Ad hominem, man. Please debate the facts and not the researcher, because you gotta admit either way there is a problem with the way we vote, and everyone benefits when we know what that problem is.
My only criticism is that you almost concede too much to the NYT writer--you needn't emphasize that only the obscure examples of comics approach "art." It sounds a little apologetic. I guess I am just more of the mind of some of the other posters here who are a little indignant about the "dumbed-down" remarks being applied to such a great medium.
There are a lot of painful truths about colonization, such as the examples of India, Hong Kong, etc. One other one to consider is the Japanese occupation of Korea in the early 20th century, as there is much evidence that the seeds of modern Korean industry and market structure were planted in the colonial era by the Japanese, or those Koreans who were attached with the Japanese authority. This is something very difficult to reckon with if you happen to be the subject of colonization--if you can imagine the feeling of being colonized, of being occupied and used as a political or economic tool of another nation or people, but then owing your colonizer the debt of modernization.
I for one have an extremely difficult time in granting some kind of ends-justifies-the-means pardon upon colonization because of the basic power structure of that relationship. You might say the people of Hong Kong or India were in fact better off under British rule than if they had not been, but that's a hefty counterfactual to try to push around. Plus, while the situations vary, there are good examples where throwing off the yoke of colonization works pretty well. You're an American, so you should be intimately familiar with at least one example...
That's irrelevant in principle, anyhow, because colonization, in the end, is about exploitation, and too many times the price of such "modernizations" have been far far too great. I give you Southeast Asia and all of Africa to consider. I will dare to throw out this statement: colonializaiton only works out for the colonized if they're very lucky. The interests of the colony itself are ultimately subject to the priorities of the colonizer.
So if they're going to patent this crap, why don't they do something truly novel and innovative and let me rearrange the processes on my taskbar so that they're not arranged in a completely useless order (ie the order in which I opened them, earliest to latest). And maybe let me arbitrarily reduce some processes to systray icons instead of huge frickin rectangles.
I just know someone's going to tell me you can do it in Window Manager XYZ, and if I'd just googled it, I'd know that. But if not, then I could actually celebrate that I had an original idea for once and go eat a steak dinner. Or maybe I should just go eat steak anyways.
Re:there's MUCH better work out there.
on
Build Your Own KiteCam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree--these guys are relative lightweights. Several years ago, a friend of mine used RC car parts along with a cage-like assembly to suspend a normal film camera along the line of a kite. With this setup he could angle the camera up and down, as well as let it travel up and down the line, and take pictures when he wanted to. The 10-second delay tactic the guys in the post used is pretty lame by comparison.
Fair enough, but honestly, you probably wouldn't draw a different conclusion from the context of that excerpt, unless it was something like, "The following is some insane shit I wrote while piss drunk", or perhaps "Here's what I'd say if I wanted you to think I was utterly and unredeemably insane."
Being able to use your sword while riding your horse is cool, but does it kinda look like the gameplay is identical to Wind Walker, which itself is pretty much identical to the N64 Zelda games? I mean I like those games, and I don't necessarily have any brilliant ideas on improving the gameplay, but am I the only one hoping for a change in the gameplay?
I don't think policy makers in China actually believe they can fully contain the spread of information. But what they can do is limit how quickly news and ideas get around as a way of putting the brakes on potentially disruptive issues. And so you're right in one sense--they can't contain it absolutely. You've got a billion people with radios and TVs and internet and the ability to fly in and out of the country, so strictly speaking it's impossible to limit what specific individuals can and can't know. But in terms of bogging down the spread of information and keeping a handle on the party line, it seems like they've actually been pretty successful. I think their grip on the primary media is pretty firm and insitutionally grounded, and I'm not sure how far grassroots activism or technical wizardry can go to circumvent that.
I think my heart has always been with RMS's free software ideals, despite the fact that probably 90% of the software is use is proprietary. One thing that just hit me, though, is that RMS seems to arbitrarily draw the line at software. To me, I always thought the principal of free software was one of control: that users knew what was going on inside the programs they were running and had the power to change them however they saw fit. Yet to me, this concept of control goes beyond just the software and extends down to the hardware, which has been and probably always will be proprietary. I think there are certain low-level areas where hardware and software can trade functionality and the line between them isn't so clear.
