Those that do everything to disrupt games now will do everything in their power to ruin the reputations of better players in the future.
Hence the suggestion for a referee-like system whereby independent evaluators can step in to determine whether or not complaints have merit.
Look, this is the same as it is in real life. Do you think Tennis would be the same game it is if there were no referees and if players didn't have to behave themselves to protect their reputations? If tennis players were anonymous and unaccountable like on the Internet, the game of Tennis would be ruined as well.
That one is better, but those referees would either need to be volunteers (and there seem to be some organisations who try to do such a thing right now), or preferably people employed by the game companies (just like gamemasters in MMO games)
Well, the ideas go hand-in-hand. I agree that a free-for-all complaint system would rapidly degrade. I'd imagine that a business opportunity exists for an independent company to take the lead in providing reputation and refereeing services, sort of like GameSpy does with game-finding. Hell, Gamespy should take it on. Then, all game developers would need to do is add support for one standard, and they wouldn't have to pay to solve these problems individually. As you also mentioned, gamers would be willing to pay a nominal subscription for such a service -- especially if they only had to pay ONE subscription, rather than multiple ones for each game vendor.
I'm big into privacy in terms of how companies may use my information (death to spammers and telemarketers, etc.) -- but I'm not convinced that absolute anonymity is the way to go in society. As the Internet has shown, the downside to anonymous assholes able to ruin things for everyone is pretty steep.
I found the one publisher perspective to be interesting: they look at cheating hacks of mature games to be a good way to get people to move on to the next game. I'm sure that works for some, but personally, I'd rather live without cheat-susceptible games than deal with the frustration. I'm done with first person shooters and network RTS games until reasonable solutions are found.
Like cheaters, publishers don't see the big picture. They prefer to see the selfish short-term game, to the detriment of the entire industry.
I think that the only viable solutions to online cheating are the same ones used in real life.
Player Reputation -- There need to be permanent databases of players, their abilities, and their reputations. What if you had an online identity tied to your real-life one, maybe even with your real name. What if that identity followed you from game to game. Whether you played Quake, UT, or HL, you'd always use the same identity and people in those circles would KNOW who you are. Additionally, anyone could query a central database to see if there had been complaints lodged against you. How likely would people be to cheat when they might get caught and have their reputations ruined? You could then set up servers where only registered players with sterling reputations could play.
Independent observers -- Some type of referee system would complement the above one and allow greater trust in the reputation system. If a player has a complaint logged against them, a referee could log into games where that player was playing and attempt to determine if the complaints were true.
The Architect says, "You can choose to save humanity or try to save Trinity."
He says a lot more than that.
Google is my friend:
*Images of Trinity fighting the agent from Neos dream appear on the
monitors*
Neo - Trinity.
The Architect - Apropos, she entered the matrix to save your life at the
cost of her own.
Neo - No!
Then later, the Architect says:
.. she is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.
When did the Architect say that? By the time Neo saw the Architect, Trinity was already in the Matrix... what the hell are you talking about?
Read my sentence again. "Would" goes with "cost her her life", since she was very much alive when he said that.
You know, I'm starting to think that we just didn't watch the same movie. The Architect says that if he tries to save Trinity, Zion will be destroyed and no one will be able to rebuild it.
Partly. He says that he CAN'T save Trinity even if he tries, but trying will destroy all life within the Matrix *and* Zion, which was going to be destroyed no matter which door he chose. If he chose the right door, he would be able to begin repopulating Zion, continuing the cycle of the anomally.
The Architect is omniscient (as proven already)
He said that Trinity would Lose her life and that there was nothing Neo could do about it. He said that all humans would die if Neo chose the Trinity door. He said that they would never meet again. The first one was demonstrably wrong. The second two will be wrong unless the next movie really bucks the whole "good guys win" action movie paradigm. Unless he's lying, he can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time.
Again, my argument is that the Architect is quite probably not omniscient. He has abundant information sources, to be sure, but great information does not omniscience make. We don't understand the limits of his powers, his motivations or the powers and motivations of other entities (exiles and Neo) within (and out of) the Matrix. There's too much happening with too many parties of too many unknown abilities and motivations to be crying "plot hole" at this point.
Uhm, when he says, "All the people will die" and it shows all the people in the Matrix. Or "Trinity will die" and it shows what Trinity is going through.. Yeah.. that sure isn't omniscient.
Funny, I could have sworn that she was alive at the end of the movie.
To be specific, the Architect said that entering the Matrix to save Neo would cost her her life... it doesn't. Sure, it could be said that she "died" briefly, but it didn't cost her her life. Neo was there to save her.
Interesting. So something the Architect said turned out to not be true. The Architect claimed that Neo would lose Trinity no matter how quickly he tried to get to her.
The Architect also says that all humans will die and that he and Neo won't meet again. How much you want to bet that he's wrong about those things too? The Architect gives a decent impression of omniscience, but he's most likely not.
