Well, this is an obvious troll. But I feel the need to say something about it anyway. Sue me.
You seem to be comparing Asimov and Grisham's works as if they were virtually interchangeable. They're not. Disregarding the issue of whether one is better than the other (and one always is better, depending on who you ask), Isaac Asimov's science fiction and John Grisham's legal fiction cannot easily be compared because they are two different and distinct forms of fiction.
Grisham's work takes the existing laws of the legal world (in this case, actual legislation) and uses them as a framework for his novels. Lawyers already know these laws, and more often than not they're so common-knowledge that even IANALs can easily grasp the basics. In other words, a non-sci-fi author works with what is already known.
Asimov's work took what (at the time) was a far-off concept and imagined what it would be like once real life caught up with it. Good science fiction isn't fiction at all-- it's philosophy and prediction. At some point in the future-- eventually-- we are going to have to deal with the prospect of robotics (Asimov). At some point in the future we are going to have to deal with direct computer-to-brain interfaces (Gibson). At some point we are going to have the technology that the authors of yesterday detailed and in some cases designed for us.
Maybe I fell too hard for an obvious troll, but you raised what I thought was a semi-interesting (if somewhat ignorant) question.
But i was laid off six months ago. Not only would i have to come up with about $300 bucks for the registration cost, in order to meet their requirements for entry i would also have to pretend to still be employed by my ex-company and hope they didn't check up on it.
Only problem with that is, the game [UT] ships with dozens of mutators-- always has, always will.
How exactly do we know that the "official" server is playing the way "the creators intended"? Has CliffyB come down and said, "OK, guys, our official, canon gameplay is to ignore all of the kickass mods and 0wnage maps we provided to our players and just go with this vanilla setup"?
There's something to be said for having a baseline, true, but there's also a damn good reason FPS games almost always come with the server software.
No, it's worse than that. Cox (not Wonkette-- she didn't actually say it) has cast that pall of illegitimacy over all online journalism by phrasing it as a generalization. Which anyone will be able to see can't be used as evidence, as it is highly doubtful Cox can speak for the entire Internet population.
The bottom line is and has always been, "Watch your mouth online."
I disagree fundamentally with just about everything mentioned there. A website, if it is even pretending to be a "news site", absolutely must be accurate. You cannot simply roll dice to determine a story if you want to keep a consistent reader base. Being first means nothing if you are totally wrong.
As for humor trumping accuracy, this too is patently absurd. It's funny to laugh at George Bush mangling a quote in a headline, but what if (and believe me, it's a stretch for me to defend W. here) the President never said it?
Let's jump forward about five years. The President of the United States has just given a press conference. Some yutz with a long-range microphone and a web-enabled palm pilot sits about 500 yards away from the White House Lawn, watching the President get off the podium. Under his breath, Mr. President mutters, "God, I just bombed that Cuba issue."
The guy with the long mike hears "God, I just bombed [indistinct] Cuba [indistinct]." Twenty-four hours later, Miami is in ruins and nobody knows why, until they check out a web site that claims that the U.S. has nuked Havana.
Information mutates so rapidly on the Web, with everyone adding their own bias to the "facts" they receive. It's like the old 'telephone' game everybody used to play in kindergarten-- pass the message along and see how it changes four or five kids down the line.
Accuracy is important in any medium. With the web, however, it's evolved to a point where nobody can really believe anything unless a) the source is reputable or b) it comes from multiple sources. Publishing false or inaccurate information undermines a), and with b) there can be nobody who "breaks the news first".
I don't really consider the web to be a primary source of "real world" news-- sure, I read four or five gaming sites every day to keep up on the industry, but that's different from something like, say, global thermonuclear war. For something like that I will always turn to traditional media such as radio, print, or television. (I consider the web sites of the traditional news media to be a pseudo-extension of those publications; they still require verification from "outside" but are generally more trusted than the average web site.)
Bottom line: A blog is not and can never be an implicitly "trusted" news source. Not even my own. Especially not my own.
Like hell this is off topic. I want to know if the Dr. has a favorite color. The article specifically asks for questions.
I think the quickest way to show how artificial "she" is, is to show how hard it would be to answer a question like this.
