(One clue is that they are not in perfect English, as interview responses or articles that are 'laundered' by PR or media relations departments almost always are.)
Is this to mean we're to trust the/. editors because they treat English grammar like a bad child? So that's why they do it! Baad spleling is know a assurans of kwality!
The military must prepare for The Next Enemy, whomever that may be. That's how you stay ahead of the curve and assured your not blindsided by something (say Sputnik and the possibility of living under a Commie Moon). Most nations out there have a varied mix of irregular and regular land, sea, and air branches. Predicting their national government, culture and outlook (and their possible hostility towards us and our friends) 40 years into the future is the domain of the State Department and think tanks.
So, yeah, an e-bomb might just gather dust... now. But in 10 years when it's in production? 20? Back in 1983 could anyone here predict the path of events that lead us to now?
Politicians start wars. Armies finish them. The military is just preparing for any contigency our governments decide to point and click them towards.
You know I never got this. Why? Because/. isn't a source of news but, like news.google.com, is a hyperlink roundup. It is just a waystation to somewhere else.
I guess you could count the posted discussion as original content... but what person in their right mind would consider a dozen 'In Soviet Russia 2. ??? 3. Profit!!! overlords welcome you!' useful in understanding a news story?
Isn't it possible to seach citeseer for the most cited papers? Heck, couldn't someone do a pagerank-esque regression over the referrences to find the authoritative papers in CS? I know there's a best number of citation search out there.
Because, if I remember correctly, they aren't the only news source in the world. That is the thing: there is one government yet many sources of discourse.
I think it's time to remember that the Internet is not a Parent nor is it a Governing Body. It is just a collection of writing. So you shouldn't come to it expecting truth or fairness. It just isn't that way.
You want to keep Corporate America honest? Two ways: government mandate and journalism. That's the way its always been done, always will be. By keeping the population informed (ideally) corporations and officials will have to be wellbehaved.
with their choice of putting Libya as the Human Rights chair.
Luckily the UN is a flaccid organization with no territory or armies of its own. What would it plan to do? Begin a humanitarian mission to the Web by dropping a bunch of Kenyan and Spanish troops near all the root servers?
or for people who only need a cell phone for a short period of time.
Latin American drug cartels have been doing this for some time with real cell phones. Why? Because by routinely disposing of cell phones means that you are always a few steps ahead of the government (and if you have a billion dollar warchest, why not?). In fact, they represent a large bulk of the cell numbers being used.
Since it's being done, I don't see why they can't at least make the phone more disposable.
Would a space elevator make local trips that bit more reasonable? Yeah it might be possible to build that 100x telescope, but how the heck to get it up there?
Couple that with cheap(er) commercial space traffic and these projects become more likely. I see no reason why we can't be fiscally savvy and explore space at the same time.
Must be a similar feeling for people who troll malls looking for clothes.
But there is just that rewarding sensation of flipping through rows of discs, checking out cover art, finding artists had released albums you hadn't known about, maybe something you forgot about but it shows up and piques your interest.
An HTML form field waiting for input or a list of the top 20 downloads has never given me such satisfaction.
All I knows is that I can get another 17 years of Karma mileage from that joke! Not like folks 'round here are too concerned about dipping multiple times from the Well of Funny.;P
Wow, not to get OT here but thanks for actually answering the question. The other 11 responses were all "Well no one liked Phantom Menace anyway" and didn't even consider if Revolutions/Reloaded will grow or wane in popularity.
Since every response I got was "Phantom Menace was universially panned save for the fanboys on GL's jock" I bring evidence: The Rotten Tomatos page shows that PM got 63% positive reviews, averaging a 7 out of 10. Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 stars out of 4!
So that disproves the fact that people were "tricked" into seeing it. If they were, they were magically "tricked" into seeing it multiple times.
I'm sorry but no, people liked the movie when it came out. Yeah, maybe not You, but they did defend it. It's only some social revisionism to say that it was never popular and that was all just some trick pulled by LucasFilms.
If it was a failure, Kevin Costner would've given his right nut to have Waterworld fail so spectacularly (to the tune of a half billion dollars).
Interesting to see all the posts now. Question is: how will it be viewed in five years?
