(OT)No plot holes in the Three Amigos
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 1
there were some awful plot holes there
Those aren't plot holes, as they don't affect the plot.
The plot is the sequence of events that the story relies on in order to proceed. The link you gave would be filed under "goofs", or (IMHO) were actually intentional (it is a comedy.. I mean, come on - you have a movie that features an invisible swordsman, and a plant that sings folk tunes, but it's not realistic for a town to be able to rebuild in a couple of days?!??!)
The gaffes listed don't affect the plot of the movie, so they're not plot holes.
Now, if you wanted to see a movie with a goatse-sized plot hole, watch "Die Hard", and tell me how the mechanical doors on the vault open after the bad guys get the power disconnected. Emergency power?!?!? (Yeah, that would make sense.)
This is a plot hole because the plot of the movie relies on it.
Google complies with robots.txt, but that's an opt-out signal.
Oops, you're right - my bad (I guess I shouldn't post just before bedtime;o)
But you still do have a way of optin out though - multiple, in fact.
And how trivial would it be to temporarily add a redirect if the referrer was google? They could even have redirected people who came from that specific search (as Google passes the search terms as part of the referrer) to an 'page temporarily unavailable', while leaving other pages up and running.
This isn't rocket science. And I still can't blame Google.
Should Google ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server?
Sweet Jebus, give me a break.
Since this came from a google search, there is a pretty simple way to prevent this from happening, without having Google do anything - use your robots.txt to stop google from indexing your site.
Google is opt-in. If you don't want to be indexed, don't be.
I read it as "Scott is the one they sued because he's easy to find and he's in the US."
Yes, which was preceeded with "This guy is small potatos - why don't they go after someone bigger?"
So, if the answer is "this guy is local, whereas a lot of spammers are overseas" means that "a lot" is relative to the number of spammers in the US. As most spammers are in the US, it's false.
I'm in the UK and I just wasted 5 seconds of thier time going "um" and apologising.
Call him collect.
Repeatedly.
And tell him he can opt out at any time, but it will take two weeks to process his request, during which time he may still receive your valuable announcements.
When someone says 'xyz is expensive...' it is implying 'xyz is more expensive than similar items...'.
Bullshit.
"more expensive' is different than "expensive" (that's why the qualifier is there)
You said - without qualification - that if item B costs more than item A, that item B is 'expensive' - You then expounded that there is no need to measure 'value' to determine if something is expensive.. then now you say that 'expensive is relative to similar items' - which means that you have included value into the equation. (Because measuring if something is similar or not is a measure of value.)
Go back and read your post - you specifically attacked gad zuki's assertion that macs are not expensive by listing the added features of a Mac as being irrelevant - now you're saying that they are relevant, because PC's don't include them. (how can it be similar if the Mac has more features?)
So which is it? Does value have something to do with an item being 'expensive', or not?
when anyone says that something is expensive they imply the above expansion.
'expensive' is relative, but it is relative to the value of the item (which you claimed does not matter), and the purchasing power of the individual. (Someone with more money will answer the question 'is X expensive' differently than someone with little money.)
Candy bar B is more expensive.
That's not what I asked. I asked if it was expensive, not whether is was more expensive.
It's consise, it's clear, and it sets a very easy to follow policy, and is very clear on the consequences for failing to adhere to that policy.
It's also insulting, degrading, demoralizing, and makes it known that the manager considers employees to be personal slaves who are not allowed to have personal emergencies during work.
Perhaps I have worked at too many tech places where the internet/e-mail usage policies were too vaugue
Or perhaps you're an idiot who has no idea that, generally speaking, fear is the worst way to motivate employees to do a good job.
You don't have to intimidate and make threats to be concise and clear, or to set a policy.
The phones belong to the companies, and local calls are usually more expensive than what you pay at home.
All of which is completely irrelevant. The issue is not that the policy is wrong, but how notification of that policy is delivered.
Give them a fully functioning DVD for $7.00 and ask that they please not watch the movie again
Well, one person asks: If they can make money selling these disks at $7.00, why do non-crippled DVDs cost more to purchase?
If someone watches something twice, why are they obligated to pay more? They've already bought it once, and they've already seen it. How is the company 'losing' money by not crippling the disk? Do they believe that someone would buy one of these twice?
All these disks do is instill in the consumer that the movie companies are overcharging for the non-crippled movies.
