First off, I have come to the rather suprising discovery that the mythical beast "the liberal media" seems to be largely an invention of Limbaughtomites.
I graduated from college last year. During this final year of freed^H^H^H^H^Hschool, I subscribed to the Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the San Jose Mercury. What was astounding to me was the similarity between these publications. Rarely did one paper carry something substantial the others did not, although the Mercury was more likely to do so than the others. And by and large the tone of each of these papers was the same: bemoan the latest bloodcrime, force-feed the reader what horrible things the right is alledging the Clinton administration has done, do feel-good "environmental" stories on new-fangled technologies that might come into play 10 years from now, do endless stories on the morality of children and "7th Heaven" feel good bullshit, and generally make one great-big circle-jerk of reactionary journalism. Oh yes, and actually publish (in the case of the DMN) letters to the editor complaining about the lingerie ads and how they are tempting our children to be promiscuous.
If newspapers want to survive they should take a hint from the popularity of Gov. Jesse Ventura. Newspapers are equally as guilty as our elected officials when it comes to meekly cowering when controversy arises. People (i.e.: readers) respect you when you take a principled stand. Newspapers seem to have fallen prey to the up-with-big-business hate-democracy hate-libruhls mindset that has so captured the Republican party. This paradigm is advanced by powerful people, but they do not represent America as a whole. Evidence can, as I mentioned earlier, be seen for this in the election of Gov. Ventura, as well as Sen. McCain's victory in Michigan yesterday.
If newspapers want to survive, they must act out of principle. I'm not sure that this is possible, however, because the forces arrayed against the so-called liberal media are vast and angry. When newspapers take risks they upset those people who prefer the comfort of the familiar. Progressive ideas are therefore shunned (somewhat involuntarily, I'm sure), leading to a stagnation of ideas and of the paper itself.
One thing I did notice that these papers shined brightest when they focused on local issues. These stories made me want to get involved, even though the events happened far away geographically. The national media covers national events; local papers -- with the possible exception of the NYT -- should concern themselves primarily with local issues. This will get people to read the paper more frequently; national issues are covered in innumerable other sources.
Oh yes, and I do whack of to the lingerie ads. Keep those in there, especially if said has has Laetitia Casta. Mmmm. Scrum-dilly-um-scious!
Ok, so let me get thi straight: you're saying that a "single sip of the evil" can cause you to loose all of your knowledge regarding computers, including basic musuclar function such as the ability to type?
1) What the hell is "the evil"? I assume you mean alcohol. Are you Mormon, or otherwise fed anti-mindalteringsubstances propaganda on a regular basis?
2) The following statement is TRUTH: There are millions of successful people who have done, and continue to do, various mind altering drugs including LSD, marijuana, alcohol, X, and others. Heroin is bad. LSD is not heroin. Therefore, LSD is not necessarily bad. In fact, LSD is good. Remember that. LSD is good.
3) Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones is still alive and jamming. Explain that, please.
Here is your mantra for the next week: "Drugs have done good things for some people." Think over this statement. Also, ask yourself the following questions: Why are these people, who seem to be fairly intelligent even if some of them use Windows, defending drug use? Why? What is in it for them? Why would they encourage me to take drugs if they aren't selling them to me?
<ends> - Rev. "The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that I'd fuck a Democrat." - Sarah Michelle Gellar
As an undergrad, I had to do a rather extensive research paper in my neuropsychology class. For my topic I chose the exact subject you are speaking of: supposed "permanent trippers" who take one hit of acid and are foreverafter tripping. My prof had heard the same stories, and after discussing with him I delved into the medical records.
To make a long story short, there were no documented cases of permanent trippers. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence, but as far as ER room admissions, documented psychiatric cases, or other hard-sources, there was no evidence at all. None. Zero.
In fact, no study has ever been able to find differences between LSD users (current or former) and the general non-LSD using population.
Sorry, but as must as they talk about geeks being the "soccer moms of the 2000 election", none of these gents seems to be a good match for my tastes.
