> Does anyone else find it strange that the movie was named after a song that only happened to mention the main character a few times?
Not necessarily. The whole song was (is) really about alienation from society and a blurring of the distinction between the real and the imaginary.
Andy Kaufman (in the song) is held up as a prime example of this, and in reverse, the song is held up as an exploration into the man (in much the same way that the movie is ostensibly such an exploration).
In the song itself, the title comes from the phrase, "If you believed they put a man on the moon," which refers to disbelievers in the aftermath of the moon landing who thought the whole thing was a hoax.
What better reference for the movie's (a movie about someone who was in a sense never "real") title than a phrase that questions what many believe to be a fundemental fact?
That's where it comes from, and I think it's fitting.
Sure... but the point is that you were trying to argue that he is "a comedic legend." You don't become that by doing nothing new. He is a very good comedian. Fine. I don't debate that. But as of this point in time, he has done nothing to warrant the title of "legend." To get that, you have to be more than simply funny... you have to be bold and innovative. Carrey has potential, but has not yet realized it (IMHO). Is he funny as hell? Sure. But a legend? No. If you think he will become a legend, comedic or otherwise, then simply being funny, is not all that matters. -- - Sean
Actually, this one's not too bad. The one on the right, that is. I could imagine wearing something like that (under my sweater, at least, until it becomes fashionable for guys to wear necklaces like that), and using it for a bit of quick-access.
That assumes, of course, that there isn't a big, bulky back-end to it hiding somewhere behind her back... -- - Sean
You are right on those counts above, I agree. But. My entire argument above was built on the hypothesis that Linux would become more popular, and you would of necessity start seeing a less-elite set of people using it (by less-elite, I mean users who are not programmers, who are not "power users" (whatever that term means these days), who are, for the most part, computer-illiterate). If you reject that hypothesis; if you decide that that's not going to happen, then that's fine, but don't enter into the discussion, since it was based on that eventuality as a starting point (several messages up).
Now that the only people here are the ones who realize that we are talking about such a world, you should realize that your reasons 3, 4, 5 and 6 become null and void. Your "Joe Sixpack" user does not necessarily adhere to those properties you have attributed to him.
Point 1 no longer applies, because again, I am basing this argument on the presumption that Linux (the single kernel Linux, and the associated API) become dominant to the point that virus writers will target it specifically. Point 2, as I have already mentioned, is weak at best, because a lot of users will probably just use whatever is most convenient and not set up any supplementary users. As your sibling post (John, IIRC) pointed out, more and more distros are starting to create a separate user account as default. However, that doesn't necessarily patch any holes in the security system (which do exist), and that "Joe Sixpack User" won't bother to fix. Just look at how many NT users are still running at Service Pack 2 or 3 or something (and the only reason they're even running that is because MS Office won't run otherwise).
The existence of viruses is a function of the competency of the users, not the capability of the underlying Operating System.
I mean, hell, if it comes to it, we're probably going to eventually start seeing "Word Macro"-type viruses that exist not at the kernel level, but at a higher one, that can still do a lot of damage, even if they don't have access to the underlying OS at all (or should that be a KOffice Macro Virus?:-)
Oh, and finally... I'm sure it is "viruses". But that's not the point. What word I use, or whether my grammar is correct, is totally irrelevant, as long as the message gets through loud and clear. Which in this case, it did. You understood what I was saying, so who cares whether I say "viruses" or "virii?" That's what I was getting at. I apologize if it's a pet peeve of yours, or something, but really... it's not a big deal. I always pay attention to what people are saying, rather than whether their spelling and grammar is spot-on. -- - Sean
Congrats for not thinking things through a bit, and for ragging on me for my grammar rather than thinking about what I was saying.
Actually, virii, viruses, whatever, can exist in Linux/Unix. If you think they won't (or don't) mainly because most people don't run as root (I think this is what you're getting at -- if not, please enlighten me), well you've got another think coming. This for 2 reasons: 1. Linux does have holes in its security. Linux' security is better than Windows', don't get me wrong. But you know (or at least I hope you do) as well as I that there are bugs in the code. Sure they can be fixed... sure, they do, in fact, get fixed. But how many average users (read: not hackers) are going to bother downloading them and patching the holes in their system? Not many, I'll wager. But virus writers will exploit these holes.
2. How many will even bother creating an account to run under, rather than just using root? I have a feeling that we will see a lot of people (assumning Linux gains popularity) running as root simply because that was the default after install... never bothering to create a user account for themselves.
Viruses certainly can exist in Linux. And there's a good chance that they will exist, and actually bite a few clueless users.
