Now, it's "hope you had the right parents, dirtbag"
Anyone notice that Shmi Skywalker had NO force capabilities? Qui-gon mentions that Anakin was conceived by the force, sure, but obviously there is a way in which midichlorians become a part of a person's structure. This is close to being as genetic as the chance you have to get green eyes. You may have them even though your parents don't. Granted, they have to carry the gene SOMEWHERE for it, but the midichlorians add that extra element of randomness, likened to making it possible for a middle-eastern man to end up with green eyes even though his parents didn't have that gene.
And for God's sake, it's Star Wars, stop making it so goddam political and elitist sounding!
I remember wiring potatoes into a clock I had as a kid, so this really is nothing new. The ability to harnass food is grand and all, but the food gets pretty smelly after a few days.
There's no need to defend speech that no one finds objectionable.
I agree and think we should defend any speech out there, we're just talking about what speech includes. MP3 files are not speech, IMHO. They're data. They're copywritable material that can be owned. Speech can't be owned. Nobody can tell me I can't say 'Heinz Ketchup' because that phrase is trademarked, but they can keep me from naming my next ketchup substitue that. Trademarking and copyriting don't restrict free speech. They may restrict the creative process or invention, but not speech...you're still free to *say* what you want and not be jailed.
Remember, free speech came about because there were (and still are) many places where you couldn't speak out against laws you thought were unjust. In these places,/. would have been unlawful, and Taco would be in jail. Most of the people who are posting to/. have no idea what the lack of free speech really feels like, so they keep grouping more and more things into that category.
encryption is a funny thing...how do you know something is encrypted? what's the difference between binary code and encrypted text? or encrypted music? when programs pick up that something is compressed/encrypted, it's usually because the encryption program has left behind a footprint (ie, the ZIP footprint in a zip file). When the time comes that encryption is illegal, REMOVE THE FOOTPRINT. Then you can say it's merely binary data.
Great book to read that talks briefly about this is 'Shadow of the Hegemon', 6th book in the Ender's Game trilogy. Petra encodes a message in an image by flipping some of the bytes to spell something...Bean found it becuse he noticed a few pixels looked off. The message he found only meant something to him, just as encrypted text only means something to the one who has the cipher.
Anytime you're going to exchange data with a previously unknown host (to you), you're going to have to exchange encryption keys using some well defined protocol, and you're going to need some known-in-advance manner to begin the communication. You can't just begin blasting encrypted data to random port numbers... you first need to find how what port number the remote host is listening on, and you need to echange keys so it will be able to decrypt your data.
PKI/DES encryption has been a standard for a while now. It works so well because the computing power required to break a single transmission is ridiculous, and the more computing power that's available the large the key is. 128 bit, 512 bit, it can keep going up. It's obviously not impossible to break, but the reason it's used is that in order for someone to break it, they have to spend enough time that by the time they get their answer, the data is useless.
Exchanging encryption keys doesn't hurt you...your public key for email sits out on a public server for people to download. Web browsers do basically the same thing, only they send the public key in the first packet transmission when doing SSL. Using a method like this, I fail to see how someone is going to decrypt zillions of packets per day going back and forth between client and server.
My note about random ports wasn't that you "blast" data into any port you want, but merely that you can set up the service to run on any port you want. A simple port scan with a hello message piped into each (under, let's say, 5000 ports) takes around 5 seconds to complete. Firewalls can't block every port (they CAN, but that would seriously cripple productivity) and they can't packet sniff encrypted packets. They can block hosts, but KaZaA, et al, run on multiple hosts.
The current software hasn't been made capable of doing all these workarounds. Why? Because it doesn't NEED to. When the need arises, the technology is already present. Hopefully the RIAA won't make it necessary, however.
Because of the nature of KaZaA, I believe that it's impossible to shut down foreign servers. I'm not overly familiar with how KaZaA works, but how do you shut down something that, in theory, can run on any computer, any port,without making calls to a centralized server, doesn't track transmitted files and can use encrypted communications? That final part invalidates ip-sniffing, and the random ports restricts your port blocking.
