Fascinating reading here, and I have to add my voice to the chorus of "why the hell spend that much money *making* the sodding things if they aren't paying off, then?!?" Given that a bunch of other industries are busily shedding much-needed staff ("downsizing") in order to scrape a few dollars off the expenditure to make the profit a tad bigger, whining that what you're doing *isn't* profitable because you're spending too much seems disingenuous at the least.
And apropos of nothing, am I the only one who keeps seeing "Jack Valenti, president of the Moron Picture Association of America"?
With all due respect, your comment assumes two things: 1) that humans are incapable of thinking rationally on subjects such as ethics, or indeed of ethical conduct on their own account, and 2) that any dictate of a superior power is by definition moral. And I'd have to comment "Get a grip". Moral!=dictated from above. Read any of the copious quantities of writings on the subject of ethics before you continue...
I'll try to answer your question, in hopes that you won't give up on slashdot altogether...
As best I understand (which is admittedly not that good at the best of times, and certainly not good at this hour of the morning), a troll is a post that seems to some moderators to be deliberately making partially inflammatory statements. I'd tend to think it's more like trawling, ie fishing for an impassioned response.
I would guess that your posts got moderated as trolls because many habitual users of slashdot, like other forums (forae? Don't ask me to know any English right now, much less discern the latin or otherwise etymology of a word), forget that there might be those who can ask a question innocently, rather than spoiling for a fight. I apologise on their behalf: hell, feeling the way I do this morning, I apologise on my behalf (and have done so to the unfortunate soul I share an office with).
Dreck, I'll just stop here or I'll witter on interminably...
Re:Try again, only this time "think"
on
ULTra Robo-Taxi
·
· Score: 1
I'm thinking, and what I"m thinking is that you appear to be *not*. Thinking, that is. You're assuming a whole bunch of things, not least that the way things are is the best way for things to be, and that things will not change in that area at all ever.
And I just have to say, grow up and stop the knee-jerk reactions. Relaxation? There's other ways to do it than just cars. And how much stress do cars cause directly? Life in cities? I've done it, and lived without a car for years while I did. Desires? Why is it that they *must* encompass car ownership, and why is it that we *must* all live with the consequences of your desires? Remember that the majority of the world is not all as affluent as you, and does not think very highly of the appalling selfishness of, for example, the US believing it has the right to maintain the most wasteful lifestyle while dictating to other nations how to clean up their act.
For the record, if it's worth it at this point, I don't advocate a world totally without cars because I don't think that would happen. I do, however, think that a world with much less car usage would be a better world, and that there are selfish interests, some corporate, some private, and some just ignorant of the options, hindering that.
Oh, and efficient? No car can ever be that. Sure, they might use a smidgeon less fuel or produce a smidgeon less pollution, but they are after all a ton of metal and stuff dedicated to the goal of moving about 70 kilos of flesh around the place. And if that 70 kilos of flesh can't walk a block to a bus stop or train station, then the brain part of that mass might be thinking it's time to think seriously about living a less slothful life.
...that's not screwing over anyone: that's just those who have power and money trying to circumvent fair competition to ensure they continue to make their profits, while at the same time denying consumers in their region access to products produced outside their region. It's not illegal to buy region X DVDs if you live in region Y, nor is it illegal to play them (all you need is a region X player, setting aside the question of modding for a moment). But if you want region X DVDs, you can't play them on your region Y player (without mods): why? Simply to guarantee the region Y producers don't have to compete equally with the region X producers.
Remember that I'm *not* talking about copies, legal or illegal: I'm talking solely about legitimate DVDs produced in another region. Totally within everyone's rules, and even within everyone's ethics (as taking advantage of sweatshop labour is *not*). Everyone's ethics, that is, except for the region Y corporations...
...does it seem as though the same group of people who are in favour of (indeed, generated) region-coding (to prevent cheap products from poor nations being sold in rich nations and undercutting the huge corp-rat profits), are also the ones who make use of the cheap wages and crap working conditions in poor nations to increase their margin and increase the aforementioned profits?
I mean, really, if the producers are entitled to take advantage of the disparity to engorge their profits, why should it be considered so heinous for the consumers to take advantage of the disparity to engorge their DVD collection? Not that I'm in favour of a lot of corporate dealings, but there's the tiniest of incosistencies there.
