who need to revisit their childhood homes - just so they can feel the shock and realization of how small they look now compared to how big they seemed then.
That might give them the perspective they need to enjoy Ep3 for what it is instead of complaining that it doesn't measure up to something that actually never was.
I'm tired of people complaining that such-and-such a movie isn't Shakespeare with lightsabers. Heck - these same people would probably complain that Shakespeare relies on too many cliches!
All these movies, from the original/Star Wars/ on down the line, are eye-candy for pre-teens. No more, no less. When I saw/Star Wars/ in the theater, I was blown away. I was also 11. The idea that Lucas should somehow write a movie that will appeal to ubergeeks while, at the same time, thrilling it's original audience is just unrealistic.
OR, for the faint of heart, convince him that it would be really cool if he made the prequels using ONLY 1978 technology.
Come on. Lucas invented most of the technologies used to make the original Star Wars. He founded companies to provide the sound and special effects that he wanted - and now you complain that he's too focused on the special effects?
Please. Star Wars was always about special effects and nothing else. I remember an entire issue of Time magazine discussing how Lucas had revolutionized the industry with his use of computer controlled models to automate the stop-motion techniques already in use. I remember articles discussing the chess game between Chewbacca and R2D2 and how Lucas created the effect and whether such a thing could actually exist.
Lucas took the state of the art, pushed it to it's utter limits and beyond. Stop judging them as an adult and watch them in the manner they were meant to be watched - with the eyes and heart of child.
I assume you mean this goes for any gaming system and/or game right? Halo/Doom3 is nothing more than a FPS with prettier explosions. The XBox2 is nothing more than a typical game system with more horsepower, right?
I'm glad to see you understand.
Don't get me wrong - I've been a computer/video/arcade gamer for 30 years now (they didn't exist for the first part of my life). I currently own two PS2s, a PC, a Linux server, a couple of Powerbooks, a GBA-SP and a PSP. (I'll omit the list of all the machines I used to own.)
I rarely play games on any of them now - I had high hopes for the PSP, but I've discovered I'm having more fun writing software to hack it than I am playing the actual games.
So, the games I played on my C64 are now available as a battery powered joystick that plugs into a TV. The games I played on an Amiga are now available as cartridges for the GBA. The games I played on my PSOne and PS2 are being ported to the PSP. Square is releasing a sequel for Final Fantasy VII and there have to have been at least that many Armored Core games.
Notice a theme here? The horsepower of these systems surpassed the requirements of gamers a long time ago. The only reason for releasing the PS3 is to try and boost sales through increased press exposure and slightly prettier explosions.
1. Blogs released Gannon's home address and phone. 2. Gannon's mother received harassing phone calls. 3. Robert Bork's video rental habits were published and he was, in fact, described as a religious nut. 4. And people upheld all of the above as free speech, or simply denied that it occurred.
So, how does any of this connect to the other people I mentioned?
Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain where (a) you got proof that Gannon was a hooker and (b) why hookers aren't allowed to be journalists, along with a bonus of (c) some evidence that security standards were waived for Gannon or are somehow lower for the Bush administration than previous administrations.
I'm especially bemused by your implicit assertion that gays are security threats who should not be permitted to be journalists.
The relevance is in the near certainty that most of the people who are attacking O'Gara also heartily endorsed the outting and humiliation of Gannon.
Here's a related concept: privacy no longer exists. Get over it. Our choices are either pretend we have privacy and be subject to random exposure and to surveillance by the powerful, or to recognize the truth and ensure a level playing field for everyone.
Would it be too much to ask that someone exactly explain what the controversy was that drove them to resign?
For example:
1. What's the connection between sys-con and linuxworld? 2. why do we care what the editors of linuxworld do?
Oh, and here's a good one: Why is the webmaster of groklaw entitled to more privacy than, say, Jeff Gannon, the Runaway Bride, Robert Bork, the Runaway Bride, Gary Hart, or Linda Tripp?
Your argument is circular - the effects and results of the mutations should not be confused with the process of mutation itself; even if you restrict your consideration to those mutations which leave a viable organism they are still random in the mathematical sense.
AFAIK, speciation is one of the most hotly contested issues right now - especially since there's no hard and fast definition of "species" anymore.
The historical relationships between species are obvious both morphologically and through inspection of DNA - but the mechanism that causes a distinct population to split into two genetically distinct and self-maintaining populations would (I think) take thousands of years to "observe".
This is incorrect. First, mutation is not "random." The driving force is genetic diversity within a population, filtered through natural selection. The process of genetic diversification is not fully understood, and this leads a *lot* of otherwise-intelligent people to assume there is something fundamentally wrong with the theory of evolution through natural selection.
