Well, how locked down are we here in the states? I assumed that anything that evil regimes could do to monitor their citizens could also be done in the states (as long as they're chasing child pornographers or terrorists -- search warrants not even required in some cases now!).
But, we're comparing child pornographers/terrorists in the US and journalists in locked down countries Terrorists (maybe child pornographers do have some civil liberties, but even that does not protect you from all of the monitoring that the US gov. can muster -- all that means is the extra step of a search warrant)....
If the only difference is civil liberties, then I guess I stand by my original point; terrorists don't have any in the US (and civil liberties + search warrant = all the monitoring the US gov. can muster), so I guess I'm still not clear on the distinctions.
Either freenet will be a secure and anonymous way of transmitting data regardless of what any governement can do or it's not. I don't know how it can help criminals in the states (and therefore the US gov. is helpless in the face of freenet) and not help journalists in evil countries (in which case all and any governments can lock down at ISPs or whatever and freenet is of no use for clandestine operations)...
The pen name was not a comparison to freenet, it was just an example of an anonymous opinion that is not necessarily worthless. I was trying to suggest that an anonymous pen name wasn't too different from posting using a username in/. But, your point is well taken; a book published (even if under pen name) is still not quite the same as anonymous flier -- and so a paper circulating in freenet is maybe more like a political slogan painted on a wall (without the public defacement!). So, my analogy isn't too good, though I still think that anonymous voices (i.e. political slogans painted on walls) aren't worthless simply because they are anonymous.
PS sorry if I seemed "agressive" in tone -- it was actually a pathetic attempt at comedy... I should know better!
I don't understand how it can benefit "kiddie porn purveyors/organized crime/terrorists" (who also need to not be detected/remain anonymous otherwise they get in trouble) and *not* benefit communities of dissenters in China and Mideast.
In fact, is the sofware/music/whatever "pirate" community that much tinier than say a group of dissenters in the Mid East? (which seems to me is what you're saying, and what you're basing your conclusions on). I really wouldn't have thought so... and even if it were, I'm not sure that it proves what you're trying to say here.
I'm not sure I agree with your argument... maybe I'm missing the point?
Basically:
How can it be good for secretly distributing kiddie porn and not good for secretely distributing your Fliers on a New Democratic and Just Chinese Government (for example)?
Shouldn't it either be useful for both or useful for neither?
PS
I disagree with the 3rd paragraph too (on matter of principle), but as a practical matter are you saying that no book that was ever published under a pen name is worth reading because we don't know the author's real name? I ask you, Mr. Duffbeer703 (your real birth-given name, not a login name at a public discussion forum used to track Karma with no real links to who you are in real life and therefore actually anonymous?)
Everyone uses this example for linux! and I think it's fair and true, but that's what's changed with (for instance) Rh 8.0
I just installed it, you can change resolutions through the GUI available through the start menu. Basically, a lot of tasks are finding GUIs with RH 8.0 -- I guess it just takes a little effort from a company to give Linux the front end Windows converts need (?)
Anyways, FYI, changing resolutions as of RH 8.0 is no different (certainly not harder) than changing it in windows!
In fact, it's been weird for me to see all these "Wizards" ("Druids" in Linux?) for tasks that even in 7.3 required a trip to the command line... you can now install software (in RPM format of course) by clicking on it! Too cool (and a little weird for me!)
I also just installed RH 8.0 (a few hours ago, in fact) at work -- everything was cool and automated, except that it didn't autorecognize my Sony monitor (std. VGA, X worked but refresh rates were wrong and too conservative). Tweaking the refresh rates (through a GUI found on the panel menu!) was as effortless as could be (it certainly isn't any easier on Windows at least!) and a first for me in Linux (in fact, I'm still discovering new-for-me GUIs that weren't there before -- and I've been using 7.3)
To me, 8.0 is leaps and bounds towards newbie friendliness -- there's lots of "Wizards" for a lot of the customization that even in 7.3 meant a trip to the command line. Hell, I just discovered that you can install rpms by clicking on 'em (weeeeird!)...