OK, now let's see how artificial you are.
You obviously didn't read the blurb, where it's made perfectly clear that the doctor is human-- more specifically, a human philosopher studying the theoretical psychology of how humans will or may interact with androids or other artificial intelligences.
Since you did not read the article, and instead made a half-assed assumption based on your own faulty reading of the blurb, you must be a human slashdotter. To a painful extent, you are the real thing.
You also exemplify one of my favorite axioms regarding the topic: "Artificial intelligence is no match for genuine stupidity."
These failures shaped NOAs strategy(once Nintendo decided it might be worth it[Atari ALMOST was the company that distributed the NES stateside]) which caused the industry to grow again.
Nintendo was in talks with a lot of distributors in the early 80s. This is the first I'd heard of Atari's involvement, but I'd previously known they were considered by WoW/Alchemy II (makers of the ill-fated Teddy Ruxpin dolls). It's not unreasonable to believe that Nintendo pitched to anybody and everybody who would listen before going ahead on their own.
You completely missed my point. He's not refusing to serve you on a technical reason, he's refusing to serve you because he cannot beyond a reasonable doubt prove that you are legal. If the bartender is under enough doubt that he feels the need to swipe the card, then if it does not work he will not serve you in the belief that the ID is fake and it would be too risky to serve you. There are also other reasons you could be refused-- if you appear visibly intoxicated, for example.
A lot of people seem to confuse the definitions of "public place" and "privately-owned establishment". If you go into the street, then that is a public place. Go into a bar and you're in a private place. In the street, you are obligated only to follow the public laws. In the bar (or restaurant or whatever), you are obliged to follow both public ordinances and the rules set forth by the establishment, or be thrown out and refused re-entry. A private establishment can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they have a valid reason for doing it (racism/sexism/etc. being previously legally defined as invalid reasons, but being too young having been established as a legally valid reason). So in short, this is all a completely moot point because a bar has a different set of rules than a cop pulling you over for no obvious reason, or an airport terminal security checkpoint (which is what you should really be worried about).
I agree that the government is over-regulating certain things, but I also think it's a good idea to have some governmental controls as a secondary failsafe (if and after the parents fail to do their job).
You're not a "paying customer" if serving you alcohol is illegal. Let's see-- a buck profit for a draft beer versus a 50-50 chance of a $50,000 fine (or worse; IANAL) for distributing to a minor? I doubt many bartenders would want to run that kind of risk.
Don't most driver's license cards have barcodes on the back that liquor stores, etc. can scan?
Yes, but they're useless out-of-state. Witness: I have a New York State driver's license (have for eight years now), and it has two different barcodes on the back. Very nifty, and when I'm visiting my parents I can swing by the liquor store, have them scan the card, and walk out with a six-pack of Guinness no problem. I can also do the same thing where I live in Pennsylvania, except the clerks here can't scan the NY cards-- their scanners are only set to read PA cards. So theoretically I can waltz in with a fake ID and nobody would be the wiser.
For those of us either too young to have played the Atari 2600's classic library or for those who just never got around to it, might I suggest picking up either a collection disc or one of those joystick-that-plugs-into-the-tv collections? Myself, I'm looking forward to the Paddle collection (as, AFAIK, no similar controller exists for a modern machine, so a collection disc would be kind of pointless).
Exactly. I was hoping someone would catch that. (True, I started hoping it about ten seconds after I hit submit and realized I stupidly left that in there, but still.) Either assertion requires proof, proof or evidence that humanity in its current state cannot provide.
This raises another question: If humanity in its current state cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, why? There are of course three options:
A) God has somehow prevented humans from discovering proof and by extension him. B) There is no god and humans are wasting their time searching for one. C) Humans may be as physically advanced as they can be, but must develop further intellectually and mentally in order to understand whatever proof/disproof may exist currently.
Option A is pretty ridiculous. It presupposes the existence of God to give a reason why we can't discover God; but if we know God stops us from knowing God, then we know of God and the rule backfires-- we have 'proof', but not a real proof.
