Flamebait? News of the US, Iraq and who know what next has been all over the TV even in my own country, let alone all over the Internet. You don't think I've actually been watching the news and seeing what's going on? I said what I meant because I meant what I said. There are scary things going on in the US and a lot of it is causing a lot of trouble all over the whole world. When even the citizens of your own country are standing up and criticising what's going on and the people who've been put in charge... Don't forget the whole world got to spend a month or two watching CNN's coverage - up 'til now, and even from the year 2000. Before you think and claim I'm just trying to flamebait... you just think about what's actually been going on and what it looks like to the rest of the world. Bye now.
All this post-9/11 paranoia is getting really ridiculous, and I can't wait till someone in power finally realizes how stupid we are being.
Have you not considered the possibility that the post-9/11 paranoia will in some way be key to keeping the people currently in power with their current realisations in power?
cough*dmca*cough
cough*patriot*cough
cough*homelandsecurity*cough
cough*probushwebsites*cough
There's also the fact that Microsoft lose money on every X-Box (hardware-wise); that their profit(!!!:-) ) model is based on "the first hit's free" and then raking in on all the games. I'm sure a lot of people will remember that and then think they're "sticking it to the man"...
Would this mean (in an extension of the way 1 January 1970 is the beginning of the Epoch) that maybe someday kinda hopefully, this could be used as an origin date for a global (and beyond), cross-cultural, cross-creed/faith, cross-national, cross-whatever new Dating system?
Not that it would probably take off; heck, Swatch never got anywhere with the Beat.
But what with people arguing over the fact that Jesus Christ was probably born in 4 B.C. rather than the actually defined date... not to mention that I'm pretty sure all the Buddhists, Moslems, [insert your own religion here]s, Humanists / Atheists and the rest might get a fairer look-in this way. As Australian journalist Phillip Adams once said, "so it looks like the afterlife will be emphatically monocultural" (The Weekend Australian, June 23/24, 2001 - sorry, no online version I'm aware of).
I picked up a copy of Greg Egan's latest, "Schild's Ladder" two days ago. I keep thinking with books like that, "Diaspora" and all of his post-trans-humanist books, surely those societies would adopt a new dating system that wasn't related to a single obscure cultural event that (some people debate never really even) happened on a planet most of their society had never even heard of...
We can define standard units through physics - speeds in terms of fractions of c, distances and times in terms of (if you wanted to get REALLY precise) Planck Lengths and derivatives... except those units aren't really manageable for day-to-day social stuff. Dates for everyday common social usage probably have to come from a social event.
What do we use dates for? To record history, to synchronise communication and society. Can you imagine what daily life would be like without clocks? Without any mechanism for measuring periods at all? Not even a frickin' hourglass?
What better standard to use than the day the world became "officially connected"?
And now back from the pie-in-the-sky, I remind myself that the Beat never took off and Swatch have got a bucketload more money and influence than I have.
But then again, it worked - in a way - for the Epoch...
You're so full of shit, it's hard to know where to begin.
How about brushing up on your manners?
When someone blames something complex like Columbine on a simplistic cause like media
I didn't. Read the previous post more closely, I said "ignoring, of course, the pre-media infusion of the confused mind responsible for that particular horror". Perhaps you missed that while you were getting dizzy on your high horse.
If you have trouble distinguishing "reality" shows from reality, you need some fucking help. Believe it or not, what happens on TV is NOT REAL.
I'll repeat myself for your benefit. I said "I'm not confusing the output of Hollywood with Reality in the U.S., the U.S. is confusing the output of Reality with Hollywood". Where did you learn to read?
you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about
What single piece of evidence or objectively presented observation have you given to prove that you do?
I bet you even think you're insightful
Haven't seen you get any insightful tags on your posts here yet. Can't even call you a pot to a kettle.
Then again, I have to alter this...maybe in your country, you ARE bright. What's that? I shouldn't generalize based on what country you came from? I shouldn't be a moronic bigot? I shouldn't take my ignorance and cover it up with guesses? Well, I guess you might have a point. I bet if we try hard enough, we could all learn something.
On the one hand, your entire post has been insulting, rude and arrogant not only to myself, but to an entire country. On the other hand, your last five sentences indicate that at the very least, you can parrot common sense. You may want to check your medication levels.
The American public - not to mention the entire world - is reared on the memetic teat of Hollywood.
When somebody goes postal and creates another Columbine or Port Arthur it's always blamed on the powerful influence of the media, violent movies and video games (ignoring, of course, the pre-media infusion of the confused mind responsible for that particular horror).
Society is immersed in the imagineered sea of vision live and direct. If Edison Carter existed, he'd have a field day. I'm not confusing the output of Hollywood with Reality in the U.S., the U.S. is confusing the output of Reality with Hollywood! What was one of the greatest (read: more profitable) moments of media history in the last decade? The release of "Big Brother"! "Reality" television shows BLURRING THE LINE EVEN FURTHER.
Observers noted that Bush sounded like a television show saying that he was "gonna get the bad guys". Bin Laden's terrorist statement was deliberately engineered to have a maximum impact on the MEDIA. Look at all the people desperate to get their faces on the NBC Today Show with their "Hi Mom!" signs - for Mercy's sake, I don't even LIVE in the U.S. and I know about the NBC Today show; in this entire posting, I've made only ONE non-U.S. reference. Look at the prevalence of tabloids and "Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous", the Oscars and every voyeuristic tendency.
Don't tell me not to confuse the output of Hollywood with Reality in the U.S.. Tell Reality. Then go tell the U.S.. And you can tell the Marines too.
As life is so wont to imitate art these (heavily media-laden and influential) days, I'm going to assume there's at least SOME truth in what we see in shows like "The Practice", "L.A. Law" or (oh sweet Mercy, save us) "Ally McBeal" (at least in legal procedures, if nothing else. I may live half a world away, but the culture is saturated in the media). Or even, for just a moment, "Rumpole Of The Bailey" (if anybody remembers the late and lamented Leo McKern).