Or is it because corp-rats are intrinsically better people than consumers? Hmmm, that must be it...
It *is* the same as DVDs, because not all DVDs are released in all regions. If you doubt my words, try looking for region-specific Asian DVDs in, say, the US, or Australia: a fairly small proportion of titles is released, and some of those that are get butchered by the company that buys distribution rights (eg dubbing, cutting, replacing the soundtrack). If you want an honest copy of the film, you have to buy from the source, which implies a different region.
And please don't immediately think "Oh, but it's only weirdo anime/kungfu/triad-junky fanboys/grrls who care about that crap anyway". There are a buttload of excellent films coming out of Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan, as well as Thailand, Taiwan, mainland China, Vietnam, and elsewhere, from arthouse to grindhouse, or anything in between.
This fits with your complaint about the consoles: if you have the opportunity to buy at all, you may be forced to buy the inferior product/DVD because it's the only one available.
Unless, of course, you have a region-free player or a console with a corresponding mod...
Apropos of this topic, I heard an environmentalist talking on radio t'other day (JJJ in Australia). He claimed, with reasonable justification, that overpopulation is correlated not so strongly with class ("middle class == fewer children") nor with technology ("hi tech birth control available == fewer children") as with power relationships between the genders.
Apparently, societies where the females are roughly equal in status and power with the males, including groups such as the Inuit Eskimos, have a population that stabilises in about *1* generation, whereas those where women are treated as chattels, such as some high-tech, high-affluence Middle Eastern countries, have incredibly high birth rates.
FWIW, he did acknowledge that technology and class have some effect, but they're not strongest driving factor. Fascinating guy, fascinating topic, and I wish I'd had a chance to listen more instead of going off to work...
Good point, that man/woman/entity. Congrats to Taco and Kathleen, and what I wanna know is where's my geek? Huh? I want a proposal in front of 1/4 mil. strangers. I'd even settle for 1/8 mil., and you can't say fairer than that.
O' course, my cleavage doesn't look like that most days (although let me assure you that I do have one, and honestly aquired at that: no silicone or steroids in this kitty). Hmmm, better up the weight on the bench press...
Remember that we're talking about small kids here: anyone familiar with Piaget's stages of development? It's been several centuries since my university days, but I picked up a smattering, and what Piaget was essentially saying was that there were stages in the mental development of humans.
"Fascinating stuff," I hear you cry, "but exactly what is its relevance to the discussion?" Or less gentle words to the same effect. Well, what I'm getting at is that children have stages where they *can't*, for example, learn abstract concepts and have no real working concept of time (that's why it's hard to get them to do anything for a putative future payout). They just don't have the abilities yet: think of it as a sort of long-term boot, where each learning stage prepares the way for the next. You can't use your UML modeller until you've loaded your device drivers, and it's the same with kids.
And this means that kids need to learn about things like spatial relationships, the laws of physics as they apply to children and sports equipment, and Why You Shouldn't Flush Your Little Brother Down The Toilet. They need to learn about human relationships, themselves and their limits (physically and socially and I don't know what-all else), and about just generally being human. And computers are not at all helpful there: computers don't teach developing human minds anything other than interacting with computers.
Trust me, I'm not a doctor but I *was* a teacher (and oh my am I glad I'm out of that thankless game). Kids need to know about life and other people and fire and why cats bite and stuff like that before they start discovering the wonderful world of Nude Teen Cheerleaders (how *do* you know they're cheerleaders?).
That Myst-ish game? Those kids aren't exploring worlds, they're sitting (or more likely slumping) in front of a glass tube looking at pictures. They're not using any creativity, they're not writing or painting or otherwise creating their own worlds: they're just sucking up somebody else's.
And as for the "you can't get a job without computer skills" rationale, well, how many kids want a job? Time for learning useful job skills once they've learned some rudimentary social skills and why it hurts to jump off the shed roof. Leave the tedious advanced stuff for high school, and let them climb trees and get dirty and pretend to be aliens when they're young.
I don't think the term "libertarian" was minted in the US. After all, anarchism (the socio-political theory/practice, not the practice of lobbing molotovs at all and sundry) is often known as libertarian socialism, and that's been around for decades. Maybe centuries: Mr Brain isn't playing nice this morning...
