And you don't have much of a future in social commentary. This is like someone telling a raver "as soon as Fatboy Slim becomes ultra-popular, you'll start listening to something else, like They Might Be Giants" and the raver responding "I hate that band!" HURD is an example. As soon as Linux becomes mainstream, people who use it now will want something else.
So you think he'll be seen like Andrew Carnegie, then? You know, the guy who hired Pinkertons to beat and kill strikers, but then gave his money to the library system?
Gee, last time I checked, AIDS was the only one with 100% fatality rate and a 9-17 year transmission period. Personally, I'd rather have any other STD. Most of them are treatable (if you catch them in time) or even curable.
Plus I would be willing to bet that when it hits the courts, it will be overturned. Especially the bit that would outlaw reverse engineering. If it weren't for RE, there wouldn't be a PC industry, and we would be slaves to the first inventor of any item.
Considering he was gay, I'd say you were right. However, I bet Isaac Newton got some girl in the sack by asking her to help integrate his functions, or somesuch.
David Brin had some good comments on this. Too bad the screenwriter and director for "Postman" didn't listen. And as for a writing style being in vogue...Not to compare Gibson to the other people I mention, but aren't we glad that people like Henry James, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, and the like didn't submit to the vagaries of what style was "popular" at the time? Like I said, I don't necessarily think Gibson's work will be with us 100 years from now (whose will?) but at least he has his own style, just like Neal Stephenson does.
And as for protagonists acting weakly, it's not just in sci-fi that this is common. Instead, it is a disease of American literature that creates a superhero that doesn't need any help. The only people in Shakespeare (that I can remember) who were really proactive were the heroes of the history plays, and Shakespeare wrote those to gain political favor. Hamlet was a wimp whose indecision led to his death, blah blah blah. Many protagonists in great works of fiction have been indecisive or inactive.
And actually, copyright law does allow "fair use," a category that I think most deep linking falls into. One thing that is interesting to me is that most banner ads don't tell you exactly what they are for. This is because of the clickthrough model of web advertising. Advertisers do not take into account the more intangible effects of someone seeing a banner as s/he scrolls down a page, so they don't build banners in a way that lets the viewer know what the ad is for at first glance.
Overall, I think Universal misses the point. They should not expect a non-porn, non-financial, non-ecommerce site to make money or even break even. They should instead create a site that has good content that makes people want to watch their movies and tv shows and buy their music, blah blah blah.
Man, childish is right. I think that rather than take potshots at another company, a little analysis of how it is that it became conceivable that Quark would buy out Adobe "with Adobe's own money" might be a better idea. I mean, from the sound of it, they got lucky that Quark botched the buyout, and otherwise it would be "Quark Photoshop" now.
Otherwise, I think this is basically a puff piece. Bleah-puff.
Exactly. I think that as long as unrealistic body types are held up as standards of beauty, women will grow up with an unrealistic self image. CG models, which can be made to look like anything, will only exacerbate the problem.
Good point, but a word of caution: Almost no one says that Thin Red Line or Saving Private Ryan had "gratuitous" violence. Graphic, yes, but in the context of conveying the horror of war. The rest of the movies predate the current frenzy against movie violence, but the point stands for Spartacus and Roots. The Matrix, on the other hand, is seen as making violence look really cool.
The paralell is very obvious when you think of all data as software. Everything gets reviewed, and some gets changed for the better. This could also lead to better dissemination of things like studies on nutrition: why should I pay a couple hundred bucks for my doctor to tell me I should eat more kale and cabbage and maybe chicken instead of beef? In addition, I figure if pharmaceutical/biotech companies can advertise, it's time for people to have better access to information on the drugs that are advertised. After all, I've lost count of the people I've heard of getting a mis-prescription and suffering because of it. Why shouldn't we be able to learn this stuff for ourselves? (Most) doctors hate patients who study up on this stuff, because they hate to get second-guessed.
a few weeks back? That lousy book didn't even have info on any kind of technology, much less computers. What's next, intelligent discourse on Dostoevsky? Discussion of Nietzche and Proust? Heaven forbid!
Most people never upgrade. And why is it that sega and sony and nintendo never built upgradable consoles, anyway? Just like cars, computers are becoming more and more a general consumer item. Most people can't change the oil on their cars, something which is these days about as complex as connecting to the internet. There will always be a place for people who like to mess with computers, just like guys who like to mess with cars can still do that. However, most people want a Toyota, not a Jaguar (old, English built, keep-a-mechanic-in-the-trunk models.) By the same token, for most people, a Mac is going to be the best bet, especially if it has ONE PLUG IN.