Lawyers are sometimes portrayed as clever private detectives, uncovering that vital piece of evidence or small niggling fact that everybody else missed. Makes for good TV, don't it?
However, lawyers are also very frequently portrayed as amazing PR flacks, coaching the client and witnesses to present the best image possible with rehearsed statements and body cues... n'est pas?
To whom would it be more advantageous to show a carefully crafted image - someone trained in analysis and problem solving, or somebody fed a lifelong psychologically crafted stream of media memes? Which group would experience the maximum effect?
Of course, the world could never be so cynical. With businesses and lawyers in the corporate world, image is never as important as cold, hard reality, surely...
When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law AND the facts are against you, make sure you're photogenic... or at least know the best buyer for the rights to the story.
Actually, it will be. a) "Death Comes To Time" was and b) it's a BBC production therefore it's about as canon and official as it can be.
Besides that, check out http://www.gallifreyone.org/canon.htm.
"Doctor Who" DOES follow rules, it's just that like any huge human-built system, someone will end up breaking them and some people will follow that break; and through that, something will start contradicting itself. "Doctor Who", Law, Religion,... oh, damn. I wish I hadn't followed that train of thought.:-/
Actually when I DID get picked on in school for liking "Doctor Who", the bullies tried to pick on me one day when we were in swimming class.
Knowing that I had strong leg muscles from ethnic-dancing practice and knowing that the water would hold me up long enough, drawing on the interest in science I'd gained from watching this show, I selected the best spot, kicked the ringleader in the chest and winded him badly.
That was in first year high school, eighteen years ago. For the next four years he actually treated me with respect, we got on well and I never had to verbally or physically defend myself - ever again.
So just because I happen to have a hobby interest that I like and is mentally above you, you sad and anonymously cowardly little child, don't think that means I'm going to let someone like you push me around. And don't think the next person you insult or hurt is going to stand there and take it.
there's plenty of 'time' between the end of the FOX movie (yes, BBC considers that canon) to when the BBC timeline starts in "The 8 Doctors" book
Not really. "The Eight Doctors" starts up with him finishing the book the Seventh Doctor had been halfway through in the movie. The book also calls the movie's events "subjectively recent". Not to mention the whole book begins with "the Master's last trap" (oh, thank you, Terrance Dicks) the Doctor triggered just by being in that room of his own TARDIS.
From what I've seen, the Virgin books are not considered canon at this point, which unfortunately wrecks a lot of the good plot continuation they had
Hey? Erm, how do you figure that?
And I don't think individual authors are necessarily screwing this up.
I was hoping not to name names, but read "Unnatural History"; that's what I was referring to specifically when I said that "oh no, the Doctor mustn't be limited to a single continuity! How narrow-minded to think that!" (that's pretty much a word-for-word from the book itself). Of the few Kate Orman books I've read (Vampire Science, Unnatural History, read the synopsis for Left-Handed Hummingbird), the only one I didn't immediately reel from in disbelief and displeasure was "Set Piece" (just finished that one today). Actually, that one I thought wasn't too bad. The others... [shudder].
FYI: "The Adventuress Of Henrietta Street".
To be honest, I think that these authors doing the Eighth Doctor now really aren't helping. Continuity has been royally screwed worse than ever before. Not to mention that the Eighth Doctor has lost his memory how times now? The Eight Doctors, from The Ancestor Cell right through to even the latest Time Zero? If there WERE a "fabric" of space-time, I think the Eighth Doctor's authors have made the Doctor do more damage to that than any other threat in the Who universe... ... sigh...
I figure you're right here. Pre-Ancestor Cell is the only way it'll make sense.
I'm still looking to get copies fo the Charley audios to work out what happened here (I understand there's a "she never should've appeared" thread going on).
I don't know details of which yet, but I understand there's a Big Finish audio where Katy Manning will be voicing Iris (I may have missed an Iris book... did she regenerate? You say "the old Iris or the new one"?)
To be honest, I always found Iris to be an INCREDIBLY annoying character. The only time I found her at all enjoyable was when she was the only enjoyable thing in the whole damn book - specifically, "Mad Dogs And Englishmen" (you may think I'm being harsh, I know, it's a matter of opinion. But that book... man...).
Hm. I may have been (telling the complete truth, but was a tad) overly generous when I said I'd written published Who fiction. Apart from the usual fanzine (but at least prize-nominated) stuff, I also co-wrote for "Missing Pieces", the non-profit anthology to benefit Sudden Infant Death Syndrome babies trust. I co-wrote a Third Doctor / Brigadier story, "For Queen And Country".
The idea was that we wanted to give the Brigadier a bit more of the spotlight. Dylan was responsible for most of the historical and military research. The TARDIS, travelling and Russian parts were mine. We argued about the idea of History being mutable in the Who universe and the winner of the argument is only revealed in about three words in the last paragraph.
The bit in the story where we mention that the Doctor had previously been in Crimea was due to us submitting the story to the Anthology Editors and then the Editors writing back to us, telling us that another submitting author had put a First Doctor story based in the Crimean War, same month, just a couple of dozen miles away; we were quite pleased to be able to work that one in.
Question: are you sure he's playing the Fourth Doctor? I don't remember seeing that in either of the articles. It wouldn't make sense because Paul McGann's is a face and voice now associated with the Eighth Doctor's; the Fourth Doctor had a VERY (unfortunately) well defined appearance, sound and behaviour.
Granted, in the upcoming audios, the role of Iris Wildthyme will be voiced by the woman who used to play the Third Doctor's companion, Jo Grant; but her appearance and voice have changed significantly since those years, so she CAN get away with this (not to mention that her appearance and sound now fit the Wildthyme character rather well). Paul McGann doesn't look or sound like Tom Baker at all.