George W: No moratorium on net taxes. Too close to the fundies.
McCain: Apparently isn't troubled too much by the CDA and its ilk
Bauer, Keyes, Hatch, etc: Oh yeah. They fit in with my libertarian views perfectly. Please note the dripping sarcasm.
Gore: Invented the Internet? Oh dear Bob.
Bradley: Maybe. Maybe maybe.
The choices in a Presidential election are never very good. But I can tell you this: my vote ain't goin to a 'Publican. I'm tired of all those Christian fucks pushing their totalitarian moral agendas and the Republican party has too many of 'em on board.
Does this indicate Macromedia is shedding some enthusiasm for the SVG format? Flash is already the de facto vector graphics standard. I understand and appreciate the fact that the W3C (with reps from Macromedia as members of the working group) is working on a standard for vector graphics, but I don't think it will ever take off, especially if Macromedia does open-source the Flash format.
I understand there are philsophical differences between SVG and Flash, but I just can't find any benefits to using SVG. Flash is small, comes with the browser, and very powerful.
Thanks W3C for all your work, but if this article is true then it will all have been in vain. Maybe the Flash format will change in the future to incorporate the XML DOM so that it will be more in line with what the W3C is shooting for, but who knows?
I think I understand why your bio teacher felt the way he did. Biological systems are so complex and intricate, with so many seperate systems working in tandem, it is difficult NOT to see the hand of an intelligent Creator in them. I only took two semesters of bio in college, and even I, atheist that I am, was awed. It caused me to seriously wonder.
But then I came to my senses. Daniel Dennett uses the analogy of "cranes" and "skyhooks." Cranes are, well, cranes. Physical entities used to build something. Skyhooks are cranes suspended in the sky by some mystical force. His point was that there are cranes all the way back, in every system, and that no skyhooks are needed to explain any biological behavior, no matter how complex.
It would have been easy to discount him were there not so many examples to back it up. Yes, biology (and the universe itself) is an extremely, extremely complex system. But complexity, no matter how beautiful, does not lead to God. It is simply complex, not divine.
Wait. I have a question. This football player guy who got stuck in the Taco Bell window... He pleaded innocent, verdad?.
How the HELL can he have the cajones to plead innocent? HE WAS IN THE WINDOW! "It wuddint me! I sweah!" Oh man. I can just see some pencil-neck lawyer "well yer honor, my client was actually impersonated by a crazed fan who just happens to have the exact same proportions. Notice that my client passed the lie detector test, and DNA results were inconclusive. The employees were hiding in the back the entire time, and never got a clear view of him."
Someone with more dedication than me and less of a life please tell me this doesn't fly. Please. My faith in the system is rattled enough as it is.
I enjoy reading about Creationists, et al, if only because they make me feel so much better about myself. "As bad as my life is, at least I'm not completely brainwashed like these bozos." And hey, we all enjoy a good ego boost now and then. - rev
If this is really a big issue (which I personally feel it is), then just lie through your teeth whenever a gummint agency gives you one of these personality tests. Bring your portable RNG & bubble in what it gives you. Honesty to tax collectors (or BATF agents) is a sign of a weak mind.
I find nothing wrong with lying in situations like this. And the "it's for your own good" reasoning is, pardon me, total fucking bullshit. In fact, I think that in this situation lying is MORE good than telling the truth. There is no reason for governments to give you a psychological evaluation, especially when the only criteria is "you are under voting age."
Fuck that. I'm with Katz on this one. And I don't really care if he is overdramatizing the situation, because the idea of the USG giving sweeping personality exams scares the hell out of me. These are the same people that, believe it or not, were responsible for killing a bunch of people in Waco. Remember that? And we're supposed to let them give our youth psychological evaluations? No, I just don't think so.
Here's my advice: Lie through your fucking teeth. There is absolutely NO GOOD REASON that anyone should be forced to go through this shit. None. We are humans, not mindless drones subject to the whims of a capricious government. They can make you take the test but they can NOT make you tell the truth.
