Oh sure, I drink water. I it. But I don't NEED to.
on
Extraterrestrial Water
·
· Score: 1
Really exciting news, but the article does make a common error, but more for sensationalisim (they do cover thier ass). Water is necessary . . . but for carbon-based life forms. Us. Fishes. Bugs. And to expect every form of life in the universe to operate with OUR laws and needs is silly. This isn't proof that there may be life, this is proof that there may be OUR kind of life.
And of course, they do go on to say all KNOWN forms of life need water. Slick move on the journalist's part (staving off attacks by cynical bastards like myself. It's NOT the millenium until 2001 damnit!). But even this is dodgy . . . do viruses need water? I can't imagine they would, but I don't know for sure. Can anyone back me up on this?
Yes, the article is old. And yes, perhaps it did appear here in 1997 (I'm a relatively new reader . . . only a year and a half now!). But time and time again, there are clumps of people bitching about it. Well, first off, do YOU remember every single article you read two years ago? I sure as hell don't.
The article was submitted again, and posted again. Not claiming intent for either party (it could have been a mistake), I see no problem with this. The article is relevant again, given the Kansas Fuckup. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe someone thought to re-submit this article in response to that? Or maybe posted for people who (like me) didn't catch it the first time around.
I'm taking bids for ping adspace. Whenever any packets are sent to my server, they will be returned with an ad in proportion to how many packets are sent. Rates are per ad sent (server daily ping reports will be sent out by request and $30 printing fee). "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't be here."
. . . hey, don't worry. There's still PLENTY of other STDs that are more contagious and just as deadly . . . AIDS is just the one that the media likes right now:-)
so if I beat up your grandmother, steal her money saying it was mine in the first place, and spend it all to buy you cookies, will you still refuse to hate me;-)
Yeah, terrible analogy, Bill was never THAT bad, but . . . .
"and how much have Mr. Raymond and Mr. Stallman given to charity? In my league? I think not. I am a GENUINE Nice Guy(tm) and I give people what they want for free: money, not software or a source code or anything silly like that!!! Hey, I don't CARE how much cooler Linus Torvalds' hair is than mine, did HE give away 90 trillion billion dollars to ANYONE? . . .."
Seriously though, good for him. I'm glad he's spending it responsibly and for some sort of noble goal, regardless of secondary motives. Hey, no AIDS WOULD be a nice thing . . . unless of course it just mutates into MS-AIDS(tm) . . .;-)
PLEASE dear God let someone have the wisdom and ingenuity to port Drakan. Please please PLEASE!!!! All I've done since I got the Win98 demo is play it . . . it consumes all my gaming time and is the ONLY reason I still have that Windows partition . . . I want I want I WANT!!!!
Chris Cunningham might not be an eloquent person. Hell, he's a dork. I won't argue with that. But have you seen his work with Aphex Twin? Brilliant! Disturbing. If I could pick anyone alive to direct this film, it would be him.
Of course, I don't have the vested interest in this that everyone else does. I grew up on Tolkien, and so far the films have been terrible (we'll wait on the new one). I grew up on the Crow, and that movie pissed me off, so I know how apprehensive everyone is/seems to be. But I'm excited about this. Not because of the movie. Because I'd like to see what Cunningham can do outside of a 4 (or 12) minute video. My two cents anyway;-)
Yeah, it was funny the first time you saw it. And it's not really fair to compare the two. If they threw in a bagel in Eyes Wide Shut, that would be too distracting. I don't think the people in the way was the editing issue. I think that was the intent from the get go. Cruise walks around the building. He doesn't stand and watch. He takes glimpses, and the people in the way are there so that the viewer is doing the same thing. The sex acts were not the focus of the scene. If they showed them explicitly they would have been.