A good story that fits inside continuity is even better, not only because it has thirty-nine years to draw and rest on.
It's a jarring experience to see it break continuity. You have to suspend disbelief to get into the idea of a 1000-plus year old being with a timeship bigger-in-than-out; having established all that history and setting, "a good story" is not an excuse to then throw out that history and setting.
In other words - good story that it is (was), it would be even BETTER if they actually kept to some kind of continuity.
The other reason I mention this is because I've written published Doctor Who fiction and I had to do my level best to make it fit into continuity. It was more fun to be a part of that great and well-established "Doctor Who" universe; just screwing it all over wasn't fun, smacked of laziness and just didn't fit. Again, just a jarring experience that doesn't really enhance at all.
It was a very GOOD TV show and it's a shame to see it go south. I've gotten out way too much lately and had far too much of the big blue room; I'm sitting down and turning on the TV now just to relax. C'mon, allow me to enjoy my small beige room with the small black box.
Question 1: Does this mean that the Fourth (Tom Baker) Doctor will have been in "Shada", gone to Cambridge, dealt with Skagra, or not?
Question 2: If not, then where/when exactly did President Borusa snatch the Fourth Doctor and Romana from (in "The Five Doctors" - as footage from the incomplete "Shada" was taken from that to make up for Tom Baker's absence when they filmed T5D...)?
Question 3: If it IS Paul McGann's Doctor (Eighth), then it means that Romana is currently President of Gallifrey with K-9 in attendance, after the Fourth Doctor left them both in a completely different universe ("E-Space")... and why would Romana be hanging around the Doctor then when she's President of Gallifrey? She never had much need for him until the day when she was going to use him and effectively let him die to get what she wanted
Question 4: Not to mention that Romana and all but maybe four Time Lords are suspected most likely dead and the Doctor's in shock-induced amnesia (forgetting what Gallifrey is or who he is), because Gallifrey was destroyed (in the BBC novel "The Ancestor Cell"), so where's she coming from? And for that matter, to where are they going to return the "most dangerous [Gallifreyan] book in the Universe" to when Gallifrey isn't even a smoking cinder in space?
Question 5: Not to mention that in "The Ancestor Cell", Romana had already regenerated away from her Lalla Ward / "Princess Astra copy" body into something newer, by the time Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor had taken over...
Some VERY, VERY, VERY deft script-editing is going to be required to fix this. Sadly, the seemingly non-existent Continuity/Canon Cops at the BBC don't seem to care about fixing it the way continuity's been bollocked.
The Doctor's continuity has been BADLY scrambled from the very minute in the Fox/BBC telemovie we heard the Master say the Doctor was half-human (something useless which was NEVER hinted at in the series at ALL; never had any suitable explanation in the sequel books and actually proved to make things worse, rather than actually explain anything).
Even worse, some of the "more famous" authors of the current BBC and previous 90s Virgin Books series have been allowed to bollock it up even worse; very, very, very badly.
<rant> Especially by pretentious authors who decided that the Doctor didn't need and should never, ever have a continuous, single, canon continuity because "that would just be too limiting and narrow-minded". I'm desperately resisting the urge to name names - but thanks to you, for screwing it all up. </rant>
For an excellent site which summarises nearly ALL the Doctor Who stories available, try David Boies's <http://www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm>; look up the Fourth Doctor's "Shada" (and when it's positioned), the Eighth Doctor's "The Ancestor Cell", the Fifth Doctor's "The Five Doctors"...
DIY Superman/Batman and Done (Batman vs JLA)
on
Superhero Smackdown
·
· Score: 1
Even without all the DK references, two things:
1) The new run of JLA had Ra's Al Ghul (Batman bad guy) stealing Batman's plans to take out the whole Justice League and used them successfully. That's Superman AND Green Lantern AND Martian Manhunter AND Wonder Woman AND the Flash AND Aquaman. Top that (pity, as I prefer Green Lantern).
Mind you, "who wins" is traditionally a matter of "who does the writer need to have win". Anybody remember that "Amalgam" fiasco with Lobo and Wolverine? How much of a gyp was that, huh?
2) Do your own DeathMatch.
Get a decently customisable RolePlaying system like Fuzion (honestly, it's the Linux of RPG systems). You can get specs for Batman or Superman from a dozen fan sites (or heck, make your own, there are semi-automated character generators / assistants). Then grab yourself (Careful now) and a friend (or do both sides yourself) and go head-to-head.
That's because most of the evidence presented had already BEEN presented to the Slashdotters. We work with and/or support Microsoft products and a great many of us also use Linux. We see what a machine is capable of while remaining Open, Free and Libre.
Then we see the licensing, the stability, the usability and the marketing campaigns of these other products. Oh, not to mention the EULA options that say we have to get written permission from Microsoft to publish the results of any benchmarks...
The evidence had already BEEN presented to Slashdotters. And not only had Jackson been in the earlier stages of seeing the evidence presented, he also saw the merits of the people DOING the presenting. Jackson was making up his mind ON THE EVIDENCE... and not just the evidence the lawyers and witnesses presented, but the evidence the lawyers and witnesses themselves instantiated.
(Did I just say "instantiated"? Oh crap, my C++ lectures are starting to get to me... But you see the point anyway...)
Hang on a minute. Strongly suggest you check out the book "US Vs Microsoft (The Inside Story Of The Landmark Case)" at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 05NJE0/qid=1034597586/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-030365 9-0900630?v=glance . The authors were two of the NYT journalists (including Steve Lohr) and included many of the press clippings of the time. Reading that, you get one very good idea of incompetence: specifically, Microsoft's inept performance; ineptness that refers to Microsoft's lawyers, the performance of the "expert witnesses" they brought to the stand (who's going to forget Richard Schmalensee slamming down his old student in an economic analysis), or the "IE Removal Tool"... or even Gates's own performance.