I definitely think RH made some real progress towards "Linux on the Desktop" with 8.0
PS
in all fairness, the one glaring missing piece so far IMHO is a nice start-menu editor (*that's* done by hand in RH 8.0!). Maybe by RH 8.1? And maybe this is only with Gnome2? Anyone know? (I normally run KDE3, but I really like the way Gnome2/Nautilus looks in this incarnation so that's what I'm sticking with for the time being).
I don't agree at all, but maybe I'm missing something...
The basic functions of all of the programs you listed work similar enough in Linux that it won't make an iota of difference in 'preparation' for the 'real world' (back, forward buttons, reload buttons look and behave identically on IE and on Phoenix running on Linux, for example). VB I guess is the obvious exception, but I'm not sure how you can be so confident that VB won't be anything other than a historical footnote in 10 or 15 yrs. (or so morphed from what it is today) that again it doesn't matter -- this also applies to all applications btw.
I've seen people (Ma, and GF) just pick up AbiWord (never before been in anything other than a MS enviroment, mind you) and know how to change fonts, save and create a document, etc.
The difference will be in the minutiae of, let's say the exact layout of the options under 'Edit' -- which will change anyways as Windows and Windows applications evolve. I really don't think anything will be lost at all.
The advantage, IMHO, is that students with the interest/ability to dig deeper into what the computer is doing will be able to, unlike in a Windows enviroment where things are purposedly (and, again IMHO, unnecessarily) obscured, and the cash savings part of it are important too.
I say, hurrah for the school, someone there 'gets it' (IMHO!)
I'm not sure I get your point -- If there was a lack of technical expertise, the teacher would do the same thing that all people do now when their Windows boxen crashes, sigh (or curse!) and reboot the machine. In the case of total system collapse, and lacking a guru, I'd imagine they'd do what all Windows users are forced to do even now; reinstall or get someone who knows how to reinstall to reinstall for them.
I guess I don't understand why this is a sticking point for Linux not being ready, nor why this is different from the Windows experience.
Worst case scenario would be pulling the plug and restarting the machine (journaling file systems would help with this atrocity?).
Am I missing something?
(there are other sticking points, like maybe some websites that won't work w/o IE... but I'm not convinced this is much of problem -- based of course on my personal experience, and mileage varies --)
I'm not sure, but I remember "Zeyphyring" people when I was an undergrad -- I didn't get in on the action until 1993, but Zephyr predates that, not sure by how much (there's a link to this posted above).
Before you Zephyred, you could "finger" them to see if they were logged on somewhere.
And yeah, 'fingering' was a constant source of giggles and lame jokes amongst us, the clueless uninitiated (I remember thinking, "these CS types have a warped sense of humor. I wonder if I have more in common with these people?" I should have changed my major just on the strength of that!). Finally, I remember assuming that it was derived from something terribly technical which had nothing to do with mutual masturbation
After all, in real life you'd Zephyr first, then finger. (Sometimes talk in person in between)
Now that the internet has grown, and I've spent a lot more time surfing the web and chatting online, I'm not so sure about the "terribly technical" theory anymore....:)
Yup, that seems to be one of the biggest problems in these type of discussions.
It really personally bothers me when people latch on to the word 'theory' and base their claims on this (but it's only a theory, just like the cow flying over the moon! So they should both be treated equally, right?).
I just wanted to add that the fact that germs cause disease is actually also 'only' a theory:
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2 007.htm
As is the 'magic' that powers the computers we are all typing in (electron theory, or electron movement theory)
http://www.qsl.net/4f5aww/module5a.htm
I guess it's just unfortunate that the 'lay definition' of theory (it's just something that I dreamt up) is so different from the meaning given to the word in science.
PS
sorry, don't know how to make urls clickable. Although, all I did was a quick google search, so there's nothing special about those links.
