I'm just wondering what you think is so cool about posting a comment like this.....
Meanwhile, back to the subject at hand, I think it's interesting that they're willing to offer the stock for less $ (right?), but personally, how do they know/define who's contributed, and how do they ensure that this "privilege" isn't abused? And what about all those wonderful people out there that have done great stuff for the open source community, etc.. but don't get opportunities like this? (tough luck?..... well, I don't like that).
However, I'd like to add that it's not that I want any, because I think stock/stock market is boring, but hey, I know there are lots of people out there who'd love to get their hands on Red Hat stock... I know a few myself too, of course.... but anyway.... so much for the effort. At least I'll say this much: Nice job.
I for one like to be able to move around, cross my legs, etc., Yeah, if I was going to pay $3500 for a chair, I'd like it to be able to move with me, and have some sort of fold-up-able panel where I could put my laptop, and some sort of cool universal outlet where i could plug it in (and my zip drive, etc..) and just plug the chair into the wall. At least, they ought to make/market models for use with people who have laptops instead of desktops, and would therefore not-really-need a place for a monitor to rest at exactly eye level (or any level at all....)
However, as it is now... the chair's worthless to me, esp. for a whopping $3500 (you know the chair ain't worth _that_ much...)
Says the guy interacting electronically with people over Slashdot...
So true, so true. (With one problem: I'm not a male). However, the point is still very true, very poignant, and is a key point I forgot to address in my "rant." And if it weren't for the internet and ATM machines, my life would be a peopled society, because, as far as I know, every other aspect of my life involves people, in some way. And it often involves people that I know well and care a lot for.
And in response to someone else's reply that machines are more efficient than people... well, yes, they seem to be. And I'm not necessarily saying that we should try to keep people in the place of machines where machines can do a better job. However, I doubt that machines can do a decent job of arresting people. Or understanding their problems. Or comforting them (although this is debatable). Or a great deal of other jobs that people do and machines can not. Machines are only as good as the user, because it is the user who determines how it is used, not the maker, though he/she be all the more intelligent or not.
as I'm sure others have noted, if a big bang happened, which I'm seriously believing won't have a chance in all of creation to happen, there won't be anything left to make stoves with, no humans to heat it, and no food to cook in/on that stove. Anyway, why worry about the physical body? It's the spiritual body to be concerned with.
a parody of slashdot would be good if it was less crude and more 'mature' humor
I agree in that it was a good (though good, of course, is a _very_ relative term) parody of slashdot, and I agree that the creator of it could have made it funnier by making his articles and links more closely related to (i.e., a closer parody of) actual articles and posts on slashdot. Then again, nothing's perfect.....
oops.. further review of the Sequent site (and some delving into the old stuff, I think) led me to find this, which might help some. It seems to look technical, and I'll bet it's what I was looking for...:)
if NUMA is so amazing and wonderful, how come it hasn't had more media coverage? (or has it?) I hadn't heard of it until this press release; of course, I realize that I'm not always up-to-date on things, I do read/. often, and I read magazines, etc...
Does anyone know anything about how this NUMA technology works? I couldn't find anything very specific on IBM's website, and Sequent's site didn't really explain it either.
Sounds nice, I suppose, if the concept that Webvan will deliver other products and keep packaging/delivery services from making all the big bucks, but doesn't this also sound like Webvan's looking to become a major monolopy? Like a we-have-and-can-deliver-everything giant.... controlling our very lives! I hope that wouldn't mean that other online sellers would start to depend upon Webvan to deliver their stuff, or if that service would only be available if the customer was originally looking for groceries, and then decided that they wanted other stuff.
All of this technology is great and all, but to me, it shows a further removal of people from interacting with their environment, a further electronification of the world, and simply something I don't like. I prefer to have my ATM card, because I'd rather not have to have my eyes scanned by some dorky machine that is also going to attempt to talk to me. Of course, if they made these machines without the addition of it's wishing you a happy birthday and such, I'd be ok.
However, the idea of having my eyes scanned, though I'm sure it's probably a procedure that is unnoticeable, is not something I'd like to have done to me, because that just means that there's one more piece of information identifying me as me that is going to be stored in their computers, which means it's available for all those who can get to it, and it's available for exploitation. Although I realize that if someone knew my PIN and stole my ATM card, it'd be exploited as well, I'd just rather keep up with that piece of plastic. You can't hack into that.