Like the old Tim O'Reilly quote: "When people understand what Microsoft is up to, they're outraged". I'm not suggesting getting mad at Microsoft because they're Microsoft, I'm suggesting getting mad at them because of what they do, what they try to do, what they try to FUD.
Don't slam Jackson for doing what many people here would love to do. Slam the system that's letting Microsoft get away with what they're doing. "Yah, you say we're guilty. So you define the crime. Well, we don't like your punishment, so we'll impotently threaten to take our ball and go home, so NYAH!".
And OT, I find it really weird to see ANY Microsoft ad on/. at all.
Hi JC, I have sigfiles in multiple categories, one of which is "Computing Today"; it's basically turned into an 85k collection of mostly MS/Linux related quotes which I try to keep referenced. It sounds as if that might be something like what you're after. Care to mail me back if that's what you're after? p.petREDHATroff@quDEBIANt.eduSLACKWARE.au_ minus_th e_distros...
> The Bible is about salvation. There is of course > some history and science included but that is not > the point. You liberals attack the Bible for your > perceived historial and scientific faults as if > it should be a divine source for both subjects.
The Bible isn't about salvation; the Bible is a collection of documents claiming to be 1) an accurate historical record; 2) an allegorical instruction on the preferred way to live our lives; 3) prophecy which is, by the way; 4) either directly or indirectly created by the hand of an omnipotent, omniscient being.
It fails to fulfill #1, sometimes quite spectacularly; especially as it sometimes contradicts itself, not to mention the fact there's exceedingly little reliable corroboration of most of its content.
Secondly and dealing with issue #2, most atheists recognise that humanist morals tend to be ethically superior to Christian commandments.
Issue #3 is pretty unacceptable given the failure of the first two points and -
Issue #4 is pretty well blown out of the water by the embarrassingly poor performance of the first three points.
> The most important information ever known is in > The Bible. It's all about salvation---something > you fail to see.
As addressed above, that's not so. Furthermore, it's a GOOD thing that it's false, bearing in mind the despicable events and modes of prescribed behaviour. Perhaps the atheists are not the only people who might be recommended to check their own perceptions.
> What example are YOU providing to the world, > then? Are you going without? I assume you used > a computer to type your message. Maybe all the > liberals should give up all their goods and > clothe themselves in rags so they can claim > they're better than others.
Before I get flamed, let me say - I've worked in IT support for about eight years; before that I was studying CSEngineering; now I work for a Business Faculty (including the Business Graduate School aka the MBA factory), directly supporting these people face-to-face, holding their hands and practicing my sock-puppet theatre tutorial skills.
Furthermore, everything said here is my opinion only, not that of my employers / current educational institution.
So let me get this straight: as was with the Y2K bug, we informed our managers and clients that some machines and programs might have some problems that need to be examined.
Similarly, we tried to explain to our managers and clients the potential involved in facilitating communication in the Internet.
And just because these suit-wearing, tie-cutting-blood-supply-to-brain, six-figure salary, two-figure worth, oh-so-hip, oh-so-hot business brainstormers took what we said, amplified it beyond all reality to their managers and CEOs, stupidly leapt before they looked, blabbed it to the same media that gave us "Current Affairs" shows NOW describe themselves as "professionally depressed" and describe our work as "vapo[u]r" and have epiphanies over hot dogs then proceed to have idiot photos taken of themselves with huge wood and plastic hodtdogs, I'M SUPPOSED TO ADMIT THAT MY PROFESSION IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS!?
Screw that, screw the MBAs and CEOs and screw the media who pushed that image onto the public and pushed the unjustifiable horror stories of Y2K and gave undeliverable promises.
I write scripts and still write programming assignments for the degree I'm doing now. When I make it work, I'm proud of the work I produce and I'm proud of the fact that my clients understand what the problem is and how it has to be fix because I can explain it to them in non-technical plain English.
What's Brian Benavidez going to do if his hot dog franchise falls over? Blame it on carryover and net lag from his IT boom? Could it be in ten years time when the next historically-cyclic tech-boom takes off and he's missing out on his corporate bennies and kickbacks and six-figure-salaries, he's going to blame IT people again? He's going to blame bad offcuts from animals with Mad Cow disease for his poor product? Or maybe it's because Sony didn't allow his cross-marketing scheme! Damn the media for not publishing any good and sufficiently inspirational and motivational books for him to read while he read and slept in 'til midday!
Or maybe it's because those CEOs and MBAs and TLA POQs didn't have enough of a clue to listen to the people who understood the situation better than he did.
"I buy eggs, flour and cheese and turn it into things people like and will pay more for than I did". Well, I like the idea of writing code that makes people go "ooh, cool" or fixing some user's problem and having them go "oh, thank you so much".
"Hot dog stands are about handling real merchandise and interacting with real customers. It takes hard work and time to see results when you build a business the old-fashioned way." Yeah, well my IT service takes hard work and time. I can look at my code and see that I can make it really work. I can talk to my clients and see that they're real small furry clients from Alpha Centauri.
If these MBAs were too dopey to see that they themselves helped build a house of cards and cried cried cried when it all fell down, whose problem is that - the IT people whom they wouldn't listen to, OR THEIR OWN STUPID SELVES?
If they still want to get rich, either turn them on to manual labour or tell them to use the brains they should've been developing while they were buying their Masters of Business Administration degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
Flamebait?
News of the US, Iraq and who know what next has been all over the TV even in my own country, let alone all over the Internet.
You don't think I've actually been watching the news and seeing what's going on?
I said what I meant because I meant what I said. There are scary things going on in the US and a lot of it is causing a lot of trouble all over the whole world. When even the citizens of your own country are standing up and criticising what's going on and the people who've been put in charge...
Don't forget the whole world got to spend a month or two watching CNN's coverage - up 'til now, and even from the year 2000. Before you think and claim I'm just trying to flamebait... you just think about what's actually been going on and what it looks like to the rest of the world.