Finally, how do you prosecute someone if you don't know where they are? Eventually (as it sounds like is somewhat the case with KaZaA) someone will write a system like this and then not release their names. Internal version information is enough to keep track of releases and by the time something has been distributed enough to know it's a pest, it's been distributed enough to become a persistant problem.
Okay, I'm a native US born citizen and frankly, this peaves the hell out of me. I can't imagine what it does to people in other countries. The argument seems to be that because US citizens download this software and the company gains some of its revenue from advertisements from US companies/advertising firms, it should be subjected to US law? I fail to see why, or any proof that it should be. What cracks me up is that the judge out in CA is going to determine whether or not he has jurisdiction over the case. Uh, is there a disconnect here?
At some point, a court somewhere is going to have to determine whether or not manufacturing software that allows the trade of copyrighted materials is legal. If they decide it's illegal, God help them to enforce it. The CDBTPA (or whatever..you know what I mean) is trying really hard to push this through, but it's impossible. As someone's.sig on/. says "The can is open, the worms are everywhere". That's precisely what's happened. You can already copy any type of digital material you want, the future hardware/software being protected won't do any good.
...critics have said that banning it would unnecessarily restrict speech and technological innovation...
Let me halt my rant and play devil's advocate for a moment...restricting speech? This is something that is hurting the anti-DRM movement more than it's helping. A neutral person may likely be swayed over to our side until they hear everything referred to as a freedom of speech restriction. Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.
I think, actually, it was because Google caches a page's content on it's local machine (for example, this is why you can take a look at/.'d pages using the Google cache). The Scientologists claimed that in order to cache the page, Google had to copy the page's contents, thus violating copyright.
This, on the other hand, invovles a hyperlink, which contains no content other than the page's web address. I don't see the issue here.
Ignoring this articles somewhat grim slant on Linux, the Amazon success story will be a great asset to Linux. When a big 90's.com all of a sudden starts making money and one of the main reasons given is because they reduced IT costs by switching to Linux, that's what's going to make other companies perk up their ears. When they listen to Amazon say "Yeah, we saved money on technical support...Linux gurus are cheaper than Solaris gurus", that is what will make them switch.
At my college (Virginia Tech), I suggested for 2 years while I was there that we switch to Linux as the primary server software for the engineering department. I always got a 'No.' response...why? "Not enough people know how to administrate it, what happens when you leave?" I hated this reason, mostly because *I* knew that there were other people out there that could admin a freakin Linux box, but they didn't. This response from Amazon helps out more than all plugging us geeks can do.
No, but I think I may have a different slant on the issue. I'd like to see the H1-B program eliminated, and all the H1-B people sent home. There's a serious glut of American workers, give them the jobs first. The H1-B program was expanded in recent years because employers weren't able to fill the available slots with talented US citizens. That is no longer the issue, and it pains me to see people without jobs who have lived here their whole lives. The H1-B program expanded dramatically when the economy did as well, I think it should be contracted (or eliminated) as the economy has dropped.
The one thing you're missing is that in 99% of the cases, Linux/Open Source doesn't have a bottom line they have to meet. Since the (vast?) majority of programmers working on OSS projects are donating time, there's no need to pay them. This translates into better project planning because they're not always worried about meeting deadlines that their jobs rest on. Not to say that OSS isn't stressful, just that you don't have bigwigs worried about their jobs because a deliverable wasn't met.
I'll admit, I like VC++ and Office for most tasks. However, after attempting to configure an NT/2000 box as a DNS/Web/FTP server that I can remotely manage, I will take Linux anyday. On my first attempt it took me roughly three days (~12 hours) to install and configure a box with 2 websites both DNS'd through the box with an ftp server and some basic user recognition on the web site. This was without ever having done it before. With NT, it took me weeks to figure out how IIS worked the first time, let alone trying to figure out how to do remote management and multi-user functions. When MS comes up with an easy multi-user OS that has literal plug and play (read: like RedHat's rpm or Debian's apt-get functionality) packages, give me a holler.
Where do you draw the line? Are the only sanctioned hackers the ones that work for a security company? Personally, if I'm using software, I want to find out about any vulnerability that exists. If I find one, I want to report it. I have no trouble reporting it to only the company that produced the software, but let's face it...they don't always respond with a patch or a fix. If you've taken the legit route and the company has done nothing, I don't see a problem reporting it. I think this is a notable difference between the Hats.
