that GoHip tells you exactly EXACTLY what they are going to do with your computer in its download agreement, but these people are 'too busy' to read it and 'feel they shoudln't have to'!
I don't see GoHip forcing people to their website and forcing them to download this stuff. Yet another example of personal responsibility taking a vacation within the walls of slashdot.
so, you would rather throw insults and challenges at me when you earlier accused me of baiting you? Look, I don't care if you do what you do, but how can you justify that it's ok for you and NOT for bus drivers? Rules are rules that apply to everyone, right? How can the grey areas of law be enforced? If you want to make it a matter of country than there must be a way of making a universal drug policy, and I don't think "Use them only of you can be responsible about it" will accomplish that.
I don't know you anymore than you know me...I feel the way I feel because I have seen what drug use can do to people I care about. I think that my opinion is as valid to me as yours is to you. You have given me your justification, but quite frankly is doesn't change my mind just as my arguments won't change yours.
I think that when people start saying things like "I respect sensible laws" we are headed for trouble.
>As for my being a responsible drug user, I don't >really care whether you believe me or not.
I am sure that those people who are irresponsible don't admit it. And while you make yourself sound like some patriot fighting (in your opinion) dumb laws, I'll be willing to bet that you don't do anything more than use these drugs and hope you don't get caught. Where is the questioning of society if you don't advertise your drug use? Where is the advocacy?
kinda expected these defensive knee-jerk reactions...the 'enlightened' drug user at work again. As for your major points:
1) The "legal" leads to a larger question, what kind of society would this be if people just decided that some laws were wrong and that they should be able to break them.
2) I do have experience with the subject matter, I have just never been (your phrase chemically enlightened) my phrase whacked out on drugs. I know firsthand what happens when drugs get out of control. But glad to know that my opinion doesn't matter because...well because you say so.
And congrats for that brilliant display of logic used to disprove my 'responsible drug use in a contradiction' theory; my position is false because you claim to be a responsible drug user. Sorry, but I must have missed your name on the "Officially Certified Responsible Drug User's List". Isn't it a little bit more concrete to argue that knowingly breaking the law for your own purposes is in fact irresponsible?
There are plenty of people here(like me) who think that illegal drug use is bad and shouldn't occur PERIOD. And there are plenty of people here who disagree 100%, who can and do use drugs responsibly (although I consider that a contradiction) and can justify it. Why do they do this? Don't ask me...they risk their health, their precious jobs, legal ramifications. Drugs result in a chaotic, illogical state and I guess the reasons for using them are equally illogical: a metaphorical 'up yours' to the government, a constantly decreasing good feeling, who knows.
But the fact of the matter is that they do it and anything they read here won't make them stop. If they ever do they will have to come to that decision themselves.
Who is talking fictional tax scenarios now? My scheme is more likely than Steve Forbes paying 0 dollars in taxes! Your attempt to turn the argument into a battle between poor working people and the rich is not surprising. Is there some sort of competition going on? Is there some seething jealousy of the wealthy because they earn more? If everyone gets a tax cut, what could be bad about that? Who cares what kind of tax cut it is...if one person pays one dollar less with it and everyone else doesn't pay more than it is good!
I don't think I asked you to step back and let the wealthy run the country...but do you have to be so upset about a wealthy person who has more money and by definition the ability to do more? Of course you vote, of course you speak passionately about it to others, but I have never understood where the anger comes from. You attempt to single me out with my 'stock options', am I now a bad guy? Am I more noble if I believe in something AND poor? Personally, I would really hate to think someone looks at me and is upset and jealous of me JUST because I have more money than someone else.
And on sequestering wealth, do you call it that when you get your yearly bonus and put it in the bank? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the whole concept of capitalism come down to the theory that you are rewarded for your work, and the more you work the more you are rewarded?
When it comes down to it, you have the ability to make yourself happy or miserable. Who is president and what taxes you pay is a source of debate, anger, but when all is said and done I have more important, more special things to think about. Maybe it's just me.
well, I have spent enough time on this topic..I leave the ball in your court.