You know, gold wouldn't be so cool to have as a standard if people didn't think it was so pretty, and if, for some reason, people didn't regard it so highly. We could have just as easily decided that lead, tin, etc, etc... was to be the standard for backing up currency. However, due to gold's apparent wide-spread appeal (and it's value in electronics, perhaps?), it appears to have been the unanimous choice (except for when, sometime in America's history, a candidate for president ran on the silver ticket, or something like that) for the standard currency throughout America/the world. What happens if/when we "run out"? (Or, is it possible to "run out" of gold?)
And the space program would be killed not because of mission failure and lost life, but because of NASA's cold-hearted attitude
Either that, or, the goverment would argue with the masses that it was in the best interest of the astronauts, as they would be proud to have served their country with honor and died in valor for the cause of furthering the human race (which would have been the biggest piece of crap). I'll bet they'd have even invented some kind of fancy medal to give them too... while the rest of us were tortured by the horrors of the poor men, the government would have continued research, hoping to develop a working lunar module (which they would test with more helpless human subjects!)
if i were a real musician, I would agree. but being not a musician, I agree too. the point of being a musician, or an artist of any sort (i'd like to consider myself a visual artist) is that you enjoy doing your work, and you only want to be happy in what you do, and make others happy (an occassional perk, I believe). money is not an issue because you're doing what you're doing because it is IN you to do it. money is an occassional perk (a never perk for me, but i'm not a "professional" either, and i don't try to sell any of my work), but not a requirement for you to enjoy doing what you do best....
What's to say the police won't have some sort of access to turn your car off or track where you are going?
Good thought. I imagine that, if this something that's actually going to go somewhere, and get developed, some manufacturer or other will come along and make a chip to put in there (in place of the current one) that will have a unique ID, and a few other encrypted items that will allow it to tell police, government, etc. where you are, what you're doing, what web pages you're looking at, etc. and/or let you restrict them (for kids that you might be carrying along with you)...
reminiscent of the V Chip, in my opinion. Of course, they haven't invented the chip I'm talking about yet...
I remember how upset they were when cassettes became big. "Oh, the end of an industry" they moaned. yeah, and I thought the same thing when CDs came out (because I was foolish), but tapes are still prevalent. I record some of my mp3s to tape to listen to in the car. If I had a CD-R, I'd probably make CDs of music to listen to in my car (if I had a car, and if that car had a CD player).
The RIAA is having a moo over mp3s since they're on the net, it's a lot easier to make copies of the music, as opposed to making tapes of everything, but it's the same principle. They should just shut up and start their own mp3 site. If they were really stuffy, they could make it a ratio site. Who cares.
A domain name is simply a registration. In essence the government owns all names and lisences the registration to NSI, who in turn passes that right to the consumer.
Which, IMHO, goes to show another ungovernment-related item of "our world today" that the government controls. My theory of why the government controls it is that we're all assuming that by putting the government in control of the domains, we're ensuring that the process of selling/distributing domain names is carried out in a fair manner (ha!).
Well, what I find amusing is that, if the domains are supposed to be worth so much money now, why are the owners of them selling them now? Why not sell the domains when they're worth the most? Otherwise, they're not getting all the great money out of it. Some people make me wonder.....
From what I can tell, the trust in the author/publisher thing isn't as big as it's made out to be. I mean, if you're considering a book, in bookstores, you get to preview books now (flipe through pages, etc.), and, if the author got the notion, they'd probably do something similar by posting a few excerpts of varying length. if it's an artist, you can probably hear them on the radio, and, like someone earlier said, every artist makes bad songs from time to time, but, like they also said, it's the risk you take when you buy their CD.
If it's software you're looking at, you have to consider what else that company has released, and see if you like their trend. and there's also the possibility that another company has a program that's supposed to do similar stuff, that you can acquire if the software you get with SPP doesn't work. But i'm also thinking that all of these fears are inevitable, because, not only are you taking the individual risks that the product will be good and worth your money, you're also taking the major risk associated with dealing online. you can't _see_ the actual product, and you have to trust that the pictures they show, the sound bytes they play, the descriptions they provide are accurate/truthful. and, if you decide that the risk isn't worth it, you go out and buy the product in person. it's that simple.
