Nwver heard it associated with meatballs, spicy or otherwise. Maybe I'm a cigarette? I do enjoy myself at the occasional expense of those around me, and there are plenty of restaurants I'm not allowed in.
You had me with the context part. At repetition, I was still fundamentally with you, but shakily. At the ad hominem, you lost me.
I do very much agree with you that context makes a difference. But please, please, please don't attack the people you're responding to. It cheapens your good points and makes you look like an idiot.
(the vehicle sound effects of Excite Bike or Spy Hunter is what came to mind when I heard the clip...)
Q-bert was the first thing thought of at the blips. Midway through, I was thinking that someone was very bad at Q-bert. Thought of a motorcycle as the clip built toward the end... but couldn't dredge up Excitebike. It fits perfectly, though.
This reads more like an advertisement for the website in question and the man who runs it than anything else. It reads like an advertisement disguised as a complaint, actually.
It doesn't help that you posted the parent comment anonymously, either. If you have a problem, or see a problem, at least have the courage to sign your name to your complaint -- it'll give you a touch more credibility, if nothing else.
I think the problem has more to do with two factors: passion and audience.
These are not idiots, either. Idiots are merely incompetent, not malicious. These are, as Penny Arcade would put it, "fuckheads," trying to ruin the experience or resource for everyone else.
Some of these fuckheads lie dormant in society, becoming emboldened with the anonymity of the web. Some are just awful all the time and everywhere. However they came to be fuckheads on the web is immaterial; what is material is the fact that fuckheads are naturally attracted to a crowd. The more people they can piss off or otherwise get a reaction out of, the more interested they are in causing a problem. That's why larger sites need some manner of moderation system, to supress the fuckheads from getting an audience. Wikipedia's runs through two steps, if I'm not mistaken: user correction and administrative banning. These work on the audience factor unless a flood of fuckheads streams in... but I don't think this was the sole problem on some of the troubled pre-US election articles.
Fuckheads have passions, just like normal people. Unlike normal people, fuckheads believe that everyone is not only entitled, but waiting to receive their passions. This set not only hangs around on an article, but takes up residence there until eviction. I think Wikipedia could've handled the flood of fuckheads it got, if fewer of them had been terribly passionate fuckheads. A flood of these can take down even the best of sites.(excepting those with particularly inspired moderation systems)
Wikipedia faces a particular challenge in its moderation question. On Slashdot, most of the malicious comments get caught in the net, but a few good comments do as well, or else they get passed over, and lost in a sea of mediocrity. This isn't much of a problem, though, because there are systems(distribution system of mod points, actual distribution of mod points, meta-moderation, viewing threshold, etc.) to keep the moderation system from getting too out of whack, and also because the loss of a few comments about a news story isn't important. Wikipedia needs every good voice it can get, though. It's entire raison d'etre is hosting the stuff the people who visit the site deposit. Articles there are not born great, it has only been through a mass of editing at the hands of many different editors that anything has become impressive.
It is part of the process that mistakes go in, but the only way they can come out again is through an army of editors. Wikipedia would slam shut a lot faster through the mandatory vetting of editors than through the antics of the fuckheads that choose it for their trouble. This is what makes moderating it a challenge. The way they've chosen to deal with it, however, makes Wikipedia more than just an experiment in cooperative encyclopedia creation -- it makes it an experiment in the goodness of human nature. Its survival up till now proves that its founding belief in that goodness wasn't all wrong; its continued survival will depend on just how right that belief was(or how brilliant a mod system they install)
If we're talking about absolute points, left edge, middle, right edge, then you're right. However, "compromise" does not necessarily mean "middle." There is a much higher chance of reality lying at the compromise point, as it can fall within a wide range, than there is of reality being at either of the most extreme points.
"...is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist? If this turns out to be true, then not only do gods get demoted to janitorial duty, but they don't even get paid. This is basically saying that any god would have no choice in the creation of a universe...there is only one possible one that could ever be created."
If one is "God," and has the powers and abilities generally stated to extend above and beyond those of the natural order, wouldn't one be able to change the rules? Wouldn't that mean that no matter how the rules say a Universe must behave within any particular Universe, that God would be able to supercede these by virtue of the fact that He is not bound to the rules?
