Long lines, rowdy crowd of fanboys, lousy seats, technical difficulties, nice Matrix Reloaded preview, etc.
Hayden Christensen, as the petulent brat Anakin Skywalker, is possibly the worst actor in a major film in years. We finally learn how Luke got the whining gene.
Natalie Portman looked sedated. I kept expecting Hayden to slip her the tongue. No dice.
But I'm not sure you can completely blame the actors for the movie. George Lucas wouldn't know a decent script if it were shoved up his ass. Dozens of cringe-inducing lines. Audience of rabid fanboys snickered and groaned.
I felt embarassed for Hayden (he made me feel uncomfortable!) and Natalie. I felt embarassed for Star Wars fans. I felt embarassed for the movie. The long battle scene at the end was cool.
All in all, it's worth your $10--albeit for about 30 minutes of the film. As much as I'd like to see some of the action sequences again, I don't think I could sit through the rest of it. Except if someone MST3Ks it, which would be an immense improvement.
Let's keep in mind that Harry Potter joins the company of They'd Rather be Right, Forever Peace, The Vor Game, and Foundation's Edge. I haven't read any of Rowling's books, nor do I really intend to, but it doesn't have to be especially great to look worthy in that company.
Fantasy may not win very often, but it does get nominated. With Harry Potter on last year's ballot was George R. R. Martin's Storm of Swords; it would have been the likely victor had Harry Potter failed to capture it.
And if fantasy and science fiction are really distinct genres, try to define the boundary. Go ahead. I'll warn you that it's a lot harder than it sounds.
Of course any such list is going to be incoherent, being the result of either many people's tastes clashing or one person's idiosyncracies. Also, they have to juggle issues of sequels, graphics, influence vs. gameplay, etc.
But this list had a few especially ludicrous entries, especially in the top 10...
10.) Legend of Zelda - NES
Nah. Wouldn't be on my top 500. If they put Link to the Past here, or Mario 3 (did I miss it in the top 50?), I wouldn't disagree.
9.) Starcraft
8.) Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss
7.) Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar
Agreed on all three. (Though I am puzzled why Ultima VII was shafted in the top 50. It's better than either Ultima V or Ultima III, I think.)
6.) Diablo (the original)
It was addictive, for sure, but was it really that great a game? I don't think so. I'd put it around 30. Maybe.
5.) Quake
Why? What makes it a better game than, say, Jedi Knight?
4.) Sid Meier's Civilization (the original)
Of course Civ2 was the better game, but it was Civ that was actually innovative. I loved this game, and I think it deserves its place.
3.) Warcraft 2
Huh? How? Why? It was good, no doubt. It was top 50 of all time, maybe. But it wasn't as good as Starcraft or a number of other RTS games. Moreover, it wasn't particularly innovative or groundbreaking.
2.) Half-life
No way. The single player game is outclassed by System Shock, Thief, et al. The mods should be judged separately (as Counterstrike was).
1.) Doom
Whatever.
It seems to me that console games were represented rather poorly overall, though my bias is also towards PC games. The fact that I played every one of the console games listed is telling--I haven't played all that many.
Older games are definitely shafted, but the authors probably come from about the same generation I do, so I'm not really able to correct them.
Not to mention giving Blizzard 30% of the top 10...and id's forgettable splatfests 20%.
It's thanks to your f**king religious kind that society it 500 years behind where it should be.
What kind of society do you want to live in? One completely atheistic and amoral? One without even the residual values of contemporary America?
blind faith without reason is nothing
You reject Einstein, who said that science without faith is blind. Moreover, all science is based on faith--faith of measurements and instruments and constant physical laws.
Ever caught a cold? I'll even bet you've had two colds in your life. There ya go, evolution in the works.
The mutation of viruses is NOT the same as the evolution of complex organisms, like eyes! How can one mutation give you an eye? It can't--thousands upon thousands of mutations are needed, but they cannot happen in one generation, or even in a hundred! Therefore, how can an eye ever evolve?
