"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - The U.S. Constitution
"Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison." - CNN
I'm not a fan of these jackasses who are making their point at military funerals. But isn't this type of thing exactly what the government is NOT supposed to be allowed to do?
"The reporter (or more likely editor) is a PC fool whom doesn't realize the simple basic truth. Violent Video games save us from wayyyyyy more random acts of violence then they do encourage them. Anyone whose actually played the things in a bad mood knows what I'm talking about."
Nearly without exception, anybody claiming to be stating a "simple basic truth" is stating nothing of the sort.
This claim is, I think, substantially more absurd than the counterclaim that violent video games spawn violence.
(An old rant of mine. it was originally written to address the habits of forum posters, but most of it applies. Yes, I know the grammar isn't perfect.)
"I got a reely importent point to make with regurds to the pollitikal sityewation."
Guess how much stock people will put in my opinion if I start my diatribe with such a statement?
That's right. None.
Thanks to the internet we can be bombarded with thousands of opinions daily. Weblogs, message boards, and Usenet give the average person a podium from which they can reach the masses.
You have the attention of many people when you post in an active forum. So you tap the microphone, prepare your thoughts, and weigh in.
"I dont think ur rite, lol!"
Well done, Potsie.
Look, I realize that North American schools have left a great many of you with substandard language skills. I know that the spelling of many multisyllabic words is beyond the grasp of at least a quarter of the population. In some cases it's not even your own fault, although for many it comes down to a lack of study and poor parenting.
I just can't help but think that when you are online, your words are your avatar. They help to determine what people think of you. If you can't spell, use numbers for words, make acronyms out of everything in sight, and think that this means you are "plugged in" rather than uneducated, then be prepared to be ignored by anybody who doesn't come in at, or below, your literacy level.
Want respect? Learn to spell. I don't care if you're out of school. Education doesn't end when classes are over.
I've heard people say, "Well, spelling and grammar shouldn't matter. It's the idea that's important." To them, I say, "f you can't grasp the basics of language, why should I pay attention?"
Take care when you communicate in writing. Use punctuation, capitalization, and real words. Acronyms should be reserved for organizations and industry terms.
We're a society of substandard communicators. Do your part to help raise the bar.
I'm 35 years old. I got my learners permit at 14, and my drivers license at 16. I've owned a car since my 16th birthday, and been continually licensed and insured since then.
I've owned: '72 Dodge Dart, '80 Dodge Omni, '82-ish Subaru GS, '86 Cavalier, '96 Dodge Neon, '98 Mazda MX-5, 2002 Mazda MX-5, and a Barracuda of unknown yearage somewhere in there. Might be one or two that I've missed.
I've never had an accident, although I've had dozens of photo radar tickets (which hereabouts don't impact your license). My insurance rating is as high as it gets, and consequently I pay a low premuim. I've done amateur autocross over several summers. I'm the best driver I know. Sounds egotistical, but it's true. I'll give up my stick shift only when I have no other choice.
However, I don't understand the point here. I've driven cars that didn't benefit from the latest and greatest technology. Hell, my father and I built my Dart out of a spare shell and parts from "Pick Your Part". But why should I expect that people who learned to drive more modern cars be particularly experienced with junkers from my past? It doesn't make any sense.
The implication that they are somehow less of a 'driver' is hardly realistic. It's like complaining that somebody isn't a real programmer because their CP/M chops are lacking.
The article points out that this wasn't the case last year where Bafta voters weren't provided with screeners of Million Dollar Baby:
Clint Eastwood's boxing drama failed to gain a single nomination at the 2005 awards. One month later it scooped the major honours at the Academy Awards.
While I grant you that, I do think that most people weren't geared to vote for a boxing film "just because", whereas a Stephen Spielberg BMD (Big Moving Drama) just screams, "vote for me".
