Re:Moderators - Can't "suppress"
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
But you're here. You're reading this. And the original poster indicated that moderators could delete posts by using the word "suppress." I've heard that before from ACs. For the record, I've moderated. I read the guidelines. I could not delete posts.
You don't like/. anymore, huh. Are you a/. "old timer?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Do you like Usenet better?
Hey -- take the focus off that stoopid submit button!
Anyway, as my boss said, the worst thing that could happen would be that we wouldn't be able to invoice our customers. I should put that on our web site. Maybe that'll put a stop to the annoying forms.
Some of the most amazing things are now "Y2K" compliant. Bottled water, toasters, even children's toys. Heaven forbid that some little electronic doo-hickey that plays "This old man" (not the Barney version) would stop repeating that annoying tune over and over because it's lodged in the bottom of the toy tub...
Will I be able to light my stove with my non-Y2K lighter so that I can boil my bottled water to make my non-Y2K compliant macaroni and cheese, or should I get some spaghettios instead? (I'll be able to open cans, I have an old-fashioned can opener rusting away in a drawer somewhere.)
Re:Moderators - Can't "suppress"
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
Yo! AC! What you need to do is get a real login name and then maybe, someday, when you get big, you can moderate. Then you'll know that moderators CAN'T "SUPPRESS" POSTS.
They can be moderated down to levels past a certain threshold, but they're always *there*. No one can delete anything.
...That's all it is. Because more and more households are headed by parents who both work, our governing bodies think they have to step in. I'm not certain of causality -- are our parenting skills really declining because both parents work outside the home? Or is that just a perception made into reality by the media, the religious right, the (insert favorite political interest here).
If I may make a comparison -- This is like regulating seat-belt usage or motorcycle helmet usage. I wear my seatbelt regularly, and when I rode, I suited up, including a DOT-approved helmet. But I don't necessarily think that should be something regulated.
I appreciate any and all input from my children's pediatrician. I have asked questions ranging from potty training help to discipline regarding temper tantrums. But what in god's name does my ped know about my family's technological "values." (Cool term, maybe -- techno-values.) She's a doctor, not a... oh never mind, too easy! But really, she is *just* a physician. She's not trained in sociolgy or psychology or even theology. Some MDs are hardly aware of up to date nutrition issues. Keep my kid healthy, give him or her the appropriate shots and look in their ears for the tell-tale signs of infection. But stay out of my computer.
For me, internet usage, television watching, game playing, is a sort of social skill that needs to be learned. Helping my kids use the 'net is like helping them ride a bike. There are big cars out there and grates on city streets and if you go too fast for your skill level, you'll get hurt. Wear your helmet, be careful.
Same for the 'net. There are sickos out there, but this is a wealth of information and opportunity. This is where mom and dad get news, this is how I communicate with friends, this is like going to the library to look up a research topic. If you're on the internet, here are the filters mom and dad have given you -- wear them, like a helmet, and be careful.
My computer is in my sun-room outside the kitchen--a well traveled area for mom, dad, and kids. It is now and will always be the only one with internet access. I don't have cable. I'm the parent, for crying out loud, and if I choose to live in Luddite-land with an antenna and no coax, then my children will have to "suffer." Although my oldest is not yet 4, we already discuss what we see on TV -- anyone who has a 4 year old should know that it's impossible NOT to discuss anything. ("Why, what, who's that, Why, again" It's exhausting.)
Who does the American Academy of Pediatrics want to "regulate?" (I'm sure they'd never use such a harsh term... more like, "advise.") What are their standards? I have taught my son the correct terminology for various body parts. Is that okay with them? Or should I have told him he has a "wee-wee" and guided him away from any and all information pertaining to penises.
Just who's in charge? What are their views on raising a daughter? I despise Barbie and don't want my daughter to have one. (I'm quite certain that's a battle I'll lose.) But maybe my pediatrician knows better.
As one of my college instructors once said regarding physicians; "Someone has to graduate in the bottom of the class."
...it wasn't my NT proxy server or my NT exchange server or my SWB-provided ISDN or my Bubba's Basement ISP. (Yes, I'm in hell. Another reason for the/. handle.)
I *was* going to "Ask Slashdot" if nerds were superstitious. Hmmm...
Hang in there guys, we've all been there, with the Great Unwashed standing at the server room door, saying; "Do you have an estimated time?" "Did you know that accounting's down, too?" "What's the problem?" "Should we call someone?" "Can I get my email?" "Should I call my customers?" "Do the phone lines work?"