Remember when Phantom Menace came out and everyone was still saying that it was up to par with the Original Trilogy? And then AotC came out and it supposedly saved the franchise from the disaster that was PM?
I think there's a lot of that immediacy here with these movies. There is so much expectation and fandamonium involved that "not being horrible" means that the movie must be good. Only over time do the weaknesses and strengths balance out so people can judge them. I'm always reminded of Jim Carey's The Grinch which was the top grossing movie of that year and now no one remembers that it even came out.
Personally? The repetition of the acting, pop philosophy and CG had gotten old by the first 5 minutes of Reloaded. There has to be something in this movie that "sells" it to me. Something unique where you can't just say "it's very similar to this scene in the previous movie but-" or "it's just like the part in Aliens where-"
Frankly the last one of the movies to do that was the original Matrix. Things now seem to be so bad that I actually get sick feelings when thinking/hearing about the first. It's been tainted by its progeny.
Yet I still got my ticket for an 8pm showing. Like Ebert said (giving it 3 stars while strangely blasting it for the whole length of his review) I'm going to take my graduation after earning my credits on the first two. Maybe my low expectations are the way to go?
Truly sitting around the artist collective in our double breasted suits drinking cognac has been destroyed by these perpetrators.
But you do bring up an interesting point: folks here seem to equate freedom of musical choice with a better preception and appreciation of music. I remember reading an article on the illegal cd market in Mexico and although it seemed that Mexicans were buying more music the problem was that they were becoming even more fixed in their tastes.
It's one of those "if you never hear anything new how do you know you'll like it?" things. I think that is the greatest shame about MTV and all this P2P stuff. People can get that one big single from that one novelty (to them anyway) band and completely ignore the rest of their body of work or any tangentally important work.
All this new technology and it seems that everyone's view of the world is getting smaller.
Well I thought they might've been slacking since they are only starting up a magazine (print) and selling mp3 players (electronics) after already cornering the market on useless musical merchandise. Even an ex-Road Rules contestant and ex-FOX News reporter is lead on that new morning show, Cold Pizza, on ESPN2. They are seriously becoming an omni-brand intent on a flat-entertainment experience.
Not like most people would notice any difference...
Isn't this really the third rev of Napster? If I remember correctly the version from the "golden days of P2P" that everyone knows was actually Napster 2.0. It wasn't written by Shawn Fanning but by a group of developers who actually took his nearly beta work and turned it into a full-fledged app (I'll leave it up to everyone else and the Rotten Library to debate how important Fanning was at all).
But I guess this is just a marketing ploy. Like CPU G/Mhz: the actual benchmark doesn't matter, just some arbitrary number that is bigger than another arbitrary number.
Seriously, there should be a lemma or something on Moore's Law that states that because of bureacracy and the pile up of data the business world will always buy technology on a cycle. Seriously. Monitors get old, keyboards get too mungy, your data storage needs an upgrade. Most corps, for upkeep reasons, buy machines in bulk. They probably waited longer this time (due to the recession and all) but still that was three years. That seems to be they average.
No one should be surprised by this. Likewise, no one should be surprised when the computer buying cools down in a year or so. Why? Because you only need so many PCs.
Hmmm. Instead of thinking that MS bought it's way into the US Military, I think it's important to remember that it has existed for over two hundred years while Linux is little more than two decades old.
So back in the 80's when the military was getting all wizbang there were two general desktop options: Sun and MS. In the end it turned out that the MS boxes were cheaper in bulk and so primary development occured on them.
Fast forward to the present day and you have the current situation: a monolithic organization bound tight to proprietary software. I'm glad to see the Army guys proving that some steering can still be done to the whole thing.
Just think if Sun boxes were cheaper back then, it would mean that the US Armed Forces would've been primed for a cheaper option Unix-like OS...
Slashdot Mirror
(One clue is that they are not in perfect English, as interview responses or articles that are 'laundered' by PR or media relations departments almost always are.)
/. editors because they treat English grammar like a bad child? So that's why they do it! Baad spleling is know a assurans of kwality!
