My favorite absurd traffic law is the one for 18-wheelers in California. They have a lowered speed-limit (55, I think), and must hug the right two lanes. There is nothing quite like merging onto the freeway and fighting your way though a line of lumbering, slow, behemoths.
Another issue I've found is turning left in intersections, when the vehicle in the opposite turn lane is a massive SUV, so you can't see past it for traffic.
Well that and the fact that no-one knows how to use a stop sign anymore.
Personally, I think that too much web social interaction is a bad thing. People are forgetting how to interact face to face.
I don't know about this. I think you are generally correct, but I don't know if social networking actually makes this better or worse. I would generally disagree that we are worse communicating in person now, or if we just lost all the formalities and rituals that used to be involved with civil conversation, and to a large part some of the nice taboos.
I don't think the interpersonal bit is the only thing hurt. When was the last time you saw a well formatted letter (or email, which in formal cases should follow some of the style guidelines)?
Hell, most of us can't even write a coherent sentence anymore.
The superiority of HDTV over SDTV really isn't a matter of opinion
I concede this. Technically HDTV is better, but the (to me) the subjective experience is about the same. A 2.0ghz processor is better than a 1.8Ghz, but I really can't tell the difference, or at least not enough to justify spending a substantial amount more. It boils down to subjectivity, and the difference between qualitative and quantitative differences.
But if you follow the recommendations for seating distance the difference is very obvious
Who does? My spatial relationship to my TV is dictated by the shape of my room, the locations of furniture, and (most importantly) where some idiot decided to put the jacks and sockets.
I'm not saying that HDTV is inferior, it just doesn't make that much of a difference for me. The operative phrase is, "for me". You might think its the coolest thing since sliced bread, thats fine. For me it isn't big enough to warrant the price and effort to upgrade.
I mostly just resent the fact that certain factors want to FORCE me to switch.
As one of the few Americans who still enjoys silence, and peace and quiet, you are the selfish jerk here. Yes, that was flamebait, but justifiable. All of these cell-phone drones think that they should be able to do whatever they want just because they can, with no respect for others. To me this is the definition of selfish.
Why should I be forced to listen to your private conversations every time I go anywhere?
I don't fly that often, but I've noticed that planes are rather quiet most of the time. When people talk to each other on planes they do so in a conversational tone, or lower.
When people talk on cellphones they are LOUDER for some reason. Most people like to yell at their phones.
Cellphones also encourage people to babble constantly like idiots, for some reason.
I'll still get DVDs, since as I stated the entertainment value is still there. Just because the next big thing is looming on the horizon doesn't degrade them in any way. As I stated, I like movies made before 2000 mostly, so a Blue Ray movie, at the same cost, would be of equal value to me as a DVD, they can't improve the Godfather (say), or Escape From New York. Thus any improved format does not bring added values. The only modern movie that I wouldn't mind having on Blue Ray is LotR, which is 3 out of the 100+ movies I own. I see what your getting at, though, but disagree.
Cartridges might be nice, but I have a feeling they would be shackled with even more DRM. I'd prefer direct downloads, and large drives. Thats my pipe dream.
I'm not really a luddite, this is/. afterall. I just don't buy the adoption for the save of adoption idea. I'm sure that someday I will have to make the s witch, but right now the cost massively outweighs the (to me negligible) benefits. As I stated I will acquire the components as my old ones die, but have a hard time justifying spending a lump sum on them, when I really can't notice much of a difference.
If I had a HDTV, I might feel differently, of course. But that is not on the agenda since I can't afford them, and don't trust their stability (changing models or DRM format, etc). An HDTV also isn't quite worth it right now because I really can't tell the difference from the 8' between me and the television.
When DVD came out I did rush to upgrade everything rather quickly. It was a HUGE improvement over VHS. Blue Ray and HDTV is still a rather small improvement over DVD, especially when compared to the VHS/DVD switch.
People really are sold that HD TV is superior to SD TV, and that is simply the truth.
People might agree, but that doesn't bear much on me. People are also mostly sheep.
You're better off just waiting. Rent only during the transition: your DVDs are obsolete. They've been obsolete for a couple years now, the only question is when, not if they'll be supplanted.
How are they obsolete? I just watch a couple DVDs last night and they worked fine, I didn't find their entertainment value in any way decreased. Just as when I watch thing on my friends Blue Ray on my friends PS3 I don't find any more entertainment value than I do on my old DVD player. I don't find any real increase in the only thing that matters, entertainment. But then again I'd say the average age of when the movies in my collection were made is around 10+ years ago, so no graphical improvements will really effect them.