But the preview DVD sent to the academy's members is unplayable on machines used in the UK. As a result the majority of Bafta's 5,000 voters will not have seen the film, due to be released in Britain on January 27, and can hardly be expected to recommend it for acclaim.
As has been known for years, academy members simply don't watch many of the movies they select. It's a huge farce. I'll bet that even though they didn't get the movie within a reasonable time, many vote for it anyway.
The Academy Awards are a grandiose pat on the back, given by the industry to itself. Why we care, I'm not sure.
If they bundled WMP, realplayer and winamp - again equivalent to your typical linux distro - there would be no problems.
There's a very good reason why Microsoft shouldn't bundle third party add-ons. If Microsoft bundles realplayer and winamp, most people would expect to be able to ask Microsoft for support if winamp causes a problem, or WHEN realplayer causes a problem. A disclaimer might absolve them (might!), but it's still a huge pain in the ass, and something of a black eye.
Now allowing OEM's to bundle whatever they like... that makes sense. But let's be realistic.
Are you serious? Oh no, he can't be on student council! It just makes me want to cry! Anyone who is actually concerned about student council at college is a... well you know what the unamed prof is.
And anybody who isn't concerned about the student council probably shouldn't be on it.
Some people take it seriously, and for good reason. Some people aspire to leadership, and where better to start?
If you're the student council president... or a cub scout leader... or a politician... or any other position granted by election or appointment, you can't simply draw an arbitrary line around your actions and words and declare, "These things do not affect each other".
The student council president has no business insulting students and staff, no matter where the insults are posted. It was right that he lost his role - he was unsuited to it.
Mona Lisa doesn't have emotions. She's made of paint.
You know, this was probably a joke. But then along come some people whose IQ just barely exceeds their available mod points, and they call it "insightful".
I Can't Tell If You're Serious
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
Can someone explain to me how.NET is so fundamentally different from Java that it could escape Java's fate? Isn't.NET (C# really) just a Java rip-off? I mean really, not long after MS dropped Java, C# "popped up" It's clear that C# is only a repackaging of Java, why should its fate be any different? What makes.NET more attractive?
Darned text-based communications medium... I can't tell if you're serious. Is it a form of sarcasm so advanced that I cannot detect it?
If you're serious, then look up.NET and see where you've gone wrong.
And how did that demand come to be, if not because the studios themselves created it by offering it up in the first place? The market didn't demand it. They were given it over and over, and now it's expected.
Lots of replies here suggest that I've simply outgrown the wonder. In 1993 I was 23, and working in a tech centre. I bought my first personal computer ten years before that.
And perhaps I wasn't clear, but the wonder still exists in other ways in movies. My complaint is specifically to do with the special effects. I get suspension of disbelief all the time - but only through acting. I can believe a credible actor is experiencing the situation.
I'm only saying the wonder is gone from the realization of the worlds around the actors. I don't feel any wonder when I see a place or a creature that simply doesn't exist on earth. It's par for the course, and I know how they did it.
I felt a glimpse of it with the war elephants in Return of the King. Of course Legolas sliding down the trunk pulled me right back out...
and now the industry can hardly get by selling a DVD without it - because the consumer demands it
I don't remember demanding it. Do you? I'm pretty certain you didn't. Neither did any other consumers. People would have continued buying DVD's even if none had ever included a "making of" segment.
I remember when calling it "movie magic" was accurate. The sci-fi blockbuster took you where you had never been. I remember watching in awe as Jupiter was eaten in "2010: The Year We Make Contact". I watched in wonder as tie fighters strafed the Millenium Falcon. I saw things that couldn't possibly be real unfold in front of my eyes, and when the magic was good, I believed. Maybe for only 120 minutes, but nevertheless, the suspension of disbelief was often total.
But the magic is gone.
We walk out of theatres saying things like, "Those special effects were fantastic!" rather than, "Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?"
