The tone of the book is very much "Hobbit" like in the first chapters, but as we wend our way towards Rivendell, the tone grows darker and more "adult".
This winds up mirroring a similar journey for the hobbits, who start off as childlike and neive (like the tone) but get much more worldly as they get exposed to the real world.
Bombadil works in the book, because he shows up near the start when the hobbits are still in juvenile fairy-tale mode.
While I still don't care for the Bombadil side-story, if I had mod-points I would have to mark you up 1. You insight has merit.
After some consideration, I think you've hit upon the precise reason why I don't care for Bombadil's presence in LOTR.
The dual-tones are likely side-effects resulting from Tolkien's struggle to write a Hobbit sequel that did not revolve around Bilbo (who "lived happily ever after, to the end of his days.").
I will probably be flamed into oblivion for saying this but I've never understood why some fans get so wound up over Tom Bombadil. I am currently more than half way through the 12-volume History of Middle-Earth (HOME) (I've completed volumes 1-4, 6, 7 and am more than half-way through volume 5. Volumes 6-8 deal with Lord of the Rings) and Bombadil did not factor into any of Tolkien's pre-LOTR Middle-Earth writings. Yes, there were a few poems and such that were written but these were outside the mythology and early history of Middle-Earth.
Tom Bombadil always struck me as little-more than a deus ex machina and I've never particularly cared for him.
From what I have read, Tolkien struggled to find a story to write (he was under pressure from his publisher to produce a Hobbit sequel) and did not have a strong grasp of what the tale would be until Elrond's Council (which, I believe, explains why the story got very focused after that point). The material prior to the Council, in my opinion, reflects this struggle to find a story. Do not mistake me, the Old Forest and the Barrow-Wights were cool [book] scenes that did turn out to serve a purpose later but, as Jackson has demonstrated, they could easily be written out (e.g. replace Barrow-Wight (Numenorean/Dunedain?) blades with Noldoli daggers given by Galadriel, remove Old Forest and explain that trees could be more than just silent stalks of wood in Fangorn, etc.)
If you are an aspiring fantasy author, like critical analysis or constructed languages or if you would simply enjoy reading about the evolution of Middle-Earth, I would highly recommend the HOME books. They are not for the non-Middle-Earth geek; I've tried getting other people to read them and so far I've failed - I think you really have to have an interest in Middle-Earth (as a literary creation) in order to tolerate reading and re-reading the same stories over and over as they are emended from draft to draft. I've read and re-read versions of the Silmarillion (the Quenta, the Silmarillion, the Quenta-Silmarillion, *must...keep...sanity*) so many times with so many minor changes that it is difficult, at times, to keep the canon straight from the evolving story.
even the elven foresight...can't be guaranteed(ex. "The quest will claim his [Frodo's] life.").
I've always seen it the other way: the quest did claim Frodo's life. He was never the same afterward; the Ring had worked its way into his mind in such a way that he could never be content and the Morgul blade left a wound that would never fully heal. These are the exact reasons why Frodo was allowed to take the White Ship into the West and live out the remainder of his days in Valinor.
No, not particularly. My experience in the military was crap and I'm not grateful for having been treated like crap for 6 years (the first 4 weren't too bad - but were bad enough that I nearly got out). The way I see it: the USAF and I are just about even. I got the security clearance and some help with my education, they got an indentured servant in return.
it's a fair share better than racking up debt for more training and schooling,
What makes you think I didn't? Things may have changed (I hope so for the sake of those enlisted) but when I went through (been out about 3 years) only about 50% of my education was paid for - they paid 75% tuition of the lowest-priced University in our area (and, yes, I do have the MGIB - but you couldn't use MGIB and TA at the same time; I ended up finishing my Master's degree using the MGIB). That's 50% more than had I been a civilian but I gave up a heckuva lot in return for it. No, I wasn't dodging bullets - but that is why I chose the Air Force and not the Marine Corps or Army.
or having salary expectations lower than the already low military pay
I never said you should lower your salary expectations to that of an E4; that would be insane (military pay sucks @$$). That the de facto standard when a military family is expecting a child is to send you to the local WIC office so you can start receiving government assistance as soon as possible is just downright wrong (how about providing our warfighters with a respectable, living wage!). What I did say was that job-seekers should lower their salary expectations (from, say, $80K to, say, $70K or less, for example).
...if you're single...
You mention this a few times and I will agree with you. I wasn't single. The single guys had to deal with a lot more crap around holidays and such but they did live more comfortably than us married guys - as long as you don't mind living in the dorms and eating out of the "dining facility" (chow hall).
Congratulations on being one of those lucky few who are loving life in the military. In my experience, you are the exception...not the norm.
