Even if backing up your DVDs is illegal, why not just do it anyway?
Because some Americans, such as myself, believe that a true patriotic American who truly loves his country should follow ALL laws of this country, not just those laws that we happen to agree with. If you want a change, then exercise your rights to induce change in the law of the land. Don't just go do whatever the hell you want anyhow and pat yourself on the back for being sneaky.
How the hell can the kids have a hope at reducing viewing, or dumping TV altogether, when the adults around them come up with excuses to not give up the idiot box for just one damn week?
Actually, I think that kids should be much better at turning off TV then adults. First of all, adults have settled into TV habits that they have formed over the course of decades. A lot of times people just watch TV because they have some gut feeling that that's what "they are supposed to do." Second, adults are pretty tired by the end of the day. Even if your job entails just sitting on your duff and typing on a computer all day, it's not unusual to come home and want to do nothing for a few hours. Kids, on the other hand, have tons of energy. It's really a waste for them to watch TV because they have the ability to do so much more.
So I disagree with your claim that somehow adults ought to be better about reducing their TV than kids. Quite frankly, I think kids ought to be very good at giving up TV, provided someone gives them some ideas how to use their time and energy.
But I agree with the original poster's sentiment -- at best you're going from hideous to just awful. Hopefully someday all this effort and creativity will be entirely channeled into positive things.
That's a nice thought but I truly believe that war will be a part of humanity for as long as our species exists. I just don't think it's capable for our species to solve every single problem in a rational and nonviolent manner. The problem is that we are animals. We are the most clever animals but we are still just animals. You can see this by examining the structure of the human brain. The most inner part (I forget the technical term) is casually referred to as the "reptile brain" because it is a remenant from our genetic ancestors. This is the part of the brain where anger and aggression come from. We use the outer parts of our brain in order to control these violent emotions but the violence is simply a part of who we are. That will never go away.
While I have hope that our civilization, as a whole, will improve and become more peaceful, wise, and mature with time I think it's just a hopeless fantasy to believe that there will ever be a time where every single human being lives in harmony with those around him or her. And it only take a few bad apples to spoil the bunch. Hopefully things will never get so far out of hand that we have a war involving WMDs but to think that there is going to be some future for us where violence just doesn't happen is crazy, as far as I'm concerned. I agree that it's too bad that we have to devote such an enormous amount of resources to military concerns but to expect our efforts to be "entirely channeled into positive things" is a bit naive, no insult intended.
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
The two tend to be linked at the hip. There is considerable interest in the military to develop means of preventing civilian casualties or collateral damage. And it's not just as simple as them not wanting to 'waste' ammunition on noncombatants, they really do want to avoid civilian casualties. First, military people aren't the psychotic, evil madman you see in the movies. Believe it or not, they have children too so they want to try to prevent the deaths of innocents in far away lands. Second, even if they didn't personally care about civilian deaths, the American people would and our allies most certainly would. The type of WWII war where massive civilian casualties are accepted so long as you kill lots of enemy combatants are long gone. Third, increased intelligence will help you refine a priori assumptions you made about the enemy's tactics. If you are planning on destroying a building you believe to be an enemy command center but then receive intelligence that it's actually a homeless shelter, that's more valuable than just noting that it's a non-target. It tells you that you really don't know where the hell the command center really is! And it also makes you pause and question the quality of the pre-battle intelligence that labeled it as enemy headquarters.
Spy planes are here to stay and they will play a more important role in the conflicts to come. And I don't think you can separate their capabilities into "prevent violence" and "enable violence" bins. Those two qualities tend to be one and the same.
I had that on LP when I was a kid, then had it on tape during my college years, and now I've got it on CD. It is a really neat way of enjoying the story. Because there isn't any exciting visuals (obviously) you have to focus on what the music is telling you. The music shifts back and forth with the mood of the people and the narrator. From the confident assertion of Ogilve the astronomer ("The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one!"), to the inspirationaly yet ultimately depressing horror of watching the fighting machines effortlessly destroy the battleship ThunderChild, to the desperation of people as they watch the Red Weed take root and a parson loose his mind and blame the attacks on Satan, to the excitement as the narrator attempts to commit suicide in front of the martians only to realize that the martians are no longer a threat. The music compliments the changing emotions of the story beautifully and it is indeed a great story (except for the stupid "epilogue" which attempts to fast-forward the story to the modern day). I've actually heard a radio station play the entire album from start to finish, commercial free.
I would definitely recommend it. The music is unconventional and the album has won several awards for its novel take on a tired old story.
I just finished writing a big long post about how I thought remaking War of the Worlds was a bad idea because it's depressing to see the complexity of the world reduced to a simple 'good vs. evil' story. But there is an alternate way to remake War of the Worlds that would be interesting: Focus on what people will do when they are desperate.
Films such as the previous War of the Worlds and Indepdence Day paid a small tribute to what panicing people will do (e.g., looting, rioting). It would be kind of interesting to focus on that aspect of the martian invasion rather than all the neat explosions and fancy spfx. The film starts off showing us characters from several walks of life. We get to know them a little. Then the martians show up and we witness how they react to the uncertainty. Then the martians attack and we witness how these individuals change (or, perhaps, don't change) when the chips are down and what happens to them. What would the average person do if they truly believed that humanity was about to be destroyed? Would people even bother looting? Would they turn on each other in a desperate psychological need to feel like they have the power to fight/kill someone?
