Yeah; strictly speaking I should have added "in practice", although I thought this was pretty much implied by having already said it earlier; perhaps not.
In the original version of 2001, they had Saturn instead of Jupiter as the source of the Big Mystery.
Arthur C. Clarke actually retained Saturn as the destination in the novel (not a 'novelisation'; it was written concurrently in order to help develop the film). The novel also varies in several other areas; notably the "pod bay doors" scene in the film is handled differently, albeit to the same ends. The 'stargate' is also different.
The difference is as much one of tone and style, however. The novel is more ACC "factual" and explains things in a way the film never tries to.
Having seen the film some 6 years after first reading the book, I made what (in retrospect) I consider the mistake of treating them as the same thing in different form. At first, I saw the film as being similar to the book, but with less explanation; now I realise that at a deeper level the philosophy and approach of the book and film are fundamentally different, and to get the most out of the film, it's necessary to consider it on its own merits.
That's not to say I prefer the film; in some ways, I think it's overrated and pretentious (having initially given it an unconsidered free ride on my "favourites" list on the back of my liking of the novel, I realised that on its own merits I wasn't that keen on it).
The odd thing is the sequel, 2010. The novel of 2010 (which the 2010 film was based on) was an engrossing and natural sequel to the 2001 novel. This despite the fact it took the location of the action from the 2001 film (Jupiter) not the 2001 novel (Saturn); in terms of its logical style, and the quote "Oh my God... It's full of stars", it follows on from the novel, not the film.
The film 2010, which came later, perversely borrowed the "Oh my God" line from the novels (it never appeared in the original film), and the factual approach which worked in the novel combined with overly commercial sensibilities and a cheesey (and now very dated) cold-war subplot made the film less than brilliant and not a very naturalistic "sequel" to the first film.
At one stage I thought 2010 was a good film on its own merits (that is, if you hadn't seen 2001); although you need to know what happened in 2001 to get the most out of it, you could read the novel of it, so this isn't as stupid as it sounds.
My opinion of it has gone down somewhat, not because it ruins everything in 2001 by explaining it (2010:The Film is really the film of THE NOVEL of 2010; which was a sequel to THE NOVEL of 2001; it makes more sense that way than considering it as a simple sequel to the 2001 film). No, the problems I have with 2010 are:-
(a) Cheesy cold-war subplot (okay, ACC wrote this for the novel, but the sentimental aspects are ramped up in the film)....
(b) Hollywood Sentimentality (oh yeah, already mentioned that); not so much because it contrasts with the 2001 film's approach, but because it's formulaic
(c) Too much a straightforward sci-fi film; hasn't *tried* to do anything as original as Kubrick.
(d)...which includes the technology. The original film does *not* have a 1960s tech look; some of the displays are very innovative and original for their time. If they look cliched, it's only because it influenced the look of subsequent films so much. 2010, on the other hand, although in some respects more realistic (less bright lighting) hasn't tried to escape its 1980s origins. As a result, we see Chandra accessing HAL through what looks like a keyboard from a TRS-80 home computer or something; so dull, unimaginative and dated compared to the look and feel that was put into the original (e.g. the memory modules when Dave is deactivating HAL). Ditto the calculator that Heywood uses in 2010. The whole thing looked more dated than 2001 even 10 years after it was made (and 2001 was 26 years old at the same time).
(e) Didn't they have sound in space in 2010? Yuk!
China should have been kept in isolation until their commie system collapsed
The 'commie system' did collapse. China is no longer communist by any reasonable measure (if they ever were).
They're certainly totalitarian (so is communism in practice, but although communism-->totalitarian, the converse isn't necessarily true), and an indication that you can have capitalism without democracy.
In fact, the Americans assumed that by supporting China's move towards capitalism, power would become diffused and there would be more vested interest in not seeking conflict with the US. They did not believe that China would get this far without much greater decentralisation of power than has actually happened.
To some extent, I think they believed their own propoganda (capitalism --> democracy). I also think they wanted a slice of that *very* large market and figured they had a long enough spoon to sup with the Chinese government.
and they were ready to embrace a more open system of government
As I mentioned above, the Americans assumed that capitalism would lead to more open government. Now China is (for example) beginning to compete with the US for oil, many are having misgivings about this.