Well, we coulds probably beat each other over the head with statistics all night...here's another one: the top 10% of incomes pay WELL over 50% of all taxes. So why shouldn't they see more of the benefits, they pay alot more already.
What I am more concerned about is the notion that if something benefits one group more that it benefits another group (even though they both benefit) that it is bad! Simple question: what if we made a level 15% flat tax on everyone. EVERYONE will pay less money, but the higher income people will drop from the mid 30% range, while lower income families will drop from mid 20% range. Is that unfair to lower income families? Of course not! They pay less because they make less, ok? And before you give me this argument that 15% is more important to lower income families than wealthier families then I just have to say 15% is important to everyone, plus that's one of the benefits of earning and keeping wealth. I don't give a rat's ass if Steve Forbes doesn't work a day in his life, it doesn't affect me; he is reaping the rewards of his father's hard work and that is what the country is all about, more power to him. Why should your happiness in getting a tax cut dependent on the fact that someone else doesn't get as much as you? why should your happiness be dependent on making sure someone else doesn't have an easier life than you? Live your life and don't worry about what Steve Forbes pays in taxes.
And I am sure that you have the EXACT same beliefs as your father.
I chose my apartment (I work in RTP) based pretty much on the fact that there was (just) a T1 line to all the apartments. And contrary to what seems logical for this computer-oriented area, there is no cable-modem or DSL access as of yet. I can never go back...I'll have to live in this apartment until at least 1.5Mbs is widespread!
Is having to use the bathroom any more optional than taking a plane somewhere? Do you have the RIGHT to take a plane where you want to go and if you disagree with certain security protocols then they are impeding on your rights?
Too many people think that they are entitled to things...air travel is a luxury, not your god-given right. Drive if you disagree, but I suspect that you will get over it and take the flight.
I guess you need to play to your largest audience, but are there not any people worthy of Person of the Year except those that are regularly mentioned on Slashdot? Naming Linus as your man of the year just rings with so much disingenuousness, why won't you just tell us what you really think and not what you think we want to hear?
I would venture to say that Katz had the idea of contrasting the new Arnie movie with Toy Story 2 before he saw either one of them and was going to play the "EoD sucked, Toy Story 2 ruled" card no matter what. The only thing that makes me think that isn't true is that I don't think he saw ANY of the movies he mentioned. Three or four sentences on the ground-breaking movie Toy Story 2, and yet a long diatribe about EoD? I could have written the exact same article and I have only seen Dogma. In fact, let me write the same article: End of Days - sucked Toy Story 2 - great Dogma - ok Being John Malkovich - ok (geek!) American Movie - great (for a geek)
Why did Jon think he had to flame EoD so much (I still don't think he has even seen it) and barely mention in passing more groundbreaking movies? And knowing that my post so far makes this a pretty ironic point but it just grabs me that Katz feels a more negative, insult filled article would be more interesting than a positive review of Toy Story 2. Katz has never before struck me as so transparent...and unprofessional. Let ME turn in an article so slapdash, unorganized, and so devoid of thought beyond what we might find in a TV Guide review and see if it gets published.
Oh wait, maybe I just did?
And I still believe that Katz has seen even ONE of those movies.
while technology is important, I think Katz overstates it's importance by calling it the "most powerful...driving social force in the modern world." It is just a tool Jon, unless you meant society's overblown preoccupation with and dependance on technology(I doubt it).
My advice, do your reseach but make sure you get plenty of fresh air and some genuine fun while down there. I think in a few years books about technology will be overshadowed by books about the timeouts in between checking e-mail, debugging code and getting the Encyclopedia Shaternica from Amazon, i.e. the parts of life you have to hold technology at bay (not ebay) for a while to catch your breath.
didn't you just make my point? you being *forced* and this guy's wife being forced under the pretense of being given an option is the same. Let's say that in fantasy world you were forced to use Windows and it did everything you wanted with no problems whatsoever (remember we are in fantasy world right now). Would there be a problem? Probably not...the problem comes when it doesn't do what you want it to do (we are back to reality now). She wants something that Linux can't give her, and now that I am sure with the knowledge she has gained from her Linux use will no doubt allow her to work with Windows I think she will still have that bad impression in her mind about Linux.
gee, as a computer illiterate, she really had no choice at all. What was she going to do, pick the Windows machine for which you had REFUSED to help her? Your heavy handed tactic forced her into Linux and now it seems to be incapable of meeting her needs. Hmmm, being forced to use a platform the constricts you...how is that different from the reason the average zealot hates Microsoft? I guess the Open in Open Source doesn't apply to your options.