I don't want to replace my television and my player just because some marketing shit tells me that their OLD and OBSOLETE, and most assuredly, NOT THE NEXT BIG THING. I don't care if my neighbors or friends are impressed, I don't care if I get the best possible picture in the unnoticeable details. I don't care if they can handle 500 more special features that I won't watch more than once (if even). I AM glad though that the media companies could come out with such a profitable scam to make more money, and foist more DRM on us, AND widely convince everyone to buy into it.
Blue Ray isn't a big improvement, at least not big enough to get me to go get a new TV, a new player, new over-priced cables, and buy a bunch of massively over-priced movies (much less even think about replacing the ones I own). DVD was a large technological leap above VHS, and I still haven't managed to replace some of my old tapes yet, and now I'm supposed to worry about the whole damn mess again.
I own maybe 6 (out of 100+) DVDs made after 2000, and rarely see any need to buy them since they are largely inferior to older movies, as my tastes go. Is the Blue Ray version of the Godfather really going to be better than the DVD version?
Sure, if my TV dies I will replace it with HD. This is equal parts by force (no one sells CRT anymore), and because I might as well replace it with the new thing. If my DVD player dies, then I MIGHT replace it with Blue Ray, if they get really cheap fast (roughly same price as a middling DVD player), and play vanilla DVDs to my liking. I dobut this will happen soon, since my TV is ten years old, and works fine, and my DVD player is 5 years and works fine. Will I replace any of my movies? No, not enough added value to justify the price. Will I buy new Blue Ray movies? Only if they are cheaper than the DVD equivalent, and available at the places I mostly buy movies (Sales, and used book stores).
In brief, Blue Ray isn't big enough a leap to justify me spending any extra money on. They are basically DVD 1.5. The difference is so small I have a hard time seeing it at any normal viewing distance, and really don't care. I don't watch movies for the "pretty", I watch them for the plot, acting, and the other intangibles that no technological gimmick will ever improve.
I see what your getting at, but don't agree. If there is a fishing hole that has no fish, it isn't worth the the hassle to go there.
If I'm happy in solitude, I don't see why I should be forced out of it, just because someone is uncomfortable in the same state. I'm a quiet, withdrawn, person, if people can't respect that, I really don't WANT to associate with them, since there is a fundamental incompatibility. I find that the people I call friends (or close associates) are the ones who respect the fact that I'll be off in my own world for a month or so, before they hear from me, and for the most part expect the same respect from me.
The issue isn't that they don't meet my standards, but they don't meet mine as well. Its a mutual problem, in my eyes.
My task might be there when I'm done being interrupted, but it will take work, and time, to get back into it. When I work, as someone stated previously, I go into "autism mode", its jarring to be ripped out of it, and it takes time and effort to get back into the flow of whatever I'm doing.
I guess, in the end, I put my priority on my own head before I heed to other's.
This is an interesting debate, since it seems that people on the extremes of the "extro" and "intro" scales have a really hard time understanding each other. Our priorities are so different as to be almost incomprehensible. I don't put the priority (or see the worth) in communications that you emphasize, I have a hard time even seeing why I should. This is not a critique of you, or your post, we just have different (and equally valid) goals, and strategies of interpersonal relations.
but you're being unrealistic trying to be self-contained and self-sufficient. You might be mostly successful, but that's a trauma response, not a healthy state of mind, and it's going to be painful on some level. You can't defy the social need built into the way your mind works.
I think the very nature of the "extro" "intro" debate denies the fact that our mind is wired in any specific way. I think both mentalities need communications to be healthy, but the question is of what quality, and what quantity.
For the most part I am genuinely happier at solitary pursuits than in social ones, no force of will, or intention, is needed. Some of us are more happy getting most of our psychological needs from ourselves alone. I find that most "common" interactions increase the amount of stress in my life, I find it rather tedious at times. You probably have a different reaction, some people do. I have been like this since I was a little kid, and probably will remain like this my whole life. Of my closest friends, most share this mentality, and thus are perfectly happy to go without talking for months at a time, until someone decides to send an email (or call) out of the blue. I find this "more normal" than having forced conversations with people for the shear sake of communicating.
I agree with the first half of your reply 100% Don't take this to mean that I am a friendless boor. I have a rather large and diverse network of friends, I also enjoy the usual purely social pursuits, but with lesser frequency than so-called "extroverts".
There are a couple good ones out there though, like Silent Hill and the first Resident Evil movie. Granted they weren't stellar, but they were amusing and somewhat faithful.
He, though, butchers them beyond belief. Bloodrayne was watchable, but not as enjoyable as all the other movies in the crappy "ninja chick in latex fight evil" genre. The rest of his movies were among the worst I have ever seen, and thats saying something. Watching the Dungeon Siege movie was like getting a root canal, but without anesthesia, and by a bum in the alley behind the dental office who scrounged his instruments out of a dumpster behind a Home Depot.
