It's been ages since his last new publication, I believe he's still teaching in NYC. Despite his very small output, he's garnered numerous World Fantasy Award nominations for his short stories and novellas. His one lengthy novel, The Ceremonies from the mid-80's, is overdue for a follow-up.
That would require a constitutional amendment to change, as I believe citizenship is defined in there, and you can believe that would be hard to push through.
You don't need to amend the Constitution once it's become customary to disregard it. Folks on both the right and the left seem to think that custom is well-established these days.
The "LCD" is neither easy to pinpoint, nor particularly easy to cater to; it takes lots of science. But it takes no art. The basic thesis of the Salon reviewer is that the basic concept of MI is a dark one, and he complains that it's potential for dark humor is not fulfilled.
I think that's a valid complaint. All the Pixar/Disney collabs hit the same sunshiney note incessantly.
Humorous nightmares can be rendered for children successfully, IMO; the Salon reviewer cites Nightmare Before Christmas; I would strongly recommend the Cartoon Network's Invader Zim to anyone who wants to see some truly ill, and hilarious, kid tv.
I can't picture Pixar/Disney doing a Zim or a Nightmare. Seeing as Disney distributed the Burton film, I don't suppose it's entirely Disney. Tin Toy, a Pixar short, also examined the "child as monster" theme, and it came off as a bit more dark than MI seems to be, but it's still pretty "bright." I wonder whether it may just be a limitation in John Lasseter's directorial style, but the work coming out of Pixar, from the first short to the present feature, seems to be pretty monotone.
I think the TV networks can learn from the music industry's strategy. If you don't want people to copy your content willy-nilly, provide a legit way for them to get it how they want, when they want. The music industry's version of this is MusicNet and PressPlay...
Neither of which exits yet, and both of which stand a good chance of falling flat on their faces.
But it seems to me they have learned a lesson from the music industry -- sue your enemy to the edge of nonexistence, then buy 'em out...
How does limiting the devices with which you may "share" to a few specific machines within the home facilitate fair use? Replay's ability to share across the internet suggests that Replay's definition of "fair use" includes the ability of limited sharing with immediate friends, even if only somewhet distant "net" friends. Transcryption to a handful of specific keys does not allow that, nor do I know of any other definition of fair use that limits it to a locus like "the home" or any other limiter of that sort.
When are major media corps going to realize that they can't beat it so they should just join it.
They've realized it. But their method of joining is to sue their object to the verge of collapse, and then partner from a position of strength (vide Napster).
Okay, they can be sold for a pittance to spammers, who, for the most part, are entrepreneurial suckers. The people filling random mailboxes with spam are mostly "make money fast" victims, not genuine marketers.
Their profiles are meaningless, because they are not attached to any real demographics. I was never asked about my income, my zipcode, my phone number, were you? An email address and a bunch of IPs mean nothing to marketers.
Yes. But the original poster was predicting doom, not bad times. Riding a stock down to worthlessness helps neither the economy nor the specific company.
Ah, a rare instance of genuine flamebait, properly moderated.
OUCH, down from more than $200! way to burn money, guys.
You have a dim grasp of capital financing if you think this sentence makes a damn bit of sense. You can't "burn" stock value. You're thinking of venture capital. And your post goes downhill from that low point.
I agree with the fellow who spots this as a troll, nevertheless...
VA has no reason to support Slashdot, Sourceforge, Themes.org, and other very expensive sites that produce zero revenue. They will probably just sell the sites off to the highest bidder (who will just want the accumulated customer data, and shut the sites down).
What customer data?/.'s demographics-gathering is minimal, barely worth anything. OTOH, it's clear just viewing the site that/. does attract a very valuable demographic of working techs and engineers./. is a brand name, well known to the tech industry, and one that exists with no content costs. There are tons of ways that/.'s free content can survive and prosper without VA, should it come to that. Even discounting ad revenues or corporate sponsorship to provide bandwidth, there are other ways/. and other useful resources of OSDN could be distributed than the old client/server paradigm.
You don't buy stock for the purpose of underwriting your favorite failing business. If you were fool enough to do so, your ability to serve others will quickly dwindle, along with the means to maintain your own well-being. Your statement is short-sighted, and whoever modded it up is insane.
I think it's pretty obvious microsoft was full of it and was just banning browsers for not being microsoft.
They probably are that evil, but they just aren't that stupid. If you don't believe it was just the usual web development glitches (the simplest explanation), then at least consider that they "banned" browsers in order to get word around that they had redesigned MSN and get a whole lot of page hits out of it. Sure they're evil, but they're also clever.
A bogus email address as the only means for contacting the author would make the email system the natural first place to check, and bounced mail certainly is a large clue here.
Also, when speaking about the MIT Lab for Computer Science, it makes sense to look for some web trace of the supposed OS.
The thing that cinches it, though, is internal evidence: the reference to a full-featured office suite and "CesiumQuake." Who in their right minds sees MIT spending time and expense on such coding projects?