Not to sound like I'm getting up on my soapbox (I'm not), but it's one of the reasons I like Linux software. I know that if someone finds a problem with bind/apache/ftp that a fix is going to be published somewhere I'll read it (fyi, I don't go surfing the Microsoft website for patches) and I can fix the hole. It's comforting, and that's the defense I give people when they ask why they should use OSS for secure systems.
This is, at best, a cop out. When I was younger, I ran home everyday and got on BBS's. I used kewl, l8r, btw, etc, day in, day out. If these kids can't figure it out or they 'forget' (don't spell checkers catch this stuff?), too bad for them. I feel for the teachers who have to grade 100 papers and mark down for spelling cool with a k, but I would stand behind any teacher who did so.
Dude, she's in first grade. Let her keep playing with crayons and Barbies a few more (say, 8-9) years, then worry about it. There isn't a lot that kids at that age can do with math just because they're still learning basics.
But seroiusly, my suggestion would be to go out and buy some fun physics experiment books. I had a bunch of experiment books when I was young that I would read and do stuff from on the weekends (stuff like putting ping pong balls in the updraft created by a hair dryer on low). Show her stuff that's "cool" (for boys this meant baking soda + vinegar blowing up a capped bottle...dry ice works for this as well, btw) to her that she's interested in, and mention that she'll get to do a lot more, cooler things in her physics class in high school.
Let's analyze this. We have person X who is using company A's wireless network. We then have person Y who is doing the actual chalking on the sidewalk. We then have person Z who sees this chalk and informs person Q, who then does the actual usage.
Persons X and Q can be considered "thiefs". Person Y can be considered a vandal. I would call person Z an innocent, possibly an accomplice. Just as there were innocents in the Napster case, there are here too, however...99% of the time persons X and Y are the same and persons Z and Q are the same. What this means is that it's much easier to lump everyone together for the sake of simplicity. That's what the article has done.
I would imagine this poll will rate very similar to the file sharing poll...should Napster have been illegal? Most would say no, sharing files in itself isn't illegal, the downloading of copyrighted material without having paid for it is the illegal part. This is similar, the chalking in itself isn't illegal but the usage is.
One thing to remember is that it may be illegal to chalk in some places. On many college campuses they have made it illegal to chalk the sidewalks advertising parties, concerts, etc. Stupid, but laws are still laws.
You make an interesting point, were that I hadn't posted already and could mod you up.
I think part of the real irony of people bashing the romance between Anakin and Padme is that they are holding these characters up to a higher level than what the characters should be at in real life. Anakin is late teens, Padme is early/mid 20's. They play the romance exactly as it would be in real life. You have Anakin who has never loved before all of a sudden getting this rush of feelings (remember your first HS crush? compare...). Add Padme, a 20-something who doesn't take this kid seriously and attempts to brush off his advances. Mind you that she has never loved before either since her life has been spent in the political spotlight. Two first loves in the later part of their life? Come on, you can't tell me that half the 20-something computer geek virgins wouldn't have a romance dialogue similar or WORSE than what AOTC had.
This is typically the stance I take when someone starts to critique Star Wars as well. I do, however, enjoy hearing intelligent critiques and laughing about the shortcomings with friends.
This is not one of those times.
This man's article falls short in several areas. First and foremost, he's plain wrong on some of his assumptions.
Let's not even go into micro-illogicalities, like having CP30 work for 'Uncle Owen' for ten years... then later they won't recognize each other at all.
I mention this because it's hinted again and again that Anakin will "unite" the schism in the force. But this has been poorly foreshadowed at any level. Have we even a hint what this MEANS?
Has he forgotten there's another movie coming, one which takes place between AOTC and ANH? Perhaps Lucas is leading us on because, oh, I don't know...he wants us to eagerly anticipate and try to predict what really DOES happen? I, for one, would be horribly disappointed if GL tried to hammer some of these things home with a sledge hammer, it would take away from my imagination.