You accused me of believing "MS FUD at its finest." Please don't be a fool and believe "Linux FUD at its finest." Don't get me wrong... I am not an MS-apologist by any means. I don't like the OS at all. I run Linux almost 100%, and am perfectly happy with it. But that doesn't mean I am blind to its (few) shortcomings. -- - Sean
In Opera? No. They (the guys a OperaSoft) have explicitly stated that they will not support ActiveX, VBScript, or any other proprietary Microsoftisms. -- - Sean
Ummm... I don't think you realize the vast amounts of money that are lost every year in countries like China where real and pirated copies of software sit side-by-side on the shelf, and people think they are buying the real version, but instead of going to the people who wrote it, the money they pay goes to the counterfieters.
That's where the real money is lost, and I don't think the amounts the software manufacturers claim are all that unrealistic. -- - Sean
Ummm... think about that for a second. DO you really think that MacAffee Antivirus would be unnecessary under Linux?
Virii can hit Linux, don't think for a second that they can't. It just so happens that most don't right now, since not enough people use it. But if it were to become much more widely-used than it is now, you'd start seeing Linux virii hitting the net.
At which point MacAffee (or something of its ilk) would be very useful.
Those others you mentioned... Norton Utilities (or something similar) would probably still be around. Sure, the capabilities would be built into the OS, but there would still be a need for a "dumbed down" version... just an interface, really, to cater to users who don't have the wherewithal to run "umount/mnt/mydrive && e2fsck/dev/hda5 && mount/mnt/mydrive;". After all, Windows comes with Scandisk, defrag, and a few other built-in utils, right?
As for uninstallers (such as InstallShield, etc...)... well, what do you think RPM and APT are? Or what about that Setup (or whatever it's called) that LokiSoft introduced a while ago?
Third-party utilities will always be necessary, no matter how full-featured the OS underneath them. Likewise, the existence of 3rd party utilities does not speak to the capability of the OS they are running on. -- - Sean
...but that's not what they're ttying to do, and you very well know it.
If Lynx were the end-all, be-all of browsing, nothing else would ever be built. Lynx works great for what it is.
And for some people (I assume you) who don't need graphics, you won't ever need Opera.
But for those who are developing a browser for customers that need graphics, Java, Stylesheets, et. al... that task becomes just a tad more difficult:-) -- - Sean
Re:Is Amaya compatible with html out there?
on
Opera Beta Released
·
· Score: 1
I'd actually debate that. Lynx isn't all that bad. It's biggest drawback is, of course, that it's non-graphical. But aside from that, it's very usable and doesn't look too bad at all. I even use it from time-to-time, when I don't have need for the pretty pictures (unfortunately, most of the time, I do have such needs).
Amaya, however, just looks like CRAP.
I dunno about Opera. I use the Windows one all the time and love it (doing so right now, in fact). But I haven't finished downloading the Linux beta yet. -- - Sean
...reports are coming in from our European Correspondants that Russian armies are making their retreat tonight from invasion of a poorer neigbour republic. An invasion which has been decried by the US for years now.
The mood in the streets of Afghanistan is said to be jubilant... -- - Sean
> anyone tried to use an appliance (ie a hairdryer) beside their cabled up TV? See what happens?
Er, hello? That's because of the magnetic fields it introduces that screw up the display! It doesn't affect the validity of the cable connection the slightest bit!! -- - Sean
I'm Canadian, too, and he got me riled up until I actually want and read what he was referring to. He wasn't knocking the Canadian network, he was pissing on the excerpt from the Media Fusion ad.
It was Media Fusion's claims of high speed connections that he was comparing to 9600 Baug, not the Canadian high speed network.
Although granted, he could have made that a bit clearer... -- - Sean
But unfortunately, AC's are no longer the paroblem. The problem is that these people are creating temporary, "throw-away" accounts to post their drivel from. Even the drastic step of banning AC's won't help this... -- - Sean
Slashdot Mirror
> Does anyone else find it strange that the movie was named after a song that only happened to mention the main character a few times?
:-)
Not necessarily. The whole song was (is) really about alienation from society and a blurring of the distinction between the real and the imaginary.
Andy Kaufman (in the song) is held up as a prime example of this, and in reverse, the song is held up as an exploration into the man (in much the same way that the movie is ostensibly such an exploration).
In the song itself, the title comes from the phrase, "If you believed they put a man on the moon," which refers to disbelievers in the aftermath of the moon landing who thought the whole thing was a hoax.
What better reference for the movie's (a movie about someone who was in a sense never "real") title than a phrase that questions what many believe to be a fundemental fact?
That's where it comes from, and I think it's fitting.
