How do you know it's not? How do you know Windows doesn't have the same problem in its Internet Connection Sharing?
At least we know it has been fixed in Linux. --
Re:Cheezy ending? (spoiler!)
on
Review: Memento
·
· Score: 1
The human brain is not a computer that follows simple rules. Maybe, a big enough trauma, like accidentally killing your wife, might just stick. --
Patrick Doyle
You'd be amazed what coroners can tell these days
on
Review: Memento
·
· Score: 1
Overdose of insulin + husband's fingerprints on syringes = duh. --
Patrick Doyle
Oh, come on. Psychological disorders aren't that simple. Perhaps a friend or a doctor tought him to do that until it became a habit. Perhaps it was just logical: every time he woke up and wanted to remember something, he'd say "my, isn't it lucky that I have this Polaroid".
How and how did he know the story of how that other guy's wife died
Spoilers here...
If it really was another guy's wife, then it happened before his memory loss started. If it wasn't, perhaps it was so traumatic that it stuck with him, although he modified the story so he could deal with it.
I'd like to hear what an actual psychologist says about this. The rest of us, I'm afraid, simply aren't qualified to judge the accuracy of the condition portrayed in the movie. --
Patrick Doyle
I didn't mean so much that the ending tied the plot together. I meant that it tied the movie together thematically. It was the period at the end of a well-crafted sentence. --
Patrick Doyle
<SPOILER> What I mean is that the movie revolves around the question of who is reliable and who is messing with Leonard, and the ending--that Leonard had been messing with himself the whole time--was really the ultimate answer to that question.
The movie was just a succession of "wow, that explains it" moments, and the final one was more of a "wow, that explains all those explanations". Totally brilliant.
</SPOILER>
I thought the ending was brilliant. Just when I thought the movie couldn't get better, the ending neatly tied the whole thing together.
I can't bring myself to say what the ending was, even with a spoiler alert, because I don't want to ruin it for anyone. Let's just say I'll definitely be seeing this movie again soon. --
Patrick Doyle
Plus, they harp on how most applications aren't compiled to be optimized for the newer processors. Newsflash: it doesn't matter. Not for most applications. Maybe your 3D drivers would be better off with the latest floating-point instructions, but for most software it just doesn't make that much of a difference.
I don't put much faith in that article. --
Patrick Doyle
They're solar panels, for collecting energy. I have seen them called "Solar Sails"
elsewhere, but that seems like a misnomer to me. Solar sails are for navigation through the solar wind, and (thanks to events this week) they are still fictitious.
--
Patrick Doyle
I have already addressed the "just turn the TV off" argument. I'm getting tired of arguing in circles.
Parents today have a tough job, and you seem to have no problem making it much tougher just to protect broadcasters' absolute right to free speech. Well, I don't buy it.
The broadcaster's right to swing his arm ends where parent's nose begins.
Why does it matter? The kids will eventually see the stuff, one way or the other. It does not hurt them, much less matter.
Are you sure? It seems obvious to me that all experiences have more psychological effect on children because their brains are still growing. Are you sure I'm wrong? If not, it seems to me that we ought to give parents the ability to decide these things for themselves. --
Patrick Doyle
We are, IMO, far too fixated on "the children" these days.
I agree, to an extent. It's just easier to argue about censorship in the context of children because adults won't admit that they can be psychologically harmed by what they see.:-) --
Patrick Doyle
And what about people on the street? Should they not be able to speak freely just so parents can get some warm fuzzy feeling that their children won't overhear anything "dirty" whenever they go outside?
Hmm, that's a good point.
I find it hard to believe that anything which has a wide enough appeal to be broadcast over the air would be so "psychologically damaging" as to warrant its forced removal by the government.
It's not obvious to me that that's true. For instance, what would be the effect on a nine-year-old boy's attitude toward women, if he were exposed to Howard Stern's greatest hits? I don't know, I'm not a psychiatrist. Probably good parenting could undo any damage, but do we need to make parenting any harder than it already is? I don't want to put words in Mr. Stern's mouth, but I suspect you'd find that he himself would not recommend his show for children.
Can't there be some compromise on this? Do we have to lean completely toward the rights of the broadcasters?
If you banned everything that someone found offensive, you'd soon end up with nothing *but* Sesame Street on the TV, and probably not even that.
That is not the only alternative to a total lack of control. My point is that censorship is a spectrum, and neither extreme is very appealing. --
Patrick Doyle
No, I'm saying that you make it sound like the only 2 choices are to have no gun in the house, or to have one loaded, cocked, and taped to a chair pointing at your kid with a string going from your dog to the trigger.
Maybe this is where we're not understanding each other. I'm am arguing against a total lack of control. I'm not saying that we should give the FCC arbitrary censorship authority so I don't have to parent my children.
My whole point is that neither extreme is appealing, and that the issue is not that simple.