You can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time unless you're lying, which leads into my whole question of either the Architect's omniscience or his motivations.
He's either not omniscient or his motivations or abilities to act on those motivations are other than you think... or it's a plot hole. But since those other explanations are good enough for anyone who doesn't know how the Revolutions ends, I once again contend that you see plot holes where good explanations exist.
While I do not care if people read my journal or not
Yeah, that's why in your new journal entry, you're trumpeting how many "fans" you have in a not-so-subtle way. Because you don't care. That's more than a bit self-delusional.
You've already foed me
Nothing personal, but I normally don't sink into discussions like this. Marking someone as a foe to me is just a way of filtering out the useless noise for next time.
You've called me a condescending ass.
Cry me a river. Rather than posting an intelligent critique of Buffy, you chose to come and just be insulting to fans of the show, by basically saying that those fans had the appreciative abilities of "14 year olds" -- when you even admitted that you didn't watch more than a few episodes (God knows which episodes you even watched and whether they're representative of the show). What flew your way after that was really your fault.
You can't back-up your stances on Reloaded.
Notice how you ignored the substantial parts of my argument regarding the motives and abilities of the Architect, while focusing on the minor part. Additionally, you still claim Architect omniscience, when that is never said or shown in the movie. Sure, he has a great deal of knowledge and may very well be omniscient, but once again, even if he is omniscient, YOU HAVEN'T FOUND A PLOT HOLE. I've backed up my stances. You're the one ignoring the tough arguments so you can feel good about your opinions.
What are you attempting to do here?
I've always had that "right every wrong" mentality that leads me to sometimes get into useless hair-pulling contests like this one when I'm not careful. People like you who spout strong opinions based upon minimal knowledge (Buffy) or lack of comprehension (Reloaded) rub me the wrong way.
Uhm, aren't you the one who admitted that you never saw it? Contradicting yourself, are we?
Wrong. You are confused... again. Swing and a miss.
Sorry, sparky, but you are the one who said the Architect wasn't omniscient when he puts up on the monitors what's happening everywhere. And you say I'm the one who wasn't paying attention.
He puts up what's happening "everywhere"? How do you know that? Maybe he has lots of eyes and ears, but that doesn't mean he's omniscient. Maybe he is able to pull some things out of Neo's mind to put up on screens. Who knows, but the assumption that he's perfectly omniscient seems to be an unfounded one.
Additionally, my arguments didn't completely rely on whether or not the Architect is omniscient. You assume to know how the Architect would act (or even have the ability to act) based upon his perfect knowledge. We don't know what the Architect's ultimate motives are and what his abilities to act upon those motives are. He may be omniscient, but impotent to act. The reasonable explanations are many, but in your mad dash to cry "INCONSISTENCY!", you're not worried about any of that.
I really had to chuckle when I saw where you wrote "I should be employed by the studios to validate continuity." in your journal. Please. You couldn't figure out a simple few plausible explanations that were obvious to many people. Who exactly would hire you?
Just because I write, doesn't mean I care if people read it.
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. If you believe that, you're even less bright than I gave you credit for. In terms of this discussion, it's an obvious plot inconsistency. If you didn't care whether or not people read your journal, you'd put everything in a text file or in some type of personal email directory. You want people to read your writings, so you put them up in a public forum. Further, if you didn't care what people thought, you wouldn't bother responding to them. You'd let some asshole like me criticize you, and you'd just ignore it and move on.
If I cared what the fuck people said I wouldn't bash feminists, movies, or hippies.
You're like a classic little kid looking for attention. You post your writings hoping that people will at least read them, but you're a bit of an asshole, so your bashing can't be restrained. When that happens, you get negative attention, but like most attention-hungry people, better negative attention than no attention, right?
You are all pissed off because I find the Matrix to be contrived, with weak story lines because I can find and demonstrate plot holes and weaknesses that you just ignore.
Not really. I think you're a condescending ass who forms unfounded negative opinions about things without the mental capacity to understand them. Your ability to find plot holes is really so far mostly in your own mind, but I'd dislike for someone to unknowningly ignore Reloaded or Buffy because of the poorly formed opinions of one like yourself -- so I respond to them.
Daredevil is supposed to be contrived. The acting was comic book "POW" "ZAM" style, overly dramatic and Adam West would have been proud. That was why it was enjoyable.
Hmm, since it was meant to be a piece of shit, it was enjoyable... interesting. Campy, it wasn't. Tongue-in-cheek, it wasn't. Classic Batman, it wasn't. It was junk for the pre-adolescent crowd. Face it and stop criticizing others for enjoying Buffy -- something you deem for "14 year olds".
What is there to understand in Buffy?
I was wondering that myself. Seems like straightforward well done monster-slaying drama to me. I don't quite understand your confused bitterness toward it.
As for Reloaded, the reason why I didn't like that is because it tried to be philosophical with very contrived and simplistic concepts that have more holes than Baghdad.
