Re:PI (or: Nothing New Under The Sun)
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
It seems that the major comparisons here are between Pi and TBWP.
I saw both, and thought Pi was a stunning bore. If you want to talk about stupid, that computer chip that you just plug in and everything works? Come on... His little computer was a collection of old radio parts and vacuum tubes, but yet plug n play on a brand new processor of unknown origin? Not to mention that the main character was a drip. People have problems with inconsistencies in TBWP but this kind of silly and impossible inconsistency is ok? Blair Witch had movement, and it builds on itself. If you have no imagination concerning malevolent supernatural beings, then the Blair Witch is not for you. If you like huge effects, then it's not for you. If you like to be tingled by strange ocurrences in the woods and the terror of 3 people who bit off way more than they could chew, then you'll like it. It's a psychological thriller. You have to have a personality and an imagination in order to get it, otherwise you'll be bored; in which case you'll probably be happier with 'The Haunting', where you can focus on neat-o effects and Catherine Zeta-Jones' chest. I thought that the piles of stones and creepy stick sculptures was totally freaky, if you were camping in the woods and ran across something like this, you'd be a little creeped out as well.
A while back, I encountered a similar thing, although I can't remember what it was called. It claimed to be a sovereign state, and it was somewhere in Wisconsin or something. Anyway, I think it's pretty cool, just as long as I don't have to pay taxes.
Not true! I bought my first Palm in February of this year, basically because I could afford to shell out the US$150 for a Palm Pro. It was stolen about 3 weeks ago, and I was RUINED!! Ruined, I tell you. Then a co-worker sold me his old Palm III, and now I go to dept. meetings and we all beam away just as though all of us had had Palms all along...
Once you get into using them, they become great PDA's, and you really learn to love 'em. Plus also, you can write cool programs, play games, everything. Palms are so great that those who use them recognize each other as a fellow traveler. Yeah, I'm sure that there are some Wired-readin', coffee-drinking, fast car drivin' marketroids out them with 'em, but those are the only people who care about that kind of crap.
Veteran Palmists will get a kick out of you enjoying your new nerd-o-tron...
This got a 4? A 4!?!? Gimme a break. How is this informative? Jon's 'filth'? I dunno about filth. Rantings, yes, pointless, yes. If that's what you consider filth, then I can't help you with what ails you.
I doubt that you yourself have read any Darwin, for the theory of natural selection states that traits that give advantages are passed on, and that traits that are disadvantages are lost. Darwin was also applying his theories to a much larger continuum of time than you can observe. Your assertions are meaningless.
BTW, there's no evidence that "stupid lazy people" have stupid lazy kids.
I happen to think that your are stupid because your posts are idiotic, and you're lazy because you're pulling all this pseudo-Darwinian theory straight out of your A**!
That's why I support a hereditary aristocracy. Not that it'll ever happen. I just think that it'd work better and more cleanly. Hmmm... They've had those before. France, England, China, Japan. They have all now ditched them. I'm assuming of course that you have yourself in mind for this aristocracy. Sounds like you have little or no real life experience, ( that.edu in your addy is a dead giveaway ) OK, I'll take the bait, as you are obviously trolling, but I can't resist. Aristocracies in place in countries like Brunei, Saudi Arabia, etc. are rife with corruption, nepotism and human rights abuses. You are also wrong about the "Libertarian Viewpoint" people are poor because the free market is hobbled by too much government interference, not because they are lazy. However, I really want to get back to your aristocracy foolishness. I don't recall Libertarians advocating aristocracies, I think they basically believe in small, decentralized government. You also seem to be quite ignorant to the social implications of poverty. The "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" approach is a myth perpetuated by people who would have us believe that such things are common occurrences, when in fact they are really quite rare. Honestly, how many people rise out of poverty by simply applying themsleves? One, two, maybe four or five a year? That still leaves all those lazy people right? Wrong. The causes of poverty are pervasive and systemic. To attribute its existence to 'laziness' is simplistic and actually wrong. Poverty is a cyclical social condition, rooted in the simple fact that in order for your precious capitalism to work, it has to be built upon the backs of people who can be put into a position of powerlessness and hand-to-mouth poverty. The poor. Capitalism requires this. My favorite example I like to use is agriculture. No one wants to pay $5 for a head of lettuce, so we make it OK for landlowners to hire migrant farmworkers and pay them wages that no citizen would ever take for work that hard. The nature of capitalism is that some will profit, some will be exploited, and the rest will be stuck somewhere in the middle.