Besides, the song kicks ass
--
- Sean
Ummm... no-one here was claiming that Carrey did anything new for comedy.
Chill!
--
- Sean
Sure... but the point is that you were trying to argue that he is "a comedic legend." You don't become that by doing nothing new. He is a very good comedian. Fine. I don't debate that. But as of this point in time, he has done nothing to warrant the title of "legend." To get that, you have to be more than simply funny... you have to be bold and innovative. Carrey has potential, but has not yet realized it (IMHO). Is he funny as hell? Sure. But a legend? No. If you think he will become a legend, comedic or otherwise, then simply being funny, is not all that matters.
--
- Sean
How come Slashdot idiots get so hung up on spelling? Did you understand what he said? What's the problem?
--
- Sean
Whatever. Stop being so nitpicky about details... grrrrrrrrrrrr.
His meaning came across loud and clear, no? So what's the big deal?
--
- Sean
I don't, and god damn you, stop making fun of me!
--
- Sean
What the shell do you mean, "except for 2"?????
2 was the best! The only one worth seeing again and again and again and again and again and...
--
- Sean
Actually, this one's not too bad. The one on the right, that is. I could imagine wearing something like that (under my sweater, at least, until it becomes fashionable for guys to wear necklaces like that), and using it for a bit of quick-access.
That assumes, of course, that there isn't a big, bulky back-end to it hiding somewhere behind her back...
--
- Sean
Gah. It seems pretty obvious at this point that neither one of us is going to convince the other, so I'm willing to just drop it for now.
All I'll say is that we shall see... one of us will turn out to be right, and the other wrong, and at that point... well.
Anyway... it was an interesting argument while it lasted, but I really don't see much point in continuing it at this juncture.
--
- Sean
You are right on those counts above, I agree. But. My entire argument above was built on the hypothesis that Linux would become more popular, and you would of necessity start seeing a less-elite set of people using it (by less-elite, I mean users who are not programmers, who are not "power users" (whatever that term means these days), who are, for the most part, computer-illiterate). If you reject that hypothesis; if you decide that that's not going to happen, then that's fine, but don't enter into the discussion, since it was based on that eventuality as a starting point (several messages up).
:-)
Now that the only people here are the ones who realize that we are talking about such a world, you should realize that your reasons 3, 4, 5 and 6 become null and void. Your "Joe Sixpack" user does not necessarily adhere to those properties you have attributed to him.
Point 1 no longer applies, because again, I am basing this argument on the presumption that Linux (the single kernel Linux, and the associated API) become dominant to the point that virus writers will target it specifically. Point 2, as I have already mentioned, is weak at best, because a lot of users will probably just use whatever is most convenient and not set up any supplementary users. As your sibling post (John, IIRC) pointed out, more and more distros are starting to create a separate user account as default. However, that doesn't necessarily patch any holes in the security system (which do exist), and that "Joe Sixpack User" won't bother to fix. Just look at how many NT users are still running at Service Pack 2 or 3 or something (and the only reason they're even running that is because MS Office won't run otherwise).
The existence of viruses is a function of the competency of the users, not the capability of the underlying Operating System.
I mean, hell, if it comes to it, we're probably going to eventually start seeing "Word Macro"-type viruses that exist not at the kernel level, but at a higher one, that can still do a lot of damage, even if they don't have access to the underlying OS at all (or should that be a KOffice Macro Virus?
Oh, and finally... I'm sure it is "viruses". But that's not the point. What word I use, or whether my grammar is correct, is totally irrelevant, as long as the message gets through loud and clear. Which in this case, it did. You understood what I was saying, so who cares whether I say "viruses" or "virii?" That's what I was getting at. I apologize if it's a pet peeve of yours, or something, but really... it's not a big deal. I always pay attention to what people are saying, rather than whether their spelling and grammar is spot-on.
--
- Sean
Congrats for not thinking things through a bit, and for ragging on me for my grammar rather than thinking about what I was saying.
Actually, virii, viruses, whatever, can exist in Linux/Unix. If you think they won't (or don't) mainly because most people don't run as root (I think this is what you're getting at -- if not, please enlighten me), well you've got another think coming. This for 2 reasons:
1. Linux does have holes in its security. Linux' security is better than Windows', don't get me wrong. But you know (or at least I hope you do) as well as I that there are bugs in the code. Sure they can be fixed... sure, they do, in fact, get fixed. But how many average users (read: not hackers) are going to bother downloading them and patching the holes in their system? Not many, I'll wager. But virus writers will exploit these holes.