Incidentally, keep an eye on Zimbabwe; Mugabe is importing vast quantities of goods from China, and there is evidence that he is seeking to ally with them (I'm assuming that China are equally interested in Zimbabwe's resources). It's a very good explanation as to why he's tearing down street markets and basically destroying his country; leaves it open for Chinese goods to flood the market.
There's only one company in the US legally allowed to import coca leaves for processing, Stephan Co, in New Jersey. They have an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola to provide the extract, and an exclusive license from the DEA to import the leaves.
Uh... and this is supposed to be the country of free-trade?
If the government (not the free market) is restricting importation of a substance to one company, and that one company is not required to sell it to anyone who wants it for a reasonable price, then this is effectively a government-backed monopoly for no good reason.
Either they should allow the importation of coca leaves more freely, or they should require Stephan Co not to abuse their privileged position.
What is the position on importing pre-processed coca-extract?
Why do you think Coca-Cola keeps their recipes under strict secrecy?
So that they can *pretend* there's something special about Coca-Cola, when in fact it's all about the marketing.
Yeah, go on, tell me that Pepsi's sweeter, or that it tastes different. Fact is that if someone managed to (in effect) copy Coca-Cola by reverse engineering, it wouldn't have much effect on Coca-Cola sales because the new cola couldn't call itself by that name, and as I said... it's about marketing.
especially if they've got "Made in the ROC" on them
I'm not sure what point you're making here; ROC (Republic of China) is Taiwan; I suspect you meant the 'People's Republic of China', which is either labelled "Made in China" or "Made in PRC".
Do you think there's a conspiracy by the Chinese government to exploit security holes in Western computers by sneaking code into little USB keys? Or is the fact that they're made in the PRC, ROC, North Korea or the Moon irrelevant to the story anyway?
To be honest, I think it's pretty damn obvious she's lying. I mean "The Matrix" and "The Terminator" stolen from the same book? Haha, no.
Not an expert on this case, possibly because I don't care that much, but the essence was that "The Matrix" and "The Terminator" were both based on *different parts* of the same story.
Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10:
on
Top 10 Web Fads
·
· Score: 1
I'm quite surprised by this - a couple things I'd never heard of before (for example, Ellen Feiss)
Ellen Feiss isn't an Internet fad, she's someone who appeared on an American TV commercial, and loads of Internet users with a thing for underage stoners posted stuff about her.
Well, that's as far as I know, because not being an American, I've *never actually seen the damn advert*. (Don't bother telling me it's available as a QuickTime download; that's totally missing the point).
Fleiss is no more an Internet fad than "Star Trek" is; both have a large online presence, but didn't originate there.
I'm a depressed person. While I've not been officially diagnosed, I think the recent suicide attempts have proven that.
I'm not sure how much they "prove" at all, except that you want them to "prove" something.
Now, I don't fucking want help. I rather like being this far below the average person. It's easier down here. No one understands that, and I'm expected to "get better" so that my friends and family will "feel better" about me.
No, you're just a self-indulgent kid who wants to exploit some of your alienation and loneliness to make yourself feel better than everyone else.
Depression isn't fun, and it doesn't make most people cool or interesting.
It's like having a damn weight round your neck, slowing you down, and the more you slow down, the more weight gets added. It's being surrounded by a fog such that you can't even see what "normal" is, destroying your motivation further, because you can't see that making the effort to work your way out of the depressive rut your in will get you anywhere worthwhile. So you do nothing and it gets worse.
That's not to say that I'd want to be a blindly optimistic person; being less than blindly happy can be a good thing and stop you being a brain-dead zealot. The experience, I'd guess, could be used for constructive purposes.
But depression is not fun, it's not interesting, in fact it's bloody boring and (real depression) is just as likely to turn you into a boring person to be with as it is to make you a poetic genius (which requires some motivation, in short supply).
It needs some will-power to actually say "fuck it, this does not apply to my life", externalise your depression and frankly to not indulge it.
Why does depression have to be cured?
