While I agree with some of the author's points regarding linguistic disagreements obscuring philosophical disagreements, and sympathize with the stated desire to bring clarity to this ongoing flamewar, the actual article spends as much time pettily denigrating the pro-GPL position as it does clarifying the disagreement, thereby undermining the substantive aspects of the argument in favor of partisan score-making.
Or, in short: good job, you've obscured any actual insight with smug self-righteousness.
Don't forget that "making it pretty" is on the same spectrum as "making it usable"... and further along the spectrum is where you're at, "making it work".
Furthermore, "prettiness" often flows from "usable", due to increased usability resulting in better approachability and clarity.
And while its true that you shouldn't have to spend much of your thought process on the specifically pretty aspects of the design, you darn well better be aware of the usability aspects of the design, as those will directly impact your work.
So don't imagine there's a bright, clear dividing line here; a functionality first, prettiness-last approach will result in working programs that people will avoid using. (Just as prettiness-first, functionality last will result in striking programs that don't work).
Wow, I couldn't disagree more - I found the effect perfectly apt to the subject matter, as it was subtly pushed and pulled to reflect the varying characters' varying states of perception/hallucination. Doing this in live action would have made the differences between reality/intoxication/hallucination bright and clear as day, and been cheesily ham-handed as a result.
Also, this approach was perfectly suited to push the similarities between the effects of the disguise suit and the drugs on the users' perceptions, something that would have been similiarly ham-handed (or completely missed) in live action.
Still, different strokes for different folks.
BTW, the term is called "rotoscoping", and it's essentially a form of assisted hand-drawn animation (they used additional software, but the baseline is drawing against a frame-by-frame film or video reference). This is NOT a "filter", it's an artistic process.
( "posterizing" is an essentially automated process giving results looking little like Scanner Darkly or any other films made using this technique. )
He's not talking about scientific/mathematical "proof" here; he's talking about looking for circumstantial evidence, which can be used in legal arguments, and (more importantly) helping the family achieve a sense of closure.
In this case, If he does NOT find any circumstantial evidence of suicidal depression/suicide planning/etc., then the family should assume that their son's death was a terrible accident, which should be dealt with in a different manner then a death by suicide. I terms of the grieving process, these sorts of unanswered questions can haunt the survivors for the rest of their lives, so any (sincere and earnest) source of closure is worthwhile.
Furthermore, this knowledge will also help guide the family in terms of dealing with the police, insurance companies, informing extended family and friends, etc.
This is a messy, human situation, not a logical proof. Don't expect that it can or should be treated as such.
IIRC the issue at stake was the fact that New Line struck "sweetheart deals" on much of the "tie-in revenues" which PJ was owed a piece of according to his contract; however, because these deals were struck with subsidiaries of New Line and/or New Lines's parent company, the overall $$ "New Line" (as opposed to the subsidiaries) the $$ that could have been made on those licenses - i.e. this was a shady way for the greater company surrounding New Line to move profits from the "New Line" section of the accounts (a %of which is owed to the cast and crew) while keeping it within the overall company.
Krugman is on the receiving end of character assassination because he's stood in opposition to the Bush presidency even when it was popular, based entirely on their policy position. He's been characterized as "shrill" due to his consistency in holding this position. Some would call this intellectual honesty in a pundit, but those who dislike his conclusions can't admit that.
Has he made a few errors? Yes, even a few doozies, which have been corrected, ad nauseum. I do believe that he's more vulnerable to fact-checking based errors because he actually works to base his columns on facts, vs. working through baseless assertion and anecdote - paging David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, and many, many others who pretend to be working in fact but instead focus on rhetoric. These "colleagues" (i.e pundits at the NYT and other top-circulated newspapers) are rarely held to the same standard that he is. It's much easier to "let them off the hook" for far more sweeping assertions because their reflecting CW, and not challenging it.
> Why don't you hop in that time machine and tell us how we're supposed to vote? In 2000, that sort of information wasn't known.
Yes, it was.
The media just chose to focus on Gore's sighs instead of Bush/Cheney's already impressive record of incompetence. Everyone who paid attention (i.e. looked beyond the headlines actually, y'know read about the politicians) recognized that Gore was the better candidate.
> And in 2004, there wasn't a genuine alternative.
Yes, there was.
Kerry was and is a competent, reasonable politician who makes decisions based on information gathering, discussion with advisors, and rational decision-making.
Bush makes decisions "with his gut" and the country's fate rests on how well his last meal agrees with him.
Now I really need to see the movie to clarify my memory, but my recollection is that the original effect they discovered was due to the chamber creating a back-and-forth oscillatio through time w/in the chamber; i.e. items within the chamber travelled back and forth through time at several times "real time" speed. By slowing down this effect to "real-time" they were able to stabilize the "exit point" to effectively aim for the beginning and ends of the "oscillation" (wrong term, I know).