Not that Reloaded's plot is perfect, but anyone can take a look at your log and see that you disbelieve obvious explanations for plot happenings and call them contrivances or bullshit. See your comment about "silver bullets" for an example of where a simple obvious explanation didn't occur to you for some reason.
If you think I care what you think, sorry bud.
Ah, the irony of watching someone protesting in a public forum about how little they care about the opinions of others. Such an uncaring centered person would never be so insecure as to say have a well-stocked journal of their opinions to share with others. My apologies for making such a feeble accusation.
But don't make up shit about me being confused about overly simplistic movies.
I dunno. You're the one calling things "inconsistencies" and "plot holes" when anyone paying attention to the movie would see otherwise.
Most movies are made to be simple so people can understand them.
Of course they are, however, the very skilled movie-maker builds a certain mainstream accessibility into their movies while also having depths to be plumbed for those paying attention. If you don't see it in some works like Buffy and Reloaded because you're too busy being condescending and imagining plot holes, that's too bad. Being such a pompous ass about it is really cool, though. It works for you.
So, in your journal, you deride the Matrix:Reloaded as being a bad movie while claiming that Daredevil (which I found to be a poorly written, poorly acted, contrived, piece of utter shit) was an enjoyable movie.
After reading those entries and your condescending comments here, I'm fairly convinced that you're a pseudo-intellectual who criticizes things that he can't really understand. Stick to the simple movies and shows with the easy-to-understand characters and plots. Enjoy them, but get off your high horse if you think you have any basis for being so insulting in your criticism of things that may confuse you a bit.
I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does.
I think that if you'd examine the demographics for the two shows, you'd find the Charmed audience to be centered around teenaged girls.
You'd find the Buffy audience to be centered around older females and young and middle-aged men.
Case in point, my sister and her 15 year old daughter just love fantasy programming, and wouldn't miss a Charmed episode. I've tried to get them into Buffy, but I think it's a bit to "male" for their tastes: more action, more male-oriented humor, less PMSing witches living together.
Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing?
*shrug* Not for me. I much preferred Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) for the eye candy value. For me, it's all about the writing.
If any story needs more than 2 episodes to not suck, it isn't worth it.
I don't know. I didn't really start enjoying B5 until I had seen a good four or five episodes.
I started enjoying Buffy after I watched the first three or four. Like B5, season one was rather weak, and if you want someone to enjoy the series, they should start watching the beginning of season two. I'd say from there, three or four episodes are enough to see the cleverness of the writing.
So, you've got something that should be illegal... spam. Rather than just making it explicitly illegal and dealing with law breakers, Lessig suggests that everyone pay a tax to solve the problem?
Screw that. I pay for my internet connection. If I want to send out 1 million legitimate (non-spam) email messages a year, I shouldn't have to bear any extra costs not already accounted for in the price of my connection.
Nah, that's not really that big of a problem. Idle cell phones tend to be fairly passive network-wise, and even with greatly extended range, the number of people in airplanes at any given time is utterly dwarfed by the number of users on the ground. I'm in the cell network planning industry, and nobody is worried about airline cell traffic.
That's not to say that there aren't *some* problems (mainly with the way that cell phones themselves zero in on a particular sector), but "melt down" is far far too strong a description.
Besides, I recall reading statements from the FAA when I was in flight training, regarding the potential dangers of cell phones -- that were unproven, but still suspect. This is the FAA's issue, not the FCC's.
I've been hypoglycemic all my life, the shakes you get are because you have low blood sugar!
Sort of. When you take in sugar (glucose) and most starchy carbohydrates that your body converts to glucose rapidly (bread, pasta, potatoes, etc.) your insulin level rises rapidly to allow your cells to absorb that glucose. In hypoglycemic people like us, though, something goes wrong. Maybe it's because we produce too much insulin and absorb too much glucose, maybe it's because we start running a deficit of insulin and cells can't process the glucose still circulating in our blood streams.
Regardless, after either of those things happens, our brains start to feel deprived of glucose, and starts to panic. They pump up our adrenaline levels, which causes our hands to shake and for us to become very aggressive (grumpy). When we finally do get food, we tend to overindulge, to compensate for those basic feelings of starvation.
The good news that I'm trying to let you in on is that you can get off that insulin roller coaster. By severely limiting your carbohydrate intake for a time while satisfying yourself on foods high in fat and protein, you steady your insulin levels. Once that happens, you avoid those dramatic food cravings, the shakes, the brain fog, etc.
I eat a lot less food than I used to, I don't get dramatic hunger pangs, I don't have that brain fog I used to, I don't starve myself, and I lose about 2 pounds a week.
As I've said: Don't knock this approach until you understand a bit more about your insulin levels, why they behave the way they do, and how this affects your body.
This isn't just shit I'm making up, by the way. I've spoken to a couple of doctors involved with weight loss, and this is the common understanding of why low carb diets work.
