Some of those sound pretty cool, but I'll have to check first and make sure they register high enough on my "maturity meter" to be considered acceptable.
But, seriously, why worry so much about what's "mature" or "immature?" I think it's good to recognize what's responsible or irresponsible as far as how your actions might affect other people, but beyond that it's really about just living your life.
but I really can't stand being around some of my peers and having to put up with their fascination with X-Box. I mean holy shit, spending 4 hours a day playing video games is something a high-schooler does
You're right, we should all sit around with pained expressions drinking tea and taking interest in the weather.
If by "mature" you mean how much you like being told what to do and how to dress by a bunch of mindless robots, then I wholeheartedly agree.
just another idiot.
This is precisely what goes through my mind every time I see another guy in a suit chatting away on his cell phone, walking through the city seeing nothing.
Environmentalists will protest anything even if the technology they're protesting is most likely harmless.
It's true that more research needs to be done with nanotechnology in order to safe-guard against possibly toxic useages.
However, protesting against the entire field of research is like protesting against medicinal research or clean-fuel research (both areas in which nanotech could bring revolutionary changes). These moronic protesters, in their ignorance of the issue, pose a serious threat to the advancement of science with their willy-nilly activism.
I am a very big supporter of environmental mindfulness. But protesters like this seem more to be supporting environmental stupidity.
Did your thought processes even manage to get past "M1cr0$0ft 1s t3h 3v1l" before posting two completely contradictory lines of reasoning ?
Yeah, it's actually pretty obvious when you think about it. I don't see how you could think my line of reasoning is contradictory.
Quite simply, if Microsoft allows people to run Windows on Macs, then it seems likely there will be more people who would be willing to buy Macs to experiment because they could easily go back to using Windows by installing it on their Mac if they dislike OS X. Then the problem arises, how many people decide to stick with Macs and never go back to Windows? This is a potential problem for Microsoft and one that I suspect they would rather not deal with.
There, that is my line of reasoning all laid out for you, and it is not contradictory whatsoever.
"Well, I'll buy the Apple because they make good machines, and if OS X is crap then I'll just install Windows."
That is, unless MS decides to render their OS software incompatible with Macs, which I wouldn't put beyond them at all. In fact, I imagine it might be a fairly good strategy for them if they're attempting to keep people locked into Windows. Albeit it's evil, but what do you expect?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
I don't see anything horrible about this except for the "under God" part, but that wasn't a part of the original pledge anyway. Besides, for more than a few it might serve as a reminder of the principles the country is supposed to adhere to. As for me, it was just some drivel to say in order to get on with the day. I'd say the number of people who take it seriously are very few indeed. Honestly, something like the pledge is the least of our worries when we've got secret warrants and rampant surveillance of citizens going on.
On the positive side Dick Chenney will get his legs chopped off by Al Gore and get horribly burnt on a lava world and eventualy chenney will throw bush down a long shaft and he will die and the balance will return to the force...
You missed what I was getting at. I was saying that if he thought Star Wars was meant to be anything more than an entertaining fictional story, he should take another look at things. I felt the original comment was suitably ambiguous to reasonably warrant several markedly different interpretations. This being the case, I wanted to see if I could get some clarification on the matter so as to see precisely what the intended line-of-reasoning in the original post was supposed to be.
No, Marx energies appear to transfer energy to the proleteriat, but, in fact, they only spread noise among elite intellectuals. Lenin energies then convert the noise into energy useable by the proleteriat and Stalin energies then destroy all other particles in the vicinity.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy.
Well, I'd rather make an enemy than kill a friend.
But what if your friend is also your enemy. Now, there is a true dilemma. Or in that case, maybe you just say, "fuck it," and kill him anyway. Or maybe you just both kill each other and that way it's even.
Lucas and/or some non-scientific Hollywood writer types made some shit up that they thought would fly.
If by "shit" you mean 'fictional story' and by "they thought would fly" you mean 'they thought would be entertaining,' then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
If, however, you're suggesting that Star Wars is "dumb" because ships make noises in space, then I would have to say you're being a bit ridiculous.
My previous criticism still stands, however. I love the minimalist approach, but not even being able to use a tripod seems like too much of a handicap to burden yourself with, and could even be a distraction from film-making.
I have a problem with two of the rules of this format.
Namely:
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
This is great if you like being nauseated by the inevitable shakiness that will ensue.
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
So, you're not allowed to film in a war zone then? And who decides what action is superficial. This rule is too subjective to be effective.
If you take those two rules out, then I think it the whole concept would be more feasible/watchable.
What's with the defeatist attitude? I can't understand people who are willing to give up before the battle has even been joined.
I will not surrender my rights to this DRM bullshit. If am to be defeated in my endeavors to enjoy my freedom, then I am determined to be defeated in the midst of a good fight.
Slashdot Mirror
I love this. So, if I'm not a guy in a suit, then I must be a guy sitting on the couch smoking pot. Brilliant.
uh, yeah, ok fine. that works too. but you clearly get my point.
And you clearly don't get mine
Some of those sound pretty cool, but I'll have to check first and make sure they register high enough on my "maturity meter" to be considered acceptable.
But, seriously, why worry so much about what's "mature" or "immature?" I think it's good to recognize what's responsible or irresponsible as far as how your actions might affect other people, but beyond that it's really about just living your life.
but I really can't stand being around some of my peers and having to put up with their fascination with X-Box. I mean holy shit, spending 4 hours a day playing video games is something a high-schooler does
You're right, we should all sit around with pained expressions drinking tea and taking interest in the weather.