As far as the "real time' aspect of time travel in the movie, it enables more interesting storytelling; without any physical or psychological restrictons on time travel, linear storytelling goes right out the window instantly; the limitations slow down this process so that the later (earlier?) actions of the characters are actually surprising, and the breakdown of linear progression is felt by the audience, rather than simply understoof.
Furthermore, it fits in with the "everyday" aesthetic of the film; they can't travel anywhere through time, they can only visit the near-present. It creates a grounding effect, and the increasingly strange events have a surreal affect, rather than a dry, cerebral one.
All that said, I can understand that te film would be disappointing from a hard SF POV, esp. as (for most film reviewers) it would be the closest thing to hard SF they would see, and they would describe it in terms creating that sort of expectation among those who are actually familiar with the genre (I sorta recall the first hard SF short story I read; it involved gravity around an unstable planet, and actually included all of the equations - plausibly!- within the story. Fun!).
> If the mold grows in a few minutes instead of a few months, why does it take 8 hours to go 8 hours back in time?
IIRC, the mold effect was a variation on the effect which they used to implement time travel - i.e. they sacrificed the faster-than-real-time-travel aspect (? great nonsense term, there) for stable control of where in the time stream they ended up.
It's been a few years since I caught this, but my recollection is that this was one of the more "engineer-oriented" aspects of the movie's style that impressed me (as a nice demonstration of the trade-offs that occur between inspiration and implementation, exactly the sort of thing that most sci-fi-tech movies bypass).
Also, I think the movie works on two levels - the very well written-and-acted level of the main characters and their character arcs, and the incremental revelations of the plot. Whether or not the plot is perfectly self-consistent, the thematic and character work are integral to the plot and vice versa, and I found that to be truly impressive given the complexities of the story.
Whether or not the film works as a hard sci-fi piece seems irrelevant to me, as I don't think it was really aiming to presen a coherent theory of time travel. The film is really more of a character-based piece about the abuse of power in a sci-fi setting, made more unique by its matter-of-fact presentation.
The term "cover-up" implies that they did something outside of their usual process of classifying bugs & the attendant patches.
Except that they didn't; they classified it as a reliability issue (as they have done with many similar issues because they didn't see exploitability as of part of the problem ( Check out the history here: http://openbsd.org/errata40.html ; many kernel panic bugs going back several years are classified as "reliability" patches ). Once the proof-of-exploit was provided, they re-classified the existing patch in short order.
You can argue with their system of classification, but if you're actually administering an openbsd box, are you skipping the reliability patches because you like unreliable, but secure servers? I hope not...
In any case, that timeline leaves out the context of how the openBSD project actually works, which should be taken into consideration before implying accusations of "cover-up". In this case, I think that assessment is entirely unfair.
Why not simply agree that Weird Al has worked within and thus influenced the subgenre of nerdcore and leave it at that? It makes as little sense to say that "he's not a nercore" artist as "he's a nerdcore artist".
Given the fact that "White & Nerdy" & "All About The Pentiums" are probably the most-heard nerd-oriented rap songs, it makes sense to recognize his contribution to the genre, even if he's not actively promoting it or identifying with it.
I love stupid authenticity arguments. Arguments based on confusing an artists's lifestyle and intent with their actual producted works absorbed waaaaay too much time at the art school I attended - I should know, I participated in many of them.
Sure, you'll get weird stares from people who've confused maturity with rejecting all pleasures associated with childhood.
"Pride and Prejudice" is an excellent book for adults; however, it's a downright awful book for pre-teen children, and most teenage children need to be "prepped" regarding the background elements of the story to actually enage in it. It REQUIRES maturity to be enjoyed.
Meanwhile, "Green Eggs and Ham" is enjoyable by children AND adults with a sense of whimsy and word-play - and also who enjoy beautifully-executed illustrations. Maturity is irrelevant to its enjoyment at any age.
You're reaching for a point regarding maturity (which is required for understanding P&P), but you're confusing "goofiness" (a style which shows up in many mature works - Thomas Pynchon, Davis Foster Wallace, Vonnegut, etc.) as being maturity's opposite. Sure, in particular contexts they can occasionally come to cross-purposes, but goofiness != immaturity.
Goofiness will often conflict with seriousness, but it's just as much a mistake to equate "maturity" and "seriousness" as it is to conflate "maturity" and explict gore/sex/language.