One of the big problems in all this is the variance in the definition of what God can do. Another is the extremely small sample of polled Universes.
I can think of any number of places I would take my laptop; I can think of very few I'd take my pizza.
Yeah... basically I think I'd just be embarrassed to walk to any place with a pizza box that wasn't my home or the home of a friend. Actually, the walking between homes with the pizza box would be embarrassing too. My natural habit to hold the box sideways might also attract unwanted attention. I don't even want to consider taking the thing into a coffee place or restaurant.
I can just see some bloke at Joe's pizza saying, "hey man, what's with the box?" To which I can easily answer, "oh, it's cool, I brought my own."
For many years, knowledge said that the Earth was flat. For many years, knowledge said that the Earth was the center of the Universe. For many years, knowledge said that the atom could not be split.
You may say that these pieces of knowledge changed, but that would not be true -- the basic facts that determine their accuracy are the same as they ever were. The view of the facts did change, however.
What is your knowledge is made up of the facts you know(and think you know). If you walk into a room, and see one man punch another, you would likely conclude that they were fighting. But maybe they were actors, and the room was a theatre, that might make the fight a play. Or perhaps they wore shorts and gloves, and were in a ring, that might make it a boxing match. Unless, of course, there are other facts that are missing.
Knowledge is subjective; subjective to what you can see, what you can hear, what you can otherwise sense, and what(and how) you can put together.
Wikipedia will live or die by its traffic. As it seems bent upon being an encyclopedia of everything, it has to have the hundreds, and thousands, and tens of thousands and more revisions each day.
For any project that seeks to be an encyclopedia of everything, there are but two roads: leave the door open to all, like Wikipedia, or keep the writing closed, and hire researchers to build the articles from the inside. The trouble is, the more knowledge you want to include, and the faster you want it, the more researchers you'll need to hire. That costs a lot of money, and unless you hire a true army of people to do the job, it's going to be a few years before you begin to see any progress. And the progress doesn't get faster.
No, for all the inaccuracies, arguments, and varied forms of pettiness, the raging river of activity has to remain and grow for Wikipedia to survive... and to have any form of accuracy. Consider that one person creates an article. It is only a stub, but it all information in it is correct. Someone edits it, and adds something, but some part of that is incorrect. Someone else edits again, correcting that, and adding something else that's incorrect. Someone else adds something else, and misses the mistake. Another person comes along, and fixes the mistake. The stub is shaping up, and the article gets more attention for some reason. A few people edit the budding article one way and then another. They get into an argument, and the argument becomes a fight. The truth lies somewhere between their positions, but that's forgotten. Maybe there's a reversion war. One of them gets pissed off and leaves. The other one feels he's won the day, and lingers for a little bit, then leaves. Then somebody else comes in and fixes the article.
The end result is the article becomes acceptably accurate. And it has the hands of many different people, and the subtle truths that they bring. A single researcher brings only his own hand and the truth he knows.
Well, there's flight and then there's powered flight. I think the advantages and abilities of the latter might be poisoning this argument.
Gliding is flying. That would mean, though, that even slight retardations of fall-speed would be considered flight... but that doesn't sit well with me. So far as I'm concerned, the absolute line between flight and fall is the ability to attain bouyancy in air. Rising is nice, and if you want to fly effectively, necessary, but ultimately it's just a luxury for those who aren't just trying to set records. I think that bit about not being dead on landing might be another good criterion.
Build a better mousetrap, and someone will build a smaller glider. I just don't know how he's going to fight the reflex to put his arms down to break his fall. Geesh...
Ah well. Here's hoping he makes it... for his own sake, if none others that I can immediately see arising from this endeavor.
"Even when stories are passed by word of mouth they get changed a little."
The very process of encoding a story into words alters it. The job of the writer is to try and tell you what happened. Good writers bring you closer to all the truths of the story(as there are many).