Bye now.
All this post-9/11 paranoia is getting really ridiculous, and I can't wait till someone in power finally realizes how stupid we are being.
Have you not considered the possibility that the post-9/11 paranoia will in some way be key to keeping the people currently in power with their current realisations in power?
cough*dmca*cough
cough*patriot*cough
cough*homelandsecurity*cough
cough*probushwebsites*cough
There's also the fact that Microsoft lose money on every X-Box (hardware-wise); that their profit(!!! :-) ) model is based on "the first hit's free" and then raking in on all the games. I'm sure a lot of people will remember that and then think they're "sticking it to the man"...
Would this mean (in an extension of the way 1 January 1970 is the beginning of the Epoch) that maybe someday kinda hopefully, this could be used as an origin date for a global (and beyond), cross-cultural, cross-creed/faith, cross-national, cross-whatever new Dating system?
Not that it would probably take off; heck, Swatch never got anywhere with the Beat.
But what with people arguing over the fact that Jesus Christ was probably born in 4 B.C. rather than the actually defined date... not to mention that I'm pretty sure all the Buddhists, Moslems, [insert your own religion here]s, Humanists / Atheists and the rest might get a fairer look-in this way. As Australian journalist Phillip Adams once said, "so it looks like the afterlife will be emphatically monocultural" (The Weekend Australian, June 23/24, 2001 - sorry, no online version I'm aware of).
I picked up a copy of Greg Egan's latest, "Schild's Ladder" two days ago. I keep thinking with books like that, "Diaspora" and all of his post-trans-humanist books, surely those societies would adopt a new dating system that wasn't related to a single obscure cultural event that (some people debate never really even) happened on a planet most of their society had never even heard of...
We can define standard units through physics - speeds in terms of fractions of c, distances and times in terms of (if you wanted to get REALLY precise) Planck Lengths and derivatives... except those units aren't really manageable for day-to-day social stuff. Dates for everyday common social usage probably have to come from a social event.
What do we use dates for? To record history, to synchronise communication and society. Can you imagine what daily life would be like without clocks? Without any mechanism for measuring periods at all? Not even a frickin' hourglass?
What better standard to use than the day the world became "officially connected"?
And now back from the pie-in-the-sky, I remind myself that the Beat never took off and Swatch have got a bucketload more money and influence than I have.
But then again, it worked - in a way - for the Epoch...
You're so full of shit, it's hard to know where to begin.
How about brushing up on your manners?
When someone blames something complex like Columbine on a simplistic cause like media
I didn't. Read the previous post more closely, I said "ignoring, of course, the pre-media infusion of the confused mind responsible for that particular horror". Perhaps you missed that while you were getting dizzy on your high horse.
If you have trouble distinguishing "reality" shows from reality, you need some fucking help. Believe it or not, what happens on TV is NOT REAL.
I'll repeat myself for your benefit. I said "I'm not confusing the output of Hollywood with Reality in the U.S., the U.S. is confusing the output of Reality with Hollywood". Where did you learn to read?
you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about
What single piece of evidence or objectively presented observation have you given to prove that you do?
I bet you even think you're insightful
Haven't seen you get any insightful tags on your posts here yet. Can't even call you a pot to a kettle.
Then again, I have to alter this...maybe in your country, you ARE bright. What's that? I shouldn't generalize based on what country you came from? I shouldn't be a moronic bigot? I shouldn't take my ignorance and cover it up with guesses? Well, I guess you might have a point. I bet if we try hard enough, we could all learn something.
On the one hand, your entire post has been insulting, rude and arrogant not only to myself, but to an entire country. On the other hand, your last five sentences indicate that at the very least, you can parrot common sense. You may want to check your medication levels.
The American public - not to mention the entire world - is reared on the memetic teat of Hollywood.
When somebody goes postal and creates another Columbine or Port Arthur it's always blamed on the powerful influence of the media, violent movies and video games (ignoring, of course, the pre-media infusion of the confused mind responsible for that particular horror).
Society is immersed in the imagineered sea of vision live and direct. If Edison Carter existed, he'd have a field day. I'm not confusing the output of Hollywood with Reality in the U.S., the U.S. is confusing the output of Reality with Hollywood! What was one of the greatest (read: more profitable) moments of media history in the last decade? The release of "Big Brother"! "Reality" television shows BLURRING THE LINE EVEN FURTHER.
Observers noted that Bush sounded like a television show saying that he was "gonna get the bad guys". Bin Laden's terrorist statement was deliberately engineered to have a maximum impact on the MEDIA. Look at all the people desperate to get their faces on the NBC Today Show with their "Hi Mom!" signs - for Mercy's sake, I don't even LIVE in the U.S. and I know about the NBC Today show; in this entire posting, I've made only ONE non-U.S. reference. Look at the prevalence of tabloids and "Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous", the Oscars and every voyeuristic tendency.
Don't tell me not to confuse the output of Hollywood with Reality in the U.S.. Tell Reality. Then go tell the U.S.. And you can tell the Marines too.
First, IANeitherALawyerNorAmerican.
As life is so wont to imitate art these (heavily media-laden and influential) days, I'm going to assume there's at least SOME truth in what we see in shows like "The Practice", "L.A. Law" or (oh sweet Mercy, save us) "Ally McBeal" (at least in legal procedures, if nothing else. I may live half a world away, but the culture is saturated in the media). Or even, for just a moment, "Rumpole Of The Bailey" (if anybody remembers the late and lamented Leo McKern).
Lawyers are sometimes portrayed as clever private detectives, uncovering that vital piece of evidence or small niggling fact that everybody else missed. Makes for good TV, don't it?
However, lawyers are also very frequently portrayed as amazing PR flacks, coaching the client and witnesses to present the best image possible with rehearsed statements and body cues... n'est pas?