What if I really don't care about your favorite TV show, or what sport you like? It interests me as much as what I like to talk about interests other people. I often find it insulting, and frustrating when people listen to me talking about what I find interesting as a way to be polite, or to humor me. I don't like it, so wouldn't it be hypocritical to act in the same way towards others with their big topics?
But try setting aside time for yourself and time for other people, just for a few days. Then ask yourself: the problem is really that people bother you with useless information, or that you are blaming others for your own failure to manage your own attention span?
It isn't attention span, I just don't enjoy thoughtless conversation most of the time. If your not saying anything new, why bother speaking? I try my hardest to keep my mouth shut if I don't have anything to say, I expect of others the same courtesy.
Er... I don't think "virtual" anything comes into it. Being social isn't as fulfilling to me as solitary pursuits. I'd rather sit under a tree with a book than have to exchange empty pleasantries with people.
Just because you get your enjoyment from "social" pursuits, does not invalidate, or devalue, the fact that my people get as much enjoyment from solitary pursuits. From my observations, the solitary person is generally more content, since their more able to be content with themselves, and are more comfortable in their skins. I generally find my extroverted freinds are just seeking some distraction so they don't have to confront themselves.
The live in a high-school mentality, where popularity, and connectedness, are still more important than being a decent, self-contained and sufficient, individual.
Same thing with those workaholics and efficiency nuts, their uncomfortable with silence, or being confronted with introspection. They aren't happy with themselves.
Just and observation, and as valid as yours.
Communications should be meaningful, consensual, and mutual. Communications should not be "for their own sake".
Thank you. As arrogant as it sounds that is exactly it.
I've noticed that most of the "instant" family of mediums (IM, SMS, and increasingly cell-phones) are used to exchange trivialities, or as I like to call them "social-pings." "Are you aware of my existence? I am aware of yours." People calling just to say "hi" or fill up their commute/lunch break are obnoxious.
If your going to demand my attention at least make it mutually worthwhile, and not just an inconvenience to me while I'm forced to listen to your vocal masturbation. It's arrogant on their behalf, since they really expect their thrilling stories of them at the grocery store, or their hellish and epic commute to work is more important than any task I may have been doing at the time. I am supposed to drop everything to talk to them.
Thats what weekends at the pub are about.
I abstain from this because I realize that no one really cares about the minutia of my day to day existence, just as I am apathetic of theirs.
The solution, I stopped using AIM, have gmail mark everything from freinds and social networks as "read" so I don't get notified. I only answer the phone when convenient to me. Now if only my roommate would not have to talk to me every time she passes my room to get a glass of water or go to the bathroom.
There is a time for small talk. When I'm busy isn't it. I try my hardest to respect others when they are occupied, and I expect the same of them. Call it arrogance, a desire for mutual respect.
Please don't suggest making Foundation a movie... It would be 40000 hours long, and really not worth watching after the first 3 or so hours. I love Asimov as much as the next guy, but Foundation can be a real dog.
Why does RAH cause flame wars? Sure I confuse all of his characters with Hagbard Celine (from Illuminatus!), or some Ayn Randian ubermensch, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the man could write a damn good story.
I hope that this is successful, so we can resurrect some good old books from the hey-days of sci-fi. I'd be game for Clifford Simak's "City" to be made into a movie, actually just about any of his old pulp novels would make a good movie (for some reason I'm the only nerd I know who considers him among the sci-fi greats). Stanislaw Lem's "Memoir found in a Bathtub" would make a great Bourne-esque movie too.
I'd also like to see John Varely's Steel Beach turned into a movie. His Gaean trilogy would also make a damn good LoTR-esque epic.
Actually The Last Man on Earth (Vincent Price FTW) was a MUCH closer adaptation than the Omega Man. Granted Charlton Heston could kick both Smith and Price's asses with his eyes closed.
I'm coming to believe that Will Smith is the scourge of things geekish in movies. He helped slaughter both I am Legend AND I, Robot, neither of which (as far as I can tell) has anything to do with their respective books.
I hope they cast him in the crappy The Day the Earth Stood Still remake, and perhaps even as Jane Fonda's character in the crappy remake of Barbarella. Him or Keanu Reaves (who is going to be Klaatu). Perhaps Reaves and be Maudib, and Smith can be the rest of the cast.
Though I doubt that the Muslim-ish-ness included in the book would make it okay for modern American audiences. As moronic as that sounds and is. You can here the commentators now "ZOMG MUSLIM HEROS! it endorses terrorism!"... God I hate modernity.