Do we forget about hardware because it is, by theoretical model, the same from machine to machine? Or has it never been the case that hardware has been a limiting factor for users? Or do we just concede that we probably don't have very little power over the hardware in the first place? If anybody is more familiar with this topic, please let me know.
That's damn straight, bro. Ten bucks is already plenty for a physical album you can hold and admire; the digital version ought to be a bit less, don't you think?
Moderators, we shouldn't mod something down just because it's critical. Even by academic standards, the article really is pretty pretentious, however much you agree or disagree with its argument. The author could have done a lot more with a lot less.
I find it hard to take this article seriously. It blatantly neglects the space program's contribution to improving our capacity as a planet to resist attacks from bloodthirsty crab-shaped alien invaders and their galactic super-fleets, which also are shaped like crabs. I think it's time we take our own welfare seriously, lest our blindness be the cause our ultimate doom.
Is it just me, or have online retailers in CA long been charging sales tax when shipping items to Californians? I used to avoid computer parts dealers in CA so I didn't have to pay the tax the I knew they were going to charge me.
I haven't read the law precisely...what exactly has changed? Is this merely legal recognition of what has already been the case for a long time?
UC Berkeley used to, and probably still does, include an article on the Therac-25-V accident in its introductory CS course reader. In this early example of machines gone awry, poor code and UI led to some cancer patients being treated to a hearty blast of extra juice, in turn resulting in at least a few deaths.
Back when I took that class, we weren't required to read or discuss it, but I assume it was thrown in there amongst the hundreds of pages of Scheme code as a little note to those of us who would be building the digital infrastructure of tomorrow land to be responsible about keeping code robust, well-documented, and well-ventilated. Because, I guess, people's lives might be at stake.
I read the article one day and though how much it all sucked and became a history major. But I imagine if I got suckered into coding again, I'd look that article up for some inspiration.
(above link is for reference, I don't recall who wrote the paper in the Berkeley CS61A reader...)
There is a similar, albeit less complete explication of the same theory on David Brin's website.
Of course, Brinn is just messing around. He thinks if Episode 3 is wrapped up in this fashion, with some kind of bargain between Obi-Wan and Vader against the Emperor (and Yoda, because Brin is a crusty ol' ninny and hates Yoda--I mean, come on now...), then basically, it would be really dope and clever. I personally feel that if they just use an artful combination of animatronics, costume design, and spectacular space and martial arts battles, it'll all fall into place. Take the first and last 20 minutes of Return of the Jedi. Make that into a 30-minute TV special, and you've got yourself the greatest half hour of film ever created. I attest.
I'm sorta going out on a limb on this one, but here goes. While I think it's good that women in any pop-culture form--be it film, videogames, or fiction--are getting opportunities to be the superior warrior, the fearless leader, the deadly assassin, etc., I never felt quite comfortable with an obviously "kickass" female character, especially if I knew that she was designed by males and intended for an audience of males.
I suppose this has a bit to do with the difference between consequence and intent. In the case of the former, the new-style badass female hero, at least superficially ceases to portray the female gender as subordinate and prone to victimization. However, I feel that sometimes, perhaps even often, this is done the purpose of boosting the "sexiness" of the particular character. I think that one characteristic of the contemporary male worldview is that a certain aggressiveness in females is desirable and sexy. And not that making females sexier, by whatever means, is necessarily a bad thing or a form of discrimination. I think that the intent behind this, though, might be seen as a new way of emphasizing female characters' sexuality in a way that appears to be feminist.
Maybe to put it another way: can I ask the males out there if they think girls with guns is sexy? I used to joke around with my friends about making the ultimate sell-out movie and calling it "Breasts with Guns." It's not just that guys like guns, it's that women with guns is sexy idea. To guys.
