Move to Germany. This is standard operating procedure over there: no decent employee cafeteria is lacking beer.
The problem there is that all such cafeterias are full of drunk Germans.
Even worse, if it's dress down Friday, they'll all be wearing Lederhosen and dancing to David Hasselhoff's latest album (*)
(*) Yeah, I know David Hasselhoff hasn't been *that* popular in Germany recently; but it's a reputation you're not going to shake off. In 500 years time, the first music-related question to ask any German will be "Do you like David Hasselhoff?"
This used to bother me a lot at one point but no longer. Well, the U571 would only for historical purposes but...
Well, yeah. That was the problem; it was a distortion of recent history. I'm not going to rant about this, but it's not the same as changing something that was fictitious to start with.
The real bottomline is addressing your audience. This isn't a problem by most standards.
Essentially, you're saying it doesn't really matter what you do with the source material, as long as the (intended) audience come and see it?
According to one guy who posted on Slashdot a while back, the 2600 conversion of Pac-Man was one of the traumatic events of his childhood. (Wish I still had the link)
That said, I think the Simpsons were still funnier than Futurama, which was really hit or miss.
Futurama was *never* going to have the wide appeal of The Simpsons, but even accounting for that, it feels much more "ghettoised". In particular, it seems to rely too much on humour which contrasts futuristic things with present-day things. It also spends too much time parodying cheesy old American sci-fi; if you don't really find that funny, it starts to drag.
Plus points are that the animation is fairly well done, but... it just never clicked for me.
I challenge you to name a more influential band in so many genres.
You're right in that they are almost certainly the most influential band in musical history. If anything, I'd say they'd had *too* much influence in some respects.
I *do* think they would have churned out more hits were it not for the tumult that was brewing within the group.
For what it's worth, I'd guess that the forces that drove the Beatles apart (jealousy, rivalry) were also those that inspired them to some of their creative peaks.
What I'm saying is that I think The Beatles inherently had a finite timespan due to their inbuilt rivalries, and I don't think Yoko Ono was primarily responsible for the Beatles' ultimate split (although she was almost certainly probably a catalyst).
If they'd been the type of band to stay together in the first place, I don't think they'd have been "The Beatles" as we knew them.
BTW, I was half expecting my post to attract a number of rabid pro-Beatles replies and troll-moderation, so I was pleased that you managed to give a reasonable and civilised reply.
It would have been more helpful for me to state that the alleged basis of Apple's dispute with, uh... Apple was that they broke a contract.
I got a very heavy whiff of "it's not fair!" from the post replied to, and wanted to make the point that, well, if Apple Computer broke an agreement they made, it *was* fair. Unless, of course, they were unduly coerced into that agreement in the first place.
Re:Private Contractual Agreements
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
The rumored agreements perhaps explain why the computer company relies on advertising with the iconic bitten fruit logo in iPod and GarageBand ads rather than by plastering the word "Apple" in its Garamond-like-typeface. The pictoral trademarks of the two companies are quite different.
They're both pictures of *apples* for ****'s sake!
Re:This is not right...
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Right. Or. Wrong.
Apple. Computer. Signed. A. Contract. With. Apple. Records.
Apple. Computer. Broke. That. Contract.
It's that simple. Maybe Apple Computers shouldn't, or *needn't* have signed it in the first place. But they did.
That having been said, I hope Apple Computer win, Paul McCartney et al have to pay legal bills, and Macca is bankrupted. Because frankly, I'm sick of hearing about him, his latest honours, his wife, and his tedious disputes with the equally irritating Yoko Ono, when he hasn't done anything musically worthwhile in recent memory.
Nirvana wasn't around long enough to make a shitty album...if they had more time, they would have. The Beatles were around decades, and constantly reinvented themselves unlike any other band could do.
DecadeS? Please explain your logic. The Beatles' time together could reasonably (*) be stretched to less than 13 years.
Creatively, this was more like 7 or 8 years (1962-1969). Decades? Hmm.
Maybe you meant to include the fantastic solo stuff. Now, I think reasonably, people will give credit for some of the stuff churned out during the late '60s/early '70s (though personally, I am sick of "Imagine"; fairly decent song overrated and overplayed to death). But Wings were hardly the greatest band on the planet, and when was the last time Paul McCartney did anything of even moderate brilliance?
Paul McCartney wrote Wonderful Christmastime. That has to be one of the worst Christmas songs I've ever heard. Didn't he complain that it wasn't a bigger hit? As if his former brilliance (at times) justified that execrable chunk of synth whimsy.