You definitely described my dream movie though, especially with the Viggo as Duke Leto bit. I full haredly endorse using Viggo for any kick ass roll. I'd prefer him as Stilgar though. I know the ages don't match, but it would kick as to see him running around with a crysknife killing shit.
The only thing I'd want to carry over from the 84 movie is the BIG set design, and epic feel.
I would be okay with Cronenberg, but I also wouldn't mind Peter Jackson giving it a LoTR treatment. LoTR is probably the most faithful treatment of "geek lit" to date. The only problem is I doubt these is anywhere in NZ that Arrakis could be set. Make it a full trilogy (first 3-4 books) too. The end of the first book, taken alone, makes to much of a "huh what next" moment to not move on to the sequels.
According to IMDB its being directed by Peter Berg, which doesn't make me hopeful.
I know, at least, it will be better than the Lynch / DeLaurentiis version. Its odd, I love Lynch and own all his moves, and I think DeLaurentiis' campy sci-fi movies (Barbarella, Flash Gordon, Conan..) are fun, but I refuse to buy Dune, and actively try not to watch it. It was that bad.
It had nothing to do with the novels, the only thing it had going for it was casting, which was awesome, when I read the books I still picture Sting as Feyd, and Kyle MacLachlan as Paul. Though Patrick Steward as Gurney is a stretch, he was nominated as the sexiest man alive playing a character called "a wretched hump of a man" in the novel.
The mini-series wasn't bad in the sense it followed the books rather well. But the acting and effects were rather bad, like all Sci-Fi channel productions.
I still marvel at how such an awesome Director/Producer combo could make such an atrocious movie, its like neither of them actually read the book (take the navigators for example, they are pretty well described in the book, and look nothing like cuttle fish).
Perhaps they will do a LoTR take, and do the first three, which could be a self contained trilogy if I remember right.
Can you explain it? Most of the stuff in the world is essentially the same, but there is something to be said about the emotional attachment people make with products. Its something that you just can't ignore, because it will happen at some level, advertising or not.
Not disagreeing. When I buy mother boards I generally always buy ASUS, when I get video cards its always NVIDIA, and up until recently these computers always had AMD processors. This was because of familiarity and experience, I used them for years, and never had a problem. My father has only bought Nissan 4wd pickups for the last 25 years for the same reason.
I get attached to products and brands because they perform, not because they fool me into thinking that they fulfill a need that they don't.
Seriously, would you switch to a new OS, or hardware vendor because it supposedly makes you sexier to the ladies? I can see the ads... AMD the Sex Maker! I'd walk a mile for an ASUS mobo.
I accept that most of the ones I listed do pay for free services. Not the ones, though, on billboards and baseball stadiums. Also part of my complaint is that they are tacky, and besmirch our living spaces. No single ad is really guilty for this, but taken as a whole they are a blight. In your daily commute MILLIONS of idiotic messages are crying for your attention, its turning life into 4chan.
I'd rather have Balmer throwing a chair at Tux on the back of my truck. I don't agree with the sentiment, but it is sillier.
I guess I'm in the minority of people that care more about function than form.....
I care about both, but so far Aero hasn't really hurt the former. The second I find it hindering my usage its going away, but as stated it hasn't. Isn't all the placements the same in Vista no matter what GUI you use? The only thing that really changes is the look, and the bloated size of dwm.exe, so how am I sacrificing form for function?
With Firefox (4 tabs), Photoshop CS3, notepad, and Pidgen open I still have 1.26GB free. I could still probably throw in a OpenOffice session before it even gets close to paging. These are generally the programs I use to get stuff done, so... Aero doesn't hurt function in my day-to-day usage.
I'm guessing that prolonged exposure eventually leads to complete ignorance of them. Especially if your smart, or have had basic training in rhetorical/persuasion techniques.
I keep a book by the sofa that I read every time a commercial comes on. Often I walk out of the room and go pet my cat, or answer an email when a commercial break comes on. Often my roommate comments on a commercial that was just on, and I have no clue what they are talking about. 30 years of them have rather dulled the novelty, and academic training in social psychology and rhetoric have made most of their tactics transparent.
Even before I got Adblock, I stopped paying attention to the headers and side-bars on webpages. They were a perceptual hole, literally.
I did, though, stop watching sports. Too many adds.
When I buy a product I always buy the cheapest, unless I read enough third party reviews recommending a specific brand.
When something becomes ubiquitous enough it becomes mere background.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite absurd traffic law is the one for 18-wheelers in California. They have a lowered speed-limit (55, I think), and must hug the right two lanes. There is nothing quite like merging onto the freeway and fighting your way though a line of lumbering, slow, behemoths.