Option B is something some people can assert, but again, it requires a fair amount of evidence to back it up. Evidence which, by the nature of the question, cannot or does not exist ("is there evidence for or against god?" "no, because we have no evidence of god").
Option C requires a little bit of faith-- on both sides. Theists (not just Christians, mind you) need to believe that humanity, while at the pinnacle of their physical development ("in god's image", so to speak), still have some ways to go, mentally, to be the perfect creation that god intended them to be. Atheists need to believe that the human mind can still develop beyond what it is capable of understanding now, and that at one point humanity will be able to understand and decipher more of the universe's secrets. In both cases there's evidence that these leaps forward in thought have occurred (chaos theory, nuclear physics, etc.).
I suppose the best and most valid answer to "Is there a God?" could be a simple "I don't know [, but I believe...]." Or probably, if you want to be more optimistic about it, "Well, I don't know yet. Wait and see."
Oh yeah, and a quick Google scan of the Vatican's web site shows that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing about evolution, but a document from 1998 (here) seems to suggest what you and I have gone over-- that evolution happened but God (/Fate/Time/Whatever) either initiated or intervened in the process.
I'd like to jump in for a second here on the link you offered, and I'm willing to risk a whole three karma to do it (yeah, big risk, but who really cares). I noticed you put in your post the following advice regarding the link:
(and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with)
I realize I probably don't fit the profile of "most slashdotters", but frankly I don't see much of a problem here. I was raised Catholic, true, and have found myself doubting that faith as an agnostic seeker; but to be perfectly honest the link makes a compelling argument for the existence of [a/some/many/the one true/whatever] God.
It's probably not Catholic canon, to be sure, but the works cited in the article-- from Augustine to Darwin-- are enough for anyone to read for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Some people might say that it was merely luck that humans evolved in the way that they did-- that there was no divine force guiding the mutation and development of the unique characteristics that make a human a human. To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't." There is no evidence either for or against the existence of such a force-- certainly the odds are astronomical, but the greater the odds, the more likely it seems less of a coincidence and more of an intent.
Also, the bit about the soul simply not being possible in evolution also sits well with me. If evolution could have created humans exactly as they are now without the need for a creator's touch, what need would we have for the creator? It is my belief that when the creator (who or whatever that may be) saw that humanity was as developed as it was going to get naturally, this creator imbued the race with the spark of intellect-- a touch of the divine, if you will.
My beliefs are my own. You may or may not find truth in them, and frankly it's none of my business whether or not you do. I just thought I ought to thank you for giving me the opportunity to air that out a little bit. Oh, and I'll definitely be passing this link along to one of my old professors-- he's a Catholic priest and very much into this sort of thing.
Calling it all random is like saying "You can have anything from Set X" but pupolating Set X with "crap", "turd", "dung", "shit", "fecal matter", "merde", etc.
That word should be populating. Pupolating sounds like how ClearChannel DJs select their music playlists.
(note: I DJ'd on my college campus, so I'm allowed to make fun of DJs)
Calling it all random is like saying "You can have anything from Set X" but pupolating Set X with "crap", "turd", "dung", "shit", "fecal matter", "merde", etc.
Re:Alcohol and Consumer Electronics Don't Mix.
on
Take Me Home, I'm Drunk
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Thank God my phone has a voice dial.
[Command, please.] "N'm dial." [Name, please.] "Txycabcr." [Did you say: 'Texas Star'?] "No." [Did you say: 'Toxic Avenger'?] "Fuk no." [Did you say: 'Drunken idiot who can't speak straight'?] "Fuk yoo, I donwanna takk to [friend standing next to me]."
"I was thinking of redecorating the place; d'you think some melanoma would look good here?" "C'mon, all the cool kids are having apoptosis! You're not chicken, are you?" "The mitochondria must be liberated!" "Hey, alcohol! Irish stout! All right, time for Liverdance!"
In any case I tend to play video games more than I watch TV on my TV. I also watch a lot of anime DVDs. When I do watch TV I generally watch channels like Discovery, TLC, HGTV, History Channel, Animal Planet & Discovery Health. There's just not enough stuff worth watching on TV to justify being a couch potato, at least IMHO.