I find it interesting that you were disappointed by the use of the "villain explaining the whole thing" in Watchmen; I found this to be one of Moore's most successful integrated commentaries on a comic-book storytelling trope. Because Ozymandius explains everything AFTER he had already done it, the story benefits in several ways. First (and most obviously) is the element of surprise (in that this trope has been stood on its head, and then in the several pages following that depict the chaos resulting from his successful plan). Secondly, the the storythen naturally bypasses the second part of the trope, i.e. the prostestations on the hero's part followed by the predictable (and often drama-free) violent confrontation between the hero(s) and villain, and moves directly to the more dramatic matter of the hero's personal reactions to Ozymandius's actions.
Given that the post-modern practice of commenting on storytelling techniques as they are being used in the current story can easily detract from the storytelling, I thought this was an excellent example of Moore having his cake and eating it, too.
First of all, statutory rape laws apply to both women AND men. The fact that they are not as often enforced in the case of older women/younger men reflects societal attitudes, not the law.
No blanket laws or guidelines had to be made to stop these men from donating their sperm. They knew exactly what they were doing. The same thing should be applied to women.
In general: Wow; while I was unaware of that, regardless of the scientist's attitudes towards the act I'd have to assume that's also a breach of ethics - unless the "researchers donating == OK" policy was explicitly laid out under the terms of employment and made through a transparent process. (Even then I'd find it questionable, but at least it'd be open for review by outside parties and understood as an aspect of the research process. This isn;t "just a sex thing" either, this should be done even if they're just donating mucus on days that they've got colds.)
As far as this specific case: a) comparing the act of sperm donation to egg donation is like comparing giving $5 to the Salvation Army Santa vs. donating your house; i.e. in no way similar. Egg donation is an involved, lengthy, and to potentially risky process for the donor. Sperm donation has no inherent physical risks and doesn't involve much more than a trip to the bathroom, a magazine, and a cup. (Sure, some men may have religious hang-ups about donation, but that applies equally well to women).
b) it's inherent to any sort of hierarchical situation that those at the top of the hierarchy may abuse their authority over those lower in the hierarchy; that's why we have, you know, rules and shit about this sort of thing. It's not about gender as much as it is about the potential abuse of power by authority figures.
Given that "donating eggs" is not considered a standard workflplace practice the concern is warranted. Is it possible that this worker may have done this entirely of her own free will, with no pressure whatsoever? Sure, but its equally possible that some sort of abuse was involved. Given the (current) lack of evidence in either direction, the situation appears suspicious, and should at least ben investigated.
I think it's actually a serious joke; the author is slyly using the frame of a deconstructionist film review to highlight the ways in which the SW movies suck.
This is a perfectly apt and clever joke because it takes Lucas at his most blowhard-Joseph-Campbell-avant-garde-serious word, and looks at the implications for his films, which noone has really bothered to do before (the vast majority of reviews of the SW films review it as a sf or adventure-genre film, dismissing Lucas's pretensions instead of engaging and./or challenging them).
The best part is that the review works both as satire, and as a serious (if somwhat flimsy) deconstructionist text.
Please try reading the article again tomorrow, once you've gotten some sleep and your sense of humor is active again. this is one of the funniest damn things I've read in a long time.
But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it has implanted yet. The ovum may still fail to implant in the uterine lining and will be expelled naturally. Is that the moment that the child becomes like a human being?
Cell divison is a "disappearing finish line" in this case - it exists as long as you don't look at it too closely... and then poof! it's gone.
I'm sick of everyone using these discussions as a way to trumpet their idea of "when life begins". Fuck that shit, that's 99% about forcing other people to accept your philosophy of humanity and doesn't accomplish jack shit besides pissing everyone off.
This whole topic is so charged and subjective (with false claims to objectivity) that it's might as well be a magic incantation.
And the arguments are all bullshit. 99.99% of socierty wants fewer abortions. The real question is whether we, as a society, choose to achieve this through force or through other means.
That would be pretty cool; but a better way would be for the beef industry to be restricted from feeding ruminants (i.e. dead cattle) to cattle.
This is because the most "effective" infection vector (or whatever the term is) is for an infected (dead) cow to be fed to a healthy cow. (And yes, this is common feeding practive.)
Eliminate animal cannibalism and much of the danger of BSE is eliminated; this should of course be accompanied by specific testing, but it's important to prevent outbreaks from becoming epidemics.
Unf. this would cost the beef industry somewhat more money (as they wouldn't get free feed from dead cows), and they are resisting it very strongly.
> . And if you want to use him as an example you have to be > extra-careful to present their side as persuasively as possible, > because you're obviously coming to this with a bias.
I think that the point of his story was that non-technical people could be persuaded to his side of the argument without having to be educated thoroughly regarding the technical details.
And honestly, unless he was making sh** up (or otherwise willfuly obfuscating), why should the onus be on him to present the RIAA/MPAA's side of the story? They're certainly not going to present "the opposing opinion".