When I look back on the time I spent in the military, I see a sea of lost opportunities. Had I not enlisted, I would still have gotten my education it just would have cost me a bit more (which, by the way, probably would have been paid for within the first few months of whatever job I probably would have landed back then - it was the booming 90s after all) but I would likely have been happier, more respected, more experienced, more well-traveled, and richer.
a real tech job. 2E251: Computer, Network, Cryptographic, and Switching Systems
Once again, I call bullshit. With a tight job market, this
topic
has been discussedbefore on Slashdot.
Enlisting in the military is a solution you will likely regret; training, schooling, lowering your salary expectations, whatever is much better than enlisting in the military. I spent nearly ten years in the military and, other than a security clearance and paying for much (not all - don't buy that bullcrap about the military being a full-ride) of my education, it was a waste of time. While some technology the military owns - the type of stuff you see hyped in the media - is very cool, you will most likely work with outdated or aging equipment. Contractors deliver new systems - military guys maintain them.
I'll preface by saying that I owned and rode a motorcyle for two years. I never once had a problem with drivers around me; I recognized that I was on a machine that could accelerate and decelerate much more quickly than the machine they drove and took it as my responsibility to make sure they saw where I was at all times i.e. I drove defensively.
but drivers here are less than respectful of motorcyclists.
Unfortunately, the offensive way I've seen most motorcyclists drive, weaving in and out of traffic 10-15 mph (minimum) faster than the cars around them, driving on the shoulder, etc., I'd say you've got that statement backwards. When someone zips by, going way over the speed limits, and you never even had a chance to notice they were there...well, whose fault is it when an accident happens?
You want respect, you gotta give respect. The guys riding on crotch-rockets, acting like asses in traffic, are disrespectful to the drivers around them and, as a result, they do not get any respect. It's happened enough times to most drivers that the automatic reaction to a crotch-rocket is disgust or overzealous caution.
The guys on cruisers (Harleys, etc.)...I cannot remember the last time I saw one that was driving irresponsibly. Most of them are just enjoying the "freedom" they believe the bike gives them...
At which he self-righteously set back and did no more looking. In research, you should set your suspicions aside and actually study the issue and look at the facts.
Excellent point.
...but I don't think it addresses the question of which source is more trustworthy: the source compiled and extensively peer-reviewed by experts in their fields or the source that may be compiled and may be extensively peer-reviewed by experts but that can then be edited into oblivion by anyone. (I changed the wording of the original options somewhat to remove the strawman-esque aspect of "experts v/s. mobs"). Will those errors be caught by Wikipedia editors? Maybe. Maybe not.
Larry Sanger, Wikipedia's co-founder, said the unlimited public editing process can have a downside. "I was recently looking at some of the philosophy articles that have been edited and re-edited. I actually think some of them have gone backwards lately," he said. Sanger teaches philosophy at Ohio State University.
Any resource can, and probably will, have errors. While I use Wikipedia, and enjoy reading some of the articles on Wikipedia, I do not think it is of the same caliber as a peer-reviewed reference like Funk & Wagnall's or Encyclopedia Britannica. The community nature of Wikipedia (certainly a strength), coupled with a lack of formalized accountability, limits the applicability of the information contained within.
Ironically, when I went to Wikipedia's site in order to get their take on their own reliability I was greeted by a front page sporting the following :
In the news
Due to vandalism, this template has been temporarily shut down.
This wikipedia article on Wikipedia's reliability I think succinctly captures the very debate we are having:
Wikipedia's utility as a reference work has been questioned. The lack of authority and accountability are considered disqualifying factors by some people. For example, librarian Philip Bradley acknowledged in an interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was in theory a "lovely idea", but that he would not use it in practice and is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window." People supporting the idea of Wikipedia counter these arguments by saying that Wikipedia is a more independent source than most traditional encyclopedias and that the reliability is potentially greater than that of a traditional source, since errors can be corrected immediately.
Printed publications do their best to ensure the material they present is accurate. When they fail to do so, they are heavily criticized and pressured to do better (witness the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times). Wikipedia has no processes in place to ensure the accuracy of its information other than a hope and a belief that people will do the right thing.
I agree with Bradley, quoted above. I would love to get fully behind Wikipedia (and have even recommended it to family members with a caveat on its reliability) - but I cannot because its reliability is only "potentially greater" than a traditional source (for now).
Everyone automatically assumes the Wikipedia entry is wrong because McHenry is a "Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopaedia Britannica".
I call Bullshit. I doubt anyone here is solely basing their belief in Wikipedia's reliability on McHenry. The question of Wikipedia's reliability has been debated for quite some time. There are rabid supporters on both sides of the debate; McHenry just brings another set of "eyeballs" to the debate and raises some valid points.