Furthermore, there is a difference between mutations in a species and evolution into a distinct species. The latter process has NEVER been observed, and is a "problem" evolutionists have to gloss over to construct the grand edifice of evolutionary theory.
Until these processes are proven (or even proven possible), we must continute to regard evolution as speculation instead of presenting it as fact in textbooks, in my humble opinion.
It's fascinating how differently people react to privacy issues in the digital world. Your normal purchasing information, credit card useage, juvenile criminal record...all these are tracked by companies in the real world. Who's protesting that?
Yet let a company try to sell your data in the digital world, and people start up a big hue and cry.
These "clueless" companies try to apply the rules of the real world to the information superhighway, and get burned. Real world business practices aren't the rules of the road--yet. But as the web grows more mainstream, EPIC, the EFF, and the like could grow irrelevant. And people will have just as low expectations for privacy when they click on a link as when they shop at Foley's.
You know what? It is a matter of time before companies know everything about your behavior online. Marketing is the most important part of getting your product sold, and this is too big an opportunity for businesses to ignore. Unless we have the government step in with strong laws to protect our privacy. It's unfortunate that a concern for privacy goes hand in hand with libertarianism.
I used to write off RMS just like everyone else. But then I started to actually listen to what he was saying, and realized that he's right.
Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not. But note how long it took for you to come to that conclusion, and you probably know and think a lot about software. Do you think you will be able to easily convince John Ashcroft or Ted Kennedy of your noble principles?
No matter how you parse it, RMS sounds utterly outrageous. And that's the last thing we need. You are welcome to argue the irrelevant non-distinctions of "Free Software" vs. "Open Source" or "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux." But a legal attack by MS on the GPL would transcend these trivial issues of nomenclature. Let's be serious: would you want RMS testifying to congress?
If you're trying to get your company to support open source, do you show RMS to your boss? Of course not. You show him ESR's Cathedral and the Bazaar, or some similar business-oriented work.
We should count ourselves fortunate that Allchin was so unreasonable, but MS will approach the issue much more subtly next time--through the halls of congress rather than the media. Are we going to be ready?
RMS's highflautin rhetoric is the specter haunting the cause of Open Source. It's all well and good to believe it. But for God's sake, don't try to convince non-geeks of it unless you want them to think you're a communist. When/if MS lobbies the government to outlaw the GPL, we would need a public outcry to save Open Source. If we argue like RMS, we'll get laughed at by the media. It's time to stop ignoring his strident rhetoric and show how open source benefits free enterprise.
This will be a PR battle, first and foremost, and open-source evangelists can't forget it. Convincing geeks of open source is one thing; explaining to people in the real world is another.
Except being three times as slow as DES, which is already slow. I think you don't understand that security isn't the only reason to choose an algorithm. Rijndael was not considered the most secure of the finalists for AES (the third most secure by some reckonings). It was, however, fast and easy to implement.
If you are a government or otherwise have secrets you don't want revealed 50 years from now, you might want to use 3DES.
If you are not the target of a government or something with similar resources, you can probably use even regular DES fairly confidently. But DES still has its problems aside from security. AES is small, extremely fast in software and hardware, works well in smart cards, and it's extremely unlikely that anyone's going to find a practical attack on it for many years, if ever.
I don't think that's the way the law works. If you want to do business in their state, you'd have to accord to their laws. From the article:
The legislation that Brown plans to sponsor would require
all ISPs doing business in Michigan to obtain a valid and verified credit card or telephone number at the time of registration and to hold on to that data for at least one year.
I don't think BlueLight is based in Michigan, or the other free ISPs they pressured.
Far from you being able to choose what laws you operate under, you might end up with all national ISPs operating under the most restrictive laws of all the states.
Regardless, if there were a patchwork of state laws, you might have your rights determined by what state the server is kept in. I'd prefer to have some vague idea of what laws I'm operating under.