There's a difference between "fair" and "balanced". A story can be fair (i.e. factual w/o distorting) and still have an implicit judgment for one side or the other; a "balanced" story weights the presentation such that both sides have the appearance of equally plausible truth, even when one side is arguing bollocks.
Even if the reality is somewhere towards middle, it may not be AT the middle; why pretend that it is?
I'm not sure if "rubycodez" is joking or not, but in either case I love the idea of someone who calls themself "rubycodez" and doesn't realize the debt they owe to hip-hop culture.
Anyone else reminded of the scene in "Ghost Dog" where the (old, Italian) gangsters are complaining about how silly "Ghost Dog" and other hip-hop names sound , and how they sounds like old "Indian" (Native American) names... and then Big Angie, Handsome Frank and Sammy the Snake are named as they leave with their orders.
I'm sorry to say that in my grandmother and grandfather's declining years, TV was an important element of their day.
By the time they needed assistance, they only had so much stamina (or eyesight) for reading, and mobility from their rooms (outside of times when family could visit) was rare byeond the orderlies' schedule of eating, cleaning, and excercise times.
Local events? Libraries? Clubs? Mostly beyond their reach.
TV, radio, and phone (in that order) made up most of their day - and I say that knowing full well that my aunt was a saint who visited my grandparents every day.
Sure. some nursing homes will be able to upgrade to cable set-ups - but some will not be able to afford it! And not every elderly invalid with limited income (not a rare combination, unfortunately) even lives in a nursing home (where the costs might be lessened).
I realize that the needs of the elderly / invalid aren't necessarily visible to the majority of the population, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into account.
I have no problem saying that, for this case, the dissenting position should have been the majority position, for reasons beyond the fact that I agree with the immediate outcome.
I further have no problem in stating that the 3 of the 4 dissenters are the most consistently conservative members of the SCOTUS, while those in the majority vary from conservative to moderately liberal. (There are no currently no consistently liberal voices on the bench)
However, this does not mean that the majority opinion is "liberal", or even that the dissenting position is necessarily "conservative"; there's somewhat more complex issues at play here.
Let's consider another rubric, in which we consider the "political inclination" of the reasoning behind the differing opinion, ordered by the weight given in their argumentation:
Supporting the Majority: 1. State's Rights / Federal Gov't Defer to State-Level Authority: (the determination of the Conn. Supreme Courts were deferred to); this is "classically conservative" position 2. Strict Consideration of Law and Precedent: this is rather specific to how the SC conducts its business, but I think it's also fair to say that they used "conservative" reasoning in their approach (i.e. they saw no need to disrupt tradition or precedent, and so sought to follow it) 3. Favoring the General Public Good over the Individual Public Good: (the specifics of the case were examined and held that the development planning process was handled above board) - favoring the public good is generally considered to be a liberal position, but in the majority opinion there was little emphasis on the "public good" beyond the state's right to determine what this means.
Supporting the Minority: 1. Gov't may Not Interfere with Private Property - this is a classically conservative position 2. Federal Gov't May Override State-level (local) Issues - during the Civil War this defined the "Republican" position - however, since the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's this has been re-framed as the liberal position 3. Proposed Amendment/Clarification of Existing Legislation - ("Legislating from the bench") - recent propaganda to the contrary, "activist judges" are liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever. However, this sort of activity may be seen as procedurally Liberal (i.e. it makes waves) just as stricter interpretations make be seen as procedurally Conservative.
My conclusion is that while it is probably fair to label the dissenting opinion as an argument rising from conservative thinking, I could just as easily label the majority opinion as such.
Ultimately, I think we have a conflict between Moderate/Conservative process (i.e. the Court not seeking to make waves) and Conservative values (i.e. the underlying goals and ideals of Conservatism).
Either way this ruling sucks, but it annoys me greatly when people look at an issue like this and immediately start to draw party line borders. Nuance can be important.
Given identical quality (or at least the perception of identical quality), most people will pay more for the "official" version of something.
For example, whenever I got to Fenway Park I pick up some Red Sox souvenirs; anything in/immediately around the park will be legally licensed, even with the outlying presence of bootlegging vendors who charge significantly less.
Check out Yawkey Way (next to the park, filled with official vendors) on any home game night and you'll see what I mean, it's PACKED with fans, many of whom aren't even attending the game. And I'm right there with them, even though I'm probably a bit more price-aware than most, and not even a huge baseball fan.
Sure, some people will always seek out the cheaper bootleg; but even among that crowd, there are plenty of "persuadables" who will still go for the "official" version as long as it is more convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with some of the author's points regarding linguistic disagreements obscuring philosophical disagreements, and sympathize with the stated desire to bring clarity to this ongoing flamewar, the actual article spends as much time pettily denigrating the pro-GPL position as it does clarifying the disagreement, thereby undermining the substantive aspects of the argument in favor of partisan score-making.