Further, the Encyclopedia Brittanica is composed of articles written by recognized experts in their fields and peer-reviewed. Are there errors? Probably. McHenry admits as much:
I know as well as anyone and better than most what is involved in assessing an encyclopedia. I know, to begin with, that it can't be done in any thoroughgoing way. The job is just too big. Professional reviewers content themselves with some statistics -- so many articles, so many of those newly added, so many index entries, so many pictures, and so forth -- and a quick look at a short list of representative topics.
Which source is likely to have more errors?
A. The source written and peer-reviewed by experts with a reputation to uphold
B. The source written by a mob of well-intentioned individuals with mixed levels of expertise (some could even be the same experts that submitted to EB) and, possibly, vandalized by @$$wipes with nothing better to do.
The mere presence of the word "possibly" in item B. is what makes Wikipedia's "reliability" questionable and makes EB the "more reliable" source.
Funny, he cites no sources other than himself. How do I know he's right?
Further research is needed.
Touche!
However, while McHenry is a former "Editor in Chief" he still occupied only a single cog in the EB wheel. Also, consider the example he picked - the disputed birthdate of Alexander Hamilton. He chose this piece of information because it is disputed among scholars - he was interested in seeing how Wikipedia would handle that dispute:
To see what Wikipedia is like I chose a single article, the biography of Alexander Hamilton. I chose that topic because I happen to know that there is a problem with his birth date, and how a reference work deals with that problem tells me something about its standards. The problem is this: While the day and month of Hamilton's birth are known, there is some uncertainty as to the year, whether it be 1755 or 1757. Hamilton himself used, and most contemporary biographers prefer, the latter year; a reference work ought at least to note the issue.
What he found confirmed his suspicions - not only did Wiki not even mention the dispute, the article itself was not internally consistent!
I just fired it up in both IE and Firefox and they look exactly the same...
The problem, I believe, is endemic to the Linux version of FireFox. I've got it on both my Windows Laptop (at work) and on my Debian box (at home). The Linux version renders the fonts on Slashdot as if I had "increased" the text size.
As a previous poster mentioned, you can easily reduce the size of the font: + [+|-].
Not a big deal but also not something that seems to be a problem in the Windows client.
I use Wikipedia three or four times a week to look up a fact...But I wouldn't feel super confident that what I read in a wikipedia article was the complete and total truth ( though most of the time it comes close ) until I had at least checked out a few other sources.
I think, overall, this is McHenry's point - you cannot trust the information in Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of Wikipedia and I have contributed to it and used it, on occasion, to jumpstart my research on a particular topic - but I would never consider Wikipedia as a "definitive" source and, as such, its value as an encyclopedia and as a reliable source of information is suspect. Were I to use Britannica to check the same fact or initiate the same research I might not feel the need to go further - with Wikipedia, it would almost be foolish to not go further.
I think that what it comes down to is the pedigree of the information. Britannica has a reputation to maintain and, as such, employs credentialed writers and reviewers - the users of an Encyclopedia Britannica know that the articles were written and peer-reviewed by established experts in a given field; Wikipedia has no such thing hoping, instead, that the cream will eventually rise to the top of the barrel. So...when you read that Wikipedia article, are you getting cream or are you getting something less? You never know (and that is the problem). Unfortunately, even if Wikipedia had credentialed authors and reviewers, the same problem would remain as long as articles remain open to anyone who cares to edit.
I think Wikipedia is a great example of collaborative writing (not that all of the writing is great - just that it is cool how the whole "wiki" concept works); I think Wikipedia is a great example of a community pulling together. However, using Wikipedia as a sole source (not that you are) is probably less wise than using Encyclopedia Britannica or Funk & Wagnalls' for the same purpose.
I don't know whether to commend or condemn the agents who have to do the footwork/background investigations on Security Clearance applications. The last time I needed a recertification - and they happen every X number of years depending upon your current clearance - it took them over a year. As I've said, I have a current clearance - this was just a "checkup" process to make sure I was still being a good boy.
I've heard that clearance investigations since the WTC bombings are taking 18+ months....this is why, in addition to the cost savings related to not having to "sponsor" a new employee, just having a clearance can make a huge difference to an employer. Lots of employers will overlook a lack of skills, feeling they can train you as they go, in favor of having someone they can immediately put to work. If you have the skillset they need and a clearance, the number of people you are competing against for the job drops drastically.
