(spoilers maybe below)
Honestly, although I have mixed feelings about this trilogy, I think that this movie produces a tragic sadness that hovers over the original trilogy. Anakin wasn't just an asshole who turned to the darkside, his turn may not have totally been his fault both the sith and the jedi share the blame. I think that makes darth vader a sad tragic character instead of the evil demon he is made out to be in the OT.
In hindsight, I think many are disappointed that the scene where Anakin turns doesn't make sense because he is upset one moment and then a murderer the next. Personally, I think Lucas constructed this movie in the wrong order.
Why not have put the confrontation between Anakin and Obi wan earlier in the movie, perhaps having him not turn, but flee after killing Mace (Sam Jackson's character). Then Obi wan and him fight, producing a similar result as in the movie. Then perhaps having him storm the Jedi temple as the robotic darth vader from the other movies? It would have been a lot more believable if they had kept him away from being a mass murderer until he was burned and behind the famous mask. It also would have been bad ass seeing darth vader from the original trilogy storming in front of an army of storm troopers.
Only some features are adapted due to selective pressure (the type of evolution most people are assuming in this article), some features are adapted due to random genetic drift (neutral genotypes moving around). Just because there isn't selection does not mean that some unselected traits can take hold.
Honestly, I find it similarly interesting that/. is willing to amend the story based on a complaint by Wired (or whatever motivated it) while they publish rampant crap loads of other times. Does the big good guy for/. get the amendment while incorrect stuff pointing to the little guy go unchanged?
I don't understand why these new technology providers go belly up without getting sold to someone. There is a lot of value there and just throwing it away must be a big waste.
What are you talking about? I use nicklemetalhydride cells in all my smoke detectors and I haven't had to change them in two years! Next I'm going to install in my dads pacemaker....
I believe strongly that the feds should consolidate their IT into a department of Technology or IT. I know that the NIH (HHS), the NSF, the DoD and the DOE commonly fund IT research, but it often doesn't fit into their missions. Our gov't should support Technology development and infrastructure just like it supports health (HHS), transportation (DoT), Energy (DoE), Science (NSF), security (HS) and defense (DoD). Who is going to build the next public cyberinfrastructure if it isn't appropriate for the other departments?
If people's Mac's start getting infected with virus's propelled by the winner of this competition's underpinning's, I would very much like to see a class action lawsuit brought against this dangerous and stupid competition. We have enough things to worry about than 50 of our smartest hacker friends developing virus code for minions of mindless drone script kiddies. And being encouraged by a competition? Are people out of their minds?
Personally, I would go to the University. In my experience most of the classes you take the first couple of years are not going to be useful for you (in a specific sense) in the long term. I took Scandinavian literature in translation, for example. I think if you knew exactly what field you wanted to take you would be very frustrated because only 20% of your classes are actually in that field. Get the broad stuff over as fast as possible.
While I agree that in the digital realm many of the rules that apply to physical manifestations do not transfer over. I also agree that DRM is flawed.
I do not agree, however, that, "In the digital realm, ideas of "ownership" and "theft" are meaningless." and I'm willing to bet that a lot of/.'ers don't agree as well. Even the hallowed GPL depends on foundations of digital ownership, for without these common rules it simply would not be enforceable. Copyright law has been around longer than digital media, and it also gives rights to creators of 'virtual' content such as a book, movie or song.
/. enforces its ownership rules as well. Recently, CmdrTaco, in his blog, suggested he would send the equivalent a C+D to enforce/.'s trademark.. Just because something can be transfered 'nearly free' does not make their creators free of rights.
Anyways, your perception is not based on reality, because the reality of the world is that digital rights are here to stay, and they've been here a lot longer than you imply. As for DRM, I believe it signals a bad days ahead for computer users. And I hope that the trend of incorporating things that are controlled by a company and not the hardware owner are a failure.
However, it seems to consider every title to be "under copyright". I mean, Romeo and Juliet is centuries old, and surely in the public domain. If it's considered copyrighted, then just about everything will be.
So what if they aren't distributing them, didn't google committ copyright infringement just by copying all those materials? I'm not sure that scanning entire libraries falls under fair use.
I disagree. Her arguments were excellent, but her making them was politically motivated because she knew that nothing she would say would change the voting on this matter -- yet she still said them. She was right, I would say.
Your points are good. A case in point is the grilling today of Condi Rice by Barbara Boxer. Although it was politically motivated, Boxer did give excellent arguments and ample evidence that Dr. Rice has evaded the truth from the beginning and misled Americans when arguing Iraq was a solution to 9/11. It was kind of scary that being so excellent a manipulator (whether she was aware she was doing it or not) could, in hindsight, get her into the position of secretary of state.
