you are correct that humour is subjective, so I suppose that mavav will have to be something that we agree to disagree on, although I do agree that thinkofthechildren.co.uk is humourous, as was Scary Movie (to a degree), and as is the Lincoln Park Trixie Society (which used to be much more subtle) and The Hollywood Pulse. The appeal of mavav simply escapes me.
a rather interesting bit of material: copper lamé with an electrically conductive adhesive on the back
I mention this in case anyone would like to pursue a similar project but isn't able to come up with the exotic materials:
I don't know about the properties of the adhesive or the quality of the copper itself, but in stained glass assembly a copper foil tape with adhesive backing is used so that the pieces of glass can be soldered together. It's easy to find and affordable too, although perhaps not as sexy as that used in the original.
I took a quick look at the journal of the authorof the orignial post, and saw no reference to schools, backpacks nor superjews. How about a link? Whether he's a cop or not, at this point, is moot to me.
my last comment got submitted while attempting to create a new paragraph - whatever.
the beauty of irony is that it would be funny if there were any irony to be found at mavav. As it stands there is none. It is not funny. There is the irony of your comment. That is funny.
anyways, you don't make fun of strip malls by building a perfect strip mall and operating it exactly like a strip mall and saying 'isn't this funny?' and you don't make fun of cats by taking a normal cat and placing it somewhere that cats would normally be and having it behave exactly as a cat normally would and saying 'isn't this funny?'
What has happened is that it was posted to slashdot and everyone was told how funny it is and everyone responded by saying 'yes, it is funny' because everyone was let in on the joke, and slashdot is cool, and etc., etc., sheep, etc.
it might be funny if it were posted to slashdot as a real anti-site and everyone freaked out and started crying 'boohoo' and 'DOS the server' and a flame war erupted, but because mavav is so faithful to the real thing, even that wouldn't be funny.
jeez, I'm not talking about fart jokes. There isn't even a hint of exagerration, irony, bad timing, good timing or anything nonsensical - the typical attributes of humour. mavav looks, reads, sounds, smells and tastes exactly like a real anti-violence/videogame/whatever site, and my point is if that's the case, then why bother? What is so funny about that?
it's a parody, but it's not actually funny because it's played so straight that it looks and reads exactly the same as the real thing. So what's so funny about that? Why not just look at the real thing and have a larf?
to make it funny it needs more humour - that's why the Onion and Spinal Tap are/were very funny; they play the jokes like the real thing but just about anyone who looks at them knows it's a joke, yet they still exhibit enough of the roots of their humour and play it just straight enough (but not entirely straight) that people are occasionally fooled into believing they are real.
Now that's funny. MAVAV isn't funny at all. I didn't see one joke on there.
I really, really wish I could remember the name of the book (not the one mentioned in another reply I saw here), and perhaps that failure makes this reply almost worthless, but this book I read regarding post-WWII japan quoted US military sources/reports that the pre-bomb casualty predictions of an invasion of japan were grossly overstated, and that Japan was in such an impoverished state that the use of the bombs probably only reduced the duration of the war by days and maybe weeks, not months. The idea that tens and hundreds of thousands of allied troops would be slaughtered on the shores of japan was described as a long-standing erroneous myth created, partly as propaganda, over 50 years ago.
I have many memories of when I was 4, and some memories of 3, including briefly tricking my parents into believing I could spell, using a fisher price school days desk. I am 34 now and can spell quite well on my own.
Every time artistic copyright issues are brought up the word greedy is thrown around like it's a big shit pie.
The music industry is a business. There are organisations in that business whose job it is to look out for the industry's interests. Those interests are 1) being paid for work done (writing music) 2) not getting ripped off. Yes, I am the first to admit that there are scumbags and jerkfaces in the music industry, and I do not agree with many of the music industry's tactics, but the payment of royalties is necessary.
