Yes, but Shakespeare was supposed to be the cream of 1600s literature. If that was the best, and wasn't all that good, what does it say about the ones no-one remembers?
If you are going to do a theatrical adaptation of a book, you should either BE FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK
1. It's not theatre, it's film. 2. The keyword is ADAPTATION, it doesn't have to be exactly faithful to the book, it's merely adapted from the book. Also I think removing the gods from Troy was a good move. Makes it a more human story rather than a series of deus ex machinas.
Let me get this straight. People think the Iliad is good because it's around 3,000 years old? I think you've got cause and effect mixed up. The Iliad is still around after 3000 years because it's good.
Not really. Let's face it, if someone came out with that today, it would be slated, no-one would like it. People read it to look sophisticated. A bit like Shakespeare really. It might have been acceptable centuries ago, but by today's standards, the characters are flat, the dialogue is ridiculous and the plots are very basic.
I fail to see what discrepencies with the Iliad have to do with the film. I, along with nearly everyone else in the world, haven't read, and don't care one jot about the Iliad. You're like one of those Tolkien nerds who rants on and on about how the Lord of the Rings films are not true to the books.
Honestly mate, no-one cares. I can't imagine anything more lame than a film where everything gets decided by 'gods'. It would be like Jason and the Argonauts multiplied by a million.
As for your last comment, the Iliad isn't that good. People wonly think it's good because it's old. If it was written today people would criticise it for being overly long and pretentious.
As for the rest of your post, I agree. Christians are generally not very Christian at all, and are less interested in doing the work of Jesus and more interested in controlling people and being part of a sacred cult.
I can't think of any job where you work 7 days a week, all day every day, with no days off at all, and only a 15 minute dinner break. Even slaves on plantations had it better than that. Perhaps you should find a better job.
It's not difficult to buy music, it's very easy. You can download music legally, there's no excuse for downloading it illegally. Any DRM is your own fault for pirating music in the first place.
My Dad never downloaded music illegally. He is now inconvenienced because of DRM. How is that his fault?
It's not his fault, it's the fault of all those people who pirated music before. Blame them. They wanted a free ride and now they're upset because it's coming to an end.
You cant ask an athelete to nonstop run 200miles a day can you.
No, but you can ask them to stand about doing mild exercise for 8 hours a day. Let's face it, in general 'techy' jobs are hardly mentally exhausting, most of the time you're just doing grunt work or reimplementing the wheel. An athelete running 200 miles a day would be like a computer programmer writing a new hardware driver every day. I think that some people here are overestimating the difficulty and hardship of their jobs.
It was quite easy before the companies discovered DRM.
Before DRM, you all downloaded it for free off Napster/Kazaa etc. That's why they brought in DRM. If you hadn't all been illegally downloading it for free, they'd never have thought of implementing DRM.
I wonder what the odds are on Jerry Springer - The Opera being shown uncensored on broadcast TV on Saturday Night in America?
Funny how a country where no state-religion is allowed by the constitution has more opressive religious-control than a country with an official religion whereby the head of state is also head of the religion.
If no-one follows them they're less than irrelevent. Microsoft are bigger than the w3c, they think about the w3c standards no more than an elephant thinks about an ant. You can't just define something as a standard, people have to actually follow it.
The effect from slashdot readers will be completely negligable. The number of people who will read this article will number in the thousands. Of those, perhaps a few hundred would remember the name of the website in question, and why they should be boycotted. On the other hand, the number of people drive to the site by the publicity of this case would probably number in the millions.
A: Have a girlfriend who is relatively attractive (No, no pictures for you;) )
Then we'll have to assume she's 250lbs and cross-eyed. If she really was attractive you would have no problem showing pictures of her.
4. (and most important) Just be yourself.
Wow, what useful advice...Not. Being yourself to people here means sitting in front of the computer masturbating to downloaded anime films of tentacle rape. People on this website have really crap personalities, being themselves would lead to complete and utter failure. So no change really.
I know this is a bit of a ramble and majorly O/T, but hey, I smell "Informative".
Known by who? A few irrelevent nerds who don't count? The formal standard is irrelevent if no-one uses it. And by no-one, I mean no-one who counts. When browsers totalling 51% market-share use a 'standard', then it becomes a standard. And Firefox doesn't count, it doesn't exactly follow the standards perfectly.
