What the fuck are you saying? That wearing a suit makes you more replaceable? So if you turn up scruffy-looking in jeans and a t-shirt, you're less likely to be gotten rid of? You anonymous cowards have some weird ideas.
Wel maybe I'm missing something here being a boring Dutchman, but aren't "absurd situations which are supposed to be funny just because they're absurd" often the basis of British humour? Monty Python anyone?
Monty Python is 99% unfunny, and British humour is more based on jokes and satire. The only funny thing Monty Python did was the Life of Brian.
Well then, if you want to change things, then try to change things. Don't fucking bitch and moan about it, if you do that you're no better than the rest of the pond life around here.
I wouldn't describe myself as conservative, and yes I'm a republican, although I don't see what that has to do with anything. All you fucking monarchists can suck my dick, I think you're all just insecure and want some higher-figure to worship as a sort of parent-replacement, same with those fuckwads obsessed with the pope(s).
You know, if screaming '42' in every vaguely-HHGTTG-related article is the greatest example of humour in the source material, I'm not surprised the film isn't very funny. Usually when something is funny, its fans can quote jokes from it that are actually funny to outsiders. In this case, it seems that the most amusing thing about HHGTHH is that 42 thing, and a depressed robot. My sides are definitely NOT splitting.
I think (it was many years ago) the thing we didn't like was the way the plot was seemed inexplicable and plodding and then at the end the guy gets brutally killed for no obvious reason.
Wait, are you talking about Burnt by the Sun or American Beauty?
I'm British, and a fan of 'British humour', but I don't like this thing either. I read the first book, not very funny. There doesn't appear to be any genuine humour in it, just endless absurd situations which are supposed to be funny just because they're absurd.
Well, at least British humour has jokes. Ever seen 'Friends'? Most of the whole appeal seems to be the cast being attractive. That's it. Some attractive people come onto the set, read out some crap lines, and that's it. Where are the jokes?
What makes me wonder is why they did a remake at all. I mean, it's effectively the same programme, same characters, same script, why not just show the original? Are people that narrow-minded that they can't watch a TV programme where the characters don't speak in the same accent they do? Why not just dub the original with American voice-actors?
On another note, my favourite part was in the christmas special, where David Brent meets a woman from a dating service, and she comes up to him and she's old, fat and ugly, and he responds (out loud) "Oh for fuck's sake...".
No, it's just basic psychology. There's no point denying it, no matter how much you hate suits. Unless of course you have some magic deformed brain which isn't affected by visual stimulation.
FYI: Suits are uniforms. They make you MORE interchangeable. That is what businesses want, so the suit does increase your chance of getting a job, as a disposable asset. If that's what you want to be, you know what to do...
So you're saying that the people who wear suits, i.e. businessmen, executives, lawyers etc, are more dispoable than those who don't wear suits, i.e. labourers, fast-food workers etc?
I think that a lot of these posts are not based on an analysis of reality, but more people who hate suits saying things that make them feel better about their position, like calling people names who wear suits, or insulting companies who make their employees wear suits. It's like a giant masturbation session.
Whether it makes logical sense or not is irrelevent in the real world, I mean outside of the Slashdot circle-jerk.
The real world works the way it works, not the way you want it to work, or the way it should work it everything was fair. If you own a company you can have your employees wear whatever you want. If you don't own the company you work at, then you can wear what they tell you to wear, and you're free to moan on the Internet.
I don't see what people have against suits. They look and feel good. I think it comes from the general anti-social attitude of the geeks on this website, they probably grew up with parents who didn't discipline them properly, let them sit at the computer for 16 hours a day, never taught them any manners or social graces. This means they naturally rebel against civilised behaviour, such as wearing correct business attire.
Because I don't have to pay £120 a year to see programmes I don't want to see? The BBC should be made to pull its own weight, not crying to the government for handouts and suing people.
things like Monty Python, Dr. Who, Neverwhere, HHGTTG, Hustle, Red Dwarf, Blackadder, Little Britain to name but a few. They are encouraged to 'push the envelope' rather than chase ratings. Sure, there are some notable experiments in the ratings sector (Ultraviolet, 24 and BSG spring to mind), but these are relatively few and far between in comparison to the BBC's gems.
You know, good programmes on the BBC are also few and far between. You make it seem that every other programme on the BBC is Blackadder or Red Dwarf. The BBC makes perhaps one good programme a year. And then there are only 6 episodes. You know that even the shitty Star Trek Enterprise thing that got cancelled had more episodes than the entirety of Red Dwarf? Even when the BBC find a decent programme you hardly get any of it. The Simpsons has what over 300 episodes compared to 24 for Blackadder? Granted most of those 300 are awful and the writers long ran out of ideas, but at least in America they get new things to watch whilst we're stuck watching Blackadder repeats.