You've got to remember that Atkin's theories represent a major paradigm shift. Most authorities on health and weight loss in the past have been extremely resistant to Atkins, labeling him a quack, and allowing no federal dollars to be spent on researching his obviously successful method.
Look, I'm an atheist. I don't go for new age medicine, homeopathy, crystals, herbs, any of that bullshit. I'm a firm believer in the Scientific Method, but I also know that scientists are people too. They have their blind spots, their pride, and they make plenty of mistakes. For all I know, the mechanism that Atkins describes may turn out to be incorrect. The results, however, I've witnessed empirically. They work for me, and whatever causes them to work needs to be studies.
Here's a link to numerous recent articles talking about research being done in this area. Granted, these are links that Atkins Center put together, but they point to real research announced through 'The New England Journal of Medicine', 'The Journal of the American Medical Association', etc.
Don't be too quick to count out Atkin's methods and low-carb diets just yet. The research has really just begun.
"The greatest predictors of weight loss appear to be caloric intake and diet duration," she said. "The findings suggest that if you want to lose weight, you should eat fewer calories and do so over a long time period."
Duh. What they don't seem to realize, though, is that once you cut out the sugars/carbs, your insulin levels stop surging. Once you do that, most people experience a sharp decrease in hunger.
That sharp decrease in hunger makes it easier to stay on a low-carb diet, eating fewer calories, for a long time period.
I continue to detect an almost religious-style resistance to low-carb diets amongst medical researches. The appetite decrease is a commonly-experienced phenomenon, both from my personal experience knowing a half a dozen people on low-carb diets, and from Dr. Atkins' experience after treating thousands of patients with his program. I'm not sure why it's so obviously ignored.
I've been on Atkins for over a month now. I'm never going back to eating sugars and starchy foods. Understand how sugars and starches cause your insulin to surge, and you'll understand why you may have the shakes if you don't get a meal on time.
After putting up with those shakes that caused me to overindulge my whole life, I tried Atkins. After about a week of no processed carbs, I felt a noticeable difference. The shakes were gone for good, and the pounds have been coming off easily. I've never been one to stick to a diet, but this one is easy. You don't feel like you're starving yourself, and that's one of the diet's main benefits.
Not being a slave to my hopoglycemic shakes and brain fogs is the number one benefit, though. I never realized how often that brain fog had me under its grip until about a week after starting Atkins. Since then, I've felt remarkably clear-headed. I know others on low-carb diets who report the same thing.
Don't knock low carb diets until you understand why they work.
Personally, I think that the low-fat mentality generated by the medical community in the 70's, 80's, and 90's was the biggest failing of Science in the 20th century.
Read the decision again. It's not a crime if it's a "political statement". The SCOTUS specified quite clearly that burning a cross in itself is not a crime.
Personally, I think that burning a cross anywhere (excepting tresspassing and such) should be an expression of free speech, but I'm glad that the SCOTUS did leave in the ability to burn one as a political statement.
If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.
I agree with you right up to the point of where you start intimidating, torturing, and mass murdering your own people. Then, exactly whom are you protecting?
There is some truth in the report
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 1
Reading all of the responses, it's amazing how far you guys are willing to be intellectually dishonest to support the common habit here of piracy.
While I doubt the BSA's numbers and their motivation, the fact remains that in countries with rampant piracy, there's really no financial reason for companies to produce consumer-oriented software. Obviously, this does have an impact on the job market and the government income from taxes.
If you are a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in the state of Texas, you can be held liable for any damages on a project. That was the reference to the 1937 project.
How many 'software' engineers in Texas are willing to put their reputations on the line (and stand up to civil lawsuits) if they have made a coding mistake??
Well, you referred to "licensed Professional Engineer" in the first paragraph, then you switched terms by just using "software engineers" in the second one.
That pretty much answere the question for me. If you're running around calling yourself a licensed professional engineer, then you should be required to be bonded and all that goes with it.
I'm a software engineer in Houston, and they can fuck off already, if they expect I'll refer to myself in some other manner.
You're on crack, if you believe that ultra-paranoid one-sided piece of drivel.
From the article: Shortly after the election, the Bush campaign
What a load of crap. Anyone who was watching coverage of what happening saw Congressman Wexler, Jesse Jackson, and others on the ground in Florida BEFORE Bush's team even began to mobilize. If you missed that, you weren't paying attention. Add to that the well known fact that Gore/DNC operatives had hired that Texas direct marketing firm to scare senior citizens before polls had even closed, and it's pretty obvious who made the first strike to overthrow the election results.
If after watching media coverage, you didn't even notice the first strike by Gore supporters, but believe that piece of crap you referenced, it's obvious that your bias dominates your judgement.
To let you know where my perspective comes from: No, I didn't vote for Bush. Neither do I think that the Bush team was completely clean in the ensuing mayhem. But the idea that the Republican team was the first to attempt to change the outcome of the election is intellectually dishonest fantasy.