Vancouver truly is the most diverse city I have ever been in. I have done a good amount of traveling throughout Europe, Mexico and the US, and I have never seen more different cultures represented in such a small place
There are a lot of similarities to the origins of the diversity of both countries - the size of the landmass, and the lack of historic culture (due to both countries being so 'young'); the difference (and the reason that Canada is more diverse than the US) is that the US is a melting pot, and Canada is multicultural.
The difference is subtle, but important.. both recognise the different cultures of their immigrants, but in the US, immigrants are expected to become Americans first, and everything else second, while Canada places a higher emphasis on an immigrant's culture.
If I send a letter to George Bush using Saddam Hussein for the return address, the president will not believe that the letter is really from Iraq!
Why would it have to be from Iraq? You just said that the sender was Saddam Hussein, not Iraq. You're mixing up the sender and the origin. Mr Hussein may not have been to WA, but if you mailed the message from (say) Yemen, Saudi Arabia, how would Mr. Bush be able to tell that wasn't from Saddam, just by looking at the postmark?
The postmark on the envelope will say Pullman, Wa!
But what if you use the name "John Ashcroft"? How would Mr. Bush know that Ashcroft didn't mail something while he was out of his office?
if the mail server looked at the address that actually sent the virus, it would see something like aol.com or texas-telecom.net. Instead, these mail servers just blindly believe that the virus was really sent from Client-A@wsu.edu.
And (again) how would the mail server know that Client-A@wsu.edu doesn't have an AOL or texas telecom account?
What I tell my users is simple: "Their mail server is misconfigured, just ignore it."
The Linux gamer market is tiny, and it's not growing very fast.
But it is growing.
NVIDIA's shareholders would not give a damn.
You don't know very much about business.
The fact that nVidia currently spends time developing Linux drivers means that there is enough interest in their cards that they are making money off it. If they're making money off it, then it would be a bad business decision to shut it down.
Tell me how a manager would correctly answer the followin question from his boss:
"What do you mean you shut down development of a market segment that's growing and making us money?"
Somehow, I don't think "well, they whined at us" would save your job.
macros that will block on unresolvable domain names in the MAIL FROM:
There are two checks for this - one rejects (501) mail that comes from bogus domains (domains which do not exist) and one that sends a temporary failure message (451) for domains which are unresolvable.
Such rules are necessary for proper operation of a mail server - the MAIL FROM: should always be a resolvable address (with the exception of empty sender) because that's where the bounces should go.
domain names often are temporarily unresolvable for a variety of reasons
Which is why such domains would get a temporary failure, so that the sending mail server can try again.
There is a difference between "that domain does not exist", and "that domain does not resolve".
it does encourage Joe Jobs - not necessarily against specific addresses, but against domains.
If it's against a domain, then it's not a joe job. You can't joe a domain, only an address (or a group of addresses.) And it doesn't encourage it - spammers have forged their MAIL FROM: address since time immemorial.
valid emails with temporary DNS problems
Again, such mails would get a temporary failure, and would go through once the domain is able to be resolved - so there is really no reason NOT to use such rules.
Slashdot Mirror
there were some awful plot holes there
Those aren't plot holes, as they don't affect the plot.
The plot is the sequence of events that the story relies on in order to proceed. The link you gave would be filed under "goofs", or (IMHO) were actually intentional (it is a comedy.. I mean, come on - you have a movie that features an invisible swordsman, and a plant that sings folk tunes, but it's not realistic for a town to be able to rebuild in a couple of days?!??!)
The gaffes listed don't affect the plot of the movie, so they're not plot holes.
Now, if you wanted to see a movie with a goatse-sized plot hole, watch "Die Hard", and tell me how the mechanical doors on the vault open after the bad guys get the power disconnected. Emergency power?!?!? (Yeah, that would make sense.)
This is a plot hole because the plot of the movie relies on it.
I can't believe all the corrections you're getting..
To Anyone else who wants to correct the poster: before you hit "submit", sit down and watch The Three Amigos.
Google complies with robots.txt, but that's an opt-out signal.
;o)
Oops, you're right - my bad (I guess I shouldn't post just before bedtime
But you still do have a way of optin out though - multiple, in fact.
And how trivial would it be to temporarily add a redirect if the referrer was google? They could even have redirected people who came from that specific search (as Google passes the search terms as part of the referrer) to an 'page temporarily unavailable', while leaving other pages up and running.
This isn't rocket science. And I still can't blame Google.