Jeez, if you don't like em, build your own, or modify the one you got.
Actually, games are some of the most copied types of software on the net. My argument, though, is that most pirated software is stuff that you wouldn't necessarily buy in the first place, like high-dollar graphics apps. Most people who download warez just want to mess around with stuff they wouldn't otherwise get the chance to use. Hell, I know a couple people who waste system resources by using photoshop 5 as a picture viewer for the porn they download. On the other hand, the small number (?) of places that actually pirate software and use it to make a profit should pay for their tools.
Because Amazon doesn't sell below cost. They cut out the cost of maintaining a huge physical presence, and so can sell for peanuts. However, they lose money because they advertise and work at building their client base.
His best casting job was Harrison Ford. Next was Liam Neeson and Ewan Macgregor. Then Billy Dee Williams, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Natalie Portman...And he's directed FOUR movies. And Mark Hamill still isn't a good actor, Carrie Fisher is a writer, and Billy Dee hasn't worked since 1990 or thereabouts. Harrison Ford almost wasn't cast in Star Wars, and Liam, Ewan, and Natalie were all good/decent actors before Phantom Menace.
Well, given his current behavior (using drugs, getting smashed, etc.) I would feel sorry for any director who cast him. That added to the fact that his acting has careened downhill since "Gilbert Grape" makes me very suspicious of the commentary that Lucas "wants" him in SWEp2. This sounds to me like "Leo wants in, so he's probably in" thinking from the people at AICN.
Slashdot Mirror
And you don't have much of a future in social commentary. This is like someone telling a raver "as soon as Fatboy Slim becomes ultra-popular, you'll start listening to something else, like They Might Be Giants" and the raver responding "I hate that band!" HURD is an example. As soon as Linux becomes mainstream, people who use it now will want something else.
That's why I think Time should do a report after "Person of the Century" called "People to watch in the next century" Linus could be there.
So you think he'll be seen like Andrew Carnegie, then? You know, the guy who hired Pinkertons to beat and kill strikers, but then gave his money to the library system?
Gee, last time I checked, AIDS was the only one with 100% fatality rate and a 9-17 year transmission period. Personally, I'd rather have any other STD. Most of them are treatable (if you catch them in time) or even curable.
Plus I would be willing to bet that when it hits the courts, it will be overturned. Especially the bit that would outlaw reverse engineering. If it weren't for RE, there wouldn't be a PC industry, and we would be slaves to the first inventor of any item.
Considering he was gay, I'd say you were right. However, I bet Isaac Newton got some girl in the sack by asking her to help integrate his functions, or somesuch.
David Brin had some good comments on this. Too bad the screenwriter and director for "Postman" didn't listen. And as for a writing style being in vogue...Not to compare Gibson to the other people I mention, but aren't we glad that people like Henry James, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, and the like didn't submit to the vagaries of what style was "popular" at the time? Like I said, I don't necessarily think Gibson's work will be with us 100 years from now (whose will?) but at least he has his own style, just like Neal Stephenson does.
And as for protagonists acting weakly, it's not just in sci-fi that this is common. Instead, it is a disease of American literature that creates a superhero that doesn't need any help. The only people in Shakespeare (that I can remember) who were really proactive were the heroes of the history plays, and Shakespeare wrote those to gain political favor. Hamlet was a wimp whose indecision led to his death, blah blah blah. Many protagonists in great works of fiction have been indecisive or inactive.
And actually, copyright law does allow "fair use," a category that I think most deep linking falls into. One thing that is interesting to me is that most banner ads don't tell you exactly what they are for. This is because of the clickthrough model of web advertising. Advertisers do not take into account the more intangible effects of someone seeing a banner as s/he scrolls down a page, so they don't build banners in a way that lets the viewer know what the ad is for at first glance.
Overall, I think Universal misses the point. They should not expect a non-porn, non-financial, non-ecommerce site to make money or even break even. They should instead create a site that has good content that makes people want to watch their movies and tv shows and buy their music, blah blah blah.
Man, childish is right. I think that rather than take potshots at another company, a little analysis of how it is that it became conceivable that Quark would buy out Adobe "with Adobe's own money" might be a better idea. I mean, from the sound of it, they got lucky that Quark botched the buyout, and otherwise it would be "Quark Photoshop" now.