I'd say the original poster has a better handle on evolution than you do.
Yes, mutation is random. By any sane definition of the term. The genetic diversity within a breeding population is a function of the accumulation of randomly occurring genetic changes.
Claiming that the process of genetic diversity isn't fully understood is misleading, at best. We understand it fairly well - which is what allows us to do things like use the genetic variation in mitochondrial DNA to work out the spread of homo sapiens across the planet, or to understand that at one time in the (geologically) recent past, cheetahs almost went extinct - which we know because modern cheetahs are almost genetically identical to each other.
"This juicer is a clear example of how Bill Gates is trying to extend his domination of the western world by replacing simple, open source technology with buggy, insecure, proprietary tech."
Yes, you are correct sir. You win the bonus round.
Of course, I'd probably refuse to hire you because if you get this upset over a missing "ed" you'd probably be impossible to get along with in the work place.
There is a real problem, though, that the world is full of idiots who spend years using a particular language and still don't properly understand it.
My rule on interviews was to have 10 "impossible" questions - really esoteric stuff like "Give me an example of a thread-interpreted language." It annoyed the managers to know end because it flustered the candidates. But I wasn't interested in whether or not the candidates *knew* the right answer, I was more interested in watching them work through the question and try to figure out the answer.
(for the curious: AFAIK, FORTH and Postscript are the only two thread-interpreted languages. Basically, they convert source code to a dictionary-based jump table. In this case, the word "thread" refers to the path of execution and has nothing to do with the modern meaning.)
Slashdot Mirror
who need to revisit their childhood homes - just so they can feel the shock and realization of how small they look now compared to how big they seemed then.
That might give them the perspective they need to enjoy Ep3 for what it is instead of complaining that it doesn't measure up to something that actually never was.
to get the same buzz from the movies again is to somehow erase all your memory of them, including your unrealistic expectations.
That's the only way you're going to feel the adrenaline in Star Wars or feel the shock and dismay of Empire.
I'm tired of people complaining that such-and-such a movie isn't Shakespeare with lightsabers. Heck - these same people would probably complain that Shakespeare relies on too many cliches!
/Star Wars/ on down the line, are eye-candy for pre-teens. No more, no less. When I saw /Star Wars/ in the theater, I was blown away. I was also 11. The idea that Lucas should somehow write a movie that will appeal to ubergeeks while, at the same time, thrilling it's original audience is just unrealistic.
All these movies, from the original
OR, for the faint of heart, convince him that it would be really cool if he made the prequels using ONLY 1978 technology.
Come on. Lucas invented most of the technologies used to make the original Star Wars. He founded companies to provide the sound and special effects that he wanted - and now you complain that he's too focused on the special effects?
Please. Star Wars was always about special effects and nothing else. I remember an entire issue of Time magazine discussing how Lucas had revolutionized the industry with his use of computer controlled models to automate the stop-motion techniques already in use. I remember articles discussing the chess game between Chewbacca and R2D2 and how Lucas created the effect and whether such a thing could actually exist.
Lucas took the state of the art, pushed it to it's utter limits and beyond. Stop judging them as an adult and watch them in the manner they were meant to be watched - with the eyes and heart of child.
welfare compared to how much we spend on NASA, not too many more.
2006 budget:
Nasa: 16.5 billion
Education: 56 billion
HHS: 68.9 billion
Social Security: 540 billion
Medicare: 340 billion
Medicaid: 199 billion
Yeah, killing NASA would make a big dent.
Only on /. could an AC accuse a clown of having a "dead inner child".
Yup, no children here.
I assume you mean this goes for any gaming system and/or game right? Halo/Doom3 is nothing more than a FPS with prettier explosions. The XBox2 is nothing more than a typical game system with more horsepower, right?
I'm glad to see you understand.
Don't get me wrong - I've been a computer/video/arcade gamer for 30 years now (they didn't exist for the first part of my life). I currently own two PS2s, a PC, a Linux server, a couple of Powerbooks, a GBA-SP and a PSP. (I'll omit the list of all the machines I used to own.)
I rarely play games on any of them now - I had high hopes for the PSP, but I've discovered I'm having more fun writing software to hack it than I am playing the actual games.
So, the games I played on my C64 are now available as a battery powered joystick that plugs into a TV. The games I played on an Amiga are now available as cartridges for the GBA. The games I played on my PSOne and PS2 are being ported to the PSP. Square is releasing a sequel for Final Fantasy VII and there have to have been at least that many Armored Core games.
Notice a theme here? The horsepower of these systems surpassed the requirements of gamers a long time ago. The only reason for releasing the PS3 is to try and boost sales through increased press exposure and slightly prettier explosions.
you haven't been paying attention.