99% of the BBC is cooking, house-decorating, auctions, house-buying, soaps, reality TV and soaps. I'm still waiting for this years good programme. I know it's not Doctor Who, that thing's awful. Yeah it's aimed at the under 10s, but it's been marketed like this great new thing, and all you get is awful plots, crap dialogue, worse-than-bad acting and CGI that makes the new Star Wars thing look engaging. Hustle is completely unoriginal.
My idea is that the licence fee is withheld and only given to programmes which can produce a good script up front and justify why they should get the money. Not a penny should go towards all that soap and reality TV crap that the BBC is so fascinated with. It's a travesty that we pay £120+ a year to the BBC and nearly all of it is unwatchable, whilst truly decent programmes like Red Dwarf have to make do with cardboard sets and rubber aliens because all the money went to Eastenders or some shitty sitcom.
You like endless programmes about decorating, house buying, gardening and auctions? Not to mention mind-numbing soaps and crap like Doctor Who? And you like paying for all this against your will? What about the same-jokes-every-week Little Britain? What about paying for programmes then the BBC putting them on digital where you can't see them? Snooker anyone?
It seems that these days all the best stuff is coming from America. A lot of people like Desperate Housewives, and that sort of thing would never happen in Britain. British soaps have a fascination with casting ugly people who can't act, at least in American soaps there's something to look at.
As for being scared of a fight, well, I guess maybe I am, in general. That's called self-preservation
Self-preservation is bollocks. Everyone dies in the end, you may as well have some excitement whilst you wait. Also you might be surprised to know that most fights don't end in death.
b) is likely to go my way
Why are you scared of being beaten up? In case you get injured or scarred? A perfect stock body is worthless.
As for respect, there is one kind of respect that goes with being beaten in a fight, but it's probably not the kind of respect that really matters.
You'll find that people treat you with a lot more respect, even if subconciously and against their more 'logical' thoughts, if they know first-hand you're prepared to have a fight if needs be. When people are cowards and push-overs, you can always tell, their mannerisms and body-language usually gives them away.
Tsunamis have been around long before 1997, they've been killing millions of people since the dawn of time, it was a thoughtless name back in 1997, they may as well have called it Toonberculosis.
As for the person above talking about anthrax, I think naming anything after a disease is always a bad idea, even if it originally was a sheep disease.
Actually, you are incorrect. Fighting is often a good way to settle a matter. Thinking that fighting is unacceptable is the last refuge of the idiot. Most people pretend to have your opinion because they're too scared to have a fight, or scared that people will think less of them.
Why would using Linux within your own company have anything to do with providing support for people using Linux for a video link in a story? You'd have a point if the story was aimed at people within their company who were using Linux, but it's not, so your point is completely irrelevent.
This page strikes me as dumb and deliberately one sided..
Just like Slashdot then? Except this fuckedgoogle site has the opposite viewpoint. How is it OK to be biased in one direction, but not the other? Why is it that some people on this site seem to have a vested interest in quashing any criticism of their favourite giant corporation? What have you got to hide?
OK, I'm a computer-illiterate government person, and you're coming to me asking for more funding. I don't know what RAM is, let alone full abstraction results for proof-carrying zero knowledge logic. Explain to me what any of that actually means, what it would lead to in real-world results, and why I should care that it's developed?
So you're saying to the goverment: "Give us millions of dollars, and you might see some nice new technologies in twenty years." ?
Most of the people in charge of giving this funding won't be in the goverment in 20 years, you're going to have a hard time convincing them to give funding to something just so that their successors in twenty years can get the credit.
I know this is Slashdot, home of the braindead fanboy, but I wouldn't call Google a great CS innovation. It's a search engine. We already have those; making it slightly better and giving it a cleaner interface doesn't justify massive government funding. I'm afraid I don't konw what Akamai is. The web is 16 years old, it's yesterday's news.
These days, we're not getting out of CS what we put in, i.e we fund it but get little back, and when we do get something it's encumbered by DRM or advertising or other shady commercial practices.
If you want more CS research, you need more innovations. When will we see the next Internet, or MP3, or word processor. When will we see a new development which revolutionises computer use, which makes people who have no interest in computers want to buy a computer?
Come off it, even small shops have cameras in them nowadays. Even the local corner shop over the road has cameras everywhere, they're not expensive. If you don't like being on camera when shopping, your choices are mainly limited to marketplaces, and then if you don't live in a police-state area with cameras everywhere (like London).