"But but but it's for my own good!" NO IT ISN'T. It is to satisfy some three-lettered gummint agency and the politics that go with it. Be free. Lie. Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie. Lie.
From what I've seen from Katz, he has generally protested official (read, "sanctioned") persecution of geeks, free speech, et al. This does not necessarily mean that he thinks religion is a good thing. It's the whole "I might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" thing.
And if Katz won't say that Judaism, Hinduism, etc., is moronic, then I will. ALL religions are based upon voices in your head telling you what to do. End of story. BUT we're not supposed to say that because we might, ooo, offend someone.
Of course, in the process, truth gets tossed out the window. But hey, at least we're all playing nice-nice with each other.
What if, over the course of evolution, nature really did make the brain as small as possible to be a self-aware self-replicating self-gratifying machine? To put it more finely, what if the smallest possible machine that can do all of the functions the human brain can do is *exactly* the same size as our current equipment? That, on some quantum level, our brains are tee-totally perfectomundo and cannot be made any better, at least while serving the same purpose(s).
Nature tends to design efficiently. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we ran up against some physics barriers while trying to make an AI. Which I guess is what I'm talking about and not really nanotechnology so I guess I'm just totally off topic here all of a sudden.
Hmm.. Maybe. And BTW, I have read Rand: Fountainhead, Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, etc. BUT I don't think she's the end-all be-all of economic or humanistic philosophy. I might have oversimplified, but I think Rand was also guilty of the same. Selfishness might be a virtue (and altruism an illusion), but this is not a healthy lifestyle to lead long-term. Her philosophy only tangetially covers things like beauty and love, which I find to be a rather egregious oversight.
It is just too damn early to be using words like "egregious." I'm going to stop now.
[beep] I am Randroid. Any who oppose me are morons. Rand was Goddess. Goddess is Rand. L. Ron Hubbard is pipsqueek sideshow freak compared to immense brain of Rand. Assimilation of weak willed Rand-haters will occur at coming religious armageddon-type event. [beep]
This will get moderated down, but I honestly don't care.
I find it fascinating that so many of the comments here have focused upon Carmack's ethics as a programmer. This is something that is difficult to maintain in a world that changes as quickly as ours does. Shortcuts and kludges are easy to do, and chances are they will frequently make our bosses happy. Standards, while they exist, sometimes get in the way more than they help.
But Carmack is a prime example of how to maintain the balance between ethics and slick code. Ethics in programming is not easily defined, but I think it goes hand-in-hand with the focus he spoke of. He is dedicated to making a superior game engine. And while Ayn Rand might say his motives are purely capitalistic, I'm not so sure this is the case. He just happened to make a crapload of money doing what he does, but that doesn't mean it's his motivation.
The ironic thing about it is that I doubt he plays Quake nearly as much as most people do. He doesn't seem to write good games because he enjoys playing them. He writes it because he simply likes to write good code.
This led me to a thought. People have been spoonfed the emotions that they are supposed to have for so long that they no longer have the imagination to scare the living shit out of themselves. I personally find it pathetic.
CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP
I totally and 100% agree. It wasn't a gorefest. It wasn't special-effects-central. It wasn't "BOO!" every ten fucking minutes. It wasn't "I fucked her to death with razor blades" turn your stomach.
It WAS minimalist. It DID require imagination. I feel sorry for those out there who don't get that.
Oh my god. You didn't like the movie because the FISHERMEN weren't real enough? How fucking pathetic is that? Jesus H. Christ in a chariot driven sidecar, man! And yet at the same time you claim to suspend your disbelief.. Hmm.. And this here pot is black, saith the kettle. LOOOOOsah.
And I am 99% certain that if you see "Eyes Wide Shut", "Sout Park", or "The Matrix" that your developmental process will not be murderously hindered. It's all a battle of memes.