As with religion, many people will believe whatever far-fetched theories and explanations they hear... if they support the conclusions that they already had. Don't be religious about this dude. Be cold and objective about it, giving both sides equal consideration. If you do that, you'll realize that the whole thing was a big mess caused by a fragile voting system that led to questionable election results. Although I blame the Democrats for making the first strike in the affair, everything else was just a big power struggle that the Republicans won. In a mud wrestling competition like that, no one comes out clean, but it's hard to blame either side for participating once faced with such close election results.
Slashdot Mirror
Those that do everything to disrupt games now will do everything in their power to ruin the reputations of better players in the future.
Hence the suggestion for a referee-like system whereby independent evaluators can step in to determine whether or not complaints have merit.
Look, this is the same as it is in real life. Do you think Tennis would be the same game it is if there were no referees and if players didn't have to behave themselves to protect their reputations? If tennis players were anonymous and unaccountable like on the Internet, the game of Tennis would be ruined as well.
That one is better, but those referees would either need to be volunteers (and there seem to be some organisations who try to do such a thing right now), or preferably people employed by the game companies (just like gamemasters in MMO games)
Well, the ideas go hand-in-hand. I agree that a free-for-all complaint system would rapidly degrade. I'd imagine that a business opportunity exists for an independent company to take the lead in providing reputation and refereeing services, sort of like GameSpy does with game-finding. Hell, Gamespy should take it on. Then, all game developers would need to do is add support for one standard, and they wouldn't have to pay to solve these problems individually. As you also mentioned, gamers would be willing to pay a nominal subscription for such a service -- especially if they only had to pay ONE subscription, rather than multiple ones for each game vendor.
I'm big into privacy in terms of how companies may use my information (death to spammers and telemarketers, etc.) -- but I'm not convinced that absolute anonymity is the way to go in society. As the Internet has shown, the downside to anonymous assholes able to ruin things for everyone is pretty steep.
So don't lump me in with "/. is usually..."
Like cheaters, publishers don't see the big picture. They prefer to see the selfish short-term game, to the detriment of the entire industry.
I think that the only viable solutions to online cheating are the same ones used in real life.
He says a lot more than that.
Google is my friend:
Then later, the Architect says:
When did the Architect say that? By the time Neo saw the Architect, Trinity was already in the Matrix... what the hell are you talking about?
Read my sentence again. "Would" goes with "cost her her life", since she was very much alive when he said that.
You know, I'm starting to think that we just didn't watch the same movie. The Architect says that if he tries to save Trinity, Zion will be destroyed and no one will be able to rebuild it.
Partly. He says that he CAN'T save Trinity even if he tries, but trying will destroy all life within the Matrix *and* Zion, which was going to be destroyed no matter which door he chose. If he chose the right door, he would be able to begin repopulating Zion, continuing the cycle of the anomally.
The Architect is omniscient (as proven already)
He said that Trinity would Lose her life and that there was nothing Neo could do about it. He said that all humans would die if Neo chose the Trinity door. He said that they would never meet again. The first one was demonstrably wrong. The second two will be wrong unless the next movie really bucks the whole "good guys win" action movie paradigm. Unless he's lying, he can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time.
Again, my argument is that the Architect is quite probably not omniscient. He has abundant information sources, to be sure, but great information does not omniscience make. We don't understand the limits of his powers, his motivations or the powers and motivations of other entities (exiles and Neo) within (and out of) the Matrix. There's too much happening with too many parties of too many unknown abilities and motivations to be crying "plot hole" at this point.
Uhm, when he says, "All the people will die" and it shows all the people in the Matrix. Or "Trinity will die" and it shows what Trinity is going through.. Yeah.. that sure isn't omniscient.
Funny, I could have sworn that she was alive at the end of the movie.
To be specific, the Architect said that entering the Matrix to save Neo would cost her her life... it doesn't. Sure, it could be said that she "died" briefly, but it didn't cost her her life. Neo was there to save her.
Interesting. So something the Architect said turned out to not be true. The Architect claimed that Neo would lose Trinity no matter how quickly he tried to get to her.
The Architect also says that all humans will die and that he and Neo won't meet again. How much you want to bet that he's wrong about those things too? The Architect gives a decent impression of omniscience, but he's most likely not.
You can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time unless you're lying, which leads into my whole question of either the Architect's omniscience or his motivations.
He's either not omniscient or his motivations or abilities to act on those motivations are other than you think... or it's a plot hole. But since those other explanations are good enough for anyone who doesn't know how the Revolutions ends, I once again contend that you see plot holes where good explanations exist.
While I do not care if people read my journal or not
Yeah, that's why in your new journal entry, you're trumpeting how many "fans" you have in a not-so-subtle way. Because you don't care. That's more than a bit self-delusional.
You've already foed me
Nothing personal, but I normally don't sink into discussions like this. Marking someone as a foe to me is just a way of filtering out the useless noise for next time.
You've called me a condescending ass.
