Re:Of course time travel is possible!
on
No Time Travel, Sorry
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Alfred E. Neuman has been elected. Twice.
He wasn't elected the first time, he was appointed, and it's doubtful he would have won the election the second time (if you can call winning by less than the margin for error winning) if he hadn't been the incumbent. Not to mention all the questionable incidents surrounding both elections. Can you say "rigged voting"? I knew you could.
(Note: I am not anti-republican; I am anti-people-who-shouldn't-be-trusted-with-public-o ffice)
GPL3 is a tipping point for the FSF. If they go that route, they will lose all corporate support, which they think they don't need but in fact very much do. GPL3 goes way too far. So if they want to marginalize themselves...go right ahead.
You know, I'll bet somebody said the *exact* same thing about the original GPL. And look where the FSF is now! Nobody is talking about them . . . oh, wait.
One would hope that Bush's statements on scientific advances prove that he is not anti-science, no more than pro-lifers are anti-women. It is silly (though convenient) to label someone with whom you disagree as evil
Yes, it is silly to label anyone evil - which is why most of the people doing this labeling are usually silly (read as: extremists). If you pair up the extremists on the one side calling pro-lifer's "anti-women" with the extremist pro-lifer's (who are anti-women), it makes a lot more sense. But all things being fair, I'll interpret your above statement as being the opposite of "if you're not with us, you're against us";)
it doesn't make sense that any President would actively work to thwart something like scientific progress in general.
Which is why some of us can't figure out why this guy is still president - it doesn't make sense!
It DOES make sense that a President would try to do what's best for the country, and that is where the disagreement lies.
Unless he's misinformed. Or power hungry. Or maybe he just wants a blow job. Any of these excuses have served bad president's in the past. You're making the fallacy of assuming that because a man is president that he is perfect or will at least do the right thing. I'll agree with you that there is disagreement as to what is best for the country, but I think there is a general consensus, and time will tell, that many of the things George Bush is doing is wrong and bad for the country.
try to understand why his position is what it is
Okay, mister smartypants, why has George Bush and his administration been censoring, abusing, and generally misusing science? Because I sure as hell can't see why any sane and rational person would do these things.
you just might discover that there are intelligent arguments on all sides of the table.
Oh, there are arguments alright. I've just not heard any intelligent ones yet.
Roberta Johnson could be posting a revision to the Ted Kennedy article because she's an ardent Republican that hates him.
So when she does, she can be blocked as well.
This is wrong.
No, this is exceedingly fair and open-minded, considering that the blocks will be removed in a week's time. They abused the system; therefore their access to abuse that system has been denied. It happens all the time, and not just to congress, but to most of the idiots abusing the system. Besides, it's their toy, they can do what they want with it.
For some people "too much" food might be just enough to nourish them. It's not widely reported, but lots of dieting fat people die and/or suffer severe health problems from malnutrition every year. Still fat, yet starved of required nutrients.
Really? And how many people suffer from these conditions? Maybe it's not widely reported because it doesn't happen very often. Granted it happens, but it's rare.
We've tried bullying fat people to "quit eating so much and go for a walk" for decades now. Results have not been stellar.
Perhaps results haven't been stellar because people haven't actually been getting more exercise and eating less? People are lazy and people are too busy to change their lifestyles, so they say their last diet failed, when they actually failed to stick to it. I'll grant you that there are other factors which help or hinder keeping a healthy weight, and maybe some virus is one of them; but the statistical probability of most obese people having this virus and having it gone unnoticed is very small. It comes down to which is more likely: that someone is fat because they've been eating too much and not getting enough exercise, or they have some previously unknown virus. Me, I'll bet on laziness and food cravings nine times out of ten. I know that's why I'm out of shape.
It's not like fat people want to be fat.
Of course fat people don't want to be fat; but most people suffer from an incredible lack of forward thinking, as in thinking into the future.
You can't even make the case that the pleasures of eating and relaxation (or avoiding the discomfort of working out and going hungry) are more important to them than their health and appearance.
Yes I can. People think and live in the now; they think "mmm, this tastes good, I'm hungry, I'll eat some more". They don't think about the consequences until it's too late. As the old adage goes, you never miss your health when it's good. I mean, seriously, how many people have you seen read the nutrition label or ask for nutrition information at a fast food joint _before_ they eat their meal or order it?
There are people who are suicidal over their weight, and willing to endure painful, dangerous, ill-advised medical procedures to correct it.