The campy film "Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension" has a great quote from the leader of the evil black lectroids: "Character is what you are in the dark." What it means, of course, is that how you react under pressure is the acid test of what kind of person you are. It's easy to be a decent human being when your life is great. But when the chips are down, what kind of person would you be? I think a film that studied this question would be a very interesting -- and original -- remake of the tired old "aliens coming from outer space to destroy humanity" theme.
You already hit on the fact that remaking a movie doesn't require too much imagination. I'm a bit dismayed at the actual movie they chose to remake. War of the Worlds is really a simplistic "bad guys vs. good guys" story. I mean the lines between good and evil are as clearly deliniated as they are in a typical Fox News story. It was probably pretty interesting decades ago but I'd like to think that our species is getting a bit wiser. What I'd really love to see is a war film where the lines between good and evil aren't really that clear.
I fully admit that it would be quite a feat to accomplish this in a film about one species versus another. It's pretty hard to see the other guy's point of view when their goal is to annhiliate your entire race. But I think that it could be done. The Borg from Star Trek started to hint at this just a little. Picard as Locutus asks the Enterprise crew why they are resisting. After all, he claims, we're only trying to raise your quality of life by making you part of us. In a later episode, Hugh (the young borg male treated for injuries) also expresses confusion why everyone hates the borg so much. You get the feeling that the borg aren't purely evil, they've just got some pretty warped ideas on how people should live their lives. And, of course, they don't take the desires of other species into account. Of course, this small amount of moral ambiguity was completely erased by the film Star Trek: First Contact which reduced the borg to a hive of malevolent insects.
I'd really like to see a film where the alien invaders are not pure evil. Maybe they feel morally justified in attacking us because we're "wasting the planet". Maybe they feel like their acting in self-defense. I realize that Enterprise is trying to do this with the Xindi but they're not doing a very good job of it, IMHO. Perhaps a War of the Worlds where the aliens are clearly taking pains to avoid civilian casulties. Perhaps they even tell humanity that they are willing to pay for relocation costs to settle us on another planet if we decide not to fight.
I dunno, maybe I'm just ranting here. I'm just disappointed to see a remake of Black Hats vs. White Hats in the 21st century. Rarely is war a clear-cut matter of good vs. evil. And I'd love to see a Sci-Fi film that tries to do this in a clever way.
I think it reflects that a large part of the audience who grew up with computer games has, er, grown older, and this is the kneejerk reaction of the industry to try to attract them.
Um, I don't think the knee is the part of the body being jerked in this case...
DMSO is a popular one that's used for horses, but you wouldnt want that one used on yourself unless you love the taste/smell of dead fish...
Actually I have used DMSO on myself. I had an injury in my knee so I picked up a bottle at the local horse-stuff store (I live in a wealthy area so, yes, there is a horse-crap store). My sports medicine doc had suggested it for me to reduce the inflammation. I used it every morning before breakfast. It had one of those ball applicators and I would rub a good amount on all parts (front, sides, and back) of my knee. I was warned that it would irritate the skin and make my mouth taste like I was sucking on a nickel. Honestly, I didn't notice the taste thing but, boy, did that stuff itch. I could only stand to leave it on my skin for about 10 minutes at the most before I would have to wash it off.
DMSO was originally used as an engine degreaser (!) but has found some fame among injured athletes because it tends to reduce inflammation and it gets absorbed into the skin really fast. I'm sure DMSO is controversal but it is an example of a non-injection compound that does get absorbed by the body really fast just like McCoy's hypo spray. Whether it actually sped up my recovery I couldn't say without doing a double-blind study (and a sample size of one isn't very good) but I did get better.
I'm no apologist for MS (see my posting history:-), but re-relasing a new patch at a higher security classification ought to be applauded, not ridiculed.
Applauding Microsoft for having to re-release a patch is like applauding Idi Amin for only eating some dude's skin and muscles and not his intestines or eyeballs. Or applauding Paris Hilton for having the good sense to only videotape herself having regular and oral sex and not anal sex.
How on earth did this get moderated Interesting? It's just some infantile rant by some guy. Hey whiteSanjuro, I've got some news for you: Wisconsin is the most liberal state in the midwest. They routinely vote Democratic. In fact, Madison (the capital) was one of the few cities in the nation to denounce the Patriot Act. I'm not sure where you're thinking of moving to but Wisconsin -- all jokes aside -- is one of the more progressive states in the nation.
Federal Court Justice Murray Wilcox dismissed an application by the world's largest file sharing network to delay proceedings against it until a similar case in the United States was finalised.
This has got to be kind of tough. So Kazaa has to defend themselves against two recording industry associations simultaneously? I wonder if there was any agreement between the RIAA and the Australian counterpart to hit Kazaa at the same time. Hopefully Kazaa can use some of the work for one case in the other but still that's not too much fun to have to fight a two-front war. That takes resources and I wonder if Kazaa has enough to hold their own.
I think I'll be happy doing whatever so long as it pays well and I can live comfortably.