Or, in short: good job, you've obscured any actual insight with smug self-righteousness.
Don't forget that "making it pretty" is on the same spectrum as "making it usable"... and further along the spectrum is where you're at, "making it work".
Furthermore, "prettiness" often flows from "usable", due to increased usability resulting in better approachability and clarity.
And while its true that you shouldn't have to spend much of your thought process on the specifically pretty aspects of the design, you darn well better be aware of the usability aspects of the design, as those will directly impact your work.
So don't imagine there's a bright, clear dividing line here; a functionality first, prettiness-last approach will result in working programs that people will avoid using. (Just as prettiness-first, functionality last will result in striking programs that don't work).
Wow, I couldn't disagree more - I found the effect perfectly apt to the subject matter, as it was subtly pushed and pulled to reflect the varying characters' varying states of perception/hallucination. Doing this in live action would have made the differences between reality/intoxication/hallucination bright and clear as day, and been cheesily ham-handed as a result.
Also, this approach was perfectly suited to push the similarities between the effects of the disguise suit and the drugs on the users' perceptions, something that would have been similiarly ham-handed (or completely missed) in live action.
Still, different strokes for different folks.
BTW, the term is called "rotoscoping", and it's essentially a form of assisted hand-drawn animation (they used additional software, but the baseline is drawing against a frame-by-frame film or video reference). This is NOT a "filter", it's an artistic process.
( "posterizing" is an essentially automated process giving results looking little like Scanner Darkly or any other films made using this technique. )
He's not talking about scientific/mathematical "proof" here; he's talking about looking for circumstantial evidence, which can be used in legal arguments, and (more importantly) helping the family achieve a sense of closure.
In this case, If he does NOT find any circumstantial evidence of suicidal depression/suicide planning/etc., then the family should assume that their son's death was a terrible accident, which should be dealt with in a different manner then a death by suicide. I terms of the grieving process, these sorts of unanswered questions can haunt the survivors for the rest of their lives, so any (sincere and earnest) source of closure is worthwhile.
Furthermore, this knowledge will also help guide the family in terms of dealing with the police, insurance companies, informing extended family and friends, etc.
This is a messy, human situation, not a logical proof. Don't expect that it can or should be treated as such.
IIRC the issue at stake was the fact that New Line struck "sweetheart deals" on much of the "tie-in revenues" which PJ was owed a piece of according to his contract; however, because these deals were struck with subsidiaries of New Line and/or New Lines's parent company, the overall $$ "New Line" (as opposed to the subsidiaries) the $$ that could have been made on those licenses - i.e. this was a shady way for the greater company surrounding New Line to move profits from the "New Line" section of the accounts (a %of which is owed to the cast and crew) while keeping it within the overall company.
Krugman is on the receiving end of character assassination because he's stood in opposition to the Bush presidency even when it was popular, based entirely on their policy position. He's been characterized as "shrill" due to his consistency in holding this position. Some would call this intellectual honesty in a pundit, but those who dislike his conclusions can't admit that.
Has he made a few errors? Yes, even a few doozies, which have been corrected, ad nauseum. I do believe that he's more vulnerable to fact-checking based errors because he actually works to base his columns on facts, vs. working through baseless assertion and anecdote - paging David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, and many, many others who pretend to be working in fact but instead focus on rhetoric. These "colleagues" (i.e pundits at the NYT and other top-circulated newspapers) are rarely held to the same standard that he is. It's much easier to "let them off the hook" for far more sweeping assertions because their reflecting CW, and not challenging it.
> Why don't you hop in that time machine and tell us how we're supposed to vote? In 2000, that sort of information wasn't known.
Yes, it was.
The media just chose to focus on Gore's sighs instead of Bush/Cheney's already impressive record of incompetence. Everyone who paid attention (i.e. looked beyond the headlines actually, y'know read about the politicians) recognized that Gore was the better candidate.
> And in 2004, there wasn't a genuine alternative.
Yes, there was.
Kerry was and is a competent, reasonable politician who makes decisions based on information gathering, discussion with advisors, and rational decision-making.
Bush makes decisions "with his gut" and the country's fate rests on how well his last meal agrees with him.
Now I really need to see the movie to clarify my memory, but my recollection is that the original effect they discovered was due to the chamber creating a back-and-forth oscillatio through time w/in the chamber; i.e. items within the chamber travelled back and forth through time at several times "real time" speed. By slowing down this effect to "real-time" they were able to stabilize the "exit point" to effectively aim for the beginning and ends of the "oscillation" (wrong term, I know).
As far as the "real time' aspect of time travel in the movie, it enables more interesting storytelling; without any physical or psychological restrictons on time travel,
linear storytelling goes right out the window instantly; the limitations slow down this process so that the later (earlier?) actions of the characters are actually surprising, and the breakdown of linear progression is felt by the audience, rather than simply understoof.