Cry me a river. Rather than posting an intelligent critique of Buffy, you chose to come and just be insulting to fans of the show, by basically saying that those fans had the appreciative abilities of "14 year olds" -- when you even admitted that you didn't watch more than a few episodes (God knows which episodes you even watched and whether they're representative of the show). What flew your way after that was really your fault.
You can't back-up your stances on Reloaded.
Notice how you ignored the substantial parts of my argument regarding the motives and abilities of the Architect, while focusing on the minor part. Additionally, you still claim Architect omniscience, when that is never said or shown in the movie. Sure, he has a great deal of knowledge and may very well be omniscient, but once again, even if he is omniscient, YOU HAVEN'T FOUND A PLOT HOLE. I've backed up my stances. You're the one ignoring the tough arguments so you can feel good about your opinions.
What are you attempting to do here?
I've always had that "right every wrong" mentality that leads me to sometimes get into useless hair-pulling contests like this one when I'm not careful. People like you who spout strong opinions based upon minimal knowledge (Buffy) or lack of comprehension (Reloaded) rub me the wrong way.
Uhm, aren't you the one who admitted that you never saw it? Contradicting yourself, are we?
Wrong. You are confused... again. Swing and a miss.
Sorry, sparky, but you are the one who said the Architect wasn't omniscient when he puts up on the monitors what's happening everywhere. And you say I'm the one who wasn't paying attention.
He puts up what's happening "everywhere"? How do you know that? Maybe he has lots of eyes and ears, but that doesn't mean he's omniscient. Maybe he is able to pull some things out of Neo's mind to put up on screens. Who knows, but the assumption that he's perfectly omniscient seems to be an unfounded one.
Additionally, my arguments didn't completely rely on whether or not the Architect is omniscient. You assume to know how the Architect would act (or even have the ability to act) based upon his perfect knowledge. We don't know what the Architect's ultimate motives are and what his abilities to act upon those motives are. He may be omniscient, but impotent to act. The reasonable explanations are many, but in your mad dash to cry "INCONSISTENCY!", you're not worried about any of that.
I really had to chuckle when I saw where you wrote "I should be employed by the studios to validate continuity." in your journal. Please. You couldn't figure out a simple few plausible explanations that were obvious to many people. Who exactly would hire you?
Just because I write, doesn't mean I care if people read it.
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. If you believe that, you're even less bright than I gave you credit for. In terms of this discussion, it's an obvious plot inconsistency. If you didn't care whether or not people read your journal, you'd put everything in a text file or in some type of personal email directory. You want people to read your writings, so you put them up in a public forum. Further, if you didn't care what people thought, you wouldn't bother responding to them. You'd let some asshole like me criticize you, and you'd just ignore it and move on.
If I cared what the fuck people said I wouldn't bash feminists, movies, or hippies.
You're like a classic little kid looking for attention. You post your writings hoping that people will at least read them, but you're a bit of an asshole, so your bashing can't be restrained. When that happens, you get negative attention, but like most attention-hungry people, better negative attention than no attention, right?
You are all pissed off because I find the Matrix to be contrived, with weak story lines because I can find and demonstrate plot holes and weaknesses that you just ignore.
Not really. I think you're a condescending ass who forms unfounded negative opinions about things without the mental capacity to understand them. Your ability to find plot holes is really so far mostly in your own mind, but I'd dislike for someone to unknowningly ignore Reloaded or Buffy because of the poorly formed opinions of one like yourself -- so I respond to them.
It's the user's fault for continuing to purchase computers that aren't rock solid.
Face it, users don't care (enough) about stability to force real changes.
Daredevil is supposed to be contrived. The acting was comic book "POW" "ZAM" style, overly dramatic and Adam West would have been proud. That was why it was enjoyable.
Hmm, since it was meant to be a piece of shit, it was enjoyable... interesting. Campy, it wasn't. Tongue-in-cheek, it wasn't. Classic Batman, it wasn't. It was junk for the pre-adolescent crowd. Face it and stop criticizing others for enjoying Buffy -- something you deem for "14 year olds".
What is there to understand in Buffy?
I was wondering that myself. Seems like straightforward well done monster-slaying drama to me. I don't quite understand your confused bitterness toward it.
As for Reloaded, the reason why I didn't like that is because it tried to be philosophical with very contrived and simplistic concepts that have more holes than Baghdad.
Not that Reloaded's plot is perfect, but anyone can take a look at your log and see that you disbelieve obvious explanations for plot happenings and call them contrivances or bullshit. See your comment about "silver bullets" for an example of where a simple obvious explanation didn't occur to you for some reason.
If you think I care what you think, sorry bud.
Ah, the irony of watching someone protesting in a public forum about how little they care about the opinions of others. Such an uncaring centered person would never be so insecure as to say have a well-stocked journal of their opinions to share with others. My apologies for making such a feeble accusation.
But don't make up shit about me being confused about overly simplistic movies.
I dunno. You're the one calling things "inconsistencies" and "plot holes" when anyone paying attention to the movie would see otherwise.