Ames later told Senator DeConcini that these financial difficulties led him to first contemplate espionage between December 1984 and February 1985:
I felt a great deal of financial pressure, which, in retrospect, I was clearly overreacting to. The previous two years that I had spent in Washington, I had incurred a certain amount of personal debt in terms of buying furniture for an apartment and my divorce settlement had left me with no property essentially. Together with a cash settlement of about $12,000 to buy out my pension over time, I think I may have had about $10,000 or $13,000 in debt. It was not a truly desperate situation but it was one that somehow really placed a great deal of pressure on me... Rosario was living with me at the time...I was contemplating the future. I had no house, and we had strong plans to have a family, and so I was thinking in the longer term...
It was these pressures, says Ames, which in April 1985, led him to conceive of "a scam to get money from the KGB."
Since you so flippantly dismiss the issue of foreign operatives, I am left wondering whether you have a security clearance? I've held one for the last 15 years. (Ugh. Has it been that long?).
Your points are well taken and true; but do not laugh off the "Foreign Operatives" angle. I've gotten briefed on this issue every 6-12 months for the last 15 years. It is part of the issue.
More than just being an all-around-good-person, etc. the government wants to make sure that you are not in a position to be bent over backwards by blackmail and bribe. If you have a bad credit rating, not only is it an indication that you may not take your debts/contracts seriously but also it is an avenue of attack for enemies looking to exploit an obvious weakness in order to get access to classified materials.
It is sad that too many employers make a decision as to whether you are a "worthy" hire or not based upon credit.
The reason your "creditworthiness" plays a role in determining your clearance is because people with bad credit are more susceptible to exploitation by foreign operatives - the guy/gal who is in a really bad situation financially is more likely to succumb to monetary bribe.
Events at that prison in Iraq go way beyond "humiliation"...Also remember that not a single person there was convicted of a crime, because the American system of truth and justice just isn't compatible with Bush's worldview.
Geez, don't let your distrust/distaste for Bush cloud *your* entire worldview...
No one has been convicted...yet. The investigations are still ongoing and the first trial is presently underway (Pfc. Lynndie England).
So don't get your undies all in a bundle quite yet. It is probably too politically risky *not* to hang someone. Having done the indentured servitude thing that is the US Military, its probably a safe bet that at least a few of the enlisted guys will go down. High-ranking officers on the other hand...little more difficult to say...
As a fellow webmonkey, I agree with everything you've said: supporting IE is a nightmare and, were I not directed to do so, I cannot say that I would (I'm presently wrestling with this issue with regards to a personal website presently in the planning stages).
If you are not aware of it, Dean Edwards, from everything I've read, has been leading a fantastic project to fix a number of CSS issues with Internet Explorer and doing a fantastic job. His solution is accomplished via a script you include in your markup.
Just thought I would point this out: Microsoft has a usable debugger for javascript - you just have to find it, download it, install, etc. Check out MSIE Javascript Debugger
I still prefer [Mozilla|Netscape|Firefox]'s debugger, but the linked one takes a bit of the byte (:)) out of debugging web apps in IE.
From the article: 2. Would we be comfortable sending our boss and/or other decision makers in our company to this website for Linux-related news and information?
The issue is not about whether or not pro-linux users will be swayed or influenced by Microsoft ads but whether corporate decision-makers will. The reality is that many corporate decision makers are ill-informed already about Linux - no use in giving them *more* reasons to be afraid to make the change.
that I have found it to be a difficult platform and nothing worth getting excited about
Except that this is what many in the commercial world are using.
Recently, I've considered switching from my government contractor position and I've been looking through a lot of the available positions in my local area (Omaha, Nebraska).
The application server of choice for Java-based development (J2EE) seems to be WebLogic 8.1 (especially paired with knowledge of the Struts application framework).
I, too, have found WebLogic to be uninspiring...but employers seem to want it. Of particular note, what they seem to be after is people who have "performance and tuning" experience.
In the short time I've been working with WL, this has been its most frustrating aspect: you seem to have to do a LOT of configuring and tuning to get performance out it. Just my experience.
D&D is currently in version 3.5. If you compare that to D&D 1.0, you're going to see a lot of differences. D&D continues to dominate the market because it is willing to reinvent itself completely, while retaining the brand name and tone.
I find this statement somewhat amusing because, until the release of the d20 system, D&D was not willing to reinvent itself - I've played D&D for 20+ years (started with the "Red Box" Basic edition - though I owned a copy of the tiny, tan box published in 1972) - and one of the things that kept me constantly play-testing new games was the fact that D&D never really changed. By the time the D20 system was released, I had already decided to only invest dollars into one game syste (and D20 was not even on the radar when the decision was made).
AD&D remained a level-based game with the same, tired THAC0 system and character design rules for nearly 20 years! Every new game that came out seemed to feature point-based/skill-based character generation and more detailed combat rules.