There should be no problem as long as people keep making mp3s like they always have, and as long as we don't care about the stiffies who feel it necessary to go try to ruin our fun with encrypted formats. I mean geez, whose bright idea was it to pursue this SDMI thing anyway?
yeah, and then when they're hooked, they get to soak more $ out of them to buy the monitor, and then the upgrades, and then the 3D card, for all those cool games they'll end up wanting to play (Q3 for Linux... ?), and then they'll just buy a new PC, and then..
Why is anything in this country the way it is? I can only offer an explanation that, b/c this government is so unorganized, inconsistent, and opportunistic (etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum), things happen like that.
I can only wonder if he's got some big $$ deal with this, and maybe somehow, this keeps him in the clear....however, I wouldn't actually know, because I'm not that well versed about the whole situation (besides the article).
you mean that you consider their use of Linux and/or Linux Patrol (name?) and improvement? If so, then yes. However, a _great_ improvement would be for them to solely use Linux... IMHO anyway.
I think an improvement for Metcalfe would be to give up writing columns like these, until he actually has something to say/a point to make. I don't find it as necessary to use a whole column to say what he could have said in a paragraph; and a paragraph that wouldn't be too much of a thrill to read, I think. Anyway, I still fail to see how he thinks W2K will beat Linux..
From what I gathered in Mr. Brin's essay(s), he appears to analyze the Star Wars Trilogy forwards and backwards at the same time. He mentioned the "cliche" (or whatever he referred to it as) that Yoda wouldn't train Anakin because he was 6 (as Brin claimed) but that he would train Luke when he was 20 (as Brin claimed). I'd like to point out to Mr. Brin that, as time progressed (in the Star Wars galaxy) the Jedi were wiped out. However, as far as I know, Jedi were, "in the beginning," identified ASAP and training began early to ensure the purest, best of Jedi, and which, I think, would also serve to further prevent them from turning to the Dark Side. Therefore, Anakin was probably not quite the age that Yoda & Co. would have wanted to train someone for Jedi-hood.. they would have wanted him younger. However, they took him on, because a person with that number of those metagloricans (spelling?) would be a wonderful Jedi. As time went on, and the Jedi were wiped out(except for, say, Obi-Wan and Yoda), well, I'd just like to assume that they're going to want more recruits, hence my theory that Yoda accepted Luke as his apprentice because he could see that, yes, there was the Force in him, and that, if careful, he could steer this gleam of hope into something useful [for the Rebellion].
I'd also like to point out that though Mr.Brin equates Adolf Hitler with Darth Vader, I find no logic behind this. As everyone knows, the main difference between the two would be that Adolf Hitler lived and Darth Vader existed merely as a character in a series of movies. Furthermore, Brin seems to base his comparison of the two by equating their circumstances, placing them on the same "playing field," giving them the same opportunities, and equating their purposes. This is no foundation for an argument. Adolf Hitler somehow had a vision that there was a certain type of people that were superior, and that all people who didn't fit into this category were not people indeed, but rubbish that should be exterminated(or something like that). Darth Vader, as far as I can reason, turned to the dark side because he was "seduced" by it. Somehow, he found the power/control of the Dark Side tempting, and an easier path to follow, compared to the Light Side. Also, a saber fight with one's mentor, in which one is severely handicapped would be enough to ensure that some people would turn to the dark side.
The major point I'm trying to make is that Adolf dealt with a conscious decision to annihilate race(s) of people; Darth dealt with a conscious decision to follow his anger and aggression to an evil Force, something we don't have on Earth, because there is no Force that can allow people to lift objects, sway minds, choke people, blow up Death Stars, etc. On Earth, we have our own spiritual devices, which, as far as I know, haven't done any of what I just mentioned lately, or in some galaxy far, far away. Therefore, going back to Darth, the Dark Side of the Force lead him to follow the Emperor and do his bidding. Although I realize that the decision to joing the dark side doesn't excuse any of his subsequent actions, it does allow one to see the difference between Vader and Hitler. I'd also like to mention that I don't feel that, by Vader's return to the light side, we're supposed to forgive him of his sins and accept him with loving arms, but we can congratulate him for seeing the error of his ways and returning to the light side. And I'd also like to add that, as I see it, Vader's saving Luke's life is not supposed to be his saving grace; it is, in my view, merely a sign of his return to the light side, and as he returned to the light side, he apparently no longer felt the desire to destroy his son if he didn't join him, because, by turning to the light side, he joined his son, and so he now sought to protect him.
