NetFlix allows you to rate movies and then makes suggestions based on your ratings
If you want an automated movie rating system, I suggest Movielens. Most of the time it does a pretty good job for me (although no matter what I do I can't seem to convince it I'm not a die hard sci-fi/fantasy fan).
Yeah, I can confirm this. As I would with any ISP, I signed up for Bellsouth ADSL service with an oddball username. I didn't give my email address to anyone, but within days I was getting pr0n spam.
If Bellsouth isn't selling email addresses, one of their employees must be helping themselves.
Civilian: Don't shoot me! I'm am bursting with joy to see so many American soldiers, thanks be to God! Translator: Don't shoot me! For I am laden with explosives to joyously kill many American soldiers for the glory of Allah!
Civilian: No, I was not hiding from you! I just stepped behind the bush to take a leak! Translator: I cannot hide my feelings from you! I piss all over your American president!
Civilian: Let me go, please! For the sake of my wife of many years, and my young daughters who love me! Translator: Let me go, please, and my wife and my virgin daughters, they love you long time!
Re:Interesting slant on the article.
on
Hi-Tech Repo Man
·
· Score: 2
It was their personal choice to do this rather than a more stable, boring job in a more average community.
Focusing on their job is missing the point. You can work in high risk field and still be handle your personal finances responsibly. You can be an entrepreneur and still drive a ten year old Ford Escort. This isn't about risk, it's about irresponsible behavior -- and the utterly mindless worship of status symbols.
The guy who cried over a threat to repossess his Lexus SUV which he hadn't made payment on in a year is a classic case. It would never occur to him to get rid the damn thing when he could no longer afford it, would it? No, that might mean a loss of face in front of his friends. Never mind it's worth more money than many people make in a year.
Re:Time to get rid of Einstein
on
Excess Heat
·
· Score: 1
NEW YORK -- Shares of Rambus today plummeted to a record low as investors reacted to an anonymous Slashdot poster's announcement that he would no longer be conducting business with them. "Screw Rambus," said the poster, "I'll NEVER BUY THEIR SHIT." Rambus spokespersons denied that the company would have difficulty meeting third quarter sales projections as a result, but analysts are clearly worried...
Time to get rid of Einstein
on
Excess Heat
·
· Score: 2
If this is the kind of story I can expect to see more of on Slashdot, maybe it's time to change that picture of Einstein to something more appropriate. Art Bell perhaps?
They've got it all wrong. If it really bore any resemblence to Star Trek's transporter we'd now be hearing that it malfunctioned, stranding the governor in Richardson and turning a red-shirted cabinet member inside out. Meanwhile, back in Austin, frenzied staffers race against the clock to bring the governor back in time for a critical fundraising dinner.
I have have no idea what your problem is with the review (LOL is not a very coherent criticism).
The only problem I have with it is it spends too much time belaboring the obvious, i.e. Keanu Reeves can't act, The Matrix is largely a special effects vehicle, etc.
Much of it, though, is dead on right and worth quoting. For example:
It lets you know early on that it won't be making a bit of sense, then repeatedly tries to convince you that the nonsense is actually deep and meaningful.
Dead on. That's The Matrix in a nutshell. And furthermore:
Half the movie consists of Reeves asking Fishburne straight questions, only to have Fishburne respond as cryptically as possible, like the know-it-all blind guy in "Kung-Fu."
You have learned much, grasshopper. Not only dead on, but hilarious. Go on:
"The Matrix" features that stroll-around-the-freeze-frame effect that's so great in those boogie-woogie Gap commercials, and you see it several times.
Get ready for the same effect in every third movie you see for the next 18 months. Beginning in about 4 months
So if a drunk driver's breaks fail, then it's okay to drive drunk, because driving drunk didn't cause the accident?
That's such a fatuous mischaracterization of the original poster's point it's hardly worth addressing.
The Hindenburg was coated in a highly inflammable substance which was probably ignited by an electricical discharge. It might well still have been a disaster if it hadn't been filled with hydrogen.