Jon Katz has gone so far off the deep end there is no coming back. Was the whole point of this article telling us that someday there will be a computer to tell us when to turn our computers off? That people will be so overwhelmed with information and technology that they will need yet another piece to help them get through it all?
Aside from the horrid prose and the stunted attempt to attract the Xena crowd, basically he is saying that people should rely on some program to filter out what it thinks is meaningless or unattractive information. What's the difference between getting every bit of your news from just one newspaper, or one news-site?
Just my opinion, bad article and bad idea behind it. I'll prove him wrong...I am leaving this website right now, turning off the machine and fixing some lunch all without the help of HAL 9000.
You are only as tied in as you want to be. You don't HAVE to be online 10 ours a day, you don't have to be fighting your beeper all day, or your cell phone, or e-mail. If you whine and complain that you don't have enough time in the day or the pages keep coming, then you basically over-estimate your self importance. Tune out...talk a walk outside, you know that's the place that isn't INSIDE where the computer is. And I am sure that some people will say that this is rather simplistic and I would say that's the point. I am a software developer, I am surrounded by computers wherever I go. I have an etheret connection in my apartment. I have a cellphone. BUT I TURN IT OFF when I don't feel like answering it.
And I think that Katz is making another universal assumption based on the 'geeks and nerds' that he is always writing about. Exactly what percentage of the population has this problem of not being able to catch up and process all the information coming their way?
Why is it than every time an NT box is hacked everyone says "See, Windows sucks" but when a Linux box is hacked it's human error? Seems to me like a stereotype for Windows and a stereotype for Linux has developed and is used to fortify or denounce these situations all the time.
Java started out as a language...a set of reserved words and syntax but it has slowly advanced, I think the word Sun is using now is "platform". I always thought of it having the possibility of being an OS on top of an OS(any OS)! It's just very very slow right now...
I have to agree...I don't think that anyone will assert that the computer/OS/tech field in general has been static for the past 20 years, and yet Microsoft has been able to advance and remain on top. They are able to adapt, but I think it's natural to try to control as much as possible so you don't have to adapt. But they are going to rest on the laurels...their free ISP service is going to be the first of I am sure many attempts to stake a dominant claim to the internet. Now I am not saying that this is a good thing mind you, but they are a corporation after all and Sun, the Open Source Community etc have the same right but maybe not the same warchest.........
Does every problem have to have a solution that screams out "Look how smart I am in dealing with this problem so as to cram my opinion down everyone's throat!" Signing up the HR department to porn lists and then scanning them...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! That'll show 'em. You know there is nothing in the world that is an attack on your way of life like people making sure that you are not abusing THEIR property.
At IBM, they monitor everything you get, every site you visit and if you go porn surfing then they fire you. They tell this to everyone but still there are people that violate this policy. They are a little bit looser with e-mail restrictions but they are pretty tight too.
IMHO, it's the company's e-mail account, network etc. you are paid to work, but at the very least not to mess around with objectionable material that could potentially hold the company liable for if the wrong person gets some dirty e-mail. Don't think that e-mail privacy is your right at work because it's not. If you want privacy go get a hotmail account...:)
Whoever posted Vidi vici veni is genius...
Re:absolutely the worst movie ever
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Don't get me wrong, the movie was utter garbage, I just hated it that much more because I was hoping it would be fresh, original and scary.
However, not having expectations is pretty unrealistic, don't you think? Can you honestly go into every movie not knowing anything about it, and not expecting a good movie? Pretty cynical approach if you ask me.
