Yeah, but those jokes have been done to *death*. It's just not funny anymore, just like the CD-tray-coffee-holder thing.
The creation of the Dust Bunny character was original and showed some flash of promise, but since then it's just been a long, slow circle into more and more repetetive jokes.
Now, Illiad has a web comic and I don't, so take my opinion for what it's worth, right? But I just can't stand UF anymore.
UF, by and large, sticks to the obvious jokes that we (as geeks) were making ten years ago. I'm sorry, but it was funny when I was 15 and it was new, but now I just don't see why people like it so much. MS jokes, D&D jokes, geek social jokes, but none of it at all original.
I bought the first book (the O'Reilly one), but that's pretty much all I could take. I *wanted* to like it, but it just doesn't work for me. When I stumbled across Sluggy Freelance, I traded.
Can someone explain the attraction to UF? I just don't get it.
Well, in their defense, the script on paper and the actual filmed movie are usually only vaguely related.
One of the guys I went to college with does post-production work. He was working on some effects for a effects-heavy movie (post-production isn't always post, interestingly) when the director and one of the actors sat down and rewrote the script, invalidating not only my friend's work of several months but several scenes that had already been shot.
That's not a bad idea; dress him up to the point where only the die-hards would catch it (too bad there are no Narn in Star Trek)...
Of course, I think they need to be very careful not to ruin Enterprise, which I think is easily the most entertaining, unique and mature Trek since TOS. I think they do an excellent job of making the crew seem like actual pioneering explorers rather than just another ship in the fleet.
Of course, I also think they could bear to get their asses beaten by the Klingons once or twice, but I'm sure that's around the corner someplace.
Oh fuck, I feel old. This is all I needed after finding my first grey hair last week.
Overall, I suppose anything that makes the end film better is a Good Thing. Still, it sucks that it had to happen -- I can't imagine the weirdness of putting, what, 7 years of my life in as a particular character and then having my last chance to play him yanked out.
At least Wil seems very grounded about it. Unless, of course, he just omitted some drinking-drug-and-wife-beatin' binge he went on after the end of the blog.
Yes, I care that my (potential) children get a good education so they don't end up cleaning the toilets of the people who do have good educations. It depresses me that the well-educated people I meet here in CA seem to have always grown up elsewhere.
I would prefer they be able to get this education from the public school system. There are acceptible public schools elsewhere (some places in the Midwest, for instance), but those here in California suck. Why? Because they're grossly underfunded. Why are they underfunded? Because Californians can't seem to understand the connection between paying higher property taxes and the quality of education; they somehow think that money is completely unrelated to the quality of an education system.
I'd gladly pay higher taxes for good public education, but unfortunately I'm apparently in the minority in CA. Since good public education is not an option, I plan to either move out of state or pay to send my kids to a quality private school.
I'm not really sure where you think we're in conflict here, except that I'm willing and able to abandon the public schools if need be so my kids have the best possible shake at life. If you can't afford a private school and can't move elsewhere, you have my sympathy (but, really, it's not my problem).
That's not *such* a big deal, though. Catering services at large institutions often sign large exclusive contracts (at my campus, it was Sodexo, I think). It mostly came into play for outside events (aka, student union rented out for whatever special event).
Exclusive availablity is still a bummer, but at least they're not coming into class and having a trusted figure (your prof) tell you that Pepsi is a better drink than Coke or Gatoraide or water, whereas requiring C# at least brands it as a good learning language (which, IMO, it isn't).
To use an analogy, I don't care if Tom Clancy books are the only fiction military thrillers available in the student bookstore, because I can always go elsewhere (and you could go to Safeway, buy a case of 7-Up and be done). I'd care if Clancy's publisher made a huge donation and suddenly, to graduate as a lit major, I had to take a mandatory course on his books.
Oh, so you're saying that Ontario is going to end up like Arkansas, where people are so blinded by taxes that they doom their children to shitty education and $20k/year menial jobs?
By the by, California is headed in this direction, too. Apparently people here think that quality education is free, and that it's just the greedy teachers (who can't afford to live here anyhow) who would be taking their money otherwise. Oh well, when I have kids I should be able to afford to send them to an expensive private school.
Well, community colleges aren't exactly performing their intended function (that is, training people for jobs rather than imparting higher-level sciences). Universities, by and large, turn out the functionally trained people, so the community colleges are left with the people who would otherwise be rebuilding engines (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Admissions have always been dirty, but at least in the past you didn't have classes being bought and sold.