Movies and books function differently. They have different constraints, and rules about pacing. You can far more easily lay a book down, and continue it later, than you can a movie. Thus, movies generally have to be watched in one shot, but you can only sit in one place for so long -- no matter how good the movie may seem, or how comfy the seats your ass will begin to hurt after a while. Most people can comfortably sit through an hour and a half, and most of them can make it to three hours.
Most people can't read any of the LotR books in three hours. Even condensing the more static descriptions to pictures, as the movies have the advantage of doing, three hours going to cut it. Certain parts must be taken out, in favor of capturing the overall essence of the story as told by the book. With only one change in the LotR series do I feel the essence was missed, but not it is not enough for me to throw a fit over it.
Is this a real Nostradomus prophecy? He says the word "child" a lot. Then again... maybe he did write it, but not prophetically. Maybe he just had a hang-up.
Egads... this could be telling about Nostradomus. Post-telling of the past.... yes... now I just need to learn rhyme and meter.
"Trust" and "honest" are two words that have no bearing in the news. I have my suspicions that this has always been so, and that stories of "the golden days" with Cronkite and Brinkley are just romanticizations of the past.
People want to be told what they want to hear, in the way they want to hear it. That is the reason that biased news sources survive, and not through the propping up of billionaires. People want to hear that the people they like are doing a good job, and that the people they don't are not. People want to hear how naughty those with fame and power are. People want to hear about scandalous murder cases and their trials.
The system described in the video would only streamline the current process. The only advantage to be gained from it would be the increased speed at which the flimflam would be produced and disseminated.
The fault, however, is not in our stars, nor, fully, our news angencies, but ourselves. This "dictatorial press" rules with a papier-mache power. News consumers are not locked in to any specific source. At any time, they can change the channel, take two steps to the side at the news stand, turn the dial, or surf to another site. We have come to a point where the reporterrs of the news are in such competition to grab eyes and ears, that one, in fact, has to make an effort not to brush up against multiple sources. As to the bias of those sources, it is the consumer who buys the story(with money, time, or both), not the news outlet forcing their consumption.
This, that you describe as a democratization of the news, would only reinforce our worst habits. Already too few people take in the news with a discerning eye and ear -- this system would seek to eliminate those entirely.
"Many people like ice cream." In this sentence, "people" is being used to mean "multiple individuals."
"Our peoples can at least agree on the goodness of ice cream." In this sentence, "people" is being used to mean "a group."
The difference between these two cases is that in the second one refers to a unified, monolithic whole, whereas the first one refers to a collection of parts.
Sheep form a herd, but few would find any problem in referring to many herds(more than one unified group).
"Medias" is a real word... just a bit of a shaky one usage-wise. I think the phrase at the root of this string is arguably correct.
It matters because the standardization of language is the entire reason we are able to communicate like this. English is flexible, and can remain discernable through a large number of errors, but that doesn't mean that we should settle for making a large number of errors.
Further, are you suggesting that we should not learn to overcome our errors? The corrections were delivered without insult. Should we settle for mediocrity, just because we are using a language other than our native one? If I were using a language, any language, and I screwed up somehow, I would appreciate the chance to better myself.
Don't take those corrections given to another poster as a personal slight. Your English is very good, and had you not mentioned it, I wouldn't have known it wasn't your native language. Just try not to get so angry... it rarely helps anything.
This, it seems to me, is a major problem. Is the processing any/much faster than in the Apollo days? I don't know, and either way, the process needs to be sped up.
Reminds me too much of the ship in "the Cold Equations." There are a lot of ways that current space flight is like that that can't be helped at this point, but it would seem to me that this isn't one of them.
From what I have seen, the criticism isn't about a few percentage points of derivivity or homage, but a somewhat more substantial amount of taken material. To my understanding, it is at least the initial setup, the way that setup is enacted, and most of the characters that are almost identical in both works.
I have not seen Kimba. My information comes from some screengrabs, and some arguments referencing the film. At this point, I'm not willing to give Disney much of a benefit of the doubt; only so far as my knowledge on the subject is loose and secondhand.
However, if those arguments truly are correct, and the Lion King is as close to Kimba storywise as they say, then a comparison with Hamlet seems a flippant one. The famillial relationships of three main characters before the first act, and the action committed there don't ice the analogy. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "sir, I know Hamlet, and the Lion King is no Hamlet."