And it certainly wouldn't have been better off if it had been filled with gasoline;-)
If Challenger wasn't sitting on a tank of liquid Hydrogen and another tank of liquid Oxygen, the challenger disaster would have looked very different...
Yes, very different. Challenger would have been incapable of space flight. I think I'm being charitable by treating your comments as if you're not trolling.
Hydrogen isn't safe. Not that gasolene is particularly safe, but the logic in the parent post is pretty contrived and false.
You do realize that "safe" is not a perfectly objective term, don't you?
The point to all this is that hydrogen developed an undeservedly bad reputation in the public eye from the Hindenburg disaster. No one is claiming that's it is absolutely positively one hundred percent safe. What is?
Does this mean that sections of your constitution don't apply to private schools?
As you read the replies to this question, I hope you'll bear the following in mind. As has been demonstrated time and time again, it seems like virtually everyone on Slashdot (editors included) has a strong opinion on the subject of constitional law. Many will voice their opinion on the subject authoritatively, forcefully and at great length. However, not one in a thousand of them has more than a superficial understanding of the topic.
If you are honestly interested in the subject of the US constitution, a library or a law school website might be a better place to look. Anywhere but here.
Speaking of the silliness of the New York Times, if you read the post-script to the article above, youi'll find this tidbit:
Putting flesh on the bones of the space-shifting argument, I imagined a
college student who wished to access his home-based CD album collection
from a dorm room in another state. All he had to do, I said, was upload his
CD's to the Napster system so that he could download them at his new
residence. My correspondents pointed out that Napster users do not upload
their music files. They download digital music files from the hard drives of
other, networked Napster users.
While I guess I have to give the writer points for admitting his own mistakes, I find it disturbing that a person writing about Napster in the New York Times wouldn't have bothered to learn how it works in the first place. If you were a non-technical person writing a column about Napster, wouldn't it occur to you to at least try it out? Even once? Just to see how it works? Especially given that you can do so for free?
With such tireless dedication to reporting the facts to the public, it's no wonder intellectual property laws are in such a poor state.
Well, they didn't actually use an entire lamprey brain, just took some tissue and hooked it up to a Khepera robot and some light sensors. The robot then could be made to avoid or follow light sources. There's a was a brief article about it in the New Scientist.
"I'm more impressed with her ability to come up with such a non-standard hypothesis, carry out an
experiment based on it and draw conclusions from her hypothesis."
She's eight years old. I'm more impressed with her parents ability to come up with such a non-standard hypothesis and credit it to their third grader.
Dr. Rabin says he has no commercial
interests in it.
"I never commercialize anything," Dr. Rabin said. "I am not in that business."
Instead, he said, he did the work because it was a challenge.
The nerve of that man. He did it because it was a challenge?! My ancestors fought and died so we could have software patents in this country. Patents to provide us with the incentive to innovate. And he does this stuff for fun?
Because it was challenge?!!!
And he's just going to give this stuff away? Good God, the man's a communist. I'm writing my congressmen -- I want him deported immediately.
how will anyone ever let an implant like the ones quoted in them. From a medical point of view, there would be no doctor that
would recomend unessary surgery like this. its a pointless and dangerous exercise.
Uh... plastic surgeons make a lot of money performing unecessary surgery involving implants a lot larger than the ones we're talking about.
I really don't know why conspiracy theories like this
appeal to people. They bore the devil out of me. Even
fiction based on conspiracy theory puts me to sleep.
So what is the attraction? Does it make believers feel
special to be one of the few "in the know?" Is it really a
kind of self-flattery? To think that they are amongst the
handful of people that haven't been hoodwinked by the powers
that be?
Or does it just make life seem more interesting when you
believe that there is all this cloak-and-dagger stuff going
on behind your back?
Post-modernism and moral relativism are at the root of
this? That seems rather unlikely given that bizarre belief
systems are hardly a recent phenomenon. People have
believed in all sorts of utter nonsense for ages:
folk-tales, urban legends, conspiracy theories, myths,
etc.