Another issue I've found is turning left in intersections, when the vehicle in the opposite turn lane is a massive SUV, so you can't see past it for traffic.
Well that and the fact that no-one knows how to use a stop sign anymore.
Personally, I think that too much web social interaction is a bad thing. People are forgetting how to interact face to face.
I don't know about this. I think you are generally correct, but I don't know if social networking actually makes this better or worse. I would generally disagree that we are worse communicating in person now, or if we just lost all the formalities and rituals that used to be involved with civil conversation, and to a large part some of the nice taboos.
I don't think the interpersonal bit is the only thing hurt. When was the last time you saw a well formatted letter (or email, which in formal cases should follow some of the style guidelines)?
Hell, most of us can't even write a coherent sentence anymore.
The superiority of HDTV over SDTV really isn't a matter of opinion
I concede this. Technically HDTV is better, but the (to me) the subjective experience is about the same. A 2.0ghz processor is better than a 1.8Ghz, but I really can't tell the difference, or at least not enough to justify spending a substantial amount more. It boils down to subjectivity, and the difference between qualitative and quantitative differences.
But if you follow the recommendations for seating distance the difference is very obvious
Who does? My spatial relationship to my TV is dictated by the shape of my room, the locations of furniture, and (most importantly) where some idiot decided to put the jacks and sockets.
I'm not saying that HDTV is inferior, it just doesn't make that much of a difference for me. The operative phrase is, "for me". You might think its the coolest thing since sliced bread, thats fine. For me it isn't big enough to warrant the price and effort to upgrade.
I mostly just resent the fact that certain factors want to FORCE me to switch.
God, In feel like I'm playing WoW again...
Its hard to ignore some 16 year old girl screaming the intimate details of her sex life at her hand, 2' away from you.
As one of the few Americans who still enjoys silence, and peace and quiet, you are the selfish jerk here. Yes, that was flamebait, but justifiable. All of these cell-phone drones think that they should be able to do whatever they want just because they can, with no respect for others. To me this is the definition of selfish.
Why should I be forced to listen to your private conversations every time I go anywhere?
I think that guy is my new hero.
Why the hell are people so frightened of silence?
I don't fly that often, but I've noticed that planes are rather quiet most of the time. When people talk to each other on planes they do so in a conversational tone, or lower.
When people talk on cellphones they are LOUDER for some reason. Most people like to yell at their phones.
Cellphones also encourage people to babble constantly like idiots, for some reason.
I'll still get DVDs, since as I stated the entertainment value is still there. Just because the next big thing is looming on the horizon doesn't degrade them in any way. As I stated, I like movies made before 2000 mostly, so a Blue Ray movie, at the same cost, would be of equal value to me as a DVD, they can't improve the Godfather (say), or Escape From New York. Thus any improved format does not bring added values. The only modern movie that I wouldn't mind having on Blue Ray is LotR, which is 3 out of the 100+ movies I own. I see what your getting at, though, but disagree.
Cartridges might be nice, but I have a feeling they would be shackled with even more DRM. I'd prefer direct downloads, and large drives. Thats my pipe dream.
I'm not really a luddite, this is /. afterall. I just don't buy the adoption for the save of adoption idea. I'm sure that someday I will have to make the s
witch, but right now the cost massively outweighs the (to me negligible) benefits. As I stated I will acquire the components as my old ones die, but have a hard time justifying spending a lump sum on them, when I really can't notice much of a difference.
If I had a HDTV, I might feel differently, of course. But that is not on the agenda since I can't afford them, and don't trust their stability (changing models or DRM format, etc). An HDTV also isn't quite worth it right now because I really can't tell the difference from the 8' between me and the television.
When DVD came out I did rush to upgrade everything rather quickly. It was a HUGE improvement over VHS. Blue Ray and HDTV is still a rather small improvement over DVD, especially when compared to the VHS/DVD switch.
People really are sold that HD TV is superior to SD TV, and that is simply the truth.
People might agree, but that doesn't bear much on me. People are also mostly sheep.
You're better off just waiting. Rent only during the transition: your DVDs are obsolete. They've been obsolete for a couple years now, the only question is when, not if they'll be supplanted.
How are they obsolete? I just watch a couple DVDs last night and they worked fine, I didn't find their entertainment value in any way decreased. Just as when I watch thing on my friends Blue Ray on my friends PS3 I don't find any more entertainment value than I do on my old DVD player. I don't find any real increase in the only thing that matters, entertainment. But then again I'd say the average age of when the movies in my collection were made is around 10+ years ago, so no graphical improvements will really effect them.