Now, I might argue that Small Time Crooks is suspiciously derivative of Larceny Inc., but with the latter's lack of availability...
You're automatically buggered in trying to watch all six movies. If you see episodes four, five, and six first, you can make a pretty decent guess as to which heroes and villains are going to die, and when. You know who is going to go where, what they're going to do, and what they're going to become. This wouldn't be a problem, but, to me, and I believe to many others, the prequels have blundered about so clumsily that one feels little to no incentive to see it all played out.
If you start from episode one, then episodes four, five, and six lose a lot of punch. Especially in Empire, a lot of the best parts get neutered or otherwise destroyed. Where's the surprise in Yoda's revealed identity? Where's the surprise in finding out that not only is Anakin Skywalker still alive, but that he is Darth Vader?
We've seen Yoda in the prequels, and we know what he looks like. There's no enlightenment there that there are alien jedi. My conjectures about episode three are such that we'll see what happens to Anakin, and we'll see that he wasn't killed by Darth Vader. Either we see him in the mask, and there is utterly no surprise when he reveals his identity later, or he disappears a la Gandalf... but even that way, we do not see him fight Darth Vader, or be betrayed and murdered by Darth Vader.
An idea with a touch of finesse that I doubt Lucas will use or surpass in episode three to solve the "Anakin/Vader identity problem," is to actually introduce one more Darth as another pupil/former pupil of Obi wan. Hell, he could even have the pre-Vader wear the mask.
The major problem with all solutions is that Anakin/Vader has to come out of episode three victorious, a rising pupil of Palpatine, and a rising star of the nascent Empire. I just can't see Lucas writing through this problem without severely buggering the best parts of Empire, and thus buggering most of the best writing of the original trilogy.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, and may I wish you and yours great healthiness and happiness.
Nwver heard it associated with meatballs, spicy or otherwise. Maybe I'm a cigarette? I do enjoy myself at the occasional expense of those around me, and there are plenty of restaurants I'm not allowed in.
Oh very cute you merry andrew. And why are you calling me a piece of firewood anyway? ;)
You had me with the context part. At repetition, I was still fundamentally with you, but shakily. At the ad hominem, you lost me.
I do very much agree with you that context makes a difference. But please, please, please don't attack the people you're responding to. It cheapens your good points and makes you look like an idiot.
(the vehicle sound effects of Excite Bike or Spy Hunter is what came to mind when I heard the clip...)
Q-bert was the first thing thought of at the blips. Midway through, I was thinking that someone was very bad at Q-bert. Thought of a motorcycle as the clip built toward the end... but couldn't dredge up Excitebike. It fits perfectly, though.
This reads more like an advertisement for the website in question and the man who runs it than anything else. It reads like an advertisement disguised as a complaint, actually.
It doesn't help that you posted the parent comment anonymously, either. If you have a problem, or see a problem, at least have the courage to sign your name to your complaint -- it'll give you a touch more credibility, if nothing else.
Keyboard, iPod mini, dock, hands, AirPort, Bluetooth and PC sold separately.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/design.html
I think the problem has more to do with two factors: passion and audience.
These are not idiots, either. Idiots are merely incompetent, not malicious. These are, as Penny Arcade would put it, "fuckheads," trying to ruin the experience or resource for everyone else.
Some of these fuckheads lie dormant in society, becoming emboldened with the anonymity of the web. Some are just awful all the time and everywhere. However they came to be fuckheads on the web is immaterial; what is material is the fact that fuckheads are naturally attracted to a crowd. The more people they can piss off or otherwise get a reaction out of, the more interested they are in causing a problem. That's why larger sites need some manner of moderation system, to supress the fuckheads from getting an audience. Wikipedia's runs through two steps, if I'm not mistaken: user correction and administrative banning. These work on the audience factor unless a flood of fuckheads streams in... but I don't think this was the sole problem on some of the troubled pre-US election articles.
