Especially now it's more true than ever. Movies get hyped and then rushed into production.
That's "Every movie that you hear a lot about" which gets hyped to death. Did you see the trailer for "Spirited Away" before every film you watched for four months before it was released? No. Could you buy a "Totoro" Happy Meal containing a Kung-Fu-Grip Satsuki? No. Were you bombarded with "Buy it now before it's gone!" advertisements for "Castle in the Sky" when it was released on the USA? No. Did any of these movies suck? I don't think they did. At least I enjoyed them.
It has been my experience that the more a movie is hyped, the better it's chance sucking. (The reverse is only occasionally true.) It's important to remember that there still are films worth seeing which haven't been hyped to death or turned into vehicles for merchandising. Take a look at the Cannes Festival winners over the past decade or so -- Chances are you never even heard of most of them until they were turned into sad American remakes.
Look around. Don't believe that your only choices are to either settle for whatever crap the hype machine is trying to cram up your nether regions or stay at home spanking it like a crazed monkey while reading wilwheaton.net.
The Cinema is not dead, it's just trying not to be seen in public with its louder, more obnoxious cousin Hype.
It's okay to blame users who have picked up your software for free, ignored the documentation which clearly answers their questions and still have problems with complicated software.
It is _not_ okay to blame users who, as taxpayers, have paid ridiculous amounts of money for a system which is _supposed_ to be fool-proof and simple to use when they find that it is too complicated for them to use and too easy to fool.
By default the responsibility lies with the user to figure out what he or she is doing. When you hand a briefcase full of cash to someone who just signed a contract to provide you with systems which are easy to use, then that responsibility shifts to the vendor.
You can't blame the users for not being able to do on their own what they have just paid you to do for them.
And if every time somebody swiped their credit card the wrong way they accidentally authorized a $100 donation to the "Kang / Kodos 2004" campaign, then your analogy would be a good one.
The fact is that if I get confused by a credit/debit card machine it tells me what I have done wrong and won't let me continue until I do it right. Even if the machine is too complicated for me there is always a clerk standing there thinking about what a complete idiot I must be but still willing to help me all the same.
In the end, I pay the correct amount for my groceries and go home with what I wanted. This is the right way for user error to be handled.
If I walk into a polling station, get confused by the user interface and end up having my vote spoiled or miscounted as a result, then that is the wrong way to handle user error.
The user is _part_ of the voting process and the system must be designed that way. Saying "It's user error, it's not our fault" is completely unacceptable.
Somewhat clearer. I am assuming from your indignant responses that the image links to dvdanswers.com would have been replaced by something more usable if the Coral server had been able to reach them. The fact that they had not originally led me to assume that Coral simply couldn't be bothered to adjust the IMG tags when instead it was trying to operate in a graceful failure mode by leaving only uncached links untouched.
If this is right then I would assume that the Coral link would now give the full story with images intact now that the Slashdotting is over, instead of falling over completely as it is today.
When I hit the Coralized link now all I see is a blank page which loads for a second, then redirects to another server, loads, redirects, and eventually times out without displaying a single letter of text. If this is normal behaviour for Coral then I can see why it would not be in anybody's best interest to rely on them exclusively.
I hope some day I will see a demonstration of Coral which convinces me that you are right about this, as it sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't look like that will be happening today.
The "Coralized" link which you posted, http://www.dvdanswers.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php? r=0&s=8&c=28, lead to a page which tried to load all of its images from the slashdotted site dvdanswers.com and failed miserably. As a result, all that that link provided for me was a page with descriptive text referring to images that never loaded.
When I pointed this out, you replied that that was precisely the point of Coral and that everybody should use it because of that. Because, apparently, broken images and incomplete caches of popular pages are a good thing.
This must be some new definition of "works perfectly for sites that are either down, overloaded or inacessible" that I was not previously aware of.
So basicly what you're saying is that you know of a lovely tool which doesn't work, therefore everybody should use it more?
I used to think that Coral might be a good idea, but this demonstration has convinced me that it's just a waste of time. That's the only point that has been reinforced for me.
That would be lovely if it weren't for the fact that your "coralized" page is still trying to load all the images from the original site.
Ten pages of "Look at this scene: {Broken Image} It was changed to this: (Broken Image) You can clearly see Natalie Portman's nipple in the background here: (Broken Image) But the biggest change is right here: (Broken Image)" really isn't doing it for me.
I don't see it as cheating. It's a lot like Bridge -- The rules say that you can't show your partner your hand and you can't tell them what you have, but you are allowed to use prearranged bidding conventions to pass information across the table.
