If it had been done on a stage, I would say it had been a great job, given the constraints placed on a play's resources. But for a movie, even a made for television movie, I thought it was crap. I've seen more convincing acting from schoolboys trying to fake a stomachache. The set design was ridiculously cheap--I can't count how many backgrounds were obviously backdrops. And don't even get me started on the costumes. They lent little in the way of character credibility.
As for the plot itself, it was closer to the book in a lot of areas than was the original movie, but there were two things that REALLY bugged me about it. First of all, the changes they made to the plot did NOTHING to contribute to the feeling one was supposed to get from the book. For instance, Leto was supposed to be the benevolent one, the ruler who would change things, which was one of the reasons for him stopping the dinner ritual in which the splashings would be given to the poor outside the mansion (or whatever you called their house... a palace, maybe?). In the movie, Jessica does this, but it doesn't do anything to help her character development. In the book, Jessica's loyalty is to her family--not the bene gesserit, not the Fremen, but her family. Most of her actions in the movie are consistent with that. but the drippings ritual bit does nothing to further that view; in fact, it conflicts with it. Another example is the elimination of Paul's clan name, Usul. There were a lot of these little instances that bugged the hell out of me.
The second thing was that the directors had an annoying habit of introducing some plot element--the explosive nature of a pre-spice mass, for instance--with an offhand comment that wasn't explained for half an hour or more. When Liet/Kynes died in the movie, all he said was "a pre-spice mass", like we're supposed to know what that means. (of course we all did, but that's beside the point--we read the book.) You can tell its explosive from the ensuing explosion, but theres no explanation of why its explosive, or even what a pre-spice mass is. A better example might be paul's order to put the water of life over a pre-spice mass--we're left wondering what the hell is going on. A good writer (Frank Herbert, for instance) would have explained it at the time or at some point beforehand.
enough. I won't watch it again. I'm certainly not looking forward to them butchering Children Of Dune.
Although I like the fact that the plotlines were much more in line with the book (though I don't recall Irulan and Paul meeting before the last chapter), I do have two major issues with this production:
1.) When is SFC going to realize that a budget is better spent on acting/directing talent than costumes and set design? Come on now: when I saw Shaddam IV's outfit, i said to myself, "Nothing screams 'assmuncher' louder than iridescence and poofy shoulderpads." I would much rather see toned down costumes and sets that don't look like some 1960's version of the future and more acting than the reverse. My god, I hope that 10,000 years in the future the human race is not that tacky!
2.) Maybe its just me, but I really didn't think much of the acting of anyone except william hurt. I got the feeling that some of the actors had done more plays than screenwork, but that's just a guess.
And fwiw, $1 million bond is hardly unheard of. Seeing that... it doesn't mention the other 3 charges that were dropped were,... and whether the bond would be lower if paid in cash (which is usually the case).
I don't know what state you live in, but a $1,000,000 bond on a misdemeanor is COMPLETELY unheard-of. Not to mention the fact that the case could be made that the bond was in-an-of-itself a constitutional violation, as well as the original charges.
Re:what the electoral college REALLY means...
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Re:what the electoral college REALLY means...
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Each state gets 2 Senators, regardless of size or population, and at least 1 Representative, plus an additional number based on population. Because the number of electors is equal to the number of senators plus representatives in the US Congress, it is in part based on status as a state, not merely population. However, the lion's share of Electors do indeed come from population (545 electors, IIRC - 150 electors from senate and first reps=395 electors.)
Netscape, you have the opportunity before you to mend your heavily tarnished karma by shipping a strong, stable, standards-compliant browser instead of the trash you have saddled the non-microsoft world with for the last two years. I use mozilla almost daily, and in fact, i much prefer it to Navigator. To leave such glaring bugs in your browser despite tried-and-tested patches for it is unconscionable, especially given the fact that your browser will be the default browser for millions of AOL users. you have an obligation and a responsibility to those users, many of whom are not even aware that a better version of your browser exists in mozilla, to make those patches. You owe it to the web developers who have stood by your organization and defended your actions and products. You owe it to the developers who have spent many hours of their time (unpaid, and largely unrecognized and unappreciated) developing YOUR product. You owe it to your investors.
