While watching BWP I was struck by the similarity to The Haunting (the original, black and white version). Both movies manage to be quite scary without any special effects. After seeing The Haunting a few months back I wondered if modern film makers could do anything of that nature. When I saw the ads for the remake I was almost certain the answer was no. But that's all changed now. BWP has restored my faith in the producers of horror movies.
Can anybody make anything of this? "Ðåáÿòà, à ÷î ýòî âû òóò äåëàåòå? - Êèíî-òî óæå çàêîí÷èëîñü..." My guess is that it would look more like human writing if I switched to the cyrillic font. Go here for the original.
The job market is currently booming for geeks right? Well, if that is the case than why do we not see government offices and various news media desperately lacking technical expertise? After all, these seem to be the entities that anger "geeks" the most.
The answer is simple and depressing: some people with technical expertise don't care that much, perhaps not at all. Heck, there could even be some techies who agree with some of the wretched policies of governments and the horrible mistruths of the mass media.
If you can't get people to stop working for these entities, how do can you expect them to politicize against them?
"In my mind, both movies (and the Star Wars series) have a powerful and timely political theme: the individual against bigness, battling the growing corporatism that is the dominating economic, and perhaps political, reality of the late 20th century."
I think your on to something here Katz.
The AIs represent a stagnant existence. They make no attempt to grow. Take, for instance, the scene where the agent is calling the human race a virus because it expands.
They then impose this stagnation on human beings in the matrix. Humans, whose natural tendency is to improve themselves and grow to new heights, are kept locked down. This can be related to many things in the real world 90s. Katz listed some of them above and there are others as well. I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader.
Along come the heroes, the techno-savy saviors. They have escaped from the matrix and are stronger for it. Noticed that those born in Zion are not able to access the matrix. They have not passed through the trial of fire that gave power to the others. These people are all about breaking down limits. That is what I consider the most important aspect of the movie. A small group striving against a society happy in its delusions to break down the status quo and allow civilization to reach heights that would not be possible under the AI imposed statsis. While there may be no AIs imposing there will on our society, it is certain that the vast majority of people fear change. It is the technophiles who will advance civilization and enlighten those who do not see the advantages of change.
It could be much worse
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
The school killings that I have heard about seem to be motivated towards certain individuals or groups. Granted, others are taken down with them but the focus remains.
The problem I forsee is an individual who is not bitter at a specific group, but everybody in general. This would encourage the use of more drastic, but less selective methods of exterminating large numbers of people. Imagine, on a smaller scale, Oklahoma City or the Tokyo subway. It some ways, it may be a good thing that the killers have restricted themselves to guns and small explosives.
Gore may not be as dumb as he seems, politically speaking. Technologically, he is incompetent, but then, so is the vast majority of the electorate. Gore's recent mistakes have alienated but a small portion of the population: those who actully know what the Internet is and where it came from. I would contend that his mistakes have drawn far more people to him than they have driven away.
We live in an age where the most popular computing books can be described by "* for Dummies." It might as well be "* for Al Gore." People can relate to him. The majority of computer users think Gore is on their level, the "Dummies". His mistakes prove it. The people do not want a hacker controlling the Internet. Joe "AOL/Microsoft" Newbie wants to be able to pretend he understands computers, or that he doesn't have to. Gore, by being the political figure for all things computerish, provides that illusion, and more.
It's not just Internet neophytes who want Gore in control. Most of those people who don't use computers, and who have an opinion about regulation, want the computer industry regulated. This is a vast voting block. Mention the word "Internet" to these people and images of promiscuous sex and child molestation flash across their minds. Mention "hacker" and you'll get the image of a teenage punk causing terror and destruction with a computer instead of a knife and spray paint. Gore is the cadidate who appears to have just enough knowledge to be able to control the Beast, therefore he will get the votes.
Who has he alienated with his untruths and mis-used jargon? The hacker comminity is one block. It is also tiny, and not necesarily very politically active. There are those on the fringe of the aforementioned group, but not really a part of it: those who know what the Internet is and how it came about, who know what open source software is, and think they are both good things, but can't code anything worth while. A good cross section of this group is provided by sampling the readers of Slashdot. This may be a slightly larger block, but still not as significant as those that Gore is pulling towards him.