Minor nitpick... did anyone notice the repeated use of the phrase 'fire on the Federation starship!' and 'don't let the Federation starship get away!'
What are these guys -- Klingons?
Trade Federation. I'm not going to dictionary.com to lookup the word's definition, but I'd guess there are plenty of reasons to use it, and I guarantee it was around before Star Trek.
Yoda -- the green-asbestos oven mitt
Again and again, we see Anakin being punished for being, er, human.
A dig at Star Trek? What do you want, a monopoly? Hey, people have enjoyed 100 times as many hours of that universe as they have yours, George. Live with it.
Despite every flaw, there IS a way that Lucas could weave all the threads together and pull a miracle of cinematic legerdemain, causing it all to make magnificent sense.
I'd wager my house that he won't do it.
I have serious problems with people giving THIS TYPE of criticism of George Lucas. He has, quite arguably, the most succesful saga ever seen on the screen. Millions upon millions of people flock to see his movies, more often than not 3-4 times in the theatres alone. Typically, finding someone who hasn't seen Star Wars is met with "What?! How's that possible?!". If it's a guy being asked, I'd outright disbelieve them. My point is, unless you can come up with a reason contradicting why the better part of the world has seen Star Wars and thoroughly enjoys it, I don't think criticism of GL really stands.
As someone who used to be into cracking software, I find the types of cracks going on today very interesting. Back when I was doing it, copy protection involved formatting a couple of tracks different from the rest or asking for the first word from line 5, page 10 of the instruction manual.
Every time a new form of software 'encryption' (obfuscation?) comes out, it's easily cracked, relatively. Uncopyable CDs aren't, DVDs can be copied without a problem and with more and more items becoming digital, the list will expand. My question is this...does having something in a digital form automatically mean it's copyable and, if so, what does/should this mean to the makers of software? Lower prices? Come up with physical DRM of some sort? What's the answer, or (IMHO) isn't there one?
Slashdot Mirror
You can do fancier split screens to make several applications visible at once:
Anyone else notice how his "screen split" looks amazingly like what Desqview did back in the day for BBS consoles?
Good gravy, we've advanced to the point of reverting to 10 year old technology
--trb
Now, it's "hope you had the right parents, dirtbag"
Anyone notice that Shmi Skywalker had NO force capabilities? Qui-gon mentions that Anakin was conceived by the force, sure, but obviously there is a way in which midichlorians become a part of a person's structure. This is close to being as genetic as the chance you have to get green eyes. You may have them even though your parents don't. Granted, they have to carry the gene SOMEWHERE for it, but the midichlorians add that extra element of randomness, likened to making it possible for a middle-eastern man to end up with green eyes even though his parents didn't have that gene.
And for God's sake, it's Star Wars, stop making it so goddam political and elitist sounding!
--trb
I remember wiring potatoes into a clock I had as a kid, so this really is nothing new. The ability to harnass food is grand and all, but the food gets pretty smelly after a few days.
--trb
How much could spiders' silk hold if it were that thick?
I can't answer that question, but I *can* say you'd need a lot of friggin spiders...
There's no need to defend speech that no one finds objectionable.
/. would have been unlawful, and Taco would be in jail. Most of the people who are posting to /. have no idea what the lack of free speech really feels like, so they keep grouping more and more things into that category.
I agree and think we should defend any speech out there, we're just talking about what speech includes. MP3 files are not speech, IMHO. They're data. They're copywritable material that can be owned. Speech can't be owned. Nobody can tell me I can't say 'Heinz Ketchup' because that phrase is trademarked, but they can keep me from naming my next ketchup substitue that. Trademarking and copyriting don't restrict free speech. They may restrict the creative process or invention, but not speech...you're still free to *say* what you want and not be jailed.
Remember, free speech came about because there were (and still are) many places where you couldn't speak out against laws you thought were unjust. In these places,
--trb
you outlaw encryption and call it 'munitions'
encryption is a funny thing...how do you know something is encrypted? what's the difference between binary code and encrypted text? or encrypted music? when programs pick up that something is compressed/encrypted, it's usually because the encryption program has left behind a footprint (ie, the ZIP footprint in a zip file). When the time comes that encryption is illegal, REMOVE THE FOOTPRINT. Then you can say it's merely binary data.
