Actually, it's not that his works are politically neutral, but that when he tries to be political he does it *badly*. "Buffy", for example, if you didn't catch the drift, is about a girl who isn't the helpless one when the forces of darkness attacks. Yes, the theme is vaguely feminism and about female empowerment, but the best parts of that show *aren't* vaguely political. By general consensus, the fourth and seventh seasons of "Buffy" are the most political. In the fourth season we see Whedon's narrow-minded view of the military (which I'm sure a lot of you guys here agree with), in the last season we see all the characters become mere symbols in a feminism epic.
But Joss is good at character-centric stories. If you want good politics and philosophical stories, look to the Twilight Zone and Star Trek the Next Generation. There you have a level of depth unapproached by Whedon.
I tried watching an episode of FireFly once, I honestly couldn't get into it. I see what Joss was trying to do, and it has the hallmark character-centric story arcs of Buffy and Angel, but that isn't the way science fiction is supposed to work, IMHO. The best science fiction shows are about the big picture, like Star Trek: TNG and The Twilight Zone. Even Star Wars has the massive scale to it. Even in Joss's trademark shows, while we have some excellect characters and some interesting plotlines and symbolism, the "world" is missing. Characters (or lets say, plot devices) just jump in and out unexpectedly. The supervillian of the season just shows up for a brief span of time, and then disappears completely.
Actually, I think a lot of it has to do with the rediculous jargon they use in the sciences. In philosophy, for example, we try to stick to common usages as much as possible, although there is plenty of jargon. I think part of the difference is that in a discipline where you actually have to read the original sources from the past two thousand years, you realize how arbitrary jargon and specialized vocabulary really is. The difference is that, when you talk to a scientist he'll force you to speak on his terms. In fact, chances are that he is simply unable to translate what he is saying using any other lexicon than the one he's used to.
I think my post was correct insofar as the fallacy I pointed out *is* invalid and it seems to be a common belief not just on slashdot. Like there was an article a while back that said how Mac users thought that OS X was somehow immune to viruses. Now, where do you think they got that idea?
I don't use XP, I run ME (yes, I know) and the problem you're talking does occur. But maybe you can tell me, if you run XP as an unpriviledged user (non-Administrator) as you insist in your example on a Unix system, could the same problem occur? Your qualifier "on a competantly run system" says a lot about your argument, because it seems to me that the biggest security flaw of any system is between the seat and keyboard.
"Partially this is because Windows is the predominant desktop OS, but it is also because *nix is generally secure by design, whereas Windows is user friendly by design."
Why do I get the feeling that the basis for your belief here is simply because you have to type in a password before you can boot into your Linux system?
I think there's way too much complacency among Linux and Mac advocates. As far as I'm concerned, they are both Katrinas waiting to happen. Neither of these systems are very popular, but because of the rampant advocacy, fans of both systems come up with this fallacious assumption that just because Macs and Linux systems are almost never get hit by viruses or other forms of attacks, that they must be more secure by design. No! No! No! And if I was a manager for a small to large business, I'd prepare for such attacks *before* they happen and ignore all of this fanboy buzz.
I have a different idea. You guys are still measuring the success of Linux based on how many grandmas use it. Why not keep Linux as the hacker's OS? The problem is that with the software licensing of both Apple and Windows systems, none of them fit the bill.
I know this is somewhat off topic, so I thought I'd reply to myself with this question. I know some hackers have their own blogs, but it seems to me that most of these self-identifying geeks have never written a line of code. Or maybe they consider HTML and CSS "code". The same thing has happened to slashdot, this website used to be prowling with coders and wannabe coders; now I think most of the hackers have left for the most part. Among the geeks I used to know, "trend" and "fashion" weren't things in our vocabulary, or if we refered to it we looked down upon it. Has this changed? Have the geeks themselves changed or do we have an influx of new people now calling themselves geeks? Has being a geek become trendy all of sudden?
Anyway, maybe I'll submit a poll to slashdot to see if there are any hackers left on this site.