That works, but it doesn't work for any server functions that a/.'er might have running on their home system. (I realize that is beyond the scope of the article -- which I didn't read). MySQL and any web/cgi data won't work if rsync is occuring while people might be using that data. Similarly setting a cron job to rsync might cause problems if you are accidentally editing that data while it is being used.
I went over to her best friend's house, we talked about it and decided that we would burn it in the fireplace together.
In my opinion you make a good argument as to why Yahoo is in the wrong here. You decided to burn it because you were the person dealing with her things and that it was appropriate. But that is not what is happening here, Yahoo, a service provider, is deciding for you that you can't have access to her diary. An (probably poor) analogy would be if her landlord (assuming she rented) told you he had taken her diary and that you couldn't have access to it because it was her privacy. My personal feeling is you would have been pissed in such a situation, even knowing that you might burn it.
Agreed. Who gives Yahoo the right to decide what happens to your property? It is up to your will and the executor of your estate to decide. Yahoo is going down the wrong path here (as are most of/., it seems).
More over, what gives Yahoo the right to determine who has access to the data of the deceased? This should be determined by the people that deal with the property issues of death and wills.
Do dead people have a right to privacy? The more conservative members of the court aren't even sure that living people have a right to privacy. Personally, I think that if Yahoo owns the mail they manage for people they have the right to not give it out, *but*, if they don't own the mail and the recipient does (which I believe should be) then that data must be transfered to the executor of the estate of the deceased.
Although I have never seen it in a photograph, couldn't this have been caused by visual waves caused by the atmosphere? Anyone who has looked through a telescope in (crappy) skies knows that objects appear to oscillate rapidly. I don't doubt that a meteor could travel in such a way as to pick up on this. The reason the stars don't appear in this way is because they are fixed objects in a time lapse photo and are averages of all the waves.
-Sean
I don't use bittorent, but honestly, I fail to see the difference between your post and the content of a site like loki. You inferred that you can get Blade 3 from Loki, just as Loki infers you can get it from a virtual peer to peer network. There is a very fine line between clicking, and cutting and pasting. You are right, they *are* riding a legal fence, and I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. That said, the MPAA is, right now in the drivers seat. They sue based on the law, they help congress people write the law, and right now the most appropriate laws aren't really all that clear, even though you would like them to be.
There is a slippery slope here that has everything to do with your rights. When you visited their site, you gave them your IP address. When the MPAA gets a hold of their records, what are they going to do with your IP? Probably nothing, right? Did you commit a crime by visiting there? No, but do you want to pay a lawyer to *prove* you didn't download anything? What if they decide it is up to the visitors to prove they didn't commit a crime?
I understand this, I think it is cool and I wish we used it. That said the whole easier to code thing is total *BS*. Can you imagine the coding nightmare that would ensue if we all decided to switch to a new calendar? Old devices, new devices, calendar translators, it would be the worst of both worlds and hell for all.
Slashdot Mirror
(spoilers maybe below) Honestly, although I have mixed feelings about this trilogy, I think that this movie produces a tragic sadness that hovers over the original trilogy. Anakin wasn't just an asshole who turned to the darkside, his turn may not have totally been his fault both the sith and the jedi share the blame. I think that makes darth vader a sad tragic character instead of the evil demon he is made out to be in the OT.
Why not have put the confrontation between Anakin and Obi wan earlier in the movie, perhaps having him not turn, but flee after killing Mace (Sam Jackson's character). Then Obi wan and him fight, producing a similar result as in the movie. Then perhaps having him storm the Jedi temple as the robotic darth vader from the other movies? It would have been a lot more believable if they had kept him away from being a mass murderer until he was burned and behind the famous mask. It also would have been bad ass seeing darth vader from the original trilogy storming in front of an army of storm troopers.
Only some features are adapted due to selective pressure (the type of evolution most people are assuming in this article), some features are adapted due to random genetic drift (neutral genotypes moving around). Just because there isn't selection does not mean that some unselected traits can take hold.
Honestly, I find it similarly interesting that /. is willing to amend the story based on a complaint by Wired (or whatever motivated it) while they publish rampant crap loads of other times. Does the big good guy for /. get the amendment while incorrect stuff pointing to the little guy go unchanged?
I don't understand why these new technology providers go belly up without getting sold to someone. There is a lot of value there and just throwing it away must be a big waste.
What are you talking about? I use nicklemetalhydride cells in all my smoke detectors and I haven't had to change them in two years! Next I'm going to install in my dads pacemaker....