And so what if it is? It's okay to be sexy. But seen from another point of view, I think there is a certain novelty factor to the supremely empowered female heroine, and sometimes this is done so deliberately and exaggeratedly as to emphasize their femininity. When I say sexiness, I mean both "sex appeal" in an obvious sense, and more importantly, I also mean the strengh of the sexual identity of the character. I guess what I'm proposing is that the empowered female character appears to the audience first and foremost as a powerful female and only secondarily as a powerful person.
As a comparison I might bring up the Chinese term "nu3 qianq2 ren2", or "strong women", which is used to describe the liberated modern female. You'll often find it used when people mention famous female politicians or busniesspersons. I've talked to some of these women (not really famous, but successful), and they've claimed they don't like the term. Of course, on the surface, it's a term of praise. It lauds courage and success. The problem is that it uses the term woman and emphasizes their gender. There's no corresponding "nan2 qiang2 ren2" ("strong man") term.
I'll admit this isn't a perfect comparison to buffed-out women characters, since there's no obviously stated emphasis of the gender of the character, but I get that feeling nonetheless when I see some of the female characters in videogames and movies and whatnot. It's really hard to pick and choose between examples...it's simply a sensation that I get. This feeling is also reinforced when I know that certain works are created by males for males. It's not fair to say men can't imagine women in a reasonabl sex-objective way, but I do think that this is frequently the case in pop-culture works.
Hrm, a good point. I suppose I'd make it sound too superficial to use something like "unsexy", since it seems to imply that Faye is, as one may be wont to say, meat and no soul. I don't particularly think so, although if your template of what Spike appreciates holds true, I guess she wouldn't be a good fit.
Nonetheless, I suppose I just wasn't so excited by Electra. There was mystery, yes, but the kind that feels so oozing of imagined (perhaps hollow) significance and enigma that I felt that she was colorless. I will contrast this to Faye, who in my opinion, however immature, is very vibrant.
Also, I don't really think you need to qualify about anime characters. If anything, anime characters are less valid as examples just because they are fictional, and not because there are anime.
Word. Adding to this and above criticisms that the movie was just one long episode, I'll have to note that I thought they ought to have built on the Faye-Spike sexual tension, which I think was an important, if not essential component of the series. It's like the X-Files: you get rid of the Mulder and Scully coulda-woulda tension and it's that much less interesting. Then again, I think they scored points by letting the T-1000 handle the X-files instead.
I'll also admit that I felt a little betrayed for Faye when Spike expressed a vague interest in Electra, the random female insert character. She is so boring and unsexy that I find it hard to imagine what the director was thinking at the time.
What about corresponding sites for music?
on
An IMDb for Books
·
· Score: 1
Anybody know of any decent music databases analogous to IMDB? I would propose All Music Guide, which I actually think tells me more about music than IMDB tells me about movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Ad hominem, man. Please debate the facts and not the researcher, because you gotta admit either way there is a problem with the way we vote, and everyone benefits when we know what that problem is.
Hilarious. Slashdot really needs to add in a "-1 Circle Jerk" mod option.
How about we just leave Liv Tyler as Arwen? She violates the analogy slightly, but then again anything else might be considered a step down.
My only criticism is that you almost concede too much to the NYT writer--you needn't emphasize that only the obscure examples of comics approach "art." It sounds a little apologetic. I guess I am just more of the mind of some of the other posters here who are a little indignant about the "dumbed-down" remarks being applied to such a great medium.
I for one have an extremely difficult time in granting some kind of ends-justifies-the-means pardon upon colonization because of the basic power structure of that relationship. You might say the people of Hong Kong or India were in fact better off under British rule than if they had not been, but that's a hefty counterfactual to try to push around. Plus, while the situations vary, there are good examples where throwing off the yoke of colonization works pretty well. You're an American, so you should be intimately familiar with at least one example...
That's irrelevant in principle, anyhow, because colonization, in the end, is about exploitation, and too many times the price of such "modernizations" have been far far too great. I give you Southeast Asia and all of Africa to consider. I will dare to throw out this statement: colonializaiton only works out for the colonized if they're very lucky. The interests of the colony itself are ultimately subject to the priorities of the colonizer.
