But my point is, if we *did* have "clear aluminum," does that still make manufacturers of glass windows legally liable for breakage? Should they be legally liable to convert all their customers' windows to improved materials for free?
I guess if "M$" and "Bill 'Satan' Gates" run the company, then that's alright with everyone here.
True, but I don't believe the analogy is *that* overextended. Using your personal machine to connect to millions of anonymous machines all over the world is rather equivalent to having a single pane of glass protect your family and belongings. If offers some minimal degree of security, but if someone *really* wants to f*ck-up your day, there's not much you can do to stop them. Not with just your PC and not with just a pane of glass.
You may decide that bars over your window make you feel safer, but does that give you the right to sue the window-maker? If someone comes along and cuts the bars off with a hacksaw, does that give you the right to sure the bar-maker? I mean, they told you that their product would make your home more secure, but somebody still got in.
How is a rows of houses with glass windows any different from a row of IP addresses running MS software?
I see the self-serving nature of this analogy, but it is not contrived in the least. Besides, aren't all arguments and analogies supposed to be sycophantic, by their very definitions?
um the window was designed with GLASS. something that is insecure by nature.
Umm.. IE was designed to connect to millions of anonymous computers on the internet, something that is insecure by nature.
not to mention the software industry scales in a much different fashion than physical products. fix once, its good forever. where as using stroner glass has a price point per window.
So, you can secure your home windows with some extra $$ and effort, but you can *never* secure your home PC? Ever? Not even by spending hundreds of dollars on AV packages, Firewalls, Routers, etc? That's odd.. in my 12 years of PC usage, I've had *one* security breach (that Windows RPC/Blaster thing last year.) How much does this fortress of security cost me? Well, I spend about $50 every couple of years on a decent router. That's it. Combine that with some freeware AV and frequent software updates and I feel pretty safe.
Am I still vulnerable? Most definitely. Do I feel that any single software vendor can be held directly liable for any attack on me that causes me a loss? Nope.
glass usually doesnt shatter just by blowing at it. which is precisley how MS windows is.
Odd.. I can get some of my more nefarious cohorts to try and '0wnz0r my box,' but they all admit defeat after a few hours. Oh, they all agree it can be done, given enough time, but it's not exactly as if I have left the keys in the front door, no matter what you, Mr. Anonymous Coward Security Expert, claim.
My windows aren't easy. I can't just stand in my house and determine whether my windows are locked or not. Ihave to walk ove to them. I have to look at the lock. Then I have to actually try to lift the damn window, since the locks are internal and I can't ever remember if "lever to the left" means locked or unlocked. Do I have grounds for a lawsuit if I can't tell if my house is secure?
You seriously better hope a class action lawsuit *never* comes up for this. That would seriously turn the entire software industry on it's head. Where would it stop?
If I'm playing a competitive game of UT2k4 and the mouse driver cuts out, can I sue Logitech for loss of potential profits?
If I'm writing my thesis and the power cuts out, can I sue the Utilities Company for my lost tuition?
If I'm using a statistical package and, due to some bug, I determine that shooting myself in the face with a loaded shotgun has a -0.314159 probability of death, can my mourning relatives sue the company?
At what point does the software manufacturer get to say "Hey, we did our part. The rest is up to you."
The difference is that youpaid MS for their software, so they should be liable up to the retail value of their useless software.
I agree. You should be entitled to the full price of Internet Explorer. Oh wait.. they offer it for free. Hmm..
Oh, I see. You have to have Windows to use IE, so you get that $$ s well. But wait, you also need a CPU. And ram. And a display of some sort. And electricity, Damn. Microsoft should be held liable for the entire cost of your existence because they keep releasing a crappy web-browsing application.
Or maybe, comsumers should make some intelligent decisions in their lives and take some responsibilty when the shit hits the fan, instead of always looking for a scapegoat. But nah.. that's be too difficult.