It's a sign of maturity
If by "mature" you mean how much you like being told what to do and how to dress by a bunch of mindless robots, then I wholeheartedly agree.
just another idiot.
This is precisely what goes through my mind every time I see another guy in a suit chatting away on his cell phone, walking through the city seeing nothing.
Don't you mean:
If slimy mudhole after living your life in the top of an ivory tower your pension paid only enough to live in, senile you would be too"
No, I think he means:
If, after your life in the top of an ivory tower living, a slimy mudhole your pension only enough to live in paid, senile you too would be.
Environmentalists will protest anything even if the technology they're protesting is most likely harmless.
It's true that more research needs to be done with nanotechnology in order to safe-guard against possibly toxic useages.
However, protesting against the entire field of research is like protesting against medicinal research or clean-fuel research (both areas in which nanotech could bring revolutionary changes). These moronic protesters, in their ignorance of the issue, pose a serious threat to the advancement of science with their willy-nilly activism.
I am a very big supporter of environmental mindfulness. But protesters like this seem more to be supporting environmental stupidity.
Did your thought processes even manage to get past "M1cr0$0ft 1s t3h 3v1l" before posting two completely contradictory lines of reasoning ?
Yeah, it's actually pretty obvious when you think about it. I don't see how you could think my line of reasoning is contradictory.
Quite simply, if Microsoft allows people to run Windows on Macs, then it seems likely there will be more people who would be willing to buy Macs to experiment because they could easily go back to using Windows by installing it on their Mac if they dislike OS X. Then the problem arises, how many people decide to stick with Macs and never go back to Windows? This is a potential problem for Microsoft and one that I suspect they would rather not deal with.
There, that is my line of reasoning all laid out for you, and it is not contradictory whatsoever.
"Well, I'll buy the Apple because they make good machines, and if OS X is crap then I'll just install Windows."
That is, unless MS decides to render their OS software incompatible with Macs, which I wouldn't put beyond them at all. In fact, I imagine it might be a fairly good strategy for them if they're attempting to keep people locked into Windows. Albeit it's evil, but what do you expect?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
I don't see anything horrible about this except for the "under God" part, but that wasn't a part of the original pledge anyway. Besides, for more than a few it might serve as a reminder of the principles the country is supposed to adhere to.
As for me, it was just some drivel to say in order to get on with the day. I'd say the number of people who take it seriously are very few indeed. Honestly, something like the pledge is the least of our worries when we've got secret warrants and rampant surveillance of citizens going on.
On the positive side Dick Chenney will get his legs chopped off by Al Gore and get horribly burnt on a lava world and eventualy chenney will throw bush down a long shaft and he will die and the balance will return to the force ...
This is only positive if it happens on live TV.
Actually, it's more like getting rid of free speech full stop.
You missed what I was getting at. I was saying that if he thought Star Wars was meant to be anything more than an entertaining fictional story, he should take another look at things. I felt the original comment was suitably ambiguous to reasonably warrant several markedly different interpretations. This being the case, I wanted to see if I could get some clarification on the matter so as to see precisely what the intended line-of-reasoning in the original post was supposed to be.
Should have stuck with Soviet Russia:
In Soviet Russia, the railgun liquifies you.
Seems pretty accurate to me.
No, Marx energies appear to transfer energy to the proleteriat, but, in fact, they only spread noise among elite intellectuals. Lenin energies then convert the noise into energy useable by the proleteriat and Stalin energies then destroy all other particles in the vicinity.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy.
Well, I'd rather make an enemy than kill a friend.
But what if your friend is also your enemy. Now, there is a true dilemma. Or in that case, maybe you just say, "fuck it," and kill him anyway. Or maybe you just both kill each other and that way it's even.
Yes, Campbell's will be all over this.
Come with me and be my Z Machine
And we will plasma pleasures scream
That hills and valleys, dale and field,
And all the craggy mountains yield.
Lucas and/or some non-scientific Hollywood writer types made some shit up that they thought would fly.
If by "shit" you mean 'fictional story' and by "they thought would fly" you mean 'they thought would be entertaining,' then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
If, however, you're suggesting that Star Wars is "dumb" because ships make noises in space, then I would have to say you're being a bit ridiculous.
Did you see Festen ?
No, but I will now. You've intrigued me.
My previous criticism still stands, however. I love the minimalist approach, but not even being able to use a tripod seems like too much of a handicap to burden yourself with, and could even be a distraction from film-making.
the only way to film a warzone would be to BE in a warzone
Yeah, that's what I had in mind.
which is just too dangerous.
Maybe, but you could make a really great film.
I have a problem with two of the rules of this format.
Namely:
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
This is great if you like being nauseated by the inevitable shakiness that will ensue.
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
So, you're not allowed to film in a war zone then? And who decides what action is superficial. This rule is too subjective to be effective.
If you take those two rules out, then I think it the whole concept would be more feasible/watchable.
What's with the defeatist attitude? I can't understand people who are willing to give up before the battle has even been joined.
I will not surrender my rights to this DRM bullshit. If am to be defeated in my endeavors to enjoy my freedom, then I am determined to be defeated in the midst of a good fight.
And live without the Internet.
Just what makes you think I would use an internet access point that uses this garbage?
Yeah, that's when I delete every windows partition and switch fully to Linux.