Next time the word "greedy" is being bandied about, perhaps we can take a look at the many people who insist that music be free, who think they are being ripped off by music companies with expensive CDs and roylaties, and who think that everyone involved in the recording industry is rolling in cash. Who is the greedy one? We are not talking about food, water or air; this is purely entertainment, and nobody is going to die if they don't get the soundtrack to 8 mile or the latest limp bizkit CD. You are not being gouged simply because you are being charged the fair market value for the product. That this arguement continues on and on and on is testament to the overinflated value given to the entertainment industry. If you think you are being ripped off, don't buy the damned CDs. Don't get the phone with the fancy ringtones. Turn off the radio and hang the DJ. Don't steal the music and spout that the industry is the greedy one. Don't put so much value in something that is essentially nothing, and then call the seller greedy.
Why the hell am I reading slashdot at 11pm on christmas eve? because I'm sick, that's why...
Anyways, as interesting as it is to see this being developed (as an expensive stupid toy I'll never own), this thing is huge, even without the engine attached. I read through/skimmed fairly quickly and saw no reference to a weight. It must be pretty heavy (top-heavy at that) - will the pilot be able to stand independently before/after flight, and how would landings be handled? Also, what about the heat? It looks like the exhaust ports are close to the pilot. Would an insulated suit be required? Then there's vibration; will the vibration be tolerable? Will the vibration be enjoyable?
so I'm curious about:
weight
heat
vibration
Perhaps I missed something in the article, but I did look (quickly) for this info. Hypothesizing, conjecture, guesstimating, half-assed jokes and outright lying are welcomed and appreciated.
comparing peoples' inevitable desire for differing OSs, apps and platforms to the desire to have different cars, shoes, etc., is comparing apples to oranges.
If half the populace drove cars only, and the other half insisted on motorcycles only, then you're a bit closer to the issues involved here: Similar functions with many base-level similarities, but both having distinctive needs, many of which do not apply to the other.
It's not cute - it's a green ball. A green ball isn't cute. If it were a computer stuck inside a big plastic hello kitty, or a fuzzy bunny, or a little puppy, then that would be cute.
Imagine if you will, that you had never seen it, that it wasn't a computer, but just a plastic shell, and someone handed it to you. What would your reaction be? Probably not 'cute'.
most people don't know a PDF from their asses - compatability issues? Wot dat?
Windows and MSOffice will include whatever new standard MS wants to push.
MS software, browsers, etcetera, could suddenly have 'issues' with PDFs, and we all know how MS compatibility is read by the common person: it's not MS' fault nor the browser, it's the stupid website.
All that needs to happen is for the above to start happening in offices, and specifically happen in some stuffed suit's office and suddenly MegaCorpCo is switching to a 'standard' known for making websites more annoying and slower to load and is available on fewer platforms.
Geeks everywhere should climb off the pedestals once in a while and talk to the regular office people - many of them love MS Office, PowerPoint, all that bullshit. They can make presentations! They can make web pages! They LOVE that shit and don't care what you have to say about it. Even the ones who are annoyed with crashing or whatever bugs them (heh - pun), they won't try anything else because it's too much of a hassle (hence Apple's 'switch' campaign trying to illustrate that trying something new ain't so bad) That is how the standard can/may change.
Just imagine the horrible, ugly, stupid and brainless presentations cranked out by the thousands and millions with the new, easy-to-use MS FlashOffice. I can see the clip art now...
Personally, I have no need for wireless internet and it's not on my radar (pun) of schweet stuff I want want want.
I'm not saying the military should run roughshod over blah blah blah, I'm not flaming wireless users blah blah blah, I'm just questioning the overall importance of this technology. Sure there are circumstances where wireless is the only option, or the simplest of many unwieldly options, but considering all the issues about security etc. why is having wireless internet absolutely everywhere so damned important? What the hell is so difficult about plugging a cable into a comp anyways?
This isn't a troll; I just need some convincing that wireless internet is actually important and not just something that Cutting Edge People want to have.
If it's a company large enough to warrant a $65mil CEO then there must be a pile of these out there and surely someone could verify the story. Certainly at a company with that much money behind it, and the number of people that would be involved in such a company, and the friends who might hear of the doll, there would be more than one slashdot reader willing to come forward (non-anon at that).
Where's the link to an image? Where's the slashdotting of some innocent's poor server? Where's the jokes about a beowulf cluster of these? Oh wait, now it's that damned russian joke going on and on and on. Anyways where's the evidence.
or, it could be a troll.
right now I'm betting on the latter
Although I do realise that the main thrust of this story is the question 'what is your company doing for you this christmas?'