We all know how bluescreens work. We know when image layering is used. Most people have at least some familiarity with how computers are used to generate effects. In fact, DVD extras are working hard to make sure every last ounce of wonder is ripped from our minds and hearts. We're being forcefed the knowledge that will destroy our enjoyment.
Magicians have known for centuries that once the wonder is gone, so is the audience. And so they jealously guard their secrets, surrounding themselves in a sense of wonder and mystery.
The film industry should have done the same. They should have become a mysterious brotherhood, and kept the secrets, passing them down from mentor to student. Sadly, they didn't. They became so enamoured with how great they were that they began to brag about how it all worked. "Look at the great tools we make! Look at how we put those images on the screen!"
We didn't really want to know. Maybe we thought we did, but in the end all that has happened is that we have lost that visceral connection to the screen. We know that there's no danger. So we care far less.
The last time I saw a movie during which I really experienced true suspension of disbelief was in 1993. Jurassic Park. For 127 minutes, I believed in the resurrection of dinosaurs. When the snorting Tyrannosaur blew off Dr. Grant's hat while sniffing for him, I was afraid for him. I remember the girl trying to hide in the metal cupboard in the kitchen. When the raptor saw her and began closing in, my heart was in my throat. I wasn't the only one. When the raptor smashed into what turned out to be a reflection, several people screamed. I miss that.
Can you imagine what an impact the Lord of the Rings movies would have had if we had not known in advance how it all came together?
I'd suggest that the movie industry stop destroying the magic, but that genie isn't going back in the bottle. It's far too late.
(A past blog entry)
How long before somebody creates a knockoff of World of Warcraft (ala the bnetd fiasco), and this company gets sued by [insert Blizzard parent company here]...But seriously, what's to stop people from implementing their favorite games here, and what kind of liability is assumed by this company for providing the platform? With the current legal climate, services (such as Kazaa, morpheus, even bit-torrent) have been held accountable for copyright violations despite not having any control over the contents.
Good heavens. Have you ever - EVER - seen an open source game on anything like the scale of World of Warcraft? Or even anywhere near as polished from any standpoint? I haven't. What will stop them? Time, labour and money. There is no way there is enough of any of it to create an open source knock off.
Bnetd was a very simple server system by comparison.
Most open source game suck for a reason. The games made for this system are gonna look like hell because few people who give a crap about open source are decent artists.
Voting with your dollars is always an option, of course. But the problem is that there's no way for the company to tie your decision to the root cause. I want them to correct something. It doesn't take that much time - I can burn the CD's while I do something else, and I can hand them out at the office. So the investment is about $1.50 in CD's and little else. It works for me.
I've got hundreds of original albums. I buy music all the time - at least one CD per week, sometimes three or four. I've got better things to do that spend my time searching through file sharing systems trying to find valid mp3's of reasonable quality. I make a pretty good living, so I pony up my dough. I make a copy for the car, and I rip it to MP3's for work and for the gym.
When I buy a CD that is copy protected, I copy it anyway. If I can't pull it out using my normal software, I use Poikosoft's product to rip it cleanly. Then I take ten blanks, and copy the CD. I take a photo of the ten CD's, carefully labelled with the album title, and I send the picture, along with an explanation, to the band and the label, via a freshly registered anonymous e-mail account. Then I give away those ten CD's.
While I believe people should pay for the music they have, I also believe the only people who are inconvenienced by copy protection are people like me - the ones who paid. Nobody else is really aware of it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - The U.S. Constitution
"Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison." - CNN
I'm not a fan of these jackasses who are making their point at military funerals. But isn't this type of thing exactly what the government is NOT supposed to be allowed to do?
What's the kind of tape nerds use to hold their glasses together in the centre? I see a rising star!
"The reporter (or more likely editor) is a PC fool whom doesn't realize the simple basic truth. Violent Video games save us from wayyyyyy more random acts of violence then they do encourage them. Anyone whose actually played the things in a bad mood knows what I'm talking about."