I just know someone's going to tell me you can do it in Window Manager XYZ, and if I'd just googled it, I'd know that. But if not, then I could actually celebrate that I had an original idea for once and go eat a steak dinner. Or maybe I should just go eat steak anyways.
I agree--these guys are relative lightweights. Several years ago, a friend of mine used RC car parts along with a cage-like assembly to suspend a normal film camera along the line of a kite. With this setup he could angle the camera up and down, as well as let it travel up and down the line, and take pictures when he wanted to. The 10-second delay tactic the guys in the post used is pretty lame by comparison.
Fair enough, but honestly, you probably wouldn't draw a different conclusion from the context of that excerpt, unless it was something like, "The following is some insane shit I wrote while piss drunk", or perhaps "Here's what I'd say if I wanted you to think I was utterly and unredeemably insane."
Being able to use your sword while riding your horse is cool, but does it kinda look like the gameplay is identical to Wind Walker, which itself is pretty much identical to the N64 Zelda games? I mean I like those games, and I don't necessarily have any brilliant ideas on improving the gameplay, but am I the only one hoping for a change in the gameplay?
I don't think policy makers in China actually believe they can fully contain the spread of information. But what they can do is limit how quickly news and ideas get around as a way of putting the brakes on potentially disruptive issues. And so you're right in one sense--they can't contain it absolutely. You've got a billion people with radios and TVs and internet and the ability to fly in and out of the country, so strictly speaking it's impossible to limit what specific individuals can and can't know. But in terms of bogging down the spread of information and keeping a handle on the party line, it seems like they've actually been pretty successful. I think their grip on the primary media is pretty firm and insitutionally grounded, and I'm not sure how far grassroots activism or technical wizardry can go to circumvent that.
I think my heart has always been with RMS's free software ideals, despite the fact that probably 90% of the software is use is proprietary. One thing that just hit me, though, is that RMS seems to arbitrarily draw the line at software. To me, I always thought the principal of free software was one of control: that users knew what was going on inside the programs they were running and had the power to change them however they saw fit. Yet to me, this concept of control goes beyond just the software and extends down to the hardware, which has been and probably always will be proprietary. I think there are certain low-level areas where hardware and software can trade functionality and the line between them isn't so clear.
Do we forget about hardware because it is, by theoretical model, the same from machine to machine? Or has it never been the case that hardware has been a limiting factor for users? Or do we just concede that we probably don't have very little power over the hardware in the first place? If anybody is more familiar with this topic, please let me know.
That's damn straight, bro. Ten bucks is already plenty for a physical album you can hold and admire; the digital version ought to be a bit less, don't you think?
Moderators, we shouldn't mod something down just because it's critical. Even by academic standards, the article really is pretty pretentious, however much you agree or disagree with its argument. The author could have done a lot more with a lot less.
I find it hard to take this article seriously. It blatantly neglects the space program's contribution to improving our capacity as a planet to resist attacks from bloodthirsty crab-shaped alien invaders and their galactic super-fleets, which also are shaped like crabs. I think it's time we take our own welfare seriously, lest our blindness be the cause our ultimate doom.
Your DM was an asshole.
I haven't read the law precisely...what exactly has changed? Is this merely legal recognition of what has already been the case for a long time?
Back when I took that class, we weren't required to read or discuss it, but I assume it was thrown in there amongst the hundreds of pages of Scheme code as a little note to those of us who would be building the digital infrastructure of tomorrow land to be responsible about keeping code robust, well-documented, and well-ventilated. Because, I guess, people's lives might be at stake.
I read the article one day and though how much it all sucked and became a history major. But I imagine if I got suckered into coding again, I'd look that article up for some inspiration.
(above link is for reference, I don't recall who wrote the paper in the Berkeley CS61A reader...)