Otherwise, I think this is basically a puff piece. Bleah-puff.
Exactly. I think that as long as unrealistic body types are held up as standards of beauty, women will grow up with an unrealistic self image. CG models, which can be made to look like anything, will only exacerbate the problem.
Good point, but a word of caution:
Almost no one says that Thin Red Line or Saving Private Ryan had "gratuitous" violence. Graphic, yes, but in the context of conveying the horror of war. The rest of the movies predate the current frenzy against movie violence, but the point stands for Spartacus and Roots. The Matrix, on the other hand, is seen as making violence look really cool.
Actually, Suck is considered to be one of the better examples of web design ever. And why would reading it give you a headache? Maybe you need coffee.
"Ahhhhh! Oh god it locked up! The pain, the pain! It hurts! Damn you, Gates!!!"
Don't say "locked up" in the same sentence with "Sexbot." It conjures up not-pretty images.
And the 286 was able to address something like 1gb of memory. Not that anyone could afford a gig of memory back when the 286 ruled the roost.
The paralell is very obvious when you think of all data as software. Everything gets reviewed, and some gets changed for the better. This could also lead to better dissemination of things like studies on nutrition: why should I pay a couple hundred bucks for my doctor to tell me I should eat more kale and cabbage and maybe chicken instead of beef? In addition, I figure if pharmaceutical/biotech companies can advertise, it's time for people to have better access to information on the drugs that are advertised. After all, I've lost count of the people I've heard of getting a mis-prescription and suffering because of it. Why shouldn't we be able to learn this stuff for ourselves? (Most) doctors hate patients who study up on this stuff, because they hate to get second-guessed.
To a more informed populace!
- Goedel, Escher, Bach
a few weeks back? That lousy book didn't even have info on any kind of technology, much less computers. What's next, intelligent discourse on Dostoevsky? Discussion of Nietzche and Proust? Heaven forbid!Most people never upgrade. And why is it that sega and sony and nintendo never built upgradable consoles, anyway? Just like cars, computers are becoming more and more a general consumer item. Most people can't change the oil on their cars, something which is these days about as complex as connecting to the internet. There will always be a place for people who like to mess with computers, just like guys who like to mess with cars can still do that. However, most people want a Toyota, not a Jaguar (old, English built, keep-a-mechanic-in-the-trunk models.) By the same token, for most people, a Mac is going to be the best bet, especially if it has ONE PLUG IN.
Jeez, if you don't like em, build your own, or modify the one you got.
Actually, games are some of the most copied types of software on the net. My argument, though, is that most pirated software is stuff that you wouldn't necessarily buy in the first place, like high-dollar graphics apps. Most people who download warez just want to mess around with stuff they wouldn't otherwise get the chance to use. Hell, I know a couple people who waste system resources by using photoshop 5 as a picture viewer for the porn they download. On the other hand, the small number (?) of places that actually pirate software and use it to make a profit should pay for their tools.
I like Neal Stephenson's use of the term "supreme ninja mage lord," although that seems a bit wordy.
Because Amazon doesn't sell below cost. They cut out the cost of maintaining a huge physical presence, and so can sell for peanuts. However, they lose money because they advertise and work at building their client base.
You know, with short replicant lifespans.
There's also that kid in the new Bruce Willis movie, where the kid can see ghosts....
Um...What?
His best casting job was Harrison Ford. Next was Liam Neeson and Ewan Macgregor. Then Billy Dee Williams, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Natalie Portman...And he's directed FOUR movies. And Mark Hamill still isn't a good actor, Carrie Fisher is a writer, and Billy Dee hasn't worked since 1990 or thereabouts. Harrison Ford almost wasn't cast in Star Wars, and Liam, Ewan, and Natalie were all good/decent actors before Phantom Menace.
Well, given his current behavior (using drugs, getting smashed, etc.) I would feel sorry for any director who cast him. That added to the fact that his acting has careened downhill since "Gilbert Grape" makes me very suspicious of the commentary that Lucas "wants" him in SWEp2. This sounds to me like "Leo wants in, so he's probably in" thinking from the people at AICN.
Yeah, you could just dub Jar-Jar's dialogue. Maybe paste in a new actor for Anakin, cut out the extra stuff...
Of course, even better would be the editing room at ILM...