Well, it won't necessarily be moot. We're dealing with people who don't believe the pictures that were already taken by NASA, so why would they believe these more modern pictures?
I thought the apollo missions were broadcast live world wide (it was a 'US vs. USSR' sword rattling deal). I'm not sure what more can be done for these naysayers.
What I don't understand is, communication sattelites are OK, but not moon landings? Though, again, when you're dealing with people just looking for an excuse to not believe, I'm sure that even taking them up in the shuttle itself would not be enough ("then, they drugged me -- I'm sure in the food or in the air I was breathing -- while showing moving pictures of stars and stuff. Other than that, I could just have been on Space Mountain in Disneyland" or something similar).
Superman has the greatest power of any superhero: he can travel through time. Any encounter is moot, since he can erase all and any adversaries from existence by rubbing them out the day they are born (or their parents, or by tutoring them and leading them away from a life of crime, or whatever).
In fact, I don't see why Superman bothers fighting anyone. He doesn't need to raise a fist to overcome any number of foes.
This is also why I'm not personally a fan of Superman: it's just not interesting to me since he is, essentially, all powerful.
In this case, the answer is simple! Reverse time, erase Batman from existence, and there never is a chance for the scenario you painted to play out.
So, either the movie will be 5 minutes long, or I already know I won't enjoy it because of holes in the script! (gawd, that's the most obnoxious thing I've said all morning!)
Well, I guess I should clarify: the whole time thing bothers me to the point that I lost all interest in Superman. Like I alluded to in the first post, in my mind any fight he's ever had is moot because of his godly powers over space-time.
But, let's look at the Batman thing again: he could just save Bruce's parents (it's a good deed, right?), and prevent Batman from ever being created. Hell, he'd win by defusing the fight -- it just would never take place and Superman would prevail.
The movie was ridiculous, and as silly as reversing the Earth's rotation in order to turn back the clock of time is, it still doesn't bother me as much as the paradoxes involved in time travel (which were never dealt with). I'm willing to call the Earth/spin/reverse-time thing "artistic freedom" (how do you convey to kids the idea of what's going on? There's better ways, sure, but I'll let 'em slide!). The real problem is that it forever ruined Superman as an entity that actually has to fight for anything (there's some real power in time travel!)
To be fair, maybe I should disregard the movies and only look at what's happened in the world of comics (I haven't followed any stories closely in many moons, though I was a huge fan of Batman and Spiderman comics). Hopefully, no time travel in those!
Thanks for the link, I will check it out (I am personally rooting for Batman, don't get me wrong!)
I just hope the movie, if it gets made, is a little better thought out than the Superman movies of yesteryear!
I agree with the parent post... (though I hope to offend no one here), but Superman's powers are simply ridiculous. We're talking about a superhero that can turn back time when it suits him (to save his girl, like in one of the movies).
So, I think Superman would obviously win (I think they have 'officially' fought before, with Batman winning, but it was a ridiculous stretch for me).
All Superman has to do is turn back time. He can go and incinerate Bruce's dad the same day he was born, for instance. Or, simply using his x-ray vision and laser eyes sterilize him, thus preventing Batman from ever being born, for example. I know, paradox (no Batman, hence no Batman vs. Superman fight, hence no Superman flying back in time to erase Batman from existence -- then what?). Hell, he can even go back and save Bruce's parents so that they live to a ripe old age, and Bruce grows up spending all his time inventing kewl gadgets to better produce wine (his hobby, now that he's not fighting crime).
At least for me, that's what has made Batman a more interesting superhero to follow. Superman is powerful to the point where any fight/encounter he's ever had is moot. Just fly back in time, and then prevent the bad guys from existing, growing up with thumbs (in-womb surgery) so they can't use weapons, or whatever... (why does he ever bother fighting anyone, actually?)