Now, I probably come off more argumentative than I really should, but I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate.
Funny you should mention that. In the past, I have argued your side of this same issue.:-) --
Patrick Doyle
So your argument is that people who don't want to risk being exposed to the most vile atrocities at any time of the day or night shouldn't buy TVs?
Can't I buy a TV so my kids can watch Sesame Street without devoting my life to making sure they don't switch the channel to some talk show host having a frank pictorial discussion of the goatsecx guy? I don't care how conscientiously you teach your four-year-old son; that's going to be disturbing.
And what exactly was the benefit of this again?
Yes. You should assume that anything in your house will be opened up, prodded, played with, and possibly broken, whether you want it to be or not, including the television. Children are curious.
Precisely. So I don't leave armed hand grenades near my children. Do you think it's ok for broadcasters to make televisions equally dangerous, psychologically?
Remember, I'm only arguing against the absolute lack of control over the contents of the most readily available media. I'm only saying it's not such a simple subject that we can afford to go to that extreme.
I don't have the answers; I'm only challenging those who think the answer is to stop all censorship of all media. --
Patrick Doyle
But where does that leave the children in this situation? It's not their fault. It is that unreasonable to have some kind of limit on the obscenities that such a child could be exposed to accidentally? --
Patrick Doyle
Your recommendation to "WATCH your kids" works great for kids with conscientious parents who have unlimited time and unlimited patience. What about other kids who are not in this situation?
Response: Too darn bad. It's not the government's responsibility to raise children. The same logic that believes censoring TV makes sense directly applies to censoring the Internet.
That's a rather cavalier attitute toward the kids who are in this position.
I didn't say the government should raise our kids. I just think the view that parents have the responsibility to shield their kids from an unlimited barrage of obscenities isn't fair to parents or to kids.
Look at it the other way: can you explain why I should be forced actively and explicitly, day in and day out, to keep all manner of filth out of my own home? It is much like opt-out marketing: why should I be forced to say "no" to everything anyone could possibly want to send my way? For example, just because I own a television, does that mean I have agreed to have my children potentially exposed to anything anybody might want to say? I don't think so. OTOH, if I order certain cable stations which are known to do this sort of thing, then that's up to me, and I'll take the responsibility of protecting my kids.
My point is that (a) you can still see whatever you want, no matter what the FCC does, and (b) the extreme solution of abandoning all controls is as harmful as any other extreme solution.
Your recommendation to "WATCH your kids" works great for kids with conscientious parents who have unlimited time and unlimited patience. What about other kids who are not in this situation?
To me, it makes sense that there is material which we should not assume people want to be exposed to unless they make an explicit choice to do so. (goatsecx? rotten.com?) Allowing any and all material to be publicly broadcast where people might see it acidentally, or where unattended children might see it, seems to be going a little too far in the direction of free speech.
The first amendment says you have the right to say things, but you never have the right to make someone else listen. Applied properly, censorship could even amount to a protection of our right to choose what we listen to. AFAIK, the FCC rules only apply to public broadcasts; if you really want to hear some censored material, there are plenty of ways to do that.
Now, as for who should be in charge of the censorship, and what the rules should be, that's another ball game. The point is, I don't think there are any simple answers to this question. --
Patrick Doyle
Here is an FAQ from the Agenda Developer Zone. Among other things, they mention that the batteries last about a month, which is what I was really wondering.:-) --
Patrick Doyle
Slashdot Mirror
--
IIRC, the stated reason for using Windows is that astronauts (who are not necessarily computer experts) can manage it. Well, is it worth the risk?
Wouldn't it be better to use whatever system is best for the job, and send a computer guy up there to maintain it?
(Yes, I admit it, I'm only suggesting this because it increases my chances of getting into space from zero to negligible.)
--
--
LOL! Nicely put.
But what's wrong with giving credit where it's due?
--
How do you know it's not? How do you know Windows doesn't have the same problem in its Internet Connection Sharing?
At least we know it has been fixed in Linux.
--
The human brain is not a computer that follows simple rules. Maybe, a big enough trauma, like accidentally killing your wife, might just stick.
--
Patrick Doyle
Overdose of insulin + husband's fingerprints on syringes = duh.
--
Patrick Doyle
If it really was another guy's wife, then it happened before his memory loss started. If it wasn't, perhaps it was so traumatic that it stuck with him, although he modified the story so he could deal with it.
I'd like to hear what an actual psychologist says about this. The rest of us, I'm afraid, simply aren't qualified to judge the accuracy of the condition portrayed in the movie.
--
Patrick Doyle
Sorry to reply twice...
I didn't mean so much that the ending tied the plot together. I meant that it tied the movie together thematically. It was the period at the end of a well-crafted sentence.
--
Patrick Doyle
DO NOT READ THIS if you haven't seen the movie.