To whom would it be more advantageous to show a carefully crafted image - someone trained in analysis and problem solving, or somebody fed a lifelong psychologically crafted stream of media memes? Which group would experience the maximum effect?
Of course, the world could never be so cynical. With businesses and lawyers in the corporate world, image is never as important as cold, hard reality, surely...
When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law AND the facts are against you, make sure you're photogenic... or at least know the best buyer for the rights to the story.
Actually, it will be.
.
:-/
a) "Death Comes To Time" was and
b) it's a BBC production therefore it's about as canon and official as it can be.
Besides that, check out http://www.gallifreyone.org/canon.htm
"Doctor Who" DOES follow rules, it's just that like any huge human-built system, someone will end up breaking them and some people will follow that break; and through that, something will start contradicting itself. "Doctor Who", Law, Religion,... oh, damn. I wish I hadn't followed that train of thought.
Actually when I DID get picked on in school for liking "Doctor Who", the bullies tried to pick on me one day when we were in swimming class.
Knowing that I had strong leg muscles from ethnic-dancing practice and knowing that the water would hold me up long enough, drawing on the interest in science I'd gained from watching this show, I selected the best spot, kicked the ringleader in the chest and winded him badly.
That was in first year high school, eighteen years ago. For the next four years he actually treated me with respect, we got on well and I never had to verbally or physically defend myself - ever again.
So just because I happen to have a hobby interest that I like and is mentally above you, you sad and anonymously cowardly little child, don't think that means I'm going to let someone like you push me around. And don't think the next person you insult or hurt is going to stand there and take it.
there's plenty of 'time' between the end of the FOX movie (yes, BBC considers that canon) to when the BBC timeline starts in "The 8 Doctors" book
Not really. "The Eight Doctors" starts up with him finishing the book the Seventh Doctor had been halfway through in the movie. The book also calls the movie's events "subjectively recent". Not to mention the whole book begins with "the Master's last trap" (oh, thank you, Terrance Dicks) the Doctor triggered just by being in that room of his own TARDIS.
From what I've seen, the Virgin books are not considered canon at this point, which unfortunately wrecks a lot of the good plot continuation they had
Hey? Erm, how do you figure that?
And I don't think individual authors are necessarily screwing this up.
I was hoping not to name names, but read "Unnatural History"; that's what I was referring to specifically when I said that "oh no, the Doctor mustn't be limited to a single continuity! How narrow-minded to think that!" (that's pretty much a word-for-word from the book itself). Of the few Kate Orman books I've read (Vampire Science, Unnatural History, read the synopsis for Left-Handed Hummingbird), the only one I didn't immediately reel from in disbelief and displeasure was "Set Piece" (just finished that one today). Actually, that one I thought wasn't too bad. The others... [shudder].
FYI: "The Adventuress Of Henrietta Street".
To be honest, I think that these authors doing the Eighth Doctor now really aren't helping. Continuity has been royally screwed worse than ever before. Not to mention that the Eighth Doctor has lost his memory how times now? The Eight Doctors, from The Ancestor Cell right through to even the latest Time Zero? If there WERE a "fabric" of space-time, I think the Eighth Doctor's authors have made the Doctor do more damage to that than any other threat in the Who universe...
... sigh...
I figure you're right here. Pre-Ancestor Cell is the only way it'll make sense.
I'm still looking to get copies fo the Charley audios to work out what happened here (I understand there's a "she never should've appeared" thread going on).
I don't know details of which yet, but I understand there's a Big Finish audio where Katy Manning will be voicing Iris (I may have missed an Iris book... did she regenerate? You say "the old Iris or the new one"?)
To be honest, I always found Iris to be an INCREDIBLY annoying character. The only time I found her at all enjoyable was when she was the only enjoyable thing in the whole damn book - specifically, "Mad Dogs And Englishmen" (you may think I'm being harsh, I know, it's a matter of opinion. But that book... man...).
Hm. I may have been (telling the complete truth, but was a tad) overly generous when I said I'd written published Who fiction. Apart from the usual fanzine (but at least prize-nominated) stuff, I also co-wrote for "Missing Pieces", the non-profit anthology to benefit Sudden Infant Death Syndrome babies trust. I co-wrote a Third Doctor / Brigadier story, "For Queen And Country".
The idea was that we wanted to give the Brigadier a bit more of the spotlight.
Dylan was responsible for most of the historical and military research. The TARDIS, travelling and Russian parts were mine. We argued about the idea of History being mutable in the Who universe and the winner of the argument is only revealed in about three words in the last paragraph.
The bit in the story where we mention that the Doctor had previously been in Crimea was due to us submitting the story to the Anthology Editors and then the Editors writing back to us, telling us that another submitting author had put a First Doctor story based in the Crimean War, same month, just a couple of dozen miles away; we were quite pleased to be able to work that one in.
Question: are you sure he's playing the Fourth Doctor? I don't remember seeing that in either of the articles. It wouldn't make sense because Paul McGann's is a face and voice now associated with the Eighth Doctor's; the Fourth Doctor had a VERY (unfortunately) well defined appearance, sound and behaviour.
Granted, in the upcoming audios, the role of Iris Wildthyme will be voiced by the woman who used to play the Third Doctor's companion, Jo Grant; but her appearance and voice have changed significantly since those years, so she CAN get away with this (not to mention that her appearance and sound now fit the Wildthyme character rather well). Paul McGann doesn't look or sound like Tom Baker at all.
A good story that fits inside continuity is even better, not only because it has thirty-nine years to draw and rest on.
It's a jarring experience to see it break continuity. You have to suspend disbelief to get into the idea of a 1000-plus year old being with a timeship bigger-in-than-out; having established all that history and setting, "a good story" is not an excuse to then throw out that history and setting.
In other words - good story that it is (was), it would be even BETTER if they actually kept to some kind of continuity.