Great book to read that talks briefly about this is 'Shadow of the Hegemon', 6th book in the Ender's Game trilogy. Petra encodes a message in an image by flipping some of the bytes to spell something...Bean found it becuse he noticed a few pixels looked off. The message he found only meant something to him, just as encrypted text only means something to the one who has the cipher.
--trb
Anytime you're going to exchange data with a previously unknown host (to you), you're going to have to exchange encryption keys using some well defined protocol, and you're going to need some known-in-advance manner to begin the communication. You can't just begin blasting encrypted data to random port numbers... you first need to find how what port number the remote host is listening on, and you need to echange keys so it will be able to decrypt your data.
PKI/DES encryption has been a standard for a while now. It works so well because the computing power required to break a single transmission is ridiculous, and the more computing power that's available the large the key is. 128 bit, 512 bit, it can keep going up. It's obviously not impossible to break, but the reason it's used is that in order for someone to break it, they have to spend enough time that by the time they get their answer, the data is useless.
Exchanging encryption keys doesn't hurt you...your public key for email sits out on a public server for people to download. Web browsers do basically the same thing, only they send the public key in the first packet transmission when doing SSL. Using a method like this, I fail to see how someone is going to decrypt zillions of packets per day going back and forth between client and server.
My note about random ports wasn't that you "blast" data into any port you want, but merely that you can set up the service to run on any port you want. A simple port scan with a hello message piped into each (under, let's say, 5000 ports) takes around 5 seconds to complete. Firewalls can't block every port (they CAN, but that would seriously cripple productivity) and they can't packet sniff encrypted packets. They can block hosts, but KaZaA, et al, run on multiple hosts.
The current software hasn't been made capable of doing all these workarounds. Why? Because it doesn't NEED to. When the need arises, the technology is already present. Hopefully the RIAA won't make it necessary, however.
--trb
Because of the nature of KaZaA, I believe that it's impossible to shut down foreign servers. I'm not overly familiar with how KaZaA works, but how do you shut down something that, in theory, can run on any computer, any port,without making calls to a centralized server, doesn't track transmitted files and can use encrypted communications? That final part invalidates ip-sniffing, and the random ports restricts your port blocking.
Finally, how do you prosecute someone if you don't know where they are? Eventually (as it sounds like is somewhat the case with KaZaA) someone will write a system like this and then not release their names. Internal version information is enough to keep track of releases and by the time something has been distributed enough to know it's a pest, it's been distributed enough to become a persistant problem.
--trb
At some point, a court somewhere is going to have to determine whether or not manufacturing software that allows the trade of copyrighted materials is legal. If they decide it's illegal, God help them to enforce it. The CDBTPA (or whatever..you know what I mean) is trying really hard to push this through, but it's impossible. As someone's
Let me halt my rant and play devil's advocate for a moment...restricting speech? This is something that is hurting the anti-DRM movement more than it's helping. A neutral person may likely be swayed over to our side until they hear everything referred to as a freedom of speech restriction. Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.
--trb
Quantum Cyberology?
Biophysical Electronics?
Physiological Bioeletronics?
Cyberplants from Outer Space?
Or is the MPAA only evil on days that are not December 18?
You forgot May 25th, 2005. They're okay then too.
--trb
I think, actually, it was because Google caches a page's content on it's local machine (for example, this is why you can take a look at /.'d pages using the Google cache). The Scientologists claimed that in order to cache the page, Google had to copy the page's contents, thus violating copyright.
This, on the other hand, invovles a hyperlink, which contains no content other than the page's web address. I don't see the issue here.
--trb
Ignoring this articles somewhat grim slant on Linux, the Amazon success story will be a great asset to Linux. When a big 90's .com all of a sudden starts making money and one of the main reasons given is because they reduced IT costs by switching to Linux, that's what's going to make other companies perk up their ears. When they listen to Amazon say "Yeah, we saved money on technical support...Linux gurus are cheaper than Solaris gurus", that is what will make them switch.