I'm very sceptical that it *should* be "cured" in the way that many would like it to be. Yeah, pop your angsty teen some pills when they start feeling less than satisfied with your messed up, materialistic values, stick something in their head, yadda yadda.... sometimes it's a natural reaction to the environment someone's in, and "curing" it with science is frankly loathesome.
And on the other hand, the boring, unfashionable, (but very destructive) drizzly fog-like depression that some people have is just likely to be unbearable, and my guess is that anyone depressed to that extent (I've never been that bad, but I can at least imagine it) would not ask "why does depression have to be cured?".
If you think that 10% of the general public has any idea who "ESR" is (or Linus Torvalds, for that matter), you're a fucking idiot.
Deliberately conservative estimate, says nothing of the remaining 1/10, and referred to any recognition whatsoever, not whether they "had any idea who 'ESR' was". Idiot.
Jeez, give the man a break. Is it not a fact that he IS a famous geek?
Really... "famous" is relative anyway. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those in Slashdot-type circles (and a proportion of those working in IT) know who ESR is, or have at least heard of him. From that point of view, he could be considered famous, infamous, or at least well-known.
On the other hand, I'd be willing to be that his name wouldn't even elicit a flicker of recognition from 9/10 of the general public.
Nor would RMS's... Linus Torvalds might score somewhat higher, but in the general scheme of things he's still not really "famous".
Bill Gates, and possibly Steve Jobs. That's your lot.
Fact is, that outside Hollywood and the music business, there isn't that much universal fame. Sure, some TV stars will become well known if the show is a global hit (e.g. Mr Doohan himself), but the majority won't be known outside their home country- not even famous US television presenters, such as those on daytime TV, and game show hosts.
I don't know the circumstances of Eric's meeting with James Doohan so I can't comment on that, nor do I know what Doohan's interests were and how Eric's (relative) fame might have affected things. As Bones might have said, "Dammit Jim, I'm an actor, not an u83r-1337 h4x0r..."
Re:Just learned something new about Islam...
on
Google Moon Debuts
·
· Score: 1
Nah... feeding the trolls would be "how dare you say something so bigoted, yadda, yadda...."
I was taking the piss out of what he was saying, not responding to the actual bait. If it had been a Warner Bros cartoon, I would have been feeding him a fizzing bomb that would have blown up inside his stomach and made smoke come out of his ears:)
It was either going to get modded as funny or offtopic, but who cares:-/
BTW, that "after midnight" rule is useless unless you know when the prohibition ends.
Re:Just learned something new about Islam...
on
Google Moon Debuts
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Is it any wonder they're still living like the fucking Flintstones in predominantly Muslim countries?
Wow; you mean they have pet dinosaurs, birds that play LPs with their beaks and stone-slab news"papers"?
That's incredible!
Was "The F*****g Flintstones" an unofficial fan-produced "hentai" spin-off?
Anyway, your rant is off-topic. Now, if you'd pointed out that people in predominantly Hindu countries resembled "The Jetsons", you might not have got modded down:-P
It has all the good features of Java, plus some of the good features of C++ like pointers and access to unmanaged code.
And it has the disadvantage that it's constantly playing catch-up with Microsoft, and essentially has to do what they want to do, because it's unlikely to ever become important enough in its own right to do what it wants (without losing its raison d'etre).
And that's assuming it *can* implement the new features fast enough to be useful; as I said, we're playing the MS game, and MS like to add new features to get people to buy.
We haven't even got into the whole legality issue; although MS probably claim their standards are open, you'll probably find exactly *how* open they are if someone ever comes close to producing a C# clone to rival MS's; if this is ever a possibility, they'll be sued into the ground on one of a million basises, because that's the nature of the beast.
Of course (getting conspiratorial here), MS might tolerate and even covertly support Mono in the early stages because (a) It's a good way to split support/programming skill in the open-source community, and (b) If Mono gains sufficient ground, and people start using it for serious projects, then.... whoops! MS decide to sue Mono users on some ethically dubious but legally-sound basis because Mono infringes [whatever], effectively killing the project in a worthwhile form, and leaving all those Mono projects stranded.
So... choice; do you (a) Rewrite the whole thing from scratch using a different "open" environment (taking lots more money and time which you don't have), or (b) accept MS's "kind" offer to move to a paid "legal" implementation of C#/.Net (theirs) *plus* they won't sue you....