Timothy, and Slant Six's editors, should've caught this one just based on that.
Why is it continually necessary to provide a GPL dig in every context, even where it's completely off-topic and irrelevant?
The same thing that makes it "necessary" for a moderator to call his post "redundant" when it is only (at worst) annoying (for the reasons you state).
That is, both moderators and posters are free to abuse their priviledges.
Re:You might want to do the same
on
Review: K-PAX
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for ennobling our trivial discussion! Makes me feel better for participating, somehow...
Re:You might want to do the same
on
Review: K-PAX
·
· Score: 1
I get it. But, taking the assumption that they ever did decide to use the completely artificial means of measuring distance by light's travel in a year (if you think of it, an absurdly arbitrary measure), we would not translate their "theqq" as year, it would be a Poontang-year. Hence, their narr-theqq would be a light-poontang-year in English though, out of courtesy, I expect we would adopt narr-theqq in conversation (and we would probably include a table of their measurement system in the next dictionaries, with our best phonetic equivalents to their words).
I've heard of phones failing, and wireless mice going bonkers. If that's your problem, this isn't because 802.11 can't handle interference, it's 'cause the mouse and the phones can't. Were any of these devices using Bluetooth? If they were, you didn't say. If they weren't, their failure is irrelevant.
Re:You might want to do the same
on
Review: K-PAX
·
· Score: 1
Let's try this one more time. A European, speaking with an American, might say "your miles" and "my kilometers," but the "your" and "my" are redundant. It's understood that "miles" and "kilometers" are measurements in different systems.
In interplanetary communications, I believe we can safely assume that English-language terms "miles" and "light-years" would be exclusive to our "Earthian" measurement system. Others may have a measurement roughly analagous to "our" light-year, but who would use the term "light-year" to refer to it? If they call a year a theqq and call Light narr, it would be a narr-theqq. So would we have to say "your" narr-theqq? I don't think so. A narr-theqq is a narr-theqq, a light-year, a light-year.
Re:You might want to do the same
on
Review: K-PAX
·
· Score: 1
Here's what you are not getting. "Light-year" is English, and means a set number of miles in English, however provincial the etymology. Saying "your light-years" is like saying "your miles." Hey, if we are gonna speak english with the Poontangians, they are going to have something other than miles and years to deal with. There will be conversion tables, presumably, but if we have any intimacy with these people, they won't say "your miles" and "your light-years." The "your" is redundant.
Measurement of time and distance is also a "human peculiarity," so far as we know.
However, saying we did encounter a non-human civilization, they would have a different term for year, i.e. poon. The Poontang peoples would call it a "light-poon" and would presumably know that a "light-year" is different. And that's assuming they spoke "our English" (as opposed to "their English").
Re:Ending not consistent
on
Review: K-PAX
·
· Score: 1
So Prot is an alien. I am glad this was spoiled, as whether Prot's an alien or not is the "dealbreaker" for me. I don't plan on seeing a "sensitive" movie that ultimately reinforces dreamy lunacy. Saved eight bucks!
Slashdot Mirror
It's been ages since his last new publication, I believe he's still teaching in NYC. Despite his very small output, he's garnered numerous World Fantasy Award nominations for his short stories and novellas. His one lengthy novel, The Ceremonies from the mid-80's, is overdue for a follow-up.
That would require a constitutional amendment to change, as I believe citizenship is defined in there, and you can believe that would be hard to push through.
You don't need to amend the Constitution once it's become customary to disregard it. Folks on both the right and the left seem to think that custom is well-established these days.
The "LCD" is neither easy to pinpoint, nor particularly easy to cater to; it takes lots of science. But it takes no art. The basic thesis of the Salon reviewer is that the basic concept of MI is a dark one, and he complains that it's potential for dark humor is not fulfilled.
I think that's a valid complaint. All the Pixar/Disney collabs hit the same sunshiney note incessantly.
Humorous nightmares can be rendered for children successfully, IMO; the Salon reviewer cites Nightmare Before Christmas; I would strongly recommend the Cartoon Network's Invader Zim to anyone who wants to see some truly ill, and hilarious, kid tv.
I can't picture Pixar/Disney doing a Zim or a Nightmare. Seeing as Disney distributed the Burton film, I don't suppose it's entirely Disney. Tin Toy, a Pixar short, also examined the "child as monster" theme, and it came off as a bit more dark than MI seems to be, but it's still pretty "bright." I wonder whether it may just be a limitation in John Lasseter's directorial style, but the work coming out of Pixar, from the first short to the present feature, seems to be pretty monotone.
Neither of which exits yet, and both of which stand a good chance of falling flat on their faces.
But it seems to me they have learned a lesson from the music industry -- sue your enemy to the edge of nonexistence, then buy 'em out...
How does limiting the devices with which you may "share" to a few specific machines within the home facilitate fair use? Replay's ability to share across the internet suggests that Replay's definition of "fair use" includes the ability of limited sharing with immediate friends, even if only somewhet distant "net" friends. Transcryption to a handful of specific keys does not allow that, nor do I know of any other definition of fair use that limits it to a locus like "the home" or any other limiter of that sort.
