The Resurrected is a modern day take on The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. It is lacking in some areas but it's fairly reasonable in a lot of aspects. It's not the greatest thing but having it come out like it did during the times when Brian Yuzna and Full Moon were butchering Lovecraft it was a welcome relief.
With the exception of The Resurrected and the silent Call of Cthulhu films I cringe anytime I hear about Lovecraft's works being represented on film. Not to say that I wouldn't give the film a fair shake, I'd just hate to see another Lovecraft work botched and have tons of 15 year olds out there thinking that what they see on the screen has something to do with why I re-read Lovecraft's works on a normal basis.
I'm not the one who's throwing my hands in the air and proclaiming that Bush is evil and we may as well wait for a better solution. But you insist on omitting my original thoughts in full to make me look bad? Nothing but simple and ineffective trolling. Otherwise you'd put your name to it.
A bike isn't a complete solution was what I said but I also mention in my circumstances. I never said that bikes are worthless because they don't fit into my circumstances but you tried to make it seem like that was my intent. Again, ineffective to anyone who follows the thread.
I'd gladly ride a bike if I could (i mentioned that too, why not quote that?). And I do from time to time but for exercise instead of real transport. So, yes, I'm a bike owner and rider. I can't realistically ride one to my place of employment though and that makes up a good 85-90% of my commutes.
Again, this is shit I shouldn't have to explain to people who can read my WHOLE post and put 2 and 2 together. But it seems that lots of Slashdotters are all too happy to be assholes instead of real people.
A bicycle isn't a complete solution. I shouldn't have to explain that either. I'm extremely happy for the people who can use that route and wish I could do it myself but in my current circumstances it's just not going to happen. I'll be happy for the day I can arrange for it though.
I'm much more likely to side with the environmental groups than a guy who simply does the party line goosestep. Somehow I think your version of "failed" isn't entirely accurate.
And if these utility companies were so noble we'd not need the legislation in the first place!
Yeah, that's the simpleton way to see things and it's all too popular around here. While we're at it, low emissions vehicles still produce emissions. We should just let people go on with whatever they want until a zero emission vehicle is created. After all, what's the point in doing what you can when you can if you can't do it all at once?
Even if the legislation was weak it was a base to build off of. This isn't a case where there can only be one form of regulation and even if that was the case the new administration could produce a new one and remove the old. This is in no case a victory for environmentalism either way. It's not like the Bush plan was written in stone (obviously).
Why do we insist on an all or nothing answer around here? Having someone meet you in the middle is much much better than leaving it to the fates. And leaving it to fate (or goodwill) is exactly what the courts have done.
You mean how Princess Diane's death was covered up and down and Sister Theresa was hardly acknowledged? Or Paul Scofield's passing was largely ignored in the shadow of Heath Ledger's* death two months prior?
Yeah, it hoses but at the same time we need to also consider that it's part of the business (yes, it's very much a business regardless of how they like to paint themselves) of reporting on the popular. Most people, including myself, knew little if anything about Dr. DeBakey. And besides, people who could appreciate the story were going to find it, they're not exactly headline skimmers.
*And don't get me wrong, I know that Scofield hadn't worked in a few years and Ledger may have been a very good actor but Scofield was really one of the last of a generation of actors that can't be described as anything less than giants of silver screen and stage. They normally did more talented acting in 30 seconds than appears in most modern films.
I don't know how young you mean but I think that Dream Park is a great introduction to Larry Niven... I would think they should be in their mid-teens though...
Re:easy way to fill a book
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely. I certainly mean no offense by mentioning VBA but it is a distance from programming from the ground up. I think knowing even just a bit of VBA is better than going into coding blindly.
Re:easy way to fill a book
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Dijkstra used to say that BASIC mutilated programmers' minds. But today, I think that C++ and VB have taken that role.