Continuing in my discourse, I don't feel that Lucas is forcing the morals of his Star Wars movies upon "us." If someone doesn't want to see a movie, I should like to think they don't have to. I certainly don't see movies when I don't want to see them. Furthermore, people have to be responsible for their own actions; no one else can be, because everybody is in control of their own body. Of course, some would argue mind control drugs to this, in which case, most likely, exceptions would be made, which would spread until the idea that "People must be responsible for their own actions" is no longer the basis for the argument. Nevertheless, I feel that people shouldn't base their actions on movies, nor their morals, and if they are, then it is up to them to be responsible for how they interpret these morals. One could argue the same morality on many of the other movies of our time. For instance, any movie that involves sex before marriage would be a moral issue for numbers of people. Movies involving profanity would do the same. The list continues.
My point is, Mr. Brin seems harsh on Star Wars, harsher than I feel is justifiable. I found his writings to be more of a mindless ranting by someone who prefers Star Trek to Star Wars. Arguments can be found by anyone in support of anything over anything else... it's simply a matter of who's arguing. Which is why I take no stock or pleasure in the writings of Mr.Brin, but I will agree that there were things about Episode 1:The Phantom Menace that I didn't like... however, I didn't feel the need to write a ranting essay about it.
But I'll close with this: May free speech live on!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just wondering what you think is so cool about posting a comment like this.....
..... well, I don't like that).
Meanwhile, back to the subject at hand, I think it's interesting that they're willing to offer the stock for less $ (right?), but personally, how do they know/define who's contributed, and how do they ensure that this "privilege" isn't abused? And what about all those wonderful people out there that have done great stuff for the open source community, etc.. but don't get opportunities like this? (tough luck?
However, I'd like to add that it's not that I want any, because I think stock/stock market is boring, but hey, I know there are lots of people out there who'd love to get their hands on Red Hat stock... I know a few myself too, of course.... but anyway.... so much for the effort. At least I'll say this much: Nice job.
I for one like to be able to move around, cross my legs, etc.,
Yeah, if I was going to pay $3500 for a chair, I'd like it to be able to move with me, and have some sort of fold-up-able panel where I could put my laptop, and some sort of cool universal outlet where i could plug it in (and my zip drive, etc..) and just plug the chair into the wall. At least, they ought to make/market models for use with people who have laptops instead of desktops, and would therefore not-really-need a place for a monitor to rest at exactly eye level (or any level at all....)
However, as it is now... the chair's worthless to me, esp. for a whopping $3500 (you know the chair ain't worth _that_ much...)
Says the guy interacting electronically with people over Slashdot...
So true, so true. (With one problem: I'm not a male). However, the point is still very true, very poignant, and is a key point I forgot to address in my "rant." And if it weren't for the internet and ATM machines, my life would be a peopled society, because, as far as I know, every other aspect of my life involves people, in some way. And it often involves people that I know well and care a lot for.
And in response to someone else's reply that machines are more efficient than people... well, yes, they seem to be. And I'm not necessarily saying that we should try to keep people in the place of machines where machines can do a better job. However, I doubt that machines can do a decent job of arresting people. Or understanding their problems. Or comforting them (although this is debatable). Or a great deal of other jobs that people do and machines can not. Machines are only as good as the user, because it is the user who determines how it is used, not the maker, though he/she be all the more intelligent or not.
as I'm sure others have noted, if a big bang happened, which I'm seriously believing won't have a chance in all of creation to happen, there won't be anything left to make stoves with, no humans to heat it, and no food to cook in/on that stove. Anyway, why worry about the physical body? It's the spiritual body to be concerned with.
a parody of slashdot would be good if it was less crude and more 'mature' humor
I agree in that it was a good (though good, of course, is a _very_ relative term) parody of slashdot, and I agree that the creator of it could have made it funnier by making his articles and links more closely related to (i.e., a closer parody of) actual articles and posts on slashdot. Then again, nothing's perfect.....
oops.. further review of the Sequent site (and some delving into the old stuff, I think) led me to find this, which might help some. It seems to look technical, and I'll bet it's what I was looking for... :)
if NUMA is so amazing and wonderful, how come it hasn't had more media coverage? (or has it?) I hadn't heard of it until this press release; of course, I realize that I'm not always up-to-date on things, I do read /. often, and I read magazines, etc...
