. From your post, it doesn't sound like I can do that (at the moment?).
What I don't want to have happen is for the leader to change their target unless I intervene. I don't want the leader targeting nearest because a rat comes up and changes everyone's target. Essentially the same shift and/or ambiguity would happen with foe targeting leader (there could be more than one and it can change. Should I just turn gambits off for the leader if all I want him to do is pound something?
See, I do have a background in programming, but the gambits are "smart-ish" in an ambiguous way (for example, the way the First Aid action happens upon an ally getting damaged, rather than whenever there's someone to heal--that's not "obvious", you have to understand the undocumented rule about how that works.
I don't think that's what he's talking about. I'm only a few hours in, and I think I have set my gambits correctly, but darn if Vaan doesn't just sit there in combats not attacking anything. I'm not talking about the 2-3s wait for his action bar to fill up--it doesn't fill up, he doesn't attack anything, even when he's the leader, his one gambit is to attack the foe the leader is targeting, gambits are enabled and I've chosen the Attack action to the foe I want to concentrate on. I can't figure it out--it's causing problems with the battery mimics. I'm just assuming I've missed something and hoping the fix will occur to me, but yeah, so far I'm just getting frustrated by it.
Like... paintings and stuff.
Roll credits!
Of course, you have the problem that when you go to play back the record of the battle, it's gone and changed your voice to someone else's, painted rings around the explosions and made everything sound richer.
"Subspace" from Star Trek is the same concept, through which all your faster-than-light communication and travel can take place. It's semantically the opposite of "hyperspace."
I'm always on the fence on stuff like this. On the one hand, these would all be important considerations in a movie on password-guessing; but even movies about hackers are not movies about hacking, and these things just aren't that important.
But then, it's not like it's much harder to make these things sound plausible than to make them sound ridiculous. It was a jarring moment in Breach, for example--otherwise a decent, serious, if rather boring, movie--when the "computer security" character started spewing nonsense. But this moment didn't have anything to do with the story--it's just a bit of technobabble which is literally meant to be taken as such in the script (that is, the other characters don't understand what he's saying).
So I dunno. Sometimes I'm in the mood to not care, sometimes I do. Presumably it's the same for anyone with specialized knowledge when their particular bailiwick is treated on-screen. See Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story for a good send-up of the kinds of qualities battle re-enactors might look to see in a movie.