I would agree with this but only with a bit of qualification. I think that old BASIC programmers still teaching novice programmers OOPLs have done a great deal of damage by bringing their old design concepts into a very different arena of coding. Once you have more and more of the 20+ year OOP coders out there teaching the masses and give those students time to mature will we know if things are getting better. There's an unavoidable and unfortunate gap between when the basis of coding are set in the novice coders mind and the time when we really get to see how well it has manifested itself in the practice of a matured programmer.
Re:easy way to fill a book
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 2
Wouldn't the n00bs already be familiar with object oriented techniques since every language they have ever used had OO as a major feature.
What do you mean by "every language they have ever used"? These are n00bs. You know, they guys who want to give something beyond VBA in Access a go? I mean real n00bs, not people who started coding in 1993. It's a bit late in the day to automatically put guys who started by learning Java in the n00b category anymore.
Either way, I would rather have people learn object oriented concepts from a book about OO design, then to learn about it in the context of learning about a specific language.
I won't disagree but I won't agree either. Especially for the hobbyist. I can see where different people are going to have luck with different learning techniques and it really doesn't bother me since little of this code will ever get out to the public-at-large and much less (if any) of it will be used in real productive environments.
There's certainly nothing wrong with learning and writing a little code instead of playing WoW or going on the nightly pr0n hunt.
Re:easy way to fill a book
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How many can there be left these days?!?
I'm sure more roll off the old assembly line everyday. Just because you and your peers are seasoned vets...
Also, this book came out at a real great time. With MS finally opening up to the hobbyist/novice programmer with their Express edition of their tools there is going to be a lot of n00bs out there.
Sadly, it seems that too many here can't recall when they were still struggling with the concepts of OOP to see that there is a real audience for this level of writing.
They're probably still as taller than the vehicle. Stop acting like an ass because you realize how wrong you are. In any case, how often do you have a car behind another car? How often do you have someone bending/laying down behind your car? I think even you could see the difference now.
A motorcycle or a standing human over the age of about 7 is higher than the deck lid. You didn't understand what I was talking about because you didn't think about it. You jumped on a very narrow aspect of the scenario and ran with it, just like a bunch of other slashdotters who come off looking like morons.
Thanks for the conversation though. It's only confirmed the way I feel about most people's inability to think through an entire situation clearly.
Uh, guy, do you see how low this sits? It sits lower than my deck lid on a fucking compact car. I don't think you're thinking of the real logistics here.
And as far as hurting some? So that's the only factor? My insurance company shouldn't raise my rates if no one is hurt? Man, you have no idea what I'm talking about.
A motorcycle? A woman? You really don't understand the logistics. You really need to learn to think critically. I know, I know, you're a slashdotter. That makes you better than anyone else on the streets (or with a higher UID than you). Whatever.
Forget the concept of this car getting hit by a 3000lb vehicle... the real safety factor here is when I can't see the car in my rear view mirror and go to back up in my Subaru Impreza. A car that sits so low is a hazard just trying to see it.
Low voter turnout in the USA is regularly interpreted as people being digusted and disillusioned of the system.
The real problem with this interpretation is that it's never seemed to really get any mainstream politician off their ass to bring the people back into the process. Third parties could reap the rewards of this kind of thinking.
Not voting at all doesn't express disgust, it expresses laziness. Voting for third party and independent candidates shouldn't scoffed at as a vote of disgust either but rather a willingness to leave the beaten path.
Personally, I'm going with the third party vote as I have in the past. No because I'm disgusted but because it's what I believe.
What cure? The point of that was that cures can be found in a cost-effective fashion that allows people *around the world* to have access to them. But because there is *no profit to be had* in that situation, they will never be developed.
You said for "treatable condition" that means there is a cure. That's what I'm talking about since you didn't mention specific conditions. Talk about double speak.
My guess is that if you cared to name a few of these issues surrounding starvation you'd quickly find that people are dying not because of the lack of food but because of local customs (call it religion if you like), political situations, miseducation, blackmarket substandard food, etc etc etc.
Hmm, sounds wrong.