I'm not sure you've thought about this long enough. You spend almost a third of your life at your job. You'd really be happy doing ANYTHING for that third? Since another third of your life is sleeping, you're saying that you'll willing do anything for the work-third so you can enjoy yourself during your non-work-non-sleep-third. I'm not sure that's a reasonable trade. Now factor in the fact that what you do for a career can influence how much fun you have in your non-work time. Suppose you've got a degrading job. How many friends will you have? How will society judge you? How will you feel about yourself when someone at a cocktail party asks what you do for a living and you tell them what you do?
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think your career and social life are really completely separate like you seem to be implying. There's definitely a link between the two. A poor social life can make for a poor working life. A poor career can make you unable to enjoy your social life.
Sure, I make pretty good scratch, but what fun is the money if you never get a chance to spend it?
I've heard this from a lot of people. And certainly there are scores of people who spend too much time at work and not enough with their families. But I always remember what happened to some guy who used to work here: he came down with Alzheimer's in his 40s. I work at a scientific/engineering kind of place and, needless to say, your mind is the most important tool you have. This poor guy got struck down with a terrible disease way before his time. He had to retire. He just couldn't do the work anymore. Here's a case where doing the right thing for your family would have been to save up a big chunk of dough to support them if you died or could no longer work. Of course, he didn't know he was going to get Alzheimer's -- and certainly not at such an early age -- so he can't be blamed if he didn't save up a shitload of money "just in case."
The point I'm trying to make is that these issues are tough. No one has the "right" answer. Maybe your family is better off if you take a pay cut and have more time for them. And maybe your family is better off if you work your ass off when you're young and save up a lot of money to support them in case something happens to you. No way to know for sure. It's questions and issues like this that make life so exciting and terrifying at the same time.
I know this will be interpreted as a troll but I'm really interested in the answer. Is any attempt made at determining whether these kids get help from their parents? Is it done by the honor system? I would think that meddling from over-excited parents would be a significant factor in these science olympiads (kinda of the equivalent of steroids in the real olympics).
I remember back when I was in 5th grade the class had to build 'solar cookers' that we could use to cook our lunch for that day. Mine was passable but not great. Scott L., had a solar cooker you wouldn't believe. I was struggling to get enough heat in there to cook weenies and he was heating frozen pizzas, I kid you not. Not too surprisingly Scott's father was a high-school science teacher. Now it is theoretically possible that Scott was simply a smarter kid than I was (although it's worth noting that years later I would go on to get a Ph. D. in a scientific field from one of the most prestidous science institutes in the world and Scott did not) but I think we can pretty much agree that it's more likely the reason for Scott's superior performance was because he had considerable help from parents whereas I built my thing with my own two (small) hands.
That was over two decades ago. In that time parents, if anything, have gotten even more insistent that their kids perform better than their peers. Parents so often push their kids to excel just so they can brag about them at work or at the local garden club meeting or whatnot. So I ask you, how much of a problem is parental-assistance in these science olympiads in this day and age and how do you deal with it?
GMD
Don't be dissin' girl geeks
on
See Spot Surf
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The comment about Slashdot Personals being a refuge for ugly chicks is really not in very good taste, considering that several of them will see this message should it be modded up high enough. I'm sure that most girl geeks don't consider themselves sex goddesses (although a few of them are nice enough to give us guys something to fantasize about) but I doubt there is really any girl who wants to hear that she's ugly. Considering the many guy geeks have probably been mocked by the pretty, popular girls during school years (and the fact that we are so constantly overlooked by women in our 20s as well) I would think that guy geeks would have more understanding of the concept of "total beauty" (as opposed to superficial or physical-only beauty) and have more respect for girl geeks. At least not blatantly accuse them of being ugly on a site that they frequent.
You're not going to find any girl geeks who look like Playboy playmates but they have a beauty all their own. I know that I find a woman much more attractive if she is intelligent, thoughtful, inquistive, and skillful. Given a choice between a sexy girl who is an airhead or a reasonably attractive geek girl, there's no question in my mind which one I would pursue. So please guys, show the girl geeks here a little respect. It's not fun for them to be bombarded with images of impossibily beautiful women in the media. It's not fun for them to have to put up with their mothers complaining that they should spend less effort on the career and more time finding a suitable husband and producing grandchildren. The last thing these wonderful women need is to be bombarded with this type of "geek girls are ugly" crap on slashdot.
I'd like to see a simple switch based on brain activity that would toggle on during sexual thought/arousal and toggle off in the absence of that.
Jesus sweet fucking christ I sure as hell don't want to see that! What the hell are you thinking?
Children could then be taught that if somebody's "face button" is glowing when that person is asking them to [get in the car|go play with a cute pet|have some candy|etc.], to run and get help.
Why don't we just teach children that when a "person is asking them to [get in the car|go play with a cute pet|have some candy|etc.], to run and get help" without the face-button shit?
Anybody who would be drawn to a political ideology purely based on what they oppose is, in my opinion, a dangerous person.
Well, I've got news for you: most people vote for whoever they hate the least. Think about it: how many politicans really generate genuine excitement? Very few. The main reason most people go to the polls and vote is because they are afraid of what might happen if "the other guy" gets elected. Hell, why do you think so many political ads are negative? Because they work! They instill fear in the public of the rival candidate.