But what if the parents ARE ok with their kids seeing the movie? Personally, I would allow my kids to see it if they were over the age of about 13. The simple reason for this is that I disagree with the conventional wisdom which says that "movies can cause bad behavior". This is balderdash. And Jon was making the point that the theater wouldn't let those kids see the movie even though it was their MOTHER who was buying the freaking tickets for them! Not letting them see it because she wouldn't stay with them is childish in the extreme. It's not a note from mom saying it's ok, it's MOM for christ's sake.
I do not subscribe to your same value system. You have no right to impose it upon me or my children. Go away. Your Christian-talk-radio blather carries no weight with me. Few people are buying your "family values" or "religious discrimination" crap. Don't like the movie? Don't see it. And don't whine about it either. You just look like a big wuss.
I think that you might have started reading Wired too late in the game
Early on, Wired was full of essays by visionairies, philosophers, and artists. It had articles that, while somtimes outrageous, made you think. Sometimes you agreed, sometimes you disagreed, but you were always stimulated mentally. It had articles on Extropians, Burning Man, and other fringe-intellegensia elements. No one else did this, especially with the panache and artistry the contributers had.
Wired had the soul of the sixties with the body of the digital era. Laissez faire libertarianism had replaced the hippy socialism of the 60's, but the same spirit of idealism was evident. Negroponte, Katz, and Kelly all contributed to this. Sometimes the feeling of revolution became burdensome, but it was always catching.
I disagree with Jon on one thing: I do not think that the revolution made possible by the Internet has fully completed. At least, I hope not. There is still room to grow beyond grandma emailing her family.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I have come to the rather suprising discovery that the mythical beast "the liberal media" seems to be largely an invention of Limbaughtomites.
I graduated from college last year. During this final year of freed^H^H^H^H^Hschool, I subscribed to the Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the San Jose Mercury. What was astounding to me was the similarity between these publications. Rarely did one paper carry something substantial the others did not, although the Mercury was more likely to do so than the others. And by and large the tone of each of these papers was the same: bemoan the latest bloodcrime, force-feed the reader what horrible things the right is alledging the Clinton administration has done, do feel-good "environmental" stories on new-fangled technologies that might come into play 10 years from now, do endless stories on the morality of children and "7th Heaven" feel good bullshit, and generally make one great-big circle-jerk of reactionary journalism. Oh yes, and actually publish (in the case of the DMN) letters to the editor complaining about the lingerie ads and how they are tempting our children to be promiscuous.
If newspapers want to survive they should take a hint from the popularity of Gov. Jesse Ventura. Newspapers are equally as guilty as our elected officials when it comes to meekly cowering when controversy arises. People (i.e.: readers) respect you when you take a principled stand. Newspapers seem to have fallen prey to the up-with-big-business hate-democracy hate-libruhls mindset that has so captured the Republican party. This paradigm is advanced by powerful people, but they do not represent America as a whole. Evidence can, as I mentioned earlier, be seen for this in the election of Gov. Ventura, as well as Sen. McCain's victory in Michigan yesterday.
If newspapers want to survive, they must act out of principle. I'm not sure that this is possible, however, because the forces arrayed against the so-called liberal media are vast and angry. When newspapers take risks they upset those people who prefer the comfort of the familiar. Progressive ideas are therefore shunned (somewhat involuntarily, I'm sure), leading to a stagnation of ideas and of the paper itself.
One thing I did notice that these papers shined brightest when they focused on local issues. These stories made me want to get involved, even though the events happened far away geographically. The national media covers national events; local papers -- with the possible exception of the NYT -- should concern themselves primarily with local issues. This will get people to read the paper more frequently; national issues are covered in innumerable other sources.
Oh yes, and I do whack of to the lingerie ads. Keep those in there, especially if said has has Laetitia Casta. Mmmm. Scrum-dilly-um-scious!
Ok, so let me get thi straight: you're saying that a "single sip of the evil" can cause you to loose all of your knowledge regarding computers, including basic musuclar function such as the ability to type?