Actually, it sounds right, the way you twisted my ideas is what is wrong. What does food have to do with pharmaceuticals? We're talking about pharmaceuticals and the industry here. Stop trying to divert the topic to attempt to fool people into thinking you have a valid point. It ain't going to work on me.
And don't forget that tragedies like Ethiopia happened because there was tons of food on Ethiopian docs but he military kept it from civilians. It's a perfect example!
Why, yes, after watching the crap that parades for entertainment, that question DOES resonate with me.
Seems that you don't care if you're the one having the fun but God forbid others spend their spare cash to improve their lives.
Tons of drugs...you mean, like when they slightly changed Prozac and re-marketed it as a new drug? You do know why, right?
More effective dosage? Plenty of products outside of the industry do the same thing. Do you scream "scam" anytime you see synthetic oil ads? If you do you're a fool. And the bottomline is that the generic still existed and people could take it instead. Or are you going to blame the pharmaceutical industry for the tons of people who demand brandname when a generic is the same and scripted as such by the MD?
Hey, it's only a few hundred dollars a bottle to get AZT. I'm sure that's an affordable price in Africa.
AZT? LOL! It's called nevirapine. Granted, there is a threshold of resistance but normally these strains that are resistant to nevirapine are also resistant to AZT. Look into it.
With what? It's not a "prove it" issue, it's a "no-one can afford to prove it" issue.
Go out and pull some money and produce pharmaceuticals. Do the R&D to come up with the cures that you claim aren't made because there is no profit to be had in producing them and if you find one make it public domain so that there is no patent fights and produce it for cheap to give to everyone you claim is suffering. There is nothing preventing you from doing this and there are millions out there who say the same thing as you. Put your EVE Online cash into the venture and if you get get everyone else to pony up the same you could probably have enough money to research several meds a year. Granted, not all of them will pass FDA testing but you'll get one or two to slip through. That should thrill you if you're sincere about it. I'd even kick in a C-note or two a year if you can come up with one of the truly vital cures that you say companies don't produce because of profit.
Do you understand now?
I understand that you don't live by your own ideals and that you're just going to take the easy way out. In your theoretical pharmaceutical company you claim that profits are needed to produce further research. This is true. But you turn around and make a foolish argument that makes it seem like a company can only make one cure or another. It's nonsense. Do you know how hard it is to make
Good dope you're smoking. Where did I say insurance? And I even quoted the original paragraph for context.
You spoke of doctors having to cover (as in liability insurance) for negligent staff and healthcare as a luxury (client insurance).
Only if I can't get access to it. I really don't care if it developed in upper get-out-of-fuckmonistan, if it works, why isn't it available, world-wide? Funny how you paint me as nationalistic but your own rhetoric excels in that fashion.
Uh, I said nothing nationalist. You made a beef with everything not being made here ("that we have to import tech from Europe that should have been here years ago" to quote you, you don't mention that isn't available here, you mention importing). And if you're talking pharmicudicals you can't blame them either, it's the FDA who determines that regardless of the best intentions of the industry.
I think you confused yourself. You didn't talk about pharma in the original sentence that I was replying to. You talked about medical technology - and by extension, medicine.
I will say it was bad wording, and that is my fault. But it's still better tech than most people know. You point out Canada and Europe, why is it these people are coming here for treatment of advanced conditions? Perhaps for long standing procedures you'd be correct but the advanced side has brought plenty of people into the US for treatment. I see it regularly on the news. And it has certainly advanced by leaps and bounds compared to where it was just a couple of decades ago.
So what I experience is not empirical evidence? What kind of double-plus-good-duckspeak bullshit is this?
It's a very small part of a large picture. Experiments with only one variable are far from science and you know it.
Forget it. It's not worth discussing anymore.
It's because you know you're full of shit. Thanks for marking me as a freak, it shows that you hate people you disagree with. It makes you easier to spot as a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
The Resurrected is a modern day take on The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. It is lacking in some areas but it's fairly reasonable in a lot of aspects. It's not the greatest thing but having it come out like it did during the times when Brian Yuzna and Full Moon were butchering Lovecraft it was a welcome relief.