The word has cropped up and everyone assumes they know what it means. But to me it seems that different people have assigned different meanings to the word yet aren't making their definitions explicit, so everyone is talking about the same thing. Does geek simply mean an affinity to computers? To some people it seems that just having a home page or spending more than twelve hours a week on the computer is enough to be considered a geek. To other people it simply means that you weren't popular in high school. To others, geek means being a fan of some sort of science fiction or other genre, whether on TV, in movies, or in books. So what means this geek?
But in response, I really could care less about geek blogging. First of all, I haven't seen any blogs that are halfway interesting. Or even those blogs that do have an interesting intellectual argument every now and then are damned by repeated references to their cute cat or some guy at the supermarket. A blog is really something simple: it's a journal that you share to the public. But I have a better idea--how about instead a complog? The name almost sounds trendy enough to work. The idea is simple, keep a journal on your computer (or call it diary if you want) only *don't* share it with the public. Yes, we don't care, and we don't want to know. So, when is this trend going to take off? Anyone?
So are you saying that women are more herd-like than men?
Seriously now, what is with this "Society says" stuff? I consider myself an intelligent guy but that isn't because society has told me to be intelligent. It's just the way I am. Some things simply come to me a lot easier than other things. I started programming when I was 7 years old. I've always been better than average at math and science. So I'll put my money on intelligence being mostly genetic, of course if I was kidnapped when I was four and stuffed into dark locked room and kept there for my entire childhood, yes I'd say I wouldn't be too smart right now. But hopefully you know what I mean.
No I don't hate women. Yes, I believe women should have every opportunity as men do. No, I don't believe the results of this study should have any real effect on policies.
But what I can't stand is how when it deals with ideas that we aren't comfortable with that even facts become contraversial. Does anyone here dare to be objective about ideas that make them uncomfortable?
If there is some serious logical flaw in the study, I'd love to hear it. But there are certain rules you need to follow when looking for logical flaws (as I'm sure there are going to be enough people looking for flaws), we call them fallacies. Don't shoot the messenger. Don't question the motivations of the people who conducted the study. Don't trace down the people who funded the study.
There, I got that out of my system. Now's the time when someone replies to my comment with something everyone wants to hear and gets rated +5 Insightful.
I don't know where you go to the theatre at, but where I go they don't let us bring sodas from the outside into the theatre. Although, I suspect that a bottle of soda would be easy to hide until I go in, which I'm honestly planning on doing next time. Movie Theatre soda is way too expensive.
I agree with you. I think the problem isn't with the basic plotlines and story, but the quality of writing has simply degraded. I'm having a hard time thinking of movies that are well written. "Office Space" was one of them, though. But most movies appear to me like filler. They base entire movies on stupid one-liners and then when something dramatic happens, there's nothing more to it. I think the writers rely too much on the actors. But when I hear a line, I want it to have three or more meanings, not just cutesy "who da man" lines. But apparently a lot of these writers just aren't capable of doing this consistantly.
No kidding. The moderating system simply doesn't work here and the admins of this website seem to prefer sitting on their thumbs about it. Maybe they don't think there's anything wrong. Anyway, whatever.
Great post, I think you hit it spot on, but of course not all freeware authors who are in it for the money are lunatics, so I'll interpret that expression as an elegant use of hyperbole. But sometimes I wonder how much the author of mIRC has gotten for his program?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not that his works are politically neutral, but that when he tries to be political he does it *badly*. "Buffy", for example, if you didn't catch the drift, is about a girl who isn't the helpless one when the forces of darkness attacks. Yes, the theme is vaguely feminism and about female empowerment, but the best parts of that show *aren't* vaguely political. By general consensus, the fourth and seventh seasons of "Buffy" are the most political. In the fourth season we see Whedon's narrow-minded view of the military (which I'm sure a lot of you guys here agree with), in the last season we see all the characters become mere symbols in a feminism epic.
But Joss is good at character-centric stories. If you want good politics and philosophical stories, look to the Twilight Zone and Star Trek the Next Generation. There you have a level of depth unapproached by Whedon.