All that the Southhampton agents did was use a bidding strategy. They did act as a team, but they had no out-of-game way of knowing that they were up against a team member. That doesn't break any rules, and it did work. The Southampton team took the top three spots in the competition.
If you insist on comparing the entrants to people, consider this. They worked as a team, for the good of the team, knowing that at least some of them would win even if the others bombed. People do that kind of thing all the time outside of competitions. Why should it be so out of place here?
People who blab about BOFH club can also be eliminated.
Don't you remember what we told you on your first night? The first rule of BOFH Club is: you do not talk about BOFH Club. The second rule of BOFH Club is: you DO NOT talk about BOFH Club. Third rule of BOFH Club, someone yells "Coffee break!", his cup is empty, or there are more than three calls in the queue, you head out to Tim Horton's. Fourth rule: only two guys to a desk. Fifth rule: one manager at a time fellas. Sixth rule: no jacket, no tie. Seventh rule: callers will wait on hold as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first night at BOFH Club, you have to disuser an account.
That was very good. Did you type that all by yourself? We are all very proud of you for spelling complicated words like 'milligram' and 'dumbass' correctly.
Here are a few more SI prefixes, including both "milli-" and "mega-". See if you can spot the subtle differences between them and be prepared to describe them to the rest of the class tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
That's "Every movie that you hear a lot about" which gets hyped to death. Did you see the trailer for "Spirited Away" before every film you watched for four months before it was released? No. Could you buy a "Totoro" Happy Meal containing a Kung-Fu-Grip Satsuki? No. Were you bombarded with "Buy it now before it's gone!" advertisements for "Castle in the Sky" when it was released on the USA? No. Did any of these movies suck? I don't think they did. At least I enjoyed them.
It has been my experience that the more a movie is hyped, the better it's chance sucking. (The reverse is only occasionally true.) It's important to remember that there still are films worth seeing which haven't been hyped to death or turned into vehicles for merchandising. Take a look at the Cannes Festival winners over the past decade or so -- Chances are you never even heard of most of them until they were turned into sad American remakes.
Look around. Don't believe that your only choices are to either settle for whatever crap the hype machine is trying to cram up your nether regions or stay at home spanking it like a crazed monkey while reading wilwheaton.net.
The Cinema is not dead, it's just trying not to be seen in public with its louder, more obnoxious cousin Hype.
Where does the "Type R" sticker go? What part of the Bluetooth adapter gets the "VTEK" logo? Does it use a giant aluminum wing to get extra range?
Who cares about soldering? These are the details that we need to know.
It's okay to blame users who have picked up your software for free, ignored the documentation which clearly answers their questions and still have problems with complicated software.
It is _not_ okay to blame users who, as taxpayers, have paid ridiculous amounts of money for a system which is _supposed_ to be fool-proof and simple to use when they find that it is too complicated for them to use and too easy to fool.
By default the responsibility lies with the user to figure out what he or she is doing. When you hand a briefcase full of cash to someone who just signed a contract to provide you with systems which are easy to use, then that responsibility shifts to the vendor.
You can't blame the users for not being able to do on their own what they have just paid you to do for them.
And if every time somebody swiped their credit card the wrong way they accidentally authorized a $100 donation to the "Kang / Kodos 2004" campaign, then your analogy would be a good one.
The fact is that if I get confused by a credit/debit card machine it tells me what I have done wrong and won't let me continue until I do it right. Even if the machine is too complicated for me there is always a clerk standing there thinking about what a complete idiot I must be but still willing to help me all the same.
In the end, I pay the correct amount for my groceries and go home with what I wanted. This is the right way for user error to be handled.
If I walk into a polling station, get confused by the user interface and end up having my vote spoiled or miscounted as a result, then that is the wrong way to handle user error.
The user is _part_ of the voting process and the system must be designed that way. Saying "It's user error, it's not our fault" is completely unacceptable.
How much time did you just spend reloading /. until a new story came up, reading the story and then responding to it?
Rubik's Cubes are in aisle seven, right between Barbie's Dream House and the new Apple Power-Etch-A-Sketch.
Even though Derek Smart claims credit, rumour has it that the Coke machine did most of the work.
You're right. Never upgrade to a new version of Office.
And just imagine how upset they were to discover that it came in their child's Happy Meal.