With the exception of The Resurrected and the silent Call of Cthulhu films I cringe anytime I hear about Lovecraft's works being represented on film. Not to say that I wouldn't give the film a fair shake, I'd just hate to see another Lovecraft work botched and have tons of 15 year olds out there thinking that what they see on the screen has something to do with why I re-read Lovecraft's works on a normal basis.
Heh. Nothing wrong with a bit of honesty I guess.
I'm not the one who's throwing my hands in the air and proclaiming that Bush is evil and we may as well wait for a better solution. But you insist on omitting my original thoughts in full to make me look bad? Nothing but simple and ineffective trolling. Otherwise you'd put your name to it.
A bike isn't a complete solution was what I said but I also mention in my circumstances. I never said that bikes are worthless because they don't fit into my circumstances but you tried to make it seem like that was my intent. Again, ineffective to anyone who follows the thread.
I'd gladly ride a bike if I could (i mentioned that too, why not quote that?). And I do from time to time but for exercise instead of real transport. So, yes, I'm a bike owner and rider. I can't realistically ride one to my place of employment though and that makes up a good 85-90% of my commutes.
Again, this is shit I shouldn't have to explain to people who can read my WHOLE post and put 2 and 2 together. But it seems that lots of Slashdotters are all too happy to be assholes instead of real people.
A bicycle isn't a complete solution. I shouldn't have to explain that either. I'm extremely happy for the people who can use that route and wish I could do it myself but in my current circumstances it's just not going to happen. I'll be happy for the day I can arrange for it though.
I'm much more likely to side with the environmental groups than a guy who simply does the party line goosestep. Somehow I think your version of "failed" isn't entirely accurate.
And if these utility companies were so noble we'd not need the legislation in the first place!
Yeah, that's the simpleton way to see things and it's all too popular around here. While we're at it, low emissions vehicles still produce emissions. We should just let people go on with whatever they want until a zero emission vehicle is created. After all, what's the point in doing what you can when you can if you can't do it all at once?
Talk about some serious asshattery.
Even if the legislation was weak it was a base to build off of. This isn't a case where there can only be one form of regulation and even if that was the case the new administration could produce a new one and remove the old. This is in no case a victory for environmentalism either way. It's not like the Bush plan was written in stone (obviously).
Why do we insist on an all or nothing answer around here? Having someone meet you in the middle is much much better than leaving it to the fates. And leaving it to fate (or goodwill) is exactly what the courts have done.
You mean how Princess Diane's death was covered up and down and Sister Theresa was hardly acknowledged? Or Paul Scofield's passing was largely ignored in the shadow of Heath Ledger's* death two months prior?
Yeah, it hoses but at the same time we need to also consider that it's part of the business (yes, it's very much a business regardless of how they like to paint themselves) of reporting on the popular. Most people, including myself, knew little if anything about Dr. DeBakey. And besides, people who could appreciate the story were going to find it, they're not exactly headline skimmers.
*And don't get me wrong, I know that Scofield hadn't worked in a few years and Ledger may have been a very good actor but Scofield was really one of the last of a generation of actors that can't be described as anything less than giants of silver screen and stage. They normally did more talented acting in 30 seconds than appears in most modern films.
I don't know how young you mean but I think that Dream Park is a great introduction to Larry Niven... I would think they should be in their mid-teens though...
Absolutely. I certainly mean no offense by mentioning VBA but it is a distance from programming from the ground up. I think knowing even just a bit of VBA is better than going into coding blindly.
Dijkstra used to say that BASIC mutilated programmers' minds. But today, I think that C++ and VB have taken that role.
I would agree with this but only with a bit of qualification. I think that old BASIC programmers still teaching novice programmers OOPLs have done a great deal of damage by bringing their old design concepts into a very different arena of coding. Once you have more and more of the 20+ year OOP coders out there teaching the masses and give those students time to mature will we know if things are getting better. There's an unavoidable and unfortunate gap between when the basis of coding are set in the novice coders mind and the time when we really get to see how well it has manifested itself in the practice of a matured programmer.