I was a little taken aback that a large ISP changed its policies because of "Wayne County Sheriff Robert Ficano's Internet crime task force." First of all, it shows how much we can trust corporations on privacy. But there's another issue.
Should those of us not in Wayne County be affected by its law enforcement measures? Of course not--they're not accountable to the rest of Americans. These issues should be resolved by nationally elected officials (if they're dealt with at all). I don't think that this could ever withstand national scrutiny; they'd be forced to deal with the real issues of privacy that are so casually dismissed in Wayne County.
For that matter, questions of anonymity online might be best dealt with by an international commission (for uniformity in dealing with supoened server logs, etc.). Of course, considering how much stricter European privacy laws are, that would be bad news for the FBI. I somehow doubt the USA is likely to listen to the rest of the world, but at the very least we should not let a few vigilantes in Wayne County set our privacy policy.
Nonsense. The source of a story certianly affects the probability it will be true. If you read something surprising in the Drudge Report, are you just as likely to believe it as if you read it in the New York Times? Both publications have been right and wrong on different indicents (Drudge was right on that semen-stained dress, NY Times wrong on Wen Ho Lee), but Drudge's average is substantially lower. I don't think that Drudge would deny it, either--his lower standards for evidence have allowed him to break a number of stories (many untrue).
Furthermore, the more unusual a claim, the more evidence we should demand before we accept its truth. This is a pretty weird story (although it appears to be serious). How much evidence are we provided with to support the basic claim that PS2's are being imported? Not a hell of a lot. I'm not exactly convinced with their technical analysis about the applications of PS2s, either: I don't think they know what they're talking about. The Wall Street Journal or another reputable paper, if breaking the story, would be more skeptical about the defense applications of the PS2.
Methinks you don't give the Illuminati enough credit. Do you seriously believe this IMPOSSIBLY close election happened by ACCIDENT?
Less than 2000 votes in one state supposedly separate the two candidates. While a recount (and if you think that's going to be legitimate, I have 5000 shares of drkoop.com stock to sell you) is ALLEGEDLY happening, the mindless herd stays glued to their TV sets, thinking they are seeing "democracy" in action. Fools! And we all know who owns the networks. INCIDENCE or COINCIDENCE? Algore or dubya, it's going to be THEM. I'm moving to New Zealand.
Bush has addmittedly done cocaine, he has been arrested for a DUI, he has owned his own business, and most importantly... he is a someone with which many people can identify with!
Bush never admitted to taking illegal drugs. He did admit to a DUI, but only after the press had already discovered it. His "own business" was solely from his family connections, as is his political career.
As for the people...I suppose they identify better with the man who is the son of a president, went to Yale, and got his start due to his family name, rather than the man who is the son of a senator, went to Harvard, and got his start due his to family name. What a great country!
Also...to all the people who are claiming some sort of message from an election this close: Gore ALMOST won; victory was a margin of only a few thousands of votes in Florida. What ridiculously sweeping conclusions would you have drawn in the opposite case?
The electoral college does not only influence which candidate gets elected. If this were the only effect of the EC I wouldn't care either.
But the structure of the EC--winner take all in each state--means that in uncontested states, like Texas, California, and New York in recent years, politicians will not make any effort at all to appeal the state's voters.
Instead, we have battleground states like Florida or Ohio; smaller states with closer races get more attention. Not only do candidates only campaign (funraising aside) in swing states, a president angling for re-election will pander to the states most likely to influence a close election.
Why are there so many appeals to family farmers and our nation's heartland and such drivel? It's not there are very many farmers, just that many states in the midwest can go either in the Republican or Democratic column.
A Florida voter has vastly more power than a California voter. This is undemocratic. Down with the electoral college!
We may be witnessing them being torn between their liberalism and their desire to make a buck.
Trust me, they're not conflicted. Sure, Hollywood *actors* are mostly fans of Bill and Hillary. But for some reason, perhaps related to the fact that they're rich as hell, they tend to care more about the environment, animal rights, and so forth, than actively helping the underclass.