I tried watching an episode of FireFly once, I honestly couldn't get into it. I see what Joss was trying to do, and it has the hallmark character-centric story arcs of Buffy and Angel, but that isn't the way science fiction is supposed to work, IMHO. The best science fiction shows are about the big picture, like Star Trek: TNG and The Twilight Zone. Even Star Wars has the massive scale to it. Even in Joss's trademark shows, while we have some excellect characters and some interesting plotlines and symbolism, the "world" is missing. Characters (or lets say, plot devices) just jump in and out unexpectedly. The supervillian of the season just shows up for a brief span of time, and then disappears completely.
Actually, I think a lot of it has to do with the rediculous jargon they use in the sciences. In philosophy, for example, we try to stick to common usages as much as possible, although there is plenty of jargon. I think part of the difference is that in a discipline where you actually have to read the original sources from the past two thousand years, you realize how arbitrary jargon and specialized vocabulary really is. The difference is that, when you talk to a scientist he'll force you to speak on his terms. In fact, chances are that he is simply unable to translate what he is saying using any other lexicon than the one he's used to.
That sounds to me a lot like paying your neighborhood gang "protection money".
I think my post was correct insofar as the fallacy I pointed out *is* invalid and it seems to be a common belief not just on slashdot. Like there was an article a while back that said how Mac users thought that OS X was somehow immune to viruses. Now, where do you think they got that idea?
I don't use XP, I run ME (yes, I know) and the problem you're talking does occur. But maybe you can tell me, if you run XP as an unpriviledged user (non-Administrator) as you insist in your example on a Unix system, could the same problem occur? Your qualifier "on a competantly run system" says a lot about your argument, because it seems to me that the biggest security flaw of any system is between the seat and keyboard.
Anyway, thanks for your response.
Alright, fine, I'll read the article.
Do you have an argument there?
"Partially this is because Windows is the predominant desktop OS, but it is also because *nix is generally secure by design, whereas Windows is user friendly by design."
Why do I get the feeling that the basis for your belief here is simply because you have to type in a password before you can boot into your Linux system?
I think there's way too much complacency among Linux and Mac advocates. As far as I'm concerned, they are both Katrinas waiting to happen. Neither of these systems are very popular, but because of the rampant advocacy, fans of both systems come up with this fallacious assumption that just because Macs and Linux systems are almost never get hit by viruses or other forms of attacks, that they must be more secure by design. No! No! No! And if I was a manager for a small to large business, I'd prepare for such attacks *before* they happen and ignore all of this fanboy buzz.
As we all know, the elite don't run browsers. We use telnet.
Come on guy, think about it for a second next time. Then post. Things go more smoothly when you do it in that order.
Why is kissing a girl so important? It is wise to question our assumptions.
Fair enough. Still early morning here :)
"Does this somehow reduce the significance of the crime, or was it just an aside you were adding?"
No, but it reduces the hack value of the feat. This means that the crime probably wasn't worth committing.
Not everything is about "the law" you know. Look up "hack value" in the jargon file if you're confused.
Ask Slashdot:
I have some questions of my own that I wondered about and I thought I'd ask the Slashdot population at large.
What do you think of intelligent design? Is it really a covert form of creationism?
Are people who advocate patents correct or are they just hoarding software?
Have the Republicans really been more concerned about the environment than Democrats? If not, can you explain why?
I don't think the one-button mouse on Apple computers are more userfriendly. Is this true?
Emacs or vi?
Linux or Mac?
Ford or Chevy?
And does anyone else think that the editors of Slashdot post contraversial articles as trolls just to get more hits?
Well, as a tinkerer, you may not realize that stable for a tinkerer means something different than what it means for other people :)
I have a different idea. You guys are still measuring the success of Linux based on how many grandmas use it. Why not keep Linux as the hacker's OS? The problem is that with the software licensing of both Apple and Windows systems, none of them fit the bill.
But what's your uptime?
Hey kids, now's time to start acting ten years plus your age.
That was a great episode of Star Trek: TNG. But was that ripped off of a book or something?