Yes, lines from Mozart's Requiem. (And I own the movie, so I won't debate it's merits.) This is also known as the "really cool tune" some ad guy from Madison Avenue put in the background of a Microsoft TV commercial a couple of years ago.
I agree with you when it comes to high-end workstations and servers, but not supercomputers. The article states and SGI has been saying for a while that the supercomputer business has not been growth or profit oriented. Time to rethink and, unfortunately, to re-org.
Interesting stuff about SGI these days. Like watchin' daytime TV.
Proof that the average age of a/. reader is a number way smaller than mine.
Three Mile Island, an accident at a nuclear power plant and a media feeding frenzy (call me biased -- my Daddy was a nuclear physicist) happened sometime in the late 70s, I believe. I remember my dad discussing the media hype over dinner many, many times during the whole fiasco.
Criminy, people! There has to be a half-dozen posts with the same spelling error!
The word is "definitely"!! It's hard to take anyone seriously when they miss such a simple word -- twice in this particular post.
*sigh*
To keep this somewhat on-topic, it seems to me that the folks who *don't* like BWP are the folks that like obvious gore and action in order to be scared. The folks that do like it seem to go for the "inside your head" type of fright. There.
Now, go back to spoiling the movie, your sophomoric critiques and debate as to whether you think a marketing genius has convinced you that the movie is real or not...
According to www.top500.org, SGI is owning the supercomputer market. They account for over 1/3 of the world's installed base, and almost 1/2 of the world's supercomputer horsepower.
And according to page 13 of SGI's 10Q from Q3 1999, the supercomputer market and the desktop Unix market is shrinking. And they didn't turn a profitable quarter last Q because of Cray.
They're simply following the money with what they would consider a midrange offering.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic news and I think this is where SGI needs to be. And it's especially good news for me because I'm right smack-dab in the midrange market. But if I had a dime for everyone who said that SGI is making money because of the supercomputing biz, I'd have enough of a slush fund to buy SGI's loser stock. (That might be considered a donation to a non-profit organization! 'Course, there's last quarter's actual good news...)
I don't think SGI will forsake any market -- supercomputing, desktop IRIX, whatever -- for Linux. Frankly, they'd be fool to. A lot of Guv'ment stuff riding on mega-multi processing power. But not enough for SGI to be consistently profitable in the past.
Linux is SGI going for diversification. *sigh* As is NT. And I'm sure there's more to come. If SGI is smart -- and there's some indication of intelligent life in Mountain View -- they'll go for the profitable markets, not the stuff that people think is "cool."
Hell, everyone else is...Sun...HP...IBM Anyone I missed?
Does this mean that us ancient over-35s will have to start lying on our resumes? But lying the "other way..."
Instead of cramming 10 years of IT experience and a degree and continuing education onto paper or into an email, I just need to pare it back to "just graduated" and "worked at Happy Burger last summer between my junior and senior year?"
And there are more and more jobs popping up in the IT biz than weeds in my lawn. Weird.
I have to admit, this is something that has not hit me (Just turned 36. Gettin' false teeth next week!) But that's because I have chosen to stick with a particular type of manufacturing and it's particular IT management needs. I have specialized in one sense, and kept my skills updated and diverse in another. In any industry, change is a constant. And frankly, unlike some of my peers in this particular manufacturing biz, I have kept up with the change.
But I see others who are my age and older who balk at change, even though they are in technology management and implementation positions. It's a study in inconsistencies, I know. But it's one of many reasons why we "older" folks are not hired.
That and yeah, you know what, I got two pre-coders to put through school and a mortgage and car payments and I'm more aware of benefits like retirement plans and health care than your average 25-year old. (Even though at 25, I had been married 5 years and already had aforementioned mortgage!) I don't come cheap and I ask employers harder questions -- hell, the fact that I ask questions at all probably puts off many employers.
Perhaps because I am not umemployed, I can sit on my perch and spout platitudes...but it'll all work out. This reminds me of the 80s when defense contractors laid off engineers by the hundreds, then tried to hire again. Engineers out of college avoided certain contractors like the plague because of the employer's reputation for lay-offs. And the defense industry sat and scratched their collective heads and wondered why they couldn't get new blood. After a few years, the defense industry got on a more even keel (or we all got used to rumors of layoffs and ignored them) and they were able to hire talented people.