Now, admittedly, D&D did attempt to graft on skills and began to offer a greater selection of character archetypes through kits but, until D20, the graft was clunky at best. The last AD&D game I ran was about 3 or 4 years ago with the 2nd Edition rules and even with very experienced players we had an impossible time truly realizing character visions because the character development system (even with all the kits and such) was too limited.
To illustrate, I would offer up the Skald (a Nordic Bard) that one of my players attempted to create. He was able to create the Skald and able to get the skills he needed but he was never really happy with the Skald because the character he envisioned was really a much better warrior than what the "Rogue" base allowed him to be. Charged into a lot of battles and got his butt thwacked hard because of his lack of combat skills. He really needed a warrior's THAC0 with the Rogue's skill selection tables. Had we built the character using the Warrior base, he wouldn't have had the skills he needed.
Now, we could have jumped through hoops in order to make the character work but it wasn't worth the effort. In truth, I abandoned the game because AD&D did not provide the flexibility to support my/our vision for the game. Instead, I made the switch to a point-based system.
To say that TSR/WOTC/Hasbro/Whoever-It-Is-This-Week dominates the market because it is willing to reinvent itself completely is a bit much. They dominate because, when it comes down to it, AD&D (1st/2nd Edition) was easier to learn than most point-based systems (fewer choices to make during character creation / more abstract combat), you could always find AD&D players because everybody seemed to cut their teeth on it and D20 seems to have finally caught up with the rest of the RPG market and is now able to leverage their "installed" user-base.
Same here. Of course, there is only one theater in the entire STATE doing the trilogy. What a waste of an opportunity...had they only considered releasing to more theaters Jackson and his team could have made even MORE.
Just a thought, but the Oracle said that Smith was the result of the Matrix trying to balance the anomaly (Neo). If Neo ceased to exist, the equation would be balanced and thus there would be no reason for Smith to exist.
So...Neo, after much pummeling, realizes this (as a result of the Oracle channeling through Smith). He responds to Smith's line of "Why do you do the things you do" questioning by saying "I choose to" - and, ultimately, offers himself up as a willing sacrifice in order to defeat Smith (who is Lucifer/Evil or at least Entropy).
I think this does reflect Christ - offering himself as a willing sacrifice to defeat Evil and offer the people of the world a choice (stay jacked in or get out).
Slashdot Mirror
While I still don't care for the Bombadil side-story, if I had mod-points I would have to mark you up 1. You insight has merit.
After some consideration, I think you've hit upon the precise reason why I don't care for Bombadil's presence in LOTR.
The dual-tones are likely side-effects resulting from Tolkien's struggle to write a Hobbit sequel that did not revolve around Bilbo (who "lived happily ever after, to the end of his days.").
I will probably be flamed into oblivion for saying this but I've never understood why some fans get so wound up over Tom Bombadil. I am currently more than half way through the 12-volume History of Middle-Earth (HOME) (I've completed volumes 1-4, 6, 7 and am more than half-way through volume 5. Volumes 6-8 deal with Lord of the Rings) and Bombadil did not factor into any of Tolkien's pre-LOTR Middle-Earth writings. Yes, there were a few poems and such that were written but these were outside the mythology and early history of Middle-Earth.
Tom Bombadil always struck me as little-more than a deus ex machina and I've never particularly cared for him.
From what I have read, Tolkien struggled to find a story to write (he was under pressure from his publisher to produce a Hobbit sequel) and did not have a strong grasp of what the tale would be until Elrond's Council (which, I believe, explains why the story got very focused after that point). The material prior to the Council, in my opinion, reflects this struggle to find a story. Do not mistake me, the Old Forest and the Barrow-Wights were cool [book] scenes that did turn out to serve a purpose later but, as Jackson has demonstrated, they could easily be written out (e.g. replace Barrow-Wight (Numenorean/Dunedain?) blades with Noldoli daggers given by Galadriel, remove Old Forest and explain that trees could be more than just silent stalks of wood in Fangorn, etc.)
If you are an aspiring fantasy author, like critical analysis or constructed languages or if you would simply enjoy reading about the evolution of Middle-Earth, I would highly recommend the HOME books. They are not for the non-Middle-Earth geek; I've tried getting other people to read them and so far I've failed - I think you really have to have an interest in Middle-Earth (as a literary creation) in order to tolerate reading and re-reading the same stories over and over as they are emended from draft to draft. I've read and re-read versions of the Silmarillion (the Quenta, the Silmarillion, the Quenta-Silmarillion, *must...keep...sanity*) so many times with so many minor changes that it is difficult, at times, to keep the canon straight from the evolving story.