As a skip (ie Australian. Think "Skippy the Bush Kangaroo", an asinine and jolly TV show from the 60s), I agree heartily about your terms for the spying: sleazy, very very disturbing, and reactionary are all indeed highly appropriate. Oh, say it ain't so...
CTHD not a HK movie? What, with the 4 leads coming from Beijing, Taiwan, Malaysia, and (I think) Cheung Chau, and the director from Taiwan, how can it *not* be a HK movie?;-)
As for the Miramax butchery of SS: yes, I've read those rumours too, but at this stage that's all they are: unsubstantiated rumours. I agree with you, however, that it's not out of line to be outraged at Miramax's treatment of Chiau Sing Chi's latest: they're behaving as if any Hollywood exec automatically possesses superior genius to Sing Jai. And as a correspondent of mine has said, it's better that they butcher it and it goes down in a screaming heap, so they don't get the chance to do so again...
Oh, it truly warms the cockles of my heart to read this...Shaolin Soccer is the latest from the comic genius of Hong Kong, Stephen Chiau Sing Chi. I'd have to say that Shaolin Soccer is not his funniest film, but it's very well done. I'm only concerned that the imminent US release will trash it in some way: there's talk of cutting, new soundtracks, and, most ominously, dubbing.
This brings up an interesting issue for me: as a fan of HK cinema, things like Kung Pow only do huge harm to a film industry that, while it does churn out a lot of dross (but can anyone tell me that Hollywood *doesn't*?), also creates some true works of genius (and I'm *not* talking about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon here). HK films get a bad rap from things like Kung Pow, leading to the stereotype that all HK films have ultra-cheap effects, and are chockfull of stylised fight scenes. Remember that the chop socky films he's supposedly satirising were made in the *60s*, for gods' sakes. That's 40 years ago. Does anyone believe that HK films are *still* like that? And does anyone believe that the world's third largest film industry (Bollywood is second) makes *only* kung fu films, and cheap ones at that?
Whereas in fact, the HK film industry is moving in a lot of directions simultaneously: HK is home to the aforementioned Chiau Sing Chi, master of comedy (director and writer as well as actor, I might add), and Johnnie To, director of slick romantic comedies, dark futuristic fantasy, and rivetting drama/thriller. If you like odd horror-comedy, there's plenty make in HK. Ghost stories, exploitation flicks, human drama, comedies by the bucketload, triad and crime, quirky surprising indie films, anything you want.
Then, of course, there's Wong Kar Wai, arthouse director extraordinaire. Anyone daring to suggest that his films are simply cheap chop socky action would be on the receiving end of some not very nice words from Director Wong.
Honestly, who needs another unfunny satire that's at least 40 years out of date? Watch the real thing, and maybe get a surprise...
Apparently (I can't provide a source, since it's "someone who read something somewhere told me"), some stats from new entrants into the Singapore armed forces with regard to shortsightedness:
In 196x, about 23% (?) of the entrants were nearsighted. In 1999, that figure was of the order of 93%. This was attributed to the high urban density, and the lack of things in the distance to look at (forgive my crappy grammar, I've not had my morning coffee).
Anyway, even accounting for the various ways to skew statistical results, that indicates a worrying increase over a short time. What would one of these (admittedly funky) things do? Imagine those tension headaches now, when one eye is pointed at something with a focal length in millimetres, while the other's trying to watch that babe across the street. And perhaps I've been out of things for a while, but Marty Feldman's eyes have never been considered sexy...
Why is it that we apparently seem to need software with everything that opens and shuts, all-singing, all-dancing, that makes you coffee *and* offers the contents of your hard drive to the rest of the world as an added extra? Has anyone, anywhere, *ever* used all of the features of Word, for example? Does anyone even know what they are?
And if we truly can't get by without all those features, what's wrong with interoperability, APIs, modularity, and smaller non-bloatey software? While we're at it, how about world peace, an end to poverty, corps voluntarily cleaning up their pollution...Naaaah, ferget it...
...OTOH, do you *really* need the apparently billions of useless "features" that Designated Software Corp rams down your throat in order to market a new version? Does anyone? They could be spending that time more productively (to us) developing less buggy software. Instead, they use a disposable economy model to keep throwing junk at you in the hopes that you'll think your last piece of junk is out of date and you really need a new Machine That Goes Bing.
Hey, Elvis hit 40 then bounced back. He was born (that is, *before* he was famous) in the same year as my father, but somehow when he died he was several years younger.
