Koska suomenkieliset sanat "ikkuna" ja "ikkunointijarjestelma" eivat ole sopivia tavaramerkkeja, kun taas englanninkielinen sana "Windows" on on aivan hyva tavaramerkki.
As anyone ever seen a valid software patent? I mean a software invention that doesn't just copy an old idea or isn't just a business method. I sure haven't ever seen such a beast, not that I have looked that hard.
I'm willing to ignore just for a moment that in my opinion software shouldn't be patentable to begin with. I'm just interested if anyone has seen a software patent that made them go: "Hey, that's interesting idea."
Oh yes, the American government is an oppressive regime. Fear them. Sheesh...
The Feds kick down your door. They arrest you and accuse you of serious wrongdoings connected with terrorism. You haven't done anything of the sort and they are clearly mistaken.
Do you:
* Feel confident that the truth will win the day. As long as you demand your rights, and reasonably cooperate, they will also be reasonable and work to find out the truth.
* Know that you are screwed. Don't matter what you say or do. They have it for you, doesn't matter why. If need be, they will torture or brainwash the confession out of you.
* Feel afraid. They might have something on somebody you know. They even might have something on you that you can't explain. They might have pictures. You just don't know. What ever it is, they will not stop hounding you. Maybe their case won't hold in court, if you get there, but you will be a marked man for the rest of your life. And you have to sell your house and move because your neighbors saw you getting arrested.
Take your pick. Only one is not an oppressive regime (or a product of one).
Not really. The country was pretty unstable well before the Soviet intervention. Many coups and revolutions after the British imperialist were thrown out after the World War I. It's very arguable who were the rightful rulers at the time of Soviet intervention but the Afgan communists had as good a claim as any.
Afghanistan timeline of key events in the last century: here.
They have the same anatomy as we have today. Intuition and logic we have today has taken thousands of years to develop and is passed on to us via education.
Big technological development before the rise of "civilization" is food production, the domestication of plants and animals. This isn't just coming up with the idea that you could plant wheat. There are no wild plants that could have by themselves supported food producing people. Farming was a sideshow until more efficient plants were developed via natural selection.
Food production began 13,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent. Before that everybody was pretty much moving around all the time. Say you come up with neat new gadget, like a ceramic bowl. It's clearly useful, but it does weight quite a bit. You are already carrying as much as you can, and everything you have is likely to be essential to your survival. Talk about disincentive to innovation.
Food production also enables people to specialize. Some make war, some govern, some innovate and some produce food for everybody. Even the most skilled and intelligent hunter-gatherer would have to spend most of his time feeding himself.
I don't know when human speech became expressive enough to be compared to modern languages. I would hazard a guess that the Grandpawa from 160000BC didn't have it.
All those reason together... well, I don't wonder at all why it took as long as it did.
You _can_ use other people's trademarks for comparison purposes you know.
But you can't put the D20 logo on the front cover without going OGL. Without the logo your new and unknown product will be placed in the exotiques shelf in the back of the store, with the logo your place is in the front shelfs with other D20/OGL products. With the logo you also get noticed and reviewed by (mostly Web-based) publications.
Want to make a RPG product, eh? To go with D20/OGL or not to go? Talk about no-brainer.
And honestly Bosnia shouldn't have been our problem. Neither should have Iraq or Somalia. That is what the UN is for. Unfortunately the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent. I am still sickened by the Srebrenica massacre where the UN set up a safe haven, put Dutch troops there, and just watched idly by while 7,000 Bosnian men were killed because they were the "wrong religion".
Except that UN does not have any armed forces of it's own. Nor will or should it have any in the forseeable future. The world isn't ready for a global government yet, unfortunatelly. Best we can realisticly have right now is UN mandating use of force by it's member states.
I also object the statement that "the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent." I too am sickened by Srebrenica. But to say that the UN or the Dutch "watched idly by" the massacre is simply slanderous. The lightly armed UN/Dutch troops guarding Srebrenica were outnumbered, outgunned and cut off from suport. Would the Serbs have attacked had the UN troops refused allow the Serbs in? I don't know, but I can't blame the commanders on the field too much for not gambling with the lives of their soldiers.
Would US commanders in that situation have done anything different? Probably not. Although it must be said that it is unlikely that an US commander would find himself in that situation, as the US does not send out lightly armed ground troops into danger. Military considerations have not always been sufficently present in UN planning, hopefully a better balance has now been found.
East Timor and Angola come to mind as succesful recent UN missions. Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia are now at peace. There were serious errors and failures in the Balkan missions but they were successes in that the wars are kept local and the war-mongers were checked.
For all his tough words Tony Blair may find it impossible to lead the UK into war without UN Security Council resolution mandating it. There is no threat of force against the UK by any objecting nation, and there needs to be none. The internal war opposition will gain strenght in the absense of the UN mandate and, I belive and hope, be strong enough to prevent the UK involvement. That would an impressive feat by the UN.
Would the US go to war alone, without the UK? Militarily they could do it. There is little that the rest of world can do if the US attacks Iraq, even if it wanted to. That doesn't mean that the UN is impotent, it would mean that the US strong or foolish enough to ignore the rest of the world.
I agree on the principle. These extensions upon extensions are quite sickening. I have no sympathy for people demanding profit for some idea their parent/grandparent had almost century ago.
As a practical matter however, restoration of old films is an applaudable effort. It is time-consuming and expensive, requires specialized skills and adds value (both in economical and cultural sense). I would find it reasonable to grant new or extended copyright (of reasonable lenght) for the restored/remastered version. I may well br wrong here, but my understanding is that restoring an artwork does not constitute a creation of an copyrightable work.
So I can't feel too much cheated out by Suzzie here.
Python OS - Supposedly this exists, but since no-one cares, we won't go into it.
Nah.
Python OS - Reliable, powerful and with intuitive GUI. However, nobody uses it because it comes with an spell- and grammar-checker that forces you to write correct English in clear and mild-mannered style.