Employers will get what they pay for. If they pay for inexperience, they'll get and they'll reap the results. If they're willing to pay for experience and stability, they'll get that as well. It's up to them.
Despite this forum's fascination with technology, you have to understand that companies are hard-nosed businesses with zero tolerance for sentimental gestures. You get paid money for doing the things that are hard and other people are willing to pay money for, not sexy 3D games which take up a disproportionate amount of space on freshmeat.
Amen and hallelujah!
Every SGI user/administrator/engineer I've ever talked to has boasted that SGI makes money off of *their* industry, be it vis sim, games or computational fluid dynamics. And none of them have ever read a balance sheet or quarterly report. If they did, they'd be unpleasantly surprised.
Anyway, just to add to the SGI watch. Today is the day they release their end of FY earnings. Or losses, as the case probably is. If you really want news that matters, watch for SGI *financial* reports.
Nothing new indeed. This is all information that can be gleaned from SGI's latest 10Q submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission in March. Geeks would do well to read a financial document or two every once in a while. Read the PDF of SGI's 10Q form -- a "forward-looking document" penned by SGI and turned in to the Wall Street types. (Click on the link to the Q3 1999 PDF under the heading "10Qs.")
In the 10Q, SGI further defines present and future markets, lays out risks and puts their tarot cards on the table. It makes for interesting reading for some of us. SGI says some things in the 10Q that would make the SGI-faithful faint. Shrinking supercomputer market. (Yes, SGI has the lion's share of that market. So? If a market is shrinking, by their own admission, how does that help them succeed?) A move to the low- to mid-range desktop and server market.
As someone else indicated, SGI's earning statement, due out later this month, will tell more. I hope it's better news than last quarter's statement.
If it were my son (almost 4), he'd be heading to the airport to buy a ticket so he could ride on an airplane. I'm serious. I mentioned that to him *once*, so every time we pass the airport, he reminds me how easy it is for me to take him on an airplane ride...just buy a ticket!
The kid in the story probably knew the way to Toys 'r Us or something.
My son knows landmarks and streets. I can easily imagine him driving a car down a familiar street (no fear involved) to get to the zoo, or home, or the airport. His powers of memorization are astounding. He also knows the Mac three fingered salute to bail himself out of a toddler game lockup -- he learned that at age 2 1/2. And he's memorized some key scenes from A Bug's Life, including "...now *that's* funny." Wish I was burning neural pathways that quickly.
And if his daycare didn't know he was gone for an hour, I'd pull him and his sister out of there faster than oatmeal dries in a Disney(tm) bowl!
I read the article on Upside and it wouldn't surprise me at all. If you're into balance sheets and whatnot, Sgi is *ripe* for takeover. Heavily in debt and losing money. If you look at their financial reports (published on their website) you'll realize that they've been losing money ever since they bought Cray. And last quarter's results were "encouraging" only because they lost *less* money than this time last year.
Sgi as a company presents a confusing marketing strategy coupled with their blind, arrogant, attitude brought on by visible, but financially insignificant, successes in Hollywood. It's too bad, they make simply awe-inspiring boxes.
Incredible technology. Laughable financial and marketing strategies.
Does this mean future support for Linux on VMs?;-)
You folks are so worried about a pretty boy potentially playing the future Darth Vader, when the likes of Mark Hamill whined his way through episodes 4 - 6? Hamill's voice cracked, he was 2-dimensional and the character came off as a spoiled little kid trying too hard to please in one scene, caring only for himself in another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the series. (I have the added bonus of being old enough to have seen the original release of Episode 4 in the theatre without my mommy and daddy.) But know enough to expect only certain things from any Star Wars flick -- shallowness of character, reluctant heroes, special effects, and a few pretty faces. This ain't a gourmet meal, folks, it's movie McDonald's!
Leo's not my favorite for the future part, but considering the acts he has to follow...it certainly isn't worth punishing yourself and staying home for the remaining prequels.
As George Lucas himself said; "It really is only a movie."
Slashdot Mirror
But you're here. You're reading this. And the original poster indicated that moderators could delete posts by using the word "suppress." I've heard that before from ACs. For the record, I've moderated. I read the guidelines. I could not delete posts.
/. anymore, huh. Are you a /. "old timer?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Do you like Usenet better?
You don't like
Didja know that I can post with my handle or...
Hey -- take the focus off that stoopid submit button!