OK, so we've pretty much described the majority of the Slashdot-reading populace here. (My broadcast-video poison of choice happens to be CSI, crappy episode last night notwithstanding.)
But you also nailed probably the key phrase that the majority of the Slashdot-reading populace always takes for granted and jumps all over each other when it's omitted: "IMHO". Others have said it before in this discussion, and surely others will say it better elsewhere, but there are always differences of opinion as to what's "worth watching" and what's not. I loved "The Mole", and watched "Survivor" for a stretch (because the roommates had it on, and I had to wait in between FF Tactics turns). Does that mean my choices are less valid? No, of course not. It simply means that I placed different value in those shows for a certain period of time.
Now imagine six billion people all doing that, and you're in charge of making ALL OF THEM HAPPY. It's impossible, of course, so you decide to make as many people as happy as possible by showing programs that the majority prefers. You're going to piss off a certain fraction of the populace by cancelling a show, but hey, they might like what's coming on next. They might not, too, but someone else might-- and that might be a different majority of the population. Congratulations, you just imagined yourself in the place of a network executive.
I watch the most television from late August to mid December-- mostly football and new programs that pique my interest. Honestly I really only watch about a grand total of two to three hours of "live" TV a week-- CSI, Kingdom Hospital (taped, now), and maybe Simpsons if I remember. I'm lucky I moved to a place that has reasonable broadcast TV reception, and thus don't need to shill $100 a month for something decent to watch.
My biggest complaint now is that I don't have enough time to do the stuff I want to do-- I haven't logged into Final Fantasy XI in two weeks... ^_^
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this is an obvious troll. But I feel the need to say something about it anyway. Sue me.
You seem to be comparing Asimov and Grisham's works as if they were virtually interchangeable. They're not. Disregarding the issue of whether one is better than the other (and one always is better, depending on who you ask), Isaac Asimov's science fiction and John Grisham's legal fiction cannot easily be compared because they are two different and distinct forms of fiction.
Grisham's work takes the existing laws of the legal world (in this case, actual legislation) and uses them as a framework for his novels. Lawyers already know these laws, and more often than not they're so common-knowledge that even IANALs can easily grasp the basics. In other words, a non-sci-fi author works with what is already known.
Asimov's work took what (at the time) was a far-off concept and imagined what it would be like once real life caught up with it. Good science fiction isn't fiction at all-- it's philosophy and prediction. At some point in the future-- eventually-- we are going to have to deal with the prospect of robotics (Asimov). At some point in the future we are going to have to deal with direct computer-to-brain interfaces (Gibson). At some point we are going to have the technology that the authors of yesterday detailed and in some cases designed for us.
Maybe I fell too hard for an obvious troll, but you raised what I thought was a semi-interesting (if somewhat ignorant) question.
But i was laid off six months ago. Not only would i have to come up with about $300 bucks for the registration cost, in order to meet their requirements for entry i would also have to pretend to still be employed by my ex-company and hope they didn't check up on it.
So how did you like working for Ion Storm?
Only problem with that is, the game [UT] ships with dozens of mutators-- always has, always will.
How exactly do we know that the "official" server is playing the way "the creators intended"? Has CliffyB come down and said, "OK, guys, our official, canon gameplay is to ignore all of the kickass mods and 0wnage maps we provided to our players and just go with this vanilla setup"?
There's something to be said for having a baseline, true, but there's also a damn good reason FPS games almost always come with the server software.
...what the hell? Sun is producing servers optimized to send spam now? What does it mean?!
No, it's worse than that. Cox (not Wonkette-- she didn't actually say it) has cast that pall of illegitimacy over all online journalism by phrasing it as a generalization. Which anyone will be able to see can't be used as evidence, as it is highly doubtful Cox can speak for the entire Internet population.
The bottom line is and has always been, "Watch your mouth online."
Hell no.
I disagree fundamentally with just about everything mentioned there. A website, if it is even pretending to be a "news site", absolutely must be accurate. You cannot simply roll dice to determine a story if you want to keep a consistent reader base. Being first means nothing if you are totally wrong.