Somewhat clearer. I am assuming from your indignant responses that the image links to dvdanswers.com would have been replaced by something more usable if the Coral server had been able to reach them. The fact that they had not originally led me to assume that Coral simply couldn't be bothered to adjust the IMG tags when instead it was trying to operate in a graceful failure mode by leaving only uncached links untouched.
If this is right then I would assume that the Coral link would now give the full story with images intact now that the Slashdotting is over, instead of falling over completely as it is today.
When I hit the Coralized link now all I see is a blank page which loads for a second, then redirects to another server, loads, redirects, and eventually times out without displaying a single letter of text. If this is normal behaviour for Coral then I can see why it would not be in anybody's best interest to rely on them exclusively.
I hope some day I will see a demonstration of Coral which convinces me that you are right about this, as it sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't look like that will be happening today.
The "Coralized" link which you posted, http://www.dvdanswers.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php? r=0&s=8&c=28, lead to a page which tried to load all of its images from the slashdotted site dvdanswers.com and failed miserably. As a result, all that that link provided for me was a page with descriptive text referring to images that never loaded.
When I pointed this out, you replied that that was precisely the point of Coral and that everybody should use it because of that. Because, apparently, broken images and incomplete caches of popular pages are a good thing.
This must be some new definition of "works perfectly for sites that are either down, overloaded or inacessible" that I was not previously aware of.
So basicly what you're saying is that you know of a lovely tool which doesn't work, therefore everybody should use it more?
I used to think that Coral might be a good idea, but this demonstration has convinced me that it's just a waste of time. That's the only point that has been reinforced for me.
They should also go completely black whenever you are in danger.
If Oakley made peril-sensitive sunglasses, I would be all over them.
That would be lovely if it weren't for the fact that your "coralized" page is still trying to load all the images from the original site.
Ten pages of "Look at this scene: {Broken Image} It was changed to this: (Broken Image) You can clearly see Natalie Portman's nipple in the background here: (Broken Image) But the biggest change is right here: (Broken Image)" really isn't doing it for me.
Oh, and look. An anonymous coward called me lame in an attempt to make himself look clever.
Yep, definitely slashdot. Thanks!
I don't see it as cheating. It's a lot like Bridge -- The rules say that you can't show your partner your hand and you can't tell them what you have, but you are allowed to use prearranged bidding conventions to pass information across the table. All that the Southhampton agents did was use a bidding strategy. They did act as a team, but they had no out-of-game way of knowing that they were up against a team member. That doesn't break any rules, and it did work. The Southampton team took the top three spots in the competition. If you insist on comparing the entrants to people, consider this. They worked as a team, for the good of the team, knowing that at least some of them would win even if the others bombed. People do that kind of thing all the time outside of competitions. Why should it be so out of place here?
I was with you up until you started talking about tits and S/M... Am I still on slashdot, or did I wander onto alt.com by mistake?
This "leak" is just a pretext for the USA to declare war on France.
We've all been waiting for an October Surprise, and it looks like this is going to be it. You heard it here first.
Now if you'll excuse me, there are some men wearing sunglasses who would like to have a word with --
If you throw the VMS manuals at it, they'll take away what's left of your puppy and send you to jail.
People who blab about BOFH club can also be eliminated.
Don't you remember what we told you on your first night? The first rule of BOFH Club is: you do not talk about BOFH Club. The second rule of BOFH Club is: you DO NOT talk about BOFH Club. Third rule of BOFH Club, someone yells "Coffee break!", his cup is empty, or there are more than three calls in the queue, you head out to Tim Horton's. Fourth rule: only two guys to a desk. Fifth rule: one manager at a time fellas. Sixth rule: no jacket, no tie. Seventh rule: callers will wait on hold as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first night at BOFH Club, you have to disuser an account.
There ought to be a law. Won't somebody please think about thinking about the children?
It's not, it's not the same thing as Sod's Law, and the law you're thinking of is Finagle's.
Ironicly, having it called Murphy's Law by a reporter from the Courier-Mail is an example of Murphy's Law.
No, it's more like going the wrong way down a one way street while doing 60 in a 60 zone when the speed limit is going to change to 40 tomorrow.
Just because you weren't speeding doesn't mean that you weren't breaking the law.
Here are a few more SI prefixes, including both "milli-" and "mega-". See if you can spot the subtle differences between them and be prepared to describe them to the rest of the class tomorrow.
I don't think there is enough beer in the world, free or otherwise, to make me forget the idea of G W Bush / Dick Cheney porn.
Even John Kerry in the leather mask wasn't that terrifying.
So the VAIO _only_ weighs 350 megagrams?
That's more than three hundred Volkswagens!