Does anyone know anything about how this NUMA technology works? I couldn't find anything very specific on IBM's website, and Sequent's site didn't really explain it either.
Sounds nice, I suppose, if the concept that Webvan will deliver other products and keep packaging/delivery services from making all the big bucks, but doesn't this also sound like Webvan's looking to become a major monolopy? Like a we-have-and-can-deliver-everything giant.... controlling our very lives! I hope that wouldn't mean that other online sellers would start to depend upon Webvan to deliver their stuff, or if that service would only be available if the customer was originally looking for groceries, and then decided that they wanted other stuff.
All of this technology is great and all, but to me, it shows a further removal of people from interacting with their environment, a further electronification of the world, and simply something I don't like. I prefer to have my ATM card, because I'd rather not have to have my eyes scanned by some dorky machine that is also going to attempt to talk to me. Of course, if they made these machines without the addition of it's wishing you a happy birthday and such, I'd be ok.
However, the idea of having my eyes scanned, though I'm sure it's probably a procedure that is unnoticeable, is not something I'd like to have done to me, because that just means that there's one more piece of information identifying me as me that is going to be stored in their computers, which means it's available for all those who can get to it, and it's available for exploitation. Although I realize that if someone knew my PIN and stole my ATM card, it'd be exploited as well, I'd just rather keep up with that piece of plastic. You can't hack into that.
You know, gold wouldn't be so cool to have as a standard if people didn't think it was so pretty, and if, for some reason, people didn't regard it so highly. We could have just as easily decided that lead, tin, etc, etc... was to be the standard for backing up currency. However, due to gold's apparent wide-spread appeal (and it's value in electronics, perhaps?), it appears to have been the unanimous choice (except for when, sometime in America's history, a candidate for president ran on the silver ticket, or something like that) for the standard currency throughout America/the world. What happens if/when we "run out"? (Or, is it possible to "run out" of gold?)
And the space program would be killed not because of mission failure and lost life, but because of NASA's cold-hearted attitude
Either that, or, the goverment would argue with the masses that it was in the best interest of the astronauts, as they would be proud to have served their country with honor and died in valor for the cause of furthering the human race (which would have been the biggest piece of crap). I'll bet they'd have even invented some kind of fancy medal to give them too... while the rest of us were tortured by the horrors of the poor men, the government would have continued research, hoping to develop a working lunar module (which they would test with more helpless human subjects!)
yep, some hackers did it.
And shouldn't DEF CON feel special, they were good enough to be hacked. Wow, what an honor.
No, really, it is interesting, and I think they should give a prize to the lucky winner(s) who did it. That would be cool.
if i were a real musician, I would agree. but being not a musician, I agree too. the point of being a musician, or an artist of any sort (i'd like to consider myself a visual artist) is that you enjoy doing your work, and you only want to be happy in what you do, and make others happy (an occassional perk, I believe). money is not an issue because you're doing what you're doing because it is IN you to do it. money is an occassional perk (a never perk for me, but i'm not a "professional" either, and i don't try to sell any of my work), but not a requirement for you to enjoy doing what you do best....
Good thought. I imagine that, if this something that's actually going to go somewhere, and get developed, some manufacturer or other will come along and make a chip to put in there (in place of the current one) that will have a unique ID, and a few other encrypted items that will allow it to tell police, government, etc. where you are, what you're doing, what web pages you're looking at, etc. and/or let you restrict them (for kids that you might be carrying along with you)...
reminiscent of the V Chip, in my opinion. Of course, they haven't invented the chip I'm talking about yet...