WTF? What about other "windows" manufacturers? You know, the ones who make those glass things that go in your house? Year after year, burglars come along and simply break the glass and rob the house. Yet, year after year, these manufacturers willfully neglect their obvious security flaws and keep making their products the way the want.
Let's sue those bastards as well! Let's make them all make windows out of 1/4-inch steel! How dare they make a products used by millions of people that are so obviously flawed! I hear some installers don't even lock the windows after they install them! The expect the homeowners to do that themselves! Scandalous!
Blind zealously is not usually an admirable trait, people.
So? MS software (like most) comes with no guarantee of saftey or security. Can we also have Class Action suits against Sendmail or Apache or any of the other linux software that could have be vulnerable to attacks?
I didn't say anything about the planets in our solar system. Just the ones so far away that we don't know anything about anyway. I still say there is no practical reason for this.
I'm glad you weren't in charge back in the day!
"What? A new route to India? That's way on the other side of the world! We don't know anything about what's out there across the water! What could we possibly gain from this?"
"What? A manned trip to the moon? That's millions of miles away! We don't know what's out there in space! What could we possibly gain from this?"
"What? A probe on Mars? That's an entirely different planet! We don't know anything about the place! What could we possibly gain from this?"
I actually read the EW article (waiting to get haircut or something) where he made the quote about $75,000-$100,000 being "not much to live on." Talk about being out of touch with reality!
Umm.. not to question your parental skills, but what are you doing about this? Are you just adding more filtering software and trying to stay one step ahead of him, or are you actually confronting him with what you've found? How old is you kid?
I have two children of my own, one old enough to surf (from a pre-selected list of sites we've agreed upon - mores added as she sees commercials or hears about them and I get to prescreen them first.) I can't image having to worry about her eventually "figuring out" my protection scheme and trying to get around it. Does your child not have any respect for you? Do you punish or otherwise make known your objections to his actions? It seems to me like you are mistaking your role in this situation. You are his parent -- you make the rules. If he's still young, you need to make that clear. If he's too old to control, then he's practically an adult and the whole point becomes moot. Are you trying to control what your 17-year-old sees?
I'm sorry if I seem like I'm making judgements about you without full knowledge of your situation, but this just seems very odd to me.
Rational *does* put out some buggy software. But to me, the King of All Bad Software still goes to the Lotus Notes Suite. This thing I'm forced to use at work is by far the most ill-designed, irrational, user-aggressive, buggy piece of software I've ever used. And our *entire* company bought it for use as the world-wide corporate standard! WTF?!
Title: Time To Check Yourself Dude Body: You're worried that a cartoon isn't going to have nudity?
Now, perhaps I'm confused about the phrase "Time To Check Yourself Dude." I assumed it to be a phrase somewhat synonymous with "It is time for you to engage in a bit in introspect and reconsider your thoughts/actions/life/what-have-you." This was followed by the body of your post.
My conclusion was that was that you were the one expressing "fake sanctimoniousness." You were implying that the original poster was somehow showing what a disturbed individual he is by pondering if the sequel to this film was going to be significantly different in regards to mature content. The idea that someone would dare ask about nudity in a "cartoon" seemed to genuinely affect you. After considering why this was, I just naturally assumed that your ideas about nudity in film were under-developed and rather shallow, and pointed such out. Admittedly, after re-reading my post, my tone was a little harsher and more condescending than I had intended. For that, I apologize.
Now, as to why you assume that I meant that all film involving nudity are enhanced by that fact alone, I know not. I made no such implications in my short response, and I'm rather disturbed by the fact that you took such a considerable amount of time and effort to link to many nudity-driven, sub-par movies.
And your conclusion about cartoons being a source of mature entertainment, and effective social commentary just seems to validate my original argument.
All in all, yours was a very interesting, if not somewhat futile, post.
When I moved to Texas, one of the first things I saw was a little strip-mall in a rural town with the followings signs out front:
Donuts Guns DayCare
I always wanted to get a pic of that, as I passed it every couple of months. Sadly, by the time a got a DigiCam, they had replaced DayCare with Video Rental, which in a way is even more Texas typical, but not quite as funny.