2. How many will even bother creating an account to run under, rather than just using root? I have a feeling that we will see a lot of people (assumning Linux gains popularity) running as root simply because that was the default after install... never bothering to create a user account for themselves.
Viruses certainly can exist in Linux. And there's a good chance that they will exist, and actually bite a few clueless users.
You accused me of believing "MS FUD at its finest." Please don't be a fool and believe "Linux FUD at its finest." Don't get me wrong... I am not an MS-apologist by any means. I don't like the OS at all. I run Linux almost 100%, and am perfectly happy with it. But that doesn't mean I am blind to its (few) shortcomings.
--
- Sean
In Opera? No. They (the guys a OperaSoft) have explicitly stated that they will not support ActiveX, VBScript, or any other proprietary Microsoftisms.
--
- Sean
Well... errors, because of their unexpected nature, are hard to handle well.
--
- Sean
Ummm... I don't think you realize the vast amounts of money that are lost every year in countries like China where real and pirated copies of software sit side-by-side on the shelf, and people think they are buying the real version, but instead of going to the people who wrote it, the money they pay goes to the counterfieters.
That's where the real money is lost, and I don't think the amounts the software manufacturers claim are all that unrealistic.
--
- Sean
Ummm... think about that for a second. DO you really think that MacAffee Antivirus would be unnecessary under Linux?
/mnt/mydrive && e2fsck /dev/hda5 && mount /mnt/mydrive;". After all, Windows comes with Scandisk, defrag, and a few other built-in utils, right?
Virii can hit Linux, don't think for a second that they can't. It just so happens that most don't right now, since not enough people use it. But if it were to become much more widely-used than it is now, you'd start seeing Linux virii hitting the net.
At which point MacAffee (or something of its ilk) would be very useful.
Those others you mentioned... Norton Utilities (or something similar) would probably still be around. Sure, the capabilities would be built into the OS, but there would still be a need for a "dumbed down" version... just an interface, really, to cater to users who don't have the wherewithal to run "umount
As for uninstallers (such as InstallShield, etc...)... well, what do you think RPM and APT are? Or what about that Setup (or whatever it's called) that LokiSoft introduced a while ago?
Third-party utilities will always be necessary, no matter how full-featured the OS underneath them. Likewise, the existence of 3rd party utilities does not speak to the capability of the OS they are running on.
--
- Sean
...but that's not what they're ttying to do, and you very well know it.
:-)
If Lynx were the end-all, be-all of browsing, nothing else would ever be built. Lynx works great for what it is.
And for some people (I assume you) who don't need graphics, you won't ever need Opera.
But for those who are developing a browser for customers that need graphics, Java, Stylesheets, et. al... that task becomes just a tad more difficult
--
- Sean
I'd actually debate that. Lynx isn't all that bad. It's biggest drawback is, of course, that it's non-graphical. But aside from that, it's very usable and doesn't look too bad at all. I even use it from time-to-time, when I don't have need for the pretty pictures (unfortunately, most of the time, I do have such needs).
Amaya, however, just looks like CRAP.
I dunno about Opera. I use the Windows one all the time and love it (doing so right now, in fact). But I haven't finished downloading the Linux beta yet.
--
- Sean
...which everyone has known about for weeks, even months, now.
--
- Sean
Well... that would certainly do something for the nature-vs-nurture question!
Whether it would actually answer it, though, I reserve judgement.
--
- Sean
...reports are coming in from our European Correspondants that Russian armies are making their retreat tonight from invasion of a poorer neigbour republic. An invasion which has been decried by the US for years now.
The mood in the streets of Afghanistan is said to be jubilant...
--
- Sean
> anyone tried to use an appliance (ie a hairdryer) beside their cabled up TV? See what happens?
Er, hello? That's because of the magnetic fields it introduces that screw up the display! It doesn't affect the validity of the cable connection the slightest bit!!
--
- Sean
Whoa, whoa, cool it, dude!
I'm Canadian, too, and he got me riled up until I actually want and read what he was referring to. He wasn't knocking the Canadian network, he was pissing on the excerpt from the Media Fusion ad.
It was Media Fusion's claims of high speed connections that he was comparing to 9600 Baug, not the Canadian high speed network.
Although granted, he could have made that a bit clearer...
--
- Sean
Oh no... this is really scary...
The village idiot gets a clue.
--
- Sean
Yup, and you just gave him the attention he was looking for.
Of course, so did I...
Ever hear of "don't feed the trolls"?
--
- Sean
But unfortunately, AC's are no longer the paroblem. The problem is that these people are creating temporary, "throw-away" accounts to post their drivel from. Even the drastic step of banning AC's won't help this...
--
- Sean