Again, they are probably at one end of the bell curve labeled "mentally ill", and while weight loss won't cure them, it's a good start on treating the symptoms and removing stimulus which only encourage the mental illnes.
But then, a lot of other countries say that about us when we execute a mentally-challenged person, or even when we execute anyone at all. Or when we invade a country on our own volition that hasn't directly attacked us. *You* may not think those things are evil, but a lot of other people in the world do.
Actually, I live in the USA too, and I think all of the above are evil. Just because you live in a country doesn't mean you agree with it's policies, even in a so called democratic republic. I've written my representatives telling them of my disapproval of the death penalty and pre-emptive strikes. I can't see what more I can do short of something physically forceful which a) is against my philosophies and b) would accomplish nothing.
Have you ever bought a diamond? You're supporting "evil".
I know you were addressing the unwashed masses in general, but no, I did not support evil when I bought the diamond for my wife's engagement ring. Sure, it cost a bit more, but it was worth it to me. I'm fairly certain that the Canadians don't allow child slave labor, even for diamond mining.
The point is, "do no evil"/is/ a viable way to live one's life. Some people are just more dedicated to it than others.
Atheism theism is not "belief", it's "belief in God". I think anti belief would be something like aism, which is more along the lines of what Ferris Bueler is.
Athism covers those who are "anti belief in god", not those who are not believers. On the contrary, atheists are some of the most dogmatic religious people around, and one of the most annoying sects.
If you want the philosophy of "I really don't care or know" I think the term "agnostic" is what you are looking for. Atheists believe that they know for a fact that there is no God, which in my opinion is just blind faith.
You are mistaken. Agnostics have been using this "middle ground" to try to claim some sort of moral high ground for years, and all it does is confuse the crap out of everyone. It comes down to this: there are people, such as myself, who neither believe or disbelieve in the supernatural; we base our worldview on what we can observe and what can be proven scientifically. You can call us what you want; we call ourselves atheists, and history and etymology support our use of this word as the correct one.
For some people it is because they no longer feel safe letting it show. Many atheists are every bit as nasty as some fundamentalist. Instead of you declaring you an sinner and immoral they declare you an idiot, fool, and yes evil.
Perhaps; there are zealots everywhere. I could use the old christian dodge of "they aren't really atheists", but the truth is that atheism covers a whole lot of types of people. Here's a clue, though: it's "a" as in "anti" and "theism" as in "belief", so anyone that believes someone is an idiot, fool or evil just because they are religious is not truly an atheist.
While it is okay in most work places to talk about getting drunk, going out and partying all night, or how much you lost playing poker. A discussion of how much fun you had at church teaching the kids in your Sunday school class makes people nervous and some will snub you.
Heh, I was tempted to call bullshit, but then I realized it probably comes down to this: you probably live in an area that's more geared towards atheism. Try living in a military base town, where there are probably more churches per capita than most other towns, no Jewish synagogues and no Moslem mosques.
And I might add that you reveal your bias in your statements: there is nothing wrong with getting drunk, playing poker for real money or going out and partying all night; as well, there is nothing wrong with teaching kids in Sunday school class, and I've never lived somewhere (even when I was in more atheist climes) where saying that out loud would get you snubbed. Where the hell are you living?
Now I ask a question to all Americans: do you actually feel any safer?
No, actually I feel _less_ safe because of things like this. I'm still halfway tempted to go to cafepress.com and get a bumper sticker that says "Welcome to the United States of Jesusland. Please don't upset the sheeple, as that may lead to them bombing innocents in a country where they think you once lived." But then I keep reminding myself there's nowhere to put a bumper sticker on my bicycle.
First and foremost, it's not a television. It requires interaction, and will lead to intellectual stimulation if used properly.
Second, it's a tool. It's not good, bad or anything in between; it can be used for good or bad, much as any tool can.
Third, it's different from other kinds of tools. Most tools throughout human history were created to modify matter in some way. Computers modify information. More importantly, they can take certain types of information (instructions) and follow them to become a more specialized tool.
Dude, did you even _read_ the other comments here? You know, like the top rated ones that suggest that maybe, just maybe, the system correlated "Planet of the Apes" and a movie about Martin Luter King Jr. because they are both related to civil rights? Or maybe the system merely correlated that many people bought both of those movies?
I'm no fan of racism or prejudice of any kind, and I know it still happens a lot, but unless you can prove that someone tweaked the system specifically to link these movies together, and rather the system didn't just sift their relation out of the morass of data that is customer tracking, I'm gonna have a hard time believing this is racist.