The above link didn't work for me... try
this one if yours doesn't work either.
Re:Oh, but if only...
on
3Dwm Updates
·
· Score: 1
If I remember correctly, (and its been awhile since i read it) David Brin's Earth had computers with a voice activated interface similar to what you're describing... subvocal twitches in the larynx allowed the system to pick up intentions to speak and act on those, rather than waiting for the actual sounds (which could also annoy the hell out of one's coworkers. )Interesting how fiction and life aren't so very far apart anymore.
Yes, but if their proprietary extensions are never open-sourced, then it does you little good. After the three years had passed, the binaries that they distributed would be up for grabs, but the source would still be secret. You can't force them to publish the source; you can only use what they've previously published (once it's fair game).
well, i'm still not sure I think copyright expiration should require source discosure. This could violate First Amendment rights (i.e., the right NOT to speak) as well as possibly disclose some valid trade secrets. It would depend on the situation, I suppose. Unfortunate that we can't tailor law to the situation! I just wish that lawmakers would start passing algorithmic laws instead of heuristic ones.
I thought about it for awhile, and while you have a good point, I think I stand by my earlier proposal. True, a company could take a free version of some software, say Emacs, and make a proprietary version, or even just close the source. But I think that's ok, because in three years it would pass back into the public domain.
Perhaps some sort of a BSD-style clause requiring credit where due would be in order. But I do think everyone should play by the same rules, rules which ought to be drafted because they make sense and are reasonable, not because they support opensource/free software or proprietary software (as they currently do).
after reading your article, i think i agree with you for the most part. The one part I'm not sure about is the release of source code. I haven't finished turning that one over in my head. Interesting ideas all the same.:)
I'll echo an opinion espoused time and again here on slashdot:
Patents are a Bad Thing.
Ok, maybe that's an overly broad statement. The patent system was designed to encourage and reward innovation. Today it is abused to the point that not only does it discourage innovation through the fear that one may be infringing on a patent, it harms the general public by allowing government-sanctioned monopolies to be formed. Unlike copyrights (another artifact i'll get to in a minute), if you independently develop a product and someone else has already taken out a patent on it, all the work you have put into your creation is for naught, even if you have never heard of the patent, and even if the patent-owner has never actually created the invention patented.
If i had my druthers, I would see a lot of reform in our IP system, notably:
1.) Literary copyright limited to 20 years. Contrary to popular belief, the IP system was not given constitutional protection so that an author could be assured a lifetime income. It was created to ENCOURAGE AND REWARD ARTISTIC AND TECHNICAL INNOVATION!!! Obviously you have to reward innovation, or there is no incentive to create anything. However, by ensuring that the "limited times" specified in the constitution really are limited, we would encourage authors, playrights, etc. to continue innovating, rather than rest on their laurels. If they only have one good book in them, then they should really pursue other career alternatives.
2.) Software copyrights limited to 3 years. Come on. Do i really need to explain this one here?
3.) IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE NON-TRANSFERRABLE!!! License them, sure. an inventor may not always have enough capital to market his invention. But ownership of a patent should always stay with the inventor, likewise a copyright.
There's nothing wrong with client-side scripting as long as you're using standard ECMAScript and leave things like microsoft extensions and vbscript in the dust. Personally, I think that vbscript (and vb, for that matter) is possibly the greatest injustice ever thrust upon humanity. I don't think i could design a crappier language if I TRIED.
I've been using wingspanbank.com for about 9 months now, and I'm thoroughly impressed with their web interface. Runs in any 128-bit secure browser, including netscape for linux. In fact, that was my main motivation for switching to them.
Additionally, they have EXCELLENT customer support and a fair range of services, all of which are free. I can even make a withdrawal at another bank's ATM and wingspan rebates their atm fees automatically! Great rates on their interest-bearing checking accounts, investment services, free bill pay... you name it. if its a service you can get from an online bank, wingspan's got it.
