Of all the negative reviews that could have been written on valid grounds about the movie in question, your condemnation seems to be reactionary and shortsighted. Rather than point out how the narrative of the film became significantly disjointed due to the extended flashback... you takes us down a path of philosophical clap-trap inspired by someone's paranioa-- indeed, even falling back on old '60s era, anti-establishment dogma about challenging beliefs. So lets procede on your terms, forgetting the film making for a moment.
'What makes a person human? And what is reality?' are completely valid questions; I would go so far as to say that these questions are really paramount and probably unanswerable (one more than the other anyway.) However, there comes a point where you have to live as human and as though reality can be taken for granted... or simply concede your life to an unfullfilled dysfunction. Once we take a step back from the lofty issues of existence into just getting by day-to-day, issues of honor, blood, faith (no matter how manifested), and magic (we're complex beings that like our imaginations to be captured) become significant and are probably more relevant to an overall quality of life than 'getting it' in the grand sense. Sure there are people who will take a concept like magic and attempt use it to answer the question of humanity or reality, just as there are people that will take it on faith that we've been put in a black iron prison to keep us from our destiny. (By the way, your line made me curious... precisely what is 'our destiny' that God is trying to keep us from? And Why? If God did not grant us our destiny, what gives us the right to it? If there is no God, how can we have a Destiny or have it denied to us?)
Ultimately, the film only really just touches on honor, blood, and faith as its purpose and I would argue it had more to do with the personal conseqences of personal decisions. Yes, there were characters driven by honor and faith and a desire to live justly; but my sense was that these were mere trappings, scenery in essence to allow a message of misplaced personal denial in the face of duty to be conveyed. Think about it, one character said he wasted his life in the movie... if anything because he acted in a way that was claimed in the film to be honorable! Another character (trying not to give too much away) simply escapes... not for any of the multitude of reasons the character could have honorably done so, but perhaps more to escape a personal dillema.
For those 3133t h4kk3r d00dz, I would far and away wish that they were weighing the issues of honor than not. Because in that day-to-day I mentioned before, the more people acting with honor in the world, the better the world will likely be to live in for me. Sure reality may be prison... but why feel compelled bring the roaches ourselves? As for your remarks about war and hardship... don't forget this is a movie. If this had been made more like 'My Dinner With Andre' we wouldn't be having this discussion now because no one would have seen the movie. We are complex beings, we like our imaginations stimulated. I don't think you need war to have honor; but as a narrative device, characters have far more reason and opportunity to show their true selves in extremely adverse situations. I can't blame the filmakers for taking the easy way out.
I also need to challenge your assumption about challenging long held beliefs. Challenging beliefs long-held or not is fine, but I think you go a step farther and not only challenge, but simply reject them without understanding them. I think that is just as invalid and reactionary as accepting all dogma for truth. In fact, I believe that 'pushing the envelope', 'thinking outside the box' and being 'edgy' are simply the ideological fashions currently in vogue with as little substance as blindly held faith. Frankly, social rebellion is become cliche. PLEASE though, do not misunderstand... I am not saying that long held beliefs are valid because they are long held and it's not part of todays orthodoxy, I simply mean to say acceptance, or denial, of any believe or custom just because your parents held it (or not) is foolish.
Finally, I enjoyed the film and would see it again. Is the greatest film ever made... no. But it was fun and very nicely shot... just bear with that flashback!
Cheers!
I've been in your shoes, managing infrastructure for a company a touch bigger, and have some thoughts.
There are a lot of arguments that could be had about the technical merits of any given approach; I can't say that the Ultra 2s as described constitute a bad technical solution. Many of the responses I see to this issue focus on only the technology; I would argue that these arguments are secondary and irrelevant without the context of the business case... which, in the case of in-house email, really should focus on overall employee productivity. After the productivity arguments have been established then you can evaluate if your existing system can be bettered or if there are compelling arguments to adopt an Exchange or Notes solution. If your only argument is that the existing system runs extremely well, then you have no position other than a secondary one... which you will likely lose.
It really gets down to the single largest mistake many, very talented and skilled technical professionals make: they fail to realize that the technology is the means to a business driven end (unless the technology is the product, of course;-) ) For instance, if going to an Exchange solution hits the IT department with some stiff upfront expenses and say an ongoing 5% loss in IT productivity supporting the damn thing, but the company generally speaking gains an on-going productivity increase of 20% then in all likelihood the Exchange solution is the best way; no matter how much more elegant and functional the Ultra 2/sendmail solution is over the Exchange because what's important is the overall productivity gains. Sure there are arguments once user needs have been identified: Exchange vs. Lotus Notes, arguments about how the solution gets implemented (which is where the technology discussion begins: well after the goal is set.)
My suggestions in your case are (in this order):
1. Get what you have implemented now out of your mind and find out why people want Exchange.
2. Project some numbers: not server costs, but likely impact to employee productivity in the short and long run. (Yes it's guesswork, but executive managers spend most of their time doing similar guesswork: earnings estimates, future market conditions, etc.) You may have to talk to non-IT managers to get a sense of this, but the PR couldn't be better (responsiveness, etc.)
3. Now look at what solutions are available, with 1 & 2 answers in mind, as well as what the IT impact is. Evaluate if your current solution meets this goal. Does the cost of implementation overshadow gains in productivity?
4. Be sure you evaluate after implementation and show how IT really helped; either by improving the existing system, or by implementing a new one. Without this reminder of what IT does in an organization, people will only every remember you when things are dead.