Personally, I'll admit that the Beatles deserve credit for what they did; however, they *bloody* *got* *it*! I find a lot of their stuff is much more of their time, and in some ways dated, than (say) ABBA (**).
If the Beatles had somehow stayed together (and I don't see how they could have), are you saying they would have turned out more classics? Because, frankly, I doubt it.
(*) This IS subjective. I have allowed for when George Harrison (3rd of the "classic" lineup) joined until they split in late 1970.
(**) Yeah. I know; ABBA's clothes were *very* 70s, and haven't done them a lot of favours. But musically, they stand up a lot better than a lot of stuff which may have been more fashionable at the time.
IBM could just buy SCO and put it out of everyone else's misery, and save money doing it. Plus, they could get the satisfaction of firing Darl McBride.
Darl McBride would still get his money, and IBM would have to pay for a sign saying "SCO copycat litigants hoping to get bought out for more than they are genuinely worth: Please Queue Here".
Why does this sound like a pre-cursor to the matrix or something?
I'd pay good money to see that (well, more than I'd pay for Revolutions); but then, I have a fetish for hamsters wearing overcoats and black latex.
In all honesty, I have to wonder how a hamster/gerbil/whatever perceives the situation (a la Matrix) when they are in a cage with a wheel. Does it seem weird to them at all? Or are they so instinct driven that they don't consider it?
Those with the blue brain continue to go about their daily lives unaware of the construct that surrounds them, wrapped in an artificial reality of delusion.
Those with the red brain perceive the truth, and are able to see how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
Plus, the red-brainers get to dodge bullets and wear a *really* stylish jacket and glasses
First off, I don't have any objections to 'Funny' not giving karma; 'funny' is rarely as worthwhile as genuine insight. And I don't consider it desirable to mod every funny post 'insightful'.
Nevertheless, there's a fundamental problem with 'funny' mods, which end up penalising people; the funnier you are, the more likely you are to be overrated.
With respect to the post I was discussing, I thought it summed up the problems with the article in a concise manner; "business would prefer..", well, YEAH. And they would prefer to have all our money too.
Unfortunately, because it made its point in the form of a joke, it got "funny" modding instead of "insightful".
If I had a Slashdot sub, or supported their sponsors, I might feel entitled to whine about the mod system's limitations ('funny' flaw, limited choice of reasons). But I don't and I don't, so I won't.
Parent post was funny... but also equally (if not more) insightful. Just as IBM et al are in it for the money, so not all GPLers are in it to benefit big business. It just so happens that the current situation benefits both parties.
Bearing in mind the flaws in the karma algorithm ('funny' mods don't count, but 'overrated' does, hence getting modded +5 funny, -1 overrated *loses* you karma), I'd suggest it would be better in future to mod 'funny' posts with even a modicum of insight as 'insightful' instead of 'funny'.
I said 'in future' because, of course, there's no way to mod this one up (at 5:funny) without modding it down first, negating any benefit.
I know what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure what it actually says, and I'm pretty sure it contains at least one serious mistake.
'=' is the assignment operator in all the languages I've seen that use that form of for-loop. Can we assume that CurrentYear is volatile or modified by another thread (this assumes that you meant '==' instead of '=' in the condition test)?
people who invented [....] useful things, like "Karma".
Either karma is something that already existed, in which case they didn't invent it, or it's a name given to a false religious belief, in which case it's wrong and therefore useless.
If it hadn't been invented, then someone would have come across a more accurate name for derivative concepts like Slashdot's "karma", which isn't exactly the same thing as the Hindu/Buddhist concept anyway(!).
Slashdot Mirror
Move to Germany. This is standard operating procedure over there: no decent employee cafeteria is lacking beer.
The problem there is that all such cafeterias are full of drunk Germans.
Even worse, if it's dress down Friday, they'll all be wearing Lederhosen and dancing to David Hasselhoff's latest album (*)
(*) Yeah, I know David Hasselhoff hasn't been *that* popular in Germany recently; but it's a reputation you're not going to shake off. In 500 years time, the first music-related question to ask any German will be "Do you like David Hasselhoff?"
Actually, Budweiser truly deserves the title 'King Of Beers'. Not the American version, though.
Hmm... yeah. IMHO The American version actually deserves the title 'Lemonade of Beers'.
Perversely, I'd probably class the American Budweiser as my favourite beer, but since I dislike beer in general, this really proves my point...