Most movies are made to be simple so people can understand them.
Of course they are, however, the very skilled movie-maker builds a certain mainstream accessibility into their movies while also having depths to be plumbed for those paying attention. If you don't see it in some works like Buffy and Reloaded because you're too busy being condescending and imagining plot holes, that's too bad. Being such a pompous ass about it is really cool, though. It works for you.
So, in your journal, you deride the Matrix:Reloaded as being a bad movie while claiming that Daredevil (which I found to be a poorly written, poorly acted, contrived, piece of utter shit) was an enjoyable movie.
After reading those entries and your condescending comments here, I'm fairly convinced that you're a pseudo-intellectual who criticizes things that he can't really understand. Stick to the simple movies and shows with the easy-to-understand characters and plots. Enjoy them, but get off your high horse if you think you have any basis for being so insulting in your criticism of things that may confuse you a bit.
I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does.
I think that if you'd examine the demographics for the two shows, you'd find the Charmed audience to be centered around teenaged girls.
You'd find the Buffy audience to be centered around older females and young and middle-aged men.
Case in point, my sister and her 15 year old daughter just love fantasy programming, and wouldn't miss a Charmed episode. I've tried to get them into Buffy, but I think it's a bit to "male" for their tastes: more action, more male-oriented humor, less PMSing witches living together.
Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing?
*shrug* Not for me. I much preferred Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) for the eye candy value. For me, it's all about the writing.
If any story needs more than 2 episodes to not suck, it isn't worth it.
I don't know. I didn't really start enjoying B5 until I had seen a good four or five episodes.
I started enjoying Buffy after I watched the first three or four. Like B5, season one was rather weak, and if you want someone to enjoy the series, they should start watching the beginning of season two. I'd say from there, three or four episodes are enough to see the cleverness of the writing.
What a stupid idea.
So, you've got something that should be illegal... spam. Rather than just making it explicitly illegal and dealing with law breakers, Lessig suggests that everyone pay a tax to solve the problem?
Screw that. I pay for my internet connection. If I want to send out 1 million legitimate (non-spam) email messages a year, I shouldn't have to bear any extra costs not already accounted for in the price of my connection.
They may be bullies and thugs, but if they're beating up rationalizing common thieves, it doesn't bother me very much.
/., but ah well
Not a popular opinion on
Nah, that's not really that big of a problem. Idle cell phones tend to be fairly passive network-wise, and even with greatly extended range, the number of people in airplanes at any given time is utterly dwarfed by the number of users on the ground. I'm in the cell network planning industry, and nobody is worried about airline cell traffic.
That's not to say that there aren't *some* problems (mainly with the way that cell phones themselves zero in on a particular sector), but "melt down" is far far too strong a description.
Besides, I recall reading statements from the FAA when I was in flight training, regarding the potential dangers of cell phones -- that were unproven, but still suspect. This is the FAA's issue, not the FCC's.
Worse yet, you can't even lock your bag these days. Security demands that all bags be unlocked so they can be searched as needed.
Sucks.
I've been hypoglycemic all my life, the shakes you get are because you have low blood sugar!
Sort of. When you take in sugar (glucose) and most starchy carbohydrates that your body converts to glucose rapidly (bread, pasta, potatoes, etc.) your insulin level rises rapidly to allow your cells to absorb that glucose. In hypoglycemic people like us, though, something goes wrong. Maybe it's because we produce too much insulin and absorb too much glucose, maybe it's because we start running a deficit of insulin and cells can't process the glucose still circulating in our blood streams.
Regardless, after either of those things happens, our brains start to feel deprived of glucose, and starts to panic. They pump up our adrenaline levels, which causes our hands to shake and for us to become very aggressive (grumpy). When we finally do get food, we tend to overindulge, to compensate for those basic feelings of starvation.
The good news that I'm trying to let you in on is that you can get off that insulin roller coaster. By severely limiting your carbohydrate intake for a time while satisfying yourself on foods high in fat and protein, you steady your insulin levels. Once that happens, you avoid those dramatic food cravings, the shakes, the brain fog, etc.
I eat a lot less food than I used to, I don't get dramatic hunger pangs, I don't have that brain fog I used to, I don't starve myself, and I lose about 2 pounds a week.
As I've said: Don't knock this approach until you understand a bit more about your insulin levels, why they behave the way they do, and how this affects your body.
This isn't just shit I'm making up, by the way. I've spoken to a couple of doctors involved with weight loss, and this is the common understanding of why low carb diets work.
You've got to remember that Atkin's theories represent a major paradigm shift. Most authorities on health and weight loss in the past have been extremely resistant to Atkins, labeling him a quack, and allowing no federal dollars to be spent on researching his obviously successful method.
Look, I'm an atheist. I don't go for new age medicine, homeopathy, crystals, herbs, any of that bullshit. I'm a firm believer in the Scientific Method, but I also know that scientists are people too. They have their blind spots, their pride, and they make plenty of mistakes. For all I know, the mechanism that Atkins describes may turn out to be incorrect. The results, however, I've witnessed empirically. They work for me, and whatever causes them to work needs to be studies.