The only drawback is not having a brick-and-mortar bank to go to. Being an internet-only bank, without those b&m branches it means you have to either mail a check to them for deposit (they provide postage-paid envelopes for this purpose) or do it electronically, i.e. direct-deposit. Sometime in the next few months though they are supposed to allow deposits to be made via certain other bank's ATMs, making it easier to deposit Grandma's birthday check.
All things considered, I highly recommend this institution if you need an online bank. BTW, i forgot but they can let you download your statements in money or QIF format, the latter of which is readable by GnuCash.
Oh I whole-heartedly agree; I was just trying to underscore the fact that ALL of the games I most enjoy playing currently are only available on Windows (MW3, SimCity3k, EQ). I am aware they have linux-based analogues but its just not the same. of course, even with including the os of choice on a CD doesn't solve the problem of diverse hardware. One of the best Unix-like OS's I've seen in this aspect is QNX's Neutrino. It supports a wide variety of hardware, and its Real-time. Possibilities...
I understand how hard it is to be in financial straits. God knows i've spent most of my life there. But that doesn't mean that the government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone isn't in financial straits.
secondly, lets look at this statement:
And so yes, the richest Americans should pay most of the taxes, and no, they shouldn't get a tax break[...] when we say "most of the taxes" what are we talking about? I agree, the rich should pay, in a monetary sense, most of the taxes, but I don't agree that the rich should pay more of their income.
Let's look at it this way: suppose I and my wife/girlfriend/life-partner/dog live together, and our bills come to $600/mo (a dream-world estimate, to be sure, but for the sake of argument). Further, let us suppose that I make $1000/mo, and she/he/it makes $500. How do we divide the bills? If the other person were merely a roommate, it would be $250 split two ways, but since we're in a relationship, what's fair? (which also presents another question I hadn't thought about until just now--are we merely roommates with government [or each other, since we are all party to the national expense and debt] or is it a relationship?)
The way I solve this problem is that because I make twice as much as she does, I pay a two-share of the bills and she pays a single share: $400 for me and $200 for her. I'm paying more rent, dollar-wise. But as a percentage of our incomes, its the same!!! I think this is what the national situation should be. I don't think that the government should take a larger percentage of anyone's income; likewise, i agree with an earlier poster who said that non-disposable income should be untaxed (thus, the far-too-low standard deduction). I think that there should be a large standard deduction, around $25-30k, tied to inflation, and take 10-15% of everything after that. That's Fair.
The constitution specifically reserves to the states all powers which are not explicitly granted to the federal government. To truly be a socialist country, many powers which the federal government doesn't have would need to be allocated to it. They are not. Of course, I believe that the federal income tax is unconstitutional because i believe the amendment making it constitutional expired before it was fully ratified, but that's another story.
There isn't anything wrong with Socialism, given that you agree with the assumptions which underlie that system of government:
1.) the government can do things better than private capitalists.
2.) the government SHOULD take care of people.
3.) the government won't screw you.
the framers of the constitution agreed with none of these. Are there a lot of good things about living in a Socialist Democracy? Sure there are.
but there's also a lot of bad things about it. You probably won't have to worry about starving or getting basic medical care. But you also will never, unless the system fails, be as rich as you could be, and you won't always have top-notch medical care available. By and large, i'd say half of america wouldn't know the difference between a truly capitalist society and a socialist one. But the rest of us would; some would like it, most would not. As most of the world is fond of noting, the mentality of US Citizens is a far cry from our European counterparts. Most countries, I've noted, have a citizenry that is satisfied with the idea "Yeah, govt could screw us, but in practice it never happens." In the US, that's not good enough. We want GUARANTEES. That's what the constitution is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
If it had been done on a stage, I would say it had been a great job, given the constraints placed on a play's resources. But for a movie, even a made for television movie, I thought it was crap. I've seen more convincing acting from schoolboys trying to fake a stomachache. The set design was ridiculously cheap--I can't count how many backgrounds were obviously backdrops. And don't even get me started on the costumes. They lent little in the way of character credibility.