As for myself, a job would be nice. Anybody hiring graphic designers?
hmmm... to view the Leonids I went into the mountains of northern california, staying at a campsite around 5200 feet, the nearest small town (with obtrusive lights) over an hour away and I slept/lay awake in the open on a picnic table, facing the sky.
Okay, so I only saw perhaps a dozen meteors through two nights, but the trip was nice nonetheless. The stars were amazingly bright out there too.
Anyways, I've forgotten what my original point was, but just because it sucked last time around doesn't mean they will always suck. Unless it rains (looks out window) - shit.
When you get right down to it, I guess you want to see them or you don't. Just don't rain on other people's parade. (pun - haha?)
Of course, your mentality is what drives corporations to do whatever they can get away with to make a buck - pollute, create terrible working conditions, use underhanded techniques to sell unsafe unreliable product, use shady legal tactics, and of course the use of sneaky accounting to cook the books - all of which had to be addressed by government legislation or union action. Considering that corporations are run by people, where do those people make a distinction between business decisions and personal decisions? Could an executive run a person down with a car in the street and claim it was for the sake of being on-time at an important business meeting? Extreme, but where would the line be drawn?
As was pointed out in an earlier post, corporations are treated as individuals in the eyes of the law; that is plain fact. Despite that the legal muscle of large corporations makes them immune from a lot of legal scrutiny, corporations should not simply determine what is right or wrong by attaching a dollar value to their actions. That is very simpleminded.
It is very easy to say that immoral businesses should be boycotted and that will effect change, but when (like in the US political system) you are faced with a choice between tweedle dee or tweedle dum there's no way to really win. Add to that the fact that large corporations work together to get the legal concessions they want (the auto manufacturers are a good example, consistently fighting safety enhancements and polution controls for decades, despite anything their advertising may suggest). I seriously doubt that boycotting would be effective - far-right religious groups tried that in the 80s to have their moral choices applied to companies, but that doesn't happen any longer because the companies figured out that the boycotts barely dent the bottom line.
So you suggest people should take action. I suggest people vote in politicians who have the guts to legislate large corporations. I fear the worst now that the federal goverment is all-R; the republican mantra of 'less goverment' is really more about 'less goverment for corporate america' than it it for the average citizen, but then that's a whole other rant.
Slashdot Mirror
you are correct that humour is subjective, so I suppose that mavav will have to be something that we agree to disagree on, although I do agree that thinkofthechildren.co.uk is humourous, as was Scary Movie (to a degree), and as is the Lincoln Park Trixie Society (which used to be much more subtle) and The Hollywood Pulse. The appeal of mavav simply escapes me.
I mention this in case anyone would like to pursue a similar project but isn't able to come up with the exotic materials:
I don't know about the properties of the adhesive or the quality of the copper itself, but in stained glass assembly a copper foil tape with adhesive backing is used so that the pieces of glass can be soldered together. It's easy to find and affordable too, although perhaps not as sexy as that used in the original.
what more can I say than 'Bravo Sir!'
I took a quick look at the journal of the authorof the orignial post, and saw no reference to schools, backpacks nor superjews. How about a link? Whether he's a cop or not, at this point, is moot to me.
please see my reply to another humour specialist posted here.
the beauty of irony is that it would be funny if there were any irony to be found at mavav. As it stands there is none. It is not funny. There is the irony of your comment. That is funny.
anyways, you don't make fun of strip malls by building a perfect strip mall and operating it exactly like a strip mall and saying 'isn't this funny?' and you don't make fun of cats by taking a normal cat and placing it somewhere that cats would normally be and having it behave exactly as a cat normally would and saying 'isn't this funny?'