I believe the standard procedure would be to fine the offending party for not complying the court's orders. Something to the tune of $10M per day of continued uncompliance. And any such fines would be a separate issue from the rest of the case. Meaning that even if Microsoft would win it's case against Sun, they would still have to pay the fines.
If the courts think you are taking a piss at them, they will just add zeroes to your fines until you stop... and the police enfore those fines if necessary. Even most loyal Microserf will stop at some point before open rebellion.
I'm not really a PJ apologist but I do play one on Slashdot.
I too was quite taken aback by Faramir's apparent boneheadedness. Later I did some reading, both Tolkien and forums, and found quite satisfactory explanation for the "changes".
To many people, including myself, Faramir was defined by single event and a quality shown in that event. He lets the ring go, thus he is wise, especially compared to Boromir. But that's not the whole story, he is also captain of Gondor and a shrewd interrogator. Further, his relationship with his father is strained. Read the book, those things are in there, At points, early in his interrogation of Frodo, Faramir is actually quite un-symphatetic.
Faramir of the movie is actually closer to Faramir of the book than Faramir in my memory was. I think this is true for many people. Faramir is the good guy, and his darker side, or character development, is forgotten. In the movie Faramir is left half-done, his story and development has just begun (see ROTK for the end:-)) and so-far the darker side is more prominent.
It isn't so much changing Faramir's character than it is changing the details of the plot. In the movie Faramir doesn't try to take the ring for himself, he tries to please his father, but in the end he sees that ringbearer must be allowed to go to Mordor. That's not out-of-character for Faramir described in the book. Side-trip to Osgiliath is a detail of the plot and it remains to be seen how that change is spinned in ROTK. What is the importance of Nazgul seeing Frodo (the Ring?) in Osgiliath? It's not in the book but might be used to justify something in ROTK, like the whole Sauron's ill-judged (too hasty) offense on Gondor.
Aragorn goes of the cliff because
1) somebody has to and 2) he is about to get a second flash-back.
It's a pretty good fight with the worg-riders, but it would be (mostly) pointless unless it has impact to the story/movie in the whole. If nobody important gets hurt then the fight is meaningless (ok, there are other ways to have meaningful fights but that's not the point). Aragorn has already had a flash-back. Hearing little voices in your head are you, schizo? Ok, it wouldn't actually be that bad, but being knocked-out is always a good excuse for a flash-back.Also, Aragorn going MIA and then coming back, lets Eowyn do those wonderful looks. You know, all that heavy breathing is now expression and not just asthma.
They wrote it, they own it, so they have the right to abuse your ass, right?
The NDA-part is there for single purpose only: to gain leverage on their customers, to put themselves into a position of power. And then use that leverage to make a bit of money.
How is this bad in a practical sense, you may ask. What if everybody was doing this? There would be source available, but because it is not usable in many situations you would be writing NDAs right and left. The net effect would be the same as if the the source would not be available, except for the small minority who have the time and skill to read every source they need. Open Source isn't about putting a technical elite above the rest of the people, it's about empowering all users (among other things).
Another practical drawback of this is the wasted effort caused by hiding this information. This too is one of the ways Open Source is suposed to help us. No more re-inventing the wheel. NDA preventing users sharing information with each other undermines one the foundations of Open Source world: the network effect.
How bad this could be? Let's take a small step further down this business model's evolution path. Let's intentionally release a GPLed software that is useful in many situations but flawed in some situations. This will create greater then normal need for support and use NDAs to force all paying-customers to come to us. If some competitor starts offering same service, we sue and/or open those parts which we have lost our advantage on.
Does that sound too far fetched? What is there to stop somebody trying this? Not a negative community response, judging from this community's response to a use of NDA lock-in with Open Source product.
--Flam
Re:For those that don't want to click a lot ...
on
Games of the Year
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I hear ya!
A week or so ago I realized within myself a need - nay, a craving - to own a new computer game. After a furious search of several hours I was proud owner of Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle. It's a new game but it's build on engine of Sid Maier's Gettysbury (1998 I think). The best and most interesting game (aside of NWN) of last year is a four-year old re-heat? Later I came to think that I might have done better going with Syberia, but nevermind.
On the positive side, Neverwinter Nights. Yeah, SP isn't that spectacular, but why shouldn't NWN get points for trying to activate and empower users to make their own adventures. So user made content does suck most of the time, but so do most Open Source projects. (The ones that get a mission statement or early alpha into Freshmeat and then die. Also most bands formed suck too.) What more should Bioware have done? They can't make people make great games. Much like Linux, NWN is a tool and a process, and I for one am grateful to all who give me tools.
Total War: Medival is a good and fun game. It has top-notch graphics that add a lot into the experience, you do feel like being there on the battlefield. I enjoyed playing it.
As a game of strategy TWM lacks severely. First of, it is way too easy. On the tactical side, human player will win all even moderately even battles and with the game system limiting size of battles it is easy avoid ever being overmatched. Limit on size of the battles seems to be a performance issue, so on a fast machine you can have larger battles and thus have harder time getting the maximum troops to all battles but thats just a partial remedy.
The strategy of side is even easier. It is easy to identify your strenghts and weaknesses. Path to victory is clear, if not allways presently attainable. Very seldom you you find yourself in trouble because of a mistake or an error of judgement. If playing nation with a bad starting situation, you may get beaten early but that is about it. It is lessens the fun of guiding, say Denmark, to world supremacy, when you realize that you could have done it with the Welsh. In both cases you need to have luck in the beginging as you expand and consolidate but after that it's just work. (Granted that as the Welsh you need quite a bit of luck.)
Aside being too easy TWM suffers from not having meaningful ending. You control most of the world, have armies larger than anyone has ever seen, only way you could lose is by commiting suicide but you still have hours and hours of playing to do because the game won't end until the last province is yours. (Or maybe it does, I haven't actually played any of my games beyond the point I am convinced I can not be beaten.)