PS
The fact that it's been established that Superman can fly back in time w/o dealing with paradoxes to save someone who died (eaten by the earth, actually) means to me that he's exempt from these issues altogether (apparently). He can do *anything*. Batman would cease to exist before he even realized that Superman was attacking. Actually, he'd cease to exist before it even occurred to him to attack Superman in the first place.
Don't know about swedish porn (does it come with recommendation?:P), but to me it sounds like the same voice used in the "2001 E3" Warcraft 3 trailer (pretty cool clip, IMHO):
Although an actor's particular skill may also be some what of an objective opinion, I would actually place Guy Pierce on a much higher plane than even the remarkably likeable Tom Hanks. IMHO, Tom Hanks has a lot of on-screen charisma, and is a capabable actor, but Guy Pierce is just believeable because of his acting talent.
The first time I saw Guy Pierce was in the excellent Australian film "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" (later ripped off by the embarrasingly poor American film "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything"). Guy Pierce plays an extravagant cross dresser (very animated, very gay), along with Hugo Weaving (who later played Agent Smith in The Matrix).
It was *amazing* to see Guy Pierce play a tough guy in LA Confidential and again in his superb role in Memento.
Ditto for Hugo Weaving, who I first saw as a gay crossdresser in Priscilla, then saw again as the cold, calculating Agent Smith in The Matrix.
I guess what I'm driving at is this: Tom Hanks, is incredibly likeable, a face everyone knows, and therefore commands a great salary. But, IMHO, millions of bucks doesn't necessarily buy great actors, it just buys a face that everyone recognizes and will hopefully fill the theatres those first few weekends.
There's more on this (and why American cinema, well really mainstream Hollywood flicks) have more or less consistently sucked in recent years:
(Sorry, the above link refuses to show up properly during preview, don't know why! There's a space in there that needs to not be there! Sorry, I'm ignorant, this the first time I'm using HTML tags)
There's plenty of interviews, some of them striking (yeah, Hollywood mongols themselves describing the changes). It used to be execs sat around discussing the script when deciding whether or not to green light a film. Nowadays, with the more corporate (investors! investors! investors!) culture and the death of American indie film distribution, the first question is finding a script that they can stick a well known star into. Big star = big bucks at the theatre. The script iself is discussed as a second phase! The big star is literally more important than the script. And it shows.:(
Also, a lot of the big Hollywood stars have "brand name recognition", and therein lies their value to Hollywood. Whether or not they're incompetent, marginal, good or maybe even great actors doesn't really matter or enter into the salaries they command.
That's Hollywood for ya!
whew, I'm not the only one ...
on
The Aging Gamer
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I used to (somewhat apologetically) explain to people that I had spent last friday night playing GTA3 (I'm 28).
I used to think I was a loser, but it's nice to know I'm part of a larger demographic!:)
Then again, this doesn't necessarily mean I'm not a loser, just not the only one!
when someone calls you, you end up burning the minutes you paid for.
Think about it. You are getting charged for incoming calls, not matter how you cut it.
Is this the answer to the parent post? American companies get away with screwing American consumers more than companies in other places around the globe because we don't really care about the contracts we sign here.
We're sheep! (in my more paranoid moments, it seems that Americans are forgetting what a fair deal is, and no longer demanding it).
PS
Well, could it be lack of competition due to lack of standards thing that's been mentioned before?
Hey, I hope I'm not interjecting into a personal debate, but I'm not sure I agree with you.
I mean, at this point, even a MS exec has come out, raised his hand said it himself, security just isn't something MS has spent a lot of time working or thinking about.
To most of us, that's stating the obvious. But even to MS supporters, that *has* to carry some weight, no?
Yeah, OS (all Os's) need to be patched, and being more popular does make you more targetted. But, at some point, you do have to recognize that MS is using luggage locks to chain their bikes, whereas other platforms actually try to use something that might stand a chance of stopping the bad guys.
I do think MS deserves criticism for their arrogant (or maybe just ignorant?) attitudes towards protecting/securing their systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi
....
...