Oh, and your post speaks volumes about the prejudices you harbor. Slashdot readers can't get offended because of their ignorance or unfamiliarity with minorities? Are you being racist and saying all slashdot readers are not minorities? Maybe slashdot readers just don't get offended as easily as other people, or they just don't think it's worth it to get upset over something that was probably an accident.
Chill out, cool down, and maybe focus on some more important issues
The only reason this story is getting attention is Walmart is the current American icon of corporate evil and greed.
A bit off-topic, but I was looking into SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) the other day, and found an SRI index that I could switch my IRA to. The main difference between it and the regular S&P500 index? Wal-Mart was number one on the company list for S&P500, Microsoft was number one on the SRI index (because Wal-Mart was removed for not being "socially-responsible"). I didn't bother switching; seeing Microsoft at the top of a list of "socially-responsible" companies convinced me that these people don't know WTF they are talking about when it comes to social responsibility.
Gates has given massive amounts of money to various charities ever since Microsoft became successful. This isn't anything new. Maybe, just maybe, Gates is a genuine philanthropist? Of course, if you already hate the man, which so many here do, you could probably never come to accept that.
Get over it. He doesn't have any alterior motives here. There's no smoke and mirrors. He's just continuing to do what he has done for decades.
Maybe, just maybe, some people here *dislike* Bill Gates because he's an underhanded underachieving lucky spoilt brat who was born with a silver spoon in mouth. Ever heard of a little test called "does the ends justify the means"? In this case you have to ask yourself: does cheating millions of people out of money (by selling an inferior product) they might have otherwise donated to charity justify you donating a paltry pittance of a percentage of that money to charity?
Personally, I don't "hate" Bill Gates. I try not to hate anyone, even those who would make themselves my enemy. At the same time I disapprove of Bill Gates' tactics and actions through Microsoft, and think that he doesn't deserve the money he has. I am glad he's donating a large chunk of money to help solve a problem that affects us as a species, but I do believe he is only doing it because a) he wants to improve his public image and b) his wife is making him (contrary to your beliefs, Gates hasn't been donating to charity "ever since Microsoft became successful" or "for decades"; he had to get married to Melinda before that happened).
Along with Google's own programs, such as Google Toolbar and Google Earth, Google Pack contains Firefox, Adobe Reader, a six month subscription to Norton Antivirus, and Trillian as well as other apps. Any respectable/. user should have most of this suite installed already (excluding a few things)
Hmm, guess I'm not "respectable" then. First and foremost, I don't need a virus scanner (running GNU/Linux), and even if I did, it wouldn't be Norton AntiVirus (ClamAV comes to mind). Second, a lot of Google's own programs are not available for GNU/Linux, and even if they were, they would have to be packaged for Debian (it's a mighty rare piece of software that I am willing to install without a Debian package). Thirdly, Trillian? Is that even available for GNU/Linux? GAIM meets both requirements above (GNU/Linux native, packaged for Debian) and does the same as Trillian. Don't even get me started on Adobe and their hellspawn that is PDF.
Let's see, that leaves Firefox, and thanks to Debian, I already have that. I like what Google has done to improve the search engine marketplace, but any "respectable" slashdot reader would be running GNU/Linux or *BSD and already have better and Freer alternatives to the above installed.
There is no shades of grey in those acts. They were and are evil acts.
Duh! I don't think he was saying that there are no completely "good" or completely "evil" _acts_, per se. I think he was saying that there is very rarely such a thing as a completely "good" or completely "evil" person. One of my favorite quotes:
No people are all bad, just as none are all good.
-- Tecumseh, (Shawnee) to his nephew Spemica Lawba 1790
On the flip side, I've seen a signature around here that says that "black and white are also shades of gray."
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is exactly because it is so rare to find someone who is "completely evil", nevermind the possibility that wrongfully convicted innocents can and have been executed via the due process of law.
I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. I originally switched to Linux because OS/2 was dying and Linux was (and still is) technologically superior to the other alternatives. Now, I would run Linux and other OSS even if they sucked donkey cock. Why? Because they are truly Free. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust any company that takes the attitude of "it's our precious source code, and we can't let the nassssty customers steal it!". If they don't have the decency to release source code under a Free license, fuck 'em. I've seen the light. My eyes are open. And because of that I avoid closed source software whenever possible.