The other reason I mention this is because I've written published Doctor Who fiction and I had to do my level best to make it fit into continuity. It was more fun to be a part of that great and well-established "Doctor Who" universe; just screwing it all over wasn't fun, smacked of laziness and just didn't fit. Again, just a jarring experience that doesn't really enhance at all.
It was a very GOOD TV show and it's a shame to see it go south. I've gotten out way too much lately and had far too much of the big blue room; I'm sitting down and turning on the TV now just to relax. C'mon, allow me to enjoy my small beige room with the small black box.
Big oopsie on my part. The very excellent Doctor Who Web Guide is managed by a DOMINIQUE Boies and Cameron Dixon. My big bad. Sincere apologies.
Very seriously, visit http://www.drwhoguide.com for a rather comprehensive and excellent synopsis site.
It IS going to twist continuity. Badly.
Question 1: Does this mean that the Fourth (Tom Baker) Doctor will have been in "Shada", gone to Cambridge, dealt with Skagra, or not?
Question 2: If not, then where/when exactly did President Borusa snatch the Fourth Doctor and Romana from (in "The Five Doctors" - as footage from the incomplete "Shada" was taken from that to make up for Tom Baker's absence when they filmed T5D...)?
Question 3: If it IS Paul McGann's Doctor (Eighth), then it means that Romana is currently President of Gallifrey with K-9 in attendance, after the Fourth Doctor left them both in a completely different universe ("E-Space")... and why would Romana be hanging around the Doctor then when she's President of Gallifrey? She never had much need for him until the day when she was going to use him and effectively let him die to get what she wanted
Question 4: Not to mention that Romana and all but maybe four Time Lords are suspected most likely dead and the Doctor's in shock-induced amnesia (forgetting what Gallifrey is or who he is), because Gallifrey was destroyed (in the BBC novel "The Ancestor Cell"), so where's she coming from? And for that matter, to where are they going to return the "most dangerous [Gallifreyan] book in the Universe" to when Gallifrey isn't even a smoking cinder in space?
Question 5: Not to mention that in "The Ancestor Cell", Romana had already regenerated away from her Lalla Ward / "Princess Astra copy" body into something newer, by the time Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor had taken over...
Some VERY, VERY, VERY deft script-editing is going to be required to fix this. Sadly, the seemingly non-existent Continuity/Canon Cops at the BBC don't seem to care about fixing it the way continuity's been bollocked.
The Doctor's continuity has been BADLY scrambled from the very minute in the Fox/BBC telemovie we heard the Master say the Doctor was half-human (something useless which was NEVER hinted at in the series at ALL; never had any suitable explanation in the sequel books and actually proved to make things worse, rather than actually explain anything).
Even worse, some of the "more famous" authors of the current BBC and previous 90s Virgin Books series have been allowed to bollock it up even worse; very, very, very badly.
<rant> Especially by pretentious authors who decided that the Doctor didn't need and should never, ever have a continuous, single, canon continuity because "that would just be too limiting and narrow-minded". I'm desperately resisting the urge to name names - but thanks to you, for screwing it all up. </rant>
For an excellent site which summarises nearly ALL the Doctor Who stories available, try David Boies's <http://www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm>; look up the Fourth Doctor's "Shada" (and when it's positioned), the Eighth Doctor's "The Ancestor Cell", the Fifth Doctor's "The Five Doctors"...
Even without all the DK references, two things:
1) The new run of JLA had Ra's Al Ghul (Batman bad guy) stealing Batman's plans to take out the whole Justice League and used them successfully. That's Superman AND Green Lantern AND Martian Manhunter AND Wonder Woman AND the Flash AND Aquaman. Top that (pity, as I prefer Green Lantern).
Mind you, "who wins" is traditionally a matter of "who does the writer need to have win". Anybody remember that "Amalgam" fiasco with Lobo and Wolverine? How much of a gyp was that, huh?
2) Do your own DeathMatch.
Get a decently customisable RolePlaying system like Fuzion (honestly, it's the Linux of RPG systems). You can get specs for Batman or Superman from a dozen fan sites (or heck, make your own, there are semi-automated character generators / assistants). Then grab yourself (Careful now) and a friend (or do both sides yourself) and go head-to-head.
Re: The mod: did the smiley not tip you off that this was a joke? For crap's sake, some people...
Step 1:1 9/ibm.g uerilla.idg/>
:-)
- Peace, Love, Linux
<http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/04/
Step 2:
- "We're learning, if you will, from the Linux World." - Steve Ballmer,
<http://news.com.com/2009-1001-961354.html>
Step 3:
- Profit!
Excellent. So it won't be quite so glaring when 2000/XP go BSOD...
That's because most of the evidence presented had already BEEN presented to the Slashdotters. We work with and/or support Microsoft products and a great many of us also use Linux. We see what a machine is capable of while remaining Open, Free and Libre.
Then we see the licensing, the stability, the usability and the marketing campaigns of these other products. Oh, not to mention the EULA options that say we have to get written permission from Microsoft to publish the results of any benchmarks...
The evidence had already BEEN presented to Slashdotters. And not only had Jackson been in the earlier stages of seeing the evidence presented, he also saw the merits of the people DOING the presenting. Jackson was making up his mind ON THE EVIDENCE... and not just the evidence the lawyers and witnesses presented, but the evidence the lawyers and witnesses themselves instantiated.
(Did I just say "instantiated"? Oh crap, my C++ lectures are starting to get to me... But you see the point anyway...)
Hang on a minute.0 05NJE0/qid=1034597586/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-030365 9-0900630?v=glance . The authors were two of the NYT journalists (including Steve Lohr) and included many of the press clippings of the time.
/. at all.