I've always seen it the other way: the quest did claim Frodo's life. He was never the same afterward; the Ring had worked its way into his mind in such a way that he could never be content and the Morgul blade left a wound that would never fully heal. These are the exact reasons why Frodo was allowed to take the White Ship into the West and live out the remainder of his days in Valinor.
He lost his life; he just did not die.
No, not particularly. My experience in the military was crap and I'm not grateful for having been treated like crap for 6 years (the first 4 weren't too bad - but were bad enough that I nearly got out). The way I see it: the USAF and I are just about even. I got the security clearance and some help with my education, they got an indentured servant in return.
it's a fair share better than racking up debt for more training and schooling,
What makes you think I didn't? Things may have changed (I hope so for the sake of those enlisted) but when I went through (been out about 3 years) only about 50% of my education was paid for - they paid 75% tuition of the lowest-priced University in our area (and, yes, I do have the MGIB - but you couldn't use MGIB and TA at the same time; I ended up finishing my Master's degree using the MGIB). That's 50% more than had I been a civilian but I gave up a heckuva lot in return for it. No, I wasn't dodging bullets - but that is why I chose the Air Force and not the Marine Corps or Army.
or having salary expectations lower than the already low military pay
I never said you should lower your salary expectations to that of an E4; that would be insane (military pay sucks @$$). That the de facto standard when a military family is expecting a child is to send you to the local WIC office so you can start receiving government assistance as soon as possible is just downright wrong (how about providing our warfighters with a respectable, living wage!). What I did say was that job-seekers should lower their salary expectations (from, say, $80K to, say, $70K or less, for example).
You mention this a few times and I will agree with you. I wasn't single. The single guys had to deal with a lot more crap around holidays and such but they did live more comfortably than us married guys - as long as you don't mind living in the dorms and eating out of the "dining facility" (chow hall).
Congratulations on being one of those lucky few who are loving life in the military. In my experience, you are the exception...not the norm. When I look back on the time I spent in the military, I see a sea of lost opportunities. Had I not enlisted, I would still have gotten my education it just would have cost me a bit more (which, by the way, probably would have been paid for within the first few months of whatever job I probably would have landed back then - it was the booming 90s after all) but I would likely have been happier, more respected, more experienced, more well-traveled, and richer.
Once again, I call bullshit. With a tight job market, this topic has been discussed before on Slashdot.
Enlisting in the military is a solution you will likely regret; training, schooling, lowering your salary expectations, whatever is much better than enlisting in the military. I spent nearly ten years in the military and, other than a security clearance and paying for much (not all - don't buy that bullcrap about the military being a full-ride) of my education, it was a waste of time. While some technology the military owns - the type of stuff you see hyped in the media - is very cool, you will most likely work with outdated or aging equipment. Contractors deliver new systems - military guys maintain them.
but drivers here are less than respectful of motorcyclists.
Unfortunately, the offensive way I've seen most motorcyclists drive, weaving in and out of traffic 10-15 mph (minimum) faster than the cars around them, driving on the shoulder, etc., I'd say you've got that statement backwards. When someone zips by, going way over the speed limits, and you never even had a chance to notice they were there...well, whose fault is it when an accident happens?
You want respect, you gotta give respect. The guys riding on crotch-rockets, acting like asses in traffic, are disrespectful to the drivers around them and, as a result, they do not get any respect. It's happened enough times to most drivers that the automatic reaction to a crotch-rocket is disgust or overzealous caution.
The guys on cruisers (Harleys, etc.)...I cannot remember the last time I saw one that was driving irresponsibly. Most of them are just enjoying the "freedom" they believe the bike gives them...
Just my opinion...
Excellent point.
Spreading Knowledge, The Wiki Way
Any resource can, and probably will, have errors. While I use Wikipedia, and enjoy reading some of the articles on Wikipedia, I do not think it is of the same caliber as a peer-reviewed reference like Funk & Wagnall's or Encyclopedia Britannica. The community nature of Wikipedia (certainly a strength), coupled with a lack of formalized accountability, limits the applicability of the information contained within.
Ironically, when I went to Wikipedia's site in order to get their take on their own reliability I was greeted by a front page sporting the following :
This wikipedia article on Wikipedia's reliability I think succinctly captures the very debate we are having:
Printed publications do their best to ensure the material they present is accurate. When they fail to do so, they are heavily criticized and pressured to do better (witness the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times). Wikipedia has no processes in place to ensure the accuracy of its information other than a hope and a belief that people will do the right thing.
I agree with Bradley, quoted above. I would love to get fully behind Wikipedia (and have even recommended it to family members with a caveat on its reliability) - but I cannot because its reliability is only "potentially greater" than a traditional source (for now).
That should, of course, be: <CTRL> + [+|-].