Furthermore, it fits in with the "everyday" aesthetic of the film; they can't travel anywhere through time, they can only visit the near-present. It creates a grounding effect, and the increasingly strange events have a surreal affect, rather than a dry, cerebral one.
All that said, I can understand that te film would be disappointing from a hard SF POV, esp. as (for most film reviewers) it would be the closest thing to hard SF they would see, and they would describe it in terms creating that sort of expectation among those who are actually familiar with the genre (I sorta recall the first hard SF short story I read; it involved gravity around an unstable planet, and actually included all of the equations - plausibly!- within the story. Fun!).
> If the mold grows in a few minutes instead of a few months, why does it take 8 hours to go 8 hours back in time?
IIRC, the mold effect was a variation on the effect which they used to implement time travel - i.e. they sacrificed the faster-than-real-time-travel aspect (? great nonsense term, there) for stable control of where in the time stream they ended up.
It's been a few years since I caught this, but my recollection is that this was one of the more "engineer-oriented" aspects of the movie's style that impressed me (as a nice demonstration of the trade-offs that occur between inspiration and implementation, exactly the sort of thing that most sci-fi-tech movies bypass).
Also, I think the movie works on two levels - the very well written-and-acted level of the main characters and their character arcs, and the incremental revelations of the plot. Whether or not the plot is perfectly self-consistent, the thematic and character work are integral to the plot and vice versa, and I found that to be truly impressive given the complexities of the story.
Whether or not the film works as a hard sci-fi piece seems irrelevant to me, as I don't think it was really aiming to presen a coherent theory of time travel. The film is really more of a character-based piece about the abuse of power in a sci-fi setting, made more unique by its matter-of-fact presentation.
The term "cover-up" implies that they did something outside of their usual process of classifying bugs & the attendant patches.
Except that they didn't; they classified it as a reliability issue (as they have done with many similar issues because they didn't see exploitability as of part of the problem ( Check out the history here: http://openbsd.org/errata40.html ; many kernel panic bugs going back several years are classified as "reliability" patches ). Once the proof-of-exploit was provided, they re-classified the existing patch in short order.
You can argue with their system of classification, but if you're actually administering an openbsd box, are you skipping the reliability patches because you like unreliable, but secure servers? I hope not...
In any case, that timeline leaves out the context of how the openBSD project actually works, which should be taken into consideration before implying accusations of "cover-up". In this case, I think that assessment is entirely unfair.
Why not simply agree that Weird Al has worked within and thus influenced the subgenre of nerdcore and leave it at that? It makes as little sense to say that "he's not a nercore" artist as "he's a nerdcore artist".
Given the fact that "White & Nerdy" & "All About The Pentiums" are probably the most-heard nerd-oriented rap songs, it makes sense to recognize his contribution to the genre, even if he's not actively promoting it or identifying with it.
I love stupid authenticity arguments. Arguments based on confusing an artists's lifestyle and intent with their actual producted works absorbed waaaaay too much time at the art school I attended - I should know, I participated in many of them.
Sure, you'll get weird stares from people who've confused maturity with rejecting all pleasures associated with childhood.
"Pride and Prejudice" is an excellent book for adults; however, it's a downright awful book for pre-teen children, and most teenage children need to be "prepped" regarding the background elements of the story to actually enage in it. It REQUIRES maturity to be enjoyed.
Meanwhile, "Green Eggs and Ham" is enjoyable by children AND adults with a sense of whimsy and word-play - and also who enjoy beautifully-executed illustrations. Maturity is irrelevant to its enjoyment at any age.
You're reaching for a point regarding maturity (which is required for understanding P&P), but you're confusing "goofiness" (a style which shows up in many mature works - Thomas Pynchon, Davis Foster Wallace, Vonnegut, etc.) as being maturity's opposite. Sure, in particular contexts they can occasionally come to cross-purposes, but goofiness != immaturity.
Goofiness will often conflict with seriousness, but it's just as much a mistake to equate "maturity" and "seriousness" as it is to conflate "maturity" and explict gore/sex/language.
*SPOILER ALERT*
I find it interesting that you were disappointed by the use of the "villain explaining the whole thing" in Watchmen; I found this to be one of Moore's most successful integrated commentaries on a comic-book storytelling trope. Because Ozymandius explains everything AFTER he had already done it, the story benefits in several ways. First (and most obviously) is the element of surprise (in that this trope has been stood on its head, and then in the several pages following that depict the chaos resulting from his successful plan). Secondly, the the storythen naturally bypasses the second part of the trope, i.e. the prostestations on the hero's part followed by the predictable (and often drama-free) violent confrontation between the hero(s) and villain, and moves directly to the more dramatic matter of the hero's personal reactions to Ozymandius's actions.
