I have a chronic condition that may always require treatment (though it's not AIDS). It's a near miracle, though, that treatment is available at all. Coming up with that required dedication by scientists around the world, and you spit on their efforts just because they haven't come up with a "cure". I'm just happy to be alive, and that's only possible in this day and age (and yes, with the help of "evil" drug companies.)
News flash, brother -- we aren't gods, and we don't have magic. Sometimes treatment is all we can do.
Nethack isn't an RPG... whatever gave you that idea? It's a simulation. Just like some people call first-person shooters "murder simulators", Nethack is a suicide simulator.
Blocking search engines from Wikipedia is impossible. The mirrors you speak of are generally not run by the Wikimedia Foundation; many of them exist to gather ad revenue and so the owners are unlikely to block search engines. Wikipedia's content is under an open license so there is no way they can exercise control over mirrors, and if the mirrors are going to be in the search engines anyway, what's the point of a robots.txt?
I guess until somebody comes up with a search engine that ignores popular sites that a lot of people link to, you're SOL.
I see you got 5 insightful points out of it, too, which points to a growing, somewhat confusing, anti-wikipedia fever on Slashdot.
This is the real story. Wikipedia is now popular enough that there is significant opposition to it, which is quite surprising. Nobody would be up in arms if I started writing the Timsterpedia, no matter how inaccurate it was. Tons of inaccurate material is published every day -- a fair share of it on Slashdot.
I think the reason Wikipedia arouses such fervor is the apparent audacity of the concept. It seems to most people like "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" would be inherently doomed, and so they rant about how doomed Wikipedia is. Science, though, requires us to judge it, like any other publication, on the quality of what is produced, not our personal feelings about the process.
Nonsense. Anyone who has ever tried to write an article about anything knows that it is quite difficult to come up with something that is one hundred percent accurate. There are plenty of errors in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, as demonstrated by the recent study.
Please distinguish between the PROCESS of Wikipedia and the CONTENT of Wikipedia. Certainly it's possible to find errors in the content, but these do not prove that the process is invalid unless the number of errors is excessive (see again the recent study). Similarly, attempting to "prove" that the process is invalid through some logical stroke (as you have attempted to do) is irrelevant unless you can show that the theoretical problems with the process do meaningful damage to the content.
Even better, if he's an agent of God, maybe he could lead the feds back to God. I know I want to sue, and I'm sure there are lots of police departments that would be interested in criminal indictments...
Sure it's possible, but some religions don't work that way.
In these religions, the Bible is declared True beyond human capability to determine truth from falsehood. So if we ever encounter a situation where the truth we see as human beings differs from the Truth in the Bible, then this must be due to an error on our part, no matter how strong the evidence or reasoning. Members of these religions cannot accept evolution by definition; this is the foundation of creationism.
Other religions see the Bible as a guide to justice and life and morality, not an absolute foundation of a world view, and don't care whether certain parts of it are actually true or not. Members of these religions are quite happy to accept evolution in general.
When I was in junior high, people used to slip pages from porn into the encyclopedia volumes in the school library. An annoyance to be sure, but until our society gains the sense to lock teenagers up in solitary confinement, we will still encounter stupid pranks from time to time.
Dude, because it's impossible. I know that Tolkien would probably prefer that I only read Lord of the Rings in leather-bound hardcover while sitting on a grassy knoll in the shadow of a great castle, but I don't have the time for that. Instead I read the paperback while eating at Jack in the Box.
Respect for some creator stops at vanities. As the audience, I get to judge whether someone is being sensible or silly, and ignore their preferences as I choose. If E.E. Cummings had a Web site, that might be one thing, but for everyday usage these intrusions are not justified, whatever the designer thinks.
Here's one: there is no guarantee that the inherited permissions on a given file or folder will match the permissions from the parent that are supposed to be inheritable.
DRM is usually applied to newer technologies, but I don't see why you wouldn't apply it to CSS. Consider FairPlay, for instance -- the method is essentially similar to that used in CSS, and the goal is about the same. Actually FairPlay in some sense is less restrictive than CSS, as it allows a number of copies to be made.
Wow, this is a stupid error. They are blowing (or at least, reducing the impact of) one of their biggest advantages over Blu-Ray: that they were ready to go to market. All for one of the most useless features in the spec.
Come on, is there anybody who believes that DRM of DVDs was successful? What evidence is there that sales were increased due to DRM?