Gore is a politician, not a hacker. Hackers make things work while politicians get enough people to believe that they work. Mr. Vice President is doing an excellent job at the second. That he cannot do the first alienates those who can tell the difference. This is a small group, politically not worth appeasing. "I was tired," is not a valid apology. The masses, and in politics the only thing that is important is the masses, will eat up what Gore has to say. In this way will he win.
As our society becomes more advanced, more and more value comes from ideas. Even natural resources are a product of human ingenuity (Julian Simon). If intellectual property is not property, than nothing is.
If intellectual property is not a staqndard of value, what is? There is not a thing on this planet of value that is not the product of thought. Everything is made of natural resources, so demonstrating that natural resources are a product of thought is sufficient to show that everything is. To extract a resource from the earth requires tools. To make the tools requires invention. Which is more valuable, the person who makes the tool, or the person who can only use it? If the tool is a shovel, there might be some room for debate. If the tool is a backhoe, or a dump truck, the answer is some what less open. It takes years of training before someone can develop machinery as complex as that used to harvest resources. On the whole, it takes considerably less time, and considerably less innate intelligence, to learn how to use that machinery. To say that the inventor of the machinery is not worthy of compensation while the user of the machinery is, is to be blinded to who is truly providing more value. An additional point regarding natural resources: they are only valuable because we can make things out of them. The products we can manufacture from natural resources were invented. Without their invention, we would see no value in those resources. Once again, ideas reign supreme.
So, if ideas are not to be regarded as worthy of monetary compensation and protection under law, what is? The source of all value is ideas. If they are not protected, nothing else can be.
Congrats Dave and crew! Now, just make sure you get F&D to run on the Voodoo 3 quickly. Then again, if you do that I might be forced to buy a 21" monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
While watching BWP I was struck by the similarity to The Haunting (the original, black and white version). Both movies manage to be quite scary without any special effects. After seeing The Haunting a few months back I wondered if modern film makers could do anything of that nature. When I saw the ads for the remake I was almost certain the answer was no. But that's all changed now. BWP has restored my faith in the producers of horror movies.
Think about it: Linux + Neo = Lineo. They are just trying to cram as much geek culture into the name as possible.
Can anybody make anything of this? "Ðåáÿòà, à ÷î ýòî âû òóò äåëàåòå? - Êèíî-òî óæå çàêîí÷èëîñü..." My guess is that it would look more like human writing if I switched to the cyrillic font. Go here for the original.
The job market is currently booming for geeks right? Well, if that is the case than why do we not see government offices and various news media desperately lacking technical expertise? After all, these seem to be the entities that anger "geeks" the most.
The answer is simple and depressing: some people with technical expertise don't care that much, perhaps not at all. Heck, there could even be some techies who agree with some of the wretched policies of governments and the horrible mistruths of the mass media.
If you can't get people to stop working for these entities, how do can you expect them to politicize against them?
"In my mind, both movies (and the Star Wars series) have a powerful and timely political theme: the individual against bigness, battling the growing corporatism that is the dominating economic, and perhaps political, reality of the late 20th century."
I think your on to something here Katz.
The AIs represent a stagnant existence. They make no attempt to grow. Take, for instance, the scene where the agent is calling the human race a virus because it expands.
They then impose this stagnation on human beings in the matrix. Humans, whose natural tendency is to improve themselves and grow to new heights, are kept locked down. This can be related to many things in the real world 90s. Katz listed some of them above and there are others as well. I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader.
Along come the heroes, the techno-savy saviors. They have escaped from the matrix and are stronger for it. Noticed that those born in Zion are not able to access the matrix. They have not passed through the trial of fire that gave power to the others. These people are all about breaking down limits. That is what I consider the most important aspect of the movie. A small group striving against a society happy in its delusions to break down the status quo and allow civilization to reach heights that would not be possible under the AI imposed statsis. While there may be no AIs imposing there will on our society, it is certain that the vast majority of people fear change. It is the technophiles who will advance civilization and enlighten those who do not see the advantages of change.