Fuckheads have passions, just like normal people. Unlike normal people, fuckheads believe that everyone is not only entitled, but waiting to receive their passions. This set not only hangs around on an article, but takes up residence there until eviction. I think Wikipedia could've handled the flood of fuckheads it got, if fewer of them had been terribly passionate fuckheads. A flood of these can take down even the best of sites.(excepting those with particularly inspired moderation systems)
Wikipedia faces a particular challenge in its moderation question. On Slashdot, most of the malicious comments get caught in the net, but a few good comments do as well, or else they get passed over, and lost in a sea of mediocrity. This isn't much of a problem, though, because there are systems(distribution system of mod points, actual distribution of mod points, meta-moderation, viewing threshold, etc.) to keep the moderation system from getting too out of whack, and also because the loss of a few comments about a news story isn't important. Wikipedia needs every good voice it can get, though. It's entire raison d'etre is hosting the stuff the people who visit the site deposit. Articles there are not born great, it has only been through a mass of editing at the hands of many different editors that anything has become impressive.
It is part of the process that mistakes go in, but the only way they can come out again is through an army of editors. Wikipedia would slam shut a lot faster through the mandatory vetting of editors than through the antics of the fuckheads that choose it for their trouble. This is what makes moderating it a challenge. The way they've chosen to deal with it, however, makes Wikipedia more than just an experiment in cooperative encyclopedia creation -- it makes it an experiment in the goodness of human nature. Its survival up till now proves that its founding belief in that goodness wasn't all wrong; its continued survival will depend on just how right that belief was(or how brilliant a mod system they install)
If we're talking about absolute points, left edge, middle, right edge, then you're right. However, "compromise" does not necessarily mean "middle." There is a much higher chance of reality lying at the compromise point, as it can fall within a wide range, than there is of reality being at either of the most extreme points.
Just poking about on one point...
"...is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist? If this turns out to be true, then not only do gods get demoted to janitorial duty, but they don't even get paid. This is basically saying that any god would have no choice in the creation of a universe...there is only one possible one that could ever be created."
If one is "God," and has the powers and abilities generally stated to extend above and beyond those of the natural order, wouldn't one be able to change the rules? Wouldn't that mean that no matter how the rules say a Universe must behave within any particular Universe, that God would be able to supercede these by virtue of the fact that He is not bound to the rules?
One of the big problems in all this is the variance in the definition of what God can do. Another is the extremely small sample of polled Universes.
I can think of any number of places I would take my laptop; I can think of very few I'd take my pizza.
Yeah... basically I think I'd just be embarrassed to walk to any place with a pizza box that wasn't my home or the home of a friend. Actually, the walking between homes with the pizza box would be embarrassing too. My natural habit to hold the box sideways might also attract unwanted attention. I don't even want to consider taking the thing into a coffee place or restaurant.
I can just see some bloke at Joe's pizza saying, "hey man, what's with the box?" To which I can easily answer, "oh, it's cool, I brought my own."
4. ???
5. Buy pizza to satisfy hunger.
For many years, knowledge said that the Earth was flat.
For many years, knowledge said that the Earth was the center of the Universe.
For many years, knowledge said that the atom could not be split.
You may say that these pieces of knowledge changed, but that would not be true -- the basic facts that determine their accuracy are the same as they ever were. The view of the facts did change, however.
What is your knowledge is made up of the facts you know(and think you know). If you walk into a room, and see one man punch another, you would likely conclude that they were fighting. But maybe they were actors, and the room was a theatre, that might make the fight a play. Or perhaps they wore shorts and gloves, and were in a ring, that might make it a boxing match. Unless, of course, there are other facts that are missing.
Knowledge is subjective; subjective to what you can see, what you can hear, what you can otherwise sense, and what(and how) you can put together.
Wikipedia will live or die by its traffic. As it seems bent upon being an encyclopedia of everything, it has to have the hundreds, and thousands, and tens of thousands and more revisions each day.
For any project that seeks to be an encyclopedia of everything, there are but two roads: leave the door open to all, like Wikipedia, or keep the writing closed, and hire researchers to build the articles from the inside. The trouble is, the more knowledge you want to include, and the faster you want it, the more researchers you'll need to hire. That costs a lot of money, and unless you hire a true army of people to do the job, it's going to be a few years before you begin to see any progress. And the progress doesn't get faster.