As for humor trumping accuracy, this too is patently absurd. It's funny to laugh at George Bush mangling a quote in a headline, but what if (and believe me, it's a stretch for me to defend W. here) the President never said it?
Let's jump forward about five years. The President of the United States has just given a press conference. Some yutz with a long-range microphone and a web-enabled palm pilot sits about 500 yards away from the White House Lawn, watching the President get off the podium. Under his breath, Mr. President mutters, "God, I just bombed that Cuba issue."
The guy with the long mike hears "God, I just bombed [indistinct] Cuba [indistinct]." Twenty-four hours later, Miami is in ruins and nobody knows why, until they check out a web site that claims that the U.S. has nuked Havana.
Information mutates so rapidly on the Web, with everyone adding their own bias to the "facts" they receive. It's like the old 'telephone' game everybody used to play in kindergarten-- pass the message along and see how it changes four or five kids down the line.
Accuracy is important in any medium. With the web, however, it's evolved to a point where nobody can really believe anything unless a) the source is reputable or b) it comes from multiple sources. Publishing false or inaccurate information undermines a), and with b) there can be nobody who "breaks the news first".
I don't really consider the web to be a primary source of "real world" news-- sure, I read four or five gaming sites every day to keep up on the industry, but that's different from something like, say, global thermonuclear war. For something like that I will always turn to traditional media such as radio, print, or television. (I consider the web sites of the traditional news media to be a pseudo-extension of those publications; they still require verification from "outside" but are generally more trusted than the average web site.)
Bottom line: A blog is not and can never be an implicitly "trusted" news source. Not even my own. Especially not my own.
Like hell this is off topic. I want to know if the Dr. has a favorite color. The article specifically asks for questions.
I think the quickest way to show how artificial "she" is, is to show how hard it would be to answer a question like this.
OK, now let's see how artificial you are.
You obviously didn't read the blurb, where it's made perfectly clear that the doctor is human-- more specifically, a human philosopher studying the theoretical psychology of how humans will or may interact with androids or other artificial intelligences.
Since you did not read the article, and instead made a half-assed assumption based on your own faulty reading of the blurb, you must be a human slashdotter. To a painful extent, you are the real thing.
You also exemplify one of my favorite axioms regarding the topic: "Artificial intelligence is no match for genuine stupidity."
By the way, my favorite color is blue.
Strange moderation... I don't see this as flamebait. It's actually kind of clever.
If you were actually insulting me, then I guess I really deserved it. But I doubt it.
These failures shaped NOAs strategy(once Nintendo decided it might be worth it[Atari ALMOST was the company that distributed the NES stateside]) which caused the industry to grow again.
Nintendo was in talks with a lot of distributors in the early 80s. This is the first I'd heard of Atari's involvement, but I'd previously known they were considered by WoW/Alchemy II (makers of the ill-fated Teddy Ruxpin dolls). It's not unreasonable to believe that Nintendo pitched to anybody and everybody who would listen before going ahead on their own.
You completely missed my point. He's not refusing to serve you on a technical reason, he's refusing to serve you because he cannot beyond a reasonable doubt prove that you are legal. If the bartender is under enough doubt that he feels the need to swipe the card, then if it does not work he will not serve you in the belief that the ID is fake and it would be too risky to serve you. There are also other reasons you could be refused-- if you appear visibly intoxicated, for example.
A lot of people seem to confuse the definitions of "public place" and "privately-owned establishment". If you go into the street, then that is a public place. Go into a bar and you're in a private place. In the street, you are obligated only to follow the public laws. In the bar (or restaurant or whatever), you are obliged to follow both public ordinances and the rules set forth by the establishment, or be thrown out and refused re-entry. A private establishment can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they have a valid reason for doing it (racism/sexism/etc. being previously legally defined as invalid reasons, but being too young having been established as a legally valid reason). So in short, this is all a completely moot point because a bar has a different set of rules than a cop pulling you over for no obvious reason, or an airport terminal security checkpoint (which is what you should really be worried about).
I agree that the government is over-regulating certain things, but I also think it's a good idea to have some governmental controls as a secondary failsafe (if and after the parents fail to do their job).