Re:absolutely the worst movie ever
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
I just expected better you know? When you expect good things and you are disappointed it hurts worse than usual.
So many people are involved with a film in Hollywood that it is a rare thing for a creative, unique vision to make it's way to the screen and I was hoping that Blair Witch would be it. High expectations dashed to bits.
However, all this talk of a sequel doesn't upset me like you think though...Evil Dead was in my opinion not good but it was innovative and proved that you could make a successful movie very cheaply. Then they followed that up with one of the greated horror/comedy movies ever Evil Dead 2, so I am not going to lose all hope!:)
absolutely the worst movie ever
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Let me start by saying that when I saw the preview of Inspector Gadget, my brain went into CGI overload. Hard. I started to look at all of these movies just crammed with this stuff and I just shut down my nervous system, not wanting to see another 80 foot spider or mutant shark.
BUT...
The Blair Witch was in my opinion absolutely horrible filmmaking. "Road Rules goes horribly wrong." And it was so funny as to be unfunny. As a friend pointed out, they got lost in the woods with a map, compass, river AND the sun in the sky? Sounds to me like it was nature weeding out bad genes to me. But anyway, an utterly wretched film, with no suspense at all. Just because it was cheap and different doesn't mean it's good. Last time I checked characters were still fairly important and I couldn't give a rat's behind about any of them. So, if characters aren't there, most filmakers will attempt to blind you with visuals or at least a good plot. No such luck here; it's like they were relying so heavily on trying to sell this as a true story and the fact that it is about as un-Hollywood as you can get they forgot to do anything like entertain us. Godzilla sucked and no matter how much money they put on the screen that wasn't going to change. Same principal here. No amount of money would have made this story entertaining.
Go watch The Iron Giant. It won't make near as much as The Insipid Witch, but it is light years better and will still be around in 100 years whereas Blair Witch will be spliced onto a reel America's Funniest Home Videos and Fox's Most Shocking Moments Caught on Tape.
Now, to be fair I will have to say that they marketed this film BEAUTIFULLY. Web site, Sci-Fi channel preview, everything to make you think it was real. Plus all the buzz about how scary it was; to me that is what drew me to the film because how many people can be shocked or scared by a movie after the trememdous amount of scary movies we have all seen in our lives? I have to give it credit for trying, I am not shooting the concept full of holes, it's quite noble actually, it's just that the execution was as big a failure as any failed endeavor in the history of filmmaking.
David Brin, master author of...well, of what again? has shown us the way. It was indeed an insightful, accurate, no-punches-pulled account...of his own jealousy. I can even account for some of the vitriol by a knee jerk reaction to the incredible amount of hype surrounding Ep. 1, but to write that much on what's wrong with it and how we should pay attention to the 'evil' message Lucas is supposedly sending? Back away from the 'regular people are just pawns in the lives of these uber-humans" tantrum. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to go to the movies and watch David Brin wake up, eat breakfast and drive to work at Salon magazine, where he works all day long or some boring real-life situation like that. Unless Camille Paglia walks into your office and kicks your whiny butt, I don't care. I want extreme situations, situations that inspire the mind past what it sees everyday. This Star Wars universe exists in about 9 hours worth of film, and how much fan fiction, satires, tributes, novelizations, cartoons, etc has it inspired? And as far as content goes, IT'S A FREAKING MOVIE! I want to take a motorcycle and gun it through the streets of San Fran at 200mph+ but I don't! Maybe I can get a little bit of that feeling though from the pod race, or the speeder bike chase. Now I won't deny that I had problems with Ep.1, but I am withholding final criticism for after I have seen all three prequels. But you are so quick to complain that you don't see what a vast, magical universe he has crafted over 4 movies? Give him credit for at least that much. If anything your expectations are too high for what Lucas has delivered up until this point. But even if he has made some slip-ups, the Star Wars universe is something so awesome that it has taken on a life of it own.
You are a writer, apparently, you can't appreciate this?