Should Google ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server?
Sweet Jebus, give me a break.
Since this came from a google search, there is a pretty simple way to prevent this from happening, without having Google do anything - use your robots.txt to stop google from indexing your site.
Google is opt-in. If you don't want to be indexed, don't be.
should it be positive, negative, random or neutral?
:o)
Of course.
I read it as "Scott is the one they sued because he's easy to find and he's in the US."
Yes, which was preceeded with "This guy is small potatos - why don't they go after someone bigger?"
So, if the answer is "this guy is local, whereas a lot of spammers are overseas" means that "a lot" is relative to the number of spammers in the US. As most spammers are in the US, it's false.
Since when does 'a lot' have to mean 'the majority'?
When it's implied that the two are the same. Try reading the thread in context.
What the original poster said is true, a lot of spammers are based overseas.
First of all, no - there are only a few spammers (IMHO) that are based overseas.
And second, nitpicking doesn't change that he meant (based on context) that most spammers are based overseas.
I'm in the UK and I just wasted 5 seconds of thier time going "um" and apologising.
Call him collect.
Repeatedly.
And tell him he can opt out at any time, but it will take two weeks to process his request, during which time he may still receive your valuable announcements.
A lot of spammers are based in unfriendly countries and are very difficult to sue.
Not true. The vast majority of spammers are based in the US.
Tell me more of this universe in which the 3rd of February is followed immediately by the 6th.
:o)
You know the old saying "1 + 1 = 3, for sufficiently large quantities of 1."
So, if 1 + 1 = 3, and the poster is on the other side of the international date line, then tomorrow for him would be the 6th!
It's really pretty simple
Replace SMTP with a more secure protocol.
define 'secure', then describe how it would work.
then give someone 1/2 hour to work around the 'security' (you don't have to implement it, just write a whitepaper.)
Spam exists because spammers are sociopaths. Replacing SMTP with something 'secure' won't change that, and won't stop them.
When someone says 'xyz is expensive...' it is implying 'xyz is more expensive than similar items...'.
Bullshit.
"more expensive' is different than "expensive" (that's why the qualifier is there)
You said - without qualification - that if item B costs more than item A, that item B is 'expensive' - You then expounded that there is no need to measure 'value' to determine if something is expensive.. then now you say that 'expensive is relative to similar items' - which means that you have included value into the equation. (Because measuring if something is similar or not is a measure of value.)
Go back and read your post - you specifically attacked gad zuki's assertion that macs are not expensive by listing the added features of a Mac as being irrelevant - now you're saying that they are relevant, because PC's don't include them. (how can it be similar if the Mac has more features?)
So which is it? Does value have something to do with an item being 'expensive', or not?
when anyone says that something is expensive they imply the above expansion.
'expensive' is relative, but it is relative to the value of the item (which you claimed does not matter), and the purchasing power of the individual. (Someone with more money will answer the question 'is X expensive' differently than someone with little money.)
Candy bar B is more expensive.
That's not what I asked. I asked if it was expensive, not whether is was more expensive.
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't.
If one candy bar costs $.50, and another costs $.52, does that make the second one "expensive"?
Of course not. It makes it cost more, but it is not expensive all by itself.
You're getting confused here.
No, that would be you.
Tom Cruise is really hot. I'm a straight guy, and I can almost say that with a straight face
Funny thing - my wife just walked in and saw that, and her response?
"Tom Cruise is not hot - he's a pansy!"
It's consise, it's clear, and it sets a very easy to follow policy, and is very clear on the consequences for failing to adhere to that policy.
It's also insulting, degrading, demoralizing, and makes it known that the manager considers employees to be personal slaves who are not allowed to have personal emergencies during work.
Perhaps I have worked at too many tech places where the internet/e-mail usage policies were too vaugue
Or perhaps you're an idiot who has no idea that, generally speaking, fear is the worst way to motivate employees to do a good job.
You don't have to intimidate and make threats to be concise and clear, or to set a policy.
The phones belong to the companies, and local calls are usually more expensive than what you pay at home.
All of which is completely irrelevant. The issue is not that the policy is wrong, but how notification of that policy is delivered.
I am totally missing something here?
Yes, it's called a personality.
That's the dumbest moment in advertising? I thought that commercial was hilarious!!
So did I.. plus the fact that the "raised by wolves" guy looked suspiciously like Mr. Bean, it was just the perfect set-up..