You and I may wish for a world where people vote for the candidate they like or join a political party based on affinity with their ideals. But if you factor out the people who put bumper stickers on their car and wave those stupid banners around at political rallies, I think you'll find that most people are drawn to a political party because it's the lesser of two evils.
Um, 2 dvds from alt.binaries.dvdr per day, x 30 days is about 300 GB/month. Good thing I'm not with Cox!
I've been known to download video files from time to time but 2 DVDs per day is way, way too much. Unless you are also watching 2 of those DVDs each day, you must be building up one hell of a stockpile to films to watch.
30 GB/month is pretty generous for a home account. Anything more than that and you really should be on a business account.
2 DVDs a day is abuse. Did you even stop to think about what downloading like that must do for the other poor saps who have to share a local connection with you? I, for one, am glad that Cox puts limits on how much people download. I don't want my cable connection to turn to shit just because some jackass wants to download 2 DVDs a day!
Guys like me that run businesses that want to be honest about things are punished for our truthfullness. Consumers demand to be lied to. So ISP's are forced to choose between significantly lower sales and being dishonest.
Actually, I think the problem here really is that you are not BRUTUALLY honest. If you are serious about wanting to run an honest business, why don't you go all out? In your advertisements you should point out the blatant lies of your competitors. Point out that there is no such thing as 'unlimited' internet access right in your ads! Then go further and suggest that if your competitors don't respect the intelligence of the average joe before they get the money, how could you possibly trust them to respect the customer AFTER they already have the money?
You're in an uncomfortable position right now: you're in the half-way point. In tennis it is called "no man's land" -- the area between the baseline and the net. You haven't committed to one course of action or another and end up getting stranded in a position worse than either option. You need to decide whether you are going to be brutally honest or a deceiver like everyone else. Don't try to play a happy medium. You're not going to be very happy if you do that for very long.
Just make damn sure that everything you say in your ads is the truth otherwise their lawyers are going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. Be truthful and what are they going to do: sue you for telling the truth? If they take you to court you can countersue and make some dough.
It's not just about finding financing, it's about figuring out what to do with that financing once you have it, and how to turn it around so it turns into a net gain for your backers and yourself.
Good point -- and most of your other points are good too.
I think questions of financing are a few steps down the road. If a group of programmers wants to get together and start a company, there are more important issues that need to be addressed first. First is "What is the reason for this Company's existance?" If all you can think of is "To keep us employeed!" then you've got some big problems. Write down a Mission Statement. What is this company going to do? What is its contribution to the world going to be? What are the Core Competancies? What are the guiding principles? Starting a company is a signficant undertaking. If you don't have a pretty good idea of what the company is going to try to achieve, then you're in for trouble.
Here's another question: who is going to do what? You've got a bunch of programmers -- great! Now what? Who is going to be management? Are you going to pick some from your group or hire an outsider? As the parent noted, being a good programmer doesn't mean you'll be a good manager of programmers. If you pick managers from within your group, how do you know that when the going gets tough that the 'grunts' are going to listen to, respect and obey the orders of Management? If you're going to pick someone from outside your group to act as management (which isn't such a bad idea), then how are you going to be assured that they are going to drive the company in the direction you want? That's where Founders and the Board of Directors comes in. Boy, you'd better have that clearly-articulated Mission Statement written down because otherwise Management is going to have a hard time knowing what's expected of them.
There seems to be this pervasive mindset amoung tech people that because they got better grades in school than those who studied business, that they should have no trouble being business people. As the parent pointed out, however, being a good business person is completely different from being a good programmer.
Honestly, if anyone is seriously thinking about getting their friends together and starting a company, you'd better think long and hard about what you're trying to do.
Honestly, the Patriot Act is so fucked up I doubt a simple patch will fix the problem. We'd have to throw the entire thing away and start from scratch. It's not worth salvaging.
And further more... What? Oh. You meant a patch for IE. Okay, I got it. My bad.
I think it's rather naive to say you get your news from NY Times, AP, Slashdot, etc. rather than biased sources like Fox. ALL news sources of some degree of bias. If you think a news source is un-biased, that just means you agree with whatever bias they demonstrate.
Well said. I almost coughed up my coke when I read the grandparent's assertion that he is getting unbiased news and then proceeds to list a number of American-centric news sources.
Ranger96 is right: all news has some bias. The only thing you can really do is to read news from several widly different sources. And consider including some non-US sources of info such as Al-Jazeera and the BBC. I'm sure someone will complain that Al-Jazeera is nothing more than a hate-mongering rag but the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the Arab world listens to it. If you want to understand the world, you'd better know what other people are reading because it will shape their worldview.
The most interesting comparison to me is to see what stories are not covered by a news outlet.
That's true but the only way you find out about these articles is through the 'activist' websites of the issue that got ignored. And let's face it: those aren't exactly unbiased sources of info either. I think what you have to do is get as much info as possible and then use some good old fashioned critical thinking to figure out what's REALLY going on. And that's admittedly pretty tough.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if backing up your DVDs is illegal, why not just do it anyway?
Because some Americans, such as myself, believe that a true patriotic American who truly loves his country should follow ALL laws of this country, not just those laws that we happen to agree with. If you want a change, then exercise your rights to induce change in the law of the land. Don't just go do whatever the hell you want anyhow and pat yourself on the back for being sneaky.