At my college (Virginia Tech), I suggested for 2 years while I was there that we switch to Linux as the primary server software for the engineering department. I always got a 'No.' response...why? "Not enough people know how to administrate it, what happens when you leave?" I hated this reason, mostly because *I* knew that there were other people out there that could admin a freakin Linux box, but they didn't. This response from Amazon helps out more than all plugging us geeks can do.
--trb
Am I off my rocker?
No, but I think I may have a different slant on the issue. I'd like to see the H1-B program eliminated, and all the H1-B people sent home. There's a serious glut of American workers, give them the jobs first. The H1-B program was expanded in recent years because employers weren't able to fill the available slots with talented US citizens. That is no longer the issue, and it pains me to see people without jobs who have lived here their whole lives. The H1-B program expanded dramatically when the economy did as well, I think it should be contracted (or eliminated) as the economy has dropped.
--trb
The one thing you're missing is that in 99% of the cases, Linux/Open Source doesn't have a bottom line they have to meet. Since the (vast?) majority of programmers working on OSS projects are donating time, there's no need to pay them. This translates into better project planning because they're not always worried about meeting deadlines that their jobs rest on. Not to say that OSS isn't stressful, just that you don't have bigwigs worried about their jobs because a deliverable wasn't met.
I'll admit, I like VC++ and Office for most tasks. However, after attempting to configure an NT/2000 box as a DNS/Web/FTP server that I can remotely manage, I will take Linux anyday. On my first attempt it took me roughly three days (~12 hours) to install and configure a box with 2 websites both DNS'd through the box with an ftp server and some basic user recognition on the web site. This was without ever having done it before. With NT, it took me weeks to figure out how IIS worked the first time, let alone trying to figure out how to do remote management and multi-user functions. When MS comes up with an easy multi-user OS that has literal plug and play (read: like RedHat's rpm or Debian's apt-get functionality) packages, give me a holler.
--trb
Where do you draw the line? Are the only sanctioned hackers the ones that work for a security company? Personally, if I'm using software, I want to find out about any vulnerability that exists. If I find one, I want to report it. I have no trouble reporting it to only the company that produced the software, but let's face it...they don't always respond with a patch or a fix. If you've taken the legit route and the company has done nothing, I don't see a problem reporting it. I think this is a notable difference between the Hats.
Not to sound like I'm getting up on my soapbox (I'm not), but it's one of the reasons I like Linux software. I know that if someone finds a problem with bind/apache/ftp that a fix is going to be published somewhere I'll read it (fyi, I don't go surfing the Microsoft website for patches) and I can fix the hole. It's comforting, and that's the defense I give people when they ask why they should use OSS for secure systems.
--trb
This is, at best, a cop out. When I was younger, I ran home everyday and got on BBS's. I used kewl, l8r, btw, etc, day in, day out. If these kids can't figure it out or they 'forget' (don't spell checkers catch this stuff?), too bad for them. I feel for the teachers who have to grade 100 papers and mark down for spelling cool with a k, but I would stand behind any teacher who did so.
--trb
Dude, she's in first grade. Let her keep playing with crayons and Barbies a few more (say, 8-9) years, then worry about it. There isn't a lot that kids at that age can do with math just because they're still learning basics.
But seroiusly, my suggestion would be to go out and buy some fun physics experiment books. I had a bunch of experiment books when I was young that I would read and do stuff from on the weekends (stuff like putting ping pong balls in the updraft created by a hair dryer on low). Show her stuff that's "cool" (for boys this meant baking soda + vinegar blowing up a capped bottle...dry ice works for this as well, btw) to her that she's interested in, and mention that she'll get to do a lot more, cooler things in her physics class in high school.
--trb
Let's analyze this. We have person X who is using company A's wireless network. We then have person Y who is doing the actual chalking on the sidewalk. We then have person Z who sees this chalk and informs person Q, who then does the actual usage.
Persons X and Q can be considered "thiefs". Person Y can be considered a vandal. I would call person Z an innocent, possibly an accomplice. Just as there were innocents in the Napster case, there are here too, however...99% of the time persons X and Y are the same and persons Z and Q are the same. What this means is that it's much easier to lump everyone together for the sake of simplicity. That's what the article has done.