And how many actors do you think have ever heard of DeCSS? (Maybe if we could get a few actors to speak out against the MPAA, like the musicians against the record companies, studios might take notice, but don't count on it.)
It's irrelevant, anyway, since the studios are the ones pursuing the legal action rather than the liberal actors, and there is no politics when it comes to making money.
Slashdot Mirror
Long lines, rowdy crowd of fanboys, lousy seats, technical difficulties, nice Matrix Reloaded preview, etc.
Hayden Christensen, as the petulent brat Anakin Skywalker, is possibly the worst actor in a major film in years. We finally learn how Luke got the whining gene.
Natalie Portman looked sedated. I kept expecting Hayden to slip her the tongue. No dice.
But I'm not sure you can completely blame the actors for the movie. George Lucas wouldn't know a decent script if it were shoved up his ass. Dozens of cringe-inducing lines. Audience of rabid fanboys snickered and groaned.
I felt embarassed for Hayden (he made me feel uncomfortable!) and Natalie. I felt embarassed for Star Wars fans. I felt embarassed for the movie. The long battle scene at the end was cool.
All in all, it's worth your $10--albeit for about 30 minutes of the film. As much as I'd like to see some of the action sequences again, I don't think I could sit through the rest of it. Except if someone MST3Ks it, which would be an immense improvement.
The Hugo ain't the Nobel.
And if fantasy and science fiction are really distinct genres, try to define the boundary. Go ahead. I'll warn you that it's a lot harder than it sounds.
The list is biased towards PC games and genres (which I personally prefer immeasurably to console games). That's what you're seeing.
But this list had a few especially ludicrous entries, especially in the top 10...
10.) Legend of Zelda - NES
Nah. Wouldn't be on my top 500. If they put Link to the Past here, or Mario 3 (did I miss it in the top 50?), I wouldn't disagree.
9.) Starcraft
8.) Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss
7.) Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar
Agreed on all three. (Though I am puzzled why Ultima VII was shafted in the top 50. It's better than either Ultima V or Ultima III, I think.)
6.) Diablo (the original)
It was addictive, for sure, but was it really that great a game? I don't think so. I'd put it around 30. Maybe.
5.) Quake
Why? What makes it a better game than, say, Jedi Knight?
4.) Sid Meier's Civilization (the original)
Of course Civ2 was the better game, but it was Civ that was actually innovative. I loved this game, and I think it deserves its place.
3.) Warcraft 2
Huh? How? Why? It was good, no doubt. It was top 50 of all time, maybe. But it wasn't as good as Starcraft or a number of other RTS games. Moreover, it wasn't particularly innovative or groundbreaking.
2.) Half-life
No way. The single player game is outclassed by System Shock, Thief, et al. The mods should be judged separately (as Counterstrike was).
1.) Doom
Whatever.
It seems to me that console games were represented rather poorly overall, though my bias is also towards PC games. The fact that I played every one of the console games listed is telling--I haven't played all that many.
Older games are definitely shafted, but the authors probably come from about the same generation I do, so I'm not really able to correct them.
Not to mention giving Blizzard 30% of the top 10...and id's forgettable splatfests 20%.
Not the best way of expressing that, if in fact this is what he was trying to write, but the statement doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise.
What kind of society do you want to live in? One completely atheistic and amoral? One without even the residual values of contemporary America?
blind faith without reason is nothing
You reject Einstein, who said that science without faith is blind. Moreover, all science is based on faith--faith of measurements and instruments and constant physical laws.
The mutation of viruses is NOT the same as the evolution of complex organisms, like eyes! How can one mutation give you an eye? It can't--thousands upon thousands of mutations are needed, but they cannot happen in one generation, or even in a hundred! Therefore, how can an eye ever evolve?
Furthermore, there is a difference between mutations in a species and evolution into a distinct species. The latter process has NEVER been observed, and is a "problem" evolutionists have to gloss over to construct the grand edifice of evolutionary theory.