No-brainer; in the real world, people will go with (b) and be severely pissed off with "open source", rightly or wrongly. And Microsoft have another large customer.
As far as I'm concerned, the "must copy MS" requirement on its own is bad enough. It limits the flexibility of Mono; it dooms it to always being one step behind, and opens up the possibility of MS deviously introducing certain features solely to make it hard for the developers of Mono to copy them (forcing them to take up their time and resources in order to remain compatible).
The biggest reality problem that I had with that is that Rockstar decided to paint the tractor blue! There's what, 2 or 3 Ford tractors in existance in the states, and they used one of those for a model on what tractors should look like?
I'm no farmer, but I seem to remember hearing about Ford tractors (think I've seen one or two), so they can't be that uncommon in Scotland.
And Rockstar North are also based in Scotland... assuming the majority of the design work was completed by Rockstar North themselves, I think this is one of those subtle cues that the game isn't actually American-developed.
If one of the game characters orders Irn Bru to go with his deep-fried Mars bar supper, that's a dead giveaway;-)
Remember, in the world of software, you're either a threat or a former threat. M$ doesn't know about any other types of people. Instead of whining about why can't they play nice, you should work to actively undermine them. If you are loyal to them, you will eventually find your value captured by new products and you will be replaced by a younger, more loyal $oftie who doesn't have any of the ancient baggage of old, dropped M$ technology.
Amen. Always work on the basis that MS will screw you over (if you're a partner) or try to crush you (if you're a competitor).
You should post stuff like that under an account (though cut down on the "M$" stuff; it makes you look like a zealot, when in fact what you said was rational common-sense based on MS's past behaviour).
It's not the first time it's been said (as such), but that's as good a description of the MS situation as any.
I find it somewhat odd that no one can ever remember the different between "its" and "it's", but you never see people say stuff like "He didn't take hi's medicine today."
Because "its" sounds like the "it" being discussed, whereas "his" doesn't sound like "he" ("hi" has a totally unrelated meaning), nor "her" like "she".
Because "it's", short for "it is", trumps the possessive usage in this case.
What the *hell* are you talking about; or rather, what the hell did you think *I* was talking about?
"It's" is wrong if we're talking about "its second series"; I didn't claim that there should be an apostrophe there, nor did I disagree with that usage --> "It is".
I *did* however ask why "its second series" doesn't have an apostrophe like "the boy's car", etc. (and got the answers).
Every, and I mean EVERY website I've designed since 1993 has been fully standards compliant. I have had to hack around IE since the mid-1990s and I'm sick of it. If IE7 is not standards compliant, TOUGH! I'm not changing a damn thing in my websites. I've checked my web server logs, a major percentage (more than 50) of browsers that hit my sites are standards compliant browsers. If users can download the latest FREE version of IE, then they can just as easily download the latest FREE standards compliant browser, and blow me! I'll quit before I have to change the SIX different websites, with over a thousand pages, that I built and maintain. IE users can get bent. Bitter? DAMN RIGHT! and with good reason too.
Shortly after this outburst, Mr.Coward was fired from his job maintaining Microsoft's corporate website.
What is the fascination with her, anyway? She hasn't been in a good movie since Leon and Beautiful Girls and those were both more than a decade ago. All she's done since then is Star Wars
And you'll still be an ever agreable dolt, because she is a hot chick, and you are a geek...
Well, slavishly agreeing with a woman (hot or not) isn't going to make you appear assertive or interesting; in short, it's not going to help you get her into bed.
And even if it were, horny or not, there's no way I'd suppress my self-respect far enough to *not* say what I thought of PETA- which is that they're a bunch of extremist, hypocritical, propoganda-spewing zealots that end up damaging the causes (sometimes ones I *agree* with) they're associated with because of their tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not an analytic truth
Yeah; strictly speaking I should have added "in practice", although I thought this was pretty much implied by having already said it earlier; perhaps not.
In the original version of 2001, they had Saturn instead of Jupiter as the source of the Big Mystery.