Nearly without exception, anybody claiming to be stating a "simple basic truth" is stating nothing of the sort.
This claim is, I think, substantially more absurd than the counterclaim that violent video games spawn violence.
(An old rant of mine. it was originally written to address the habits of forum posters, but most of it applies. Yes, I know the grammar isn't perfect.)
"I got a reely importent point to make with regurds to the pollitikal sityewation."
Guess how much stock people will put in my opinion if I start my diatribe with such a statement?
That's right. None.
Thanks to the internet we can be bombarded with thousands of opinions daily. Weblogs, message boards, and Usenet give the average person a podium from which they can reach the masses.
You have the attention of many people when you post in an active forum. So you tap the microphone, prepare your thoughts, and weigh in.
"I dont think ur rite, lol!"
Well done, Potsie.
Look, I realize that North American schools have left a great many of you with substandard language skills. I know that the spelling of many multisyllabic words is beyond the grasp of at least a quarter of the population. In some cases it's not even your own fault, although for many it comes down to a lack of study and poor parenting.
I just can't help but think that when you are online, your words are your avatar. They help to determine what people think of you. If you can't spell, use numbers for words, make acronyms out of everything in sight, and think that this means you are "plugged in" rather than uneducated, then be prepared to be ignored by anybody who doesn't come in at, or below, your literacy level.
Want respect? Learn to spell. I don't care if you're out of school. Education doesn't end when classes are over.
I've heard people say, "Well, spelling and grammar shouldn't matter. It's the idea that's important." To them, I say, "f you can't grasp the basics of language, why should I pay attention?"
Take care when you communicate in writing. Use punctuation, capitalization, and real words. Acronyms should be reserved for organizations and industry terms.
We're a society of substandard communicators. Do your part to help raise the bar.
Cranky
I'm 35 years old. I got my learners permit at 14, and my drivers license at 16. I've owned a car since my 16th birthday, and been continually licensed and insured since then.
I've owned: '72 Dodge Dart, '80 Dodge Omni, '82-ish Subaru GS, '86 Cavalier, '96 Dodge Neon, '98 Mazda MX-5, 2002 Mazda MX-5, and a Barracuda of unknown yearage somewhere in there. Might be one or two that I've missed.
I've never had an accident, although I've had dozens of photo radar tickets (which hereabouts don't impact your license). My insurance rating is as high as it gets, and consequently I pay a low premuim. I've done amateur autocross over several summers. I'm the best driver I know. Sounds egotistical, but it's true. I'll give up my stick shift only when I have no other choice.
However, I don't understand the point here. I've driven cars that didn't benefit from the latest and greatest technology. Hell, my father and I built my Dart out of a spare shell and parts from "Pick Your Part". But why should I expect that people who learned to drive more modern cars be particularly experienced with junkers from my past? It doesn't make any sense.
The implication that they are somehow less of a 'driver' is hardly realistic. It's like complaining that somebody isn't a real programmer because their CP/M chops are lacking.
Hey! A computer analogy about cars!
The article points out that this wasn't the case last year where Bafta voters weren't provided with screeners of Million Dollar Baby: Clint Eastwood's boxing drama failed to gain a single nomination at the 2005 awards. One month later it scooped the major honours at the Academy Awards.
While I grant you that, I do think that most people weren't geared to vote for a boxing film "just because", whereas a Stephen Spielberg BMD (Big Moving Drama) just screams, "vote for me".
But the preview DVD sent to the academy's members is unplayable on machines used in the UK. As a result the majority of Bafta's 5,000 voters will not have seen the film, due to be released in Britain on January 27, and can hardly be expected to recommend it for acclaim.
As has been known for years, academy members simply don't watch many of the movies they select. It's a huge farce. I'll bet that even though they didn't get the movie within a reasonable time, many vote for it anyway.
The Academy Awards are a grandiose pat on the back, given by the industry to itself. Why we care, I'm not sure.