As for the plot itself, it was closer to the book in a lot of areas than was the original movie, but there were two things that REALLY bugged me about it. First of all, the changes they made to the plot did NOTHING to contribute to the feeling one was supposed to get from the book. For instance, Leto was supposed to be the benevolent one, the ruler who would change things, which was one of the reasons for him stopping the dinner ritual in which the splashings would be given to the poor outside the mansion (or whatever you called their house... a palace, maybe?). In the movie, Jessica does this, but it doesn't do anything to help her character development. In the book, Jessica's loyalty is to her family--not the bene gesserit, not the Fremen, but her family. Most of her actions in the movie are consistent with that. but the drippings ritual bit does nothing to further that view; in fact, it conflicts with it. Another example is the elimination of Paul's clan name, Usul. There were a lot of these little instances that bugged the hell out of me.
The second thing was that the directors had an annoying habit of introducing some plot element--the explosive nature of a pre-spice mass, for instance--with an offhand comment that wasn't explained for half an hour or more. When Liet/Kynes died in the movie, all he said was "a pre-spice mass", like we're supposed to know what that means. (of course we all did, but that's beside the point--we read the book.) You can tell its explosive from the ensuing explosion, but theres no explanation of why its explosive, or even what a pre-spice mass is. A better example might be paul's order to put the water of life over a pre-spice mass--we're left wondering what the hell is going on. A good writer (Frank Herbert, for instance) would have explained it at the time or at some point beforehand.
enough. I won't watch it again. I'm certainly not looking forward to them butchering Children Of Dune.
fair enough...
Although I like the fact that the plotlines were much more in line with the book (though I don't recall Irulan and Paul meeting before the last chapter), I do have two major issues with this production:
1.) When is SFC going to realize that a budget is better spent on acting/directing talent than costumes and set design? Come on now: when I saw Shaddam IV's outfit, i said to myself, "Nothing screams 'assmuncher' louder than iridescence and poofy shoulderpads." I would much rather see toned down costumes and sets that don't look like some 1960's version of the future and more acting than the reverse. My god, I hope that 10,000 years in the future the human race is not that tacky!
2.) Maybe its just me, but I really didn't think much of the acting of anyone except william hurt. I got the feeling that some of the actors had done more plays than screenwork, but that's just a guess.
no, but in the case of a misdemeanor (and usually non-violent felonies) its irrelevant.
And fwiw, $1 million bond is hardly unheard of. Seeing that... it doesn't mention the other 3 charges that were dropped were,... and whether the bond would be lower if paid in cash (which is usually the case).
I don't know what state you live in, but a $1,000,000 bond on a misdemeanor is COMPLETELY unheard-of. Not to mention the fact that the case could be made that the bond was in-an-of-itself a constitutional violation, as well as the original charges.
and delaware has 3 electoral votes:
http://www.msnbc.com/d/d2k/g/state_DE. htm
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Each state gets 2 Senators, regardless of size or population, and at least 1 Representative, plus an additional number based on population. Because the number of electors is equal to the number of senators plus representatives in the US Congress, it is in part based on status as a state, not merely population. However, the lion's share of Electors do indeed come from population (545 electors, IIRC - 150 electors from senate and first reps=395 electors.)
AOL has used IE as a default browser for some time now, but this is scheduled to change with the final release of Netscape, if i'm not mistaken.
David is abso-friggin-lutely right about this.
Netscape, you have the opportunity before you to mend your heavily tarnished karma by shipping a strong, stable, standards-compliant browser instead of the trash you have saddled the non-microsoft world with for the last two years. I use mozilla almost daily, and in fact, i much prefer it to Navigator. To leave such glaring bugs in your browser despite tried-and-tested patches for it is unconscionable, especially given the fact that your browser will be the default browser for millions of AOL users. you have an obligation and a responsibility to those users, many of whom are not even aware that a better version of your browser exists in mozilla, to make those patches. You owe it to the web developers who have stood by your organization and defended your actions and products. You owe it to the developers who have spent many hours of their time (unpaid, and largely unrecognized and unappreciated) developing YOUR product. You owe it to your investors.