Probably the Stupidest Thing Google has done yet
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 1
If Google buys Opera, it would be (IMHO) the stupidest thing they've done yet. Considering all the smart moves they've made so far, that's not saying much. But why buy Opera when they can just take Firefox and rebrand it for free? Especially when Firefox is an (arguably) superior browser?
No, but they usually have more substance than, "I loved it, anyone who doesn't is stoopid!"
All reviews are opinions.
Not entirely true. A review is not _just_ an opinion. It may essentially boil down to an opinion, but a good review actually dissects a movie and tells you why it's good or bad. Most reviews are just opinions with hand-waving, but for instance The Filthy Critic's review of "Aeon Flux" picks it apart deftly. Hidden beneath that veneer of filth is a critic who knows his shit, even if he is fictional.
This guy who can do nothing but defend "Aeon Flux" by saying other people are to stupid to "get it" is just a moron fan-boy. His "review" is a tale, told by an idiot (him), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Those who review films for a living are notoriously unreliable, and in many cases, they miss the whole point altogether. Rest assured, even though I'm as skeptical as they come, and can find a flaw in absolutely anything, I won't pick on this movie simply because the plot may be too hard for some people to understand.
Right, those critics and "some people" (anyone who doesn't like the movie) are just too stupid to get it. Tell you what, when you're done kissing Hollywood's ass like most critics do, why don't you go to The Filthy Critic and see how a real movie review is written. He may be a bit profane, but he's honest and incisive (even if he is a fictional character) He's the only critic I trust, and I've discovered more than a few good movies due to his reviews.
I am what I would consider a "security savvy professional", and I have to say that making people change passwords is the most time-wasting, useless, feel good security measure ever. You know why? Because people will pick easy to remember (and easier to crack) passwords rather than good passwords when they won't have time to memorize a good one. Or to look at it another way: why pick a good password when you are just going to be forced to change it? I know this is true, because I have experienced it from the other side; I am a user who is forced to change his password on a regular basis. On those accounts which force me to change my password (usually every 6 months), I won't even try to pick a good password. I'll pick one that meets the bare minimum requirements, because I'm just going to have to change it again in another six months. Why bother trying to create a good password?
On the other hand, on systems I administer, I don't have expiring passwords. I pick passwords that are 20 characters long and look like line noise. Sure, it's harder to memorize them, but I have more _time_ to memorize them because I never have to change them.
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't elected the first time, he was appointed, and it's doubtful he would have won the election the second time (if you can call winning by less than the margin for error winning) if he hadn't been the incumbent. Not to mention all the questionable incidents surrounding both elections. Can you say "rigged voting"? I knew you could.
(Note: I am not anti-republican; I am anti-people-who-shouldn't-be-trusted-with-public-
You know, I'll bet somebody said the *exact* same thing about the original GPL. And look where the FSF is now! Nobody is talking about them . . . oh, wait.
Really? What evidence do you have for this? Because it doesn't black out for me.
Yes, it is silly to label anyone evil - which is why most of the people doing this labeling are usually silly (read as: extremists). If you pair up the extremists on the one side calling pro-lifer's "anti-women" with the extremist pro-lifer's (who are anti-women), it makes a lot more sense. But all things being fair, I'll interpret your above statement as being the opposite of "if you're not with us, you're against us"
Which is why some of us can't figure out why this guy is still president - it doesn't make sense!
Unless he's misinformed. Or power hungry. Or maybe he just wants a blow job. Any of these excuses have served bad president's in the past. You're making the fallacy of assuming that because a man is president that he is perfect or will at least do the right thing. I'll agree with you that there is disagreement as to what is best for the country, but I think there is a general consensus, and time will tell, that many of the things George Bush is doing is wrong and bad for the country.
Okay, mister smartypants, why has George Bush and his administration been censoring, abusing, and generally misusing science? Because I sure as hell can't see why any sane and rational person would do these things.
Oh, there are arguments alright. I've just not heard any intelligent ones yet.
So when she does, she can be blocked as well.
No, this is exceedingly fair and open-minded, considering that the blocks will be removed in a week's time. They abused the system; therefore their access to abuse that system has been denied. It happens all the time, and not just to congress, but to most of the idiots abusing the system. Besides, it's their toy, they can do what they want with it.
I highly doubt it (2000, btw).
Really? And how many people suffer from these conditions? Maybe it's not widely reported because it doesn't happen very often. Granted it happens, but it's rare.