Of course, Anschutz owns a lot of stuff; avoiding films that he's behind might turn out to be a little silly if you end up unwittingly going to one of his theatres anyway, as he owns most of Regal.
I'm interested, though, in the moral question of how much my feelings about a business owner should determine my choices. Living in Texas as I do, I'm surrounded by Republicans beyond the little enclave of liberalism I call home. So when I go to a restaurant, it's likely owned by someone who has political views that I abhor. Then again, the food is likely cooked by an immigrant who needs the money to provide for their family.
I mostly feel like the country is better served by less emphasis on polarization. In the realm of politics, I'll certainly denounce (and vote against) people with views like those of Anschutz. In real life, though, I assume that everyone is inherently good (if misguided) and I judge them by their actions. So if the food is good, the service polite, the price reasonable, I'll eat at the establishment of a Neo-Nazi -- provided that they don't turn their views into an abhorrent action like refusing service to someone, or shooting up Arabs for fun. As you mentioned, though, Anschutz has stolen quite a lot of money, so I'll admit that you have a point.
As for Narnia itself: if it's CG you're after, just watch LOTR again. The lion is not nearly as impressive as Gollum.
I feel like telling me that I have a certain opinion because I'm ignorant is a poor argument. Everybody knows that Jesus dies and then isn't dead and does it all to save sinners, but there is more depth than that to the story. I've detailed my problems with the allegory earlier in this thread; telling me to go read some book isn't a strong answer.
Lewis may be an authority on his intentions, but not on what he actually produced. My point is that the story (specifically in this movie version) is not really all so much like the story of Jesus. Maybe it's because Jesus being a *man* is such a crucial part of the meaning of the story.
In any case, you have to realize that this discussion started with someone saying that they didn't like Narnia anymore because of the Christian allegory. I basically don't feel that the allegory was successful enough to be an appropriate focus for the viewer's attention.
I can't really agree with this for several reasons.
Again, I'm speaking of the movie, and I haven't read the book for many years. In the movie, though, Aslan's sacrifice differs from that of Jesus in several important ways.
1. In Christianity, a divine sacrifice is required to save all sinners. Any sin makes man unfit for the prescence of God, and only Jesus, by death, can wash sin. In this movie, only Edmund needs salvation; everyone else is apparently perfect in and of themselves.
2. Christianity's treatment of Satan depends on the denomination, but in no sense is the death of Jesus meant to appease Satan. In the movie Aslan's death is in response to the Witch's demands.
3. Jesus shows sinners a path to salvation, and gives a promise of eternal life for all who follow him. Aslan doesn't claim to have that power; he merely doesn't die himself.
Anyway, I can't name any other religion off the top of my head which has the divine sacrifice story, but that doesn't mean the most sensible way to take Narnia is as a Christian parable. If the sacrifice were more like that of Jesus, the premise would make a lot more sense.
You know, I saw the movie this weekend, and I had to squint to see anything like a "retelling of Jesus Christ". The circumstances of Aslan's death and resurrection are only vaguely like those for Jesus, and there are no other parallels at all.
There is a certain kind of fantasy story where Good battles Evil, and I feel it's a mistake to interpret these in the context of any specific religion, even if the creator's religion influenced their work. I much prefer to take what is there, as it is, and that is easy enough to do with Narnia.
Somebody already pointed out why BetaMax was inferior to VHS where it mattered, but I've never even heard the assertion that the Minidisc was superior to the CD. The Minidisc has something like one-fourth the bitrate of an audio CD.
I looked back over the HTTP RFC, but it doesn't describe in detail what a browser should or should not do to avoid redirect loops. It's perfectly reasonable to stop once you've been redirected back to the original page and simply display the content given by the server -- which, according to the RFC, "SHOULD" contain a note about the redirect for the user's sake.
An RFC is not usually a detailed specification, so requiring certain specific behavior from a browser is unwise if that behavior is not clearly stated. It's stupid of GoDaddy to be using this redirect system, and it's irresponsible to blame others.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, where do you work? I thought every company was mired in soul-killing antiproductive bureaucracy.
I thought it was funny, but I think nobody else got it.
Comedians, obviously, never file expense reports.
You make me sick. Really.
I have a chronic condition that may always require treatment (though it's not AIDS). It's a near miracle, though, that treatment is available at all. Coming up with that required dedication by scientists around the world, and you spit on their efforts just because they haven't come up with a "cure". I'm just happy to be alive, and that's only possible in this day and age (and yes, with the help of "evil" drug companies.)