But this is way off the topic, other than I like discussing movies, particularly ones I liked/felt strongly about;-) Which I guess proves my original point I like discussing movies. And if parents would discuss the movies with thier children instead of them sneaking in to the theater with a crusading geek, then there wouldn't be a problem;-)
I completely agree with you there. Why is male nudity so taboo? Why does a glimpse of a penis all of a sudden make a film a porn? I don't understand that, and I applaud any director that does make the choice to include male nudity.
I wish that Kubrick didn't back down for the rating. (A Clockwork Orange featured male nudity . . . and was NC-17 (well, X at the time)) But I can see why he did. In his shoes I may have done the same. Thanks for the info; it's good to know I didn't lose any of the movie (content wise) just for the crime of being an American.
So after 6 years of being VERY verbal in interviews (though not telling anything about the movie, as with the lost AI. I was impressed) he changed his mind at the last minute? It's possible. But he often said he wouldn't edit it to avoid a rating. If you want I can post the interviews (I'm sure I could find them again). That leads me to believe that he buckled under pressures of his production company, or distributor. And from what I've been told, they removed ONE scene.
Which goes back to my point. Why is it acceptable for European audiences and not American? Because we don't want to parent. And we don't want to have to police every theater every day. Maybe the facist/nazi film patrol will allow MORE films to be made with art in mind rather than popular aceptance. But I doubt it.
Oh, and I do pay attention, but only to the information I see. I can't know EVERYTHING;-)
What about the non-consenting parents? That's the issue at hand here. Everyone has to suffer because no one wants to parent anymore. I snuck into movies when I was a kid. I saw alot of stuff I prolly shouldn't have, or should have had a parent there do discuss it. But my parents didn't care, and I ended up an anti-social geek posting irrelevant comments on/.;-)
Sure. Take a geek kid to a movie. But make sure the parents decide they should see it. And make sure they understand what they saw. Some 13 year olds can handle it. Some cannot. It happens that way. I wish it didn't, but it does. And I couldn't morally be in that position to say.
Take for example, Eyes Wide Shut (ha! I knew I'd get a chance to discuss it!!!). If Kubrick was alive it would have gotten the NC-17 rating in the States because he was very adamant about not editing the film. But it was edited. Because theatres don't want to be responsible for 13 year olds with tickets to Tarzan sneaking in because of the higher rating. They don't want to be responsible for children watching it WITHOUT their parents consent (you remeber the Showgirls mess? That was icky EVERYWHERE). I saw the movie and I loved it. Alot of 'adults' didn't understand it, and I can see how the symbology and metaphors would be LOST on a 13 year old. So what would the point of them seeing the movie be? It was a film written for adults.
South Park is an exception. It was written with 13 year olds in mind. The humor, despite it's wide appeal is very juvenile. And the vulgarity was thrown in to appeal even MORE. The point is, a 13 year old could get MOST of it. But I still maintain that the responsible parent should discuss the movie; see what it means to the child.
I don't mean to sound preachy (I realize I do). Take the geek kid. I'm behind that. But be sure it's not behind the parents back. And if the parent doesn't want to discuss it with the kid, take that role too. Who doesn't like discussing movies? It's not the film that causes children to shoot thier classmates; it's the presentation.
Be nice. Rob does have a life you know. The purpose of/. is links and discussion forum. We can't expect EVERYONE to know EVERYTHING, and do you have any idea how many submitted articles the crew is looking at right now?
Right now I'm constantly running out of space. You could partition and run EVERY OS on the market!!! It would almost be worth it just to partition a non-networked machine and fill your alpha-array of drives!!!!
EVERY chip has a clock, regardless of it's function or if the clock is utilized as such for the software. It's part of how they're made and used. This is the ONLY reason Y2K might be an issue; if it was just software you could just reboot it and install new settings (the MS-Solution to everything: reboot!!!). Who can say if the Saturn will stop working or not, but it will very likely be affected in SOME way (not to nitpick, but technically it's not a bug;-) And Y2K is not the millenium (no matter what the TV says). I love semantics!!! Nerdboy am I!!!)