I remember how upset they were when cassettes became big. "Oh, the end of an industry" they moaned. yeah, and I thought the same thing when CDs came out (because I was foolish), but tapes are still prevalent. I record some of my mp3s to tape to listen to in the car. If I had a CD-R, I'd probably make CDs of music to listen to in my car (if I had a car, and if that car had a CD player).
The RIAA is having a moo over mp3s since they're on the net, it's a lot easier to make copies of the music, as opposed to making tapes of everything, but it's the same principle. They should just shut up and start their own mp3 site. If they were really stuffy, they could make it a ratio site. Who cares.
I wouldn't go there anyway.
Which, IMHO, goes to show another ungovernment-related item of "our world today" that the government controls. My theory of why the government controls it is that we're all assuming that by putting the government in control of the domains, we're ensuring that the process of selling/distributing domain names is carried out in a fair manner (ha!).
Well, what I find amusing is that, if the domains are supposed to be worth so much money now, why are the owners of them selling them now? Why not sell the domains when they're worth the most? Otherwise, they're not getting all the great money out of it. Some people make me wonder.....
From what I can tell, the trust in the author/publisher thing isn't as big as it's made out to be. I mean, if you're considering a book, in bookstores, you get to preview books now (flipe through pages, etc.), and, if the author got the notion, they'd probably do something similar by posting a few excerpts of varying length. if it's an artist, you can probably hear them on the radio, and, like someone earlier said, every artist makes bad songs from time to time, but, like they also said, it's the risk you take when you buy their CD.
If it's software you're looking at, you have to consider what else that company has released, and see if you like their trend. and there's also the possibility that another company has a program that's supposed to do similar stuff, that you can acquire if the software you get with SPP doesn't work. But i'm also thinking that all of these fears are inevitable, because, not only are you taking the individual risks that the product will be good and worth your money, you're also taking the major risk associated with dealing online. you can't _see_ the actual product, and you have to trust that the pictures they show, the sound bytes they play, the descriptions they provide are accurate/truthful. and, if you decide that the risk isn't worth it, you go out and buy the product in person. it's that simple.
yeah, pretty cool.. (about the whole, we-get-to-use-it-before-amigans-will thing)
but yeah, it really isn't so amazingly new. kinda looked like Windows to me
(a hush falls over the crowd.... "oh no!")
I'm waiting for somebody to make a completely 3D desktop environment, more like an adventure than tinkering with your OS.. wouldn't that be cool?
There should be no problem as long as people keep making mp3s like they always have, and as long as we don't care about the stiffies who feel it necessary to go try to ruin our fun with encrypted formats. I mean geez, whose bright idea was it to pursue this SDMI thing anyway?
yeah, and then when they're hooked, they get to soak more $ out of them to buy the monitor, and then the upgrades, and then the 3D card, for all those cool games they'll end up wanting to play (Q3 for Linux... ?), and then they'll just buy a new PC, and then..
Why is anything in this country the way it is? I can only offer an explanation that, b/c this government is so unorganized, inconsistent, and opportunistic (etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum), things happen like that.
I can only wonder if he's got some big $$ deal with this, and maybe somehow, this keeps him in the clear....however, I wouldn't actually know, because I'm not that well versed about the whole situation (besides the article).
Might I assume that by
good to see they're improv[first post!]ing
you mean that you consider their use of Linux and/or Linux Patrol (name?) and improvement? If so, then yes. However, a _great_ improvement would be for them to solely use Linux... IMHO anyway.
appears you weren't the first post after all, eh?
Now, if only the American broadcasting companies would take note. But I guess they're a bit slow on the draw...
I think an improvement for Metcalfe would be to give up writing columns like these, until he actually has something to say/a point to make. I don't find it as necessary to use a whole column to say what he could have said in a paragraph; and a paragraph that wouldn't be too much of a thrill to read, I think. Anyway, I still fail to see how he thinks W2K will beat Linux..