--trb
I would imagine this poll will rate very similar to the file sharing poll...should Napster have been illegal? Most would say no, sharing files in itself isn't illegal, the downloading of copyrighted material without having paid for it is the illegal part. This is similar, the chalking in itself isn't illegal but the usage is.
One thing to remember is that it may be illegal to chalk in some places. On many college campuses they have made it illegal to chalk the sidewalks advertising parties, concerts, etc. Stupid, but laws are still laws.
--trb
You make an interesting point, were that I hadn't posted already and could mod you up.
I think part of the real irony of people bashing the romance between Anakin and Padme is that they are holding these characters up to a higher level than what the characters should be at in real life. Anakin is late teens, Padme is early/mid 20's. They play the romance exactly as it would be in real life. You have Anakin who has never loved before all of a sudden getting this rush of feelings (remember your first HS crush? compare...). Add Padme, a 20-something who doesn't take this kid seriously and attempts to brush off his advances. Mind you that she has never loved before either since her life has been spent in the political spotlight. Two first loves in the later part of their life? Come on, you can't tell me that half the 20-something computer geek virgins wouldn't have a romance dialogue similar or WORSE than what AOTC had.
--trb
This is typically the stance I take when someone starts to critique Star Wars as well. I do, however, enjoy hearing intelligent critiques and laughing about the shortcomings with friends.
This is not one of those times.
This man's article falls short in several areas. First and foremost, he's plain wrong on some of his assumptions.
Let's not even go into micro-illogicalities, like having CP30 work for 'Uncle Owen' for ten years... then later they won't recognize each other at all.
I mention this because it's hinted again and again that Anakin will "unite" the schism in the force. But this has been poorly foreshadowed at any level. Have we even a hint what this MEANS?
Has he forgotten there's another movie coming, one which takes place between AOTC and ANH? Perhaps Lucas is leading us on because, oh, I don't know...he wants us to eagerly anticipate and try to predict what really DOES happen? I, for one, would be horribly disappointed if GL tried to hammer some of these things home with a sledge hammer, it would take away from my imagination.
Minor nitpick... did anyone notice the repeated use of the phrase 'fire on the Federation starship!' and 'don't let the Federation starship get away!'
What are these guys -- Klingons?
Trade Federation. I'm not going to dictionary.com to lookup the word's definition, but I'd guess there are plenty of reasons to use it, and I guarantee it was around before Star Trek.
Yoda -- the green-asbestos oven mitt
Again and again, we see Anakin being punished for being, er, human.
A dig at Star Trek? What do you want, a monopoly? Hey, people have enjoyed 100 times as many hours of that universe as they have yours, George. Live with it.
Despite every flaw, there IS a way that Lucas could weave all the threads together and pull a miracle of cinematic legerdemain, causing it all to make magnificent sense.
I'd wager my house that he won't do it.
I have serious problems with people giving THIS TYPE of criticism of George Lucas. He has, quite arguably, the most succesful saga ever seen on the screen. Millions upon millions of people flock to see his movies, more often than not 3-4 times in the theatres alone. Typically, finding someone who hasn't seen Star Wars is met with "What?! How's that possible?!". If it's a guy being asked, I'd outright disbelieve them. My point is, unless you can come up with a reason contradicting why the better part of the world has seen Star Wars and thoroughly enjoys it, I don't think criticism of GL really stands.
--trb
Did you get busted for copying from someone else and making available, or by making copies you bought/got from school available?
Along a similar line, what are the various source/distribution routes you used and what were the varying levels of danger for each?
--trb
As someone who used to be into cracking software, I find the types of cracks going on today very interesting. Back when I was doing it, copy protection involved formatting a couple of tracks different from the rest or asking for the first word from line 5, page 10 of the instruction manual.
Every time a new form of software 'encryption' (obfuscation?) comes out, it's easily cracked, relatively. Uncopyable CDs aren't, DVDs can be copied without a problem and with more and more items becoming digital, the list will expand. My question is this...does having something in a digital form automatically mean it's copyable and, if so, what does/should this mean to the makers of software? Lower prices? Come up with physical DRM of some sort? What's the answer, or (IMHO) isn't there one?
--trb
...but I'd settle for it dispensing soda.
--trb