I have to say that I find it extremely hard to believe that any of this martial law stuff is going to happen. In the event of major floods or other natural disasters, it's perfectly reasonable to call out the National Guard, no one flips out and says that Clinton is trying to impose martial law. I suspect that these are mere contingency plans... Also, this whole UN world domination thing is ludicrous. There are people who flipped when the UN declared the Statue of Liberty a World Heritage Site, as they twisted it into a UN invasion. The UN is not going to take over the United States, folks. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it just isn't going to happen.
Well I have to use both at work, and there are several notable things that MS could and should fix with their OS in order to make it hold a candle to Linux and Solaris, the two major unices that I use. My major gripe with NT and other Windows OSes for that matter, is a phenomenon I call ' OS Rot '. Windows is the only OS I've ever used that has a tendency to become more unstable the more you try to tweak it. Granted you can screw up any OS in a big way if you do the wrong thing, but here's an example similar to the 'Router as Serial Mouse' problem. I can't ever upgrade the NT machine I have at work because it just simply refuses to work. After installing and uninstalling various service packs and option packs, the damn thing BSOD's every weekend without fail, and every time I reboot I have to reinstall the display drivers. This is not making my job easier. Needless to say, every problem I've ever had with Solaris or Linux is due to me goofing something up, . The Windows Rot phenomenon is what really burns me about Microsoft. It IS possible to build an OS that doesn't do that, yet they don't. Also, just put in my 2 cents on the 'average joe won't use Linux' opinion: I just installed Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 on my formerly Win98 machine, and it was painless and fast. Up and running and on the net in about an hour. Everything was there, and it all worked. It absolutely rivals Win98 or NT for setup ease ( I mean, click-click-click you're there). Don't be too sure that Linux can't make better headway into the desktop area, if this is the wave of the future. Now, all I need is Baldur's Gate for Linux and I'll never even think about Windows again.
I think that you're confusing model number with serial number? Remember how in Star Wars when Uncle Owen was buying droids from the Jawas and they negotiated a price for C-3PO and the red "R2 unit"? Evidently, an "R2 unit" is any one of a type of short, cynlindrical droid with two and at times, three, little rolling feet things...
(a) trying to build a national consensus that abortion really does kill an unborn human and that it's not right ( well that certainly is debateable) and (b) offering as much support to unwed mothers as we can, be it prenatal care, adoption services, whatever ( Uh huh. You gonna personally adopt a couple of kids? )
The trouble is, 'as much help as you can' is nowhere near enough.
Another post pretty much hit the nail on the head when they said that most kids actually aren't into porn in any more than a curiosity sense.
Knowing this, and the fact that porn sites like you to pay for the priviledge with a major credit card, I really don't think that internet porn in public libraries is really all that much of a problem.
I heard an interesting panel of screenwriters discussing the supposed impact of cinema violence on kids, and I think it has relevance to this discussion as well.
The head of the MPAA, whose name I forget, pointed out these two interesting stats...
Juvenile crime has been decreasing over the last 8 years.
99.54% of teenagers in the U.S. have never been in trouble with the law in any way shape or form, with the exception of things like traffic tickets, etc.
So conservative pundits ( like Mrs. Dole ) would have us believe that we are going to hell in a handbasket, and that we have a real problem on our hands with this 'free porn' thing in public libraries...
The numbers from law enforcement agencies tell us otherwise at least in terms of kids.