Wouldn't the n00bs already be familiar with object oriented techniques since every language they have ever used had OO as a major feature.
What do you mean by "every language they have ever used"? These are n00bs. You know, they guys who want to give something beyond VBA in Access a go? I mean real n00bs, not people who started coding in 1993. It's a bit late in the day to automatically put guys who started by learning Java in the n00b category anymore.
Either way, I would rather have people learn object oriented concepts from a book about OO design, then to learn about it in the context of learning about a specific language.
I won't disagree but I won't agree either. Especially for the hobbyist. I can see where different people are going to have luck with different learning techniques and it really doesn't bother me since little of this code will ever get out to the public-at-large and much less (if any) of it will be used in real productive environments.
There's certainly nothing wrong with learning and writing a little code instead of playing WoW or going on the nightly pr0n hunt.
How many can there be left these days?!?
I'm sure more roll off the old assembly line everyday. Just because you and your peers are seasoned vets...
Also, this book came out at a real great time. With MS finally opening up to the hobbyist/novice programmer with their Express edition of their tools there is going to be a lot of n00bs out there.
Sadly, it seems that too many here can't recall when they were still struggling with the concepts of OOP to see that there is a real audience for this level of writing.
Slow readers? It's just a guess.
It is simple: anything he hits, he checkmates!
Blind government bashing is so rampant around here that it doesn't even need to be true to get props from a lot of readers.
They're probably still as taller than the vehicle. Stop acting like an ass because you realize how wrong you are. In any case, how often do you have a car behind another car? How often do you have someone bending/laying down behind your car? I think even you could see the difference now.
A motorcycle or a standing human over the age of about 7 is higher than the deck lid. You didn't understand what I was talking about because you didn't think about it. You jumped on a very narrow aspect of the scenario and ran with it, just like a bunch of other slashdotters who come off looking like morons.
Thanks for the conversation though. It's only confirmed the way I feel about most people's inability to think through an entire situation clearly.
Uh, guy, do you see how low this sits? It sits lower than my deck lid on a fucking compact car. I don't think you're thinking of the real logistics here.
And as far as hurting some? So that's the only factor? My insurance company shouldn't raise my rates if no one is hurt? Man, you have no idea what I'm talking about.
A motorcycle? A woman? You really don't understand the logistics. You really need to learn to think critically. I know, I know, you're a slashdotter. That makes you better than anyone else on the streets (or with a higher UID than you). Whatever.
Forget the concept of this car getting hit by a 3000lb vehicle... the real safety factor here is when I can't see the car in my rear view mirror and go to back up in my Subaru Impreza. A car that sits so low is a hazard just trying to see it.
Low voter turnout in the USA is regularly interpreted as people being digusted and disillusioned of the system.
The real problem with this interpretation is that it's never seemed to really get any mainstream politician off their ass to bring the people back into the process. Third parties could reap the rewards of this kind of thinking.
Not voting at all doesn't express disgust, it expresses laziness. Voting for third party and independent candidates shouldn't scoffed at as a vote of disgust either but rather a willingness to leave the beaten path.
Personally, I'm going with the third party vote as I have in the past. No because I'm disgusted but because it's what I believe.
What cure? The point of that was that cures can be found in a cost-effective fashion that allows people *around the world* to have access to them. But because there is *no profit to be had* in that situation, they will never be developed.
You said for "treatable condition" that means there is a cure. That's what I'm talking about since you didn't mention specific conditions. Talk about double speak.
My guess is that if you cared to name a few of these issues surrounding starvation you'd quickly find that people are dying not because of the lack of food but because of local customs (call it religion if you like), political situations, miseducation, blackmarket substandard food, etc etc etc.
Hmm, sounds wrong.