Strongly suggest you check out the book "US Vs Microsoft (The Inside Story Of The Landmark Case)" at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
Reading that, you get one very good idea of incompetence: specifically, Microsoft's inept performance; ineptness that refers to Microsoft's lawyers, the performance of the "expert witnesses" they brought to the stand (who's going to forget Richard Schmalensee slamming down his old student in an economic analysis), or the "IE Removal Tool"... or even Gates's own performance.
Like the old Tim O'Reilly quote: "When people understand what Microsoft is up to, they're outraged". I'm not suggesting getting mad at Microsoft because they're Microsoft, I'm suggesting getting mad at them because of what they do, what they try to do, what they try to FUD.
Don't slam Jackson for doing what many people here would love to do. Slam the system that's letting Microsoft get away with what they're doing. "Yah, you say we're guilty. So you define the crime. Well, we don't like your punishment, so we'll impotently threaten to take our ball and go home, so NYAH!".
And OT, I find it really weird to see ANY Microsoft ad on
Because all the stuff these barristers get up to is eventually going to come down on the whole world - which includes us nerds.
Not to mention, a nerd has a natural inclination to learn things. Scientas est potestas, as my old high school motto used to say.
Hi JC,_ minus_th e_distros...
I have sigfiles in multiple categories, one of which is "Computing Today"; it's basically turned into an 85k collection of mostly MS/Linux related quotes which I try to keep referenced. It sounds as if that might be something like what you're after.
Care to mail me back if that's what you're after?
p.petREDHATroff@quDEBIANt.eduSLACKWARE.au
> The Bible is about salvation. There is of course
> some history and science included but that is not
> the point. You liberals attack the Bible for your
> perceived historial and scientific faults as if
> it should be a divine source for both subjects.
The Bible isn't about salvation; the Bible is a collection of documents claiming to be 1) an accurate historical record; 2) an allegorical instruction on the preferred way to live our lives; 3) prophecy which is, by the way; 4) either directly or indirectly created by the hand of an omnipotent, omniscient being.
It fails to fulfill #1, sometimes quite spectacularly; especially as it sometimes contradicts itself, not to mention the fact there's exceedingly little reliable corroboration of most of its content.
Secondly and dealing with issue #2, most atheists recognise that humanist morals tend to be ethically superior to Christian commandments.
Issue #3 is pretty unacceptable given the failure of the first two points and -
Issue #4 is pretty well blown out of the water by the embarrassingly poor performance of the first three points.
> The most important information ever known is in
> The Bible. It's all about salvation---something
> you fail to see.
As addressed above, that's not so. Furthermore, it's a GOOD thing that it's false, bearing in mind the despicable events and modes of prescribed behaviour. Perhaps the atheists are not the only people who might be recommended to check their own perceptions.
> What example are YOU providing to the world,
> then? Are you going without? I assume you used
> a computer to type your message. Maybe all the
> liberals should give up all their goods and
> clothe themselves in rags so they can claim
> they're better than others.
Uh huh. After you.
Before I get flamed, let me say - I've worked in IT support for about eight years; before that I was studying CSEngineering; now I work for a Business Faculty (including the Business Graduate School aka the MBA factory), directly supporting these people face-to-face, holding their hands and practicing my sock-puppet theatre tutorial skills.
Furthermore, everything said here is my opinion only, not that of my employers / current educational institution.
So let me get this straight: as was with the Y2K bug, we informed our managers and clients that some machines and programs might have some problems that need to be examined.
Similarly, we tried to explain to our managers and clients the potential involved in facilitating communication in the Internet.
And just because these suit-wearing, tie-cutting-blood-supply-to-brain, six-figure salary, two-figure worth, oh-so-hip, oh-so-hot business brainstormers took what we said, amplified it beyond all reality to their managers and CEOs, stupidly leapt before they looked, blabbed it to the same media that gave us "Current Affairs" shows NOW describe themselves as "professionally depressed" and describe our work as "vapo[u]r" and have epiphanies over hot dogs then proceed to have idiot photos taken of themselves with huge wood and plastic hodtdogs, I'M SUPPOSED TO ADMIT THAT MY PROFESSION IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS!?
Screw that, screw the MBAs and CEOs and screw the media who pushed that image onto the public and pushed the unjustifiable horror stories of Y2K and gave undeliverable promises.
I write scripts and still write programming assignments for the degree I'm doing now. When I make it work, I'm proud of the work I produce and I'm proud of the fact that my clients understand what the problem is and how it has to be fix because I can explain it to them in non-technical plain English.
What's Brian Benavidez going to do if his hot dog franchise falls over? Blame it on carryover and net lag from his IT boom? Could it be in ten years time when the next historically-cyclic tech-boom takes off and he's missing out on his corporate bennies and kickbacks and six-figure-salaries, he's going to blame IT people again? He's going to blame bad offcuts from animals with Mad Cow disease for his poor product? Or maybe it's because Sony didn't allow his cross-marketing scheme! Damn the media for not publishing any good and sufficiently inspirational and motivational books for him to read while he read and slept in 'til midday!
Or maybe it's because those CEOs and MBAs and TLA POQs didn't have enough of a clue to listen to the people who understood the situation better than he did.
"I buy eggs, flour and cheese and turn it into things people like and will pay more for than I did". Well, I like the idea of writing code that makes people go "ooh, cool" or fixing some user's problem and having them go "oh, thank you so much".
"Hot dog stands are about handling real merchandise and interacting with real customers. It takes hard work and time to see results when you build a business the old-fashioned way."
Yeah, well my IT service takes hard work and time. I can look at my code and see that I can make it really work. I can talk to my clients and see that they're real small furry clients from Alpha Centauri.
If these MBAs were too dopey to see that they themselves helped build a house of cards and cried cried cried when it all fell down, whose problem is that - the IT people whom they wouldn't listen to, OR THEIR OWN STUPID SELVES?
If they still want to get rich, either turn them on to manual labour or tell them to use the brains they should've been developing while they were buying their Masters of Business Administration degrees.