So the question I put forward is this:
Why would conservatives, who tend to disdain 'big government', want to sponsor laws that fix something that so far has yet to become a problem?
I'll tell you the answer.
Conservatives like Mrs. Dole don't know or care about you or your kids. What they DO care about is making money and getting elected.
The Republicans have yet to field a qualified candidate. GWBush and Mrs. Dole are concerned mainly with getting into office, so they and their rich friends can get richer really fast at the expense of the middle class (known as 'Reaganomics'). Part of the way they like to get attention is to pull these issues out of their a*ses and make a big deal about nothing. They did it with abortion rights, immigration, and now it's internet porn. Wake up and smell the carpet, people!
You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise, and I know that Democrats have their own forms of cronyism and kickbacks, but at least they do it behind closed doors, and don't pontificate about non-problems...
They talk about a lot of moral crap, but they never do anything about it, but you can bet that every plank in their platform ends with either they or their friends making a lot of money.
I quote from the Wired article: "Federal tax dollars should never be used to poison our children or provide free pornography for adults," Dole said during a visit to a library in Bellevue, Washington. This is an example of go-nowhere rhetoric designed to inflame jingoistic NIMBYs into passing a lot of ineffective, poorly reasoned legislation that has absolutely no hope of achieving any of the goals I think Mrs. Dole, in her infinite wisdom, has decided are important for our country. Here's the reality, folks. Most porn sites will make you pay to see the really racy stuff. Other than that, you get more skin at the beach or public pool. I don't know many kids who are a) Impressionable enough to be 'poisoned' by sexual images. and b) own a credit card that can be used to gain access to a porn site. What seems to have been missed is that PORN SITES ARE NOT FREE!!! If an adult wants to go to a public library and PAY to see porn, then so be it. I *know* that porn is not easy to 'stumble' on to. If you claim to have 'stumbled' on to a porn site, gimme a break. Come clean, you were looking for it, and you know it. What is the most important thing about this is that Liddy Dole cares nothing for your kids and what they can and cannot see in the library. She wants to be President. She said those things to garner support from culturally conservative people who have some other really awful ideas. I can't believe that a single slashdotter actually believes that Liddy Dole stands for anything other than herself, lining her pocketbook, and being president. She did a terrible job as President of the Red Cross, and would make an awful President.
Re:What a tangled web we weave...
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
I use 'free' software all the time. When I'm working on my unix machines, I generally try to use community available tools for several reasons: because they're free, a lot of people already are using them, so it makes compatibility easier. I don't like to spend money on licenses, etc. because I usually have to wait for that stuff to get approved by the boss, and it's a pain. I have no problem agreeing to the GPL most of the time. Unfortunately, this has the negative impact of me having a problem that I need to fix, and "Oh yeah, that library has some good functions and routines" but the GPL sez that now I must distribute the source for everything I do that hinges on those functions. Well, I can't do that. SO I have two choices: steal it or write my own. I don't generally have the luxury of time to develop my own set of libraries. Not only is it a waste of time, but I just won't do it. Chances are, I will creatively 'paraphrase' what I need from GPL source, or read the code and then come up with a way to do it. I will concede that the first case is rapidly appraoching theft, the second, hey, you can't prove a thing.
The GPL is a good thing, and so is the Berkeley license actually. I think that having open source stuff has had a great impact on the way we do computing today.
However, I do reserve the right to protect my property, and if that means using a restrictive license then so be it. That's the world in which I work, and those are the systems and products that I have to build.
IMHO, I believe in the spirit of the FSF but I also understand that there is an ideological component that I can't agree with, which is the derivative works thing. That's pretty nebulous. In the 90's it's hard to find something that isn't a 'derivative' work. I also shouldn't have to release my company's competitive advantages over a few header files.
The Free Software Foundation is a very 'ivory tower' kind of organization, and the price for their ideals is that they are not always workable in the real world.