No, for all the inaccuracies, arguments, and varied forms of pettiness, the raging river of activity has to remain and grow for Wikipedia to survive... and to have any form of accuracy. Consider that one person creates an article. It is only a stub, but it all information in it is correct. Someone edits it, and adds something, but some part of that is incorrect. Someone else edits again, correcting that, and adding something else that's incorrect. Someone else adds something else, and misses the mistake. Another person comes along, and fixes the mistake. The stub is shaping up, and the article gets more attention for some reason. A few people edit the budding article one way and then another. They get into an argument, and the argument becomes a fight. The truth lies somewhere between their positions, but that's forgotten. Maybe there's a reversion war. One of them gets pissed off and leaves. The other one feels he's won the day, and lingers for a little bit, then leaves. Then somebody else comes in and fixes the article.
The end result is the article becomes acceptably accurate. And it has the hands of many different people, and the subtle truths that they bring. A single researcher brings only his own hand and the truth he knows.
Great example of some of the strengths of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea
No -- bouancy in the sense of stopping all downward motion.
Well, there's flight and then there's powered flight. I think the advantages and abilities of the latter might be poisoning this argument.
Gliding is flying. That would mean, though, that even slight retardations of fall-speed would be considered flight... but that doesn't sit well with me. So far as I'm concerned, the absolute line between flight and fall is the ability to attain bouyancy in air. Rising is nice, and if you want to fly effectively, necessary, but ultimately it's just a luxury for those who aren't just trying to set records. I think that bit about not being dead on landing might be another good criterion.
Build a better mousetrap, and someone will build a smaller glider. I just don't know how he's going to fight the reflex to put his arms down to break his fall. Geesh...
Ah well. Here's hoping he makes it... for his own sake, if none others that I can immediately see arising from this endeavor.
"Even when stories are passed by word of mouth they get changed a little."
The very process of encoding a story into words alters it. The job of the writer is to try and tell you what happened. Good writers bring you closer to all the truths of the story(as there are many).
Movies and books function differently. They have different constraints, and rules about pacing. You can far more easily lay a book down, and continue it later, than you can a movie. Thus, movies generally have to be watched in one shot, but you can only sit in one place for so long -- no matter how good the movie may seem, or how comfy the seats your ass will begin to hurt after a while. Most people can comfortably sit through an hour and a half, and most of them can make it to three hours.
Most people can't read any of the LotR books in three hours. Even condensing the more static descriptions to pictures, as the movies have the advantage of doing, three hours going to cut it. Certain parts must be taken out, in favor of capturing the overall essence of the story as told by the book. With only one change in the LotR series do I feel the essence was missed, but not it is not enough for me to throw a fit over it.
*honk*
Is this a real Nostradomus prophecy? He says the word "child" a lot. Then again... maybe he did write it, but not prophetically. Maybe he just had a hang-up.
Egads... this could be telling about Nostradomus. Post-telling of the past.... yes... now I just need to learn rhyme and meter.
"Trust" and "honest" are two words that have no bearing in the news. I have my suspicions that this has always been so, and that stories of "the golden days" with Cronkite and Brinkley are just romanticizations of the past.
People want to be told what they want to hear, in the way they want to hear it. That is the reason that biased news sources survive, and not through the propping up of billionaires. People want to hear that the people they like are doing a good job, and that the people they don't are not. People want to hear how naughty those with fame and power are. People want to hear about scandalous murder cases and their trials.
The system described in the video would only streamline the current process. The only advantage to be gained from it would be the increased speed at which the flimflam would be produced and disseminated.
The fault, however, is not in our stars, nor, fully, our news angencies, but ourselves. This "dictatorial press" rules with a papier-mache power. News consumers are not locked in to any specific source. At any time, they can change the channel, take two steps to the side at the news stand, turn the dial, or surf to another site. We have come to a point where the reporterrs of the news are in such competition to grab eyes and ears, that one, in fact, has to make an effort not to brush up against multiple sources. As to the bias of those sources, it is the consumer who buys the story(with money, time, or both), not the news outlet forcing their consumption.