You're equating having the greatest supply of lethal weaponry (ie being the world's only superpower) with being the world's best nation. Don't do that, you'll go blind. Ethics and power aren't necessarily (or even frequently) inextricably linked. Nor are ethics and money, or ethics and corporate success.
Secondly, there are parts of the world that have very good reason for hatred of corporate America, as well as for US foreign policy, shaped as it is by corporate America. Don't dismiss this as envy, because it ain't. Even some of us in the comfy west, in countries that support the US, and enjoy the same lifestyle made possible by the exploitative values of corporate culture, can see and deplore the viler excesses committed in the name of profit.
Thirdly, I find it ironic that you claim that all those who hate the US are evil, envious factions, and then immediately go on to list a few areas where the US is currently thrashing the bejeesus out of the locals. Those areas are not threatening the US. Why then should the US want to shaft them, and don't you think some of those locals might understandably feel a trifle piqued that the US is throwing its (very heavy) weight around in a quarrel that's not really its concern? You can talk about justice and all if you like, but there are too many counter-examples, of fights where the US has supported the side that's clearly *unjust*, for that to be credible.
And no, those people in New York did *not* deserve to die. There's no justification for that atrocity. But they're not the only ones. Others are dying, in equally objectionable circumstances. And I think western governments owe it to everyone to ensure that such a situation doesn't happen again, and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to prevent the circumstances leading to it: that is, by trying to understand *why* those guys were driven to do such a thing (note that understanding does not == justifying). Calling them names does nothing: if the hatred continues, those that follow will just find other ways to achieve the same end.
One thing that may be different is that the rest of the world gets their information from a wider range of sources. I'm not 100% sure on this, but it seems as though coverage of world events is more readily available, and from a slightly wider variety of viewpoints, elsewhere than in the US. Read Chomsky for more details (probably "Manufacturing Consent", at least to start with).
One other factor why people outside the US are (slightly?) more knowledgeable about the rest of the world is that the rest of the world is more likely to have an impact on them: a war in Europe is within spitting distance of a whole lotta countries. Also, no other country has the enormous military might of the US, and so are more likely to be under threat from a war that might stray beyond country boundaries (which are much more flexible than, say, oceans). Ditto political and economic events.
Finally, the distance argument is fallacious: Australia is physically very big, albeit (theoretically) running under one Federal government.Texas is the size of our second smallest state (maybe third: size doesn't matter to me;-), and there's several that are two or three times the size. But I don't think that horizontal distance == communication distance. Or how could y'all benefit from my doubtless inane opinions?
Finally finally, remember that any gross generalities are nothing more than statistical summaries, and *never* apply to the whole populace: I'm living in a country whose government (for which I did *not* vote) has earned itself the reputation for being narrow-minded, bigoted, regressive, repressive, and nostalgic for the glorious 50s. I do *not* support these ridiculous policies, just as I'm sure there are many well-informed citizens of the US. And/. is hardly a representative sample of any population, other than the geek one, is it?
Okay, you may (note I say *may*) be smarter than some folks. You've probably had a better education and more opportunities handed to you on a plate.
But you clearly don't know diddly about biodiversity, or ethics, or common sense,
or anything else.
Just because you're better educated than most, does that make you a better person? Does it make you kinder, more impartial, more compassionate, stronger, healthier, less prone to infections or jumping to conclusions?
Does it give your genes (dare I suggest, your probably white middle-class male genes) sufficient variability to make up for the lack of diversity that will occur if you stop all the stupid (your word, chucky, not mine) people from breeding?
Doesn't that sound like the worst kind of fascism to you? Supposed racial or genetic superiority as yet another excuse?
Honestly, you may be smart in some ways, but you're sure dumb in so many others...
Re:Its their own fault
on
Sony vs Modchips
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
And here in region 4 (I think: hey, I've got a region-free player), we get a release timetable dictated by mainly US-based film distribution house corp-rats. Which is not always favourable to anyone outside the US.
Oh, and dismissing those inconvenienced by the region coding debacle as "fanboys of Japanese video games, scat films, bukakke movies, cartoons, etc." may be a trifle incorrect. Anything released by a non-US distribution house has the same region coding problem, and there's more film industries out there than you might realise.
But no, if all you get is from your own region (whatever that is), you *won't* realise the existence of the outside world. And is that ignorance a good thing, do you think?