Personally, I feel that this is just another religious war regarding technology. To make the argument that Free Software = Free Speech = Freedom in General is just way too simple, I hope we know that.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw both, and thought Pi was a stunning bore. If you want to talk about stupid, that computer chip that you just plug in and everything works? Come on... His little computer was a collection of old radio parts and vacuum tubes, but yet plug n play on a brand new processor of unknown origin? Not to mention that the main character was a drip.
People have problems with inconsistencies in TBWP but this kind of silly and impossible inconsistency is ok?
Blair Witch had movement, and it builds on itself. If you have no imagination concerning malevolent supernatural beings, then the Blair Witch is not for you. If you like huge effects, then it's not for you. If you like to be tingled by strange ocurrences in the woods and the terror of 3 people who bit off way more than they could chew, then you'll like it.
It's a psychological thriller. You have to have a personality and an imagination in order to get it, otherwise you'll be bored; in which case you'll probably be happier with 'The Haunting', where you can focus on neat-o effects and Catherine Zeta-Jones' chest.
I thought that the piles of stones and creepy stick sculptures was totally freaky, if you were camping in the woods and ran across something like this, you'd be a little creeped out as well.
A while back, I encountered a similar thing, although I can't remember what it was called. It claimed to be a sovereign state, and it was somewhere in Wisconsin or something. Anyway, I think it's pretty cool, just as long as I don't have to pay taxes.
Not true! I bought my first Palm in February of this year, basically because I could afford to shell out the US$150 for a Palm Pro. It was stolen about 3 weeks ago, and I was RUINED!! Ruined, I tell you. Then a co-worker sold me his old Palm III, and now I go to dept. meetings and we all beam away just as though all of us had had Palms all along...
Once you get into using them, they become great PDA's, and you really learn to love 'em.
Plus also, you can write cool programs, play games, everything. Palms are so great that those who use them recognize each other as a fellow traveler. Yeah, I'm sure that there are some Wired-readin', coffee-drinking, fast car drivin' marketroids out them with 'em, but those are the only people who care about that kind of crap.
Veteran Palmists will get a kick out of you enjoying your new nerd-o-tron...
This got a 4? A 4!?!?
Gimme a break. How is this informative? Jon's 'filth'? I dunno about filth. Rantings, yes, pointless, yes.
If that's what you consider filth, then I can't help you with what ails you.
BTW, there's no evidence that "stupid lazy people" have stupid lazy kids.
I happen to think that your are stupid because your posts are idiotic, and you're lazy because you're pulling all this pseudo-Darwinian theory straight out of your A**!
That's why I support a hereditary aristocracy. Not that it'll ever happen. I just think that it'd work better and more cleanly. .edu in your addy is a dead giveaway )
Hmmm... They've had those before. France, England, China, Japan. They have all now ditched them. I'm assuming of course that you have yourself in mind for this aristocracy. Sounds like you have little or no real life experience, ( that
OK, I'll take the bait, as you are obviously trolling, but I can't resist.
Aristocracies in place in countries like Brunei, Saudi Arabia, etc. are rife with corruption, nepotism and human rights abuses.
You are also wrong about the "Libertarian Viewpoint" people are poor because the free market is hobbled by too much government interference, not because they are lazy.
However, I really want to get back to your aristocracy foolishness. I don't recall Libertarians advocating aristocracies, I think they basically believe in small, decentralized government.
You also seem to be quite ignorant to the social implications of poverty. The "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" approach is a myth perpetuated by people who would have us believe that such things are common occurrences, when in fact they are really quite rare. Honestly, how many people rise out of poverty by simply applying themsleves? One, two, maybe four or five a year? That still leaves all those lazy people right? Wrong. The causes of poverty are pervasive and systemic. To attribute its existence to 'laziness' is simplistic and actually wrong. Poverty is a cyclical social condition, rooted in the simple fact that in order for your precious capitalism to work, it has to be built upon the backs of people who can be put into a position of powerlessness and hand-to-mouth poverty. The poor. Capitalism requires this. My favorite example I like to use is agriculture. No one wants to pay $5 for a head of lettuce, so we make it OK for landlowners to hire migrant farmworkers and pay them wages that no citizen would ever take for work that hard. The nature of capitalism is that some will profit, some will be exploited, and the rest will be stuck somewhere in the middle.