/. But, your point is well taken; a book published (even if under pen name) is still not quite the same as anonymous flier -- and so a paper circulating in freenet is maybe more like a political slogan painted on a wall (without the public defacement!). So, my analogy isn't too good, though I still think that anonymous voices (i.e. political slogans painted on walls) aren't worthless simply because they are anonymous.
... I should know better!
Well, how locked down are we here in the states? I assumed that anything that evil regimes could do to monitor their citizens could also be done in the states (as long as they're chasing child pornographers or terrorists -- search warrants not even required in some cases now!).
But, we're comparing child pornographers/terrorists in the US and journalists in locked down countries Terrorists (maybe child pornographers do have some civil liberties, but even that does not protect you from all of the monitoring that the US gov. can muster -- all that means is the extra step of a search warrant)
If the only difference is civil liberties, then I guess I stand by my original point; terrorists don't have any in the US (and civil liberties + search warrant = all the monitoring the US gov. can muster), so I guess I'm still not clear on the distinctions.
Either freenet will be a secure and anonymous way of transmitting data regardless of what any governement can do or it's not. I don't know how it can help criminals in the states (and therefore the US gov. is helpless in the face of freenet) and not help journalists in evil countries (in which case all and any governments can lock down at ISPs or whatever and freenet is of no use for clandestine operations)
The pen name was not a comparison to freenet, it was just an example of an anonymous opinion that is not necessarily worthless. I was trying to suggest that an anonymous pen name wasn't too different from posting using a username in
PS sorry if I seemed "agressive" in tone -- it was actually a pathetic attempt at comedy
I don't understand how it can benefit "kiddie porn purveyors/organized crime/terrorists" (who also need to not be detected/remain anonymous otherwise they get in trouble) and *not* benefit communities of dissenters in China and Mideast.
... and even if it were, I'm not sure that it proves what you're trying to say here.
... maybe I'm missing the point?
In fact, is the sofware/music/whatever "pirate" community that much tinier than say a group of dissenters in the Mid East? (which seems to me is what you're saying, and what you're basing your conclusions on). I really wouldn't have thought so
I'm not sure I agree with your argument
Basically:
How can it be good for secretly distributing kiddie porn and not good for secretely distributing your Fliers on a New Democratic and Just Chinese Government (for example)?
Shouldn't it either be useful for both or useful for neither?
PS
I disagree with the 3rd paragraph too (on matter of principle), but as a practical matter are you saying that no book that was ever published under a pen name is worth reading because we don't know the author's real name? I ask you, Mr. Duffbeer703 (your real birth-given name, not a login name at a public discussion forum used to track Karma with no real links to who you are in real life and therefore actually anonymous?)
Everyone uses this example for linux! and I think it's fair and true, but that's what's changed with (for instance) Rh 8.0
... you can now install software (in RPM format of course) by clicking on it! Too cool (and a little weird for me!)
I just installed it, you can change resolutions through the GUI available through the start menu. Basically, a lot of tasks are finding GUIs with RH 8.0 -- I guess it just takes a little effort from a company to give Linux the front end Windows converts need (?)
Anyways, FYI, changing resolutions as of RH 8.0 is no different (certainly not harder) than changing it in windows!
In fact, it's been weird for me to see all these "Wizards" ("Druids" in Linux?) for tasks that even in 7.3 required a trip to the command line
That's the whole point, that's no longer needed.
...
I also just installed RH 8.0 (a few hours ago, in fact) at work -- everything was cool and automated, except that it didn't autorecognize my Sony monitor (std. VGA, X worked but refresh rates were wrong and too conservative). Tweaking the refresh rates (through a GUI found on the panel menu!) was as effortless as could be (it certainly isn't any easier on Windows at least!) and a first for me in Linux (in fact, I'm still discovering new-for-me GUIs that weren't there before -- and I've been using 7.3)
To me, 8.0 is leaps and bounds towards newbie friendliness -- there's lots of "Wizards" for a lot of the customization that even in 7.3 meant a trip to the command line. Hell, I just discovered that you can install rpms by clicking on 'em (weeeeird!)