Of course, Brinn is just messing around. He thinks if Episode 3 is wrapped up in this fashion, with some kind of bargain between Obi-Wan and Vader against the Emperor (and Yoda, because Brin is a crusty ol' ninny and hates Yoda--I mean, come on now...), then basically, it would be really dope and clever. I personally feel that if they just use an artful combination of animatronics, costume design, and spectacular space and martial arts battles, it'll all fall into place. Take the first and last 20 minutes of Return of the Jedi. Make that into a 30-minute TV special, and you've got yourself the greatest half hour of film ever created. I attest.
HILARIOUS. Cheap shot, but bravo.
I suppose this has a bit to do with the difference between consequence and intent. In the case of the former, the new-style badass female hero, at least superficially ceases to portray the female gender as subordinate and prone to victimization. However, I feel that sometimes, perhaps even often, this is done the purpose of boosting the "sexiness" of the particular character. I think that one characteristic of the contemporary male worldview is that a certain aggressiveness in females is desirable and sexy. And not that making females sexier, by whatever means, is necessarily a bad thing or a form of discrimination. I think that the intent behind this, though, might be seen as a new way of emphasizing female characters' sexuality in a way that appears to be feminist.
Maybe to put it another way: can I ask the males out there if they think girls with guns is sexy? I used to joke around with my friends about making the ultimate sell-out movie and calling it "Breasts with Guns." It's not just that guys like guns, it's that women with guns is sexy idea. To guys.
And so what if it is? It's okay to be sexy. But seen from another point of view, I think there is a certain novelty factor to the supremely empowered female heroine, and sometimes this is done so deliberately and exaggeratedly as to emphasize their femininity. When I say sexiness, I mean both "sex appeal" in an obvious sense, and more importantly, I also mean the strengh of the sexual identity of the character. I guess what I'm proposing is that the empowered female character appears to the audience first and foremost as a powerful female and only secondarily as a powerful person.
As a comparison I might bring up the Chinese term "nu3 qianq2 ren2", or "strong women", which is used to describe the liberated modern female. You'll often find it used when people mention famous female politicians or busniesspersons. I've talked to some of these women (not really famous, but successful), and they've claimed they don't like the term. Of course, on the surface, it's a term of praise. It lauds courage and success. The problem is that it uses the term woman and emphasizes their gender. There's no corresponding "nan2 qiang2 ren2" ("strong man") term.
I'll admit this isn't a perfect comparison to buffed-out women characters, since there's no obviously stated emphasis of the gender of the character, but I get that feeling nonetheless when I see some of the female characters in videogames and movies and whatnot. It's really hard to pick and choose between examples...it's simply a sensation that I get. This feeling is also reinforced when I know that certain works are created by males for males. It's not fair to say men can't imagine women in a reasonabl sex-objective way, but I do think that this is frequently the case in pop-culture works.
Hrm, a good point. I suppose I'd make it sound too superficial to use something like "unsexy", since it seems to imply that Faye is, as one may be wont to say, meat and no soul. I don't particularly think so, although if your template of what Spike appreciates holds true, I guess she wouldn't be a good fit.
Nonetheless, I suppose I just wasn't so excited by Electra. There was mystery, yes, but the kind that feels so oozing of imagined (perhaps hollow) significance and enigma that I felt that she was colorless. I will contrast this to Faye, who in my opinion, however immature, is very vibrant.
Also, I don't really think you need to qualify about anime characters. If anything, anime characters are less valid as examples just because they are fictional, and not because there are anime.
Word. Adding to this and above criticisms that the movie was just one long episode, I'll have to note that I thought they ought to have built on the Faye-Spike sexual tension, which I think was an important, if not essential component of the series. It's like the X-Files: you get rid of the Mulder and Scully coulda-woulda tension and it's that much less interesting. Then again, I think they scored points by letting the T-1000 handle the X-files instead.
I'll also admit that I felt a little betrayed for Faye when Spike expressed a vague interest in Electra, the random female insert character. She is so boring and unsexy that I find it hard to imagine what the director was thinking at the time.
mod this parent up!
Anybody know of any decent music databases analogous to IMDB? I would propose All Music Guide, which I actually think tells me more about music than IMDB tells me about movies.