I don't want to replace my television and my player just because some marketing shit tells me that their OLD and OBSOLETE, and most assuredly, NOT THE NEXT BIG THING. I don't care if my neighbors or friends are impressed, I don't care if I get the best possible picture in the unnoticeable details. I don't care if they can handle 500 more special features that I won't watch more than once (if even). I AM glad though that the media companies could come out with such a profitable scam to make more money, and foist more DRM on us, AND widely convince everyone to buy into it.
Blue Ray isn't a big improvement, at least not big enough to get me to go get a new TV, a new player, new over-priced cables, and buy a bunch of massively over-priced movies (much less even think about replacing the ones I own). DVD was a large technological leap above VHS, and I still haven't managed to replace some of my old tapes yet, and now I'm supposed to worry about the whole damn mess again.
I own maybe 6 (out of 100+) DVDs made after 2000, and rarely see any need to buy them since they are largely inferior to older movies, as my tastes go. Is the Blue Ray version of the Godfather really going to be better than the DVD version?
Sure, if my TV dies I will replace it with HD. This is equal parts by force (no one sells CRT anymore), and because I might as well replace it with the new thing. If my DVD player dies, then I MIGHT replace it with Blue Ray, if they get really cheap fast (roughly same price as a middling DVD player), and play vanilla DVDs to my liking. I dobut this will happen soon, since my TV is ten years old, and works fine, and my DVD player is 5 years and works fine. Will I replace any of my movies? No, not enough added value to justify the price. Will I buy new Blue Ray movies? Only if they are cheaper than the DVD equivalent, and available at the places I mostly buy movies (Sales, and used book stores).
In brief, Blue Ray isn't big enough a leap to justify me spending any extra money on. They are basically DVD 1.5. The difference is so small I have a hard time seeing it at any normal viewing distance, and really don't care. I don't watch movies for the "pretty", I watch them for the plot, acting, and the other intangibles that no technological gimmick will ever improve.
I see what your getting at, but don't agree. If there is a fishing hole that has no fish, it isn't worth the the hassle to go there.
If I'm happy in solitude, I don't see why I should be forced out of it, just because someone is uncomfortable in the same state. I'm a quiet, withdrawn, person, if people can't respect that, I really don't WANT to associate with them, since there is a fundamental incompatibility. I find that the people I call friends (or close associates) are the ones who respect the fact that I'll be off in my own world for a month or so, before they hear from me, and for the most part expect the same respect from me.
The issue isn't that they don't meet my standards, but they don't meet mine as well. Its a mutual problem, in my eyes.
My task might be there when I'm done being interrupted, but it will take work, and time, to get back into it. When I work, as someone stated previously, I go into "autism mode", its jarring to be ripped out of it, and it takes time and effort to get back into the flow of whatever I'm doing.
I guess, in the end, I put my priority on my own head before I heed to other's.
This is an interesting debate, since it seems that people on the extremes of the "extro" and "intro" scales have a really hard time understanding each other. Our priorities are so different as to be almost incomprehensible. I don't put the priority (or see the worth) in communications that you emphasize, I have a hard time even seeing why I should. This is not a critique of you, or your post, we just have different (and equally valid) goals, and strategies of interpersonal relations.
but you're being unrealistic trying to be self-contained and self-sufficient. You might be mostly successful, but that's a trauma response, not a healthy state of mind, and it's going to be painful on some level. You can't defy the social need built into the way your mind works.
I think the very nature of the "extro" "intro" debate denies the fact that our mind is wired in any specific way. I think both mentalities need communications to be healthy, but the question is of what quality, and what quantity.
For the most part I am genuinely happier at solitary pursuits than in social ones, no force of will, or intention, is needed. Some of us are more happy getting most of our psychological needs from ourselves alone. I find that most "common" interactions increase the amount of stress in my life, I find it rather tedious at times. You probably have a different reaction, some people do. I have been like this since I was a little kid, and probably will remain like this my whole life. Of my closest friends, most share this mentality, and thus are perfectly happy to go without talking for months at a time, until someone decides to send an email (or call) out of the blue. I find this "more normal" than having forced conversations with people for the shear sake of communicating.
I agree with the first half of your reply 100% Don't take this to mean that I am a friendless boor. I have a rather large and diverse network of friends, I also enjoy the usual purely social pursuits, but with lesser frequency than so-called "extroverts".
There are a couple good ones out there though, like Silent Hill and the first Resident Evil movie. Granted they weren't stellar, but they were amusing and somewhat faithful.
He, though, butchers them beyond belief. Bloodrayne was watchable, but not as enjoyable as all the other movies in the crappy "ninja chick in latex fight evil" genre. The rest of his movies were among the worst I have ever seen, and thats saying something. Watching the Dungeon Siege movie was like getting a root canal, but without anesthesia, and by a bum in the alley behind the dental office who scrounged his instruments out of a dumpster behind a Home Depot.