Perhaps results haven't been stellar because people haven't actually been getting more exercise and eating less? People are lazy and people are too busy to change their lifestyles, so they say their last diet failed, when they actually failed to stick to it. I'll grant you that there are other factors which help or hinder keeping a healthy weight, and maybe some virus is one of them; but the statistical probability of most obese people having this virus and having it gone unnoticed is very small. It comes down to which is more likely: that someone is fat because they've been eating too much and not getting enough exercise, or they have some previously unknown virus. Me, I'll bet on laziness and food cravings nine times out of ten. I know that's why I'm out of shape.
Of course fat people don't want to be fat; but most people suffer from an incredible lack of forward thinking, as in thinking into the future.
Yes I can. People think and live in the now; they think "mmm, this tastes good, I'm hungry, I'll eat some more". They don't think about the consequences until it's too late. As the old adage goes, you never miss your health when it's good. I mean, seriously, how many people have you seen read the nutrition label or ask for nutrition information at a fast food joint _before_ they eat their meal or order it?
Again, they are probably at one end of the bell curve labeled "mentally ill", and while weight loss won't cure them, it's a good start on treating the symptoms and removing stimulus which only encourage the mental illnes.
Actually, I live in the USA too, and I think all of the above are evil. Just because you live in a country doesn't mean you agree with it's policies, even in a so called democratic republic. I've written my representatives telling them of my disapproval of the death penalty and pre-emptive strikes. I can't see what more I can do short of something physically forceful which a) is against my philosophies and b) would accomplish nothing.
I know you were addressing the unwashed masses in general, but no, I did not support evil when I bought the diamond for my wife's engagement ring. Sure, it cost a bit more, but it was worth it to me. I'm fairly certain that the Canadians don't allow child slave labor, even for diamond mining.
The point is, "do no evil"
You are mistaken. Agnostics have been using this "middle ground" to try to claim some sort of moral high ground for years, and all it does is confuse the crap out of everyone. It comes down to this: there are people, such as myself, who neither believe or disbelieve in the supernatural; we base our worldview on what we can observe and what can be proven scientifically. You can call us what you want; we call ourselves atheists, and history and etymology support our use of this word as the correct one.
Perhaps; there are zealots everywhere. I could use the old christian dodge of "they aren't really atheists", but the truth is that atheism covers a whole lot of types of people. Here's a clue, though: it's "a" as in "anti" and "theism" as in "belief", so anyone that believes someone is an idiot, fool or evil just because they are religious is not truly an atheist.
Heh, I was tempted to call bullshit, but then I realized it probably comes down to this: you probably live in an area that's more geared towards atheism. Try living in a military base town, where there are probably more churches per capita than most other towns, no Jewish synagogues and no Moslem mosques.
And I might add that you reveal your bias in your statements: there is nothing wrong with getting drunk, playing poker for real money or going out and partying all night; as well, there is nothing wrong with teaching kids in Sunday school class, and I've never lived somewhere (even when I was in more atheist climes) where saying that out loud would get you snubbed. Where the hell are you living?
No, actually I feel _less_ safe because of things like this. I'm still halfway tempted to go to cafepress.com and get a bumper sticker that says "Welcome to the United States of Jesusland. Please don't upset the sheeple, as that may lead to them bombing innocents in a country where they think you once lived." But then I keep reminding myself there's nowhere to put a bumper sticker on my bicycle.
Second, it's a tool. It's not good, bad or anything in between; it can be used for good or bad, much as any tool can.
Third, it's different from other kinds of tools. Most tools throughout human history were created to modify matter in some way. Computers modify information. More importantly, they can take certain types of information (instructions) and follow them to become a more specialized tool.
Ghost? 'cause that's the one I consider more "disposeable".
Why not Carmack? He's done more to advance the state of the art in gaming than most people.
I'm no fan of racism or prejudice of any kind, and I know it still happens a lot, but unless you can prove that someone tweaked the system specifically to link these movies together, and rather the system didn't just sift their relation out of the morass of data that is customer tracking, I'm gonna have a hard time believing this is racist.
Oh, and your post speaks volumes about the prejudices you harbor. Slashdot readers can't get offended because of their ignorance or unfamiliarity with minorities? Are you being racist and saying all slashdot readers are not minorities? Maybe slashdot readers just don't get offended as easily as other people, or they just don't think it's worth it to get upset over something that was probably an accident.