I know this is somewhat off topic, so I thought I'd reply to myself with this question. I know some hackers have their own blogs, but it seems to me that most of these self-identifying geeks have never written a line of code. Or maybe they consider HTML and CSS "code". The same thing has happened to slashdot, this website used to be prowling with coders and wannabe coders; now I think most of the hackers have left for the most part. Among the geeks I used to know, "trend" and "fashion" weren't things in our vocabulary, or if we refered to it we looked down upon it. Has this changed? Have the geeks themselves changed or do we have an influx of new people now calling themselves geeks? Has being a geek become trendy all of sudden?
Anyway, maybe I'll submit a poll to slashdot to see if there are any hackers left on this site.
The word has cropped up and everyone assumes they know what it means. But to me it seems that different people have assigned different meanings to the word yet aren't making their definitions explicit, so everyone is talking about the same thing. Does geek simply mean an affinity to computers? To some people it seems that just having a home page or spending more than twelve hours a week on the computer is enough to be considered a geek. To other people it simply means that you weren't popular in high school. To others, geek means being a fan of some sort of science fiction or other genre, whether on TV, in movies, or in books. So what means this geek?
But in response, I really could care less about geek blogging. First of all, I haven't seen any blogs that are halfway interesting. Or even those blogs that do have an interesting intellectual argument every now and then are damned by repeated references to their cute cat or some guy at the supermarket. A blog is really something simple: it's a journal that you share to the public. But I have a better idea--how about instead a complog? The name almost sounds trendy enough to work. The idea is simple, keep a journal on your computer (or call it diary if you want) only *don't* share it with the public. Yes, we don't care, and we don't want to know. So, when is this trend going to take off? Anyone?
So are you saying that women are more herd-like than men?
Seriously now, what is with this "Society says" stuff? I consider myself an intelligent guy but that isn't because society has told me to be intelligent. It's just the way I am. Some things simply come to me a lot easier than other things. I started programming when I was 7 years old. I've always been better than average at math and science. So I'll put my money on intelligence being mostly genetic, of course if I was kidnapped when I was four and stuffed into dark locked room and kept there for my entire childhood, yes I'd say I wouldn't be too smart right now. But hopefully you know what I mean.
No I don't hate women. Yes, I believe women should have every opportunity as men do. No, I don't believe the results of this study should have any real effect on policies.
But what I can't stand is how when it deals with ideas that we aren't comfortable with that even facts become contraversial. Does anyone here dare to be objective about ideas that make them uncomfortable?
If there is some serious logical flaw in the study, I'd love to hear it. But there are certain rules you need to follow when looking for logical flaws (as I'm sure there are going to be enough people looking for flaws), we call them fallacies. Don't shoot the messenger. Don't question the motivations of the people who conducted the study. Don't trace down the people who funded the study.
There, I got that out of my system. Now's the time when someone replies to my comment with something everyone wants to hear and gets rated +5 Insightful.
I don't know where you go to the theatre at, but where I go they don't let us bring sodas from the outside into the theatre. Although, I suspect that a bottle of soda would be easy to hide until I go in, which I'm honestly planning on doing next time. Movie Theatre soda is way too expensive.
I agree with you. I think the problem isn't with the basic plotlines and story, but the quality of writing has simply degraded. I'm having a hard time thinking of movies that are well written. "Office Space" was one of them, though. But most movies appear to me like filler. They base entire movies on stupid one-liners and then when something dramatic happens, there's nothing more to it. I think the writers rely too much on the actors. But when I hear a line, I want it to have three or more meanings, not just cutesy "who da man" lines. But apparently a lot of these writers just aren't capable of doing this consistantly.
No kidding. The moderating system simply doesn't work here and the admins of this website seem to prefer sitting on their thumbs about it. Maybe they don't think there's anything wrong. Anyway, whatever.
Great post, I think you hit it spot on, but of course not all freeware authors who are in it for the money are lunatics, so I'll interpret that expression as an elegant use of hyperbole. But sometimes I wonder how much the author of mIRC has gotten for his program?