Beyond the fact that C# isn't by any stretch the best language to teach concerning the basics of computer programming (and as such is a disservice to the students at large), this also sets a horrible prescident. Maybe Putnam can buy this U a new administrative building and get a new mandatory lit class added -- "Lit 203 -- The Works of Tom Clancy"
It seems to me that the big at-fault party here is the University.
The fact that this University is willing to sacrifice any sort of appearence of propriety in order to squeeze a few bucks out of Microsoft is as pathetic and outragous as if they were to let the parents of poorly-performing students buy their way in with large cash donations.
Of course, the latter example happens all the time, but at least they don't brag about it in press releases.
Anyhow, it seems to me a horrible idea to set this sort of prescident. What's next? Coke gives a few bucks to the football team and suddenly all students have to undergo a session about the crisp, refreshing taste of Coke, Diet Coke and Sprite? The music industry buys the U a building and, next thing you know, all students are required to buy $300 of Britney and N'Sync albums for their music appreciation courses?
Universities should be about education, not indoctrination. Unless these are the best languages for teaching the foundations of computer programming (and they are not), they shouldn't be required.
Er, wouldn't it be easier to use wireless communications and transdermal power rather than poking holes in you're #1 infection prevention mechanism (your skin)?
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom
on
Shrinkwrapped Books
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Might I recommend a course of action?
http://www.eff.org
http://aclu.org/
Just kicking an issue around a message board never solved anything. If you feel strongly about it, dollars really do speak louder than words -- you really don't need to donate a lot of money.
You must make reasonable efforts to return the product to the shipper, such as marking "refused" on the outside of the package and placing it back in your mailbox.
If you're going to make information an ownable commodity, this sort of thing is bound to happen over a long enough timeline.
The really insideous part of this is that, in order to protect strictly financial interests, copyright barrons like Disney and Microsoft and the politicians they (let's be honest) bribe with large campaign contributions have pushed us to a place where information and knowledge can be proprietary and restricted in a way that hasn't been feasible since the invention of the printing press.
To protect profits from Britney's new crappy CD, these companies have harkened in a world where information can be (at least in theory) totally controlled. Naturally, the fact that this is completely hostile to the basic presumptions of democracy is completely peripheral -- next we'll have printing of bills restricted, politicians suing to keep the gaffes in their public releases supressed under the auspices of the DMCA and an even more uninformed public.
Hopefully, this sort of thing will spur some sort of public outrage at it progresses, pushing the pendulum back the other way -- it'll happen eventually. The question is how far things will have to go before Joe and Jane Sixpack start to give a shit.
In the mean time, might I suggest a contribution to the ACLU or EFF? Remember that the RIAA, MPAA and other four-letter-orgs-'o-evil have to spend to overcome common sense, where those of us on the "right" side don't, so your $25 contribution means a lot.
The point is that you *CAN* get used diamonds on the cheap. I have a friend who went to an estate sale, bought a gaudy old-lady ring and had the diamond set into a new setting. Paid maybe 1/3 less than he would have otherwise.
Now, if DeBeers ever falls apart, diamonds will be worth about as much as it costs to put and polish them.
If you can't talk to each other about this, then you are fools to even consider marriage.
Well, you should understand that there are certain women (my girlfriend included) who would prefer the proposal to be a surprise at a romantic spot that they can remember and savor for the rest of their lives. In these cases, you (as the guy) are somewhat left to your own devices in regards to ring selection.
Look, women think differently than men on some issues, but you disregard that point of view only at your great peril. So fucking what if sending flowers is stupid? If it makes your girl feel loved, well, mission accomplished.
You're screwed even if you get your fiancee's buy-in.
Any time she shows her engagement ring to someone, they'll either comment on the lack of rock or react to it in some other way. Any time one of her friends gets engaged and shows her their ring, they'll have a diamond. Humans are social animals -- this *is* going to take a toll over time. It's just not worth gambling a (presumibly) good relationship to save a few grand or make a point.
This is one of those situations where trying to be smart is only going to work against you.
WARNING: This is one of those situation where your girlfriend will look at you earnestly and say, "Honey, I don't need I diamond. I understand that they are artificially inflated in price and that the control of the diamond supply has caused incalculable suffering for third-world people over the years. I don't need one".