1) What the hell is "the evil"? I assume you mean alcohol. Are you Mormon, or otherwise fed anti-mindalteringsubstances propaganda on a regular basis?
2) The following statement is TRUTH: There are millions of successful people who have done, and continue to do, various mind altering drugs including LSD, marijuana, alcohol, X, and others. Heroin is bad. LSD is not heroin. Therefore, LSD is not necessarily bad. In fact, LSD is good. Remember that. LSD is good.
3) Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones is still alive and jamming. Explain that, please.
Here is your mantra for the next week: "Drugs have done good things for some people." Think over this statement. Also, ask yourself the following questions: Why are these people, who seem to be fairly intelligent even if some of them use Windows, defending drug use? Why? What is in it for them? Why would they encourage me to take drugs if they aren't selling them to me?
<ends> - Rev."The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that I'd fuck a Democrat." - Sarah Michelle Gellar
Sorry, but this is total bunk.
As an undergrad, I had to do a rather extensive research paper in my neuropsychology class. For my topic I chose the exact subject you are speaking of: supposed "permanent trippers" who take one hit of acid and are foreverafter tripping. My prof had heard the same stories, and after discussing with him I delved into the medical records.
To make a long story short, there were no documented cases of permanent trippers. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence, but as far as ER room admissions, documented psychiatric cases, or other hard-sources, there was no evidence at all. None. Zero.
In fact, no study has ever been able to find differences between LSD users (current or former) and the general non-LSD using population.
LSD is safer than baby aspirin.
- Rev.Sorry, but as must as they talk about geeks being the "soccer moms of the 2000 election", none of these gents seems to be a good match for my tastes.
George W: No moratorium on net taxes. Too close to the fundies.
McCain: Apparently isn't troubled too much by the CDA and its ilk
Bauer, Keyes, Hatch, etc: Oh yeah. They fit in with my libertarian views perfectly. Please note the dripping sarcasm.
Gore: Invented the Internet? Oh dear Bob.
Bradley: Maybe. Maybe maybe.
The choices in a Presidential election are never very good. But I can tell you this: my vote ain't goin to a 'Publican. I'm tired of all those Christian fucks pushing their totalitarian moral agendas and the Republican party has too many of 'em on board.
Does this indicate Macromedia is shedding some enthusiasm for the SVG format? Flash is already the de facto vector graphics standard. I understand and appreciate the fact that the W3C (with reps from Macromedia as members of the working group) is working on a standard for vector graphics, but I don't think it will ever take off, especially if Macromedia does open-source the Flash format.
I understand there are philsophical differences between SVG and Flash, but I just can't find any benefits to using SVG. Flash is small, comes with the browser, and very powerful.
Thanks W3C for all your work, but if this article is true then it will all have been in vain. Maybe the Flash format will change in the future to incorporate the XML DOM so that it will be more in line with what the W3C is shooting for, but who knows?
I think I understand why your bio teacher felt the way he did. Biological systems are so complex and intricate, with so many seperate systems working in tandem, it is difficult NOT to see the hand of an intelligent Creator in them. I only took two semesters of bio in college, and even I, atheist that I am, was awed. It caused me to seriously wonder.
But then I came to my senses. Daniel Dennett uses the analogy of "cranes" and "skyhooks." Cranes are, well, cranes. Physical entities used to build something. Skyhooks are cranes suspended in the sky by some mystical force. His point was that there are cranes all the way back, in every system, and that no skyhooks are needed to explain any biological behavior, no matter how complex.
It would have been easy to discount him were there not so many examples to back it up. Yes, biology (and the universe itself) is an extremely, extremely complex system. But complexity, no matter how beautiful, does not lead to God. It is simply complex, not divine.
Wait. I have a question. This football player guy who got stuck in the Taco Bell window... He pleaded innocent, verdad?.