Is this to mean we're to trust the
The military must prepare for The Next Enemy, whomever that may be. That's how you stay ahead of the curve and assured your not blindsided by something (say Sputnik and the possibility of living under a Commie Moon). Most nations out there have a varied mix of irregular and regular land, sea, and air branches. Predicting their national government, culture and outlook (and their possible hostility towards us and our friends) 40 years into the future is the domain of the State Department and think tanks.
So, yeah, an e-bomb might just gather dust... now. But in 10 years when it's in production? 20? Back in 1983 could anyone here predict the path of events that lead us to now?
Politicians start wars. Armies finish them. The military is just preparing for any contigency our governments decide to point and click them towards.
Nope! Or should that be noep?
You know I never got this. Why? Because /. isn't a source of news but, like news.google.com, is a hyperlink roundup. It is just a waystation to somewhere else.
I guess you could count the posted discussion as original content... but what person in their right mind would consider a dozen 'In Soviet Russia 2. ??? 3. Profit!!! overlords welcome you!' useful in understanding a news story?
Imitation is the sincerest form of Hostile Takover.
Isn't it possible to seach citeseer for the most cited papers? Heck, couldn't someone do a pagerank-esque regression over the referrences to find the authoritative papers in CS? I know there's a best number of citation search out there.
Because, if I remember correctly, they aren't the only news source in the world. That is the thing: there is one government yet many sources of discourse.
This is why you don't drink from just one well.
I think it's time to remember that the Internet is not a Parent nor is it a Governing Body. It is just a collection of writing. So you shouldn't come to it expecting truth or fairness. It just isn't that way.
You want to keep Corporate America honest? Two ways: government mandate and journalism. That's the way its always been done, always will be. By keeping the population informed (ideally) corporations and officials will have to be wellbehaved.
with their choice of putting Libya as the Human Rights chair.
Luckily the UN is a flaccid organization with no territory or armies of its own. What would it plan to do? Begin a humanitarian mission to the Web by dropping a bunch of Kenyan and Spanish troops near all the root servers?
Yeah right.
or for people who only need a cell phone for a short period of time.
/. story.
Latin American drug cartels have been doing this for some time with real cell phones. Why? Because by routinely disposing of cell phones means that you are always a few steps ahead of the government (and if you have a billion dollar warchest, why not?). In fact, they represent a large bulk of the cell numbers being used.
Since it's being done, I don't see why they can't at least make the phone more disposable.
Oh... and this is related to an older
Stop Prison Rape. Statistics, stories.
Would a space elevator make local trips that bit more reasonable? Yeah it might be possible to build that 100x telescope, but how the heck to get it up there?
Couple that with cheap(er) commercial space traffic and these projects become more likely. I see no reason why we can't be fiscally savvy and explore space at the same time.
"We're the e/
:(
E/
E/
E/
E-woks/
From the forest grove/
(E-e-e-e-e-woks!)"
Yeah... I'm glad that's chewing up storage in my brain when I have trouble remembering my new cell number
Must be a similar feeling for people who troll malls looking for clothes.
But there is just that rewarding sensation of flipping through rows of discs, checking out cover art, finding artists had released albums you hadn't known about, maybe something you forgot about but it shows up and piques your interest.
An HTML form field waiting for input or a list of the top 20 downloads has never given me such satisfaction.
All I knows is that I can get another 17 years of Karma mileage from that joke! Not like folks 'round here are too concerned about dipping multiple times from the Well of Funny. ;P
Aliens too stupid to wipe off some space dirt to realize the dang thing isn't named VEEEGERRRR!
Wow, not to get OT here but thanks for actually answering the question. The other 11 responses were all "Well no one liked Phantom Menace anyway" and didn't even consider if Revolutions/Reloaded will grow or wane in popularity.
Again, props.
Since every response I got was "Phantom Menace was universially panned save for the fanboys on GL's jock" I bring evidence: The Rotten Tomatos page shows that PM got 63% positive reviews, averaging a 7 out of 10. Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 stars out of 4!
So that disproves only the diehards liking it.
Hell, people must have liked it for some reason since it is the 4th highest domestic grossing movie of all time.
So that disproves the fact that people were "tricked" into seeing it. If they were, they were magically "tricked" into seeing it multiple times.