Chill out, cool down, and maybe focus on some more important issues
A bit off-topic, but I was looking into SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) the other day, and found an SRI index that I could switch my IRA to. The main difference between it and the regular S&P500 index? Wal-Mart was number one on the company list for S&P500, Microsoft was number one on the SRI index (because Wal-Mart was removed for not being "socially-responsible"). I didn't bother switching; seeing Microsoft at the top of a list of "socially-responsible" companies convinced me that these people don't know WTF they are talking about when it comes to social responsibility.
Maybe, just maybe, some people here *dislike* Bill Gates because he's an underhanded underachieving lucky spoilt brat who was born with a silver spoon in mouth. Ever heard of a little test called "does the ends justify the means"? In this case you have to ask yourself: does cheating millions of people out of money (by selling an inferior product) they might have otherwise donated to charity justify you donating a paltry pittance of a percentage of that money to charity?
Personally, I don't "hate" Bill Gates. I try not to hate anyone, even those who would make themselves my enemy. At the same time I disapprove of Bill Gates' tactics and actions through Microsoft, and think that he doesn't deserve the money he has. I am glad he's donating a large chunk of money to help solve a problem that affects us as a species, but I do believe he is only doing it because a) he wants to improve his public image and b) his wife is making him (contrary to your beliefs, Gates hasn't been donating to charity "ever since Microsoft became successful" or "for decades"; he had to get married to Melinda before that happened).
Hmm, guess I'm not "respectable" then. First and foremost, I don't need a virus scanner (running GNU/Linux), and even if I did, it wouldn't be Norton AntiVirus (ClamAV comes to mind). Second, a lot of Google's own programs are not available for GNU/Linux, and even if they were, they would have to be packaged for Debian (it's a mighty rare piece of software that I am willing to install without a Debian package). Thirdly, Trillian? Is that even available for GNU/Linux? GAIM meets both requirements above (GNU/Linux native, packaged for Debian) and does the same as Trillian. Don't even get me started on Adobe and their hellspawn that is PDF.
Let's see, that leaves Firefox, and thanks to Debian, I already have that. I like what Google has done to improve the search engine marketplace, but any "respectable" slashdot reader would be running GNU/Linux or *BSD and already have better and Freer alternatives to the above installed.
Duh! I don't think he was saying that there are no completely "good" or completely "evil" _acts_, per se. I think he was saying that there is very rarely such a thing as a completely "good" or completely "evil" person. One of my favorite quotes:
On the flip side, I've seen a signature around here that says that "black and white are also shades of gray."
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is exactly because it is so rare to find someone who is "completely evil", nevermind the possibility that wrongfully convicted innocents can and have been executed via the due process of law.
I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. I originally switched to Linux because OS/2 was dying and Linux was (and still is) technologically superior to the other alternatives. Now, I would run Linux and other OSS even if they sucked donkey cock. Why? Because they are truly Free. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust any company that takes the attitude of "it's our precious source code, and we can't let the nassssty customers steal it!". If they don't have the decency to release source code under a Free license, fuck 'em. I've seen the light. My eyes are open. And because of that I avoid closed source software whenever possible.
If Google buys Opera, it would be (IMHO) the stupidest thing they've done yet. Considering all the smart moves they've made so far, that's not saying much. But why buy Opera when they can just take Firefox and rebrand it for free? Especially when Firefox is an (arguably) superior browser?
No, but they usually have more substance than, "I loved it, anyone who doesn't is stoopid!"
Not entirely true. A review is not _just_ an opinion. It may essentially boil down to an opinion, but a good review actually dissects a movie and tells you why it's good or bad. Most reviews are just opinions with hand-waving, but for instance The Filthy Critic's review of "Aeon Flux" picks it apart deftly. Hidden beneath that veneer of filth is a critic who knows his shit, even if he is fictional.
This guy who can do nothing but defend "Aeon Flux" by saying other people are to stupid to "get it" is just a moron fan-boy. His "review" is a tale, told by an idiot (him), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Right, those critics and "some people" (anyone who doesn't like the movie) are just too stupid to get it. Tell you what, when you're done kissing Hollywood's ass like most critics do, why don't you go to The Filthy Critic and see how a real movie review is written. He may be a bit profane, but he's honest and incisive (even if he is a fictional character) He's the only critic I trust, and I've discovered more than a few good movies due to his reviews.
On the other hand, on systems I administer, I don't have expiring passwords. I pick passwords that are 20 characters long and look like line noise. Sure, it's harder to memorize them, but I have more _time_ to memorize them because I never have to change them.
Isn't that the same thing as dishonest?