I have to say that I find it extremely hard to believe that any of this martial law stuff is going to happen. In the event of major floods or other natural disasters, it's perfectly reasonable to call out the National Guard, no one flips out and says that Clinton is trying to impose martial law. I suspect that these are mere contingency plans...
Also, this whole UN world domination thing is ludicrous. There are people who flipped when the UN declared the Statue of Liberty a World Heritage Site, as they twisted it into a UN invasion.
The UN is not going to take over the United States, folks. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it just isn't going to happen.
I was wondering why every CD I've ordered from them has turned out backordered....
Forget it, I'll just go to the record store...
Well I have to use both at work, and there are several notable things that MS could and should fix with their OS in order to make it hold a candle to Linux and Solaris, the two major unices that I use. My major gripe with NT and other Windows OSes for that matter, is a phenomenon I call ' OS Rot '. Windows is the only OS I've ever used that has a tendency to become more unstable the more you try to tweak it. Granted you can screw up any OS in a big way if you do the wrong thing, but here's an example similar to the 'Router as Serial Mouse' problem. I can't ever upgrade the NT machine I have at work because it just simply refuses to work. After installing and uninstalling various service packs and option packs, the damn thing BSOD's every weekend without fail, and every time I reboot I have to reinstall the display drivers. This is not making my job easier.
Needless to say, every problem I've ever had with Solaris or Linux is due to me goofing something up, .
The Windows Rot phenomenon is what really burns me about Microsoft. It IS possible to build an OS that doesn't do that, yet they don't.
Also, just put in my 2 cents on the 'average joe won't use Linux' opinion: I just installed Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 on my formerly Win98 machine, and it was painless and fast. Up and running and on the net in about an hour. Everything was there, and it all worked. It absolutely rivals Win98 or NT for setup ease ( I mean, click-click-click you're there). Don't be too sure that Linux can't make better headway into the desktop area, if this is the wave of the future. Now, all I need is Baldur's Gate for Linux and I'll never even think about Windows again.
I think that you're confusing model number with serial number?
Remember how in Star Wars when Uncle Owen was buying droids from the Jawas and they negotiated a price for C-3PO and the red "R2 unit"?
Evidently, an "R2 unit" is any one of a type of short, cynlindrical droid with two and at times, three, little rolling feet things...
Oh man, that would cost millions of dollars and cost hundreds of lives....
Ugh...
Hey, you know what? It really isn't a problem...
(a) trying to build a national consensus that abortion really does kill an unborn human and that it's not right ( well that certainly is debateable) and (b) offering as much support to unwed mothers as we can, be it prenatal care, adoption services, whatever ( Uh huh. You gonna personally adopt a couple of kids? )
The trouble is, 'as much help as you can' is nowhere near enough.
There's nothing wrong with porn.
Another post pretty much hit the nail on the head when they said that most kids actually aren't into porn in any more than a curiosity sense.
Knowing this, and the fact that porn sites like you to pay for the priviledge with a major credit card, I really don't think that internet porn in public libraries is really all that much of a problem.
I heard an interesting panel of screenwriters discussing the supposed impact of cinema violence on kids, and I think it has relevance to this discussion as well.
The head of the MPAA, whose name I forget, pointed out these two interesting stats...
Juvenile crime has been decreasing over the last 8 years.
99.54% of teenagers in the U.S. have never been in trouble with the law in any way shape or form, with the exception of things like traffic tickets, etc.
So conservative pundits ( like Mrs. Dole ) would have us believe that we are going to hell in a handbasket, and that we have a real problem on our hands with this 'free porn' thing in public libraries...
The numbers from law enforcement agencies tell us otherwise at least in terms of kids.