<SPOILER>
What I mean is that the movie revolves around the question of who is reliable and who is messing with Leonard, and the ending--that Leonard had been messing with himself the whole time--was really the ultimate answer to that question.
The movie was just a succession of "wow, that explains it" moments, and the final one was more of a "wow, that explains all those explanations". Totally brilliant.
</SPOILER>
--
Patrick Doyle
Heheh, good point.
<SPOILER>
I was talking about the ending at the end, where you find out who has really been jerking him around.
</SPOILER>
--
Patrick Doyle
I thought the ending was brilliant. Just when I thought the movie couldn't get better, the ending neatly tied the whole thing together.
I can't bring myself to say what the ending was, even with a spoiler alert, because I don't want to ruin it for anyone. Let's just say I'll definitely be seeing this movie again soon.
--
Patrick Doyle
Plus, they harp on how most applications aren't compiled to be optimized for the newer processors. Newsflash: it doesn't matter. Not for most applications. Maybe your 3D drivers would be better off with the latest floating-point instructions, but for most software it just doesn't make that much of a difference.
I don't put much faith in that article.
--
Patrick Doyle
They're solar panels, for collecting energy. I have seen them called "Solar Sails" elsewhere, but that seems like a misnomer to me. Solar sails are for navigation through the solar wind, and (thanks to events this week) they are still fictitious.
--
Patrick Doyle
--
Patrick Doyle
I have already addressed the "just turn the TV off" argument. I'm getting tired of arguing in circles.
Parents today have a tough job, and you seem to have no problem making it much tougher just to protect broadcasters' absolute right to free speech. Well, I don't buy it.
The broadcaster's right to swing his arm ends where parent's nose begins.
--
Patrick Doyle
--
Patrick Doyle
--
Patrick Doyle
Can't there be some compromise on this? Do we have to lean completely toward the rights of the broadcasters?
That is not the only alternative to a total lack of control. My point is that censorship is a spectrum, and neither extreme is very appealing.--
Patrick Doyle
--
Patrick Doyle
So your argument is that people who don't want to risk being exposed to the most vile atrocities at any time of the day or night shouldn't buy TVs?
Can't I buy a TV so my kids can watch Sesame Street without devoting my life to making sure they don't switch the channel to some talk show host having a frank pictorial discussion of the goatsecx guy? I don't care how conscientiously you teach your four-year-old son; that's going to be disturbing.
And what exactly was the benefit of this again?
Precisely. So I don't leave armed hand grenades near my children. Do you think it's ok for broadcasters to make televisions equally dangerous, psychologically?
Remember, I'm only arguing against the absolute lack of control over the contents of the most readily available media. I'm only saying it's not such a simple subject that we can afford to go to that extreme.
I don't have the answers; I'm only challenging those who think the answer is to stop all censorship of all media.
--
Patrick Doyle
But where does that leave the children in this situation? It's not their fault. It is that unreasonable to have some kind of limit on the obscenities that such a child could be exposed to accidentally?
--
Patrick Doyle
I didn't say the government should raise our kids. I just think the view that parents have the responsibility to shield their kids from an unlimited barrage of obscenities isn't fair to parents or to kids.
Look at it the other way: can you explain why I should be forced actively and explicitly, day in and day out, to keep all manner of filth out of my own home? It is much like opt-out marketing: why should I be forced to say "no" to everything anyone could possibly want to send my way? For example, just because I own a television, does that mean I have agreed to have my children potentially exposed to anything anybody might want to say? I don't think so. OTOH, if I order certain cable stations which are known to do this sort of thing, then that's up to me, and I'll take the responsibility of protecting my kids.
My point is that (a) you can still see whatever you want, no matter what the FCC does, and (b) the extreme solution of abandoning all controls is as harmful as any other extreme solution.
The issue is not that simple.
--
Patrick Doyle
Your recommendation to "WATCH your kids" works great for kids with conscientious parents who have unlimited time and unlimited patience. What about other kids who are not in this situation?
To me, it makes sense that there is material which we should not assume people want to be exposed to unless they make an explicit choice to do so. (goatsecx? rotten.com?) Allowing any and all material to be publicly broadcast where people might see it acidentally, or where unattended children might see it, seems to be going a little too far in the direction of free speech.
The first amendment says you have the right to say things, but you never have the right to make someone else listen. Applied properly, censorship could even amount to a protection of our right to choose what we listen to. AFAIK, the FCC rules only apply to public broadcasts; if you really want to hear some censored material, there are plenty of ways to do that.
Now, as for who should be in charge of the censorship, and what the rules should be, that's another ball game. The point is, I don't think there are any simple answers to this question.
--
Patrick Doyle
Here is an FAQ from the Agenda Developer Zone. Among other things, they mention that the batteries last about a month, which is what I was really wondering. :-)
--
Patrick Doyle