Well, I also liked Ninja Scroll, and would probably put that pretty high on my animated film list. I've been told I'm not really into *real* anime.
*shrug*
Oh well. I also liked "Vampire Hunter D." You might want to check that out. I guess I liked "Lain" as well. It's different. I never cared for "Akira" that much, but "Princess Mononoke" was pretty good.
Grow up, dude. Not all nudity implies "stroke yourself while watching this." Nudity can be used as an essential plot device, to help character development, or to invoke specific feelings (shame, modesty, sexuality, empowerment, etc.)
Some of us adults understand this, some do not. You seem to belong in the latter group. Feel free go back to your Smurfs and Rugrats, and leave the interesting movies to the grown-ups. The ones who can grasp the concept that "cartoons" aren't just for Saturday morning kids.
I think a "measly Radeon 9600" will be able to run D3 as well as HL2 just fine. The recent Doom 3 leaked Alpha runs on my Athlon 2600 / Radeon 9600 XT with perfectly acceptable rates. I can't actually see or adjust the detail level, but the default is still nice looking. I imagine that the retail version will have some tweaks and optimizations that will improve performance.
Satellite is totally locked down; don't even think about recording it.
What do you mean by this? My Dish Network satellite receiver has both coax and RCA outputs. I run the RCA to my DVD/Receiver and on to the TV. I run the coax into my PCI TV Tuner card on my PC. I set my Tuner to Channel 3. Voila! There's my satellite signal on my PC. I can use any dozens of software packages to record, playback or time-shift any program I want. If I didn't want to change channels manually, I could get an IR blaster to automatically do it for me.
It's a complete home-built PVR system for use with digital satellite. What seems to be the problem?
I had a PS2, but never a PS1. We bought a PS1 game for my daughter to play (Peter Pan.) I must admit, the game was horrid. Hopefully this was not representative of typical PS1 games. The load times were not just annoying, they were downright stupid. Not only were they long, but the programming was all wrong. Basically, you'd be at a overhead map. You'd pick a level. After a ~2 minute load, you'd be playing. Now if you die, it loads the map back. That takes about ~2 minutes again. Now what do you typically do now that you're back at the map? You play the same level again! Another ~2 minutes load! WTF? Basically, you die and it takes about 4 minutes before you get to play again. Boss levels (where you had to study an attack pattern) were excruciating. Even for a 6 year old!
No granted, this was a Disney-produced game, so it's not exactly the pinnacle of quality. But still, does Sony have any kind of Seal of Approval or something? I can't believe anyone would want such a frustrating game as this to be associated with thier system.
Long story short, we sold the PS2 and got a Game Cube. Everyone is happy.
XBox: x98 --> XBox2: PPC XBox: nVidia --> XBox2: ATi
But they did buy the rights to that emulation software. Quite a few of us thought that would allow backwards-compatibility, but it looks like not. Probably the nVidia/ATi switch was a major obstacle.
The only bad thing I see about this whole idea, is that, as great as B5 was supposed to be, I know of very few people who actually watched it. I tried and couldn't. Contrast this to ST:TNG; a show that my whole family sat down and watched, semi-religiously. Even my dad, who is *not* a SciFi fan in the least.
My point is that, it's not good enough to just have a nice, consistent SciFi Universe established, you have to provide some (dumbed down?) stories and character development. Remember, it'll have to compete with such intelligent shows like Survivor 8, The Simple Life 4, and American Idol 18. If the show isn't entertaining enough for a prime-time slot on a major network, then it'll just get regulated to a crappy spot on the SciFi channel and only a few people will watch it. In fact, even if it is smart and entertaining, it'll probably suffer this same fate, or worse. (see: Firefly, SG:SG1, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
But my point is, if we *did* have "clear aluminum," does that still make manufacturers of glass windows legally liable for breakage? Should they be legally liable to convert all their customers' windows to improved materials for free?
I guess if "M$" and "Bill 'Satan' Gates" run the company, then that's alright with everyone here.