Libraries? Obviously not libraries with dictionaries...
And before you make sweeping statements about unions, you might consider (a) learning something about the union movement and (b) thinking rationally for a second. Low pay? Overcrowded classrooms? Yeah, sure, that's the teachers' fault...
Just because Big Bill isn't going "Bwahahahaha" the whole time, doesn't mean that M$ ain't evil. Your definition sounds more like a cartoon stereotype than a reasonable working def. Putting your profits ahead of the life, health, and freedom from pain of any number of others? *That's* evil.
Would you say that a corporation that considers the welfare of people, whether workers, consumers, or general public, as unimportant, to be evil? I would, and that to me makes Union Carbide evil. They exemplify what I consider to be values that are *morally wrong*, ie evil. Remember too that many of the atrocities committed in this world weren't committed out of a desire to make people suffer: they were motivated by some other desire, and the suffering of others was considered negligible. *That's* evil, not some barking mad Evil Overlord with plans to take over the universe.
I'm not sure that I'd consider M$ evil, but I"m damned sure they're bad for a lot of reasons. This "everything goes in the market" crap is foolish and irresponsible: capitalism is an *economic* theory, remember, and offers no guarantees as to morals. Lots of things can be (and have been) justified in the name of profit, and I'm damned sure I'd call some of those outright evil. Responsible adults should consider the consequences of whatever they do, and accept the responsibility for same: saying "Oh, I'm innocent, I was just after a profit" is cowardly and selfish.
End rant. Sorry, but there's too damned much rights and too little responsibility in some of these arguments. If we can hold wee script kiddies responsible for *their* actions, why not CEOs? Why not directors? They make the decisions, for god's sake. And get paid handsomely for doing so.
Hey, folks, I think you're missing something here.
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
A lot of people are disparaging the Segway because
(a) it's too expensive, and
(b) it's too slow/carrying capacity is too low.
Don't y'all remember what's happened with virtually every product in history? They get cheaper, those that move get faster, and the dratted things get modified out of all recognition. Features that people want get added in somehow. I suspect that, if this thing survives, it'll soon have the facility to carry parcels, and it'll soon move faster. And, of course, it won't take long at all to drop in price.
I personally hope it does well, since the overuse of cars is responsible for too many accidents, too much pollution, and too much waste of scant resources. Hi-tech toys are all very fine and exciting, but we need to start acting a tad responsibly while we can (and while we can still have some shreds of credibility).
Slashdot Mirror
And apropos of nothing, am I the only one who keeps seeing "Jack Valenti, president of the Moron Picture Association of America"?
With all due respect, your comment assumes two things: 1) that humans are incapable of thinking rationally on subjects such as ethics, or indeed of ethical conduct on their own account, and 2) that any dictate of a superior power is by definition moral. And I'd have to comment "Get a grip". Moral!=dictated from above. Read any of the copious quantities of writings on the subject of ethics before you continue...
As best I understand (which is admittedly not that good at the best of times, and certainly not good at this hour of the morning), a troll is a post that seems to some moderators to be deliberately making partially inflammatory statements. I'd tend to think it's more like trawling, ie fishing for an impassioned response.
I would guess that your posts got moderated as trolls because many habitual users of slashdot, like other forums (forae? Don't ask me to know any English right now, much less discern the latin or otherwise etymology of a word), forget that there might be those who can ask a question innocently, rather than spoiling for a fight. I apologise on their behalf: hell, feeling the way I do this morning, I apologise on my behalf (and have done so to the unfortunate soul I share an office with).
Dreck, I'll just stop here or I'll witter on interminably...
And I just have to say, grow up and stop the knee-jerk reactions. Relaxation? There's other ways to do it than just cars. And how much stress do cars cause directly? Life in cities? I've done it, and lived without a car for years while I did. Desires? Why is it that they *must* encompass car ownership, and why is it that we *must* all live with the consequences of your desires? Remember that the majority of the world is not all as affluent as you, and does not think very highly of the appalling selfishness of, for example, the US believing it has the right to maintain the most wasteful lifestyle while dictating to other nations how to clean up their act.
For the record, if it's worth it at this point, I don't advocate a world totally without cars because I don't think that would happen. I do, however, think that a world with much less car usage would be a better world, and that there are selfish interests, some corporate, some private, and some just ignorant of the options, hindering that.
