"I think it's perfectly legitimate for a language to have new words for new technologies/items and use words proper to the language rather than import words from other languages. That's what it is to be living language."
Actually, most living languages undergo this process dynamically, rather than having comissions that declare what can and can not be said. Check your history books--languages ebb and flow and replace one another all the time.
Again we see the difference between a healthy company where there are alternative platforms and an unhealthy monopoly. The disagreement with tactics is contextual--if Apple had 90%+ of the market they would get DOJ heat as well.
I love Apple too, but this is silly--how did this firmware update get on the front page? It doesn't even affect all that many Apple users...I don't see Windows updates on the main page, and I'm glad about that--because it isn't really news. In a category, certainly--but there MUST be something you can post to the front page that's more vital than this, isn't there?
Don't "congratulate" me, you pompous, pathetic prick. You know exactly what my issues with the film's "philosophy" is at this point--I've been more than clear.
It's a rights issue. Just as i don't feel MSFT should dictate hat I should and should not use my computer for, I don't think authors have vast authority over their work once it leaves their hands.
In the case of the snot-nosed kid I'd say they were wrong, but I think I'd have to say why I thought they were wrong, not just say "because I wrote it and you're wrong."
Public Service Announcement: Make certain you check this guy's journal--he's simply a form of advanced troll, trying to game the/. system and make waves. You may think you're argueing with a person, but his only intention is to screw with you.
Actually, I'm argueing that the author doesn't always understand the social context from which his work springs, and so doesn't fully understand his own work.
For instance, I've written a book and had people come to me having discovered themes in it that I don't remember intending, but which are clear and make total sense. I'm argueing that I don't actually have God-like authority to tell them differently.
No. No no no. I don't belong to this role you've cast me in as a person who has issues with pop culture. I question the movie because it isn't very good--and I think that its "inaccesibility" is exactly the way it clouds its mediocrity.
Silly me. I looked at your journal, and it turns out you just fvck with people. So in a sense, this is a disengenous waste of time as you experient with the/. social agenda. Live and learn.
I'm not backpedaling, either--I honestly have been surpised by your sarcasm and was taken aback. Score a point for you.
I don't think that cast interviewes should ever indicate whether a work has depth or meaning--there is a long tradition in Hollywood of actors doing all sorts of deeply unnecessary things to "prepare" for roles, as Hollywood has a love affair with method-type "immersion" crap. (Disclosure: I am an actor.)
So the question, for me, isn't whether there are depths--the question is whether those depths actually lead anywhere, or have been sprinkled throughout to give a disingenuous sense of psedotexture to the whole enterprise.
It may be philosophy--I just question it being depth.
I meant "I can't tell" as "others may claim he is, but I have no idea and don't care" not "I suspect he is a secret movie hater." Sorry for the misinterpretation.
This has nothing to do with people who hate popular films on some principle, as that isn't me. Those people are annoying, I agree.
If you'd quote from my first paragraph, you'd see that I addressed how the essay at Mofo was constructed--it's bad theology and bad philosophy washed together, using whatever symbology is at hand cobbled together to fit.
I thought RELOADED was fun enough, but a bad sequel to a great film--it had some wonderful set pieces (particularly the freeway chase) but since it doesn't hang together as a film, it doesn't hang together as ad hoc philosophy.
I thought the mofo article gives the film too much credit for cleverness, which doesn't pay off in any tangible way and does almost nothing to enlighten.
We can discuss its philosophy and whether it is "deep"...but you can do that to anything. I don't think the film really earns the depths some claim for it.
Funny--I thought it was a didactic series of bad monologues with some great fight scenes inbetween, which caused me not to care too much that "meaning" had been installed in the franchise like an easter egg on a Doom III level.
We'd take your feedback more seriously if you didn't end a bunch of your posts with that smug "Next." It's self-important, and makes you sound like Comic Book Guys' brother...and it ultimately undermines your arguements.
Slashdot Mirror
We might be calling it that, but it wouldn't be *legislated*...and therein lies the difference.
"I think it's perfectly legitimate for a language to have new words for new technologies/items and use words proper to the language rather than import words from other languages. That's what it is to be living language."
Actually, most living languages undergo this process dynamically, rather than having comissions that declare what can and can not be said. Check your history books--languages ebb and flow and replace one another all the time.
Again we see the difference between a healthy company where there are alternative platforms and an unhealthy monopoly. The disagreement with tactics is contextual--if Apple had 90%+ of the market they would get DOJ heat as well.