Slashdot Mirror
Of all the negative reviews that could have been written on valid grounds about the movie in question, your condemnation seems to be reactionary and shortsighted. Rather than point out how the narrative of the film became significantly disjointed due to the extended flashback... you takes us down a path of philosophical clap-trap inspired by someone's paranioa-- indeed, even falling back on old '60s era, anti-establishment dogma about challenging beliefs. So lets procede on your terms, forgetting the film making for a moment. 'What makes a person human? And what is reality?' are completely valid questions; I would go so far as to say that these questions are really paramount and probably unanswerable (one more than the other anyway.) However, there comes a point where you have to live as human and as though reality can be taken for granted... or simply concede your life to an unfullfilled dysfunction. Once we take a step back from the lofty issues of existence into just getting by day-to-day, issues of honor, blood, faith (no matter how manifested), and magic (we're complex beings that like our imaginations to be captured) become significant and are probably more relevant to an overall quality of life than 'getting it' in the grand sense. Sure there are people who will take a concept like magic and attempt use it to answer the question of humanity or reality, just as there are people that will take it on faith that we've been put in a black iron prison to keep us from our destiny. (By the way, your line made me curious... precisely what is 'our destiny' that God is trying to keep us from? And Why? If God did not grant us our destiny, what gives us the right to it? If there is no God, how can we have a Destiny or have it denied to us?) Ultimately, the film only really just touches on honor, blood, and faith as its purpose and I would argue it had more to do with the personal conseqences of personal decisions. Yes, there were characters driven by honor and faith and a desire to live justly; but my sense was that these were mere trappings, scenery in essence to allow a message of misplaced personal denial in the face of duty to be conveyed. Think about it, one character said he wasted his life in the movie... if anything because he acted in a way that was claimed in the film to be honorable! Another character (trying not to give too much away) simply escapes... not for any of the multitude of reasons the character could have honorably done so, but perhaps more to escape a personal dillema. For those 3133t h4kk3r d00dz, I would far and away wish that they were weighing the issues of honor than not. Because in that day-to-day I mentioned before, the more people acting with honor in the world, the better the world will likely be to live in for me. Sure reality may be prison... but why feel compelled bring the roaches ourselves? As for your remarks about war and hardship... don't forget this is a movie. If this had been made more like 'My Dinner With Andre' we wouldn't be having this discussion now because no one would have seen the movie. We are complex beings, we like our imaginations stimulated. I don't think you need war to have honor; but as a narrative device, characters have far more reason and opportunity to show their true selves in extremely adverse situations. I can't blame the filmakers for taking the easy way out. I also need to challenge your assumption about challenging long held beliefs. Challenging beliefs long-held or not is fine, but I think you go a step farther and not only challenge, but simply reject them without understanding them. I think that is just as invalid and reactionary as accepting all dogma for truth. In fact, I believe that 'pushing the envelope', 'thinking outside the box' and being 'edgy' are simply the ideological fashions currently in vogue with as little substance as blindly held faith. Frankly, social rebellion is become cliche. PLEASE though, do not misunderstand... I am not saying that long held beliefs are valid because they are long held and it's not part of todays orthodoxy, I simply mean to say acceptance, or denial, of any believe or custom just because your parents held it (or not) is foolish. Finally, I enjoyed the film and would see it again. Is the greatest film ever made... no. But it was fun and very nicely shot... just bear with that flashback! Cheers!
I've been in your shoes, managing infrastructure for a company a touch bigger, and have some thoughts.
;-) ) For instance, if going to an Exchange solution hits the IT department with some stiff upfront expenses and say an ongoing 5% loss in IT productivity supporting the damn thing, but the company generally speaking gains an on-going productivity increase of 20% then in all likelihood the Exchange solution is the best way; no matter how much more elegant and functional the Ultra 2/sendmail solution is over the Exchange because what's important is the overall productivity gains. Sure there are arguments once user needs have been identified: Exchange vs. Lotus Notes, arguments about how the solution gets implemented (which is where the technology discussion begins: well after the goal is set.)
There are a lot of arguments that could be had about the technical merits of any given approach; I can't say that the Ultra 2s as described constitute a bad technical solution. Many of the responses I see to this issue focus on only the technology; I would argue that these arguments are secondary and irrelevant without the context of the business case... which, in the case of in-house email, really should focus on overall employee productivity. After the productivity arguments have been established then you can evaluate if your existing system can be bettered or if there are compelling arguments to adopt an Exchange or Notes solution. If your only argument is that the existing system runs extremely well, then you have no position other than a secondary one... which you will likely lose.
It really gets down to the single largest mistake many, very talented and skilled technical professionals make: they fail to realize that the technology is the means to a business driven end (unless the technology is the product, of course
My suggestions in your case are (in this order):
1. Get what you have implemented now out of your mind and find out why people want Exchange.
2. Project some numbers: not server costs, but likely impact to employee productivity in the short and long run. (Yes it's guesswork, but executive managers spend most of their time doing similar guesswork: earnings estimates, future market conditions, etc.) You may have to talk to non-IT managers to get a sense of this, but the PR couldn't be better (responsiveness, etc.)
3. Now look at what solutions are available, with 1 & 2 answers in mind, as well as what the IT impact is. Evaluate if your current solution meets this goal. Does the cost of implementation overshadow gains in productivity?
4. Be sure you evaluate after implementation and show how IT really helped; either by improving the existing system, or by implementing a new one. Without this reminder of what IT does in an organization, people will only every remember you when things are dead.