Oh come on! Tom Baker was just as much about his curly hair as Captain Jack was about his amazing charm.
If you say so. I don't remember very much dialogue about Tom Baker's hair, though. Nor much actual charm from Captain Jack. His only trick as a con-man seemed to be seducing people, which was kind of lame.
Warm and moving? Remember that scene where he charmed those two robots? (I think they were stationary, even.)
Well, yeah, he tried. He even groped one.
They were robots, though, they didn't care. He had to shoot them with the gun he'd been hiding in his rectum.
Yeah, really. Look up (for example) "time lords" loom curse in google sometime. The prevailing explanation, picked up in the novels, is that Gallifreyans are sterile because of a curse and must reproduce using a technology called "the Loom".
That aside, your show idea doesn't sound bad. Though the "school chums" thing might be pushing it a bit.
Let's assume for the moment that I would have welcomed a similar treatment of a randy heterosexual, or even (as other posters have expressed a preference for) a female bisexual...
While it would certainly be hypocritical of me, would that hypocrisy automatically invalidate my criticism of the writing in this case?
I think we ought to evaluate things on their own merits, rather than the preferences of their originators.
It's worth nothing that in interviews Russell T. Davies deflects criticism of his writing decisions in terms of his hope that everyone in the 52nd Century (where Jack was from) would be similarly omnisexual.
Given that, I can't totally blame the OP for feeling that Russell has an axe to grind.
Not really; Russell does okay as long as he's producing rather than writing, and the overall concepts he came up with were great. His weaknesses mainly show in his writing and character development; he is not a good sci-fi/action writer, and he displays a certain single-mindedness and mean humour when it comes to sex.
Speaking as someone who's seen the series, new and old... we don't even need to bring homosexuality or bisexuality or whatever into this...
Tom Baker's characterization didn't totally revolve around the curly hair. Captain Jack, on the other hand, had very, very few scenes that weren't heavily sexualized.
You could forget, sometimes, that Tom Baker had curly hair. By contrast, the way Captain Jack was written, it was pretty hard to forget, even for a moment, that he was continuously randy for anything vaguely warm and moving.
It's even more glaring given that Doctor Who has historically been a show so foreign to sex that fandom has long speculated that the main character's species reproduces asexually.
Now, that was a writing problem too, but I would have preferred something in the middle rather than having a main character almost totally dominated by his sexuality at the expense of other aspects of his development.
1. in most cases drawing still dominates, rather than IPC overhead
2. This is why the standard MIT SHM extension exists. When the client and server are on the same machine, the bitmap memory can be shared between client and server
Like the other poster said, the problem isn't keeping track of the patches, but being able to find current contact information for all the contributors (which we don't have), successfully contacting them (for many long-running projects, some might be dead), and assuming you make it that far, getting them to unanimously agree to the relicensing (I already know some wouldn't).
Talk about one sided canibailzing without prejudice (would take theirs, but hell no, they won't resell mine).
That's the reality though. Everyone on the Inkscape side had, so far, been working with the understanding that (as far as Inkscape goes) we're staying in [L]GPL-land; Xara's announcement can't unilaterally change that.
Also, in practical terms, Inkscape's like the Linux kernel; due to the number of individual copyright holders we couldn't relicense if we wanted to, so it's simply not possible for much Inkscape code to make it into Xara-commercial, even if it made it into Xara-GPL.
p.s. Last comment (or it was last at the time I read was probably the only inteligent comment, about shared LGPL libraries)
Thanks. As I wrote in that email, I do think it's worth investigating ways to share future code without compromising on the [L]GPL stance. We can also probably share experience and algorithms.
Perl's (mostly) reference-counted garbage collection isn't actually that good. Though it's servicable, reference cycles will cause memory leaks for the lifetime of a thread.
Wasn't necessary. Most of Hitler's major crimes were punishable by latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication under canon law. Pope didn't have to lift a finger.
According to a different interview I read, he doesn't _personally_ review the dubs; apparently his policy of not watching films after he's completed them extends to translations/etc too.
Use XML as a standard, which like [HTML] is already supported fully but Office 2003 (Word, Excel, and the others can read/write XML just fine).
I suspect you misunderstand what XML is. XML, in and of itself, is just a metasyntax. It doesn't really compare to HTML or RTF.
You could almost just as easily say "Use binary data as a standard, which like HTML is already supported fully but Office 2003 (Word, Excel, and the others can read/write binary data just fine)."
Which would be true, as far as it goes. Nearly all programs can read some form of binary data.
Similarly, just because two programs use some XML-based format doesn't mean they're automatically interoperable.
Well, not quite. The teaching is that when you have sex, it's sinful to refuse to accept any responsibility for pregnancy (whether via contraception, or avoiding vaginal sex in favor of other sexual activities).
In and of itself, having sex when you're not fertile is fine. Sex definitely has other purposes beyond just getting pregnant, and those are good things too.
Would selective abstinence specifically at fertile times be a problem? That just depends on the intent. Doing it with the intent to never have children would be bad. Married couples are supposed to be willing to have some children if it is possible for them to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
If you say so. I don't remember very much dialogue about Tom Baker's hair, though. Nor much actual charm from Captain Jack. His only trick as a con-man seemed to be seducing people, which was kind of lame.