I definitely think RH made some real progress towards "Linux on the Desktop" with 8.0
PS
in all fairness, the one glaring missing piece so far IMHO is a nice start-menu editor (*that's* done by hand in RH 8.0!). Maybe by RH 8.1? And maybe this is only with Gnome2? Anyone know? (I normally run KDE3, but I really like the way Gnome2/Nautilus looks in this incarnation so that's what I'm sticking with for the time being).
I don't agree at all, but maybe I'm missing something ...
The basic functions of all of the programs you listed work similar enough in Linux that it won't make an iota of difference in 'preparation' for the 'real world' (back, forward buttons, reload buttons look and behave identically on IE and on Phoenix running on Linux, for example). VB I guess is the obvious exception, but I'm not sure how you can be so confident that VB won't be anything other than a historical footnote in 10 or 15 yrs. (or so morphed from what it is today) that again it doesn't matter -- this also applies to all applications btw.
I've seen people (Ma, and GF) just pick up AbiWord (never before been in anything other than a MS enviroment, mind you) and know how to change fonts, save and create a document, etc.
The difference will be in the minutiae of, let's say the exact layout of the options under 'Edit' -- which will change anyways as Windows and Windows applications evolve. I really don't think anything will be lost at all.
The advantage, IMHO, is that students with the interest/ability to dig deeper into what the computer is doing will be able to, unlike in a Windows enviroment where things are purposedly (and, again IMHO, unnecessarily) obscured, and the cash savings part of it are important too.
I say, hurrah for the school, someone there 'gets it' (IMHO!)
I'm not sure I get your point -- If there was a lack of technical expertise, the teacher would do the same thing that all people do now when their Windows boxen crashes, sigh (or curse!) and reboot the machine. In the case of total system collapse, and lacking a guru, I'd imagine they'd do what all Windows users are forced to do even now; reinstall or get someone who knows how to reinstall to reinstall for them.
... but I'm not convinced this is much of problem -- based of course on my personal experience, and mileage varies --)
I guess I don't understand why this is a sticking point for Linux not being ready, nor why this is different from the Windows experience.
Worst case scenario would be pulling the plug and restarting the machine (journaling file systems would help with this atrocity?).
Am I missing something?
(there are other sticking points, like maybe some websites that won't work w/o IE
the same could be said of anything anywhere the word "appealing" is used.
... :)
I'm not sure what your point is
I'm not sure, but I remember "Zeyphyring" people when I was an undergrad -- I didn't get in on the action until 1993, but Zephyr predates that, not sure by how much (there's a link to this posted above).
.... :)
Before you Zephyred, you could "finger" them to see if they were logged on somewhere.
And yeah, 'fingering' was a constant source of giggles and lame jokes amongst us, the clueless uninitiated (I remember thinking, "these CS types have a warped sense of humor. I wonder if I have more in common with these people?" I should have changed my major just on the strength of that!). Finally, I remember assuming that it was derived from something terribly technical which had nothing to do with mutual masturbation
After all, in real life you'd Zephyr first, then finger. (Sometimes talk in person in between)
Now that the internet has grown, and I've spent a lot more time surfing the web and chatting online, I'm not so sure about the "terribly technical" theory anymore
Yup, that seems to be one of the biggest problems in these type of discussions.
It really personally bothers me when people latch on to the word 'theory' and base their claims on this (but it's only a theory, just like the cow flying over the moon! So they should both be treated equally, right?).
I just wanted to add that the fact that germs cause disease is actually also 'only' a theory: http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2 007.htm
As is the 'magic' that powers the computers we are all typing in (electron theory, or electron movement theory) http://www.qsl.net/4f5aww/module5a.htm
I guess it's just unfortunate that the 'lay definition' of theory (it's just something that I dreamt up) is so different from the meaning given to the word in science.