Forgot to provide the correct escape codes....
I call Bullshit. I doubt anyone here is solely basing their belief in Wikipedia's reliability on McHenry. The question of Wikipedia's reliability has been debated for quite some time. There are rabid supporters on both sides of the debate; McHenry just brings another set of "eyeballs" to the debate and raises some valid points.
Further, the Encyclopedia Brittanica is composed of articles written by recognized experts in their fields and peer-reviewed. Are there errors? Probably. McHenry admits as much:
Which source is likely to have more errors?- A. The source written and peer-reviewed by experts with a reputation to uphold
- B. The source written by a mob of well-intentioned individuals with mixed levels of expertise (some could even be the same experts that submitted to EB) and, possibly, vandalized by @$$wipes with nothing better to do.
The mere presence of the word "possibly" in item B. is what makes Wikipedia's "reliability" questionable and makes EB the "more reliable" source.Funny, he cites no sources other than himself. How do I know he's right?
Further research is needed.
Touche!
However, while McHenry is a former "Editor in Chief" he still occupied only a single cog in the EB wheel. Also, consider the example he picked - the disputed birthdate of Alexander Hamilton. He chose this piece of information because it is disputed among scholars - he was interested in seeing how Wikipedia would handle that dispute:
What he found confirmed his suspicions - not only did Wiki not even mention the dispute, the article itself was not internally consistent!The problem, I believe, is endemic to the Linux version of FireFox. I've got it on both my Windows Laptop (at work) and on my Debian box (at home). The Linux version renders the fonts on Slashdot as if I had "increased" the text size.
As a previous poster mentioned, you can easily reduce the size of the font: + [+|-].
Not a big deal but also not something that seems to be a problem in the Windows client.
I think, overall, this is McHenry's point - you cannot trust the information in Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of Wikipedia and I have contributed to it and used it, on occasion, to jumpstart my research on a particular topic - but I would never consider Wikipedia as a "definitive" source and, as such, its value as an encyclopedia and as a reliable source of information is suspect. Were I to use Britannica to check the same fact or initiate the same research I might not feel the need to go further - with Wikipedia, it would almost be foolish to not go further.
I think that what it comes down to is the pedigree of the information. Britannica has a reputation to maintain and, as such, employs credentialed writers and reviewers - the users of an Encyclopedia Britannica know that the articles were written and peer-reviewed by established experts in a given field; Wikipedia has no such thing hoping, instead, that the cream will eventually rise to the top of the barrel. So...when you read that Wikipedia article, are you getting cream or are you getting something less? You never know (and that is the problem). Unfortunately, even if Wikipedia had credentialed authors and reviewers, the same problem would remain as long as articles remain open to anyone who cares to edit.
I think Wikipedia is a great example of collaborative writing (not that all of the writing is great - just that it is cool how the whole "wiki" concept works); I think Wikipedia is a great example of a community pulling together. However, using Wikipedia as a sole source (not that you are) is probably less wise than using Encyclopedia Britannica or Funk & Wagnalls' for the same purpose.
I don't know whether to commend or condemn the agents who have to do the footwork/background investigations on Security Clearance applications. The last time I needed a recertification - and they happen every X number of years depending upon your current clearance - it took them over a year. As I've said, I have a current clearance - this was just a "checkup" process to make sure I was still being a good boy.
I've heard that clearance investigations since the WTC bombings are taking 18+ months....this is why, in addition to the cost savings related to not having to "sponsor" a new employee, just having a clearance can make a huge difference to an employer. Lots of employers will overlook a lack of skills, feeling they can train you as they go, in favor of having someone they can immediately put to work. If you have the skillset they need and a clearance, the number of people you are competing against for the job drops drastically.
Since you so flippantly dismiss the issue of foreign operatives, I am left wondering whether you have a security clearance? I've held one for the last 15 years. (Ugh. Has it been that long?).
Your points are well taken and true; but do not laugh off the "Foreign Operatives" angle. I've gotten briefed on this issue every 6-12 months for the last 15 years. It is part of the issue.
More than just being an all-around-good-person, etc. the government wants to make sure that you are not in a position to be bent over backwards by blackmail and bribe. If you have a bad credit rating, not only is it an indication that you may not take your debts/contracts seriously but also it is an avenue of attack for enemies looking to exploit an obvious weakness in order to get access to classified materials.
The reason your "creditworthiness" plays a role in determining your clearance is because people with bad credit are more susceptible to exploitation by foreign operatives - the guy/gal who is in a really bad situation financially is more likely to succumb to monetary bribe.