So, in summary: an enjoyable game definatelly worth buying and playing, but not a challenge for the strategically inclined.
What we need is COMPLETE de-regulation of a terribly over-regulated industry.
COMPLETE! Like, all rules gone! Yes, I like that. Guess I will set up my own cable operator and start broadcasting over my competors wires. Or maybe I even go and take over the competor at gunpoint. Oh, you didn't mean those rules would be gone and I can't still do anything illegal. What kind of a COMPLETE is that?
The Austrian School of Economics shows time and again that there are no consumers and no providers -- we're both just trading items of value for what we think is more valuable. If you completely deregulate the markets (COMPLETELY) you'll allow competition in, and competition will ALWAYS offer what will make both sides happy at the lowest level.
and
Study the realities of further legislation -- you'll only see that more government introduced "rights" for the consumer will hurt us in the end.
You probably belive that too.
In a market that has naturally high barriers to entry, like cable TV and its wires, unregulated competition heavily favors the established local monopolies. Or were you thinking of communizing the last mile?
In areas where there aren't natural barriers to entry established players would build artificial ones via contracts and licenses. How long would it take Microsoft to crush or buy-out Red Hat and Sun in totally unregulated marketplace? How high would your software tithes be after that?
Or aren't monopolies and cartels part of your totally free market? A law banning them? Some bogus use of an economics theory claiming that they wouldn't form?
In a free-market, perfect or near it, you can't make meaningful profits by trading items of value in a competative situation. But if you can gain leverage in something then by exploiting that advantage you can make profits. Bigger the advantage, bigger the profits. And keep in mind that the most efficient way to play any game is to cheat.
To me Free-market just like Communism, an socio-economic theory that takes view good ideas out of their proper place and context and tries to build a complete system out of them. It's like trying to build a house with just nails and hammer with out the timber and saw.
-- Flam
My favorites, in decending order of importance: transparent goverment, democracy, capitalism
The solution lies in new technology, not new legislation
and later
Its always amazed me how the government can work for years trying to solve a problem and a new technological innovation will come along and make the entire debate irrelevant.
Well, yes and no.
There's going to be legislation and regulations. Otherwise we have anarchy. Not that I would really mind that much. I'm big, mean, smart, healthy and not very particular when it comes to my morals and I have many friends like me, so I would probably do pretty well in a (temporal) anarchy. But I digress.
The assertion that new technology, not new legislation, will solve The Problem is false.
Edwards' Law: You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem.
Current technology is sufficient to solve most problems we have, certainly it's sufficient to bring cable TV to your own home by more than one operator and/or allow you choose channels "a la carte". New technology isn't going to change costs and barriers of entry involved in that drasticly anytime soon.
Any new technology developed will have owner and controller. It will be regulated in some form. Any content this new technology will deliver to your home will have author, owner and controller, who all will be regulated in some form. Each and everyone involved will try to make as much money as they can.
How does your situation as a consumer improve or even change as the the technology improves? Sorry, but it doesn't. You will get the new 3D-holographic-all-senses experience when it's invented because you finance that upgrade by buying a new TV set. That's nice, but not the point here. Do you think you will have more choice in terms of channel packages in that brave new cable TV than you have now? Of course, it might not be channel packages that their business model uses to squeeze you with.
The answer, regretably, is regulation. Unlike technology, which for most part is either good or better, regulations can be good or bad. Tricky part is that what is good for one is bad for another. Regulators should try to strike a working balance, which they usually do when presented with all sides and views. It is very dangerous ignore regulators. Guess what, regulations usually favor the sides trying to influence the regulator and not the ones that were absent from the process.
I don't have the faintest idea what the cable TV industry is like over there (or anywhere else), so I won't comment on what those regulations should be, beyond this: "Free market rules, so bewere or it will rule you too."
Oh, and the part I agreed with is that goverments can really take their time making regulations. In business management that would be called excessive overhead and it's, like, a bad thing.
--Flam
this space for rent
Re:Negative review, but not (intentional) flamebai
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
- Faramir, a noble and wise character in the book, is here really no different than Boromir.
While it is true that there are some drastic changes to Faramir character in TTT, I enjoyed the conflation of Faramir's return to Osgiliath with the Ringbearer's quest (which isn't all that huge a departure from the text, BTW - the Forbidden Pool is quite close to Osgiliath). The confrontation with the wraith provides a visual dramatization of Frodo's plight, Sam's bravery (heretofore not well shown) and convinces Faramir _not_ to take the ring. The closer-to-canon-alternative would have been to have a drawn-out debate between Faramir and Frodo that, which would have to be intercut with Helm's Deep and thus destroy the pacing/tone of both sequences (imagine intercutting between the Council of Elrond and the Tomb of Balin battle - blech). Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if Faramir's character comes into his nobility and bravery in the next film (consider the drawn-out character arc being applied to Aragorn, and my next reply).
Everything that was good about this change could have been achived without changing Faramir.
Assuming that ROTK stays more or less canon, Faramir being significantly less symphatic to the audience underminds storylines of both Eowyn and Denethor, and even Boromir, if a dead man can still have a storyline.
In book the confrontation between Frodo and Faramir is similar to what is in the movie. Where in the movie Faramir says: "The Ring will go to Gondor", there in the book he says (with many words more) to the effect: "The Ring may pass." Change that back to canon and also the location of the confortation with the nazgul. We have the same movie, minus ringbearers sidetrip to Osgillath, plus more canon and sympathic Faramir.
Will ROTK need the ring at Osgillath? Or the changed Faramir? I can't see how, but I can easily see how the changed Faramir is bad for the story.
--Flam
The collected excuses according to me
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I too liked TTT much less then FOTR. Of course, I loved FOTR so "much less" still leaves TTT in the positive.