If they bundled WMP, realplayer and winamp - again equivalent to your typical linux distro - there would be no problems.
There's a very good reason why Microsoft shouldn't bundle third party add-ons. If Microsoft bundles realplayer and winamp, most people would expect to be able to ask Microsoft for support if winamp causes a problem, or WHEN realplayer causes a problem. A disclaimer might absolve them (might!), but it's still a huge pain in the ass, and something of a black eye.
Now allowing OEM's to bundle whatever they like... that makes sense. But let's be realistic.
Are you serious? Oh no, he can't be on student council! It just makes me want to cry! Anyone who is actually concerned about student council at college is a ... well you know what the unamed prof is.
And anybody who isn't concerned about the student council probably shouldn't be on it.
Some people take it seriously, and for good reason. Some people aspire to leadership, and where better to start?
If you're the student council president... or a cub scout leader... or a politician... or any other position granted by election or appointment, you can't simply draw an arbitrary line around your actions and words and declare, "These things do not affect each other".
The student council president has no business insulting students and staff, no matter where the insults are posted. It was right that he lost his role - he was unsuited to it.
Mona Lisa doesn't have emotions. She's made of paint.
You know, this was probably a joke. But then along come some people whose IQ just barely exceeds their available mod points, and they call it "insightful".
Can someone explain to me how .NET is so fundamentally different from Java that it could escape Java's fate? Isn't .NET (C# really) just a Java rip-off? I mean really, not long after MS dropped Java, C# "popped up" It's clear that C# is only a repackaging of Java, why should its fate be any different? What makes .NET more attractive?
.NET and see where you've gone wrong.
Darned text-based communications medium... I can't tell if you're serious. Is it a form of sarcasm so advanced that I cannot detect it?
If you're serious, then look up
Precisely! They were provided over and over again as a value-add.
That just brings us back to my original thought - that they didn't do us any favours.
And how did that demand come to be, if not because the studios themselves created it by offering it up in the first place? The market didn't demand it. They were given it over and over, and now it's expected.
Lots of replies here suggest that I've simply outgrown the wonder. In 1993 I was 23, and working in a tech centre. I bought my first personal computer ten years before that.
And perhaps I wasn't clear, but the wonder still exists in other ways in movies. My complaint is specifically to do with the special effects. I get suspension of disbelief all the time - but only through acting. I can believe a credible actor is experiencing the situation.
I'm only saying the wonder is gone from the realization of the worlds around the actors. I don't feel any wonder when I see a place or a creature that simply doesn't exist on earth. It's par for the course, and I know how they did it.
I felt a glimpse of it with the war elephants in Return of the King. Of course Legolas sliding down the trunk pulled me right back out...
I was 23 in 1993 and very computer literate. I don't think age is the issue. I still think the problem is that they've revealed the secrets.
Sure, some movies have aged poorly. No question. But that's kind of outside the topic at hand.
and now the industry can hardly get by selling a DVD without it - because the consumer demands it
I don't remember demanding it. Do you? I'm pretty certain you didn't. Neither did any other consumers. People would have continued buying DVD's even if none had ever included a "making of" segment.