Do the right thing.
The above link didn't work for me... try
this one if yours doesn't work either.
If I remember correctly, (and its been awhile since i read it) David Brin's Earth had computers with a voice activated interface similar to what you're describing... subvocal twitches in the larynx allowed the system to pick up intentions to speak and act on those, rather than waiting for the actual sounds (which could also annoy the hell out of one's coworkers. )Interesting how fiction and life aren't so very far apart anymore.
Thank god SOMEBODY was paying attention!
It seems Gore isn't the only born-and-bred politician in this race....
Yes, but if their proprietary extensions are never open-sourced, then it does you little good. After the three years had passed, the binaries that they distributed would be up for grabs, but the source would still be secret. You can't force them to publish the source; you can only use what they've previously published (once it's fair game).
well, i'm still not sure I think copyright expiration should require source discosure. This could violate First Amendment rights (i.e., the right NOT to speak) as well as possibly disclose some valid trade secrets. It would depend on the situation, I suppose. Unfortunate that we can't tailor law to the situation! I just wish that lawmakers would start passing algorithmic laws instead of heuristic ones.
I thought about it for awhile, and while you have a good point, I think I stand by my earlier proposal. True, a company could take a free version of some software, say Emacs, and make a proprietary version, or even just close the source. But I think that's ok, because in three years it would pass back into the public domain.
Perhaps some sort of a BSD-style clause requiring credit where due would be in order. But I do think everyone should play by the same rules, rules which ought to be drafted because they make sense and are reasonable, not because they support opensource/free software or proprietary software (as they currently do).
after reading your article, i think i agree with you for the most part. The one part I'm not sure about is the release of source code. I haven't finished turning that one over in my head. Interesting ideas all the same. :)
The Revolution is at Hand.
Interesting angle that hadn't occured to me... thanks for the insight!
Patents are a Bad Thing.
Ok, maybe that's an overly broad statement. The patent system was designed to encourage and reward innovation. Today it is abused to the point that not only does it discourage innovation through the fear that one may be infringing on a patent, it harms the general public by allowing government-sanctioned monopolies to be formed. Unlike copyrights (another artifact i'll get to in a minute), if you independently develop a product and someone else has already taken out a patent on it, all the work you have put into your creation is for naught, even if you have never heard of the patent, and even if the patent-owner has never actually created the invention patented.
If i had my druthers, I would see a lot of reform in our IP system, notably:
1.) Literary copyright limited to 20 years. Contrary to popular belief, the IP system was not given constitutional protection so that an author could be assured a lifetime income. It was created to ENCOURAGE AND REWARD ARTISTIC AND TECHNICAL INNOVATION!!! Obviously you have to reward innovation, or there is no incentive to create anything. However, by ensuring that the "limited times" specified in the constitution really are limited, we would encourage authors, playrights, etc. to continue innovating, rather than rest on their laurels. If they only have one good book in them, then they should really pursue other career alternatives.
2.) Software copyrights limited to 3 years. Come on. Do i really need to explain this one here?
3.) IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE NON-TRANSFERRABLE!!! License them, sure. an inventor may not always have enough capital to market his invention. But ownership of a patent should always stay with the inventor, likewise a copyright.
There's nothing wrong with client-side scripting as long as you're using standard ECMAScript and leave things like microsoft extensions and vbscript in the dust. Personally, I think that vbscript (and vb, for that matter) is possibly the greatest injustice ever thrust upon humanity. I don't think i could design a crappier language if I TRIED.
I've been using wingspanbank.com for about 9 months now, and I'm thoroughly impressed with their web interface. Runs in any 128-bit secure browser, including netscape for linux. In fact, that was my main motivation for switching to them.