This is just a run of the mill conspiracy theory being
promoted for profit by an unscrupulous television network.
In contemporary America, people like to believe conspiracy
theories about government. If television were around in
nineteenth century Europe, they'd be broadcasting conspiracy
theories about Jews. Nothing modern about it; nothing we
need to start blaming on our tired old scapegoats: left-wing
academics and the liberal media.
It's fairly common to make verbs out of nouns in English. And in business English, it's fairly common to make verbs out of nouns even when perfectly good verbs already exist. I suppose people think it makes them sound professional, serious or sophisticated, but in reality it just sounds pompous. Anyone who cares about writing well would be well advised not to model their prose after what they see in corporate America.
"...how can they find
engineers to design something like that? Is everyone so immoral that they will sell out the freedom of a country for a decent sum
of cash?"
Why should this surprise you? There has never been a shortage of technical people willing to do immoral things. That's why we have neutron bombs, biological weapons and Microsoft Windows.
Overall this was much more faithfull to the book than the Lynch movie (at least these still suits covered your whole body...
yeah... we're going to march through terrible desert wearing a suit to reclaim our moisture and protect us from the desert... oh,
and it doesn't cover our heads).
It's one of those situations where directors have to take liberties with the original work in order to translate it to a different medium. You need to be able to see the actors faces or, well, they won't be able to act, and the audience won't be able to tell them apart. This is why you see war movies where bomber crews never seem to wear their oxygen masks for more than five seconds at a time.
Lynch's stilsuits couldn't cover his actors heads or faces. Harrison's could, but he (wisely) let them spend a lot of time wandering around outside with their faces uncovered. Neither is realistic, but it needed to be done one way or the other.
I actually preferred Lynch's black, fetishistic suits. I know they weren't that way in the book, but they were much more visually striking on the screen. In a movie, little things like that matter. It may make some of the purists I see posting here unhappy, but they're always going to be unhappy. Frank Herbert didn't write a screenplay, he wrote a novel. When you adapt a novel to the screen, changes will be made, and not everyone will like them.
Likewise, I actually liked the glowing blue eyes Harrison used. Again, another liberty with the novel, but one that was used to good effect on the screen.
Come to think of it, I'm actually rather fond of both Lynch's and Harrison's versions. They each have their strong points. Lynch's movie clearly had better writing, better acting, and far better special effects. But Harrison's mini-series has the time to delve into the complexities of the novel that the movie did not.
But they both suffer from the same flaw: they're simply not very accessible to people who haven't read Herbert. Admittedly, I don't know if it's even possible to make it accessible without very drastic simplification.
Or doing something heavy-handed, like that awful, cheesy introduction that was tacked on to the beginning of the the so-called mini-series that was made out of Lynch's footage a few years back.
But I had fun watching both. And a new director can come along and make a new version of Dune every five years as far as I'm concerned. I'll watch.
Chani also came out better here. In the Lynch version, you hear the voice-over of Irulan saying "Paul's love for Chani grew."
Five thin words to describe a torrid romance? At least she gave Paul a character he could love.
Yes, but Irulan was being rather sly. What she really meant was, "The producers say we have to cut three hours of footage; please bear with us as we fast-forward through the romantic parts."
Slashdot Mirror
If you want an automated movie rating system, I suggest Movielens. Most of the time it does a pretty good job for me (although no matter what I do I can't seem to convince it I'm not a die hard sci-fi/fantasy fan).
If Bellsouth isn't selling email addresses, one of their employees must be helping themselves.
Yes, but we earthlings shouldn't feel too bad. After all, it's not the size of your wobble that counts, but what you do with it.
Civilian: Don't shoot me! I'm am bursting with joy to see so many American soldiers, thanks be to God!
Translator: Don't shoot me! For I am laden with explosives to joyously kill many American soldiers for the glory of Allah!
Civilian: No, I was not hiding from you! I just stepped behind the bush to take a leak!