True, but I don't believe the analogy is *that* overextended. Using your personal machine to connect to millions of anonymous machines all over the world is rather equivalent to having a single pane of glass protect your family and belongings. If offers some minimal degree of security, but if someone *really* wants to f*ck-up your day, there's not much you can do to stop them. Not with just your PC and not with just a pane of glass.
You may decide that bars over your window make you feel safer, but does that give you the right to sue the window-maker? If someone comes along and cuts the bars off with a hacksaw, does that give you the right to sure the bar-maker? I mean, they told you that their product would make your home more secure, but somebody still got in.
How is a rows of houses with glass windows any different from a row of IP addresses running MS software?
I see the self-serving nature of this analogy, but it is not contrived in the least. Besides, aren't all arguments and analogies supposed to be sycophantic, by their very definitions?
um the window was designed with GLASS. something that is insecure by nature.
Umm.. IE was designed to connect to millions of anonymous computers on the internet, something that is insecure by nature.
not to mention the software industry scales in a much different fashion than physical products. fix once, its good forever. where as using stroner glass has a price point per window.
So, you can secure your home windows with some extra $$ and effort, but you can *never* secure your home PC? Ever? Not even by spending hundreds of dollars on AV packages, Firewalls, Routers, etc? That's odd.. in my 12 years of PC usage, I've had *one* security breach (that Windows RPC/Blaster thing last year.) How much does this fortress of security cost me? Well, I spend about $50 every couple of years on a decent router. That's it. Combine that with some freeware AV and frequent software updates and I feel pretty safe.
Am I still vulnerable? Most definitely. Do I feel that any single software vendor can be held directly liable for any attack on me that causes me a loss? Nope.
glass usually doesnt shatter just by blowing at it. which is precisley how MS windows is.
Odd.. I can get some of my more nefarious cohorts to try and '0wnz0r my box,' but they all admit defeat after a few hours. Oh, they all agree it can be done, given enough time, but it's not exactly as if I have left the keys in the front door, no matter what you, Mr. Anonymous Coward Security Expert, claim.
My windows aren't easy. I can't just stand in my house and determine whether my windows are locked or not. Ihave to walk ove to them. I have to look at the lock. Then I have to actually try to lift the damn window, since the locks are internal and I can't ever remember if "lever to the left" means locked or unlocked. Do I have grounds for a lawsuit if I can't tell if my house is secure?
You seriously better hope a class action lawsuit *never* comes up for this. That would seriously turn the entire software industry on it's head. Where would it stop?
If I'm playing a competitive game of UT2k4 and the mouse driver cuts out, can I sue Logitech for loss of potential profits?
If I'm writing my thesis and the power cuts out, can I sue the Utilities Company for my lost tuition?
If I'm using a statistical package and, due to some bug, I determine that shooting myself in the face with a loaded shotgun has a -0.314159 probability of death, can my mourning relatives sue the company?
At what point does the software manufacturer get to say "Hey, we did our part. The rest is up to you."
It's a very slippery slope.
The difference is that youpaid MS for their software, so they should be liable up to the retail value of their useless software.
I agree. You should be entitled to the full price of Internet Explorer. Oh wait.. they offer it for free. Hmm..
Oh, I see. You have to have Windows to use IE, so you get that $$ s well. But wait, you also need a CPU. And ram. And a display of some sort. And electricity, Damn. Microsoft should be held liable for the entire cost of your existence because they keep releasing a crappy web-browsing application.
Or maybe, comsumers should make some intelligent decisions in their lives and take some responsibilty when the shit hits the fan, instead of always looking for a scapegoat. But nah.. that's be too difficult.
WTF? What about other "windows" manufacturers? You know, the ones who make those glass things that go in your house? Year after year, burglars come along and simply break the glass and rob the house. Yet, year after year, these manufacturers willfully neglect their obvious security flaws and keep making their products the way the want.