What if I really don't care about your favorite TV show, or what sport you like? It interests me as much as what I like to talk about interests other people. I often find it insulting, and frustrating when people listen to me talking about what I find interesting as a way to be polite, or to humor me. I don't like it, so wouldn't it be hypocritical to act in the same way towards others with their big topics?
But try setting aside time for yourself and time for other people, just for a few days. Then ask yourself: the problem is really that people bother you with useless information, or that you are blaming others for your own failure to manage your own attention span?
It isn't attention span, I just don't enjoy thoughtless conversation most of the time. If your not saying anything new, why bother speaking? I try my hardest to keep my mouth shut if I don't have anything to say, I expect of others the same courtesy.
Er... I don't think "virtual" anything comes into it. Being social isn't as fulfilling to me as solitary pursuits. I'd rather sit under a tree with a book than have to exchange empty pleasantries with people.
Just because you get your enjoyment from "social" pursuits, does not invalidate, or devalue, the fact that my people get as much enjoyment from solitary pursuits. From my observations, the solitary person is generally more content, since their more able to be content with themselves, and are more comfortable in their skins. I generally find my extroverted freinds are just seeking some distraction so they don't have to confront themselves.
The live in a high-school mentality, where popularity, and connectedness, are still more important than being a decent, self-contained and sufficient, individual.
Same thing with those workaholics and efficiency nuts, their uncomfortable with silence, or being confronted with introspection. They aren't happy with themselves.
Just and observation, and as valid as yours.
Communications should be meaningful, consensual, and mutual. Communications should not be "for their own sake".
Thank you. As arrogant as it sounds that is exactly it.
I've noticed that most of the "instant" family of mediums (IM, SMS, and increasingly cell-phones) are used to exchange trivialities, or as I like to call them "social-pings." "Are you aware of my existence? I am aware of yours." People calling just to say "hi" or fill up their commute/lunch break are obnoxious.
If your going to demand my attention at least make it mutually worthwhile, and not just an inconvenience to me while I'm forced to listen to your vocal masturbation. It's arrogant on their behalf, since they really expect their thrilling stories of them at the grocery store, or their hellish and epic commute to work is more important than any task I may have been doing at the time. I am supposed to drop everything to talk to them.
Thats what weekends at the pub are about.
I abstain from this because I realize that no one really cares about the minutia of my day to day existence, just as I am apathetic of theirs.
The solution, I stopped using AIM, have gmail mark everything from freinds and social networks as "read" so I don't get notified. I only answer the phone when convenient to me. Now if only my roommate would not have to talk to me every time she passes my room to get a glass of water or go to the bathroom.
There is a time for small talk. When I'm busy isn't it. I try my hardest to respect others when they are occupied, and I expect the same of them. Call it arrogance, a desire for mutual respect.
Please don't suggest making Foundation a movie... It would be 40000 hours long, and really not worth watching after the first 3 or so hours. I love Asimov as much as the next guy, but Foundation can be a real dog.
Why does RAH cause flame wars? Sure I confuse all of his characters with Hagbard Celine (from Illuminatus!), or some Ayn Randian ubermensch, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the man could write a damn good story.
I hope that this is successful, so we can resurrect some good old books from the hey-days of sci-fi. I'd be game for Clifford Simak's "City" to be made into a movie, actually just about any of his old pulp novels would make a good movie (for some reason I'm the only nerd I know who considers him among the sci-fi greats). Stanislaw Lem's "Memoir found in a Bathtub" would make a great Bourne-esque movie too.
I'd also like to see John Varely's Steel Beach turned into a movie. His Gaean trilogy would also make a damn good LoTR-esque epic.
Actually The Last Man on Earth (Vincent Price FTW) was a MUCH closer adaptation than the Omega Man. Granted Charlton Heston could kick both Smith and Price's asses with his eyes closed.
I'm coming to believe that Will Smith is the scourge of things geekish in movies. He helped slaughter both I am Legend AND I, Robot, neither of which (as far as I can tell) has anything to do with their respective books.
I hope they cast him in the crappy The Day the Earth Stood Still remake, and perhaps even as Jane Fonda's character in the crappy remake of Barbarella. Him or Keanu Reaves (who is going to be Klaatu). Perhaps Reaves and be Maudib, and Smith can be the rest of the cast.
Here here!
Though I doubt that the Muslim-ish-ness included in the book would make it okay for modern American audiences. As moronic as that sounds and is. You can here the commentators now "ZOMG MUSLIM HEROS! it endorses terrorism!"... God I hate modernity.