1. Blogs released Gannon's home address and phone.
2. Gannon's mother received harassing phone calls.
3. Robert Bork's video rental habits were published and he was, in fact, described as a religious nut.
4. And people upheld all of the above as free speech, or simply denied that it occurred.
So, how does any of this connect to the other people I mentioned?
Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain where (a) you got proof that Gannon was a hooker and (b) why hookers aren't allowed to be journalists, along with a bonus of (c) some evidence that security standards were waived for Gannon or are somehow lower for the Bush administration than previous administrations.
I'm especially bemused by your implicit assertion that gays are security threats who should not be permitted to be journalists.
It still comes down to "people I like deserve more protection than people I don't like."
Bah. You're just another hypocrite playing the double-standards game.
Here's a better one:
Please explain to me why the aforementioned people have fewer rights than Pamela Jones.
The relevance is in the near certainty that most of the people who are attacking O'Gara also heartily endorsed the outting and humiliation of Gannon.
Here's a related concept: privacy no longer exists. Get over it. Our choices are either pretend we have privacy and be subject to random exposure and to surveillance by the powerful, or to recognize the truth and ensure a level playing field for everyone.
Would it be too much to ask that someone exactly explain what the controversy was that drove them to resign?
For example:
1. What's the connection between sys-con and linuxworld?
2. why do we care what the editors of linuxworld do?
Oh, and here's a good one: Why is the webmaster of groklaw entitled to more privacy than, say, Jeff Gannon, the Runaway Bride, Robert Bork, the Runaway Bride, Gary Hart, or Linda Tripp?
reveals 40-50 sites with that image somewhere on their site, although none of them seem to be using it.
I dunno. Maybe it's a standard part of some webdesign tool kit?
Your argument is circular - the effects and results of the mutations should not be confused with the process of mutation itself; even if you restrict your consideration to those mutations which leave a viable organism they are still random in the mathematical sense.
I'm honestly curious.
AFAIK, speciation is one of the most hotly contested issues right now - especially since there's no hard and fast definition of "species" anymore.
The historical relationships between species are obvious both morphologically and through inspection of DNA - but the mechanism that causes a distinct population to split into two genetically distinct and self-maintaining populations would (I think) take thousands of years to "observe".
Isn't that the same argument postulated by the Big Bang?
Where did the Big Bang come from? If it came from some bubble in the quantum foam, where did the foam come from?
The truth is that while science has a great track record in describing the universe, questions like those are still in the realm of philosophy.
This is incorrect. First, mutation is not "random." The driving force is genetic diversity within a population, filtered through natural selection. The process of genetic diversification is not fully understood, and this leads a *lot* of otherwise-intelligent people to assume there is something fundamentally wrong with the theory of evolution through natural selection.
I'd say the original poster has a better handle on evolution than you do.
Yes, mutation is random. By any sane definition of the term. The genetic diversity within a breeding population is a function of the accumulation of randomly occurring genetic changes.
Claiming that the process of genetic diversity isn't fully understood is misleading, at best. We understand it fairly well - which is what allows us to do things like use the genetic variation in mitochondrial DNA to work out the spread of homo sapiens across the planet, or to understand that at one time in the (geologically) recent past, cheetahs almost went extinct - which we know because modern cheetahs are almost genetically identical to each other.
I mean, not funny, maybe, but troll?
If I wanted to troll, I would have said:
"This juicer is a clear example of how Bill Gates is trying to extend his domination of the western world by replacing simple, open source technology with buggy, insecure, proprietary tech."
I looked at the headline and read "Programmatically controlled Juror".
the same as the russians, chinese, japanese and europeans then, yeah.
we've used titans for 50 years now to put spy satellites in polar orbit.
Better tighten your tinfoil hat.
Yes, you are correct sir. You win the bonus round.
Of course, I'd probably refuse to hire you because if you get this upset over a missing "ed" you'd probably be impossible to get along with in the work place.
BTW, I've been programming in FORTH since 1983.
There is a real problem, though, that the world is full of idiots who spend years using a particular language and still don't properly understand it.
My rule on interviews was to have 10 "impossible" questions - really esoteric stuff like "Give me an example of a thread-interpreted language." It annoyed the managers to know end because it flustered the candidates. But I wasn't interested in whether or not the candidates *knew* the right answer, I was more interested in watching them work through the question and try to figure out the answer.
(for the curious: AFAIK, FORTH and Postscript are the only two thread-interpreted languages. Basically, they convert source code to a dictionary-based jump table. In this case, the word "thread" refers to the path of execution and has nothing to do with the modern meaning.)