Slashdot Mirror
that GoHip tells you exactly EXACTLY what they are going to do with your computer in its download agreement, but these people are 'too busy' to read it and 'feel they shoudln't have to'!
I don't see GoHip forcing people to their website and forcing them to download this stuff. Yet another example of personal responsibility taking a vacation within the walls of slashdot.
so, you would rather throw insults and challenges at me when you earlier accused me of baiting you? Look, I don't care if you do what you do, but how can you justify that it's ok for you and NOT for bus drivers? Rules are rules that apply to everyone, right? How can the grey areas of law be enforced? If you want to make it a matter of country than there must be a way of making a universal drug policy, and I don't think "Use them only of you can be responsible about it" will accomplish that.
I don't know you anymore than you know me...I feel the way I feel because I have seen what drug use can do to people I care about. I think that my opinion is as valid to me as yours is to you. You have given me your justification, but quite frankly is doesn't change my mind just as my arguments won't change yours.
I think that when people start saying things like "I respect sensible laws" we are headed for trouble.
>As for my being a responsible drug user, I don't >really care whether you believe me or not.
I am sure that those people who are irresponsible don't admit it. And while you make yourself sound like some patriot fighting (in your opinion) dumb laws, I'll be willing to bet that you don't do anything more than use these drugs and hope you don't get caught. Where is the questioning of society if you don't advertise your drug use? Where is the advocacy?
kinda expected these defensive knee-jerk reactions...the 'enlightened' drug user at work again. As for your major points:
1) The "legal" leads to a larger question, what kind of society would this be if people just decided that some laws were wrong and that they should be able to break them.
2) I do have experience with the subject matter, I have just never been (your phrase chemically enlightened) my phrase whacked out on drugs. I know firsthand what happens when drugs get out of control. But glad to know that my opinion doesn't matter because...well because you say so.
And congrats for that brilliant display of logic used to disprove my 'responsible drug use in a contradiction' theory; my position is false because you claim to be a responsible drug user. Sorry, but I must have missed your name on the "Officially Certified Responsible Drug User's List". Isn't it a little bit more concrete to argue that knowingly breaking the law for your own purposes is in fact irresponsible?
Of course it's just an opinion...so flame on.
There are plenty of people here(like me) who think that illegal drug use is bad and shouldn't occur PERIOD. And there are plenty of people here who disagree 100%, who can and do use drugs responsibly (although I consider that a contradiction) and can justify it. Why do they do this? Don't ask me...they risk their health, their precious jobs, legal ramifications. Drugs result in a chaotic, illogical state and I guess the reasons for using them are equally illogical: a metaphorical 'up yours' to the government, a constantly decreasing good feeling, who knows.
But the fact of the matter is that they do it and anything they read here won't make them stop. If they ever do they will have to come to that decision themselves.
Who is talking fictional tax scenarios now? My scheme is more likely than Steve Forbes paying 0 dollars in taxes! Your attempt to turn the argument into a battle between poor working people and the rich is not surprising. Is there some sort of competition going on? Is there some seething jealousy of the wealthy because they earn more? If everyone gets a tax cut, what could be bad about that? Who cares what kind of tax cut it is...if one person pays one dollar less with it and everyone else doesn't pay more than it is good!
I don't think I asked you to step back and let the wealthy run the country...but do you have to be so upset about a wealthy person who has more money and by definition the ability to do more? Of course you vote, of course you speak passionately about it to others, but I have never understood where the anger comes from. You attempt to single me out with my 'stock options', am I now a bad guy? Am I more noble if I believe in something AND poor? Personally, I would really hate to think someone looks at me and is upset and jealous of me JUST because I have more money than someone else.
And on sequestering wealth, do you call it that when you get your yearly bonus and put it in the bank? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the whole concept of capitalism come down to the theory that you are rewarded for your work, and the more you work the more you are rewarded?
When it comes down to it, you have the ability to make yourself happy or miserable. Who is president and what taxes you pay is a source of debate, anger, but when all is said and done I have more important, more special things to think about. Maybe it's just me.
well, I have spent enough time on this topic..I leave the ball in your court.