When are major media corps going to realize that they can't beat it so they should just join it.
They've realized it. But their method of joining is to sue their object to the verge of collapse, and then partner from a position of strength (vide Napster).
Spooky!
Okay, they can be sold for a pittance to spammers, who, for the most part, are entrepreneurial suckers. The people filling random mailboxes with spam are mostly "make money fast" victims, not genuine marketers.
As "demographic data" they are worthless.
Yes. But the original poster was predicting doom, not bad times. Riding a stock down to worthlessness helps neither the economy nor the specific company.
OUCH, down from more than $200! way to burn money, guys.
You have a dim grasp of capital financing if you think this sentence makes a damn bit of sense. You can't "burn" stock value. You're thinking of venture capital. And your post goes downhill from that low point.
I agree with the fellow who spots this as a troll, nevertheless...
VA has no reason to support Slashdot, Sourceforge, Themes.org, and other very expensive sites that produce zero revenue. They will probably just sell the sites off to the highest bidder (who will just want the accumulated customer data, and shut the sites down).
What customer data? /.'s demographics-gathering is minimal, barely worth anything. OTOH, it's clear just viewing the site that /. does attract a very valuable demographic of working techs and engineers. /. is a brand name, well known to the tech industry, and one that exists with no content costs. There are tons of ways that /.'s free content can survive and prosper without VA, should it come to that. Even discounting ad revenues or corporate sponsorship to provide bandwidth, there are other ways /. and other useful resources of OSDN could be distributed than the old client/server paradigm.
We have the technology -- we can rebuild you!
Self-serving people make me sick.
You don't buy stock for the purpose of underwriting your favorite failing business. If you were fool enough to do so, your ability to serve others will quickly dwindle, along with the means to maintain your own well-being. Your statement is short-sighted, and whoever modded it up is insane.
I think it's pretty obvious microsoft was full of it and was just banning browsers for not being microsoft.
They probably are that evil, but they just aren't that stupid. If you don't believe it was just the usual web development glitches (the simplest explanation), then at least consider that they "banned" browsers in order to get word around that they had redesigned MSN and get a whole lot of page hits out of it. Sure they're evil, but they're also clever.
Nowhere did it say that the link was a Negroponte interview!!!
Now how do I get the cooties out of my apron?
Also, when speaking about the MIT Lab for Computer Science, it makes sense to look for some web trace of the supposed OS.
The thing that cinches it, though, is internal evidence: the reference to a full-featured office suite and "CesiumQuake." Who in their right minds sees MIT spending time and expense on such coding projects?
Timothy, and Slant Six's editors, should've caught this one just based on that.
Why is it continually necessary to provide a GPL dig in every context, even where it's completely off-topic and irrelevant?
The same thing that makes it "necessary" for a moderator to call his post "redundant" when it is only (at worst) annoying (for the reasons you state).
That is, both moderators and posters are free to abuse their priviledges.
Thanks for ennobling our trivial discussion! Makes me feel better for participating, somehow...
I get it. But, taking the assumption that they ever did decide to use the completely artificial means of measuring distance by light's travel in a year (if you think of it, an absurdly arbitrary measure), we would not translate their "theqq" as year, it would be a Poontang-year. Hence, their narr-theqq would be a light-poontang-year in English though, out of courtesy, I expect we would adopt narr-theqq in conversation (and we would probably include a table of their measurement system in the next dictionaries, with our best phonetic equivalents to their words).
Or we could just stick to parsecs.
In interplanetary communications, I believe we can safely assume that English-language terms "miles" and "light-years" would be exclusive to our "Earthian" measurement system. Others may have a measurement roughly analagous to "our" light-year, but who would use the term "light-year" to refer to it? If they call a year a theqq and call Light narr, it would be a narr-theqq. So would we have to say "your" narr-theqq? I don't think so. A narr-theqq is a narr-theqq, a light-year, a light-year.
Here's what you are not getting. "Light-year" is English, and means a set number of miles in English, however provincial the etymology. Saying "your light-years" is like saying "your miles." Hey, if we are gonna speak english with the Poontangians, they are going to have something other than miles and years to deal with. There will be conversion tables, presumably, but if we have any intimacy with these people, they won't say "your miles" and "your light-years." The "your" is redundant.
Measurement of time and distance is also a "human peculiarity," so far as we know.
However, saying we did encounter a non-human civilization, they would have a different term for year, i.e. poon. The Poontang peoples would call it a "light-poon" and would presumably know that a "light-year" is different. And that's assuming they spoke "our English" (as opposed to "their English").
So Prot is an alien. I am glad this was spoiled, as whether Prot's an alien or not is the "dealbreaker" for me. I don't plan on seeing a "sensitive" movie that ultimately reinforces dreamy lunacy. Saved eight bucks!
I am humbled by your razor-sharp-wit. Moron.