My point was that you essentially said "it's okay to make a change to fit the intended audience" (correct me if this paraphrasing is inaccurate).
That's more general than changing nationality or language; that pretty much says that it's okay to make *any* change to the source material.
This used to bother me a lot at one point but no longer. Well, the U571 would only for historical purposes but...
Well, yeah. That was the problem; it was a distortion of recent history. I'm not going to rant about this, but it's not the same as changing something that was fictitious to start with.
The real bottomline is addressing your audience. This isn't a problem by most standards.
Essentially, you're saying it doesn't really matter what you do with the source material, as long as the (intended) audience come and see it?
3. Special effects budget: 406 pounds vs. 406 million dollars
Given the current exchange rate, you're saying that Spielberg's version will have twice the budget of the British version?
According to one guy who posted on Slashdot a while back, the 2600 conversion of Pac-Man was one of the traumatic events of his childhood. (Wish I still had the link)
That said, I think the Simpsons were still funnier than Futurama, which was really hit or miss.
Futurama was *never* going to have the wide appeal of The Simpsons, but even accounting for that, it feels much more "ghettoised". In particular, it seems to rely too much on humour which contrasts futuristic things with present-day things. It also spends too much time parodying cheesy old American sci-fi; if you don't really find that funny, it starts to drag.
Plus points are that the animation is fairly well done, but... it just never clicked for me.
OMG! WILLIAM SHATNER is on SLASHDOT!!!
No; you need longer and more incongruous pauses for that.
I challenge you to name a more influential band in so many genres.
You're right in that they are almost certainly the most influential band in musical history. If anything, I'd say they'd had *too* much influence in some respects.
I *do* think they would have churned out more hits were it not for the tumult that was brewing within the group.
For what it's worth, I'd guess that the forces that drove the Beatles apart (jealousy, rivalry) were also those that inspired them to some of their creative peaks.
What I'm saying is that I think The Beatles inherently had a finite timespan due to their inbuilt rivalries, and I don't think Yoko Ono was primarily responsible for the Beatles' ultimate split (although she was almost certainly probably a catalyst).
If they'd been the type of band to stay together in the first place, I don't think they'd have been "The Beatles" as we knew them.
BTW, I was half expecting my post to attract a number of rabid pro-Beatles replies and troll-moderation, so I was pleased that you managed to give a reasonable and civilised reply.
You are Alan Partridge AICMFP.
No, I'd be Alan Partridge if I thought "Abba- The Movie" was any good.
Okay; I went too far in what I said.
It would have been more helpful for me to state that the alleged basis of Apple's dispute with, uh... Apple was that they broke a contract.
I got a very heavy whiff of "it's not fair!" from the post replied to, and wanted to make the point that, well, if Apple Computer broke an agreement they made, it *was* fair. Unless, of course, they were unduly coerced into that agreement in the first place.
The rumored agreements perhaps explain why the computer company relies on advertising with the iconic bitten fruit logo in iPod and GarageBand ads rather than by plastering the word "Apple" in its Garamond-like-typeface. The pictoral trademarks of the two companies are quite different.
They're both pictures of *apples* for ****'s sake!
Right. Or. Wrong.
Apple. Computer. Signed. A. Contract. With. Apple. Records.
Apple. Computer. Broke. That. Contract.
It's that simple. Maybe Apple Computers shouldn't, or *needn't* have signed it in the first place. But they did.
That having been said, I hope Apple Computer win, Paul McCartney et al have to pay legal bills, and Macca is bankrupted. Because frankly, I'm sick of hearing about him, his latest honours, his wife, and his tedious disputes with the equally irritating Yoko Ono, when he hasn't done anything musically worthwhile in recent memory.
Nirvana wasn't around long enough to make a shitty album...if they had more time, they would have. The Beatles were around decades, and constantly reinvented themselves unlike any other band could do.
DecadeS? Please explain your logic. The Beatles' time together could reasonably (*) be stretched to less than 13 years.
Creatively, this was more like 7 or 8 years (1962-1969). Decades? Hmm.
Maybe you meant to include the fantastic solo stuff. Now, I think reasonably, people will give credit for some of the stuff churned out during the late '60s/early '70s (though personally, I am sick of "Imagine"; fairly decent song overrated and overplayed to death). But Wings were hardly the greatest band on the planet, and when was the last time Paul McCartney did anything of even moderate brilliance?
Paul McCartney wrote Wonderful Christmastime. That has to be one of the worst Christmas songs I've ever heard. Didn't he complain that it wasn't a bigger hit? As if his former brilliance (at times) justified that execrable chunk of synth whimsy.