So the question I put forward is this:
Why would conservatives, who tend to disdain 'big government', want to sponsor laws that fix something that so far has yet to become a problem?
I'll tell you the answer.
Conservatives like Mrs. Dole don't know or care about you or your kids. What they DO care about is making money and getting elected.
The Republicans have yet to field a qualified candidate. GWBush and Mrs. Dole are concerned mainly with getting into office, so they and their rich friends can get richer really fast at the expense of the middle class (known as 'Reaganomics'). Part of the way they like to get attention is to pull these issues out of their a*ses and make a big deal about nothing. They did it with abortion rights, immigration, and now it's internet porn. Wake up and smell the carpet, people!
You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise, and I know that Democrats have their own forms of cronyism and kickbacks, but at least they do it behind closed doors, and don't pontificate about non-problems...
They talk about a lot of moral crap, but they never do anything about it, but you can bet that every plank in their platform ends with either they or their friends making a lot of money.
I quote from the Wired article: "Federal tax dollars should never be used to poison our children or provide free pornography for adults," Dole said during a visit to a library in Bellevue, Washington. This is an example of go-nowhere rhetoric designed to inflame jingoistic NIMBYs into passing a lot of ineffective, poorly reasoned legislation that has absolutely no hope of achieving any of the goals I think Mrs. Dole, in her infinite wisdom, has decided are important for our country. Here's the reality, folks. Most porn sites will make you pay to see the really racy stuff. Other than that, you get more skin at the beach or public pool. I don't know many kids who are a) Impressionable enough to be 'poisoned' by sexual images. and b) own a credit card that can be used to gain access to a porn site. What seems to have been missed is that PORN SITES ARE NOT FREE!!! If an adult wants to go to a public library and PAY to see porn, then so be it. I *know* that porn is not easy to 'stumble' on to. If you claim to have 'stumbled' on to a porn site, gimme a break. Come clean, you were looking for it, and you know it. What is the most important thing about this is that Liddy Dole cares nothing for your kids and what they can and cannot see in the library. She wants to be President. She said those things to garner support from culturally conservative people who have some other really awful ideas. I can't believe that a single slashdotter actually believes that Liddy Dole stands for anything other than herself, lining her pocketbook, and being president. She did a terrible job as President of the Red Cross, and would make an awful President.
I use 'free' software all the time. When I'm working on my unix machines, I generally try to use community available tools for several reasons: because they're free, a lot of people already are using them, so it makes compatibility easier. I don't like to spend money on licenses, etc. because I usually have to wait for that stuff to get approved by the boss, and it's a pain. I have no problem agreeing to the GPL most of the time.
Unfortunately, this has the negative impact of me having a problem that I need to fix, and "Oh yeah, that library has some good functions and routines" but the GPL sez that now I must distribute the source for everything I do that hinges on those functions. Well, I can't do that. SO I have two choices: steal it or write my own. I don't generally have the luxury of time to develop my own set of libraries. Not only is it a waste of time, but I just won't do it. Chances are, I will creatively 'paraphrase' what I need from GPL source, or read the code and then come up with a way to do it. I will concede that the first case is rapidly appraoching theft, the second, hey, you can't prove a thing.
The GPL is a good thing, and so is the Berkeley license actually. I think that having open source stuff has had a great impact on the way we do computing today.
However, I do reserve the right to protect my property, and if that means using a restrictive license then so be it. That's the world in which I work, and those are the systems and products that I have to build.
IMHO, I believe in the spirit of the FSF but I also understand that there is an ideological component that I can't agree with, which is the derivative works thing. That's pretty nebulous. In the 90's it's hard to find something that isn't a 'derivative' work. I also shouldn't have to release my company's competitive advantages over a few header files.
The Free Software Foundation is a very 'ivory tower' kind of organization, and the price for their ideals is that they are not always workable in the real world.
Personally, I feel that this is just another religious war regarding technology. To make the argument that Free Software = Free Speech = Freedom in General is just way too simple, I hope we know that.