I remember when calling it "movie magic" was accurate. The sci-fi blockbuster took you where you had never been. I remember watching in awe as Jupiter was eaten in "2010: The Year We Make Contact". I watched in wonder as tie fighters strafed the Millenium Falcon. I saw things that couldn't possibly be real unfold in front of my eyes, and when the magic was good, I believed. Maybe for only 120 minutes, but nevertheless, the suspension of disbelief was often total. But the magic is gone. We walk out of theatres saying things like, "Those special effects were fantastic!" rather than, "Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?" We all know how bluescreens work. We know when image layering is used. Most people have at least some familiarity with how computers are used to generate effects. In fact, DVD extras are working hard to make sure every last ounce of wonder is ripped from our minds and hearts. We're being forcefed the knowledge that will destroy our enjoyment. Magicians have known for centuries that once the wonder is gone, so is the audience. And so they jealously guard their secrets, surrounding themselves in a sense of wonder and mystery. The film industry should have done the same. They should have become a mysterious brotherhood, and kept the secrets, passing them down from mentor to student. Sadly, they didn't. They became so enamoured with how great they were that they began to brag about how it all worked. "Look at the great tools we make! Look at how we put those images on the screen!" We didn't really want to know. Maybe we thought we did, but in the end all that has happened is that we have lost that visceral connection to the screen. We know that there's no danger. So we care far less. The last time I saw a movie during which I really experienced true suspension of disbelief was in 1993. Jurassic Park. For 127 minutes, I believed in the resurrection of dinosaurs. When the snorting Tyrannosaur blew off Dr. Grant's hat while sniffing for him, I was afraid for him. I remember the girl trying to hide in the metal cupboard in the kitchen. When the raptor saw her and began closing in, my heart was in my throat. I wasn't the only one. When the raptor smashed into what turned out to be a reflection, several people screamed. I miss that. Can you imagine what an impact the Lord of the Rings movies would have had if we had not known in advance how it all came together? I'd suggest that the movie industry stop destroying the magic, but that genie isn't going back in the bottle. It's far too late. (A past blog entry)
After a while, doesn't making everything free kind of destroy the incentive for all but the most altrustic knowledge-seekers?
I must have said this a hundred times before, but usually nobody replies.
Usually I'm taking about why sharing music files IS theft, which naturally changes EVERYTHING for some reason I can't fully understand.
How long before somebody creates a knockoff of World of Warcraft (ala the bnetd fiasco), and this company gets sued by [insert Blizzard parent company here]...But seriously, what's to stop people from implementing their favorite games here, and what kind of liability is assumed by this company for providing the platform? With the current legal climate, services (such as Kazaa, morpheus, even bit-torrent) have been held accountable for copyright violations despite not having any control over the contents.
Good heavens. Have you ever - EVER - seen an open source game on anything like the scale of World of Warcraft? Or even anywhere near as polished from any standpoint? I haven't. What will stop them? Time, labour and money. There is no way there is enough of any of it to create an open source knock off.
Bnetd was a very simple server system by comparison.
Most open source game suck for a reason. The games made for this system are gonna look like hell because few people who give a crap about open source are decent artists.
I'm gonna search for comments containing combinations of the words "Stolen" "From" and "SCO", and blackmail you all to keep the results quiet.
Voting with your dollars is always an option, of course. But the problem is that there's no way for the company to tie your decision to the root cause. I want them to correct something. It doesn't take that much time - I can burn the CD's while I do something else, and I can hand them out at the office. So the investment is about $1.50 in CD's and little else. It works for me.
I've got hundreds of original albums. I buy music all the time - at least one CD per week, sometimes three or four. I've got better things to do that spend my time searching through file sharing systems trying to find valid mp3's of reasonable quality. I make a pretty good living, so I pony up my dough. I make a copy for the car, and I rip it to MP3's for work and for the gym.
When I buy a CD that is copy protected, I copy it anyway. If I can't pull it out using my normal software, I use Poikosoft's product to rip it cleanly. Then I take ten blanks, and copy the CD. I take a photo of the ten CD's, carefully labelled with the album title, and I send the picture, along with an explanation, to the band and the label, via a freshly registered anonymous e-mail account. Then I give away those ten CD's.
While I believe people should pay for the music they have, I also believe the only people who are inconvenienced by copy protection are people like me - the ones who paid. Nobody else is really aware of it.
Everybody should do this.
At least the one I saw did.
So how about, instead of relying on old prejudices, we instad attempt to actually examine the research and gauge it on it's own merits.
Oh hush. Why go against everything Slashdot stands for?
Admit it! You're working for Microsoft!
Now that I've accused you, I await a +5 Insightful mod, and the inevitable pats on the back.