How the HELL can he have the cajones to plead innocent? HE WAS IN THE WINDOW! "It wuddint me! I sweah!" Oh man. I can just see some pencil-neck lawyer "well yer honor, my client was actually impersonated by a crazed fan who just happens to have the exact same proportions. Notice that my client passed the lie detector test, and DNA results were inconclusive. The employees were hiding in the back the entire time, and never got a clear view of him."
Someone with more dedication than me and less of a life please tell me this doesn't fly. Please. My faith in the system is rattled enough as it is.
Oy chalupa.
- Rev.I enjoy reading about Creationists, et al, if only because they make me feel so much better about myself. "As bad as my life is, at least I'm not completely brainwashed like these bozos." And hey, we all enjoy a good ego boost now and then. - rev
If this is really a big issue (which I personally feel it is), then just lie through your teeth whenever a gummint agency gives you one of these personality tests. Bring your portable RNG & bubble in what it gives you. Honesty to tax collectors (or BATF agents) is a sign of a weak mind.
I find nothing wrong with lying in situations like this. And the "it's for your own good" reasoning is, pardon me, total fucking bullshit. In fact, I think that in this situation lying is MORE good than telling the truth. There is no reason for governments to give you a psychological evaluation, especially when the only criteria is "you are under voting age."
Fuck that. I'm with Katz on this one. And I don't really care if he is overdramatizing the situation, because the idea of the USG giving sweeping personality exams scares the hell out of me. These are the same people that, believe it or not, were responsible for killing a bunch of people in Waco. Remember that? And we're supposed to let them give our youth psychological evaluations? No, I just don't think so.
Innocent until proven guilty,
- RevHere's my advice: Lie through your fucking teeth. There is absolutely NO GOOD REASON that anyone should be forced to go through this shit. None. We are humans, not mindless drones subject to the whims of a capricious government. They can make you take the test but they can NOT make you tell the truth.
"But but but it's for my own good!" NO IT ISN'T. It is to satisfy some three-lettered gummint agency and the politics that go with it. Be free. Lie. Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie. Lie.
- Rev.
From what I've seen from Katz, he has generally protested official (read, "sanctioned") persecution of geeks, free speech, et al. This does not necessarily mean that he thinks religion is a good thing. It's the whole "I might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" thing.
And if Katz won't say that Judaism, Hinduism, etc., is moronic, then I will. ALL religions are based upon voices in your head telling you what to do. End of story. BUT we're not supposed to say that because we might, ooo, offend someone.
Of course, in the process, truth gets tossed out the window. But hey, at least we're all playing nice-nice with each other.
- Rev.What if, over the course of evolution, nature really did make the brain as small as possible to be a self-aware self-replicating self-gratifying machine? To put it more finely, what if the smallest possible machine that can do all of the functions the human brain can do is *exactly* the same size as our current equipment? That, on some quantum level, our brains are tee-totally perfectomundo and cannot be made any better, at least while serving the same purpose(s).
Nature tends to design efficiently. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we ran up against some physics barriers while trying to make an AI. Which I guess is what I'm talking about and not really nanotechnology so I guess I'm just totally off topic here all of a sudden.
- Rev. ScatHmm.. Maybe. And BTW, I have read Rand: Fountainhead, Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, etc. BUT I don't think she's the end-all be-all of economic or humanistic philosophy. I might have oversimplified, but I think Rand was also guilty of the same. Selfishness might be a virtue (and altruism an illusion), but this is not a healthy lifestyle to lead long-term. Her philosophy only tangetially covers things like beauty and love, which I find to be a rather egregious oversight.
It is just too damn early to be using words like "egregious." I'm going to stop now.
- Rev[beep] I am Randroid. Any who oppose me are morons. Rand was Goddess. Goddess is Rand. L. Ron Hubbard is pipsqueek sideshow freak compared to immense brain of Rand. Assimilation of weak willed Rand-haters will occur at coming religious armageddon-type event. [beep]
This will get moderated down, but I honestly don't care.