No, it won't! It'll just allow instantaneous interstellar travel when coupled with a computer that can calculate the timeshift differentials!
Sheesh, all this wonderful anime and nobody learns anything from it...
You're not a "paying customer" if serving you alcohol is illegal. Let's see-- a buck profit for a draft beer versus a 50-50 chance of a $50,000 fine (or worse; IANAL) for distributing to a minor? I doubt many bartenders would want to run that kind of risk.
Don't most driver's license cards have barcodes on the back that liquor stores, etc. can scan?
Yes, but they're useless out-of-state. Witness: I have a New York State driver's license (have for eight years now), and it has two different barcodes on the back. Very nifty, and when I'm visiting my parents I can swing by the liquor store, have them scan the card, and walk out with a six-pack of Guinness no problem. I can also do the same thing where I live in Pennsylvania, except the clerks here can't scan the NY cards-- their scanners are only set to read PA cards. So theoretically I can waltz in with a fake ID and nobody would be the wiser.
For those of us either too young to have played the Atari 2600's classic library or for those who just never got around to it, might I suggest picking up either a collection disc or one of those joystick-that-plugs-into-the-tv collections? Myself, I'm looking forward to the Paddle collection (as, AFAIK, no similar controller exists for a modern machine, so a collection disc would be kind of pointless).
Of course, emulation is always an option, too.
Exactly. I was hoping someone would catch that. (True, I started hoping it about ten seconds after I hit submit and realized I stupidly left that in there, but still.) Either assertion requires proof, proof or evidence that humanity in its current state cannot provide.
This raises another question: If humanity in its current state cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, why? There are of course three options:
A) God has somehow prevented humans from discovering proof and by extension him.
B) There is no god and humans are wasting their time searching for one.
C) Humans may be as physically advanced as they can be, but must develop further intellectually and mentally in order to understand whatever proof/disproof may exist currently.
Option A is pretty ridiculous. It presupposes the existence of God to give a reason why we can't discover God; but if we know God stops us from knowing God, then we know of God and the rule backfires-- we have 'proof', but not a real proof.
Option B is something some people can assert, but again, it requires a fair amount of evidence to back it up. Evidence which, by the nature of the question, cannot or does not exist ("is there evidence for or against god?" "no, because we have no evidence of god").
Option C requires a little bit of faith-- on both sides. Theists (not just Christians, mind you) need to believe that humanity, while at the pinnacle of their physical development ("in god's image", so to speak), still have some ways to go, mentally, to be the perfect creation that god intended them to be. Atheists need to believe that the human mind can still develop beyond what it is capable of understanding now, and that at one point humanity will be able to understand and decipher more of the universe's secrets. In both cases there's evidence that these leaps forward in thought have occurred (chaos theory, nuclear physics, etc.).
I suppose the best and most valid answer to "Is there a God?" could be a simple "I don't know [, but I believe...]." Or probably, if you want to be more optimistic about it, "Well, I don't know yet. Wait and see."
Oh yeah, and a quick Google scan of the Vatican's web site shows that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing about evolution, but a document from 1998 (here) seems to suggest what you and I have gone over-- that evolution happened but God (/Fate/Time/Whatever) either initiated or intervened in the process.
I'd like to jump in for a second here on the link you offered, and I'm willing to risk a whole three karma to do it (yeah, big risk, but who really cares). I noticed you put in your post the following advice regarding the link:
(and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with)
I realize I probably don't fit the profile of "most slashdotters", but frankly I don't see much of a problem here. I was raised Catholic, true, and have found myself doubting that faith as an agnostic seeker; but to be perfectly honest the link makes a compelling argument for the existence of [a/some/many/the one true/whatever] God.
It's probably not Catholic canon, to be sure, but the works cited in the article-- from Augustine to Darwin-- are enough for anyone to read for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Some people might say that it was merely luck that humans evolved in the way that they did-- that there was no divine force guiding the mutation and development of the unique characteristics that make a human a human. To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't." There is no evidence either for or against the existence of such a force-- certainly the odds are astronomical, but the greater the odds, the more likely it seems less of a coincidence and more of an intent.