Oh, and efficient? No car can ever be that. Sure, they might use a smidgeon less fuel or produce a smidgeon less pollution, but they are after all a ton of metal and stuff dedicated to the goal of moving about 70 kilos of flesh around the place. And if that 70 kilos of flesh can't walk a block to a bus stop or train station, then the brain part of that mass might be thinking it's time to think seriously about living a less slothful life.
Remember that I'm *not* talking about copies, legal or illegal: I'm talking solely about legitimate DVDs produced in another region. Totally within everyone's rules, and even within everyone's ethics (as taking advantage of sweatshop labour is *not*). Everyone's ethics, that is, except for the region Y corporations...
I mean, really, if the producers are entitled to take advantage of the disparity to engorge their profits, why should it be considered so heinous for the consumers to take advantage of the disparity to engorge their DVD collection? Not that I'm in favour of a lot of corporate dealings, but there's the tiniest of incosistencies there.
Or is it because corp-rats are intrinsically better people than consumers? Hmmm, that must be it...
And please don't immediately think "Oh, but it's only weirdo anime/kungfu/triad-junky fanboys/grrls who care about that crap anyway". There are a buttload of excellent films coming out of Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan, as well as Thailand, Taiwan, mainland China, Vietnam, and elsewhere, from arthouse to grindhouse, or anything in between.
This fits with your complaint about the consoles: if you have the opportunity to buy at all, you may be forced to buy the inferior product/DVD because it's the only one available. Unless, of course, you have a region-free player or a console with a corresponding mod...
Apparently, societies where the females are roughly equal in status and power with the males, including groups such as the Inuit Eskimos, have a population that stabilises in about *1* generation, whereas those where women are treated as chattels, such as some high-tech, high-affluence Middle Eastern countries, have incredibly high birth rates.
FWIW, he did acknowledge that technology and class have some effect, but they're not strongest driving factor. Fascinating guy, fascinating topic, and I wish I'd had a chance to listen more instead of going off to work...
O' course, my cleavage doesn't look like that most days (although let me assure you that I do have one, and honestly aquired at that: no silicone or steroids in this kitty). Hmmm, better up the weight on the bench press...
"Fascinating stuff," I hear you cry, "but exactly what is its relevance to the discussion?" Or less gentle words to the same effect. Well, what I'm getting at is that children have stages where they *can't*, for example, learn abstract concepts and have no real working concept of time (that's why it's hard to get them to do anything for a putative future payout). They just don't have the abilities yet: think of it as a sort of long-term boot, where each learning stage prepares the way for the next. You can't use your UML modeller until you've loaded your device drivers, and it's the same with kids.
And this means that kids need to learn about things like spatial relationships, the laws of physics as they apply to children and sports equipment, and Why You Shouldn't Flush Your Little Brother Down The Toilet. They need to learn about human relationships, themselves and their limits (physically and socially and I don't know what-all else), and about just generally being human. And computers are not at all helpful there: computers don't teach developing human minds anything other than interacting with computers.
Trust me, I'm not a doctor but I *was* a teacher (and oh my am I glad I'm out of that thankless game). Kids need to know about life and other people and fire and why cats bite and stuff like that before they start discovering the wonderful world of Nude Teen Cheerleaders (how *do* you know they're cheerleaders?).
That Myst-ish game? Those kids aren't exploring worlds, they're sitting (or more likely slumping) in front of a glass tube looking at pictures. They're not using any creativity, they're not writing or painting or otherwise creating their own worlds: they're just sucking up somebody else's.
And as for the "you can't get a job without computer skills" rationale, well, how many kids want a job? Time for learning useful job skills once they've learned some rudimentary social skills and why it hurts to jump off the shed roof. Leave the tedious advanced stuff for high school, and let them climb trees and get dirty and pretend to be aliens when they're young.
As a skip (ie Australian. Think "Skippy the Bush Kangaroo", an asinine and jolly TV show from the 60s), I agree heartily about your terms for the spying: sleazy, very very disturbing, and reactionary are all indeed highly appropriate. Oh, say it ain't so...