Translator: I cannot hide my feelings from you! I piss all over your American president!
Civilian: Let me go, please! For the sake of my wife of many years, and my young daughters who love me!
Translator: Let me go, please, and my wife and my virgin daughters, they love you long time!
Focusing on their job is missing the point. You can work in high risk field and still be handle your personal finances responsibly. You can be an entrepreneur and still drive a ten year old Ford Escort. This isn't about risk, it's about irresponsible behavior -- and the utterly mindless worship of status symbols.
The guy who cried over a threat to repossess his Lexus SUV which he hadn't made payment on in a year is a classic case. It would never occur to him to get rid the damn thing when he could no longer afford it, would it? No, that might mean a loss of face in front of his friends. Never mind it's worth more money than many people make in a year.
Which has nothing to do with my point.
NEW YORK -- Shares of Rambus today plummeted to a record low as investors reacted to an anonymous Slashdot poster's announcement that he would no longer be conducting business with them. "Screw Rambus," said the poster, "I'll NEVER BUY THEIR SHIT." Rambus spokespersons denied that the company would have difficulty meeting third quarter sales projections as a result, but analysts are clearly worried...
If this is the kind of story I can expect to see more of on Slashdot, maybe it's time to change that picture of Einstein to something more appropriate. Art Bell perhaps?
They've got it all wrong. If it really bore any resemblence to Star Trek's transporter we'd now be hearing that it malfunctioned, stranding the governor in Richardson and turning a red-shirted cabinet member inside out. Meanwhile, back in Austin, frenzied staffers race against the clock to bring the governor back in time for a critical fundraising dinner.
The only problem I have with it is it spends too much time belaboring the obvious, i.e. Keanu Reeves can't act, The Matrix is largely a special effects vehicle, etc.
Much of it, though, is dead on right and worth quoting. For example:
Dead on. That's The Matrix in a nutshell. And furthermore: You have learned much, grasshopper. Not only dead on, but hilarious. Go on: He's not only right, he's practically psychic.Please don't do that. The manure industry has a bad enough reputation as it is.
Hmmm. And I always thought people on Slashdot were lousy spellers. But it turns out you were just protecting our freedom of speech.
My apologies to you all.
That's such a fatuous mischaracterization of the original poster's point it's hardly worth addressing.
The Hindenburg was coated in a highly inflammable substance which was probably ignited by an electricical discharge. It might well still have been a disaster if it hadn't been filled with hydrogen.
And it certainly wouldn't have been better off if it had been filled with gasoline ;-)
Yes, very different. Challenger would have been incapable of space flight. I think I'm being charitable by treating your comments as if you're not trolling.
You do realize that "safe" is not a perfectly objective term, don't you?
The point to all this is that hydrogen developed an undeservedly bad reputation in the public eye from the Hindenburg disaster. No one is claiming that's it is absolutely positively one hundred percent safe. What is?
As you read the replies to this question, I hope you'll bear the following in mind. As has been demonstrated time and time again, it seems like virtually everyone on Slashdot (editors included) has a strong opinion on the subject of constitional law. Many will voice their opinion on the subject authoritatively, forcefully and at great length. However, not one in a thousand of them has more than a superficial understanding of the topic.
If you are honestly interested in the subject of the US constitution, a library or a law school website might be a better place to look. Anywhere but here.
Speaking of the silliness of the New York Times, if you read the post-script to the article above, youi'll find this tidbit:
While I guess I have to give the writer points for admitting his own mistakes, I find it disturbing that a person writing about Napster in the New York Times wouldn't have bothered to learn how it works in the first place. If you were a non-technical person writing a column about Napster, wouldn't it occur to you to at least try it out? Even once? Just to see how it works? Especially given that you can do so for free?
With such tireless dedication to reporting the facts to the public, it's no wonder intellectual property laws are in such a poor state.
Well, they didn't actually use an entire lamprey brain, just took some tissue and hooked it up to a Khepera robot and some light sensors. The robot then could be made to avoid or follow light sources. There's a was a brief article about it in the New Scientist.