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck are you saying? That wearing a suit makes you more replaceable? So if you turn up scruffy-looking in jeans and a t-shirt, you're less likely to be gotten rid of? You anonymous cowards have some weird ideas.
Wel maybe I'm missing something here being a boring Dutchman, but aren't "absurd situations which are supposed to be funny just because they're absurd" often the basis of British humour? Monty Python anyone?
Monty Python is 99% unfunny, and British humour is more based on jokes and satire. The only funny thing Monty Python did was the Life of Brian.
Well then, if you want to change things, then try to change things. Don't fucking bitch and moan about it, if you do that you're no better than the rest of the pond life around here.
I wouldn't describe myself as conservative, and yes I'm a republican, although I don't see what that has to do with anything. All you fucking monarchists can suck my dick, I think you're all just insecure and want some higher-figure to worship as a sort of parent-replacement, same with those fuckwads obsessed with the pope(s).
No, the underground is the tube. A subway is actually an underpass.
You know, if screaming '42' in every vaguely-HHGTTG-related article is the greatest example of humour in the source material, I'm not surprised the film isn't very funny. Usually when something is funny, its fans can quote jokes from it that are actually funny to outsiders. In this case, it seems that the most amusing thing about HHGTHH is that 42 thing, and a depressed robot. My sides are definitely NOT splitting.
I think (it was many years ago) the thing we didn't like was the way the plot was seemed inexplicable and plodding and then at the end the guy gets brutally killed for no obvious reason.
Wait, are you talking about Burnt by the Sun or American Beauty?
I'm British, and a fan of 'British humour', but I don't like this thing either. I read the first book, not very funny. There doesn't appear to be any genuine humour in it, just endless absurd situations which are supposed to be funny just because they're absurd.
Well, at least British humour has jokes. Ever seen 'Friends'? Most of the whole appeal seems to be the cast being attractive. That's it. Some attractive people come onto the set, read out some crap lines, and that's it. Where are the jokes?
What makes me wonder is why they did a remake at all. I mean, it's effectively the same programme, same characters, same script, why not just show the original? Are people that narrow-minded that they can't watch a TV programme where the characters don't speak in the same accent they do? Why not just dub the original with American voice-actors?
On another note, my favourite part was in the christmas special, where David Brent meets a woman from a dating service, and she comes up to him and she's old, fat and ugly, and he responds (out loud) "Oh for fuck's sake...".
No, it's just basic psychology. There's no point denying it, no matter how much you hate suits. Unless of course you have some magic deformed brain which isn't affected by visual stimulation.
FYI: Suits are uniforms. They make you MORE interchangeable. That is what businesses want, so the suit does increase your chance of getting a job, as a disposable asset. If that's what you want to be, you know what to do...
So you're saying that the people who wear suits, i.e. businessmen, executives, lawyers etc, are more dispoable than those who don't wear suits, i.e. labourers, fast-food workers etc?
I think that a lot of these posts are not based on an analysis of reality, but more people who hate suits saying things that make them feel better about their position, like calling people names who wear suits, or insulting companies who make their employees wear suits. It's like a giant masturbation session.
Whether it makes logical sense or not is irrelevent in the real world, I mean outside of the Slashdot circle-jerk.
The real world works the way it works, not the way you want it to work, or the way it should work it everything was fair. If you own a company you can have your employees wear whatever you want. If you don't own the company you work at, then you can wear what they tell you to wear, and you're free to moan on the Internet.
I don't see what people have against suits. They look and feel good. I think it comes from the general anti-social attitude of the geeks on this website, they probably grew up with parents who didn't discipline them properly, let them sit at the computer for 16 hours a day, never taught them any manners or social graces. This means they naturally rebel against civilised behaviour, such as wearing correct business attire.
Because I don't have to pay £120 a year to see programmes I don't want to see? The BBC should be made to pull its own weight, not crying to the government for handouts and suing people.
things like Monty Python, Dr. Who, Neverwhere, HHGTTG, Hustle, Red Dwarf, Blackadder, Little Britain to name but a few. They are encouraged to 'push the envelope' rather than chase ratings.
Sure, there are some notable experiments in the ratings sector (Ultraviolet, 24 and BSG spring to mind), but these are relatively few and far between in comparison to the BBC's gems.
You know, good programmes on the BBC are also few and far between. You make it seem that every other programme on the BBC is Blackadder or Red Dwarf. The BBC makes perhaps one good programme a year. And then there are only 6 episodes. You know that even the shitty Star Trek Enterprise thing that got cancelled had more episodes than the entirety of Red Dwarf? Even when the BBC find a decent programme you hardly get any of it. The Simpsons has what over 300 episodes compared to 24 for Blackadder? Granted most of those 300 are awful and the writers long ran out of ideas, but at least in America they get new things to watch whilst we're stuck watching Blackadder repeats.