What has happened is that it was posted to slashdot and everyone was told how funny it is and everyone responded by saying 'yes, it is funny' because everyone was let in on the joke, and slashdot is cool, and etc., etc., sheep, etc.
it might be funny if it were posted to slashdot as a real anti-site and everyone freaked out and started crying 'boohoo' and 'DOS the server' and a flame war erupted, but because mavav is so faithful to the real thing, even that wouldn't be funny.
jeez, I'm not talking about fart jokes. There isn't even a hint of exagerration, irony, bad timing, good timing or anything nonsensical - the typical attributes of humour. mavav looks, reads, sounds, smells and tastes exactly like a real anti-violence/videogame/whatever site, and my point is if that's the case, then why bother? What is so funny about that?
to make it funny it needs more humour - that's why the Onion and Spinal Tap are/were very funny; they play the jokes like the real thing but just about anyone who looks at them knows it's a joke, yet they still exhibit enough of the roots of their humour and play it just straight enough (but not entirely straight) that people are occasionally fooled into believing they are real.
Now that's funny. MAVAV isn't funny at all. I didn't see one joke on there.
I really, really wish I could remember the name of the book (not the one mentioned in another reply I saw here), and perhaps that failure makes this reply almost worthless, but this book I read regarding post-WWII japan quoted US military sources/reports that the pre-bomb casualty predictions of an invasion of japan were grossly overstated, and that Japan was in such an impoverished state that the use of the bombs probably only reduced the duration of the war by days and maybe weeks, not months. The idea that tens and hundreds of thousands of allied troops would be slaughtered on the shores of japan was described as a long-standing erroneous myth created, partly as propaganda, over 50 years ago.
I have many memories of when I was 4, and some memories of 3, including briefly tricking my parents into believing I could spell, using a fisher price school days desk. I am 34 now and can spell quite well on my own.
The music industry is a business. There are organisations in that business whose job it is to look out for the industry's interests. Those interests are 1) being paid for work done (writing music) 2) not getting ripped off. Yes, I am the first to admit that there are scumbags and jerkfaces in the music industry, and I do not agree with many of the music industry's tactics, but the payment of royalties is necessary.
Next time the word "greedy" is being bandied about, perhaps we can take a look at the many people who insist that music be free, who think they are being ripped off by music companies with expensive CDs and roylaties, and who think that everyone involved in the recording industry is rolling in cash. Who is the greedy one? We are not talking about food, water or air; this is purely entertainment, and nobody is going to die if they don't get the soundtrack to 8 mile or the latest limp bizkit CD. You are not being gouged simply because you are being charged the fair market value for the product. That this arguement continues on and on and on is testament to the overinflated value given to the entertainment industry. If you think you are being ripped off, don't buy the damned CDs. Don't get the phone with the fancy ringtones. Turn off the radio and hang the DJ. Don't steal the music and spout that the industry is the greedy one. Don't put so much value in something that is essentially nothing, and then call the seller greedy.
Anyways, as interesting as it is to see this being developed (as an expensive stupid toy I'll never own), this thing is huge, even without the engine attached. I read through/skimmed fairly quickly and saw no reference to a weight. It must be pretty heavy (top-heavy at that) - will the pilot be able to stand independently before/after flight, and how would landings be handled? Also, what about the heat? It looks like the exhaust ports are close to the pilot. Would an insulated suit be required? Then there's vibration; will the vibration be tolerable? Will the vibration be enjoyable?
so I'm curious about:
weight
heat
vibration
Perhaps I missed something in the article, but I did look (quickly) for this info. Hypothesizing, conjecture, guesstimating, half-assed jokes and outright lying are welcomed and appreciated.
If half the populace drove cars only, and the other half insisted on motorcycles only, then you're a bit closer to the issues involved here: Similar functions with many base-level similarities, but both having distinctive needs, many of which do not apply to the other.
Imagine if you will, that you had never seen it, that it wasn't a computer, but just a plastic shell, and someone handed it to you. What would your reaction be? Probably not 'cute'.
oh santa please please please
most people don't know a PDF from their asses - compatability issues? Wot dat?
Windows and MSOffice will include whatever new standard MS wants to push.
MS software, browsers, etcetera, could suddenly have 'issues' with PDFs, and we all know how MS compatibility is read by the common person: it's not MS' fault nor the browser, it's the stupid website.
All that needs to happen is for the above to start happening in offices, and specifically happen in some stuffed suit's office and suddenly MegaCorpCo is switching to a 'standard' known for making websites more annoying and slower to load and is available on fewer platforms.