Hell, *she* might even believe it, but if you proceed not go get her one she will hold it against you the rest of her life. She'll show her mom and her friends the ring and get repeated "where's the rock, honey?" responses. When she's forty and has divorced you (at least party due to her deep-seated, semi-subconsious rage), she will tell her other single friends about you and they will laugh "Sex In The City"-style.
We all know that buying diamonds just enriches the DeBeers company and furthers their monopoly. We all know that it's a big scam. We all know we're tossing our money away on an essentially useless item which could become a commodity at any time. None of this matters.
Go to dirtcheapdiamonds.com or a trusted non-mall jeweler and buy the goddamn diamond. There's no way that the few thousand dollars you'd save would be worth the years of misery you'd be setting yourself up for.
Slashdot Mirror
The creation of the Dust Bunny character was original and showed some flash of promise, but since then it's just been a long, slow circle into more and more repetetive jokes.
Now, Illiad has a web comic and I don't, so take my opinion for what it's worth, right? But I just can't stand UF anymore.
I bought the first book (the O'Reilly one), but that's pretty much all I could take. I *wanted* to like it, but it just doesn't work for me. When I stumbled across Sluggy Freelance, I traded.
Can someone explain the attraction to UF? I just don't get it.
One of the guys I went to college with does post-production work. He was working on some effects for a effects-heavy movie (post-production isn't always post, interestingly) when the director and one of the actors sat down and rewrote the script, invalidating not only my friend's work of several months but several scenes that had already been shot.
Of course, I think they need to be very careful not to ruin Enterprise, which I think is easily the most entertaining, unique and mature Trek since TOS. I think they do an excellent job of making the crew seem like actual pioneering explorers rather than just another ship in the fleet.
Of course, I also think they could bear to get their asses beaten by the Klingons once or twice, but I'm sure that's around the corner someplace.
Oh fuck, I feel old. This is all I needed after finding my first grey hair last week.
Overall, I suppose anything that makes the end film better is a Good Thing. Still, it sucks that it had to happen -- I can't imagine the weirdness of putting, what, 7 years of my life in as a particular character and then having my last chance to play him yanked out.
At least Wil seems very grounded about it. Unless, of course, he just omitted some drinking-drug-and-wife-beatin' binge he went on after the end of the blog.
Yes, I care that my (potential) children get a good education so they don't end up cleaning the toilets of the people who do have good educations. It depresses me that the well-educated people I meet here in CA seem to have always grown up elsewhere.
I would prefer they be able to get this education from the public school system. There are acceptible public schools elsewhere (some places in the Midwest, for instance), but those here in California suck. Why? Because they're grossly underfunded. Why are they underfunded? Because Californians can't seem to understand the connection between paying higher property taxes and the quality of education; they somehow think that money is completely unrelated to the quality of an education system.
I'd gladly pay higher taxes for good public education, but unfortunately I'm apparently in the minority in CA. Since good public education is not an option, I plan to either move out of state or pay to send my kids to a quality private school.
I'm not really sure where you think we're in conflict here, except that I'm willing and able to abandon the public schools if need be so my kids have the best possible shake at life. If you can't afford a private school and can't move elsewhere, you have my sympathy (but, really, it's not my problem).
As someone who used to coordinate ACM meetings, please take my advice: Meet off campus.
Exclusive availablity is still a bummer, but at least they're not coming into class and having a trusted figure (your prof) tell you that Pepsi is a better drink than Coke or Gatoraide or water, whereas requiring C# at least brands it as a good learning language (which, IMO, it isn't).
To use an analogy, I don't care if Tom Clancy books are the only fiction military thrillers available in the student bookstore, because I can always go elsewhere (and you could go to Safeway, buy a case of 7-Up and be done). I'd care if Clancy's publisher made a huge donation and suddenly, to graduate as a lit major, I had to take a mandatory course on his books.
By the by, California is headed in this direction, too. Apparently people here think that quality education is free, and that it's just the greedy teachers (who can't afford to live here anyhow) who would be taking their money otherwise. Oh well, when I have kids I should be able to afford to send them to an expensive private school.