I left to theater asking both "could it have been better" and "was it any good?" After couple hours I still don't have answer to the first but for the second: "yes, it's pretty good but not excellent."
This must have been really difficult script to write. No begining, no end, loads of material you would like to cut but can't.
Most of the changes you list are quite understandable, or at least the writers had their reasons. I don't know if you have listened to the writers' commentary on the FOTR Extended DVD version. (Althou PJ is the Author of these movies, there are three other writers too.) They talk a lot about their motivation for any and all changes for FOTR. Naturally, pacing is the most important, but often it's the need to build up characters, especially the bad guys. I wouldn't think their motivation has changed too much.
Seems clear that almost half of third book (Return of the King) has been cut. PJ says himself that there's no Scrouging of the Shire and I would hazard a guess he won't linger too much on the Return part after Sauron gets it. Some of the material in the second book has to go into ROTK (the movie).
Saruman has been build up as the active enemy all the way through. In the book Witch-king, Saruman and Sauron are pretty evenly build up. In the movie Witch-King is an non-entity (which I belive to be a mistake) and Sauron not much more. Only Saruman has been really build up. "The Exorcism" is part of that. It had to be Saruman, not Grima, Gandalf takes down a notch or that scene would have been just stepping on a bug. After all, what is Grima the Henchman to Gandalf the Powerful Wizard if not a bug.
Gilmi truly is a comic relief, although he still does some serious damage in battle. I do see the need for a comic relief. TTT would a weary, if not all out horrible, movie without some humor. Gilmi's lines and bumbling are for most part done well, which means that they are funny, work within the story and setting and don't totally distroy the character's serious side. As unofficial member of Friends of Gilmi Society, I would have liked more respectable dwarf... well, I'll live.
Pippin and Merry really did need a moment of glory in this movie. Without it (or them as they both have one) they would have been just baggage. Maybe you and I could watch that baggage being carried because Tolkien wrote it so, but the movie would have been worse because it. The writers have license, maybe even duty, make changes of this moderate magnitude if it makes the movie better.
Eowyn had to be at Helm's Deep. She really had to be. Just had to be. It was that good. Miranda Otto,what an performance! She had little screentime make impact, but boy did make most with it. Maybe I'm not really able to objectivly estimate if the writers were correct in making those changes, after all, it might have sucked if Eowyn hadn't been so masterfully played. Anyways, if Eowyn has to be at Helm's Deep then women and children are there too. Theoden can't have been riden to meet the orcs in battle, because then women and children and Eowyn would have been left behind.... Yeah, my speculation and excuses are getting a bit thick here and I'm not even done yet.... I didn't see Theoden as particulary week. True, he isn't the hero and needs a little nugging along, but that's just consistent with his questionable decision to retreat to Helm's Deep. A decision he must make because we want to have Eowyn there. See, it all fits.:-) And anyways, Theoden gets the best lines of the whole movie in that poem he does while his armor is being put on.
For the the battle with worg riders I offer simply the need for action scene at that point. I don't know if that really was necessary, that would need at least a second watching. (I started to really dislike Moria sequence on the third watching.) Again judging from his own comments on FOTR ExtDVD , PJ seems to be quite sensitive to the need for a fight every now and then.
Another way the worg battle works for the movie is by giving us an excuse for Aragorn tripping into the Arwen flashback. Both the flashback and the excuse are indeed needed. Aragorn already has one regular flashback. There's a limit to the lenght and the frequency of flashbacks you can have before the audience starts wondering about the character's sanity. Another regular flashback would have been pushing it, specially if there hadn't been a fight inbetween. As to the need for the flashbacks and the whole added subplot/drama between Aragorn and Arwen, ask yourself this: in ROTK when A&A finally get eachother, do you want to feel that Aragorn would have done better with Eowyn. Without the added A&A material and with the wonderful Eowyn stuff in, 99% of the audience would have prefered Eowyn over Arwen, no matter what Tolkien wrote in Appendices.
For elves showing up at Helm's Deep... no reason for it that I can see. It worked though. I was in tears, litereally. Maybe that was to some measure get Elrond off the hook. Agent Elrond is nothing short of a manipulative bastard in this movie.
Why was Faramir changed? You got me there. A real character assassination on him. In the books he really is wise and likeable and you feel good for Eowyn when they hook up. In the movie, I'm dreading the prospect that Eowyn, my love, ends up with that bonehead. Maybe they cut that... probably a false hope; they have added female screentime significalty, would they now cut something that is in the book? Anyways, I can't see anything gained character-wise in Faramir's change, nor does consistency so far require it. Reason may be in ROTK but really don't how that could have been a must.
One possible explanation is that the pacing just required more material for Frodo and Sam. Can't really comment pacing with one viewing, so let's just speculate. It is possible that they needed scenes near the end of the movie dealing with F&S. Those scenes would be cut into from the battle of Helm's Deep, so they couldn't be about picking berries in Ithilien. Something strong, preferably action. Assuming I remember the sequences correctly, an added action scene for F&S is needed. Did it have to come at Faramir expense? Couldn't Faramir have turned down the ring and shown his wisdom and strenght and then, for example, have the close encounter with the nazgul almost unchanged (location wasn't important in that scene)?
In the book, the whole F&S in Ithilien and their meeting with Faramir is much too light and full of exposition to be used very directly. Lot of rewriting and adaptation to be done for sure, but thats what they been most always so good at. Pity they failed here.
-- Flam
--what! this emacs doesn't have a spell-checker
Re:Don't reject Brin's ideas because you loved LOT
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 1
Are you seriously suggesting that Billy Zane is ugly?
Slashdot Mirror
Koska suomenkieliset sanat "ikkuna" ja "ikkunointijarjestelma" eivat ole sopivia tavaramerkkeja, kun taas englanninkielinen sana "Windows" on on aivan hyva tavaramerkki.
That's how.