From what I gathered in Mr. Brin's essay(s), he appears to analyze the Star Wars Trilogy forwards and backwards at the same time. He mentioned the "cliche" (or whatever he referred to it as) that Yoda wouldn't train Anakin because he was 6 (as Brin claimed) but that he would train Luke when he was 20 (as Brin claimed). I'd like to point out to Mr. Brin that, as time progressed (in the Star Wars galaxy) the Jedi were wiped out. However, as far as I know, Jedi were, "in the beginning," identified ASAP and training began early to ensure the purest, best of Jedi, and which, I think, would also serve to further prevent them from turning to the Dark Side. Therefore, Anakin was probably not quite the age that Yoda & Co. would have wanted to train someone for Jedi-hood.. they would have wanted him younger. However, they took him on, because a person with that number of those metagloricans (spelling?) would be a wonderful Jedi. As time went on, and the Jedi were wiped out(except for, say, Obi-Wan and Yoda), well, I'd just like to assume that they're going to want more recruits, hence my theory that Yoda accepted Luke as his apprentice because he could see that, yes, there was the Force in him, and that, if careful, he could steer this gleam of hope into something useful [for the Rebellion].
I'd also like to point out that though Mr.Brin equates Adolf Hitler with Darth Vader, I find no logic behind this. As everyone knows, the main difference between the two would be that Adolf Hitler lived and Darth Vader existed merely as a character in a series of movies. Furthermore, Brin seems to base his comparison of the two by equating their circumstances, placing them on the same "playing field," giving them the same opportunities, and equating their purposes. This is no foundation for an argument. Adolf Hitler somehow had a vision that there was a certain type of people that were superior, and that all people who didn't fit into this category were not people indeed, but rubbish that should be exterminated(or something like that). Darth Vader, as far as I can reason, turned to the dark side because he was "seduced" by it. Somehow, he found the power/control of the Dark Side tempting, and an easier path to follow, compared to the Light Side. Also, a saber fight with one's mentor, in which one is severely handicapped would be enough to ensure that some people would turn to the dark side.
The major point I'm trying to make is that Adolf dealt with a conscious decision to annihilate race(s) of people; Darth dealt with a conscious decision to follow his anger and aggression to an evil Force, something we don't have on Earth, because there is no Force that can allow people to lift objects, sway minds, choke people, blow up Death Stars, etc. On Earth, we have our own spiritual devices, which, as far as I know, haven't done any of what I just mentioned lately, or in some galaxy far, far away. Therefore, going back to Darth, the Dark Side of the Force lead him to follow the Emperor and do his bidding. Although I realize that the decision to joing the dark side doesn't excuse any of his subsequent actions, it does allow one to see the difference between Vader and Hitler. I'd also like to mention that I don't feel that, by Vader's return to the light side, we're supposed to forgive him of his sins and accept him with loving arms, but we can congratulate him for seeing the error of his ways and returning to the light side. And I'd also like to add that, as I see it, Vader's saving Luke's life is not supposed to be his saving grace; it is, in my view, merely a sign of his return to the light side, and as he returned to the light side, he apparently no longer felt the desire to destroy his son if he didn't join him, because, by turning to the light side, he joined his son, and so he now sought to protect him.
Continuing in my discourse, I don't feel that Lucas is forcing the morals of his Star Wars movies upon "us." If someone doesn't want to see a movie, I should like to think they don't have to. I certainly don't see movies when I don't want to see them. Furthermore, people have to be responsible for their own actions; no one else can be, because everybody is in control of their own body. Of course, some would argue mind control drugs to this, in which case, most likely, exceptions would be made, which would spread until the idea that "People must be responsible for their own actions" is no longer the basis for the argument. Nevertheless, I feel that people shouldn't base their actions on movies, nor their morals, and if they are, then it is up to them to be responsible for how they interpret these morals. One could argue the same morality on many of the other movies of our time. For instance, any movie that involves sex before marriage would be a moral issue for numbers of people. Movies involving profanity would do the same. The list continues.
My point is, Mr. Brin seems harsh on Star Wars, harsher than I feel is justifiable. I found his writings to be more of a mindless ranting by someone who prefers Star Trek to Star Wars. Arguments can be found by anyone in support of anything over anything else... it's simply a matter of who's arguing. Which is why I take no stock or pleasure in the writings of Mr.Brin, but I will agree that there were things about Episode 1:The Phantom Menace that I didn't like... however, I didn't feel the need to write a ranting essay about it.
But I'll close with this: May free speech live on!