This, that you describe as a democratization of the news, would only reinforce our worst habits. Already too few people take in the news with a discerning eye and ear -- this system would seek to eliminate those entirely.
"People" is not a special case.
"Many people like ice cream." In this sentence, "people" is being used to mean "multiple individuals."
"Our peoples can at least agree on the goodness of ice cream." In this sentence, "people" is being used to mean "a group."
The difference between these two cases is that in the second one refers to a unified, monolithic whole, whereas the first one refers to a collection of parts.
Sheep form a herd, but few would find any problem in referring to many herds(more than one unified group).
"Medias" is a real word... just a bit of a shaky one usage-wise. I think the phrase at the root of this string is arguably correct.
It matters because the standardization of language is the entire reason we are able to communicate like this. English is flexible, and can remain discernable through a large number of errors, but that doesn't mean that we should settle for making a large number of errors.
Further, are you suggesting that we should not learn to overcome our errors? The corrections were delivered without insult. Should we settle for mediocrity, just because we are using a language other than our native one? If I were using a language, any language, and I screwed up somehow, I would appreciate the chance to better myself.
Don't take those corrections given to another poster as a personal slight. Your English is very good, and had you not mentioned it, I wouldn't have known it wasn't your native language. Just try not to get so angry... it rarely helps anything.
This, it seems to me, is a major problem. Is the processing any/much faster than in the Apollo days? I don't know, and either way, the process needs to be sped up.
Reminds me too much of the ship in "the Cold Equations." There are a lot of ways that current space flight is like that that can't be helped at this point, but it would seem to me that this isn't one of them.
From what I have seen, the criticism isn't about a few percentage points of derivivity or homage, but a somewhat more substantial amount of taken material. To my understanding, it is at least the initial setup, the way that setup is enacted, and most of the characters that are almost identical in both works.
I have not seen Kimba. My information comes from some screengrabs, and some arguments referencing the film. At this point, I'm not willing to give Disney much of a benefit of the doubt; only so far as my knowledge on the subject is loose and secondhand.
However, if those arguments truly are correct, and the Lion King is as close to Kimba storywise as they say, then a comparison with Hamlet seems a flippant one. The famillial relationships of three main characters before the first act, and the action committed there don't ice the analogy. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "sir, I know Hamlet, and the Lion King is no Hamlet."
Now, I might argue that Small Time Crooks is suspiciously derivative of Larceny Inc., but with the latter's lack of availability...
You're automatically buggered in trying to watch all six movies. If you see episodes four, five, and six first, you can make a pretty decent guess as to which heroes and villains are going to die, and when. You know who is going to go where, what they're going to do, and what they're going to become. This wouldn't be a problem, but, to me, and I believe to many others, the prequels have blundered about so clumsily that one feels little to no incentive to see it all played out.
If you start from episode one, then episodes four, five, and six lose a lot of punch. Especially in Empire, a lot of the best parts get neutered or otherwise destroyed. Where's the surprise in Yoda's revealed identity? Where's the surprise in finding out that not only is Anakin Skywalker still alive, but that he is Darth Vader?
We've seen Yoda in the prequels, and we know what he looks like. There's no enlightenment there that there are alien jedi. My conjectures about episode three are such that we'll see what happens to Anakin, and we'll see that he wasn't killed by Darth Vader. Either we see him in the mask, and there is utterly no surprise when he reveals his identity later, or he disappears a la Gandalf... but even that way, we do not see him fight Darth Vader, or be betrayed and murdered by Darth Vader.
An idea with a touch of finesse that I doubt Lucas will use or surpass in episode three to solve the "Anakin/Vader identity problem," is to actually introduce one more Darth as another pupil/former pupil of Obi wan. Hell, he could even have the pre-Vader wear the mask.
The major problem with all solutions is that Anakin/Vader has to come out of episode three victorious, a rising pupil of Palpatine, and a rising star of the nascent Empire. I just can't see Lucas writing through this problem without severely buggering the best parts of Empire, and thus buggering most of the best writing of the original trilogy.
That'd suck if they were right... I'd have to go back to reading Slashdot in the newspaper like I used to.
(things seem funnier at five a.m.)