--Flam
As anyone ever seen a valid software patent? I mean a software invention that doesn't just copy an old idea or isn't just a business method. I sure haven't ever seen such a beast, not that I have looked that hard.
I'm willing to ignore just for a moment that in my opinion software shouldn't be patentable to begin with. I'm just interested if anyone has seen a software patent that made them go: "Hey, that's interesting idea."
--Flam
The Feds kick down your door. They arrest you and accuse you of serious wrongdoings connected with terrorism. You haven't done anything of the sort and they are clearly mistaken.
Do you:
* Feel confident that the truth will win the day. As long as you demand your rights, and reasonably cooperate, they will also be reasonable and work to find out the truth.
* Know that you are screwed. Don't matter what you say or do. They have it for you, doesn't matter why. If need be, they will torture or brainwash the confession out of you.
* Feel afraid. They might have something on somebody you know. They even might have something on you that you can't explain. They might have pictures. You just don't know. What ever it is, they will not stop hounding you. Maybe their case won't hold in court, if you get there, but you will be a marked man for the rest of your life. And you have to sell your house and move because your neighbors saw you getting arrested.
Take your pick. Only one is not an oppressive regime (or a product of one).
--Flam
Maybe it's just a slip, but didn't you mean to say "As a human being, he is innocent until proven guilty..."
--Flam
Not really. The country was pretty unstable well before the Soviet intervention. Many coups and revolutions after the British imperialist were thrown out after the World War I. It's very arguable who were the rightful rulers at the time of Soviet intervention but the Afgan communists had as good a claim as any.
Afghanistan timeline of key events in the last century: here.
They have the same anatomy as we have today. Intuition and logic we have today has taken thousands of years to develop and is passed on to us via education.
... well, I don't wonder at all why it took as long as it did.
Big technological development before the rise of "civilization" is food production, the domestication of plants and animals. This isn't just coming up with the idea that you could plant wheat. There are no wild plants that could have by themselves supported food producing people. Farming was a sideshow until more efficient plants were developed via natural selection.
Food production began 13,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent. Before that everybody was pretty much moving around all the time. Say you come up with neat new gadget, like a ceramic bowl. It's clearly useful, but it does weight quite a bit. You are already carrying as much as you can, and everything you have is likely to be essential to your survival. Talk about disincentive to innovation.
Food production also enables people to specialize. Some make war, some govern, some innovate and some produce food for everybody. Even the most skilled and intelligent hunter-gatherer would have to spend most of his time feeding himself.
I don't know when human speech became expressive enough to be compared to modern languages. I would hazard a guess that the Grandpawa from 160000BC didn't have it.
All those reason together
--Flam
- Mega-trends rule!
What's so soccer-team-name about those names?
Let's try:
FC Bayern Robots
AC Milan Three-legs
Real Poodles
Paris St All-These-Dogs-Are-For-Sale
--Flam
You _can_ use other people's trademarks for comparison purposes you know.
But you can't put the D20 logo on the front cover without going OGL. Without the logo your new and unknown product will be placed in the exotiques shelf in the back of the store, with the logo your place is in the front shelfs with other D20/OGL products. With the logo you also get noticed and reviewed by (mostly Web-based) publications.
Want to make a RPG product, eh? To go with D20/OGL or not to go? Talk about no-brainer.
--Flam
A Monty Python parody? Hmmmm ... no, does not compute.
And honestly Bosnia shouldn't have been our problem. Neither should have Iraq or Somalia. That is what the UN is for. Unfortunately the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent. I am still sickened by the Srebrenica massacre where the UN set up a safe haven, put Dutch troops there, and just watched idly by while 7,000 Bosnian men were killed because they were the "wrong religion".
Except that UN does not have any armed forces of it's own. Nor will or should it have any in the forseeable future. The world isn't ready for a global government yet, unfortunatelly. Best we can realisticly have right now is UN mandating use of force by it's member states.
I also object the statement that "the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent." I too am sickened by Srebrenica. But to say that the UN or the Dutch "watched idly by" the massacre is simply slanderous. The lightly armed UN/Dutch troops guarding Srebrenica were outnumbered, outgunned and cut off from suport. Would the Serbs have attacked had the UN troops refused allow the Serbs in? I don't know, but I can't blame the commanders on the field too much for not gambling with the lives of their soldiers.
Would US commanders in that situation have done anything different? Probably not. Although it must be said that it is unlikely that an US commander would find himself in that situation, as the US does not send out lightly armed ground troops into danger. Military considerations have not always been sufficently present in UN planning, hopefully a better balance has now been found.
East Timor and Angola come to mind as succesful recent UN missions. Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia are now at peace. There were serious errors and failures in the Balkan missions but they were successes in that the wars are kept local and the war-mongers were checked.
For all his tough words Tony Blair may find it impossible to lead the UK into war without UN Security Council resolution mandating it. There is no threat of force against the UK by any objecting nation, and there needs to be none. The internal war opposition will gain strenght in the absense of the UN mandate and, I belive and hope, be strong enough to prevent the UK involvement. That would an impressive feat by the UN.
Would the US go to war alone, without the UK? Militarily they could do it. There is little that the rest of world can do if the US attacks Iraq, even if it wanted to. That doesn't mean that the UN is impotent, it would mean that the US strong or foolish enough to ignore the rest of the world.
--Flam
Wouldn't "a coherent conversation between his two personallities" equal "the incoherent ramblings of an insane"?
Just checking
--Flam
I agree on the principle. These extensions upon extensions are quite sickening. I have no sympathy for people demanding profit for some idea their parent/grandparent had almost century ago.
.
As a practical matter however, restoration of old films is an applaudable effort. It is time-consuming and expensive, requires specialized skills and adds value (both in economical and cultural sense). I would find it reasonable to grant new or extended copyright (of reasonable lenght) for the restored/remastered version. I may well br wrong here, but my understanding is that restoring an artwork does not constitute a creation of an copyrightable work
So I can't feel too much cheated out by Suzzie here.
