But don't you know: the terrorists are building platforms out in space from which to launch attacks on us! We _must_ occupy Mars, denying it to the terrorists.
No matter how dead os/2 may seem to be I bet you in 10-20 years someone somewhere will still be using it for something. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Will that _ever_ be said about Windows? *** Shudder ***
The Sure Kiss of Death
on
New Mad Max Film
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the article: But, says Parker, "there are so few roles that define 'big screen action hero' and this is one of them. This is an event movie, and we know how to market event movies. It's Max the way you want to see him."
Seems like alot of Movie Execs (read: tripe) have gone from rehashing old, moderately good films, into moderate films with different names and just went straight to remaking the same damned film, this time with nostalgia!
And the next step: Profit!
The public just keeps on lapping it all up, so why shouldn't they keep pumping the bilges?
I'm convinced that archiving data using a chisel and a rock is the best way to go.
I know of a large aerospace company that archives engineering drawings on microfilm. Easy to recreate the technology to read them, if you get to that point.
Those that swear by the constitution as a defense of the right to bear arms should be aware that the Supreme Court's view is that you do not have that right in the US.
An organ of the State, composed of 9 folks, deciding what rights we have and don't have granted us by the State. And that was probably a 5-4 vote! Talk about screwed up.
Gun controllers take a utilitarian approach: we want to remove guns, even knowing that X people will die because they can't protect themselves, because then Y lives will be saved, and Y > X. In other words, X are sacrifices.
Gun defenders take a utilitarian approach: well, Y is NOT > X, so it's OK! As long as X > Y, we're OK, so it becomes a body count.
Both neglect some moral dimensions: does a man have a right to defend himself? Or do we pass that defense to somebody who should do what we won't do for ourselves? For low pay?
Slightly off topic question here. I know of a spam center here in my city that i'm quite sure is larger than the one this guy is running. They have dozens of servers doing nothing but email spam, 24/7.
There has GOT to be some way to get that spot marked as "Chinese Embassy" on NATO's maps.
Where did you ever get that idea? The majority of scientists are in fact religious people. Just because they don't use them as an explaination for everything doesn't mean they can't believe.
...such a way that they look like awkward kluge piled upon kluge...
Science has a rich tradition of total credulity and of missing things and of incomplete knowledge (sounds mostly human). So what else would be new? We're descendants in that tradition.
Actually, while our design is very complicated, there are many ways in which it doesn't seem particularly intelligent--and most certainly not the product of a single intelligece (a committee of engineers some of whom were only marginally competent, and who didn't communicate very well with one another remains a distinct possibility).
In other words, "god" didn't do it the way he _should_ have done it (if indeed, he _did_ do it); therefore, he couldn't have done it. Is that your reasoning?
it is explicitly stated that the existence of God can not be proven.
I find that belief in God is as reasonable as believing in the existence of other minds. Alvin Plantinga, _God and Other Minds_.
Most scientists today have as a basic proposition "God does not exist." I simply include "God Exists" as a basic proposition needing no proof, because it's as obvious to me as the nose on anyone's face, it's natural reasoning. I don't lose any sleep, tossing and turning, worrying about how I can make an airtight proof to the skeptics that "God Exists." And I work from there.
Ethics isn't based on science or reason. What we call ethics is based on our evolution as a social primate. Killing and stealing are "wrong" because a small social group can't do very well if they're killing each other and taking each other's stuff.
The State is obviously doing very well these days, and it basically kills and steals.
Yeah, but if the movie is bad, then people will not bother to read the book, guessing it's bad too....
And if the movie is good, people won't bother reading the book, since they (will think they) know the story already....
Honestly, i've almost always been disappointed by movies taken from books...
Sometimes, if the book is not really all that good, the movie comes out better. Example: The Wizard of Oz (which I read with my daughter; it's wretched gruel for reading). There's enough in the story to make for a good movie, if changed right. With the Wizard of Oz, the movie was done right. But a really good book, you can't chop it and change it without howls of protest.
LOTR has been a big-time money maker - that usually focusses Hollywood's
minds. Perhaps they'll finally realise that being true to the original
book is a good idea.
Hmm, maybe they'll do _War and Peace_ some justice then. Excellent novel, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I too am worried about Hussein's Mars Exploration Program, and the military uses he might put that to.
But don't you know: the terrorists are building platforms out in space from which to launch attacks on us! We _must_ occupy Mars, denying it to the terrorists.
At least with his theatre he has lots of time to troll through /. cracking his old jokes.
If it's the end, it wasn't a law to start with, then, was it?
Will that _ever_ be said about Windows? *** Shudder ***
You see, it's an _event_. Rowf!
And the next step: Profit!
The public just keeps on lapping it all up, so why shouldn't they keep pumping the bilges?
You _definitely_ need to get out more.
I know of a large aerospace company that archives engineering drawings on microfilm. Easy to recreate the technology to read them, if you get to that point.
An organ of the State, composed of 9 folks, deciding what rights we have and don't have granted us by the State. And that was probably a 5-4 vote! Talk about screwed up.
Gun defenders take a utilitarian approach: well, Y is NOT > X, so it's OK! As long as X > Y, we're OK, so it becomes a body count.
Both neglect some moral dimensions: does a man have a right to defend himself? Or do we pass that defense to somebody who should do what we won't do for ourselves? For low pay?
For enlightenment, read Nation of Cowards.
I have thought it over, and I wonder: who gave the government _its_ monopoly over our lives?
Then stop buying new music, and you can stop worrying about RIAA machinations.
Then kill the computer in your life, and you can stop worrying about DMCA machinations.
Then you will have to figure out what to do with your life, since there'd be nothing on /. anymore.
There has GOT to be some way to get that spot marked as "Chinese Embassy" on NATO's maps.
Somehow, I think you're wrong. It's people who _do_ have a sense of justice, bypassing a broken justice system.
Yes, Andorion, there _is_ a Santa Claus. Only you're getting a piece of coal.
It's worse out there on the Internet than we thought.
OK, "Most scientists on /."
Science has a rich tradition of total credulity and of missing things and of incomplete knowledge (sounds mostly human). So what else would be new? We're descendants in that tradition.
In other words, "god" didn't do it the way he _should_ have done it (if indeed, he _did_ do it); therefore, he couldn't have done it. Is that your reasoning?
I find that belief in God is as reasonable as believing in the existence of other minds. Alvin Plantinga, _God and Other Minds_.
Most scientists today have as a basic proposition "God does not exist." I simply include "God Exists" as a basic proposition needing no proof, because it's as obvious to me as the nose on anyone's face, it's natural reasoning. I don't lose any sleep, tossing and turning, worrying about how I can make an airtight proof to the skeptics that "God Exists." And I work from there.
The State is obviously doing very well these days, and it basically kills and steals.
You forgot "Don't try to calculate the value of Pi" somewhere in there.
Sometimes, if the book is not really all that good, the movie comes out better. Example: The Wizard of Oz (which I read with my daughter; it's wretched gruel for reading). There's enough in the story to make for a good movie, if changed right. With the Wizard of Oz, the movie was done right. But a really good book, you can't chop it and change it without howls of protest.
Hmm, maybe they'll do _War and Peace_ some justice then. Excellent novel, by the way.