Well, community colleges aren't exactly performing their intended function (that is, training people for jobs rather than imparting higher-level sciences). Universities, by and large, turn out the functionally trained people, so the community colleges are left with the people who would otherwise be rebuilding engines (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Beyond the fact that C# isn't by any stretch the best language to teach concerning the basics of computer programming (and as such is a disservice to the students at large), this also sets a horrible prescident. Maybe Putnam can buy this U a new administrative building and get a new mandatory lit class added -- "Lit 203 -- The Works of Tom Clancy"
The fact that this University is willing to sacrifice any sort of appearence of propriety in order to squeeze a few bucks out of Microsoft is as pathetic and outragous as if they were to let the parents of poorly-performing students buy their way in with large cash donations.
Of course, the latter example happens all the time, but at least they don't brag about it in press releases.
Anyhow, it seems to me a horrible idea to set this sort of prescident. What's next? Coke gives a few bucks to the football team and suddenly all students have to undergo a session about the crisp, refreshing taste of Coke, Diet Coke and Sprite? The music industry buys the U a building and, next thing you know, all students are required to buy $300 of Britney and N'Sync albums for their music appreciation courses?
Universities should be about education, not indoctrination. Unless these are the best languages for teaching the foundations of computer programming (and they are not), they shouldn't be required.
[Insert obvious Napoleon joke here]
Maybe you're seriously overgeneralizing.
Not all diamonds are conflict diamonds. If you're worried, buy Canadian.
Er, wouldn't it be easier to use wireless communications and transdermal power rather than poking holes in you're #1 infection prevention mechanism (your skin)?
http://www.eff.org
http://aclu.org/
Just kicking an issue around a message board never solved anything. If you feel strongly about it, dollars really do speak louder than words -- you really don't need to donate a lot of money.
Interesting, but also completely, 100% untrue.
The really insideous part of this is that, in order to protect strictly financial interests, copyright barrons like Disney and Microsoft and the politicians they (let's be honest) bribe with large campaign contributions have pushed us to a place where information and knowledge can be proprietary and restricted in a way that hasn't been feasible since the invention of the printing press.
To protect profits from Britney's new crappy CD, these companies have harkened in a world where information can be (at least in theory) totally controlled. Naturally, the fact that this is completely hostile to the basic presumptions of democracy is completely peripheral -- next we'll have printing of bills restricted, politicians suing to keep the gaffes in their public releases supressed under the auspices of the DMCA and an even more uninformed public.
Hopefully, this sort of thing will spur some sort of public outrage at it progresses, pushing the pendulum back the other way -- it'll happen eventually. The question is how far things will have to go before Joe and Jane Sixpack start to give a shit.
In the mean time, might I suggest a contribution to the ACLU or EFF? Remember that the RIAA, MPAA and other four-letter-orgs-'o-evil have to spend to overcome common sense, where those of us on the "right" side don't, so your $25 contribution means a lot.
Are you kidding? I did a bunch of research, found out all about the diamond's previous owners and told her all about their lives.
Now, if DeBeers ever falls apart, diamonds will be worth about as much as it costs to put and polish them.
Well, you should understand that there are certain women (my girlfriend included) who would prefer the proposal to be a surprise at a romantic spot that they can remember and savor for the rest of their lives. In these cases, you (as the guy) are somewhat left to your own devices in regards to ring selection.
You've never had a girlfriend, have you?
Look, women think differently than men on some issues, but you disregard that point of view only at your great peril. So fucking what if sending flowers is stupid? If it makes your girl feel loved, well, mission accomplished.
Don't be a goon.
Any time she shows her engagement ring to someone, they'll either comment on the lack of rock or react to it in some other way. Any time one of her friends gets engaged and shows her their ring, they'll have a diamond. Humans are social animals -- this *is* going to take a toll over time. It's just not worth gambling a (presumibly) good relationship to save a few grand or make a point.
This is one of those situations where trying to be smart is only going to work against you.
Hell, *she* might even believe it, but if you proceed not go get her one she will hold it against you the rest of her life. She'll show her mom and her friends the ring and get repeated "where's the rock, honey?" responses. When she's forty and has divorced you (at least party due to her deep-seated, semi-subconsious rage), she will tell her other single friends about you and they will laugh "Sex In The City"-style.
We all know that buying diamonds just enriches the DeBeers company and furthers their monopoly. We all know that it's a big scam. We all know we're tossing our money away on an essentially useless item which could become a commodity at any time. None of this matters.
Go to dirtcheapdiamonds.com or a trusted non-mall jeweler and buy the goddamn diamond. There's no way that the few thousand dollars you'd save would be worth the years of misery you'd be setting yourself up for.
Pakistan doesn't have a space program worth mentioning. This is more a competition with China.