Give them a fully functioning DVD for $7.00 and ask that they please not watch the movie again
Well, one person asks: If they can make money selling these disks at $7.00, why do non-crippled DVDs cost more to purchase?
If someone watches something twice, why are they obligated to pay more? They've already bought it once, and they've already seen it. How is the company 'losing' money by not crippling the disk? Do they believe that someone would buy one of these twice?
All these disks do is instill in the consumer that the movie companies are overcharging for the non-crippled movies.
"The most effective step that you can take to help protect yourself from malicious hyperlinks is not to click them."
OK, great - but how do I tell the malicious hyperlinks from the benign ones?
Vancouver truly is the most diverse city I have ever been in. I have done a good amount of traveling throughout Europe, Mexico and the US, and I have never seen more different cultures represented in such a small place
There are a lot of similarities to the origins of the diversity of both countries - the size of the landmass, and the lack of historic culture (due to both countries being so 'young'); the difference (and the reason that Canada is more diverse than the US) is that the US is a melting pot, and Canada is multicultural.
The difference is subtle, but important.. both recognise the different cultures of their immigrants, but in the US, immigrants are expected to become Americans first, and everything else second, while Canada places a higher emphasis on an immigrant's culture.
Your analogy is flawed.
If I send a letter to George Bush using Saddam Hussein for the return address, the president will not believe that the letter is really from Iraq!
Why would it have to be from Iraq? You just said that the sender was Saddam Hussein, not Iraq. You're mixing up the sender and the origin. Mr Hussein may not have been to WA, but if you mailed the message from (say) Yemen, Saudi Arabia, how would Mr. Bush be able to tell that wasn't from Saddam, just by looking at the postmark?
The postmark on the envelope will say Pullman, Wa!
But what if you use the name "John Ashcroft"? How would Mr. Bush know that Ashcroft didn't mail something while he was out of his office?
if the mail server looked at the address that actually sent the virus, it would see something like aol.com or texas-telecom.net. Instead, these mail servers just blindly believe that the virus was really sent from Client-A@wsu.edu.
And (again) how would the mail server know that Client-A@wsu.edu doesn't have an AOL or texas telecom account?
What I tell my users is simple: "Their mail server is misconfigured, just ignore it."
The Linux gamer market is tiny, and it's not growing very fast.
But it is growing.
NVIDIA's shareholders would not give a damn.
You don't know very much about business.
The fact that nVidia currently spends time developing Linux drivers means that there is enough interest in their cards that they are making money off it. If they're making money off it, then it would be a bad business decision to shut it down.
Tell me how a manager would correctly answer the followin question from his boss:
"What do you mean you shut down development of a market segment that's growing and making us money?"
Somehow, I don't think "well, they whined at us" would save your job.
"The most effective step that you can take to help protect yourself from malicious hyperlinks is not to click them."
OK, but how do I tell the malicious hyperlinks from the benign ones, so I know which ones I can click on?
haiku, or haikus
:o)
Gesundheit.
macros that will block on unresolvable domain names in the MAIL FROM:
There are two checks for this - one rejects (501) mail that comes from bogus domains (domains which do not exist) and one that sends a temporary failure message (451) for domains which are unresolvable.
Such rules are necessary for proper operation of a mail server - the MAIL FROM: should always be a resolvable address (with the exception of empty sender) because that's where the bounces should go.
domain names often are temporarily unresolvable for a variety of reasons
Which is why such domains would get a temporary failure, so that the sending mail server can try again.
There is a difference between "that domain does not exist", and "that domain does not resolve".
it does encourage Joe Jobs - not necessarily against specific addresses, but against domains.
If it's against a domain, then it's not a joe job. You can't joe a domain, only an address (or a group of addresses.) And it doesn't encourage it - spammers have forged their MAIL FROM: address since time immemorial.
valid emails with temporary DNS problems
Again, such mails would get a temporary failure, and would go through once the domain is able to be resolved - so there is really no reason NOT to use such rules.
It is a sad commentary on the state of the 'net, but anti-spam efforts are also reducing freedom.
It is a sad commentary on the state of the world, but the anti-murder efforts are also reducing freedom.
Many smaller sites or even users who prefer to send their own mail are finding their port 25 connects bounced, refused or blackholed.
Which has nothing to do with freedom. You are still perfectly free to run your own mail server, just as I am free to reject it.
How is it restricting freedom for someone to take control of something they own?