The school killings that I have heard about seem to be motivated towards certain individuals or groups. Granted, others are taken down with them but the focus remains.
The problem I forsee is an individual who is not bitter at a specific group, but everybody in general. This would encourage the use of more drastic, but less selective methods of exterminating large numbers of people. Imagine, on a smaller scale, Oklahoma City or the Tokyo subway. It some ways, it may be a good thing that the killers have restricted themselves to guns and small explosives.
Gore may not be as dumb as he seems, politically speaking. Technologically, he is incompetent, but then, so is the vast majority of the electorate. Gore's recent mistakes have alienated but a small portion of the population: those who actully know what the Internet is and where it came from. I would contend that his mistakes have drawn far more people to him than they have driven away.
We live in an age where the most popular computing books can be described by "* for Dummies." It might as well be "* for Al Gore." People can relate to him. The majority of computer users think Gore is on their level, the "Dummies". His mistakes prove it. The people do not want a hacker controlling the Internet. Joe "AOL/Microsoft" Newbie wants to be able to pretend he understands computers, or that he doesn't have to. Gore, by being the political figure for all things computerish, provides that illusion, and more.
It's not just Internet neophytes who want Gore in control. Most of those people who don't use computers, and who have an opinion about
regulation, want the computer industry regulated. This is a vast voting block. Mention the word "Internet" to these people and images of promiscuous sex and child molestation flash across their minds. Mention "hacker" and you'll get the image of a teenage punk causing terror and destruction with a computer instead of a knife and spray paint. Gore is the cadidate who appears to have just enough knowledge to be able to control the Beast, therefore he will get the votes.
Who has he alienated with his untruths and mis-used jargon? The hacker comminity is one block. It is also tiny, and not necesarily very politically active. There are those on the fringe of the aforementioned group, but not really a part of it: those who know what the Internet is and how
it came about, who know what open source software is, and think they are both good things, but can't code anything worth while. A good cross section of this group is provided by sampling the readers of Slashdot. This may be a slightly larger block, but still not as significant as those that Gore is pulling towards him.
Gore is a politician, not a hacker. Hackers make things work while politicians get enough people to believe that they work. Mr. Vice President is doing an excellent job at the second. That he cannot do the first alienates those who can tell the difference. This is a small group, politically not worth appeasing. "I was tired," is not a valid apology. The masses, and in politics the only thing that is important is the masses, will eat up what Gore has to say. In this way will he win.
Does this mean we can use any content on the page to establish a web site to mock Gore?
As our society becomes more advanced, more and more value comes from ideas. Even natural resources are a product of human ingenuity (Julian Simon). If intellectual property is not property, than nothing is.
If intellectual property is not a staqndard of value, what is? There is not a thing on this planet of value that is not the product of thought. Everything is made of natural resources, so demonstrating that natural resources are a product of thought is sufficient to show that everything is.
To extract a resource from the earth requires tools. To make the tools requires invention. Which is more valuable, the person who makes the tool, or the person who can only use it? If the tool is a shovel, there might be some room for debate. If the tool is a backhoe, or a dump truck, the answer is some what less open. It takes years of training before someone can develop machinery as complex as that used to harvest resources. On the whole, it takes considerably less time, and considerably less innate intelligence, to learn how to use that machinery. To say that the inventor of the machinery is not worthy of compensation while the user of the machinery is, is to be blinded to who is truly providing more value.
An additional point regarding natural resources: they are only valuable because we can make things out of them. The products we can manufacture from natural resources were invented. Without their invention, we would see no value in those resources. Once again, ideas reign supreme.
So, if ideas are not to be regarded as worthy of monetary compensation and protection under law, what is? The source of all value is ideas. If they are not protected, nothing else can be.
Congrats Dave and crew! Now, just make sure you get F&D to run on the Voodoo 3 quickly. Then again, if you do that I might be forced to buy a 21" monitor.