GMD
The mark would admit in a sworn written statement to having violated the law, but was not getting any real amnesty in return for this admission.
Could you at least get immunity from getting raided by a gang of RIAA jacket-wearing FBI wannabes?
GMD
How the hell can the kids have a hope at reducing viewing, or dumping TV altogether, when the adults around them come up with excuses to not give up the idiot box for just one damn week?
Actually, I think that kids should be much better at turning off TV then adults. First of all, adults have settled into TV habits that they have formed over the course of decades. A lot of times people just watch TV because they have some gut feeling that that's what "they are supposed to do." Second, adults are pretty tired by the end of the day. Even if your job entails just sitting on your duff and typing on a computer all day, it's not unusual to come home and want to do nothing for a few hours. Kids, on the other hand, have tons of energy. It's really a waste for them to watch TV because they have the ability to do so much more.
So I disagree with your claim that somehow adults ought to be better about reducing their TV than kids. Quite frankly, I think kids ought to be very good at giving up TV, provided someone gives them some ideas how to use their time and energy.
GMD
But I agree with the original poster's sentiment -- at best you're going from hideous to just awful. Hopefully someday all this effort and creativity will be entirely channeled into positive things.
That's a nice thought but I truly believe that war will be a part of humanity for as long as our species exists. I just don't think it's capable for our species to solve every single problem in a rational and nonviolent manner. The problem is that we are animals. We are the most clever animals but we are still just animals. You can see this by examining the structure of the human brain. The most inner part (I forget the technical term) is casually referred to as the "reptile brain" because it is a remenant from our genetic ancestors. This is the part of the brain where anger and aggression come from. We use the outer parts of our brain in order to control these violent emotions but the violence is simply a part of who we are. That will never go away.
While I have hope that our civilization, as a whole, will improve and become more peaceful, wise, and mature with time I think it's just a hopeless fantasy to believe that there will ever be a time where every single human being lives in harmony with those around him or her. And it only take a few bad apples to spoil the bunch. Hopefully things will never get so far out of hand that we have a war involving WMDs but to think that there is going to be some future for us where violence just doesn't happen is crazy, as far as I'm concerned. I agree that it's too bad that we have to devote such an enormous amount of resources to military concerns but to expect our efforts to be "entirely channeled into positive things" is a bit naive, no insult intended.
GMD
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
The two tend to be linked at the hip. There is considerable interest in the military to develop means of preventing civilian casualties or collateral damage. And it's not just as simple as them not wanting to 'waste' ammunition on noncombatants, they really do want to avoid civilian casualties. First, military people aren't the psychotic, evil madman you see in the movies. Believe it or not, they have children too so they want to try to prevent the deaths of innocents in far away lands. Second, even if they didn't personally care about civilian deaths, the American people would and our allies most certainly would. The type of WWII war where massive civilian casualties are accepted so long as you kill lots of enemy combatants are long gone. Third, increased intelligence will help you refine a priori assumptions you made about the enemy's tactics. If you are planning on destroying a building you believe to be an enemy command center but then receive intelligence that it's actually a homeless shelter, that's more valuable than just noting that it's a non-target. It tells you that you really don't know where the hell the command center really is! And it also makes you pause and question the quality of the pre-battle intelligence that labeled it as enemy headquarters.
Spy planes are here to stay and they will play a more important role in the conflicts to come. And I don't think you can separate their capabilities into "prevent violence" and "enable violence" bins. Those two qualities tend to be one and the same.
GMD
There were many really cool jobs out there during the dotcom boom. But people mistakenly thought that the cool jobs were had by the programmers.
For the record, I never for a moment thought that the guy who got to be the Pets.com sock-puppet operator was a programmer.
GMD
I had that on LP when I was a kid, then had it on tape during my college years, and now I've got it on CD. It is a really neat way of enjoying the story. Because there isn't any exciting visuals (obviously) you have to focus on what the music is telling you. The music shifts back and forth with the mood of the people and the narrator. From the confident assertion of Ogilve the astronomer ("The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one!"), to the inspirationaly yet ultimately depressing horror of watching the fighting machines effortlessly destroy the battleship ThunderChild, to the desperation of people as they watch the Red Weed take root and a parson loose his mind and blame the attacks on Satan, to the excitement as the narrator attempts to commit suicide in front of the martians only to realize that the martians are no longer a threat. The music compliments the changing emotions of the story beautifully and it is indeed a great story (except for the stupid "epilogue" which attempts to fast-forward the story to the modern day). I've actually heard a radio station play the entire album from start to finish, commercial free.
I would definitely recommend it. The music is unconventional and the album has won several awards for its novel take on a tired old story.
GMD
I just finished writing a big long post about how I thought remaking War of the Worlds was a bad idea because it's depressing to see the complexity of the world reduced to a simple 'good vs. evil' story. But there is an alternate way to remake War of the Worlds that would be interesting: Focus on what people will do when they are desperate.
Films such as the previous War of the Worlds and Indepdence Day paid a small tribute to what panicing people will do (e.g., looting, rioting). It would be kind of interesting to focus on that aspect of the martian invasion rather than all the neat explosions and fancy spfx. The film starts off showing us characters from several walks of life. We get to know them a little. Then the martians show up and we witness how they react to the uncertainty. Then the martians attack and we witness how these individuals change (or, perhaps, don't change) when the chips are down and what happens to them. What would the average person do if they truly believed that humanity was about to be destroyed? Would people even bother looting? Would they turn on each other in a desperate psychological need to feel like they have the power to fight/kill someone?