As for the Miramax butchery of SS: yes, I've read those rumours too, but at this stage that's all they are: unsubstantiated rumours. I agree with you, however, that it's not out of line to be outraged at Miramax's treatment of Chiau Sing Chi's latest: they're behaving as if any Hollywood exec automatically possesses superior genius to Sing Jai. And as a correspondent of mine has said, it's better that they butcher it and it goes down in a screaming heap, so they don't get the chance to do so again...
This brings up an interesting issue for me: as a fan of HK cinema, things like Kung Pow only do huge harm to a film industry that, while it does churn out a lot of dross (but can anyone tell me that Hollywood *doesn't*?), also creates some true works of genius (and I'm *not* talking about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon here). HK films get a bad rap from things like Kung Pow, leading to the stereotype that all HK films have ultra-cheap effects, and are chockfull of stylised fight scenes. Remember that the chop socky films he's supposedly satirising were made in the *60s*, for gods' sakes. That's 40 years ago. Does anyone believe that HK films are *still* like that? And does anyone believe that the world's third largest film industry (Bollywood is second) makes *only* kung fu films, and cheap ones at that?
Whereas in fact, the HK film industry is moving in a lot of directions simultaneously: HK is home to the aforementioned Chiau Sing Chi, master of comedy (director and writer as well as actor, I might add), and Johnnie To, director of slick romantic comedies, dark futuristic fantasy, and rivetting drama/thriller. If you like odd horror-comedy, there's plenty make in HK. Ghost stories, exploitation flicks, human drama, comedies by the bucketload, triad and crime, quirky surprising indie films, anything you want.
Then, of course, there's Wong Kar Wai, arthouse director extraordinaire. Anyone daring to suggest that his films are simply cheap chop socky action would be on the receiving end of some not very nice words from Director Wong.
Honestly, who needs another unfunny satire that's at least 40 years out of date? Watch the real thing, and maybe get a surprise...
In 196x, about 23% (?) of the entrants were nearsighted. In 1999, that figure was of the order of 93%. This was attributed to the high urban density, and the lack of things in the distance to look at (forgive my crappy grammar, I've not had my morning coffee).
Anyway, even accounting for the various ways to skew statistical results, that indicates a worrying increase over a short time. What would one of these (admittedly funky) things do? Imagine those tension headaches now, when one eye is pointed at something with a focal length in millimetres, while the other's trying to watch that babe across the street. And perhaps I've been out of things for a while, but Marty Feldman's eyes have never been considered sexy...
And if we truly can't get by without all those features, what's wrong with interoperability, APIs, modularity, and smaller non-bloatey software? While we're at it, how about world peace, an end to poverty, corps voluntarily cleaning up their pollution...Naaaah, ferget it...
...OTOH, do you *really* need the apparently billions of useless "features" that Designated Software Corp rams down your throat in order to market a new version? Does anyone? They could be spending that time more productively (to us) developing less buggy software. Instead, they use a disposable economy model to keep throwing junk at you in the hopes that you'll think your last piece of junk is out of date and you really need a new Machine That Goes Bing.
Or maybe he just had too much p53...
Secondly, there are parts of the world that have very good reason for hatred of corporate America, as well as for US foreign policy, shaped as it is by corporate America. Don't dismiss this as envy, because it ain't. Even some of us in the comfy west, in countries that support the US, and enjoy the same lifestyle made possible by the exploitative values of corporate culture, can see and deplore the viler excesses committed in the name of profit.
Thirdly, I find it ironic that you claim that all those who hate the US are evil, envious factions, and then immediately go on to list a few areas where the US is currently thrashing the bejeesus out of the locals. Those areas are not threatening the US. Why then should the US want to shaft them, and don't you think some of those locals might understandably feel a trifle piqued that the US is throwing its (very heavy) weight around in a quarrel that's not really its concern? You can talk about justice and all if you like, but there are too many counter-examples, of fights where the US has supported the side that's clearly *unjust*, for that to be credible.
And no, those people in New York did *not* deserve to die. There's no justification for that atrocity. But they're not the only ones. Others are dying, in equally objectionable circumstances. And I think western governments owe it to everyone to ensure that such a situation doesn't happen again, and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to prevent the circumstances leading to it: that is, by trying to understand *why* those guys were driven to do such a thing (note that understanding does not == justifying). Calling them names does nothing: if the hatred continues, those that follow will just find other ways to achieve the same end.