That's true. Touche!
Maybe you should simply keep using your powerbook...who the hell looks at a laptop as an investment? Hello?
Right, but the world is lazy, and using Flash circumvents 90% of the copying.
I love Apple too, but this is silly--how did this firmware update get on the front page? It doesn't even affect all that many Apple users...I don't see Windows updates on the main page, and I'm glad about that--because it isn't really news. In a category, certainly--but there MUST be something you can post to the front page that's more vital than this, isn't there?
D: Teleporting people to the bottom of an ocean is funny.
While this might be oddly satisfying, it's exactly what they DON'T want--they need their addicts to stay addicted.
When trolling at
Don't "congratulate" me, you pompous, pathetic prick. You know exactly what my issues with the film's "philosophy" is at this point--I've been more than clear.
It's a rights issue. Just as i don't feel MSFT should dictate hat I should and should not use my computer for, I don't think authors have vast authority over their work once it leaves their hands.
In the case of the snot-nosed kid I'd say they were wrong, but I think I'd have to say why I thought they were wrong, not just say "because I wrote it and you're wrong."
Public Service Announcement: Make certain you check this guy's journal--he's simply a form of advanced troll, trying to game the /. system and make waves. You may think you're argueing with a person, but his only intention is to screw with you.
Actually, I'm argueing that the author doesn't always understand the social context from which his work springs, and so doesn't fully understand his own work.
For instance, I've written a book and had people come to me having discovered themes in it that I don't remember intending, but which are clear and make total sense. I'm argueing that I don't actually have God-like authority to tell them differently.
Don't waste your time like i did--check the guy's journal...he's just a very advanced troll. Disappointing.
No. No no no. I don't belong to this role you've cast me in as a person who has issues with pop culture. I question the movie because it isn't very good--and I think that its "inaccesibility" is exactly the way it clouds its mediocrity.
Silly me. I looked at your journal, and it turns out you just fvck with people. So in a sense, this is a disengenous waste of time as you experient with the /. social agenda. Live and learn.
I'm not backpedaling, either--I honestly have been surpised by your sarcasm and was taken aback. Score a point for you.
I don't think that cast interviewes should ever indicate whether a work has depth or meaning--there is a long tradition in Hollywood of actors doing all sorts of deeply unnecessary things to "prepare" for roles, as Hollywood has a love affair with method-type "immersion" crap. (Disclosure: I am an actor.)
So the question, for me, isn't whether there are depths--the question is whether those depths actually lead anywhere, or have been sprinkled throughout to give a disingenuous sense of psedotexture to the whole enterprise.
It may be philosophy--I just question it being depth.
"1.) People who use "arse" instead of "ass" are idiots."
See also: people who end all posts with "Next."
I meant "I can't tell" as "others may claim he is, but I have no idea and don't care" not "I suspect he is a secret movie hater." Sorry for the misinterpretation.
This has nothing to do with people who hate popular films on some principle, as that isn't me. Those people are annoying, I agree.
If you'd quote from my first paragraph, you'd see that I addressed how the essay at Mofo was constructed--it's bad theology and bad philosophy washed together, using whatever symbology is at hand cobbled together to fit.
I thought RELOADED was fun enough, but a bad sequel to a great film--it had some wonderful set pieces (particularly the freeway chase) but since it doesn't hang together as a film, it doesn't hang together as ad hoc philosophy.
I thought the mofo article gives the film too much credit for cleverness, which doesn't pay off in any tangible way and does almost nothing to enlighten.
We can discuss its philosophy and whether it is "deep"...but you can do that to anything. I don't think the film really earns the depths some claim for it.
That really is terrible reasoning--I'm giving you honest feedback, which I think most people would agree with.
And though it hardly needs pointing out, spelling errors are what they are: errors. They don't derive from an intentional effort to smack people.
It's cool, though--I'll just ignore you from here on out. I didn't think you'd be such a prick.
Funny--I thought it was a didactic series of bad monologues with some great fight scenes inbetween, which caused me not to care too much that "meaning" had been installed in the franchise like an easter egg on a Doom III level.
We'd take your feedback more seriously if you didn't end a bunch of your posts with that smug "Next." It's self-important, and makes you sound like Comic Book Guys' brother...and it ultimately undermines your arguements.
OR very much like a big action movie, and nothing like a Russian political movement at all.