No, but I know that the Sega Dreamcast (which, incidentally, is a very noisy and shoddily built box) was created with a partnership with Microsoft. Can't recall the specs, but I did hear that it was a version of CE. Don't quote me on that, but the big M definitely IS involved.
We're not talking about high end workstations here. Or at least I'm not. I'm talking about my home machine. Honestly I don't care if anything I use at work is subject to anyone's prying. But would you want anyone to be able to retrieve the serial number of your stereo, and then determine where you bought it? Admitedly, if my PC was ever stolen, then the serial number could be used to trace it, but that's the only use as a consumer I can see for it other than to tailor advertisements towards me. You're right; on a high end workstation that's not going to be the goal, but it IS the eventual goal of the same technology on a home PC. And I want none of it.
And for what it's worth, though that's what gave me a bad taste in my mouth for Intel, that's not why I chose an AMD. I chose an AMD because every spec I'd read showed it outperforming equal or higher clock speed pentiums. And I'm happy with mine:-) That's the important bit, right?
Let alone all the bull that Intel pushed through with the software retrievable serial numbers on the PIIIs. Another case of a corporation getting too big for thier proverbial britches? Competition is GOOD. Really good. It's what encourages manufacturers to make better products. My current chip, and likely the next few I buy as well, is an AMD.
HaHA! Lucas' subtle machinations are revealed. MORE JarJar. Leonardo DiCapprio. Darth Vader IS Jesus Christ. After blatantly slandering the Japanese in Episode I, he'd like to "use them" in the sequel. Lucas is obviously just trying to (at this point) piss off everyone who obsesses over Star Wars. Millions of dollars in merchandising alone just to tell people "it's just a movie, for Vader's sake."
Slashdot Mirror
okay, you beat me to it ;-)
Really exciting news, but the article does make a common error, but more for sensationalisim (they do cover thier ass). Water is necessary . . . but for carbon-based life forms. Us. Fishes. Bugs. And to expect every form of life in the universe to operate with OUR laws and needs is silly. This isn't proof that there may be life, this is proof that there may be OUR kind of life.
And of course, they do go on to say all KNOWN forms of life need water. Slick move on the journalist's part (staving off attacks by cynical bastards like myself. It's NOT the millenium until 2001 damnit!). But even this is dodgy . . . do viruses need water? I can't imagine they would, but I don't know for sure. Can anyone back me up on this?
Yes, the article is old. And yes, perhaps it did appear here in 1997 (I'm a relatively new reader . . . only a year and a half now!). But time and time again, there are clumps of people bitching about it. Well, first off, do YOU remember every single article you read two years ago? I sure as hell don't.
The article was submitted again, and posted again. Not claiming intent for either party (it could have been a mistake), I see no problem with this. The article is relevant again, given the Kansas Fuckup. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe someone thought to re-submit this article in response to that? Or maybe posted for people who (like me) didn't catch it the first time around.
Play nice children.
I'm taking bids for ping adspace. Whenever any packets are sent to my server, they will be returned with an ad in proportion to how many packets are sent. Rates are per ad sent (server daily ping reports will be sent out by request and $30 printing fee). "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't be here."
Neat, but are they allowed to have this in Kansas? ;-)
But daddy, I want an Oompa Loompa NOW!!!!!
. . . that had voted for John Cage, right?
;-)
Linux sucks because no one can agree on how to pronounce it right?!?!?!
Yeah, I guess he's right. And everyone knows how to pronounce Windows. Cra-shES
. . . hey, don't worry. There's still PLENTY of other STDs that are more contagious and just as deadly . . . AIDS is just the one that the media likes right now :-)
so if I beat up your grandmother, steal her money saying it was mine in the first place, and spend it all to buy you cookies, will you still refuse to hate me ;-)
Yeah, terrible analogy, Bill was never THAT bad, but . . . .