99% of the BBC is cooking, house-decorating, auctions, house-buying, soaps, reality TV and soaps. I'm still waiting for this years good programme. I know it's not Doctor Who, that thing's awful. Yeah it's aimed at the under 10s, but it's been marketed like this great new thing, and all you get is awful plots, crap dialogue, worse-than-bad acting and CGI that makes the new Star Wars thing look engaging. Hustle is completely unoriginal.
My idea is that the licence fee is withheld and only given to programmes which can produce a good script up front and justify why they should get the money. Not a penny should go towards all that soap and reality TV crap that the BBC is so fascinated with. It's a travesty that we pay £120+ a year to the BBC and nearly all of it is unwatchable, whilst truly decent programmes like Red Dwarf have to make do with cardboard sets and rubber aliens because all the money went to Eastenders or some shitty sitcom.
I like the programming on BBC.
You like endless programmes about decorating, house buying, gardening and auctions? Not to mention mind-numbing soaps and crap like Doctor Who? And you like paying for all this against your will? What about the same-jokes-every-week Little Britain? What about paying for programmes then the BBC putting them on digital where you can't see them? Snooker anyone?
It seems that these days all the best stuff is coming from America. A lot of people like Desperate Housewives, and that sort of thing would never happen in Britain. British soaps have a fascination with casting ugly people who can't act, at least in American soaps there's something to look at.
As for being scared of a fight, well, I guess maybe I am, in general. That's called self-preservation
Self-preservation is bollocks. Everyone dies in the end, you may as well have some excitement whilst you wait. Also you might be surprised to know that most fights don't end in death.
b) is likely to go my way
Why are you scared of being beaten up? In case you get injured or scarred? A perfect stock body is worthless.
As for respect, there is one kind of respect that goes with being beaten in a fight, but it's probably not the kind of respect that really matters.
You'll find that people treat you with a lot more respect, even if subconciously and against their more 'logical' thoughts, if they know first-hand you're prepared to have a fight if needs be. When people are cowards and push-overs, you can always tell, their mannerisms and body-language usually gives them away.
Tsunamis have been around long before 1997, they've been killing millions of people since the dawn of time, it was a thoughtless name back in 1997, they may as well have called it Toonberculosis.
As for the person above talking about anthrax, I think naming anything after a disease is always a bad idea, even if it originally was a sheep disease.
Fights are the last refuge of the idiot,
Actually, you are incorrect. Fighting is often a good way to settle a matter. Thinking that fighting is unacceptable is the last refuge of the idiot. Most people pretend to have your opinion because they're too scared to have a fight, or scared that people will think less of them.
Why would using Linux within your own company have anything to do with providing support for people using Linux for a video link in a story? You'd have a point if the story was aimed at people within their company who were using Linux, but it's not, so your point is completely irrelevent.
This page strikes me as dumb and deliberately one sided..
Just like Slashdot then? Except this fuckedgoogle site has the opposite viewpoint. How is it OK to be biased in one direction, but not the other? Why is it that some people on this site seem to have a vested interest in quashing any criticism of their favourite giant corporation? What have you got to hide?
OK, I'm a computer-illiterate government person, and you're coming to me asking for more funding. I don't know what RAM is, let alone full abstraction results for proof-carrying zero knowledge logic. Explain to me what any of that actually means, what it would lead to in real-world results, and why I should care that it's developed?
So you're saying to the goverment: "Give us millions of dollars, and you might see some nice new technologies in twenty years." ?
Most of the people in charge of giving this funding won't be in the goverment in 20 years, you're going to have a hard time convincing them to give funding to something just so that their successors in twenty years can get the credit.
I know this is Slashdot, home of the braindead fanboy, but I wouldn't call Google a great CS innovation. It's a search engine. We already have those; making it slightly better and giving it a cleaner interface doesn't justify massive government funding. I'm afraid I don't konw what Akamai is. The web is 16 years old, it's yesterday's news.
These days, we're not getting out of CS what we put in, i.e we fund it but get little back, and when we do get something it's encumbered by DRM or advertising or other shady commercial practices.
If you want more CS research, you need more innovations. When will we see the next Internet, or MP3, or word processor. When will we see a new development which revolutionises computer use, which makes people who have no interest in computers want to buy a computer?
Come off it, even small shops have cameras in them nowadays. Even the local corner shop over the road has cameras everywhere, they're not expensive. If you don't like being on camera when shopping, your choices are mainly limited to marketplaces, and then if you don't live in a police-state area with cameras everywhere (like London).
What do you think happened to all those dissidents?