Given that the post-modern practice of commenting on storytelling techniques as they are being used in the current story can easily detract from the storytelling, I thought this was an excellent example of Moore having his cake and eating it, too.
Lott has been pretty thoroughly discredited as a researcher.
/ PP481HS451.pdf (warning PDF)
0 3Jan31?language=printer
This is an ineresting article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2078084/
And here is a U Chicago class that actually uses his work as an example of poor research:
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/Academic/syllabi
Finally, the guy is rather nuts - he's admitted to creating an online fan persona to rally supoort for himself online:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8884-20
I'd recommend not raising John Lott as an authority, it reflects poorly on your ideas regardless of their merit.
In general:
Wow; while I was unaware of that, regardless of the scientist's attitudes towards the act I'd have to assume that's also a breach of ethics - unless the "researchers donating == OK" policy was explicitly laid out under the terms of employment and made through a transparent process. (Even then I'd find it questionable, but at least it'd be open for review by outside parties and understood as an aspect of the research process. This isn;t "just a sex thing" either, this should be done even if they're just donating mucus on days that they've got colds.)
As far as this specific case:
a) comparing the act of sperm donation to egg donation is like comparing giving $5 to the Salvation Army Santa vs. donating your house; i.e. in no way similar. Egg donation is an involved, lengthy, and to potentially risky process for the donor. Sperm donation has no inherent physical risks and doesn't involve much more than a trip to the bathroom, a magazine, and a cup. (Sure, some men may have religious hang-ups about donation, but that applies equally well to women).
b) it's inherent to any sort of hierarchical situation that those at the top of the hierarchy may abuse their authority over those lower in the hierarchy; that's why we have, you know, rules and shit about this sort of thing. It's not about gender as much as it is about the potential abuse of power by authority figures.
Given that "donating eggs" is not considered a standard workflplace practice the concern is warranted. Is it possible that this worker may have done this entirely of her own free will, with no pressure whatsoever? Sure, but its equally possible that some sort of abuse was involved. Given the (current) lack of evidence in either direction, the situation appears suspicious, and should at least ben investigated.
I think it's actually a serious joke; the author is slyly using the frame of a deconstructionist film review to highlight the ways in which the SW movies suck.
This is a perfectly apt and clever joke because it takes Lucas at his most blowhard-Joseph-Campbell-avant-garde-serious word, and looks at the implications for his films, which noone has really bothered to do before (the vast majority of reviews of the SW films review it as a sf or adventure-genre film, dismissing Lucas's pretensions instead of engaging and./or challenging them).
The best part is that the review works both as satire, and as a serious (if somwhat flimsy) deconstructionist text.
Please try reading the article again tomorrow, once you've gotten some sleep and your sense of humor is active again. this is one of the funniest damn things I've read in a long time.
But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it has implanted yet. The ovum may still fail to implant in the uterine lining and will be expelled naturally. Is that the moment that the child becomes like a human being?
Cell divison is a "disappearing finish line" in this case - it exists as long as you don't look at it too closely... and then poof! it's gone.
I'm sick of everyone using these discussions as a way to trumpet their idea of
"when life begins". Fuck that shit, that's 99% about forcing other people to accept your philosophy of humanity and doesn't accomplish jack shit besides pissing everyone off.
This whole topic is so charged and subjective (with false claims to objectivity) that it's might as well be a magic incantation.
And the arguments are all bullshit. 99.99% of socierty wants fewer abortions. The real question is whether we, as a society, choose to achieve this through force or through other means.
That would be pretty cool; but a better way would be for the beef industry to be restricted from feeding ruminants (i.e. dead cattle) to cattle.
This is because the most "effective" infection vector (or whatever the term is) is for an infected (dead) cow to be fed to a healthy cow.
(And yes, this is common feeding practive.)
Eliminate animal cannibalism and much of the danger of BSE is eliminated; this should of course be accompanied by specific testing, but it's important to prevent outbreaks from becoming epidemics.
Unf. this would cost the beef industry somewhat more money (as they wouldn't get free feed from dead cows), and they are resisting it very strongly.
> . And if you want to use him as an example you have to be
> extra-careful to present their side as persuasively as possible, > because you're obviously coming to this with a bias.
I think that the point of his story was that non-technical people could be persuaded to his side of the argument without having to be educated thoroughly regarding the technical details.
And honestly, unless he was making sh** up (or otherwise willfuly obfuscating), why should the onus be on him to present the RIAA/MPAA's side of the story? They're certainly not going to present "the opposing opinion".
There's a difference between "fair" and "balanced". A story can be fair (i.e. factual w/o distorting) and still have an implicit judgment for one side or the other; a "balanced" story weights the presentation such that both sides have the appearance of equally plausible truth, even when one side is arguing bollocks.