Sorry I upset you...really!:)
Well, we coulds probably beat each other over the head with statistics all night...here's another one: the top 10% of incomes pay WELL over 50% of all taxes. So why shouldn't they see more of the benefits, they pay alot more already.
What I am more concerned about is the notion that if something benefits one group more that it benefits another group (even though they both benefit) that it is bad! Simple question: what if we made a level 15% flat tax on everyone. EVERYONE will pay less money, but the higher income people will drop from the mid 30% range, while lower income families will drop from mid 20% range. Is that unfair to lower income families? Of course not! They pay less because they make less, ok? And before you give me this argument that 15% is more important to lower income families than wealthier families then I just have to say 15% is important to everyone, plus that's one of the benefits of earning and keeping wealth. I don't give a rat's ass if Steve Forbes doesn't work a day in his life, it doesn't affect me; he is reaping the rewards of his father's hard work and that is what the country is all about, more power to him. Why should your happiness in getting a tax cut dependent on the fact that someone else doesn't get as much as you? why should your happiness be dependent on making sure someone else doesn't have an easier life than you? Live your life and don't worry about what Steve Forbes pays in taxes.
And I am sure that you have the EXACT same beliefs as your father.
I chose my apartment (I work in RTP) based pretty much on the fact that there was (just) a T1 line to all the apartments. And contrary to what seems logical for this computer-oriented area, there is no cable-modem or DSL access as of yet. I can never go back...I'll have to live in this apartment until at least 1.5Mbs is widespread!
Is having to use the bathroom any more optional than taking a plane somewhere? Do you have the RIGHT to take a plane where you want to go and if you disagree with certain security protocols then they are impeding on your rights?
Too many people think that they are entitled to things...air travel is a luxury, not your god-given right. Drive if you disagree, but I suspect that you will get over it and take the flight.
I guess you need to play to your largest audience, but are there not any people worthy of Person of the Year except those that are regularly mentioned on Slashdot? Naming Linus as your man of the year just rings with so much disingenuousness, why won't you just tell us what you really think and not what you think we want to hear?
I would venture to say that Katz had the idea of contrasting the new Arnie movie with Toy Story 2 before he saw either one of them and was going to play the "EoD sucked, Toy Story 2 ruled" card no matter what. The only thing that makes me think that isn't true is that I don't think he saw ANY of the movies he mentioned. Three or four sentences on the ground-breaking movie Toy Story 2, and yet a long diatribe about EoD? I could have written the exact same article and I have only seen Dogma. In fact, let me write the same article:
End of Days - sucked
Toy Story 2 - great
Dogma - ok
Being John Malkovich - ok (geek!)
American Movie - great (for a geek)
Why did Jon think he had to flame EoD so much (I still don't think he has even seen it) and barely mention in passing more groundbreaking movies? And knowing that my post so far makes this a pretty ironic point but it just grabs me that Katz feels a more negative, insult filled article would be more interesting than a positive review of Toy Story 2. Katz has never before struck me as so transparent...and unprofessional. Let ME turn in an article so slapdash, unorganized, and so devoid of thought beyond what we might find in a TV Guide review and see if it gets published.
Oh wait, maybe I just did?
And I still believe that Katz has seen even ONE of those movies.
while technology is important, I think Katz overstates it's importance by calling it the "most powerful...driving social force in the modern world." It is just a tool Jon, unless you meant society's overblown preoccupation with and dependance on technology(I doubt it).
My advice, do your reseach but make sure you get plenty of fresh air and some genuine fun while down there. I think in a few years books about technology will be overshadowed by books about the timeouts in between checking e-mail, debugging code and getting the Encyclopedia Shaternica from Amazon, i.e. the parts of life you have to hold technology at bay (not ebay) for a while to catch your breath.