Actually, it sounds right, the way you twisted my ideas is what is wrong. What does food have to do with pharmaceuticals? We're talking about pharmaceuticals and the industry here. Stop trying to divert the topic to attempt to fool people into thinking you have a valid point. It ain't going to work on me.
And don't forget that tragedies like Ethiopia happened because there was tons of food on Ethiopian docs but he military kept it from civilians. It's a perfect example!
Why, yes, after watching the crap that parades for entertainment, that question DOES resonate with me.
You don't use your valuable technology for entertainment that (gasp!) costs money? How dare you? That 10 or 15 dollars a month could be keeping poor Julio in Ecuador in shoes and rice! Hypocrite.
Seems that you don't care if you're the one having the fun but God forbid others spend their spare cash to improve their lives.
Tons of drugs...you mean, like when they slightly changed Prozac and re-marketed it as a new drug? You do know why, right?
More effective dosage? Plenty of products outside of the industry do the same thing. Do you scream "scam" anytime you see synthetic oil ads? If you do you're a fool. And the bottomline is that the generic still existed and people could take it instead. Or are you going to blame the pharmaceutical industry for the tons of people who demand brandname when a generic is the same and scripted as such by the MD?
Hey, it's only a few hundred dollars a bottle to get AZT. I'm sure that's an affordable price in Africa.
AZT? LOL! It's called nevirapine. Granted, there is a threshold of resistance but normally these strains that are resistant to nevirapine are also resistant to AZT. Look into it.
With what? It's not a "prove it" issue, it's a "no-one can afford to prove it" issue.
Go out and pull some money and produce pharmaceuticals. Do the R&D to come up with the cures that you claim aren't made because there is no profit to be had in producing them and if you find one make it public domain so that there is no patent fights and produce it for cheap to give to everyone you claim is suffering. There is nothing preventing you from doing this and there are millions out there who say the same thing as you. Put your EVE Online cash into the venture and if you get get everyone else to pony up the same you could probably have enough money to research several meds a year. Granted, not all of them will pass FDA testing but you'll get one or two to slip through. That should thrill you if you're sincere about it. I'd even kick in a C-note or two a year if you can come up with one of the truly vital cures that you say companies don't produce because of profit.
Do you understand now?
I understand that you don't live by your own ideals and that you're just going to take the easy way out. In your theoretical pharmaceutical company you claim that profits are needed to produce further research. This is true. But you turn around and make a foolish argument that makes it seem like a company can only make one cure or another. It's nonsense. Do you know how hard it is to make
Good dope you're smoking. Where did I say insurance? And I even quoted the original paragraph for context.
You spoke of doctors having to cover (as in liability insurance) for negligent staff and healthcare as a luxury (client insurance).
Only if I can't get access to it. I really don't care if it developed in upper get-out-of-fuckmonistan, if it works, why isn't it available, world-wide? Funny how you paint me as nationalistic but your own rhetoric excels in that fashion.
Uh, I said nothing nationalist. You made a beef with everything not being made here ("that we have to import tech from Europe that should have been here years ago" to quote you, you don't mention that isn't available here, you mention importing). And if you're talking pharmicudicals you can't blame them either, it's the FDA who determines that regardless of the best intentions of the industry.
I think you confused yourself. You didn't talk about pharma in the original sentence that I was replying to. You talked about medical technology - and by extension, medicine.
I will say it was bad wording, and that is my fault. But it's still better tech than most people know. You point out Canada and Europe, why is it these people are coming here for treatment of advanced conditions? Perhaps for long standing procedures you'd be correct but the advanced side has brought plenty of people into the US for treatment. I see it regularly on the news. And it has certainly advanced by leaps and bounds compared to where it was just a couple of decades ago.
So what I experience is not empirical evidence? What kind of double-plus-good-duckspeak bullshit is this?
It's a very small part of a large picture. Experiments with only one variable are far from science and you know it.
Forget it. It's not worth discussing anymore.
It's because you know you're full of shit. Thanks for marking me as a freak, it shows that you hate people you disagree with. It makes you easier to spot as a troll.