Until these processes are proven (or even proven possible), we must continute to regard evolution as speculation instead of presenting it as fact in textbooks, in my humble opinion.
Windows 2000, surely. It's the code equivalent of the Bionic Building: gargantuan, mind-boggling in its complexity, and utterly terrifying to behold.
However, if a skyscraper crashes...
It's = it is. Its = possessive of it. Mmmmkay?
Alternately, do what true a penny arcade fan would and play Bejeweled.
Yet let a company try to sell your data in the digital world, and people start up a big hue and cry.
These "clueless" companies try to apply the rules of the real world to the information superhighway, and get burned. Real world business practices aren't the rules of the road--yet. But as the web grows more mainstream, EPIC, the EFF, and the like could grow irrelevant. And people will have just as low expectations for privacy when they click on a link as when they shop at Foley's.
You know what? It is a matter of time before companies know everything about your behavior online. Marketing is the most important part of getting your product sold, and this is too big an opportunity for businesses to ignore. Unless we have the government step in with strong laws to protect our privacy. It's unfortunate that a concern for privacy goes hand in hand with libertarianism.
I used to write off RMS just like everyone else. But then I started to actually listen to what he was saying, and realized that he's right.
Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not. But note how long it took for you to come to that conclusion, and you probably know and think a lot about software. Do you think you will be able to easily convince John Ashcroft or Ted Kennedy of your noble principles?
No matter how you parse it, RMS sounds utterly outrageous. And that's the last thing we need. You are welcome to argue the irrelevant non-distinctions of "Free Software" vs. "Open Source" or "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux." But a legal attack by MS on the GPL would transcend these trivial issues of nomenclature. Let's be serious: would you want RMS testifying to congress?
If you're trying to get your company to support open source, do you show RMS to your boss? Of course not. You show him ESR's Cathedral and the Bazaar, or some similar business-oriented work.
We should count ourselves fortunate that Allchin was so unreasonable, but MS will approach the issue much more subtly next time--through the halls of congress rather than the media. Are we going to be ready?
RMS's highflautin rhetoric is the specter haunting the cause of Open Source. It's all well and good to believe it. But for God's sake, don't try to convince non-geeks of it unless you want them to think you're a communist. When/if MS lobbies the government to outlaw the GPL, we would need a public outcry to save Open Source. If we argue like RMS, we'll get laughed at by the media. It's time to stop ignoring his strident rhetoric and show how open source benefits free enterprise.
This will be a PR battle, first and foremost, and open-source evangelists can't forget it. Convincing geeks of open source is one thing; explaining to people in the real world is another.
Except being three times as slow as DES, which is already slow. I think you don't understand that security isn't the only reason to choose an algorithm. Rijndael was not considered the most secure of the finalists for AES (the third most secure by some reckonings). It was, however, fast and easy to implement.
If you are a government or otherwise have secrets you don't want revealed 50 years from now, you might want to use 3DES.
If you are not the target of a government or something with similar resources, you can probably use even regular DES fairly confidently. But DES still has its problems aside from security. AES is small, extremely fast in software and hardware, works well in smart cards, and it's extremely unlikely that anyone's going to find a practical attack on it for many years, if ever.
Who can resist claymation for the common man, i.e. the lego film? I'm quite fond of 2001: A Lego Odyssey.
Unfortunately, they're in Quicktime, mostly. If you're without, it's worth finding someone with a Mac or Windows to watch the better of them.
NetZero appears to be based in California.
I don't think BlueLight is based in Michigan, or the other free ISPs they pressured.
Far from you being able to choose what laws you operate under, you might end up with all national ISPs operating under the most restrictive laws of all the states.
Regardless, if there were a patchwork of state laws, you might have your rights determined by what state the server is kept in. I'd prefer to have some vague idea of what laws I'm operating under.