"and how much have Mr. Raymond and Mr. Stallman given to charity? In my league? I think not. I am a GENUINE Nice Guy(tm) and I give people what they want for free: money, not software or a source code or anything silly like that!!! Hey, I don't CARE how much cooler Linus Torvalds' hair is than mine, did HE give away 90 trillion billion dollars to ANYONE? . . . ."
;-)
Seriously though, good for him. I'm glad he's spending it responsibly and for some sort of noble goal, regardless of secondary motives. Hey, no AIDS WOULD be a nice thing . . . unless of course it just mutates into MS-AIDS(tm) . . .
PLEASE dear God let someone have the wisdom and ingenuity to port Drakan. Please please PLEASE!!!! All I've done since I got the Win98 demo is play it . . . it consumes all my gaming time and is the ONLY reason I still have that Windows partition . . . I want I want I WANT!!!!
;-)
okay, I'll grow up now. Maybe
Chris Cunningham might not be an eloquent person. Hell, he's a dork. I won't argue with that. But have you seen his work with Aphex Twin? Brilliant! Disturbing. If I could pick anyone alive to direct this film, it would be him.
;-)
Of course, I don't have the vested interest in this that everyone else does. I grew up on Tolkien, and so far the films have been terrible (we'll wait on the new one). I grew up on the Crow, and that movie pissed me off, so I know how apprehensive everyone is/seems to be. But I'm excited about this. Not because of the movie. Because I'd like to see what Cunningham can do outside of a 4 (or 12) minute video. My two cents anyway
Yeah, it was funny the first time you saw it. And it's not really fair to compare the two. If they threw in a bagel in Eyes Wide Shut, that would be too distracting. I don't think the people in the way was the editing issue. I think that was the intent from the get go. Cruise walks around the building. He doesn't stand and watch. He takes glimpses, and the people in the way are there so that the viewer is doing the same thing. The sex acts were not the focus of the scene. If they showed them explicitly they would have been.
;-) Which I guess proves my original point I like discussing movies. And if parents would discuss the movies with thier children instead of them sneaking in to the theater with a crusading geek, then there wouldn't be a problem ;-)
But this is way off the topic, other than I like discussing movies, particularly ones I liked/felt strongly about
. . . so if the hardware AND the software are both different, what's the same? ;-)
:-) Much more so than an iMac OR a penguin tower case!!!
Seriously though. It looks pretty
I completely agree with you there. Why is male nudity so taboo? Why does a glimpse of a penis all of a sudden make a film a porn? I don't understand that, and I applaud any director that does make the choice to include male nudity.
I wish that Kubrick didn't back down for the rating. (A Clockwork Orange featured male nudity . . . and was NC-17 (well, X at the time)) But I can see why he did. In his shoes I may have done the same. Thanks for the info; it's good to know I didn't lose any of the movie (content wise) just for the crime of being an American.
So after 6 years of being VERY verbal in interviews (though not telling anything about the movie, as with the lost AI. I was impressed) he changed his mind at the last minute? It's possible. But he often said he wouldn't edit it to avoid a rating. If you want I can post the interviews (I'm sure I could find them again). That leads me to believe that he buckled under pressures of his production company, or distributor. And from what I've been told, they removed ONE scene.
;-)
Which goes back to my point. Why is it acceptable for European audiences and not American? Because we don't want to parent. And we don't want to have to police every theater every day. Maybe the facist/nazi film patrol will allow MORE films to be made with art in mind rather than popular aceptance. But I doubt it.
Oh, and I do pay attention, but only to the information I see. I can't know EVERYTHING
What about the non-consenting parents? That's the issue at hand here. Everyone has to suffer because no one wants to parent anymore. I snuck into movies when I was a kid. I saw alot of stuff I prolly shouldn't have, or should have had a parent there do discuss it. But my parents didn't care, and I ended up an anti-social geek posting irrelevant comments on /. ;-)
Sure. Take a geek kid to a movie. But make sure the parents decide they should see it. And make sure they understand what they saw. Some 13 year olds can handle it. Some cannot. It happens that way. I wish it didn't, but it does. And I couldn't morally be in that position to say.