You definitely described my dream movie though, especially with the Viggo as Duke Leto bit. I full haredly endorse using Viggo for any kick ass roll. I'd prefer him as Stilgar though. I know the ages don't match, but it would kick as to see him running around with a crysknife killing shit.
The only thing I'd want to carry over from the 84 movie is the BIG set design, and epic feel.
I would be okay with Cronenberg, but I also wouldn't mind Peter Jackson giving it a LoTR treatment. LoTR is probably the most faithful treatment of "geek lit" to date. The only problem is I doubt these is anywhere in NZ that Arrakis could be set. Make it a full trilogy (first 3-4 books) too. The end of the first book, taken alone, makes to much of a "huh what next" moment to not move on to the sequels.
According to IMDB its being directed by Peter Berg, which doesn't make me hopeful.
I know, at least, it will be better than the Lynch / DeLaurentiis version. Its odd, I love Lynch and own all his moves, and I think DeLaurentiis' campy sci-fi movies (Barbarella, Flash Gordon, Conan..) are fun, but I refuse to buy Dune, and actively try not to watch it. It was that bad.
It had nothing to do with the novels, the only thing it had going for it was casting, which was awesome, when I read the books I still picture Sting as Feyd, and Kyle MacLachlan as Paul. Though Patrick Steward as Gurney is a stretch, he was nominated as the sexiest man alive playing a character called "a wretched hump of a man" in the novel.
The mini-series wasn't bad in the sense it followed the books rather well. But the acting and effects were rather bad, like all Sci-Fi channel productions.
I still marvel at how such an awesome Director/Producer combo could make such an atrocious movie, its like neither of them actually read the book (take the navigators for example, they are pretty well described in the book, and look nothing like cuttle fish).
Perhaps they will do a LoTR take, and do the first three, which could be a self contained trilogy if I remember right.
Can you explain it? Most of the stuff in the world is essentially the same, but there is something to be said about the emotional attachment people make with products. Its something that you just can't ignore, because it will happen at some level, advertising or not.
Not disagreeing. When I buy mother boards I generally always buy ASUS, when I get video cards its always NVIDIA, and up until recently these computers always had AMD processors. This was because of familiarity and experience, I used them for years, and never had a problem. My father has only bought Nissan 4wd pickups for the last 25 years for the same reason.
I get attached to products and brands because they perform, not because they fool me into thinking that they fulfill a need that they don't.
Seriously, would you switch to a new OS, or hardware vendor because it supposedly makes you sexier to the ladies? I can see the ads... AMD the Sex Maker! I'd walk a mile for an ASUS mobo.
I accept that most of the ones I listed do pay for free services. Not the ones, though, on billboards and baseball stadiums. Also part of my complaint is that they are tacky, and besmirch our living spaces. No single ad is really guilty for this, but taken as a whole they are a blight. In your daily commute MILLIONS of idiotic messages are crying for your attention, its turning life into 4chan.
I'd rather have Balmer throwing a chair at Tux on the back of my truck. I don't agree with the sentiment, but it is sillier.
I guess I'm in the minority of people that care more about function than form.....
I care about both, but so far Aero hasn't really hurt the former. The second I find it hindering my usage its going away, but as stated it hasn't. Isn't all the placements the same in Vista no matter what GUI you use? The only thing that really changes is the look, and the bloated size of dwm.exe, so how am I sacrificing form for function?
With Firefox (4 tabs), Photoshop CS3, notepad, and Pidgen open I still have 1.26GB free. I could still probably throw in a OpenOffice session before it even gets close to paging. These are generally the programs I use to get stuff done, so... Aero doesn't hurt function in my day-to-day usage.
Sorry, a little semantic tangling and beer was involved in the confusion.
I meant 4c would be too much for a pay-to-play model, like you described in your first paragraph, on the customer end.
But for an iTunes Music Store like business model, or direct downloads from independent band sites, 10-25c is fair.
Streaming radio should remain free to listeners, agreed.
Sorry again.
I'm guessing that prolonged exposure eventually leads to complete ignorance of them. Especially if your smart, or have had basic training in rhetorical/persuasion techniques.
I keep a book by the sofa that I read every time a commercial comes on. Often I walk out of the room and go pet my cat, or answer an email when a commercial break comes on. Often my roommate comments on a commercial that was just on, and I have no clue what they are talking about. 30 years of them have rather dulled the novelty, and academic training in social psychology and rhetoric have made most of their tactics transparent.
Even before I got Adblock, I stopped paying attention to the headers and side-bars on webpages. They were a perceptual hole, literally.
I did, though, stop watching sports. Too many adds.
When I buy a product I always buy the cheapest, unless I read enough third party reviews recommending a specific brand.
When something becomes ubiquitous enough it becomes mere background.