PS sorry, don't know how to make urls clickable. Although, all I did was a quick google search, so there's nothing special about those links.
Well, it won't necessarily be moot. We're dealing with people who don't believe the pictures that were already taken by NASA, so why would they believe these more modern pictures?
I thought the apollo missions were broadcast live world wide (it was a 'US vs. USSR' sword rattling deal). I'm not sure what more can be done for these naysayers.
What I don't understand is, communication sattelites are OK, but not moon landings? Though, again, when you're dealing with people just looking for an excuse to not believe, I'm sure that even taking them up in the shuttle itself would not be enough ("then, they drugged me -- I'm sure in the food or in the air I was breathing -- while showing moving pictures of stars and stuff. Other than that, I could just have been on Space Mountain in Disneyland" or something similar).
Superman has the greatest power of any superhero: he can travel through time. Any encounter is moot, since he can erase all and any adversaries from existence by rubbing them out the day they are born (or their parents, or by tutoring them and leading them away from a life of crime, or whatever). In fact, I don't see why Superman bothers fighting anyone. He doesn't need to raise a fist to overcome any number of foes. This is also why I'm not personally a fan of Superman: it's just not interesting to me since he is, essentially, all powerful. In this case, the answer is simple! Reverse time, erase Batman from existence, and there never is a chance for the scenario you painted to play out. So, either the movie will be 5 minutes long, or I already know I won't enjoy it because of holes in the script! (gawd, that's the most obnoxious thing I've said all morning!)
Well, I guess I should clarify: the whole time thing bothers me to the point that I lost all interest in Superman. Like I alluded to in the first post, in my mind any fight he's ever had is moot because of his godly powers over space-time.
But, let's look at the Batman thing again: he could just save Bruce's parents (it's a good deed, right?), and prevent Batman from ever being created. Hell, he'd win by defusing the fight -- it just would never take place and Superman would prevail.
The movie was ridiculous, and as silly as reversing the Earth's rotation in order to turn back the clock of time is, it still doesn't bother me as much as the paradoxes involved in time travel (which were never dealt with). I'm willing to call the Earth/spin/reverse-time thing "artistic freedom" (how do you convey to kids the idea of what's going on? There's better ways, sure, but I'll let 'em slide!). The real problem is that it forever ruined Superman as an entity that actually has to fight for anything (there's some real power in time travel!)
To be fair, maybe I should disregard the movies and only look at what's happened in the world of comics (I haven't followed any stories closely in many moons, though I was a huge fan of Batman and Spiderman comics). Hopefully, no time travel in those!
Thanks for the link, I will check it out (I am personally rooting for Batman, don't get me wrong!)
I just hope the movie, if it gets made, is a little better thought out than the Superman movies of yesteryear!
I agree with the parent post ... (though I hope to offend no one here), but Superman's powers are simply ridiculous. We're talking about a superhero that can turn back time when it suits him (to save his girl, like in one of the movies).
... (why does he ever bother fighting anyone, actually?)
;)
So, I think Superman would obviously win (I think they have 'officially' fought before, with Batman winning, but it was a ridiculous stretch for me).
All Superman has to do is turn back time. He can go and incinerate Bruce's dad the same day he was born, for instance. Or, simply using his x-ray vision and laser eyes sterilize him, thus preventing Batman from ever being born, for example. I know, paradox (no Batman, hence no Batman vs. Superman fight, hence no Superman flying back in time to erase Batman from existence -- then what?). Hell, he can even go back and save Bruce's parents so that they live to a ripe old age, and Bruce grows up spending all his time inventing kewl gadgets to better produce wine (his hobby, now that he's not fighting crime).
At least for me, that's what has made Batman a more interesting superhero to follow. Superman is powerful to the point where any fight/encounter he's ever had is moot. Just fly back in time, and then prevent the bad guys from existing, growing up with thumbs (in-womb surgery) so they can't use weapons, or whatever
PS
The fact that it's been established that Superman can fly back in time w/o dealing with paradoxes to save someone who died (eaten by the earth, actually) means to me that he's exempt from these issues altogether (apparently). He can do *anything*. Batman would cease to exist before he even realized that Superman was attacking. Actually, he'd cease to exist before it even occurred to him to attack Superman in the first place.
