that people refuse to confine themselves to intelligent commentary? So people shouldn't post potentially controversial material because it might upset someone, and start a discussion?
I suppose that rape victim shouldn't have worn so much makeup, or that pretty dress.:/
It was a great satire. A satire does not have to make any specific points to make a general point. It was a parody of Stallman's standard diatribe, one that picked up quite well on the tone that Stallman has become familiar for.
Stallman isn't an asshole, and neither is he an angel, he's just a really enthusiastic guy who should probably relax occaisionally, before he has a heart attack.
What are you talking about? This article was SATIRE! Tom's quibling about the word 'good', was part of the joke. And speaking of not understanding the point, read the above thread. Loosen up will ya?
and touche! One of the things I've found about most or all of the discussions surrounding FSF and GPL, is a serious and frightening lack of humour. Like a religion (shudder), people here can not seem to laugh at themselves. Humour puts things into perspective, and allows serious, calm, and rational discussion to occur after a good laugh. Instead, we have an immediate and unavoidable flame war.
I find it most disturbing that you can brush off the combined sacrifice of millions as useless and ineffectual bumbling. It strikes me that you should probably brush up on your history before making broad generalized statements like that one.
Which by the way, is one of the things which buddy indirectly condemns in the Star Wars movies in his article, and I happen to agree.
No, it's not a blueprint, but like I've said before, it does contain messages that we have every right to examine and critique. "It's just a movie" is not a valid point. Movies are valid art/literature and as such can be just as good or bad as other art/literature, carry important messages, etc... What do you think Schindler's List was? Just a movie?
That's the point! Brinn is simply asking what type of message is George Lucas sending MILLIONS of CHILDREN in his films? Don't tell me StarWars hasn't inspired you, and somehow, in some small way, defined you and your friend's ideals? It has mine; I have loved the entire series since I first saw it as a child. But that does not mean we should not be carefull about what people are trying to say with their movies, or plays, or books for that matter. The best way to keep ourselves politically and ideologically safe (without censorship) is to keep everything out in the open and continue to question.
BTW, Gene Rodenberry lost the rights to Star Trek as soon as NBC bought the first TOS episode. When NBC sold it to Paramount, he lost what little control he had left, (he did not like the direction the movies took after ST:The Motion Picture). He was not even a full producer for ST:TNG.
Also, as far as scarce resources being eliminated by technology being ridiculous; Why? Fusion and Nanotechnology are all that stand between us and a state of unlimited energy and commodity resources, so why is that so implausible as to be ridiculous? Certainly, you can IMAGINE nanotech and fusion?
"I didn't flame him the first time, but his nitpicking excuses against hoardes of SW fans who are obviously right are kind of obnoxious." I beg you're pardon? "Fans who are Obviously right"? Well excuse me and Brinn and everyone else in this thread for having a different opinion.
"Vader was just a sorry, crippled old man underneath a scary exoskeleton." Really? He made quite a good sword fighter/neck crusher/tyrannical despot for a sorry old cripple. Fine, so it's his bionic suit that allows him to be strong and stay alive; so what? An asshole in a wheelchair is still an asshole.
"Vader was a complex character who doesn't deserve to be typecast the way Brin sees him." Complex? How do you justify that statement? Where is the deep character interaction that reveals Vader's "complex" nature? Somehow I don't think "If you fail, you die", and "You failed, so you die" repeated over and over albeit in various different ways, does not constitute complex interaction indicative of a complex character.
Regardless of the above, the plot holes are not the point of Brinn's article. It's the messages hidden inside the plot holes that he's worried about:)
Slashdot Mirror
that people refuse to confine themselves to intelligent commentary? So people shouldn't post potentially controversial material because it might upset someone, and start a discussion?
:/
I suppose that rape victim shouldn't have worn so much makeup, or that pretty dress.
It was a great satire. A satire does not have to make any specific points to make a general point. It was a parody of Stallman's standard diatribe, one that picked up quite well on the tone that Stallman has become familiar for.
Stallman isn't an asshole, and neither is he an angel, he's just a really enthusiastic guy who should probably relax occaisionally, before he has a heart attack.
What are you talking about? This article was SATIRE! Tom's quibling about the word 'good', was part of the joke. And speaking of not understanding the point, read the above thread.
Loosen up will ya?
and touche! One of the things I've found about most or all of the discussions surrounding FSF and GPL, is a serious and frightening lack of humour. Like a religion (shudder), people here can not seem to laugh at themselves. Humour puts things into perspective, and allows serious, calm, and rational discussion to occur after a good laugh. Instead, we have an immediate and unavoidable flame war.
Ah well...
I find it most disturbing that you can brush off the combined sacrifice of millions as useless and ineffectual bumbling. It strikes me that you should probably brush up on your history before making broad generalized statements like that one.
Which by the way, is one of the things which buddy indirectly condemns in the Star Wars movies in his article, and I happen to agree.
No, it's not a blueprint, but like I've said before, it does contain messages that we have every right to examine and critique. "It's just a movie" is not a valid point. Movies are valid art/literature and as such can be just as good or bad as other art/literature, carry important messages, etc... What do you think Schindler's List was? Just a movie?
That's the point! Brinn is simply asking what type of message is George Lucas sending MILLIONS of CHILDREN in his films? Don't tell me StarWars hasn't inspired you, and somehow, in some small way, defined you and your friend's ideals? It has mine; I have loved the entire series since I first saw it as a child.
But that does not mean we should not be carefull about what people are trying to say with their movies, or plays, or books for that matter. The best way to keep ourselves politically and ideologically safe (without censorship) is to keep everything out in the open and continue to question.
BTW, Gene Rodenberry lost the rights to Star Trek as soon as NBC bought the first TOS episode. When NBC sold it to Paramount, he lost what little control he had left, (he did not like the direction the movies took after ST:The Motion Picture). He was not even a full producer for ST:TNG.
Also, as far as scarce resources being eliminated by technology being ridiculous; Why? Fusion and Nanotechnology are all that stand between us and a state of unlimited energy and commodity resources, so why is that so implausible as to be ridiculous? Certainly, you can IMAGINE nanotech and fusion?
"I didn't flame him the first time, but his nitpicking excuses against hoardes of SW fans who are obviously right are kind of obnoxious."
:)
I beg you're pardon? "Fans who are Obviously right"? Well excuse me and Brinn and everyone else in this thread for having a different opinion.
"Vader was just a sorry, crippled old man underneath a scary exoskeleton."
Really? He made quite a good sword fighter/neck crusher/tyrannical despot for a sorry old cripple. Fine, so it's his bionic suit that allows him to be strong and stay alive; so what? An asshole in a wheelchair is still an asshole.
"Vader was a complex character who doesn't deserve to be typecast the way Brin sees him."
Complex? How do you justify that statement? Where is the deep character interaction that reveals Vader's "complex" nature? Somehow I don't think "If you fail, you die", and "You failed, so you die" repeated over and over albeit in various different ways, does not constitute complex interaction indicative of a complex character.
Regardless of the above, the plot holes are not the point of Brinn's article. It's the messages hidden inside the plot holes that he's worried about