News flash, brother -- we aren't gods, and we don't have magic. Sometimes treatment is all we can do.
Nethack isn't an RPG... whatever gave you that idea? It's a simulation. Just like some people call first-person shooters "murder simulators", Nethack is a suicide simulator.
Dude, you've got it all wrong -- it's not "TYPEWRITER", it's "RUPERT".
Ere Rupert typewriter put, Rupert wet rut pet pert. Yet Rupert pet pert wet Rupert. Pretty? Tire Rupert pouty tree try pee.
Blocking search engines from Wikipedia is impossible. The mirrors you speak of are generally not run by the Wikimedia Foundation; many of them exist to gather ad revenue and so the owners are unlikely to block search engines. Wikipedia's content is under an open license so there is no way they can exercise control over mirrors, and if the mirrors are going to be in the search engines anyway, what's the point of a robots.txt?
I guess until somebody comes up with a search engine that ignores popular sites that a lot of people link to, you're SOL.
I see you got 5 insightful points out of it, too, which points to a growing, somewhat confusing, anti-wikipedia fever on Slashdot.
This is the real story. Wikipedia is now popular enough that there is significant opposition to it, which is quite surprising. Nobody would be up in arms if I started writing the Timsterpedia, no matter how inaccurate it was. Tons of inaccurate material is published every day -- a fair share of it on Slashdot.
I think the reason Wikipedia arouses such fervor is the apparent audacity of the concept. It seems to most people like "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" would be inherently doomed, and so they rant about how doomed Wikipedia is. Science, though, requires us to judge it, like any other publication, on the quality of what is produced, not our personal feelings about the process.
Nonsense. Anyone who has ever tried to write an article about anything knows that it is quite difficult to come up with something that is one hundred percent accurate. There are plenty of errors in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, as demonstrated by the recent study.
Please distinguish between the PROCESS of Wikipedia and the CONTENT of Wikipedia. Certainly it's possible to find errors in the content, but these do not prove that the process is invalid unless the number of errors is excessive (see again the recent study). Similarly, attempting to "prove" that the process is invalid through some logical stroke (as you have attempted to do) is irrelevant unless you can show that the theoretical problems with the process do meaningful damage to the content.
Even better, if he's an agent of God, maybe he could lead the feds back to God. I know I want to sue, and I'm sure there are lots of police departments that would be interested in criminal indictments...
Sure it's possible, but some religions don't work that way.
In these religions, the Bible is declared True beyond human capability to determine truth from falsehood. So if we ever encounter a situation where the truth we see as human beings differs from the Truth in the Bible, then this must be due to an error on our part, no matter how strong the evidence or reasoning. Members of these religions cannot accept evolution by definition; this is the foundation of creationism.
Other religions see the Bible as a guide to justice and life and morality, not an absolute foundation of a world view, and don't care whether certain parts of it are actually true or not. Members of these religions are quite happy to accept evolution in general.
When I was in junior high, people used to slip pages from porn into the encyclopedia volumes in the school library. An annoyance to be sure, but until our society gains the sense to lock teenagers up in solitary confinement, we will still encounter stupid pranks from time to time.
Dude, because it's impossible. I know that Tolkien would probably prefer that I only read Lord of the Rings in leather-bound hardcover while sitting on a grassy knoll in the shadow of a great castle, but I don't have the time for that. Instead I read the paperback while eating at Jack in the Box.
Respect for some creator stops at vanities. As the audience, I get to judge whether someone is being sensible or silly, and ignore their preferences as I choose. If E.E. Cummings had a Web site, that might be one thing, but for everyday usage these intrusions are not justified, whatever the designer thinks.
Here's one: there is no guarantee that the inherited permissions on a given file or folder will match the permissions from the parent that are supposed to be inheritable.
DRM is usually applied to newer technologies, but I don't see why you wouldn't apply it to CSS. Consider FairPlay, for instance -- the method is essentially similar to that used in CSS, and the goal is about the same. Actually FairPlay in some sense is less restrictive than CSS, as it allows a number of copies to be made.
Wow, this is a stupid error. They are blowing (or at least, reducing the impact of) one of their biggest advantages over Blu-Ray: that they were ready to go to market. All for one of the most useless features in the spec.
Come on, is there anybody who believes that DRM of DVDs was successful? What evidence is there that sales were increased due to DRM?