Well, yeah, he tried. He even groped one.
They were robots, though, they didn't care. He had to shoot them with the gun he'd been hiding in his rectum.
Yeah, really. Look up (for example) "time lords" loom curse in google sometime. The prevailing explanation, picked up in the novels, is that Gallifreyans are sterile because of a curse and must reproduce using a technology called "the Loom".
That aside, your show idea doesn't sound bad. Though the "school chums" thing might be pushing it a bit.
Out of curiousity, though, why is that relevent?
Let's assume for the moment that I would have welcomed a similar treatment of a randy heterosexual, or even (as other posters have expressed a preference for) a female bisexual...
While it would certainly be hypocritical of me, would that hypocrisy automatically invalidate my criticism of the writing in this case?
I think we ought to evaluate things on their own merits, rather than the preferences of their originators.
Yes. I can't abide mainstream sitcoms.
It's worth nothing that in interviews Russell T. Davies deflects criticism of his writing decisions in terms of his hope that everyone in the 52nd Century (where Jack was from) would be similarly omnisexual.
Given that, I can't totally blame the OP for feeling that Russell has an axe to grind.
Not really; Russell does okay as long as he's producing rather than writing, and the overall concepts he came up with were great. His weaknesses mainly show in his writing and character development; he is not a good sci-fi/action writer, and he displays a certain single-mindedness and mean humour when it comes to sex.
Speaking as someone who's seen the series, new and old... we don't even need to bring homosexuality or bisexuality or whatever into this...
Tom Baker's characterization didn't totally revolve around the curly hair. Captain Jack, on the other hand, had very, very few scenes that weren't heavily sexualized.
You could forget, sometimes, that Tom Baker had curly hair. By contrast, the way Captain Jack was written, it was pretty hard to forget, even for a moment, that he was continuously randy for anything vaguely warm and moving.
It's even more glaring given that Doctor Who has historically been a show so foreign to sex that fandom has long speculated that the main character's species reproduces asexually.
Now, that was a writing problem too, but I would have preferred something in the middle rather than having a main character almost totally dominated by his sexuality at the expense of other aspects of his development.
Unlike RF, IR or visible light communications don't normally have potential for interference on local, national, international, or even global scales.
1. in most cases drawing still dominates, rather than IPC overhead
2. This is why the standard MIT SHM extension exists. When the client and server are on the same machine, the bitmap memory can be shared between client and server
Like the other poster said, the problem isn't keeping track of the patches, but being able to find current contact information for all the contributors (which we don't have), successfully contacting them (for many long-running projects, some might be dead), and assuming you make it that far, getting them to unanimously agree to the relicensing (I already know some wouldn't).
People problem, not a technical one.
That's the reality though. Everyone on the Inkscape side had, so far, been working with the understanding that (as far as Inkscape goes) we're staying in [L]GPL-land; Xara's announcement can't unilaterally change that.
Also, in practical terms, Inkscape's like the Linux kernel; due to the number of individual copyright holders we couldn't relicense if we wanted to, so it's simply not possible for much Inkscape code to make it into Xara-commercial, even if it made it into Xara-GPL.
Thanks. As I wrote in that email, I do think it's worth investigating ways to share future code without compromising on the [L]GPL stance. We can also probably share experience and algorithms.
Perl's (mostly) reference-counted garbage collection isn't actually that good. Though it's servicable, reference cycles will cause memory leaks for the lifetime of a thread.
Actually, no. The discussion is whether or not they should be denied communion; excommunication is a significantly more drastic penalty.
Wasn't necessary. Most of Hitler's major crimes were punishable by latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication under canon law. Pope didn't have to lift a finger.
Indeed. It's also significantly harder to change or replace.
According to a different interview I read, he doesn't _personally_ review the dubs; apparently his policy of not watching films after he's completed them extends to translations/etc too.
:/
Which is unfortunate.
Well, at that point, why not just take a fully split ergonomic keyboard with integrated wrist support, and put a mouse ball/sensor under one half?
The comet doesn't have much gravity, but it has enough.
That would be a lot easier to do from the Moon.
I suspect you misunderstand what XML is. XML, in and of itself, is just a metasyntax. It doesn't really compare to HTML or RTF.
You could almost just as easily say "Use binary data as a standard, which like HTML is already supported fully but Office 2003 (Word, Excel, and the others can read/write binary data just fine)."
Which would be true, as far as it goes. Nearly all programs can read some form of binary data.
Similarly, just because two programs use some XML-based format doesn't mean they're automatically interoperable.
Since the SA is apparently putting 100% of the donations toward relief efforts, and not keeping any for themselves, does it matter?
Adinar sounds good.
The other way around, really. Carbon's unique properties mean that hydrocarbons are basically the most useful way to store energy.
Would they? Which ones?
Well, not quite. The teaching is that when you have sex, it's sinful to refuse to accept any responsibility for pregnancy (whether via contraception, or avoiding vaginal sex in favor of other sexual activities).
In and of itself, having sex when you're not fertile is fine. Sex definitely has other purposes beyond just getting pregnant, and those are good things too.
Would selective abstinence specifically at fertile times be a problem? That just depends on the intent. Doing it with the intent to never have children would be bad. Married couples are supposed to be willing to have some children if it is possible for them to do so.