...which includes the technology. The original film does *not* have a 1960s tech look; some of the displays are very innovative and original for their time. If they look cliched, it's only because it influenced the look of subsequent films so much. 2010, on the other hand, although in some respects more realistic (less bright lighting) hasn't tried to escape its 1980s origins. As a result, we see Chandra accessing HAL through what looks like a keyboard from a TRS-80 home computer or something; so dull, unimaginative and dated compared to the look and feel that was put into the original (e.g. the memory modules when Dave is deactivating HAL). Ditto the calculator that Heywood uses in 2010. The whole thing looked more dated than 2001 even 10 years after it was made (and 2001 was 26 years old at the same time).
Arthur C. Clarke actually retained Saturn as the destination in the novel (not a 'novelisation'; it was written concurrently in order to help develop the film). The novel also varies in several other areas; notably the "pod bay doors" scene in the film is handled differently, albeit to the same ends. The 'stargate' is also different.
The difference is as much one of tone and style, however. The novel is more ACC "factual" and explains things in a way the film never tries to.
Having seen the film some 6 years after first reading the book, I made what (in retrospect) I consider the mistake of treating them as the same thing in different form. At first, I saw the film as being similar to the book, but with less explanation; now I realise that at a deeper level the philosophy and approach of the book and film are fundamentally different, and to get the most out of the film, it's necessary to consider it on its own merits.
That's not to say I prefer the film; in some ways, I think it's overrated and pretentious (having initially given it an unconsidered free ride on my "favourites" list on the back of my liking of the novel, I realised that on its own merits I wasn't that keen on it).
The odd thing is the sequel, 2010. The novel of 2010 (which the 2010 film was based on) was an engrossing and natural sequel to the 2001 novel. This despite the fact it took the location of the action from the 2001 film (Jupiter) not the 2001 novel (Saturn); in terms of its logical style, and the quote "Oh my God... It's full of stars", it follows on from the novel, not the film.
The film 2010, which came later, perversely borrowed the "Oh my God" line from the novels (it never appeared in the original film), and the factual approach which worked in the novel combined with overly commercial sensibilities and a cheesey (and now very dated) cold-war subplot made the film less than brilliant and not a very naturalistic "sequel" to the first film.
At one stage I thought 2010 was a good film on its own merits (that is, if you hadn't seen 2001); although you need to know what happened in 2001 to get the most out of it, you could read the novel of it, so this isn't as stupid as it sounds.
My opinion of it has gone down somewhat, not because it ruins everything in 2001 by explaining it (2010:The Film is really the film of THE NOVEL of 2010; which was a sequel to THE NOVEL of 2001; it makes more sense that way than considering it as a simple sequel to the 2001 film). No, the problems I have with 2010 are:-
(a) Cheesy cold-war subplot (okay, ACC wrote this for the novel, but the sentimental aspects are ramped up in the film)....
(b) Hollywood Sentimentality (oh yeah, already mentioned that); not so much because it contrasts with the 2001 film's approach, but because it's formulaic
(c) Too much a straightforward sci-fi film; hasn't *tried* to do anything as original as Kubrick.
(d)
(e) Didn't they have sound in space in 2010? Yuk!
China should have been kept in isolation until their commie system collapsed
The 'commie system' did collapse. China is no longer communist by any reasonable measure (if they ever were).
They're certainly totalitarian (so is communism in practice, but although communism-->totalitarian, the converse isn't necessarily true), and an indication that you can have capitalism without democracy.
In fact, the Americans assumed that by supporting China's move towards capitalism, power would become diffused and there would be more vested interest in not seeking conflict with the US. They did not believe that China would get this far without much greater decentralisation of power than has actually happened.
To some extent, I think they believed their own propoganda (capitalism --> democracy). I also think they wanted a slice of that *very* large market and figured they had a long enough spoon to sup with the Chinese government.
and they were ready to embrace a more open system of government
As I mentioned above, the Americans assumed that capitalism would lead to more open government. Now China is (for example) beginning to compete with the US for oil, many are having misgivings about this.
Incidentally, keep an eye on Zimbabwe; Mugabe is importing vast quantities of goods from China, and there is evidence that he is seeking to ally with them (I'm assuming that China are equally interested in Zimbabwe's resources). It's a very good explanation as to why he's tearing down street markets and basically destroying his country; leaves it open for Chinese goods to flood the market.