Personally, I'll admit that the Beatles deserve credit for what they did; however, they *bloody* *got* *it*! I find a lot of their stuff is much more of their time, and in some ways dated, than (say) ABBA (**).
If the Beatles had somehow stayed together (and I don't see how they could have), are you saying they would have turned out more classics? Because, frankly, I doubt it.
(*) This IS subjective. I have allowed for when George Harrison (3rd of the "classic" lineup) joined until they split in late 1970.
(**) Yeah. I know; ABBA's clothes were *very* 70s, and haven't done them a lot of favours. But musically, they stand up a lot better than a lot of stuff which may have been more fashionable at the time.
IBM could just buy SCO and put it out of everyone else's misery, and save money doing it. Plus, they could get the satisfaction of firing Darl McBride.
Darl McBride would still get his money, and IBM would have to pay for a sign saying "SCO copycat litigants hoping to get bought out for more than they are genuinely worth: Please Queue Here".
I sure as hell would like to have some of what Darl seems to be smoking ;-)
No; it's because of the desparation for money to finance his crack-smoking habit that Darl is leading this last-ditch attempt in the first place.
Computer cases with clear sides make great hamster cages [...] You've got your first Hamster-powered cluster.
I heard that they use a Beowulf cluster of those to run the Hampster-dance website.
Why does this sound like a pre-cursor to the matrix or something?
I'd pay good money to see that (well, more than I'd pay for Revolutions); but then, I have a fetish for hamsters wearing overcoats and black latex.
In all honesty, I have to wonder how a hamster/gerbil/whatever perceives the situation (a la Matrix) when they are in a cage with a wheel. Does it seem weird to them at all? Or are they so instinct driven that they don't consider it?
Those with the blue brain continue to go about their daily lives unaware of the construct that surrounds them, wrapped in an artificial reality of delusion.
Those with the red brain perceive the truth, and are able to see how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
Plus, the red-brainers get to dodge bullets and wear a *really* stylish jacket and glasses
BTW, the 'less than' ASCII symbol isn't a caret... *this* is a caret...
^
As for 'carrots', you'll have to ask Bugs Bunny about them.
First off, I don't have any objections to 'Funny' not giving karma; 'funny' is rarely as worthwhile as genuine insight. And I don't consider it desirable to mod every funny post 'insightful'.
Nevertheless, there's a fundamental problem with 'funny' mods, which end up penalising people; the funnier you are, the more likely you are to be overrated.
With respect to the post I was discussing, I thought it summed up the problems with the article in a concise manner; "business would prefer..", well, YEAH. And they would prefer to have all our money too.
Unfortunately, because it made its point in the form of a joke, it got "funny" modding instead of "insightful".
If I had a Slashdot sub, or supported their sponsors, I might feel entitled to whine about the mod system's limitations ('funny' flaw, limited choice of reasons). But I don't and I don't, so I won't.
Oh, hang on, I just did. Dammit.
Parent post was funny... but also equally (if not more) insightful. Just as IBM et al are in it for the money, so not all GPLers are in it to benefit big business. It just so happens that the current situation benefits both parties.
Bearing in mind the flaws in the karma algorithm ('funny' mods don't count, but 'overrated' does, hence getting modded +5 funny, -1 overrated *loses* you karma), I'd suggest it would be better in future to mod 'funny' posts with even a modicum of insight as 'insightful' instead of 'funny'.
I said 'in future' because, of course, there's no way to mod this one up (at 5:funny) without modding it down first, negating any benefit.
Moral: Say everything in a deadly serious manner.
a 16ft wave will wreck london.....
I'd like to see what a 3km-high wave would wreck, all the same.
for(year=1945;year=CurrentYear;year++)
dontfix(destroyer);
I know what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure what it actually says, and I'm pretty sure it contains at least one serious mistake.
'=' is the assignment operator in all the languages I've seen that use that form of for-loop. Can we assume that CurrentYear is volatile or modified by another thread (this assumes that you meant '==' instead of '=' in the condition test)?
Or is CurrentYear this year? Or... ah, sod it.
people who invented [....] useful things, like "Karma".
Either karma is something that already existed, in which case they didn't invent it, or it's a name given to a false religious belief, in which case it's wrong and therefore useless.
If it hadn't been invented, then someone would have come across a more accurate name for derivative concepts like Slashdot's "karma", which isn't exactly the same thing as the Hindu/Buddhist concept anyway(!).