Here's a link to numerous recent articles talking about research being done in this area. Granted, these are links that Atkins Center put together, but they point to real research announced through 'The New England Journal of Medicine', 'The Journal of the American Medical Association', etc.
Don't be too quick to count out Atkin's methods and low-carb diets just yet. The research has really just begun.
"The greatest predictors of weight loss appear to be caloric intake and diet duration," she said. "The findings suggest that if you want to lose weight, you should eat fewer calories and do so over a long time period."
Duh. What they don't seem to realize, though, is that once you cut out the sugars/carbs, your insulin levels stop surging. Once you do that, most people experience a sharp decrease in hunger.
That sharp decrease in hunger makes it easier to stay on a low-carb diet, eating fewer calories, for a long time period.
I continue to detect an almost religious-style resistance to low-carb diets amongst medical researches. The appetite decrease is a commonly-experienced phenomenon, both from my personal experience knowing a half a dozen people on low-carb diets, and from Dr. Atkins' experience after treating thousands of patients with his program. I'm not sure why it's so obviously ignored.
I've been on Atkins for over a month now. I'm never going back to eating sugars and starchy foods. Understand how sugars and starches cause your insulin to surge, and you'll understand why you may have the shakes if you don't get a meal on time.
After putting up with those shakes that caused me to overindulge my whole life, I tried Atkins. After about a week of no processed carbs, I felt a noticeable difference. The shakes were gone for good, and the pounds have been coming off easily. I've never been one to stick to a diet, but this one is easy. You don't feel like you're starving yourself, and that's one of the diet's main benefits.
Not being a slave to my hopoglycemic shakes and brain fogs is the number one benefit, though. I never realized how often that brain fog had me under its grip until about a week after starting Atkins. Since then, I've felt remarkably clear-headed. I know others on low-carb diets who report the same thing.
Don't knock low carb diets until you understand why they work.
Personally, I think that the low-fat mentality generated by the medical community in the 70's, 80's, and 90's was the biggest failing of Science in the 20th century.
Read the decision again. It's not a crime if it's a "political statement". The SCOTUS specified quite clearly that burning a cross in itself is not a crime.
Personally, I think that burning a cross anywhere (excepting tresspassing and such) should be an expression of free speech, but I'm glad that the SCOTUS did leave in the ability to burn one as a political statement.
If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.
I agree with you right up to the point of where you start intimidating, torturing, and mass murdering your own people. Then, exactly whom are you protecting?
Reading all of the responses, it's amazing how far you guys are willing to be intellectually dishonest to support the common habit here of piracy.
While I doubt the BSA's numbers and their motivation, the fact remains that in countries with rampant piracy, there's really no financial reason for companies to produce consumer-oriented software. Obviously, this does have an impact on the job market and the government income from taxes.
If you are a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in the state of Texas, you can be held liable for any damages on a project. That was the reference to the 1937 project.
How many 'software' engineers in Texas are willing to put their reputations on the line (and stand up to civil lawsuits) if they have made a coding mistake??
Well, you referred to "licensed Professional Engineer" in the first paragraph, then you switched terms by just using "software engineers" in the second one.
That pretty much answere the question for me. If you're running around calling yourself a licensed professional engineer, then you should be required to be bonded and all that goes with it.
I'm a software engineer in Houston, and they can fuck off already, if they expect I'll refer to myself in some other manner.
You're on crack, if you believe that ultra-paranoid one-sided piece of drivel.
From the article:
Shortly after the election, the Bush campaign
What a load of crap. Anyone who was watching coverage of what happening saw Congressman Wexler, Jesse Jackson, and others on the ground in Florida BEFORE Bush's team even began to mobilize. If you missed that, you weren't paying attention. Add to that the well known fact that Gore/DNC operatives had hired that Texas direct marketing firm to scare senior citizens before polls had even closed, and it's pretty obvious who made the first strike to overthrow the election results.
If after watching media coverage, you didn't even notice the first strike by Gore supporters, but believe that piece of crap you referenced, it's obvious that your bias dominates your judgement.
To let you know where my perspective comes from: No, I didn't vote for Bush. Neither do I think that the Bush team was completely clean in the ensuing mayhem. But the idea that the Republican team was the first to attempt to change the outcome of the election is intellectually dishonest fantasy.
As with religion, many people will believe whatever far-fetched theories and explanations they hear... if they support the conclusions that they already had. Don't be religious about this dude. Be cold and objective about it, giving both sides equal consideration. If you do that, you'll realize that the whole thing was a big mess caused by a fragile voting system that led to questionable election results. Although I blame the Democrats for making the first strike in the affair, everything else was just a big power struggle that the Republicans won. In a mud wrestling competition like that, no one comes out clean, but it's hard to blame either side for participating once faced with such close election results.