There's only one company in the US legally allowed to import coca leaves for processing, Stephan Co, in New Jersey. They have an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola to provide the extract, and an exclusive license from the DEA to import the leaves.
Uh... and this is supposed to be the country of free-trade?
If the government (not the free market) is restricting importation of a substance to one company, and that one company is not required to sell it to anyone who wants it for a reasonable price, then this is effectively a government-backed monopoly for no good reason.
Either they should allow the importation of coca leaves more freely, or they should require Stephan Co not to abuse their privileged position.
What is the position on importing pre-processed coca-extract?
(\(\
:-P
(-.-) Give me back my damn feet!
No
Why do you think Coca-Cola keeps their recipes under strict secrecy?
So that they can *pretend* there's something special about Coca-Cola, when in fact it's all about the marketing.
Yeah, go on, tell me that Pepsi's sweeter, or that it tastes different. Fact is that if someone managed to (in effect) copy Coca-Cola by reverse engineering, it wouldn't have much effect on Coca-Cola sales because the new cola couldn't call itself by that name, and as I said... it's about marketing.
especially if they've got "Made in the ROC" on them
I'm not sure what point you're making here; ROC (Republic of China) is Taiwan; I suspect you meant the 'People's Republic of China', which is either labelled "Made in China" or "Made in PRC".
Do you think there's a conspiracy by the Chinese government to exploit security holes in Western computers by sneaking code into little USB keys? Or is the fact that they're made in the PRC, ROC, North Korea or the Moon irrelevant to the story anyway?
To be honest, I think it's pretty damn obvious she's lying. I mean "The Matrix" and "The Terminator" stolen from the same book? Haha, no.
Not an expert on this case, possibly because I don't care that much, but the essence was that "The Matrix" and "The Terminator" were both based on *different parts* of the same story.
I'm quite surprised by this - a couple things I'd never heard of before (for example, Ellen Feiss)
Ellen Feiss isn't an Internet fad, she's someone who appeared on an American TV commercial, and loads of Internet users with a thing for underage stoners posted stuff about her.
Well, that's as far as I know, because not being an American, I've *never actually seen the damn advert*. (Don't bother telling me it's available as a QuickTime download; that's totally missing the point).
Fleiss is no more an Internet fad than "Star Trek" is; both have a large online presence, but didn't originate there.
I'm a depressed person. While I've not been officially diagnosed, I think the recent suicide attempts have proven that.
I'm not sure how much they "prove" at all, except that you want them to "prove" something.
Now, I don't fucking want help. I rather like being this far below the average person. It's easier down here. No one understands that, and I'm expected to "get better" so that my friends and family will "feel better" about me.
No, you're just a self-indulgent kid who wants to exploit some of your alienation and loneliness to make yourself feel better than everyone else.
Depression isn't fun, and it doesn't make most people cool or interesting.
It's like having a damn weight round your neck, slowing you down, and the more you slow down, the more weight gets added. It's being surrounded by a fog such that you can't even see what "normal" is, destroying your motivation further, because you can't see that making the effort to work your way out of the depressive rut your in will get you anywhere worthwhile. So you do nothing and it gets worse.
That's not to say that I'd want to be a blindly optimistic person; being less than blindly happy can be a good thing and stop you being a brain-dead zealot. The experience, I'd guess, could be used for constructive purposes.
But depression is not fun, it's not interesting, in fact it's bloody boring and (real depression) is just as likely to turn you into a boring person to be with as it is to make you a poetic genius (which requires some motivation, in short supply).
It needs some will-power to actually say "fuck it, this does not apply to my life", externalise your depression and frankly to not indulge it.
Why does depression have to be cured?
I'm very sceptical that it *should* be "cured" in the way that many would like it to be. Yeah, pop your angsty teen some pills when they start feeling less than satisfied with your messed up, materialistic values, stick something in their head, yadda yadda.... sometimes it's a natural reaction to the environment someone's in, and "curing" it with science is frankly loathesome.
And on the other hand, the boring, unfashionable, (but very destructive) drizzly fog-like depression that some people have is just likely to be unbearable, and my guess is that anyone depressed to that extent (I've never been that bad, but I can at least imagine it) would not ask "why does depression have to be cured?".