Anyway, as my boss said, the worst thing that could happen would be that we wouldn't be able to invoice our customers. I should put that on our web site. Maybe that'll put a stop to the annoying forms.
Some of the most amazing things are now "Y2K" compliant. Bottled water, toasters, even children's toys. Heaven forbid that some little electronic doo-hickey that plays "This old man" (not the Barney version) would stop repeating that annoying tune over and over because it's lodged in the bottom of the toy tub...
Will I be able to light my stove with my non-Y2K lighter so that I can boil my bottled water to make my non-Y2K compliant macaroni and cheese, or should I get some spaghettios instead? (I'll be able to open cans, I have an old-fashioned can opener rusting away in a drawer somewhere.)
Yo! AC! What you need to do is get a real login name and then maybe, someday, when you get big, you can moderate. Then you'll know that moderators CAN'T "SUPPRESS" POSTS.
They can be moderated down to levels past a certain threshold, but they're always *there*. No one can delete anything.
And it's "sight" in this case.
...That's all it is. Because more and more households are headed by parents who both work, our governing bodies think they have to step in. I'm not certain of causality -- are our parenting skills really declining because both parents work outside the home? Or is that just a perception made into reality by the media, the religious right, the (insert favorite political interest here).
... oh never mind, too easy! But really, she is *just* a physician. She's not trained in sociolgy or psychology or even theology. Some MDs are hardly aware of up to date nutrition issues. Keep my kid healthy, give him or her the appropriate shots and look in their ears for the tell-tale signs of infection. But stay out of my computer.
... more like, "advise.") What are their standards? I have taught my son the correct terminology for various body parts. Is that okay with them? Or should I have told him he has a "wee-wee" and guided him away from any and all information pertaining to penises.
If I may make a comparison -- This is like regulating seat-belt usage or motorcycle helmet usage. I wear my seatbelt regularly, and when I rode, I suited up, including a DOT-approved helmet. But I don't necessarily think that should be something regulated.
I appreciate any and all input from my children's pediatrician. I have asked questions ranging from potty training help to discipline regarding temper tantrums. But what in god's name does my ped know about my family's technological "values." (Cool term, maybe -- techno-values.) She's a doctor, not a
For me, internet usage, television watching, game playing, is a sort of social skill that needs to be learned. Helping my kids use the 'net is like helping them ride a bike. There are big cars out there and grates on city streets and if you go too fast for your skill level, you'll get hurt. Wear your helmet, be careful.
Same for the 'net. There are sickos out there, but this is a wealth of information and opportunity. This is where mom and dad get news, this is how I communicate with friends, this is like going to the library to look up a research topic. If you're on the internet, here are the filters mom and dad have given you -- wear them, like a helmet, and be careful.
My computer is in my sun-room outside the kitchen--a well traveled area for mom, dad, and kids. It is now and will always be the only one with internet access. I don't have cable. I'm the parent, for crying out loud, and if I choose to live in Luddite-land with an antenna and no coax, then my children will have to "suffer." Although my oldest is not yet 4, we already discuss what we see on TV -- anyone who has a 4 year old should know that it's impossible NOT to discuss anything. ("Why, what, who's that, Why, again" It's exhausting.)
Who does the American Academy of Pediatrics want to "regulate?" (I'm sure they'd never use such a harsh term
Just who's in charge? What are their views on raising a daughter? I despise Barbie and don't want my daughter to have one. (I'm quite certain that's a battle I'll lose.) But maybe my pediatrician knows better.
As one of my college instructors once said regarding physicians; "Someone has to graduate in the bottom of the class."
...it wasn't my NT proxy server or my NT exchange server or my SWB-provided ISDN or my Bubba's Basement ISP. (Yes, I'm in hell. Another reason for the /. handle.)
I *was* going to "Ask Slashdot" if nerds were superstitious. Hmmm...
Hang in there guys, we've all been there, with the Great Unwashed standing at the server room door, saying; "Do you have an estimated time?" "Did you know that accounting's down, too?" "What's the problem?" "Should we call someone?" "Can I get my email?" "Should I call my customers?" "Do the phone lines work?"
Mph!
Intel already owns 4% of RedHat. The big guys get in early. I simply love watching technoids discuss Wall Street.
Emotional buy or not, unless you're day-trading and familiar with the risks involved (and have a real job), don't buy an IPO.
Carry on.