Also, the bit about the soul simply not being possible in evolution also sits well with me. If evolution could have created humans exactly as they are now without the need for a creator's touch, what need would we have for the creator? It is my belief that when the creator (who or whatever that may be) saw that humanity was as developed as it was going to get naturally, this creator imbued the race with the spark of intellect-- a touch of the divine, if you will.
My beliefs are my own. You may or may not find truth in them, and frankly it's none of my business whether or not you do. I just thought I ought to thank you for giving me the opportunity to air that out a little bit. Oh, and I'll definitely be passing this link along to one of my old professors-- he's a Catholic priest and very much into this sort of thing.
How do Slashdotters feel about pirating novels? Is it "free advertising" or "sampling?" Just curious.
Interesting question. I'd suggest posing it as an Ask Slashdot.
Calling it all random is like saying "You can have anything from Set X" but pupolating Set X with "crap", "turd", "dung", "shit", "fecal matter", "merde", etc.
That word should be populating. Pupolating sounds like how ClearChannel DJs select their music playlists.
(note: I DJ'd on my college campus, so I'm allowed to make fun of DJs)
Calling it all random is like saying "You can have anything from Set X" but pupolating Set X with "crap", "turd", "dung", "shit", "fecal matter", "merde", etc.
Thank God my phone has a voice dial.
[Command, please.] "N'm dial." [Name, please.] "Txycabcr." [Did you say: 'Texas Star'?] "No." [Did you say: 'Toxic Avenger'?] "Fuk no." [Did you say: 'Drunken idiot who can't speak straight'?] "Fuk yoo, I donwanna takk to [friend standing next to me]."
Whatever happened to people using their heads to make smart decisions on how to handle their day to day existence?
People really used to do that? Oh really. And I suppose you have a bridge to sell me, now.
Speaking of jokes, did anyone else ever notice the truly awful, awful pun in Ubi Soft's name?
No?
Well, what is "Ubi" Latin for? ^_^
Things you don't want to hear from your cells:
...and the number one thing:
"I was thinking of redecorating the place; d'you think some melanoma would look good here?"
"C'mon, all the cool kids are having apoptosis! You're not chicken, are you?"
"The mitochondria must be liberated!"
"Hey, alcohol! Irish stout! All right, time for Liverdance!"
"Ouch!"
In any case I tend to play video games more than I watch TV on my TV. I also watch a lot of anime DVDs. When I do watch TV I generally watch channels like Discovery, TLC, HGTV, History Channel, Animal Planet & Discovery Health. There's just not enough stuff worth watching on TV to justify being a couch potato, at least IMHO.
OK, so we've pretty much described the majority of the Slashdot-reading populace here. (My broadcast-video poison of choice happens to be CSI, crappy episode last night notwithstanding.)
But you also nailed probably the key phrase that the majority of the Slashdot-reading populace always takes for granted and jumps all over each other when it's omitted: "IMHO". Others have said it before in this discussion, and surely others will say it better elsewhere, but there are always differences of opinion as to what's "worth watching" and what's not. I loved "The Mole", and watched "Survivor" for a stretch (because the roommates had it on, and I had to wait in between FF Tactics turns). Does that mean my choices are less valid? No, of course not. It simply means that I placed different value in those shows for a certain period of time.
Now imagine six billion people all doing that, and you're in charge of making ALL OF THEM HAPPY. It's impossible, of course, so you decide to make as many people as happy as possible by showing programs that the majority prefers. You're going to piss off a certain fraction of the populace by cancelling a show, but hey, they might like what's coming on next. They might not, too, but someone else might-- and that might be a different majority of the population. Congratulations, you just imagined yourself in the place of a network executive.
I watch the most television from late August to mid December-- mostly football and new programs that pique my interest. Honestly I really only watch about a grand total of two to three hours of "live" TV a week-- CSI, Kingdom Hospital (taped, now), and maybe Simpsons if I remember. I'm lucky I moved to a place that has reasonable broadcast TV reception, and thus don't need to shill $100 a month for something decent to watch.
My biggest complaint now is that I don't have enough time to do the stuff I want to do-- I haven't logged into Final Fantasy XI in two weeks... ^_^