If you think that 10% of the general public has any idea who "ESR" is (or Linus Torvalds, for that matter), you're a fucking idiot.
Deliberately conservative estimate, says nothing of the remaining 1/10, and referred to any recognition whatsoever, not whether they "had any idea who 'ESR' was". Idiot.
Jeez, give the man a break. Is it not a fact that he IS a famous geek?
Really... "famous" is relative anyway. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those in Slashdot-type circles (and a proportion of those working in IT) know who ESR is, or have at least heard of him. From that point of view, he could be considered famous, infamous, or at least well-known.
On the other hand, I'd be willing to be that his name wouldn't even elicit a flicker of recognition from 9/10 of the general public.
Nor would RMS's... Linus Torvalds might score somewhat higher, but in the general scheme of things he's still not really "famous".
Bill Gates, and possibly Steve Jobs. That's your lot.
Fact is, that outside Hollywood and the music business, there isn't that much universal fame. Sure, some TV stars will become well known if the show is a global hit (e.g. Mr Doohan himself), but the majority won't be known outside their home country- not even famous US television presenters, such as those on daytime TV, and game show hosts.
I don't know the circumstances of Eric's meeting with James Doohan so I can't comment on that, nor do I know what Doohan's interests were and how Eric's (relative) fame might have affected things. As Bones might have said, "Dammit Jim, I'm an actor, not an u83r-1337 h4x0r..."
Nah... feeding the trolls would be "how dare you say something so bigoted, yadda, yadda...."
:)
:-/
I was taking the piss out of what he was saying, not responding to the actual bait. If it had been a Warner Bros cartoon, I would have been feeding him a fizzing bomb that would have blown up inside his stomach and made smoke come out of his ears
It was either going to get modded as funny or offtopic, but who cares
BTW, that "after midnight" rule is useless unless you know when the prohibition ends.
Is it any wonder they're still living like the fucking Flintstones in predominantly Muslim countries?
:-P
Wow; you mean they have pet dinosaurs, birds that play LPs with their beaks and stone-slab news"papers"?
That's incredible!
Was "The F*****g Flintstones" an unofficial fan-produced "hentai" spin-off?
Anyway, your rant is off-topic. Now, if you'd pointed out that people in predominantly Hindu countries resembled "The Jetsons", you might not have got modded down
Try Mono/C#
Meanwhile, back in The Real World...
It has all the good features of Java, plus some of the good features of C++ like pointers and access to unmanaged code.
And it has the disadvantage that it's constantly playing catch-up with Microsoft, and essentially has to do what they want to do, because it's unlikely to ever become important enough in its own right to do what it wants (without losing its raison d'etre).
And that's assuming it *can* implement the new features fast enough to be useful; as I said, we're playing the MS game, and MS like to add new features to get people to buy.
We haven't even got into the whole legality issue; although MS probably claim their standards are open, you'll probably find exactly *how* open they are if someone ever comes close to producing a C# clone to rival MS's; if this is ever a possibility, they'll be sued into the ground on one of a million basises, because that's the nature of the beast.
Of course (getting conspiratorial here), MS might tolerate and even covertly support Mono in the early stages because (a) It's a good way to split support/programming skill in the open-source community, and (b) If Mono gains sufficient ground, and people start using it for serious projects, then.... whoops! MS decide to sue Mono users on some ethically dubious but legally-sound basis because Mono infringes [whatever], effectively killing the project in a worthwhile form, and leaving all those Mono projects stranded.
So... choice; do you (a) Rewrite the whole thing from scratch using a different "open" environment (taking lots more money and time which you don't have), or (b) accept MS's "kind" offer to move to a paid "legal" implementation of C#/.Net (theirs) *plus* they won't sue you....
No-brainer; in the real world, people will go with (b) and be severely pissed off with "open source", rightly or wrongly. And Microsoft have another large customer.
As far as I'm concerned, the "must copy MS" requirement on its own is bad enough. It limits the flexibility of Mono; it dooms it to always being one step behind, and opens up the possibility of MS deviously introducing certain features solely to make it hard for the developers of Mono to copy them (forcing them to take up their time and resources in order to remain compatible).