Of course, Anschutz owns a lot of stuff; avoiding films that he's behind might turn out to be a little silly if you end up unwittingly going to one of his theatres anyway, as he owns most of Regal.
I'm interested, though, in the moral question of how much my feelings about a business owner should determine my choices. Living in Texas as I do, I'm surrounded by Republicans beyond the little enclave of liberalism I call home. So when I go to a restaurant, it's likely owned by someone who has political views that I abhor. Then again, the food is likely cooked by an immigrant who needs the money to provide for their family.
I mostly feel like the country is better served by less emphasis on polarization. In the realm of politics, I'll certainly denounce (and vote against) people with views like those of Anschutz. In real life, though, I assume that everyone is inherently good (if misguided) and I judge them by their actions. So if the food is good, the service polite, the price reasonable, I'll eat at the establishment of a Neo-Nazi -- provided that they don't turn their views into an abhorrent action like refusing service to someone, or shooting up Arabs for fun. As you mentioned, though, Anschutz has stolen quite a lot of money, so I'll admit that you have a point.
As for Narnia itself: if it's CG you're after, just watch LOTR again. The lion is not nearly as impressive as Gollum.
I feel like telling me that I have a certain opinion because I'm ignorant is a poor argument. Everybody knows that Jesus dies and then isn't dead and does it all to save sinners, but there is more depth than that to the story. I've detailed my problems with the allegory earlier in this thread; telling me to go read some book isn't a strong answer.
Lewis may be an authority on his intentions, but not on what he actually produced. My point is that the story (specifically in this movie version) is not really all so much like the story of Jesus. Maybe it's because Jesus being a *man* is such a crucial part of the meaning of the story.
In any case, you have to realize that this discussion started with someone saying that they didn't like Narnia anymore because of the Christian allegory. I basically don't feel that the allegory was successful enough to be an appropriate focus for the viewer's attention.
I can't really agree with this for several reasons.
Again, I'm speaking of the movie, and I haven't read the book for many years. In the movie, though, Aslan's sacrifice differs from that of Jesus in several important ways.
1. In Christianity, a divine sacrifice is required to save all sinners. Any sin makes man unfit for the prescence of God, and only Jesus, by death, can wash sin. In this movie, only Edmund needs salvation; everyone else is apparently perfect in and of themselves.
2. Christianity's treatment of Satan depends on the denomination, but in no sense is the death of Jesus meant to appease Satan. In the movie Aslan's death is in response to the Witch's demands.
3. Jesus shows sinners a path to salvation, and gives a promise of eternal life for all who follow him. Aslan doesn't claim to have that power; he merely doesn't die himself.
Anyway, I can't name any other religion off the top of my head which has the divine sacrifice story, but that doesn't mean the most sensible way to take Narnia is as a Christian parable. If the sacrifice were more like that of Jesus, the premise would make a lot more sense.
You know, I saw the movie this weekend, and I had to squint to see anything like a "retelling of Jesus Christ". The circumstances of Aslan's death and resurrection are only vaguely like those for Jesus, and there are no other parallels at all.
There is a certain kind of fantasy story where Good battles Evil, and I feel it's a mistake to interpret these in the context of any specific religion, even if the creator's religion influenced their work. I much prefer to take what is there, as it is, and that is easy enough to do with Narnia.
Emacs is even better. Try "M-x doctor". WAY more helpful than Clippy:
Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.
How do I quit this stupid program?
Is it because do you quit this stupid program that you came to me?
Yes, I think so.
Why do you say yes you think so?
You asked a question.
Earlier you said do you quit this stupid program?
Dude, anti-Intel stories have been big on Slashdot for a LONG time.
Somebody already pointed out why BetaMax was inferior to VHS where it mattered, but I've never even heard the assertion that the Minidisc was superior to the CD. The Minidisc has something like one-fourth the bitrate of an audio CD.
I looked back over the HTTP RFC, but it doesn't describe in detail what a browser should or should not do to avoid redirect loops. It's perfectly reasonable to stop once you've been redirected back to the original page and simply display the content given by the server -- which, according to the RFC, "SHOULD" contain a note about the redirect for the user's sake.
An RFC is not usually a detailed specification, so requiring certain specific behavior from a browser is unwise if that behavior is not clearly stated. It's stupid of GoDaddy to be using this redirect system, and it's irresponsible to blame others.