Or, better yet, I thought I'd mention that mentioning that I would be modded "troll" would actually ensure that I would be modded "+5, Insightful". :)
How clever of you! :)
Geez, don't let your distrust/distaste for Bush cloud *your* entire worldview...
No one has been convicted...yet. The investigations are still ongoing and the first trial is presently underway (Pfc. Lynndie England).
So don't get your undies all in a bundle quite yet. It is probably too politically risky *not* to hang someone. Having done the indentured servitude thing that is the US Military, its probably a safe bet that at least a few of the enlisted guys will go down. High-ranking officers on the other hand...little more difficult to say...
If you are not aware of it, Dean Edwards, from everything I've read, has been leading a fantastic project to fix a number of CSS issues with Internet Explorer and doing a fantastic job. His solution is accomplished via a script you include in your markup.
See the previous slashdot story: Making IE Standards Compliant for more information.
(1) long rope
(1) stake
Step 1: Plant stake in yard
Step 2: Tie rope to stake
Step 3: Tie other end of rope to lawn mower
Step 4: Start mower.
You forgot a step...
Step 5: Profit.
I still prefer [Mozilla|Netscape|Firefox]'s debugger, but the linked one takes a bit of the byte (:)) out of debugging web apps in IE.
The issue is not about whether or not pro-linux users will be swayed or influenced by Microsoft ads but whether corporate decision-makers will. The reality is that many corporate decision makers are ill-informed already about Linux - no use in giving them *more* reasons to be afraid to make the change.
Recently, I've considered switching from my government contractor position and I've been looking through a lot of the available positions in my local area (Omaha, Nebraska).
The application server of choice for Java-based development (J2EE) seems to be WebLogic 8.1 (especially paired with knowledge of the Struts application framework).
I, too, have found WebLogic to be uninspiring...but employers seem to want it. Of particular note, what they seem to be after is people who have "performance and tuning" experience.
In the short time I've been working with WL, this has been its most frustrating aspect: you seem to have to do a LOT of configuring and tuning to get performance out it. Just my experience.
I find this statement somewhat amusing because, until the release of the d20 system, D&D was not willing to reinvent itself - I've played D&D for 20+ years (started with the "Red Box" Basic edition - though I owned a copy of the tiny, tan box published in 1972) - and one of the things that kept me constantly play-testing new games was the fact that D&D never really changed. By the time the D20 system was released, I had already decided to only invest dollars into one game syste (and D20 was not even on the radar when the decision was made).
AD&D remained a level-based game with the same, tired THAC0 system and character design rules for nearly 20 years! Every new game that came out seemed to feature point-based/skill-based character generation and more detailed combat rules.
Now, admittedly, D&D did attempt to graft on skills and began to offer a greater selection of character archetypes through kits but, until D20, the graft was clunky at best. The last AD&D game I ran was about 3 or 4 years ago with the 2nd Edition rules and even with very experienced players we had an impossible time truly realizing character visions because the character development system (even with all the kits and such) was too limited.
To illustrate, I would offer up the Skald (a Nordic Bard) that one of my players attempted to create. He was able to create the Skald and able to get the skills he needed but he was never really happy with the Skald because the character he envisioned was really a much better warrior than what the "Rogue" base allowed him to be. Charged into a lot of battles and got his butt thwacked hard because of his lack of combat skills. He really needed a warrior's THAC0 with the Rogue's skill selection tables. Had we built the character using the Warrior base, he wouldn't have had the skills he needed.
Now, we could have jumped through hoops in order to make the character work but it wasn't worth the effort. In truth, I abandoned the game because AD&D did not provide the flexibility to support my/our vision for the game. Instead, I made the switch to a point-based system.
To say that TSR/WOTC/Hasbro/Whoever-It-Is-This-Week dominates the market because it is willing to reinvent itself completely is a bit much. They dominate because, when it comes down to it, AD&D (1st/2nd Edition) was easier to learn than most point-based systems (fewer choices to make during character creation / more abstract combat), you could always find AD&D players because everybody seemed to cut their teeth on it and D20 seems to have finally caught up with the rest of the RPG market and is now able to leverage their "installed" user-base.
ah, well...
Just a thought, but the Oracle said that Smith was the result of the Matrix trying to balance the anomaly (Neo). If Neo ceased to exist, the equation would be balanced and thus there would be no reason for Smith to exist.
So...Neo, after much pummeling, realizes this (as a result of the Oracle channeling through Smith). He responds to Smith's line of "Why do you do the things you do" questioning by saying "I choose to" - and, ultimately, offers himself up as a willing sacrifice in order to defeat Smith (who is Lucifer/Evil or at least Entropy).
I think this does reflect Christ - offering himself as a willing sacrifice to defeat Evil and offer the people of the world a choice (stay jacked in or get out).