I find it fascinating that so many of the comments here have focused upon Carmack's ethics as a programmer. This is something that is difficult to maintain in a world that changes as quickly as ours does. Shortcuts and kludges are easy to do, and chances are they will frequently make our bosses happy. Standards, while they exist, sometimes get in the way more than they help.
But Carmack is a prime example of how to maintain the balance between ethics and slick code. Ethics in programming is not easily defined, but I think it goes hand-in-hand with the focus he spoke of. He is dedicated to making a superior game engine. And while Ayn Rand might say his motives are purely capitalistic, I'm not so sure this is the case. He just happened to make a crapload of money doing what he does, but that doesn't mean it's his motivation.
The ironic thing about it is that I doubt he plays Quake nearly as much as most people do. He doesn't seem to write good games because he enjoys playing them. He writes it because he simply likes to write good code.
This led me to a thought. People have been spoonfed the emotions that they are supposed to have for so long that they no longer have the imagination to scare the living shit out of themselves. I personally find it pathetic.
CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP
I totally and 100% agree. It wasn't a gorefest. It wasn't special-effects-central. It wasn't "BOO!" every ten fucking minutes. It wasn't "I fucked her to death with razor blades" turn your stomach.
It WAS minimalist. It DID require imagination. I feel sorry for those out there who don't get that.
Ummm... It entertained me and that other guy. We were in the audience. Therefore, it kept at least part of the audience entertained.
Hi. My name is logic. Nice to meet you.
Ummm... It entertained me and that other guy. We were in the audience. Therefore, it kept at least part of the audience entertained.
Hi. My name is logic. Nice to meet you.
Oh my god. You didn't like the movie because the FISHERMEN weren't real enough? How fucking pathetic is that? Jesus H. Christ in a chariot driven sidecar, man! And yet at the same time you claim to suspend your disbelief.. Hmm.. And this here pot is black, saith the kettle. LOOOOOsah.
And all it involves is an overthrow of the current nation-state system of governments! Let's do it!
It's about people making decisions for me when they have no business doing so. If you consider this to be trite then you might want to reconsider.
And I am 99% certain that if you see "Eyes Wide Shut", "Sout Park", or "The Matrix" that your developmental process will not be murderously hindered. It's all a battle of memes.
But what if the parents ARE ok with their kids seeing the movie? Personally, I would allow my kids to see it if they were over the age of about 13. The simple reason for this is that I disagree with the conventional wisdom which says that "movies can cause bad behavior". This is balderdash. And Jon was making the point that the theater wouldn't let those kids see the movie even though it was their MOTHER who was buying the freaking tickets for them! Not letting them see it because she wouldn't stay with them is childish in the extreme. It's not a note from mom saying it's ok, it's MOM for christ's sake.
I do not subscribe to your same value system. You have no right to impose it upon me or my children. Go away. Your Christian-talk-radio blather carries no weight with me. Few people are buying your "family values" or "religious discrimination" crap. Don't like the movie? Don't see it. And don't whine about it either. You just look like a big wuss.
I think that you might have started reading Wired too late in the game
Early on, Wired was full of essays by visionairies, philosophers, and artists. It had articles that, while somtimes outrageous, made you think. Sometimes you agreed, sometimes you disagreed, but you were always stimulated mentally. It had articles on Extropians, Burning Man, and other fringe-intellegensia elements. No one else did this, especially with the panache and artistry the contributers had.
Wired had the soul of the sixties with the body of the digital era. Laissez faire libertarianism had replaced the hippy socialism of the 60's, but the same spirit of idealism was evident. Negroponte, Katz, and Kelly all contributed to this. Sometimes the feeling of revolution became burdensome, but it was always catching.
I disagree with Jon on one thing: I do not think that the revolution made possible by the Internet has fully completed. At least, I hope not. There is still room to grow beyond grandma emailing her family.
Or maybe there's not.
Rev. Scatological Warfare