One other factor why people outside the US are (slightly?) more knowledgeable about the rest of the world is that the rest of the world is more likely to have an impact on them: a war in Europe is within spitting distance of a whole lotta countries. Also, no other country has the enormous military might of the US, and so are more likely to be under threat from a war that might stray beyond country boundaries (which are much more flexible than, say, oceans). Ditto political and economic events.
Finally, the distance argument is fallacious: Australia is physically very big, albeit (theoretically) running under one Federal government.Texas is the size of our second smallest state (maybe third: size doesn't matter to me ;-), and there's several that are two or three times the size. But I don't think that horizontal distance == communication distance. Or how could y'all benefit from my doubtless inane opinions?
Finally finally, remember that any gross generalities are nothing more than statistical summaries, and *never* apply to the whole populace: I'm living in a country whose government (for which I did *not* vote) has earned itself the reputation for being narrow-minded, bigoted, regressive, repressive, and nostalgic for the glorious 50s. I do *not* support these ridiculous policies, just as I'm sure there are many well-informed citizens of the US. And /. is hardly a representative sample of any population, other than the geek one, is it?
Hey, man, I wanna have your children ;-)
But you clearly don't know diddly about biodiversity, or ethics, or common sense, or anything else. Just because you're better educated than most, does that make you a better person? Does it make you kinder, more impartial, more compassionate, stronger, healthier, less prone to infections or jumping to conclusions?
Does it give your genes (dare I suggest, your probably white middle-class male genes) sufficient variability to make up for the lack of diversity that will occur if you stop all the stupid (your word, chucky, not mine) people from breeding?
Doesn't that sound like the worst kind of fascism to you? Supposed racial or genetic superiority as yet another excuse?
Honestly, you may be smart in some ways, but you're sure dumb in so many others...
Oh, and dismissing those inconvenienced by the region coding debacle as "fanboys of Japanese video games, scat films, bukakke movies, cartoons, etc." may be a trifle incorrect. Anything released by a non-US distribution house has the same region coding problem, and there's more film industries out there than you might realise.
But no, if all you get is from your own region (whatever that is), you *won't* realise the existence of the outside world. And is that ignorance a good thing, do you think?
And before you make sweeping statements about unions, you might consider (a) learning something about the union movement and (b) thinking rationally for a second. Low pay? Overcrowded classrooms? Yeah, sure, that's the teachers' fault...
Just because Big Bill isn't going "Bwahahahaha" the whole time, doesn't mean that M$ ain't evil. Your definition sounds more like a cartoon stereotype than a reasonable working def. Putting your profits ahead of the life, health, and freedom from pain of any number of others? *That's* evil.
Would you say that a corporation that considers the welfare of people, whether workers, consumers, or general public, as unimportant, to be evil? I would, and that to me makes Union Carbide evil. They exemplify what I consider to be values that are *morally wrong*, ie evil. Remember too that many of the atrocities committed in this world weren't committed out of a desire to make people suffer: they were motivated by some other desire, and the suffering of others was considered negligible. *That's* evil, not some barking mad Evil Overlord with plans to take over the universe.
I'm not sure that I'd consider M$ evil, but I"m damned sure they're bad for a lot of reasons. This "everything goes in the market" crap is foolish and irresponsible: capitalism is an *economic* theory, remember, and offers no guarantees as to morals. Lots of things can be (and have been) justified in the name of profit, and I'm damned sure I'd call some of those outright evil. Responsible adults should consider the consequences of whatever they do, and accept the responsibility for same: saying "Oh, I'm innocent, I was just after a profit" is cowardly and selfish.
End rant. Sorry, but there's too damned much rights and too little responsibility in some of these arguments. If we can hold wee script kiddies responsible for *their* actions, why not CEOs? Why not directors? They make the decisions, for god's sake. And get paid handsomely for doing so.
(a) it's too expensive, and
(b) it's too slow/carrying capacity is too low.
Don't y'all remember what's happened with virtually every product in history? They get cheaper, those that move get faster, and the dratted things get modified out of all recognition. Features that people want get added in somehow. I suspect that, if this thing survives, it'll soon have the facility to carry parcels, and it'll soon move faster. And, of course, it won't take long at all to drop in price.
I personally hope it does well, since the overuse of cars is responsible for too many accidents, too much pollution, and too much waste of scant resources. Hi-tech toys are all very fine and exciting, but we need to start acting a tad responsibly while we can (and while we can still have some shreds of credibility).