The campy film "Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension" has a great quote from the leader of the evil black lectroids: "Character is what you are in the dark." What it means, of course, is that how you react under pressure is the acid test of what kind of person you are. It's easy to be a decent human being when your life is great. But when the chips are down, what kind of person would you be? I think a film that studied this question would be a very interesting -- and original -- remake of the tired old "aliens coming from outer space to destroy humanity" theme.
GMD
You already hit on the fact that remaking a movie doesn't require too much imagination. I'm a bit dismayed at the actual movie they chose to remake. War of the Worlds is really a simplistic "bad guys vs. good guys" story. I mean the lines between good and evil are as clearly deliniated as they are in a typical Fox News story. It was probably pretty interesting decades ago but I'd like to think that our species is getting a bit wiser. What I'd really love to see is a war film where the lines between good and evil aren't really that clear.
I fully admit that it would be quite a feat to accomplish this in a film about one species versus another. It's pretty hard to see the other guy's point of view when their goal is to annhiliate your entire race. But I think that it could be done. The Borg from Star Trek started to hint at this just a little. Picard as Locutus asks the Enterprise crew why they are resisting. After all, he claims, we're only trying to raise your quality of life by making you part of us. In a later episode, Hugh (the young borg male treated for injuries) also expresses confusion why everyone hates the borg so much. You get the feeling that the borg aren't purely evil, they've just got some pretty warped ideas on how people should live their lives. And, of course, they don't take the desires of other species into account. Of course, this small amount of moral ambiguity was completely erased by the film Star Trek: First Contact which reduced the borg to a hive of malevolent insects.
I'd really like to see a film where the alien invaders are not pure evil. Maybe they feel morally justified in attacking us because we're "wasting the planet". Maybe they feel like their acting in self-defense. I realize that Enterprise is trying to do this with the Xindi but they're not doing a very good job of it, IMHO. Perhaps a War of the Worlds where the aliens are clearly taking pains to avoid civilian casulties. Perhaps they even tell humanity that they are willing to pay for relocation costs to settle us on another planet if we decide not to fight.
I dunno, maybe I'm just ranting here. I'm just disappointed to see a remake of Black Hats vs. White Hats in the 21st century. Rarely is war a clear-cut matter of good vs. evil. And I'd love to see a Sci-Fi film that tries to do this in a clever way.
GMD
I think it reflects that a large part of the audience who grew up with computer games has, er, grown older, and this is the kneejerk reaction of the industry to try to attract them.
Um, I don't think the knee is the part of the body being jerked in this case...
GMD
DMSO is a popular one that's used for horses, but you wouldnt want that one used on yourself unless you love the taste/smell of dead fish...
Actually I have used DMSO on myself. I had an injury in my knee so I picked up a bottle at the local horse-stuff store (I live in a wealthy area so, yes, there is a horse-crap store). My sports medicine doc had suggested it for me to reduce the inflammation. I used it every morning before breakfast. It had one of those ball applicators and I would rub a good amount on all parts (front, sides, and back) of my knee. I was warned that it would irritate the skin and make my mouth taste like I was sucking on a nickel. Honestly, I didn't notice the taste thing but, boy, did that stuff itch. I could only stand to leave it on my skin for about 10 minutes at the most before I would have to wash it off.
DMSO was originally used as an engine degreaser (!) but has found some fame among injured athletes because it tends to reduce inflammation and it gets absorbed into the skin really fast. I'm sure DMSO is controversal but it is an example of a non-injection compound that does get absorbed by the body really fast just like McCoy's hypo spray. Whether it actually sped up my recovery I couldn't say without doing a double-blind study (and a sample size of one isn't very good) but I did get better.
But, man, did that shit itch!
GMD
I'm no apologist for MS (see my posting history :-), but re-relasing a new patch at a higher security classification ought to be applauded, not ridiculed.
Applauding Microsoft for having to re-release a patch is like applauding Idi Amin for only eating some dude's skin and muscles and not his intestines or eyeballs. Or applauding Paris Hilton for having the good sense to only videotape herself having regular and oral sex and not anal sex.
GMD
How on earth did this get moderated Interesting? It's just some infantile rant by some guy. Hey whiteSanjuro, I've got some news for you: Wisconsin is the most liberal state in the midwest. They routinely vote Democratic. In fact, Madison (the capital) was one of the few cities in the nation to denounce the Patriot Act. I'm not sure where you're thinking of moving to but Wisconsin -- all jokes aside -- is one of the more progressive states in the nation.
GMD
Federal Court Justice Murray Wilcox dismissed an application by the world's largest file sharing network to delay proceedings against it until a similar case in the United States was finalised.
This has got to be kind of tough. So Kazaa has to defend themselves against two recording industry associations simultaneously? I wonder if there was any agreement between the RIAA and the Australian counterpart to hit Kazaa at the same time. Hopefully Kazaa can use some of the work for one case in the other but still that's not too much fun to have to fight a two-front war. That takes resources and I wonder if Kazaa has enough to hold their own.