If I had more time, I could write a shorter post
didn't you just make my point? you being *forced* and this guy's wife being forced under the pretense of being given an option is the same. Let's say that in fantasy world you were forced to use Windows and it did everything you wanted with no problems whatsoever (remember we are in fantasy world right now). Would there be a problem? Probably not...the problem comes when it doesn't do what you want it to do (we are back to reality now). She wants something that Linux can't give her, and now that I am sure with the knowledge she has gained from her Linux use will no doubt allow her to work with Windows I think she will still have that bad impression in her mind about Linux.
gee, as a computer illiterate, she really had no choice at all. What was she going to do, pick the Windows machine for which you had REFUSED to help her? Your heavy handed tactic forced her into Linux and now it seems to be incapable of meeting her needs. Hmmm, being forced to use a platform the constricts you...how is that different from the reason the average zealot hates Microsoft? I guess the Open in Open Source doesn't apply to your options.
Jon Katz has gone so far off the deep end there is no coming back. Was the whole point of this article telling us that someday there will be a computer to tell us when to turn our computers off? That people will be so overwhelmed with information and technology that they will need yet another piece to help them get through it all?
Aside from the horrid prose and the stunted attempt to attract the Xena crowd, basically he is saying that people should rely on some program to filter out what it thinks is meaningless or unattractive information. What's the difference between getting every bit of your news from just one newspaper, or one news-site?
Just my opinion, bad article and bad idea behind it. I'll prove him wrong...I am leaving this website right now, turning off the machine and fixing some lunch all without the help of HAL 9000.
Jon, you're a mess.
You are only as tied in as you want to be. You don't HAVE to be online 10 ours a day, you don't have to be fighting your beeper all day, or your cell phone, or e-mail. If you whine and complain that you don't have enough time in the day or the pages keep coming, then you basically over-estimate your self importance. Tune out...talk a walk outside, you know that's the place that isn't INSIDE where the computer is. And I am sure that some people will say that this is rather simplistic and I would say that's the point. I am a software developer, I am surrounded by computers wherever I go. I have an etheret connection in my apartment. I have a cellphone. BUT I TURN IT OFF when I don't feel like answering it.
And I think that Katz is making another universal assumption based on the 'geeks and nerds' that he is always writing about. Exactly what percentage of the population has this problem of not being able to catch up and process all the information coming their way?
Why is it than every time an NT box is hacked everyone says "See, Windows sucks" but when a Linux box is hacked it's human error? Seems to me like a stereotype for Windows and a stereotype for Linux has developed and is used to fortify or denounce these situations all the time.
Java started out as a language...a set of reserved words and syntax but it has slowly advanced, I think the word Sun is using now is "platform". I always thought of it having the possibility of being an OS on top of an OS(any OS)! It's just very very slow right now...
I have to agree...I don't think that anyone will assert that the computer/OS/tech field in general has been static for the past 20 years, and yet Microsoft has been able to advance and remain on top. They are able to adapt, but I think it's natural to try to control as much as possible so you don't have to adapt. But they are going to rest on the laurels...their free ISP service is going to be the first of I am sure many attempts to stake a dominant claim to the internet. Now I am not saying that this is a good thing mind you, but they are a corporation after all and Sun, the Open Source Community etc have the same right but maybe not the same warchest.........
Does every problem have to have a solution that screams out "Look how smart I am in dealing with this problem so as to cram my opinion down everyone's throat!" Signing up the HR department to porn lists and then scanning them...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! That'll show 'em.
You know there is nothing in the world that is an attack on your way of life like people making sure that you are not abusing THEIR property.
At IBM, they monitor everything you get, every site you visit and if you go porn surfing then they fire you. They tell this to everyone but still there are people that violate this policy. They are a little bit looser with e-mail restrictions but they are pretty tight too.
IMHO, it's the company's e-mail account, network etc. you are paid to work, but at the very least not to mess around with objectionable material that could potentially hold the company liable for if the wrong person gets some dirty e-mail. Don't think that e-mail privacy is your right at work because it's not. If you want privacy go get a hotmail account...:)
Whoever posted Vidi vici veni is genius...
Don't get me wrong, the movie was utter garbage, I just hated it that much more because I was hoping it would be fresh, original and scary.