Take for example, Eyes Wide Shut (ha! I knew I'd get a chance to discuss it!!!). If Kubrick was alive it would have gotten the NC-17 rating in the States because he was very adamant about not editing the film. But it was edited. Because theatres don't want to be responsible for 13 year olds with tickets to Tarzan sneaking in because of the higher rating. They don't want to be responsible for children watching it WITHOUT their parents consent (you remeber the Showgirls mess? That was icky EVERYWHERE). I saw the movie and I loved it. Alot of 'adults' didn't understand it, and I can see how the symbology and metaphors would be LOST on a 13 year old. So what would the point of them seeing the movie be? It was a film written for adults.
South Park is an exception. It was written with 13 year olds in mind. The humor, despite it's wide appeal is very juvenile. And the vulgarity was thrown in to appeal even MORE. The point is, a 13 year old could get MOST of it. But I still maintain that the responsible parent should discuss the movie; see what it means to the child.
I don't mean to sound preachy (I realize I do). Take the geek kid. I'm behind that. But be sure it's not behind the parents back. And if the parent doesn't want to discuss it with the kid, take that role too. Who doesn't like discussing movies? It's not the film that causes children to shoot thier classmates; it's the presentation.
Be nice. Rob does have a life you know. The purpose of /. is links and discussion forum. We can't expect EVERYONE to know EVERYTHING, and do you have any idea how many submitted articles the crew is looking at right now?
As a musician . . . I WANT!!!!!
Right now I'm constantly running out of space. You could partition and run EVERY OS on the market!!! It would almost be worth it just to partition a non-networked machine and fill your alpha-array of drives!!!!
ANY word on prices?
EVERY chip has a clock, regardless of it's function or if the clock is utilized as such for the software. It's part of how they're made and used. This is the ONLY reason Y2K might be an issue; if it was just software you could just reboot it and install new settings (the MS-Solution to everything: reboot!!!). Who can say if the Saturn will stop working or not, but it will very likely be affected in SOME way (not to nitpick, but technically it's not a bug ;-) And Y2K is not the millenium (no matter what the TV says). I love semantics!!! Nerdboy am I!!!)
No, but I know that the Sega Dreamcast (which, incidentally, is a very noisy and shoddily built box) was created with a partnership with Microsoft. Can't recall the specs, but I did hear that it was a version of CE. Don't quote me on that, but the big M definitely IS involved.
We're not talking about high end workstations here. Or at least I'm not. I'm talking about my home machine. Honestly I don't care if anything I use at work is subject to anyone's prying. But would you want anyone to be able to retrieve the serial number of your stereo, and then determine where you bought it? Admitedly, if my PC was ever stolen, then the serial number could be used to trace it, but that's the only use as a consumer I can see for it other than to tailor advertisements towards me. You're right; on a high end workstation that's not going to be the goal, but it IS the eventual goal of the same technology on a home PC. And I want none of it.
:-) That's the important bit, right?
And for what it's worth, though that's what gave me a bad taste in my mouth for Intel, that's not why I chose an AMD. I chose an AMD because every spec I'd read showed it outperforming equal or higher clock speed pentiums. And I'm happy with mine
Let alone all the bull that Intel pushed through with the software retrievable serial numbers on the PIIIs. Another case of a corporation getting too big for thier proverbial britches? Competition is GOOD. Really good. It's what encourages manufacturers to make better products. My current chip, and likely the next few I buy as well, is an AMD.
HaHA! Lucas' subtle machinations are revealed. MORE JarJar. Leonardo DiCapprio. Darth Vader IS Jesus Christ. After blatantly slandering the Japanese in Episode I, he'd like to "use them" in the sequel. Lucas is obviously just trying to (at this point) piss off everyone who obsesses over Star Wars. Millions of dollars in merchandising alone just to tell people "it's just a movie, for Vader's sake."
He must be a templar.