Says who? You personally don't define what a standard is. The de facto standard is what people use, not what some commitee decide on. It's the difference between theory and reality. Microsoft are so powerful
So what happens when one photon runs into the back of another one? Surely if the photon which has just entered the window is going extremely slow, so by the time the next photon gets there, the tail of the first photon is hit by the head of the second photon?
It would be funny to see people spend a load of money on gmail accounts, just for Google to declare that selling accounts is against their terms of service, and close them all down.
Why is it shallow to judge her on her looks? That's what she's there for, as she is not an actress, but a failed singer from years ago. Is it shallow to judge food on its flavour, or music on its sound?
Yeah, I thought the whole point of having failed pop-stars who can't act on TV was to give you something to look at. But she's not much to look at. Also it's pretty disgusting to think she's Chris Evans's sloppy seconds...
It's amazing how a pseudo-scarcity marketing campaign can get so many people jumping through hoops for an e-mail account.
Sorry Google, but there are plenty of e-mail systems about, and not much to choose between them, if you want my custom you jump through my hoops, not the other way around. Who do you think you are, Microsoft?
Don't be silly, only evil money-grabbing companies would do a thing like that, and Google are perfect and holy, their slogan even says so: 'Don't be evil'. See?
They only did it for technical reasons, they don't care for things like PR and veiled marketing-stunts. It's a mere coincidence they have so many sycophantic fanboys who excuse every single 'evil' thing they do, even when they're clearly in the wrong.
Also their e-mail system is a complete revelation, re-thinking the way we send e-mail. And it's only been in beta for a few years, that's great progress when they have so few PHDs working for them, and so little money.
I like the way they never rip-off other people's copyrights with some illegal caching system, and the way the search results are always so irrelevent. I hate those other search engines where the commercial sites always rise to the top, and where the sponsored links are made to look exactly like normal links. Also I love the way they haven't ruined their Usenet front-end.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but Shakespeare was supposed to be the cream of 1600s literature. If that was the best, and wasn't all that good, what does it say about the ones no-one remembers?
If you are going to do a theatrical adaptation of a book, you should either BE FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK
1. It's not theatre, it's film.
2. The keyword is ADAPTATION, it doesn't have to be exactly faithful to the book, it's merely adapted from the book. Also I think removing the gods from Troy was a good move. Makes it a more human story rather than a series of deus ex machinas.
Let me get this straight. People think the Iliad is good because it's around 3,000 years old? I think you've got cause and effect mixed up. The Iliad is still around after 3000 years because it's good.
Not really. Let's face it, if someone came out with that today, it would be slated, no-one would like it. People read it to look sophisticated. A bit like Shakespeare really. It might have been acceptable centuries ago, but by today's standards, the characters are flat, the dialogue is ridiculous and the plots are very basic.
I fail to see what discrepencies with the Iliad have to do with the film. I, along with nearly everyone else in the world, haven't read, and don't care one jot about the Iliad. You're like one of those Tolkien nerds who rants on and on about how the Lord of the Rings films are not true to the books.
Honestly mate, no-one cares. I can't imagine anything more lame than a film where everything gets decided by 'gods'. It would be like Jason and the Argonauts multiplied by a million.
As for your last comment, the Iliad isn't that good. People wonly think it's good because it's old. If it was written today people would criticise it for being overly long and pretentious.
Why wouldn't you want to see it? If troy's anything to go by I personally I can't wait to see it.
What exactly is Ender's Game anyway? A game of some sort I presume?
It was shown on the BBC here in the UK.
Yes, I know. That's what I was talking about.
As for the rest of your post, I agree. Christians are generally not very Christian at all, and are less interested in doing the work of Jesus and more interested in controlling people and being part of a sacred cult.
I can't think of any job where you work 7 days a week, all day every day, with no days off at all, and only a 15 minute dinner break. Even slaves on plantations had it better than that. Perhaps you should find a better job.
It's not difficult to buy music, it's very easy. You can download music legally, there's no excuse for downloading it illegally. Any DRM is your own fault for pirating music in the first place.
My Dad never downloaded music illegally. He is now inconvenienced because of DRM. How is that his fault?
It's not his fault, it's the fault of all those people who pirated music before. Blame them. They wanted a free ride and now they're upset because it's coming to an end.
You cant ask an athelete to nonstop run 200miles a day can you.