Geeks everywhere should climb off the pedestals once in a while and talk to the regular office people - many of them love MS Office, PowerPoint, all that bullshit. They can make presentations! They can make web pages! They LOVE that shit and don't care what you have to say about it. Even the ones who are annoyed with crashing or whatever bugs them (heh - pun), they won't try anything else because it's too much of a hassle (hence Apple's 'switch' campaign trying to illustrate that trying something new ain't so bad) That is how the standard can/may change.
Look for Flash to become the new PowerPoint.
Just imagine the horrible, ugly, stupid and brainless presentations cranked out by the thousands and millions with the new, easy-to-use MS FlashOffice. I can see the clip art now...
Personally, I have no need for wireless internet and it's not on my radar (pun) of schweet stuff I want want want.
I'm not saying the military should run roughshod over blah blah blah, I'm not flaming wireless users blah blah blah, I'm just questioning the overall importance of this technology. Sure there are circumstances where wireless is the only option, or the simplest of many unwieldly options, but considering all the issues about security etc. why is having wireless internet absolutely everywhere so damned important? What the hell is so difficult about plugging a cable into a comp anyways?
This isn't a troll; I just need some convincing that wireless internet is actually important and not just something that Cutting Edge People want to have.
happy sales!
or maybe the orig poster works at ClubJenna, Inc; the CEO there also has a bobblehead
i'll give you a hint: there's an inside joke to this post.
Yes, it occured to me as well.
If it's a company large enough to warrant a $65mil CEO then there must be a pile of these out there and surely someone could verify the story. Certainly at a company with that much money behind it, and the number of people that would be involved in such a company, and the friends who might hear of the doll, there would be more than one slashdot reader willing to come forward (non-anon at that).
Where's the link to an image? Where's the slashdotting of some innocent's poor server? Where's the jokes about a beowulf cluster of these? Oh wait, now it's that damned russian joke going on and on and on. Anyways where's the evidence.
or, it could be a troll.
right now I'm betting on the latter
Although I do realise that the main thrust of this story is the question 'what is your company doing for you this christmas?'
As for myself, a job would be nice. Anybody hiring graphic designers?
Okay, so I only saw perhaps a dozen meteors through two nights, but the trip was nice nonetheless. The stars were amazingly bright out there too.
Anyways, I've forgotten what my original point was, but just because it sucked last time around doesn't mean they will always suck. Unless it rains (looks out window) - shit.
When you get right down to it, I guess you want to see them or you don't. Just don't rain on other people's parade. (pun - haha?)
Enjoy the show tonight. Think of me while you're out there.
*sniff*
I disagree.
Of course, your mentality is what drives corporations to do whatever they can get away with to make a buck - pollute, create terrible working conditions, use underhanded techniques to sell unsafe unreliable product, use shady legal tactics, and of course the use of sneaky accounting to cook the books - all of which had to be addressed by government legislation or union action. Considering that corporations are run by people, where do those people make a distinction between business decisions and personal decisions? Could an executive run a person down with a car in the street and claim it was for the sake of being on-time at an important business meeting? Extreme, but where would the line be drawn?
As was pointed out in an earlier post, corporations are treated as individuals in the eyes of the law; that is plain fact. Despite that the legal muscle of large corporations makes them immune from a lot of legal scrutiny, corporations should not simply determine what is right or wrong by attaching a dollar value to their actions. That is very simpleminded.
It is very easy to say that immoral businesses should be boycotted and that will effect change, but when (like in the US political system) you are faced with a choice between tweedle dee or tweedle dum there's no way to really win. Add to that the fact that large corporations work together to get the legal concessions they want (the auto manufacturers are a good example, consistently fighting safety enhancements and polution controls for decades, despite anything their advertising may suggest). I seriously doubt that boycotting would be effective - far-right religious groups tried that in the 80s to have their moral choices applied to companies, but that doesn't happen any longer because the companies figured out that the boycotts barely dent the bottom line.
So you suggest people should take action. I suggest people vote in politicians who have the guts to legislate large corporations. I fear the worst now that the federal goverment is all-R; the republican mantra of 'less goverment' is really more about 'less goverment for corporate america' than it it for the average citizen, but then that's a whole other rant.