GMD
I think I'll be happy doing whatever so long as it pays well and I can live comfortably.
I'm not sure you've thought about this long enough. You spend almost a third of your life at your job. You'd really be happy doing ANYTHING for that third? Since another third of your life is sleeping, you're saying that you'll willing do anything for the work-third so you can enjoy yourself during your non-work-non-sleep-third. I'm not sure that's a reasonable trade. Now factor in the fact that what you do for a career can influence how much fun you have in your non-work time. Suppose you've got a degrading job. How many friends will you have? How will society judge you? How will you feel about yourself when someone at a cocktail party asks what you do for a living and you tell them what you do?
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think your career and social life are really completely separate like you seem to be implying. There's definitely a link between the two. A poor social life can make for a poor working life. A poor career can make you unable to enjoy your social life.
GMD
Sure, I make pretty good scratch, but what fun is the money if you never get a chance to spend it?
I've heard this from a lot of people. And certainly there are scores of people who spend too much time at work and not enough with their families. But I always remember what happened to some guy who used to work here: he came down with Alzheimer's in his 40s. I work at a scientific/engineering kind of place and, needless to say, your mind is the most important tool you have. This poor guy got struck down with a terrible disease way before his time. He had to retire. He just couldn't do the work anymore. Here's a case where doing the right thing for your family would have been to save up a big chunk of dough to support them if you died or could no longer work. Of course, he didn't know he was going to get Alzheimer's -- and certainly not at such an early age -- so he can't be blamed if he didn't save up a shitload of money "just in case."
The point I'm trying to make is that these issues are tough. No one has the "right" answer. Maybe your family is better off if you take a pay cut and have more time for them. And maybe your family is better off if you work your ass off when you're young and save up a lot of money to support them in case something happens to you. No way to know for sure. It's questions and issues like this that make life so exciting and terrifying at the same time.
GMD
I know this will be interpreted as a troll but I'm really interested in the answer. Is any attempt made at determining whether these kids get help from their parents? Is it done by the honor system? I would think that meddling from over-excited parents would be a significant factor in these science olympiads (kinda of the equivalent of steroids in the real olympics).
I remember back when I was in 5th grade the class had to build 'solar cookers' that we could use to cook our lunch for that day. Mine was passable but not great. Scott L., had a solar cooker you wouldn't believe. I was struggling to get enough heat in there to cook weenies and he was heating frozen pizzas, I kid you not. Not too surprisingly Scott's father was a high-school science teacher. Now it is theoretically possible that Scott was simply a smarter kid than I was (although it's worth noting that years later I would go on to get a Ph. D. in a scientific field from one of the most prestidous science institutes in the world and Scott did not) but I think we can pretty much agree that it's more likely the reason for Scott's superior performance was because he had considerable help from parents whereas I built my thing with my own two (small) hands.
That was over two decades ago. In that time parents, if anything, have gotten even more insistent that their kids perform better than their peers. Parents so often push their kids to excel just so they can brag about them at work or at the local garden club meeting or whatnot. So I ask you, how much of a problem is parental-assistance in these science olympiads in this day and age and how do you deal with it?
GMD
The comment about Slashdot Personals being a refuge for ugly chicks is really not in very good taste, considering that several of them will see this message should it be modded up high enough. I'm sure that most girl geeks don't consider themselves sex goddesses (although a few of them are nice enough to give us guys something to fantasize about) but I doubt there is really any girl who wants to hear that she's ugly. Considering the many guy geeks have probably been mocked by the pretty, popular girls during school years (and the fact that we are so constantly overlooked by women in our 20s as well) I would think that guy geeks would have more understanding of the concept of "total beauty" (as opposed to superficial or physical-only beauty) and have more respect for girl geeks. At least not blatantly accuse them of being ugly on a site that they frequent.
You're not going to find any girl geeks who look like Playboy playmates but they have a beauty all their own. I know that I find a woman much more attractive if she is intelligent, thoughtful, inquistive, and skillful. Given a choice between a sexy girl who is an airhead or a reasonably attractive geek girl, there's no question in my mind which one I would pursue. So please guys, show the girl geeks here a little respect. It's not fun for them to be bombarded with images of impossibily beautiful women in the media. It's not fun for them to have to put up with their mothers complaining that they should spend less effort on the career and more time finding a suitable husband and producing grandchildren. The last thing these wonderful women need is to be bombarded with this type of "geek girls are ugly" crap on slashdot.
GMD
I'd like to see a simple switch based on brain activity that would toggle on during sexual thought/arousal and toggle off in the absence of that.
Jesus sweet fucking christ I sure as hell don't want to see that! What the hell are you thinking?
Children could then be taught that if somebody's "face button" is glowing when that person is asking them to [get in the car|go play with a cute pet|have some candy|etc.], to run and get help.
Why don't we just teach children that when a "person is asking them to [get in the car|go play with a cute pet|have some candy|etc.], to run and get help" without the face-button shit?
GMD
Anybody who would be drawn to a political ideology purely based on what they oppose is, in my opinion, a dangerous person.