--Flam
Python OS - Supposedly this exists, but since no-one cares, we won't go into it.
Nah.
Python OS - Reliable, powerful and with intuitive GUI. However, nobody uses it because it comes with an spell- and grammar-checker that forces you to write correct English in clear and mild-mannered style.
--Flam
IN SOVIET RUSSIA YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED HOW TO READ.
1) (Alleged) Breach of contract.
2) (Alleged) Illegal use of the de facto monopoly status.
3) A remedy is needed now, not when the case is finished.
--Flam
I believe the standard procedure would be to fine the offending party for not complying the court's orders. Something to the tune of $10M per day of continued uncompliance. And any such fines would be a separate issue from the rest of the case. Meaning that even if Microsoft would win it's case against Sun, they would still have to pay the fines.
... and the police enfore those fines if necessary. Even most loyal Microserf will stop at some point before open rebellion.
If the courts think you are taking a piss at them, they will just add zeroes to your fines until you stop
--Flam
I'm not really a PJ apologist but I do play one on Slashdot.
:-)) and so-far the darker side is more prominent.
I too was quite taken aback by Faramir's apparent boneheadedness. Later I did some reading, both Tolkien and forums, and found quite satisfactory explanation for the "changes".
To many people, including myself, Faramir was defined by single event and a quality shown in that event. He lets the ring go, thus he is wise, especially compared to Boromir. But that's not the whole story, he is also captain of Gondor and a shrewd interrogator. Further, his relationship with his father is strained. Read the book, those things are in there, At points, early in his interrogation of Frodo, Faramir is actually quite un-symphatetic.
Faramir of the movie is actually closer to Faramir of the book than Faramir in my memory was. I think this is true for many people. Faramir is the good guy, and his darker side, or character development, is forgotten. In the movie Faramir is left half-done, his story and development has just begun (see ROTK for the end
It isn't so much changing Faramir's character than it is changing the details of the plot. In the movie Faramir doesn't try to take the ring for himself, he tries to please his father, but in the end he sees that ringbearer must be allowed to go to Mordor. That's not out-of-character for Faramir described in the book. Side-trip to Osgiliath is a detail of the plot and it remains to be seen how that change is spinned in ROTK. What is the importance of Nazgul seeing Frodo (the Ring?) in Osgiliath? It's not in the book but might be used to justify something in ROTK, like the whole Sauron's ill-judged (too hasty) offense on Gondor.
Aragorn goes of the cliff because
1) somebody has to and
2) he is about to get a second flash-back.
It's a pretty good fight with the worg-riders, but it would be (mostly) pointless unless it has impact to the story/movie in the whole. If nobody important gets hurt then the fight is meaningless (ok, there are other ways to have meaningful fights but that's not the point). Aragorn has already had a flash-back. Hearing little voices in your head are you, schizo? Ok, it wouldn't actually be that bad, but being knocked-out is always a good excuse for a flash-back.Also, Aragorn going MIA and then coming back, lets Eowyn do those wonderful looks. You know, all that heavy breathing is now expression and not just asthma.
--Flam
They wrote it, they own it, so they have the right to abuse your ass, right?
The NDA-part is there for single purpose only: to gain leverage on their customers, to put themselves into a position of power. And then use that leverage to make a bit of money.
How is this bad in a practical sense, you may ask. What if everybody was doing this? There would be source available, but because it is not usable in many situations you would be writing NDAs right and left. The net effect would be the same as if the the source would not be available, except for the small minority who have the time and skill to read every source they need. Open Source isn't about putting a technical elite above the rest of the people, it's about empowering all users (among other things).
Another practical drawback of this is the wasted effort caused by hiding this information. This too is one of the ways Open Source is suposed to help us. No more re-inventing the wheel. NDA preventing users sharing information with each other undermines one the foundations of Open Source world: the network effect.
How bad this could be? Let's take a small step further down this business model's evolution path. Let's intentionally release a GPLed software that is useful in many situations but flawed in some situations. This will create greater then normal need for support and use NDAs to force all paying-customers to come to us. If some competitor starts offering same service, we sue and/or open those parts which we have lost our advantage on.
Does that sound too far fetched? What is there to stop somebody trying this? Not a negative community response, judging from this community's response to a use of NDA lock-in with Open Source product.
--Flam
I hear ya!
A week or so ago I realized within myself a need - nay, a craving - to own a new computer game. After a furious search of several hours I was proud owner of Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle. It's a new game but it's build on engine of Sid Maier's Gettysbury (1998 I think). The best and most interesting game (aside of NWN) of last year is a four-year old re-heat? Later I came to think that I might have done better going with Syberia, but nevermind.
On the positive side, Neverwinter Nights. Yeah, SP isn't that spectacular, but why shouldn't NWN get points for trying to activate and empower users to make their own adventures. So user made content does suck most of the time, but so do most Open Source projects. (The ones that get a mission statement or early alpha into Freshmeat and then die. Also most bands formed suck too.) What more should Bioware have done? They can't make people make great games. Much like Linux, NWN is a tool and a process, and I for one am grateful to all who give me tools.
--Flam
Total War: Medival is a good and fun game. It has top-notch graphics that add a lot into the experience, you do feel like being there on the battlefield. I enjoyed playing it.
As a game of strategy TWM lacks severely. First of, it is way too easy. On the tactical side, human player will win all even moderately even battles and with the game system limiting size of battles it is easy avoid ever being overmatched. Limit on size of the battles seems to be a performance issue, so on a fast machine you can have larger battles and thus have harder time getting the maximum troops to all battles but thats just a partial remedy.