Let's sue those bastards as well! Let's make them all make windows out of 1/4-inch steel! How dare they make a products used by millions of people that are so obviously flawed! I hear some installers don't even lock the windows after they install them! The expect the homeowners to do that themselves! Scandalous!
Blind zealously is not usually an admirable trait, people.
Well, at least the DoHS didn't recommend cover your Windows with plastic and using duct-tape to seal the cracks this time...
So? MS software (like most) comes with no guarantee of saftey or security. Can we also have Class Action suits against Sendmail or Apache or any of the other linux software that could have be vulnerable to attacks?
Wait.. Doesn't 384,400 km == Millions of miles? Stupid metric system! =P
I'm glad you weren't in charge back in the day!
"What? A new route to India? That's way on the other side of the world! We don't know anything about what's out there across the water! What could we possibly gain from this?"
"What? A manned trip to the moon? That's millions of miles away! We don't know what's out there in space! What could we possibly gain from this?"
"What? A probe on Mars? That's an entirely different planet! We don't know anything about the place! What could we possibly gain from this?"
His wiki entry has a few more choice quotes:
Wikipedia
I actually read the EW article (waiting to get haircut or something) where he made the quote about $75,000-$100,000 being "not much to live on." Talk about being out of touch with reality!
Oh.. ok. I thought you had a problem where he was out "looking" for this stuff at every oopportunity, despite your efforts.
I *did* have the wrong impression, sorry.
Umm.. not to question your parental skills, but what are you doing about this? Are you just adding more filtering software and trying to stay one step ahead of him, or are you actually confronting him with what you've found? How old is you kid?
I have two children of my own, one old enough to surf (from a pre-selected list of sites we've agreed upon - mores added as she sees commercials or hears about them and I get to prescreen them first.) I can't image having to worry about her eventually "figuring out" my protection scheme and trying to get around it. Does your child not have any respect for you? Do you punish or otherwise make known your objections to his actions? It seems to me like you are mistaking your role in this situation. You are his parent -- you make the rules. If he's still young, you need to make that clear. If he's too old to control, then he's practically an adult and the whole point becomes moot. Are you trying to control what your 17-year-old sees?
I'm sorry if I seem like I'm making judgements about you without full knowledge of your situation, but this just seems very odd to me.
So I wonder how you can calculate the rating need for ths PSU?
Wonder no longer! Power Supply Article
Rational *does* put out some buggy software. But to me, the King of All Bad Software still goes to the Lotus Notes Suite. This thing I'm forced to use at work is by far the most ill-designed, irrational, user-aggressive, buggy piece of software I've ever used. And our *entire* company bought it for use as the world-wide corporate standard! WTF?!
*sigh*
Let's go back to your original post:
Title: Time To Check Yourself Dude
Body: You're worried that a cartoon isn't going to have nudity?
Now, perhaps I'm confused about the phrase "Time To Check Yourself Dude." I assumed it to be a phrase somewhat synonymous with "It is time for you to engage in a bit in introspect and reconsider your thoughts/actions/life/what-have-you." This was followed by the body of your post.
My conclusion was that was that you were the one expressing "fake sanctimoniousness." You were implying that the original poster was somehow showing what a disturbed individual he is by pondering if the sequel to this film was going to be significantly different in regards to mature content. The idea that someone would dare ask about nudity in a "cartoon" seemed to genuinely affect you. After considering why this was, I just naturally assumed that your ideas about nudity in film were under-developed and rather shallow, and pointed such out. Admittedly, after re-reading my post, my tone was a little harsher and more condescending than I had intended. For that, I apologize.
Now, as to why you assume that I meant that all film involving nudity are enhanced by that fact alone, I know not. I made no such implications in my short response, and I'm rather disturbed by the fact that you took such a considerable amount of time and effort to link to many nudity-driven, sub-par movies.
And your conclusion about cartoons being a source of mature entertainment, and effective social commentary just seems to validate my original argument.
All in all, yours was a very interesting, if not somewhat futile, post.