I'm sorry but no, people liked the movie when it came out. Yeah, maybe not You, but they did defend it. It's only some social revisionism to say that it was never popular and that was all just some trick pulled by LucasFilms.
If it was a failure, Kevin Costner would've given his right nut to have Waterworld fail so spectacularly (to the tune of a half billion dollars).
Interesting to see all the posts now. Question is: how will it be viewed in five years?
Remember when Phantom Menace came out and everyone was still saying that it was up to par with the Original Trilogy? And then AotC came out and it supposedly saved the franchise from the disaster that was PM?
I think there's a lot of that immediacy here with these movies. There is so much expectation and fandamonium involved that "not being horrible" means that the movie must be good. Only over time do the weaknesses and strengths balance out so people can judge them. I'm always reminded of Jim Carey's The Grinch which was the top grossing movie of that year and now no one remembers that it even came out.
Personally? The repetition of the acting, pop philosophy and CG had gotten old by the first 5 minutes of Reloaded. There has to be something in this movie that "sells" it to me. Something unique where you can't just say "it's very similar to this scene in the previous movie but-" or "it's just like the part in Aliens where-"
Frankly the last one of the movies to do that was the original Matrix. Things now seem to be so bad that I actually get sick feelings when thinking/hearing about the first. It's been tainted by its progeny.
Yet I still got my ticket for an 8pm showing. Like Ebert said (giving it 3 stars while strangely blasting it for the whole length of his review) I'm going to take my graduation after earning my credits on the first two. Maybe my low expectations are the way to go?
'cause I don't forget to bring the funny ;p
Truly sitting around the artist collective in our double breasted suits drinking cognac has been destroyed by these perpetrators.
But you do bring up an interesting point: folks here seem to equate freedom of musical choice with a better preception and appreciation of music. I remember reading an article on the illegal cd market in Mexico and although it seemed that Mexicans were buying more music the problem was that they were becoming even more fixed in their tastes.
It's one of those "if you never hear anything new how do you know you'll like it?" things. I think that is the greatest shame about MTV and all this P2P stuff. People can get that one big single from that one novelty (to them anyway) band and completely ignore the rest of their body of work or any tangentally important work.
All this new technology and it seems that everyone's view of the world is getting smaller.
Well I thought they might've been slacking since they are only starting up a magazine (print) and selling mp3 players (electronics) after already cornering the market on useless musical merchandise. Even an ex-Road Rules contestant and ex-FOX News reporter is lead on that new morning show, Cold Pizza, on ESPN2. They are seriously becoming an omni-brand intent on a flat-entertainment experience.
Not like most people would notice any difference...
Isn't this really the third rev of Napster? If I remember correctly the version from the "golden days of P2P" that everyone knows was actually Napster 2.0. It wasn't written by Shawn Fanning but by a group of developers who actually took his nearly beta work and turned it into a full-fledged app (I'll leave it up to everyone else and the Rotten Library to debate how important Fanning was at all).
But I guess this is just a marketing ploy. Like CPU G/Mhz: the actual benchmark doesn't matter, just some arbitrary number that is bigger than another arbitrary number.
Seriously, there should be a lemma or something on Moore's Law that states that because of bureacracy and the pile up of data the business world will always buy technology on a cycle. Seriously. Monitors get old, keyboards get too mungy, your data storage needs an upgrade. Most corps, for upkeep reasons, buy machines in bulk. They probably waited longer this time (due to the recession and all) but still that was three years. That seems to be they average.
No one should be surprised by this. Likewise, no one should be surprised when the computer buying cools down in a year or so. Why? Because you only need so many PCs.
Hmmm. Instead of thinking that MS bought it's way into the US Military, I think it's important to remember that it has existed for over two hundred years while Linux is little more than two decades old.
So back in the 80's when the military was getting all wizbang there were two general desktop options: Sun and MS. In the end it turned out that the MS boxes were cheaper in bulk and so primary development occured on them.
Fast forward to the present day and you have the current situation: a monolithic organization bound tight to proprietary software. I'm glad to see the Army guys proving that some steering can still be done to the whole thing.
Just think if Sun boxes were cheaper back then, it would mean that the US Armed Forces would've been primed for a cheaper option Unix-like OS...