The strategy of side is even easier. It is easy to identify your strenghts and weaknesses. Path to victory is clear, if not allways presently attainable. Very seldom you you find yourself in trouble because of a mistake or an error of judgement. If playing nation with a bad starting situation, you may get beaten early but that is about it. It is lessens the fun of guiding, say Denmark, to world supremacy, when you realize that you could have done it with the Welsh. In both cases you need to have luck in the beginging as you expand and consolidate but after that it's just work. (Granted that as the Welsh you need quite a bit of luck.)
Aside being too easy TWM suffers from not having meaningful ending. You control most of the world, have armies larger than anyone has ever seen, only way you could lose is by commiting suicide but you still have hours and hours of playing to do because the game won't end until the last province is yours. (Or maybe it does, I haven't actually played any of my games beyond the point I am convinced I can not be beaten.)
So, in summary: an enjoyable game definatelly worth buying and playing, but not a challenge for the strategically inclined.
--Flam
What we need is COMPLETE de-regulation of a terribly over-regulated industry.
COMPLETE! Like, all rules gone! Yes, I like that. Guess I will set up my own cable operator and start broadcasting over my competors wires. Or maybe I even go and take over the competor at gunpoint. Oh, you didn't mean those rules would be gone and I can't still do anything illegal. What kind of a COMPLETE is that?
The Austrian School of Economics shows time and again that there are no consumers and no providers -- we're both just trading items of value for what we think is more valuable. If you completely deregulate the markets (COMPLETELY) you'll allow competition in, and competition will ALWAYS offer what will make both sides happy at the lowest level.
and
Study the realities of further legislation -- you'll only see that more government introduced "rights" for the consumer will hurt us in the end.
You probably belive that too.
In a market that has naturally high barriers to entry, like cable TV and its wires, unregulated competition heavily favors the established local monopolies. Or were you thinking of communizing the last mile?
In areas where there aren't natural barriers to entry established players would build artificial ones via contracts and licenses. How long would it take Microsoft to crush or buy-out Red Hat and Sun in totally unregulated marketplace? How high would your software tithes be after that?
Or aren't monopolies and cartels part of your totally free market? A law banning them? Some bogus use of an economics theory claiming that they wouldn't form?
In a free-market, perfect or near it, you can't make meaningful profits by trading items of value in a competative situation. But if you can gain leverage in something then by exploiting that advantage you can make profits. Bigger the advantage, bigger the profits. And keep in mind that the most efficient way to play any game is to cheat.
To me Free-market just like Communism, an socio-economic theory that takes view good ideas out of their proper place and context and tries to build a complete system out of them. It's like trying to build a house with just nails and hammer with out the timber and saw.
-- Flam
My favorites, in decending order of importance: transparent goverment, democracy, capitalism
The solution lies in new technology, not new legislation
and later
Its always amazed me how the government can work for years trying to solve a problem and a new technological innovation will come along and make the entire debate irrelevant.
Well, yes and no.
There's going to be legislation and regulations. Otherwise we have anarchy. Not that I would really mind that much. I'm big, mean, smart, healthy and not very particular when it comes to my morals and I have many friends like me, so I would probably do pretty well in a (temporal) anarchy. But I digress.
The assertion that new technology, not new legislation, will solve The Problem is false.
Edwards' Law: You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem.
Current technology is sufficient to solve most problems we have, certainly it's sufficient to bring cable TV to your own home by more than one operator and/or allow you choose channels "a la carte". New technology isn't going to change costs and barriers of entry involved in that drasticly anytime soon.
Any new technology developed will have owner and controller. It will be regulated in some form. Any content this new technology will deliver to your home will have author, owner and controller, who all will be regulated in some form. Each and everyone involved will try to make as much money as they can.
How does your situation as a consumer improve or even change as the the technology improves? Sorry, but it doesn't. You will get the new 3D-holographic-all-senses experience when it's invented because you finance that upgrade by buying a new TV set. That's nice, but not the point here. Do you think you will have more choice in terms of channel packages in that brave new cable TV than you have now? Of course, it might not be channel packages that their business model uses to squeeze you with.
The answer, regretably, is regulation. Unlike technology, which for most part is either good or better, regulations can be good or bad. Tricky part is that what is good for one is bad for another. Regulators should try to strike a working balance, which they usually do when presented with all sides and views. It is very dangerous ignore regulators. Guess what, regulations usually favor the sides trying to influence the regulator and not the ones that were absent from the process.
I don't have the faintest idea what the cable TV industry is like over there (or anywhere else), so I won't comment on what those regulations should be, beyond this: "Free market rules, so bewere or it will rule you too."
Oh, and the part I agreed with is that goverments can really take their time making regulations. In business management that would be called excessive overhead and it's, like, a bad thing.
--Flam
this space for rent
Everything that was good about this change could have been achived without changing Faramir.
Assuming that ROTK stays more or less canon, Faramir being significantly less symphatic to the audience underminds storylines of both Eowyn and Denethor, and even Boromir, if a dead man can still have a storyline.
In book the confrontation between Frodo and Faramir is similar to what is in the movie. Where in the movie Faramir says: "The Ring will go to Gondor", there in the book he says (with many words more) to the effect: "The Ring may pass." Change that back to canon and also the location of the confortation with the nazgul. We have the same movie, minus ringbearers sidetrip to Osgillath, plus more canon and sympathic Faramir.
Will ROTK need the ring at Osgillath? Or the changed Faramir? I can't see how, but I can easily see how the changed Faramir is bad for the story.
--Flam
I too liked TTT much less then FOTR. Of course, I loved FOTR so "much less" still leaves TTT in the positive.
... well, I'll live.
,what an performance! She had little screentime make impact, but boy did make most with it. Maybe I'm not really able to objectivly estimate if the writers were correct in making those changes, after all, it might have sucked if Eowyn hadn't been so masterfully played. Anyways, if Eowyn has to be at Helm's Deep then women and children are there too. Theoden can't have been riden to meet the orcs in battle, because then women and children and Eowyn would have been left behind. ... Yeah, my speculation and excuses are getting a bit thick here and I'm not even done yet. ... I didn't see Theoden as particulary week. True, he isn't the hero and needs a little nugging along, but that's just consistent with his questionable decision to retreat to Helm's Deep. A decision he must make because we want to have Eowyn there. See, it all fits. :-) And anyways, Theoden gets the best lines of the whole movie in that poem he does while his armor is being put on.