Additionally, they have EXCELLENT customer support and a fair range of services, all of which are free. I can even make a withdrawal at another bank's ATM and wingspan rebates their atm fees automatically! Great rates on their interest-bearing checking accounts, investment services, free bill pay... you name it. if its a service you can get from an online bank, wingspan's got it.
The only drawback is not having a brick-and-mortar bank to go to. Being an internet-only bank, without those b&m branches it means you have to either mail a check to them for deposit (they provide postage-paid envelopes for this purpose) or do it electronically, i.e. direct-deposit. Sometime in the next few months though they are supposed to allow deposits to be made via certain other bank's ATMs, making it easier to deposit Grandma's birthday check.
All things considered, I highly recommend this institution if you need an online bank. BTW, i forgot but they can let you download your statements in money or QIF format, the latter of which is readable by GnuCash.
Oh I whole-heartedly agree; I was just trying to underscore the fact that ALL of the games I most enjoy playing currently are only available on Windows (MW3, SimCity3k, EQ). I am aware they have linux-based analogues but its just not the same. of course, even with including the os of choice on a CD doesn't solve the problem of diverse hardware. One of the best Unix-like OS's I've seen in this aspect is QNX's Neutrino. It supports a wide variety of hardware, and its Real-time. Possibilities...
I understand how hard it is to be in financial straits. God knows i've spent most of my life there. But that doesn't mean that the government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone isn't in financial straits.
secondly, lets look at this statement:
And so yes, the richest Americans should pay most of the taxes, and no, they shouldn't get a tax break[...]
when we say "most of the taxes" what are we talking about? I agree, the rich should pay, in a monetary sense, most of the taxes, but I don't agree that the rich should pay more of their income.
Let's look at it this way: suppose I and my wife/girlfriend/life-partner/dog live together, and our bills come to $600/mo (a dream-world estimate, to be sure, but for the sake of argument). Further, let us suppose that I make $1000/mo, and she/he/it makes $500. How do we divide the bills? If the other person were merely a roommate, it would be $250 split two ways, but since we're in a relationship, what's fair? (which also presents another question I hadn't thought about until just now--are we merely roommates with government [or each other, since we are all party to the national expense and debt] or is it a relationship?)
The way I solve this problem is that because I make twice as much as she does, I pay a two-share of the bills and she pays a single share: $400 for me and $200 for her. I'm paying more rent, dollar-wise. But as a percentage of our incomes, its the same!!! I think this is what the national situation should be. I don't think that the government should take a larger percentage of anyone's income; likewise, i agree with an earlier poster who said that non-disposable income should be untaxed (thus, the far-too-low standard deduction). I think that there should be a large standard deduction, around $25-30k, tied to inflation, and take 10-15% of everything after that. That's Fair.
The constitution specifically reserves to the states all powers which are not explicitly granted to the federal government. To truly be a socialist country, many powers which the federal government doesn't have would need to be allocated to it. They are not. Of course, I believe that the federal income tax is unconstitutional because i believe the amendment making it constitutional expired before it was fully ratified, but that's another story.
There isn't anything wrong with Socialism, given that you agree with the assumptions which underlie that system of government:
1.) the government can do things better than private capitalists.
2.) the government SHOULD take care of people.
3.) the government won't screw you.
the framers of the constitution agreed with none of these. Are there a lot of good things about living in a Socialist Democracy? Sure there are.
boolean checkSocialist(){return Socialism != Communism; }
but there's also a lot of bad things about it. You probably won't have to worry about starving or getting basic medical care. But you also will never, unless the system fails, be as rich as you could be, and you won't always have top-notch medical care available. By and large, i'd say half of america wouldn't know the difference between a truly capitalist society and a socialist one. But the rest of us would; some would like it, most would not. As most of the world is fond of noting, the mentality of US Citizens is a far cry from our European counterparts. Most countries, I've noted, have a citizenry that is satisfied with the idea "Yeah, govt could screw us, but in practice it never happens." In the US, that's not good enough. We want GUARANTEES. That's what the constitution is all about.
The Constitution of the United States
This would be much more useful if there were a windows counter-part!