I recognize the Amadeus quote above.
;-)
"Confutatis maledictis flammis acribus addictis..."
Yes, lines from Mozart's Requiem. (And I own the movie, so I won't debate it's merits.) This is also known as the "really cool tune" some ad guy from Madison Avenue put in the background of a Microsoft TV commercial a couple of years ago.
Where do *you* want to go today?
No biggie on the spellcheck. The guy you were responding to spells definitely the new ignorant/geek way -- "definately." Someone notify Websters
I agree with you when it comes to high-end workstations and servers, but not supercomputers. The article states and SGI has been saying for a while that the supercomputer business has not been growth or profit oriented. Time to rethink and, unfortunately, to re-org.
Interesting stuff about SGI these days. Like watchin' daytime TV.
Proof that the average age of a /. reader is a number way smaller than mine.
Three Mile Island, an accident at a nuclear power plant and a media feeding frenzy (call me biased -- my Daddy was a nuclear physicist) happened sometime in the late 70s, I believe. I remember my dad discussing the media hype over dinner many, many times during the whole fiasco.
Feelin' kinda old, now.
Criminy, people! There has to be a half-dozen posts with the same spelling error!
The word is "definitely"!! It's hard to take anyone seriously when they miss such a simple word -- twice in this particular post.
*sigh*
To keep this somewhat on-topic, it seems to me that the folks who *don't* like BWP are the folks that like obvious gore and action in order to be scared. The folks that do like it seem to go for the "inside your head" type of fright. There.
Now, go back to spoiling the movie, your sophomoric critiques and debate as to whether you think a marketing genius has convinced you that the movie is real or not...
According to www.top500.org, SGI is owning the supercomputer market. They account for over 1/3 of the world's installed base, and almost 1/2 of the world's supercomputer horsepower.
And according to page 13 of SGI's 10Q from Q3 1999, the supercomputer market and the desktop Unix market is shrinking. And they didn't turn a profitable quarter last Q because of Cray.
They're simply following the money with what they would consider a midrange offering.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic news and I think this is where SGI needs to be. And it's especially good news for me because I'm right smack-dab in the midrange market. But if I had a dime for everyone who said that SGI is making money because of the supercomputing biz, I'd have enough of a slush fund to buy SGI's loser stock. (That might be considered a donation to a non-profit organization! 'Course, there's last quarter's actual good news...)
I don't think SGI will forsake any market -- supercomputing, desktop IRIX, whatever -- for Linux. Frankly, they'd be fool to. A lot of Guv'ment stuff riding on mega-multi processing power. But not enough for SGI to be consistently profitable in the past.
Linux is SGI going for diversification. *sigh* As is NT. And I'm sure there's more to come. If SGI is smart -- and there's some indication of intelligent life in Mountain View -- they'll go for the profitable markets, not the stuff that people think is "cool."
Hell, everyone else is...Sun...HP...IBM Anyone I missed?
And then there's the "Machine That Goes PING!"
Or maybe he means that IBM's next purchase will be SGI. There are rumors about...but there are always rumors...
Now that would be something!
Does this mean that us ancient over-35s will have to start lying on our resumes? But lying the "other way..."
Instead of cramming 10 years of IT experience and a degree and continuing education onto paper or into an email, I just need to pare it back to "just graduated" and "worked at Happy Burger last summer between my junior and senior year?"
And there are more and more jobs popping up in the IT biz than weeds in my lawn. Weird.
I have to admit, this is something that has not hit me (Just turned 36. Gettin' false teeth next week!) But that's because I have chosen to stick with a particular type of manufacturing and it's particular IT management needs. I have specialized in one sense, and kept my skills updated and diverse in another. In any industry, change is a constant. And frankly, unlike some of my peers in this particular manufacturing biz, I have kept up with the change.
But I see others who are my age and older who balk at change, even though they are in technology management and implementation positions. It's a study in inconsistencies, I know. But it's one of many reasons why we "older" folks are not hired.
That and yeah, you know what, I got two pre-coders to put through school and a mortgage and car payments and I'm more aware of benefits like retirement plans and health care than your average 25-year old. (Even though at 25, I had been married 5 years and already had aforementioned mortgage!) I don't come cheap and I ask employers harder questions -- hell, the fact that I ask questions at all probably puts off many employers.
