Slashdot Mirror


User: mandos11

mandos11's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
5
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 5

  1. Re:Does anybody else thinks its funny... on The Last Comdex? · · Score: 1

    Think how many links Slashdot has to Google (another slashdotted article---no prob, here's the google cache!). It was the least we could do....

  2. Re:RedSherrif on Slashback: Mutuality, Transport, Spyware · · Score: 1
    Of course someone will say "thats what they want you to think" to which there is no reply.

    Except, you can download the class file, decompile it, and see that that's all it does. As someone else has already done in another thread.

  3. Re:Does this affect us Linux users on Slashback: Mutuality, Transport, Spyware · · Score: 1

    It may surprise you to learn this, but Java works just fine with Mozilla, on Linux as well as Windows. As to whether it is installed or not, I guess it depends on your distribution.

  4. Re:Author is violating the GPL on Thomson: MP3 Licensing Same As It Ever Was · · Score: 1
    The GNU GPL states, "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

    I think you may be misconstruing this clause. I propose that this clause is merely there to state that this act is not prohibited by the GPL, which might otherwise be in doubt (under section 2). It does not actually require that distribution fees be allowed.

    Consider: it is not germaine to the GPL to require that distribution costs be chargeable. If you really think the GPL requires this, then release the next version under the "GPL without requiring distribution fees be allowed". Or, rewrite the clause to say "This license does not prohibit the charging of a fee for "

    Mandos

  5. Review in 10 bullets on Minority Report · · Score: 1
    While it has its moments, this movie could have been much better, and ultimately it falls far short.

    Here's what worked:

    • Walking through the mall with the precog. Yes, I know earlier someone said precogs could only see murders, but that doesn't matter, the scene is still great fun. Just pretend the character who said it didn't know what he was talking about.
    • Hopping from car to car travelling down the side of a building.
    • The computer displays. Who wouldn't want one of these?

    And what doesn't work:

    • The story lacks focus. It could have climaxed when Anderton decides not to shoot the guy, but instead it prefers to fritter away its philosophical motivation and become a poorly done action/suspense flick.
    • The ponderous belaboring of the missing child. Agatha's treacly visions of Anderton's son while sitting in the bay window is by far the worst scene in the movie. Oh, the pain!
    • Filming the fight in the car factory with a visibly low frames-per-second is at best distracting, and I found it actually annoying. This is a cheap technique to make the action look more violent; in the end it looks more like an MTV video.
    • Everything is telegraphed. Was there any point in the movie where you didn't know what was about to happen or had just happened? And given that you did know, did an on-screen character ever fail to explain it to you anyway?
    • The eye surgeon claimed to have been sent up by Anderton, and now was "returning the favor". How, by helping him out when he's desparate? I was expecting the doctor to just take his eyes and leave him blind.
    • The department of pre-crime has the security of a day-care center. Ok, maybe Anderton could manage to sneak in, knowing the building and its operations as well as he does. But then his wife does it too?!
    • The precogs (at least Agatha) seemed to be virtual prisoners, yet their existence was widely known. I mean, nice life; how did they justify that?
    The original story is much better written (and much different in plot). Go read it instead.

    -Mandos