She's eight years old. I'm more impressed with her parents ability to come up with such a non-standard hypothesis and credit it to their third grader.
The nerve of that man. He did it because it was a challenge?! My ancestors fought and died so we could have software patents in this country. Patents to provide us with the incentive to innovate. And he does this stuff for fun?
Because it was challenge?!!!
And he's just going to give this stuff away? Good God, the man's a communist. I'm writing my congressmen -- I want him deported immediately.
Uh... plastic surgeons make a lot of money performing unecessary surgery involving implants a lot larger than the ones we're talking about.
Much larger.
Much, much larger.
I really don't know why conspiracy theories like this appeal to people. They bore the devil out of me. Even fiction based on conspiracy theory puts me to sleep.
So what is the attraction? Does it make believers feel special to be one of the few "in the know?" Is it really a kind of self-flattery? To think that they are amongst the handful of people that haven't been hoodwinked by the powers that be?
Or does it just make life seem more interesting when you believe that there is all this cloak-and-dagger stuff going on behind your back?
Post-modernism and moral relativism are at the root of this? That seems rather unlikely given that bizarre belief systems are hardly a recent phenomenon. People have believed in all sorts of utter nonsense for ages: folk-tales, urban legends, conspiracy theories, myths, etc.
This is just a run of the mill conspiracy theory being promoted for profit by an unscrupulous television network. In contemporary America, people like to believe conspiracy theories about government. If television were around in nineteenth century Europe, they'd be broadcasting conspiracy theories about Jews. Nothing modern about it; nothing we need to start blaming on our tired old scapegoats: left-wing academics and the liberal media.
It's fairly common to make verbs out of nouns in English. And in business English, it's fairly common to make verbs out of nouns even when perfectly good verbs already exist. I suppose people think it makes them sound professional, serious or sophisticated, but in reality it just sounds pompous. Anyone who cares about writing well would be well advised not to model their prose after what they see in corporate America.
Why should this surprise you? There has never been a shortage of technical people willing to do immoral things. That's why we have neutron bombs, biological weapons and Microsoft Windows.
It's one of those situations where directors have to take liberties with the original work in order to translate it to a different medium. You need to be able to see the actors faces or, well, they won't be able to act, and the audience won't be able to tell them apart. This is why you see war movies where bomber crews never seem to wear their oxygen masks for more than five seconds at a time.
Lynch's stilsuits couldn't cover his actors heads or faces. Harrison's could, but he (wisely) let them spend a lot of time wandering around outside with their faces uncovered. Neither is realistic, but it needed to be done one way or the other.
I actually preferred Lynch's black, fetishistic suits. I know they weren't that way in the book, but they were much more visually striking on the screen. In a movie, little things like that matter. It may make some of the purists I see posting here unhappy, but they're always going to be unhappy. Frank Herbert didn't write a screenplay, he wrote a novel. When you adapt a novel to the screen, changes will be made, and not everyone will like them.
Likewise, I actually liked the glowing blue eyes Harrison used. Again, another liberty with the novel, but one that was used to good effect on the screen.
Come to think of it, I'm actually rather fond of both Lynch's and Harrison's versions. They each have their strong points. Lynch's movie clearly had better writing, better acting, and far better special effects. But Harrison's mini-series has the time to delve into the complexities of the novel that the movie did not.
But they both suffer from the same flaw: they're simply not very accessible to people who haven't read Herbert. Admittedly, I don't know if it's even possible to make it accessible without very drastic simplification. Or doing something heavy-handed, like that awful, cheesy introduction that was tacked on to the beginning of the the so-called mini-series that was made out of Lynch's footage a few years back.
But I had fun watching both. And a new director can come along and make a new version of Dune every five years as far as I'm concerned. I'll watch.
Yes, but Irulan was being rather sly. What she really meant was, "The producers say we have to cut three hours of footage; please bear with us as we fast-forward through the romantic parts."