No, but you can ask them to stand about doing mild exercise for 8 hours a day. Let's face it, in general 'techy' jobs are hardly mentally exhausting, most of the time you're just doing grunt work or reimplementing the wheel. An athelete running 200 miles a day would be like a computer programmer writing a new hardware driver every day. I think that some people here are overestimating the difficulty and hardship of their jobs.
It was quite easy before the companies discovered DRM.
Before DRM, you all downloaded it for free off Napster/Kazaa etc. That's why they brought in DRM. If you hadn't all been illegally downloading it for free, they'd never have thought of implementing DRM.
What goes around comes around.
I wonder what the odds are on Jerry Springer - The Opera being shown uncensored on broadcast TV on Saturday Night in America?
Funny how a country where no state-religion is allowed by the constitution has more opressive religious-control than a country with an official religion whereby the head of state is also head of the religion.
Doesn't matter. Microsoft set their own standard, whether you like it or not.
A lot of those robbers are released, and still have all their money. Something to think about.
If no-one follows them they're less than irrelevent. Microsoft are bigger than the w3c, they think about the w3c standards no more than an elephant thinks about an ant. You can't just define something as a standard, people have to actually follow it.
The effect from slashdot readers will be completely negligable. The number of people who will read this article will number in the thousands. Of those, perhaps a few hundred would remember the name of the website in question, and why they should be boycotted. On the other hand, the number of people drive to the site by the publicity of this case would probably number in the millions.
I personally don't want my potential anniversary date posted online (I have a female compatriot,
So you don't live in a country consisting entirely of males then? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
A: Have a girlfriend who is relatively attractive (No, no pictures for you ;) )
Then we'll have to assume she's 250lbs and cross-eyed. If she really was attractive you would have no problem showing pictures of her.
4. (and most important) Just be yourself.
Wow, what useful advice...Not. Being yourself to people here means sitting in front of the computer masturbating to downloaded anime films of tentacle rape. People on this website have really crap personalities, being themselves would lead to complete and utter failure. So no change really.
I know this is a bit of a ramble and majorly O/T, but hey, I smell "Informative".
I smell 'patronising karma-whore'.
Known by who? A few irrelevent nerds who don't count? The formal standard is irrelevent if no-one uses it. And by no-one, I mean no-one who counts. When browsers totalling 51% market-share use a 'standard', then it becomes a standard. And Firefox doesn't count, it doesn't exactly follow the standards perfectly.
Says who? You personally don't define what a standard is. The de facto standard is what people use, not what some commitee decide on. It's the difference between theory and reality. Microsoft are so powerful
So what happens when one photon runs into the back of another one? Surely if the photon which has just entered the window is going extremely slow, so by the time the next photon gets there, the tail of the first photon is hit by the head of the second photon?
It would be funny to see people spend a load of money on gmail accounts, just for Google to declare that selling accounts is against their terms of service, and close them all down.
Why is it shallow to judge her on her looks? That's what she's there for, as she is not an actress, but a failed singer from years ago. Is it shallow to judge food on its flavour, or music on its sound?
Yeah, I thought the whole point of having failed pop-stars who can't act on TV was to give you something to look at. But she's not much to look at. Also it's pretty disgusting to think she's Chris Evans's sloppy seconds...
It's amazing how a pseudo-scarcity marketing campaign can get so many people jumping through hoops for an e-mail account.
Sorry Google, but there are plenty of e-mail systems about, and not much to choose between them, if you want my custom you jump through my hoops, not the other way around. Who do you think you are, Microsoft?
Don't be silly, only evil money-grabbing companies would do a thing like that, and Google are perfect and holy, their slogan even says so: 'Don't be evil'. See?
They only did it for technical reasons, they don't care for things like PR and veiled marketing-stunts. It's a mere coincidence they have so many sycophantic fanboys who excuse every single 'evil' thing they do, even when they're clearly in the wrong.
Also their e-mail system is a complete revelation, re-thinking the way we send e-mail. And it's only been in beta for a few years, that's great progress when they have so few PHDs working for them, and so little money.
I like the way they never rip-off other people's copyrights with some illegal caching system, and the way the search results are always so irrelevent. I hate those other search engines where the commercial sites always rise to the top, and where the sponsored links are made to look exactly like normal links. Also I love the way they haven't ruined their Usenet front-end.