... no reason for it that I can see. It worked though. I was in tears, litereally. Maybe that was to some measure get Elrond off the hook. Agent Elrond is nothing short of a manipulative bastard in this movie.
... probably a false hope; they have added female screentime significalty, would they now cut something that is in the book? Anyways, I can't see anything gained character-wise in Faramir's change, nor does consistency so far require it. Reason may be in ROTK but really don't how that could have been a must.
I left to theater asking both "could it have been better" and "was it any good?" After couple hours I still don't have answer to the first but for the second: "yes, it's pretty good but not excellent."
This must have been really difficult script to write. No begining, no end, loads of material you would like to cut but can't.
Most of the changes you list are quite understandable, or at least the writers had their reasons. I don't know if you have listened to the writers' commentary on the FOTR Extended DVD version. (Althou PJ is the Author of these movies, there are three other writers too.) They talk a lot about their motivation for any and all changes for FOTR. Naturally, pacing is the most important, but often it's the need to build up characters, especially the bad guys. I wouldn't think their motivation has changed too much.
Seems clear that almost half of third book (Return of the King) has been cut. PJ says himself that there's no Scrouging of the Shire and I would hazard a guess he won't linger too much on the Return part after Sauron gets it. Some of the material in the second book has to go into ROTK (the movie).
Saruman has been build up as the active enemy all the way through. In the book Witch-king, Saruman and Sauron are pretty evenly build up. In the movie Witch-King is an non-entity (which I belive to be a mistake) and Sauron not much more. Only Saruman has been really build up. "The Exorcism" is part of that. It had to be Saruman, not Grima, Gandalf takes down a notch or that scene would have been just stepping on a bug. After all, what is Grima the Henchman to Gandalf the Powerful Wizard if not a bug.
Gilmi truly is a comic relief, although he still does some serious damage in battle. I do see the need for a comic relief. TTT would a weary, if not all out horrible, movie without some humor. Gilmi's lines and bumbling are for most part done well, which means that they are funny, work within the story and setting and don't totally distroy the character's serious side. As unofficial member of Friends of Gilmi Society, I would have liked more respectable dwarf
Pippin and Merry really did need a moment of glory in this movie. Without it (or them as they both have one) they would have been just baggage. Maybe you and I could watch that baggage being carried because Tolkien wrote it so, but the movie would have been worse because it. The writers have license, maybe even duty, make changes of this moderate magnitude if it makes the movie better.
Eowyn had to be at Helm's Deep. She really had to be. Just had to be. It was that good. Miranda Otto
For the the battle with worg riders I offer simply the need for action scene at that point. I don't know if that really was necessary, that would need at least a second watching. (I started to really dislike Moria sequence on the third watching.) Again judging from his own comments on FOTR ExtDVD , PJ seems to be quite sensitive to the need for a fight every now and then.
Another way the worg battle works for the movie is by giving us an excuse for Aragorn tripping into the Arwen flashback. Both the flashback and the excuse are indeed needed. Aragorn already has one regular flashback. There's a limit to the lenght and the frequency of flashbacks you can have before the audience starts wondering about the character's sanity. Another regular flashback would have been pushing it, specially if there hadn't been a fight inbetween. As to the need for the flashbacks and the whole added subplot/drama between Aragorn and Arwen, ask yourself this: in ROTK when A&A finally get eachother, do you want to feel that Aragorn would have done better with Eowyn. Without the added A&A material and with the wonderful Eowyn stuff in, 99% of the audience would have prefered Eowyn over Arwen, no matter what Tolkien wrote in Appendices.
For elves showing up at Helm's Deep
Why was Faramir changed? You got me there. A real character assassination on him. In the books he really is wise and likeable and you feel good for Eowyn when they hook up. In the movie, I'm dreading the prospect that Eowyn, my love, ends up with that bonehead. Maybe they cut that
One possible explanation is that the pacing just required more material for Frodo and Sam. Can't really comment pacing with one viewing, so let's just speculate. It is possible that they needed scenes near the end of the movie dealing with F&S. Those scenes would be cut into from the battle of Helm's Deep, so they couldn't be about picking berries in Ithilien. Something strong, preferably action. Assuming I remember the sequences correctly, an added action scene for F&S is needed. Did it have to come at Faramir expense? Couldn't Faramir have turned down the ring and shown his wisdom and strenght and then, for example, have the close encounter with the nazgul almost unchanged (location wasn't important in that scene)?
In the book, the whole F&S in Ithilien and their meeting with Faramir is much too light and full of exposition to be used very directly. Lot of rewriting and adaptation to be done for sure, but thats what they been most always so good at. Pity they failed here.
-- Flam
--what! this emacs doesn't have a spell-checker
Are you seriously suggesting that Billy Zane is ugly?
I don't really disagree with the parent. Frodo is basicly the everyman etc.
... but not by that much.
But also:
Legolas is elvish prince, son of Lord of Mirkwood.
Gilmi is of House of Durin, not very high in the line of succession, but certainly of the highest nobility.
And even if the hobbits aren't really into that feudal stuff they do have their VIPs.
Pippin is the son of Thane(Lord) of Shire, clearly a noble.
And if memory serves, Merri is the son another hobbit lord, the head of the house/family Brandibuck.
Baggings are also well respected, sometimes refered as gentle-hobbits.
Only Sam is of clearly humble begingings, a working class lad.
Sam does grow the most and in someways the highest.
Is comparing those folks to kings/elite ridiculous? They aren't the heroic nobles and Gunga Din?
Yeah, Brin is stretching
-- Flam