I believe strongly that the feds should consolidate their IT into a department of Technology or IT. I know that the NIH (HHS), the NSF, the DoD and the DOE commonly fund IT research, but it often doesn't fit into their missions. Our gov't should support Technology development and infrastructure just like it supports health (HHS), transportation (DoT), Energy (DoE), Science (NSF), security (HS) and defense (DoD). Who is going to build the next public cyberinfrastructure if it isn't appropriate for the other departments?
I have a dell laptop with a dead pixel. Doesn't bother me, honestly, but it is noticeable.
If people's Mac's start getting infected with virus's propelled by the winner of this competition's underpinning's, I would very much like to see a class action lawsuit brought against this dangerous and stupid competition. We have enough things to worry about than 50 of our smartest hacker friends developing virus code for minions of mindless drone script kiddies. And being encouraged by a competition? Are people out of their minds?
Personally, I would go to the University. In my experience most of the classes you take the first couple of years are not going to be useful for you (in a specific sense) in the long term. I took Scandinavian literature in translation, for example. I think if you knew exactly what field you wanted to take you would be very frustrated because only 20% of your classes are actually in that field. Get the broad stuff over as fast as possible.
I do not agree, however, that, "In the digital realm, ideas of "ownership" and "theft" are meaningless." and I'm willing to bet that a lot of /.'ers don't agree as well. Even the hallowed GPL depends on foundations of digital ownership, for without these common rules it simply would not be enforceable. Copyright law has been around longer than digital media, and it also gives rights to creators of 'virtual' content such as a book, movie or song.
Anyways, your perception is not based on reality, because the reality of the world is that digital rights are here to stay, and they've been here a lot longer than you imply. As for DRM, I believe it signals a bad days ahead for computer users. And I hope that the trend of incorporating things that are controlled by a company and not the hardware owner are a failure.
So what if they aren't distributing them, didn't google committ copyright infringement just by copying all those materials? I'm not sure that scanning entire libraries falls under fair use.
You can fool me once. You can fool me twice. You can ... oh well, nevermind.
I disagree. Her arguments were excellent, but her making them was politically motivated because she knew that nothing she would say would change the voting on this matter -- yet she still said them. She was right, I would say.
Your points are good. A case in point is the grilling today of Condi Rice by Barbara Boxer. Although it was politically motivated, Boxer did give excellent arguments and ample evidence that Dr. Rice has evaded the truth from the beginning and misled Americans when arguing Iraq was a solution to 9/11. It was kind of scary that being so excellent a manipulator (whether she was aware she was doing it or not) could, in hindsight, get her into the position of secretary of state.
That works, but it doesn't work for any server functions that a /.'er might have running on their home system. (I realize that is beyond the scope of the article -- which I didn't read). MySQL and any web/cgi data won't work if rsync is occuring while people might be using that data. Similarly setting a cron job to rsync might cause problems if you are accidentally editing that data while it is being used.
In my opinion you make a good argument as to why Yahoo is in the wrong here. You decided to burn it because you were the person dealing with her things and that it was appropriate. But that is not what is happening here, Yahoo, a service provider, is deciding for you that you can't have access to her diary. An (probably poor) analogy would be if her landlord (assuming she rented) told you he had taken her diary and that you couldn't have access to it because it was her privacy. My personal feeling is you would have been pissed in such a situation, even knowing that you might burn it.
Agreed. Who gives Yahoo the right to decide what happens to your property? It is up to your will and the executor of your estate to decide. Yahoo is going down the wrong path here (as are most of /., it seems).
More over, what gives Yahoo the right to determine who has access to the data of the deceased? This should be determined by the people that deal with the property issues of death and wills.
Do dead people have a right to privacy? The more conservative members of the court aren't even sure that living people have a right to privacy. Personally, I think that if Yahoo owns the mail they manage for people they have the right to not give it out, *but*, if they don't own the mail and the recipient does (which I believe should be) then that data must be transfered to the executor of the estate of the deceased.
Although I have never seen it in a photograph, couldn't this have been caused by visual waves caused by the atmosphere? Anyone who has looked through a telescope in (crappy) skies knows that objects appear to oscillate rapidly. I don't doubt that a meteor could travel in such a way as to pick up on this. The reason the stars don't appear in this way is because they are fixed objects in a time lapse photo and are averages of all the waves. -Sean
this must be that giant sucking sound Ross Perot was referring to.
There is a slippery slope here that has everything to do with your rights. When you visited their site, you gave them your IP address. When the MPAA gets a hold of their records, what are they going to do with your IP? Probably nothing, right? Did you commit a crime by visiting there? No, but do you want to pay a lawyer to *prove* you didn't download anything? What if they decide it is up to the visitors to prove they didn't commit a crime?
Uhh, not so fast. Maybe you should check your facts.
No.
Please.