However, not having expectations is pretty unrealistic, don't you think? Can you honestly go into every movie not knowing anything about it, and not expecting a good movie? Pretty cynical approach if you ask me.
I just expected better you know? When you expect good things and you are disappointed it hurts worse than usual.
So many people are involved with a film in Hollywood that it is a rare thing for a creative, unique vision to make it's way to the screen and I was hoping that Blair Witch would be it. High expectations dashed to bits.
However, all this talk of a sequel doesn't upset me like you think though...Evil Dead was in my opinion not good but it was innovative and proved that you could make a successful movie very cheaply. Then they followed that up with one of the greated horror/comedy movies ever Evil Dead 2, so I am not going to lose all hope!:)
Let me start by saying that when I saw the preview of Inspector Gadget, my brain went into CGI overload. Hard. I started to look at all of these movies just crammed with this stuff and I just shut down my nervous system, not wanting to see another 80 foot spider or mutant shark.
BUT...
The Blair Witch was in my opinion absolutely horrible filmmaking. "Road Rules goes horribly wrong." And it was so funny as to be unfunny. As a friend pointed out, they got lost in the woods with a map, compass, river AND the sun in the sky? Sounds to me like it was nature weeding out bad genes to me. But anyway, an utterly wretched film, with no suspense at all. Just because it was cheap and different doesn't mean it's good. Last time I checked characters were still fairly important and I couldn't give a rat's behind about any of them. So, if characters aren't there, most filmakers will attempt to blind you with visuals or at least a good plot. No such luck here; it's like they were relying so heavily on trying to sell this as a true story and the fact that it is about as un-Hollywood as you can get they forgot to do anything like entertain us. Godzilla sucked and no matter how much money they put on the screen that wasn't going to change. Same principal here. No amount of money would have made this story entertaining.
Go watch The Iron Giant. It won't make near as much as The Insipid Witch, but it is light years better and will still be around in 100 years whereas Blair Witch will be spliced onto a reel America's Funniest Home Videos and Fox's Most Shocking Moments Caught on Tape.
Now, to be fair I will have to say that they marketed this film BEAUTIFULLY. Web site, Sci-Fi channel preview, everything to make you think it was real. Plus all the buzz about how scary it was; to me that is what drew me to the film because how many people can be shocked or scared by a movie after the trememdous amount of scary movies we have all seen in our lives? I have to give it credit for trying, I am not shooting the concept full of holes, it's quite noble actually, it's just that the execution was as big a failure as any failed endeavor in the history of filmmaking.
David Brin, master author of...well, of what again? has shown us the way. It was indeed an insightful, accurate, no-punches-pulled account...of his own jealousy. I can even account for some of the vitriol by a knee jerk reaction to the incredible amount of hype surrounding Ep. 1, but to write that much on what's wrong with it and how we should pay attention to the 'evil' message Lucas is supposedly sending? Back away from the 'regular people are just pawns in the lives of these uber-humans" tantrum. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to go to the movies and watch David Brin wake up, eat breakfast and drive to work at Salon magazine, where he works all day long or some boring real-life situation like that. Unless Camille Paglia walks into your office and kicks your whiny butt, I don't care. I want extreme situations, situations that inspire the mind past what it sees everyday. This Star Wars universe exists in about 9 hours worth of film, and how much fan fiction, satires, tributes, novelizations, cartoons, etc has it inspired? And as far as content goes, IT'S A FREAKING MOVIE! I want to take a motorcycle and gun it through the streets of San Fran at 200mph+ but I don't! Maybe I can get a little bit of that feeling though from the pod race, or the speeder bike chase. Now I won't deny that I had problems with Ep.1, but I am withholding final criticism for after I have seen all three prequels. But you are so quick to complain that you don't see what a vast, magical universe he has crafted over 4 movies? Give him credit for at least that much. If anything your expectations are too high for what Lucas has delivered up until this point. But even if he has made some slip-ups, the Star Wars universe is something so awesome that it has taken on a life of it own.
You are a writer, apparently, you can't appreciate this?