When I moved to Texas, one of the first things I saw was a little strip-mall in a rural town with the followings signs out front:
Donuts
Guns
DayCare
I always wanted to get a pic of that, as I passed it every couple of months. Sadly, by the time a got a DigiCam, they had replaced DayCare with Video Rental, which in a way is even more Texas typical, but not quite as funny.
Well, I also liked Ninja Scroll, and would probably put that pretty high on my animated film list. I've been told I'm not really into *real* anime.
*shrug*
Oh well. I also liked "Vampire Hunter D." You might want to check that out. I guess I liked "Lain" as well. It's different. I never cared for "Akira" that much, but "Princess Mononoke" was pretty good.
Grow up, dude. Not all nudity implies "stroke yourself while watching this." Nudity can be used as an essential plot device, to help character development, or to invoke specific feelings (shame, modesty, sexuality, empowerment, etc.)
Some of us adults understand this, some do not. You seem to belong in the latter group. Feel free go back to your Smurfs and Rugrats, and leave the interesting movies to the grown-ups. The ones who can grasp the concept that "cartoons" aren't just for Saturday morning kids.
I think a "measly Radeon 9600" will be able to run D3 as well as HL2 just fine. The recent Doom 3 leaked Alpha runs on my Athlon 2600 / Radeon 9600 XT with perfectly acceptable rates. I can't actually see or adjust the detail level, but the default is still nice looking. I imagine that the retail version will have some tweaks and optimizations that will improve performance.
Hexen / Hexen II, perhaps?
What do you mean by this? My Dish Network satellite receiver has both coax and RCA outputs. I run the RCA to my DVD/Receiver and on to the TV. I run the coax into my PCI TV Tuner card on my PC. I set my Tuner to Channel 3. Voila! There's my satellite signal on my PC. I can use any dozens of software packages to record, playback or time-shift any program I want. If I didn't want to change channels manually, I could get an IR blaster to automatically do it for me.
It's a complete home-built PVR system for use with digital satellite. What seems to be the problem?
I had a PS2, but never a PS1. We bought a PS1 game for my daughter to play (Peter Pan.) I must admit, the game was horrid. Hopefully this was not representative of typical PS1 games. The load times were not just annoying, they were downright stupid. Not only were they long, but the programming was all wrong. Basically, you'd be at a overhead map. You'd pick a level. After a ~2 minute load, you'd be playing. Now if you die, it loads the map back. That takes about ~2 minutes again. Now what do you typically do now that you're back at the map? You play the same level again! Another ~2 minutes load! WTF? Basically, you die and it takes about 4 minutes before you get to play again. Boss levels (where you had to study an attack pattern) were excruciating. Even for a 6 year old!
No granted, this was a Disney-produced game, so it's not exactly the pinnacle of quality. But still, does Sony have any kind of Seal of Approval or something? I can't believe anyone would want such a frustrating game as this to be associated with thier system.
Long story short, we sold the PS2 and got a Game Cube. Everyone is happy.
Yeah:
XBox: x98 --> XBox2: PPC
XBox: nVidia --> XBox2: ATi
But they did buy the rights to that emulation software. Quite a few of us thought that would allow backwards-compatibility, but it looks like not. Probably the nVidia/ATi switch was a major obstacle.
The only bad thing I see about this whole idea, is that, as great as B5 was supposed to be, I know of very few people who actually watched it. I tried and couldn't. Contrast this to ST:TNG; a show that my whole family sat down and watched, semi-religiously. Even my dad, who is *not* a SciFi fan in the least.
My point is that, it's not good enough to just have a nice, consistent SciFi Universe established, you have to provide some (dumbed down?) stories and character development. Remember, it'll have to compete with such intelligent shows like Survivor 8, The Simple Life 4, and American Idol 18. If the show isn't entertaining enough for a prime-time slot on a major network, then it'll just get regulated to a crappy spot on the SciFi channel and only a few people will watch it. In fact, even if it is smart and entertaining, it'll probably suffer this same fate, or worse. (see: Firefly, SG:SG1, etc)