Oh well, my take on things.
Don't know about swedish porn (does it come with recommendation? :P), but to me it sounds like the same voice used in the "2001 E3" Warcraft 3 trailer (pretty cool clip, IMHO):
http://www.blizzard.com/war3/movies/
Although an actor's particular skill may also be some what of an objective opinion, I would actually place Guy Pierce on a much higher plane than even the remarkably likeable Tom Hanks. IMHO, Tom Hanks has a lot of on-screen charisma, and is a capabable actor, but Guy Pierce is just believeable because of his acting talent.
The first time I saw Guy Pierce was in the excellent Australian film "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" (later ripped off by the embarrasingly poor American film "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything"). Guy Pierce plays an extravagant cross dresser (very animated, very gay), along with Hugo Weaving (who later played Agent Smith in The Matrix).
It was *amazing* to see Guy Pierce play a tough guy in LA Confidential and again in his superb role in Memento.
Ditto for Hugo Weaving, who I first saw as a gay crossdresser in Priscilla, then saw again as the cold, calculating Agent Smith in The Matrix.
I guess what I'm driving at is this: Tom Hanks, is incredibly likeable, a face everyone knows, and therefore commands a great salary. But, IMHO, millions of bucks doesn't necessarily buy great actors, it just buys a face that everyone recognizes and will hopefully fill the theatres those first few weekends.
There's more on this (and why American cinema, well really mainstream Hollywood flicks) have more or less consistently sucked in recent years:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hol(Sorry, the above link refuses to show up properly during preview, don't know why! There's a space in there that needs to not be there! Sorry, I'm ignorant, this the first time I'm using HTML tags)
There's plenty of interviews, some of them striking (yeah, Hollywood mongols themselves describing the changes). It used to be execs sat around discussing the script when deciding whether or not to green light a film. Nowadays, with the more corporate (investors! investors! investors!) culture and the death of American indie film distribution, the first question is finding a script that they can stick a well known star into. Big star = big bucks at the theatre. The script iself is discussed as a second phase! The big star is literally more important than the script. And it shows.Also, a lot of the big Hollywood stars have "brand name recognition", and therein lies their value to Hollywood. Whether or not they're incompetent, marginal, good or maybe even great actors doesn't really matter or enter into the salaries they command.
That's Hollywood for ya!I used to (somewhat apologetically) explain to people that I had spent last friday night playing GTA3 (I'm 28). I used to think I was a loser, but it's nice to know I'm part of a larger demographic! :)
Then again, this doesn't necessarily mean I'm not a loser, just not the only one!
when someone calls you, you end up burning the minutes you paid for.
Think about it. You are getting charged for incoming calls, not matter how you cut it.
Is this the answer to the parent post? American companies get away with screwing American consumers more than companies in other places around the globe because we don't really care about the contracts we sign here.
We're sheep! (in my more paranoid moments, it seems that Americans are forgetting what a fair deal is, and no longer demanding it).
PS
Well, could it be lack of competition due to lack of standards thing that's been mentioned before?
Hey, I hope I'm not interjecting into a personal debate, but I'm not sure I agree with you.
I mean, at this point, even a MS exec has come out, raised his hand said it himself, security just isn't something MS has spent a lot of time working or thinking about.
To most of us, that's stating the obvious. But even to MS supporters, that *has* to carry some weight, no?
Yeah, OS (all Os's) need to be patched, and being more popular does make you more targetted. But, at some point, you do have to recognize that MS is using luggage locks to chain their bikes, whereas other platforms actually try to use something that might stand a chance of stopping the bad guys.
I do think MS deserves criticism for their arrogant (or maybe just ignorant?) attitudes towards protecting/securing their systems.