Should those of us not in Wayne County be affected by its law enforcement measures? Of course not--they're not accountable to the rest of Americans. These issues should be resolved by nationally elected officials (if they're dealt with at all). I don't think that this could ever withstand national scrutiny; they'd be forced to deal with the real issues of privacy that are so casually dismissed in Wayne County.
For that matter, questions of anonymity online might be best dealt with by an international commission (for uniformity in dealing with supoened server logs, etc.). Of course, considering how much stricter European privacy laws are, that would be bad news for the FBI. I somehow doubt the USA is likely to listen to the rest of the world, but at the very least we should not let a few vigilantes in Wayne County set our privacy policy.
Fucked Company has the letter sent to CNET employees about this. It's always a delight to read of the misery of others.
Here is an amusing parody of the trailer. Best line: "One shiny ring to rule them all."
Nonsense. The source of a story certianly affects the probability it will be true. If you read something surprising in the Drudge Report, are you just as likely to believe it as if you read it in the New York Times? Both publications have been right and wrong on different indicents (Drudge was right on that semen-stained dress, NY Times wrong on Wen Ho Lee), but Drudge's average is substantially lower. I don't think that Drudge would deny it, either--his lower standards for evidence have allowed him to break a number of stories (many untrue).
Furthermore, the more unusual a claim, the more evidence we should demand before we accept its truth. This is a pretty weird story (although it appears to be serious). How much evidence are we provided with to support the basic claim that PS2's are being imported? Not a hell of a lot. I'm not exactly convinced with their technical analysis about the applications of PS2s, either: I don't think they know what they're talking about. The Wall Street Journal or another reputable paper, if breaking the story, would be more skeptical about the defense applications of the PS2.
Less than 2000 votes in one state supposedly separate the two candidates. While a recount (and if you think that's going to be legitimate, I have 5000 shares of drkoop.com stock to sell you) is ALLEGEDLY happening, the mindless herd stays glued to their TV sets, thinking they are seeing "democracy" in action. Fools! And we all know who owns the networks. INCIDENCE or COINCIDENCE? Algore or dubya, it's going to be THEM. I'm moving to New Zealand.
Bush never admitted to taking illegal drugs. He did admit to a DUI, but only after the press had already discovered it. His "own business" was solely from his family connections, as is his political career.
As for the people...I suppose they identify better with the man who is the son of a president, went to Yale, and got his start due to his family name, rather than the man who is the son of a senator, went to Harvard, and got his start due his to family name. What a great country!
Also...to all the people who are claiming some sort of message from an election this close: Gore ALMOST won; victory was a margin of only a few thousands of votes in Florida. What ridiculously sweeping conclusions would you have drawn in the opposite case?
The electoral college does not only influence which candidate gets elected. If this were the only effect of the EC I wouldn't care either.
But the structure of the EC--winner take all in each state--means that in uncontested states, like Texas, California, and New York in recent years, politicians will not make any effort at all to appeal the state's voters.
Instead, we have battleground states like Florida or Ohio; smaller states with closer races get more attention. Not only do candidates only campaign (funraising aside) in swing states, a president angling for re-election will pander to the states most likely to influence a close election.
Why are there so many appeals to family farmers and our nation's heartland and such drivel? It's not there are very many farmers, just that many states in the midwest can go either in the Republican or Democratic column.
A Florida voter has vastly more power than a California voter. This is undemocratic. Down with the electoral college!
Hollywood is actually full of liberals.
We may be witnessing them being torn between their liberalism and their desire to make a buck.
Trust me, they're not conflicted. Sure, Hollywood *actors* are mostly fans of Bill and Hillary. But for some reason, perhaps related to the fact that they're rich as hell, they tend to care more about the environment, animal rights, and so forth, than actively helping the underclass.
And how many actors do you think have ever heard of DeCSS? (Maybe if we could get a few actors to speak out against the MPAA, like the musicians against the record companies, studios might take notice, but don't count on it.)
It's irrelevant, anyway, since the studios are the ones pursuing the legal action rather than the liberal actors, and there is no politics when it comes to making money.