Perhaps because I am not umemployed, I can sit on my perch and spout platitudes...but it'll all work out. This reminds me of the 80s when defense contractors laid off engineers by the hundreds, then tried to hire again. Engineers out of college avoided certain contractors like the plague because of the employer's reputation for lay-offs. And the defense industry sat and scratched their collective heads and wondered why they couldn't get new blood. After a few years, the defense industry got on a more even keel (or we all got used to rumors of layoffs and ignored them) and they were able to hire talented people.
Employers will get what they pay for. If they pay for inexperience, they'll get and they'll reap the results. If they're willing to pay for experience and stability, they'll get that as well. It's up to them.
Despite this forum's fascination with technology, you have to understand that companies are hard-nosed businesses with zero tolerance for sentimental gestures. You get paid money for doing the things that are hard and other people are willing to pay money for, not sexy 3D games which take up a disproportionate amount of space on freshmeat.
Amen and hallelujah!
Every SGI user/administrator/engineer I've ever talked to has boasted that SGI makes money off of *their* industry, be it vis sim, games or computational fluid dynamics. And none of them have ever read a balance sheet or quarterly report. If they did, they'd be unpleasantly surprised.
Anyway, just to add to the SGI watch. Today is the day they release their end of FY earnings. Or losses, as the case probably is. If you really want news that matters, watch for SGI *financial* reports.
"Perhaps nothing new..."
Nothing new indeed. This is all information that can be gleaned from SGI's latest 10Q submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission in March. Geeks would do well to read a financial document or two every once in a while. Read the PDF of SGI's 10Q form -- a "forward-looking document" penned by SGI and turned in to the Wall Street types. (Click on the link to the Q3 1999 PDF under the heading "10Qs.")
In the 10Q, SGI further defines present and future markets, lays out risks and puts their tarot cards on the table. It makes for interesting reading for some of us. SGI says some things in the 10Q that would make the SGI-faithful faint. Shrinking supercomputer market. (Yes, SGI has the lion's share of that market. So? If a market is shrinking, by their own admission, how does that help them succeed?) A move to the low- to mid-range desktop and server market.
As someone else indicated, SGI's earning statement, due out later this month, will tell more. I hope it's better news than last quarter's statement.
If it were my son (almost 4), he'd be heading to the airport to buy a ticket so he could ride on an airplane. I'm serious. I mentioned that to him *once*, so every time we pass the airport, he reminds me how easy it is for me to take him on an airplane ride...just buy a ticket!
The kid in the story probably knew the way to Toys 'r Us or something.
My son knows landmarks and streets. I can easily imagine him driving a car down a familiar street (no fear involved) to get to the zoo, or home, or the airport. His powers of memorization are astounding. He also knows the Mac three fingered salute to bail himself out of a toddler game lockup -- he learned that at age 2 1/2. And he's memorized some key scenes from A Bug's Life, including "...now *that's* funny." Wish I was burning neural pathways that quickly.
And if his daycare didn't know he was gone for an hour, I'd pull him and his sister out of there faster than oatmeal dries in a Disney(tm) bowl!
I read the article on Upside and it wouldn't surprise me at all. If you're into balance sheets and whatnot, Sgi is *ripe* for takeover. Heavily in debt and losing money. If you look at their financial reports (published on their website) you'll realize that they've been losing money ever since they bought Cray. And last quarter's results were "encouraging" only because they lost *less* money than this time last year.
;-)
Sgi as a company presents a confusing marketing strategy coupled with their blind, arrogant, attitude brought on by visible, but financially insignificant, successes in Hollywood. It's too bad, they make simply awe-inspiring boxes.
Incredible technology. Laughable financial and marketing strategies.
Does this mean future support for Linux on VMs?
Mal --
You folks are so worried about a pretty boy potentially playing the future Darth Vader, when the likes of Mark Hamill whined his way through episodes 4 - 6? Hamill's voice cracked, he was 2-dimensional and the character came off as a spoiled little kid trying too hard to please in one scene, caring only for himself in another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the series. (I have the added bonus of being old enough to have seen the original release of Episode 4 in the theatre without my mommy and daddy.) But know enough to expect only certain things from any Star Wars flick -- shallowness of character, reluctant heroes, special effects, and a few pretty faces. This ain't a gourmet meal, folks, it's movie McDonald's!
Leo's not my favorite for the future part, but considering the acts he has to follow...it certainly isn't worth punishing yourself and staying home for the remaining prequels.
As George Lucas himself said; "It really is only a movie."