Oddly enough, I have absolutely no interest in wathcing pr0n on a 1 - 1/2 inch screen.
There's a joke insulting your manhood and including the words "life size" in there somewhere, but I think I'll leave it.
The biggest reality problem that I had with that is that Rockstar decided to paint the tractor blue! There's what, 2 or 3 Ford tractors in existance in the states, and they used one of those for a model on what tractors should look like?
;-)
I'm no farmer, but I seem to remember hearing about Ford tractors (think I've seen one or two), so they can't be that uncommon in Scotland.
And Rockstar North are also based in Scotland... assuming the majority of the design work was completed by Rockstar North themselves, I think this is one of those subtle cues that the game isn't actually American-developed.
If one of the game characters orders Irn Bru to go with his deep-fried Mars bar supper, that's a dead giveaway
Remember, in the world of software, you're either a threat or a former threat. M$ doesn't know about any other types of people. Instead of whining about why can't they play nice, you should work to actively undermine them. If you are loyal to them, you will eventually find your value captured by new products and you will be replaced by a younger, more loyal $oftie who doesn't have any of the ancient baggage of old, dropped M$ technology.
Amen. Always work on the basis that MS will screw you over (if you're a partner) or try to crush you (if you're a competitor).
You should post stuff like that under an account (though cut down on the "M$" stuff; it makes you look like a zealot, when in fact what you said was rational common-sense based on MS's past behaviour).
It's not the first time it's been said (as such), but that's as good a description of the MS situation as any.
I find it somewhat odd that no one can ever remember the different between "its" and "it's", but you never see people say stuff like "He didn't take hi's medicine today."
Because "its" sounds like the "it" being discussed, whereas "his" doesn't sound like "he" ("hi" has a totally unrelated meaning), nor "her" like "she".
Because "it's", short for "it is", trumps the possessive usage in this case.
What the *hell* are you talking about; or rather, what the hell did you think *I* was talking about?
"It's" is wrong if we're talking about "its second series"; I didn't claim that there should be an apostrophe there, nor did I disagree with that usage --> "It is".
I *did* however ask why "its second series" doesn't have an apostrophe like "the boy's car", etc. (and got the answers).
Every, and I mean EVERY website I've designed since 1993 has been fully standards compliant. I have had to hack around IE since the mid-1990s and I'm sick of it. If IE7 is not standards compliant, TOUGH! I'm not changing a damn thing in my websites. I've checked my web server logs, a major percentage (more than 50) of browsers that hit my sites are standards compliant browsers. If users can download the latest FREE version of IE, then they can just as easily download the latest FREE standards compliant browser, and blow me! I'll quit before I have to change the SIX different websites, with over a thousand pages, that I built and maintain. IE users can get bent. Bitter? DAMN RIGHT! and with good reason too.
Shortly after this outburst, Mr.Coward was fired from his job maintaining Microsoft's corporate website.
> > the show has started it's second season
> Sigh.
An apostrophe *can* indicate possession in most cases; but note that "its [second season]" is an exception to the rule; i.e.
"The man's car"
"The boy's toy"
"The Slashdotter's pr0n collection"
"The Slashdotters' pr0n collections"
"Its second season"
Why?
What is the fascination with her, anyway? She hasn't been in a good movie since Leon and Beautiful Girls and those were both more than a decade ago. All she's done since then is Star Wars
The geeks are watching that one for the 'Natalie Portman pants/no-pants continuity error'...
And you'll still be an ever agreable dolt, because she is a hot chick, and you are a geek...
:)
Well, slavishly agreeing with a woman (hot or not) isn't going to make you appear assertive or interesting; in short, it's not going to help you get her into bed.
And even if it were, horny or not, there's no way I'd suppress my self-respect far enough to *not* say what I thought of PETA- which is that they're a bunch of extremist, hypocritical, propoganda-spewing zealots that end up damaging the causes (sometimes ones I *agree* with) they're associated with because of their tactics.
This is also unlikely to get her into bed
This does not contradict PETA's principles -- so long as the animal was ethically treated while it lived and died, it is Ok to use its skin.
Couldn't this apply to fur coats, then?