Well, I've got news for you: most people vote for whoever they hate the least. Think about it: how many politicans really generate genuine excitement? Very few. The main reason most people go to the polls and vote is because they are afraid of what might happen if "the other guy" gets elected. Hell, why do you think so many political ads are negative? Because they work! They instill fear in the public of the rival candidate.
You and I may wish for a world where people vote for the candidate they like or join a political party based on affinity with their ideals. But if you factor out the people who put bumper stickers on their car and wave those stupid banners around at political rallies, I think you'll find that most people are drawn to a political party because it's the lesser of two evils.
GMD
Um, 2 dvds from alt.binaries.dvdr per day, x 30 days is about 300 GB/month. Good thing I'm not with Cox!
I've been known to download video files from time to time but 2 DVDs per day is way, way too much. Unless you are also watching 2 of those DVDs each day, you must be building up one hell of a stockpile to films to watch.
30 GB/month is pretty generous for a home account. Anything more than that and you really should be on a business account.
2 DVDs a day is abuse. Did you even stop to think about what downloading like that must do for the other poor saps who have to share a local connection with you? I, for one, am glad that Cox puts limits on how much people download. I don't want my cable connection to turn to shit just because some jackass wants to download 2 DVDs a day!
GMD
Guys like me that run businesses that want to be honest about things are punished for our truthfullness. Consumers demand to be lied to. So ISP's are forced to choose between significantly lower sales and being dishonest.
Actually, I think the problem here really is that you are not BRUTUALLY honest. If you are serious about wanting to run an honest business, why don't you go all out? In your advertisements you should point out the blatant lies of your competitors. Point out that there is no such thing as 'unlimited' internet access right in your ads! Then go further and suggest that if your competitors don't respect the intelligence of the average joe before they get the money, how could you possibly trust them to respect the customer AFTER they already have the money?
You're in an uncomfortable position right now: you're in the half-way point. In tennis it is called "no man's land" -- the area between the baseline and the net. You haven't committed to one course of action or another and end up getting stranded in a position worse than either option. You need to decide whether you are going to be brutally honest or a deceiver like everyone else. Don't try to play a happy medium. You're not going to be very happy if you do that for very long.
Just make damn sure that everything you say in your ads is the truth otherwise their lawyers are going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. Be truthful and what are they going to do: sue you for telling the truth? If they take you to court you can countersue and make some dough.
GMD
It's not just about finding financing, it's about figuring out what to do with that financing once you have it, and how to turn it around so it turns into a net gain for your backers and yourself.
Good point -- and most of your other points are good too.
I think questions of financing are a few steps down the road. If a group of programmers wants to get together and start a company, there are more important issues that need to be addressed first. First is "What is the reason for this Company's existance?" If all you can think of is "To keep us employeed!" then you've got some big problems. Write down a Mission Statement. What is this company going to do? What is its contribution to the world going to be? What are the Core Competancies? What are the guiding principles? Starting a company is a signficant undertaking. If you don't have a pretty good idea of what the company is going to try to achieve, then you're in for trouble.
Here's another question: who is going to do what? You've got a bunch of programmers -- great! Now what? Who is going to be management? Are you going to pick some from your group or hire an outsider? As the parent noted, being a good programmer doesn't mean you'll be a good manager of programmers. If you pick managers from within your group, how do you know that when the going gets tough that the 'grunts' are going to listen to, respect and obey the orders of Management? If you're going to pick someone from outside your group to act as management (which isn't such a bad idea), then how are you going to be assured that they are going to drive the company in the direction you want? That's where Founders and the Board of Directors comes in. Boy, you'd better have that clearly-articulated Mission Statement written down because otherwise Management is going to have a hard time knowing what's expected of them.
There seems to be this pervasive mindset amoung tech people that because they got better grades in school than those who studied business, that they should have no trouble being business people. As the parent pointed out, however, being a good business person is completely different from being a good programmer.
Honestly, if anyone is seriously thinking about getting their friends together and starting a company, you'd better think long and hard about what you're trying to do.
GMD
Where's an MS patch when we really need one?
Honestly, the Patriot Act is so fucked up I doubt a simple patch will fix the problem. We'd have to throw the entire thing away and start from scratch. It's not worth salvaging.
And further more... What? Oh. You meant a patch for IE. Okay, I got it. My bad.
GMD
I think it's rather naive to say you get your news from NY Times, AP, Slashdot, etc. rather than biased sources like Fox. ALL news sources of some degree of bias. If you think a news source is un-biased, that just means you agree with whatever bias they demonstrate.
Well said. I almost coughed up my coke when I read the grandparent's assertion that he is getting unbiased news and then proceeds to list a number of American-centric news sources.
Ranger96 is right: all news has some bias. The only thing you can really do is to read news from several widly different sources. And consider including some non-US sources of info such as Al-Jazeera and the BBC. I'm sure someone will complain that Al-Jazeera is nothing more than a hate-mongering rag but the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the Arab world listens to it. If you want to understand the world, you'd better know what other people are reading because it will shape their worldview.
The most interesting comparison to me is to see what stories are not covered by a news outlet.
That's true but the only way you find out about these articles is through the 'activist' websites of the issue that got ignored. And let's face it: those aren't exactly unbiased sources of info either. I think what you have to do is get as much info as possible and then use some good old fashioned critical thinking to figure out what's REALLY going on. And that's admittedly pretty tough.
GMD