Even if the reality is somewhere towards middle, it may not be AT the middle; why pretend that it is?
I'm not sure if "rubycodez" is joking or not, but in either case I love the idea of someone who calls themself "rubycodez" and doesn't realize the debt they owe to hip-hop culture.
Anyone else reminded of the scene in "Ghost Dog" where the (old, Italian) gangsters are complaining about how silly "Ghost Dog" and other hip-hop names sound , and how they sounds like old "Indian" (Native American) names... and then Big Angie, Handsome Frank and Sammy the Snake are named as they leave with their orders.
Have you ever spent any time in a nursing home?
I'm sorry to say that in my grandmother and grandfather's declining years, TV was an important element of their day.
By the time they needed assistance, they only had so much stamina (or eyesight) for reading, and mobility from their rooms (outside of times when family could visit) was rare byeond the orderlies' schedule of eating, cleaning, and excercise times.
Local events? Libraries? Clubs? Mostly beyond their reach.
TV, radio, and phone (in that order) made up most of their day - and I say that knowing full well that my aunt was a saint who visited my grandparents every day.
Sure. some nursing homes will be able to upgrade to cable set-ups - but some will not be able to afford it! And not every elderly invalid with limited income (not a rare combination, unfortunately) even lives in a nursing home (where the costs might be lessened).
I realize that the needs of the elderly / invalid aren't necessarily visible to the majority of the population, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into account.
And WTF is inherently moronic (let along immoral) with cannibalism, so long as its conducted between mutually consenting adults?
Nothing, says I!
And my army of the undead agree with me, too!
So don't be a bigot about something that's so clearly a matter of taste.... tasty... human... flesh... mmmmm....
OK, I just read the whole dang thing.
I have no problem saying that, for this case, the dissenting position should have been the majority position, for reasons beyond the fact that I agree with the immediate outcome.
I further have no problem in stating that the 3 of the 4 dissenters are the most consistently conservative members of the SCOTUS, while those in the majority vary from conservative to moderately liberal. (There are no currently no consistently liberal voices on the bench)
However, this does not mean that the majority opinion is "liberal", or even that the dissenting position is necessarily "conservative"; there's somewhat more complex issues at play here.
Let's consider another rubric, in which we consider the "political inclination" of the reasoning behind the differing opinion, ordered by the weight given in their argumentation:
Supporting the Majority:
1. State's Rights / Federal Gov't Defer to State-Level Authority: (the determination of the Conn. Supreme Courts were deferred to); this is "classically conservative" position
2. Strict Consideration of Law and Precedent: this is rather specific to how the SC conducts its business, but I think it's also fair to say that they used "conservative" reasoning in their approach (i.e. they saw no need to disrupt tradition or precedent, and so sought to follow it)
3. Favoring the General Public Good over the Individual Public Good: (the specifics of the case were examined and held that the development planning process was handled above board) - favoring the public good is generally considered to be a liberal position, but in the majority opinion there was little emphasis on the "public good" beyond the state's right to determine what this means.
Supporting the Minority:
1. Gov't may Not Interfere with Private Property - this is a classically conservative position
2. Federal Gov't May Override State-level (local) Issues - during the Civil War this defined the "Republican" position - however, since the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's this has been re-framed as the liberal position
3. Proposed Amendment/Clarification of Existing Legislation - ("Legislating from the bench") - recent propaganda to the contrary, "activist judges" are liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever. However, this sort of activity may be seen as procedurally Liberal (i.e. it makes waves) just as stricter interpretations make be seen as procedurally Conservative.
My conclusion is that while it is probably fair to label the dissenting opinion as an argument rising from conservative thinking, I could just as easily label the majority opinion as such.
Ultimately, I think we have a conflict between Moderate/Conservative process (i.e. the Court not seeking to make waves) and Conservative values (i.e. the underlying goals and ideals of Conservatism).
Either way this ruling sucks, but it annoys me greatly when
people look at an issue like this and immediately start to draw party line borders. Nuance can be important.
Given identical quality (or at least the perception of identical quality), most people will pay more for the "official" version of something.
For example, whenever I got to Fenway Park I pick up some Red Sox souvenirs; anything in/immediately around the park will be legally licensed, even with the outlying presence of bootlegging vendors who charge significantly less.
Check out Yawkey Way (next to the park, filled with official vendors) on any home game night and you'll see what I mean, it's PACKED with fans, many of whom aren't even attending the game. And I'm right there with them, even though I'm probably a bit more price-aware than most, and not even a huge baseball fan.
Sure, some people will always seek out the cheaper bootleg; but even among that crowd, there are plenty of "persuadables" who will still go for the "official" version as long as it is more convenient.