I believe that this thread points out how seriously this administration takes the call to 'defend and uphold the constitution of the United States'. Likely the justification would be the same reasoning for censoring sites; violations of laws, uprisings. It's just a matter of scale.
I kind of think that this idea is laughable in the face of the strong arm of the American military. Granted a fair portion of them are abroad at the time, but it would be easy enough for the commander in chief to direct our own weapons against 'domestic insurgents'. It is only a few short steps from censoring websites to crushing a 'right to revolution'.
While I'm sure that's what the framers had in mind, they also did not envision a permanent army to oppose that rebellion; especially one with big tanks. Of course a protracted Guerilla war throughout the states would be quite possible, the major problem would be the power vacuum and fragmentation of society resulting from the conflict (Left-wing vs. Right-wing groups, religious vs. secular groups).
All I got from this article was that the guy wasn't happy about the d20 system, he really didn't seem to be all that coherent, which he warns us of this ("this is no review of TOEE, although it could be"), it apparently could also be a rambling condemnation of WotC, or a big circle jerk about how great J.R.R. Tolkien was.
As people pointed out in the thread below, a computer is more than capable of performing the functions that the d20 system has laid out. I for one have never found it difficult to comprehend, as everything is simply a plus or minus on a random interger 1-20. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really isn't that tough (compared to say, creating some good content) to establish these scripts and commands?
I mean really, for now all we're going to get is a fairly modular design, but the rules are not the problem, shit games with tons of bugs are the problem. Who wrote this article, why are they qualified to make these statements, why is it on/. aside from the usual comments about the editors?
I'm just wondering really, is it how they want to implement them. If I was developing things, I would want to be sure that I had the rights to it, that some jerk couldn't just go about willy-nilly with it. Aside from some abuses, what's so bad about intellectual property rights?
Didn't they release the special editions, I don't know, the year after those versions were in theaters, becuase I swear to god I saw those in theaters? I mean, to join the bitching and moaning bandwagon, why? This stuff has been on DVD for years, just because it has a new box it's important?
I think that in most places it's been this way for a good long while, heck in th erinky dink town that I lived in the buttons haven't worked since the early 1990s (don't really know what they were like in the 80s). I've never really noticed that pushing that button causes anything to happen in regards to traffic.
That's just really gross. Really, if I was a porn site provider and some guy was redirecting to my site through kiddie bits, I wouldn't be very happy. Primarily because they're taking my money and just throwing it all over the place.
Beyond even the issue of being a scum bag with arguably scummy people, using sites popular with children with a method that drags in more kids than adults. I think this makes him the kingof the scumbags.
...Please remember folks, the death weilding cyborgs are only for your security, and for the protection of your liberties. We hope you enjoy your mandatory consuming experience...
Take that as you like, I like to take it with humor, others enjoy alcohol, large quantaties of alcohol.
Come on everyone, let us thaank Canada for providiing the catalyst for television programming, practically everything is filmed up there on account of the fact that it looks just like the US (sans tons of smog) but cheaper.
Canada, I salute you.
Now, everyone is throwing around names of private schools, but if we're looking from a practical standpoint, you're going to owe less when you come out, and really if specialization is the way that you want to go, you can go around, monkey as a poor tech and get your precious 'experience' and then push on toward Grad school or where you might want from there with a lot less debt load.
I say that the hubble needs to be placed in some kind of magical protective bubble, that way, when it crashes to earth, it will bounce back up and position itself correctly, that and Hubble and Bubble rhyme, it's hard to find good rhyming words for Hubble.
None of this would be necessary if Mike Nelson hadn't broken it of course.
I'm going to assume that when he says files, he mean folders stuffed with papers. If we assume letter sized pieces of paper (8.5x11 inches 20lbs weight). Now, the weight of that size of paper is roughly 5 pounds per 500 sheet ream. So, if we divide 125 out of 5000, we get a 40 pound box of paper, or 8 reams of paper (4,000 sheets). So, the average file is in fact 33 and a third pages long.
So, out friend the office worker is pulling off about 2 and 2/3rd reams of paper a day, which is roughly 1333.33 sheets. This makes it about 166.66 sheets an hour, or 2.66 sheets of paper a minute.
Now, here's something interesting. A little bit back, if you recall, there was this big scandal with a large energy corporation called Enron. Now, it seemed that they were cooking their books like there was no tomorrow (which in fact there wasn't). A big part of the problem is that they were using their auditing company as their general financial friend too. What does this have to do with your problem?
Simply put, the idea of a third party review of anything is to get a clear and objective review of whatever is being audited, whether it is a company's financial dealings or it's network security. Now, was your company's third party review objective, no.
I don't know the details, but from your post I do know that the company doing the auditing had a financial interest in giving your network security team a bad grade.
On the bright side of it, the people you worked for seem to be missing the point of auditing (which probably means that they missed that day in Business school or that they are stupid). I mean, a 'financial institution', you would think that they would have learned the lesson of the past few years.
I don't care what you say, there is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to be exempt from anti-trust laws. The reality of the market? What on earth does that mean?
Clearly the music and movie industries are larg amalgams esigned to stigle anything that resembles competition, is that the reality that they're talking about? The only reason a company would want an exemption from anti-trust laws would be if they were or were planning on becoming a monopoly, or if they are or plan on just raping those laws in the name of extreme profit. Those laws are in place to protect not only consumers but the economic and creative interests of the United States of America.
What a bunch of bums, really. I don't care if no one likes you. I don't care that your companies are losing money because people found out that they didn't have to pay $20 for a CD (they could pay like $10 with I-Tunes). Why should you be immune the the laws? I'm sorry Mr. Corporate Conspiracy Group, but the laws are there to apply to everyone equally, and no one should get exempted from them, this is what we call equality, if you don't like it, then you can stick it in some place and go move your companies out to Vantua with Sharman networks.
Let us convince out current president that spammers are an attack upon the American way of life, causing the crash of stock markets and forcing businesses to lose untold millions of dollars and that these deeds are tantamount to terrorism.
I mean, we all know that the government actually doesn't care about most of the population until an election year, if we convinced them that it was hurting the people that they do care about then maybe they might actually do something, though what I don't reall know. This was originally meant to be funny.
I can't recall properly as to whether or not this kind of logic was applied to printer cartidges yet. But the same kind of idea would apply there.
I really don't care much for these people. I mean, you bring their product into your home for whatever your reason is (usually because it's the most financially prudent) and then they try to force you to pay out the nose forever and ever simply because you bought their product. It's just tantamount to someone coming into your house and telling you what you can and can't buy, these sort of strong arm tactics that are the byproduct of an overtly litigious society just show the ways that the free market eats itself up. You have huge corporations claiming that their patents need to be protected or else their innovation will be stifled, when they just use those patent laws to go off and further stifle innovation.
Seriously folks, I don't know where the people that pass these laws and run these companies were educated, but they were ripped off, because they surely didn't learn what the hell a free market was. It isn't that hard people, it's a market where you have a bunch of goods and people can buy whatever they want, that's all it is. Not a market where you can force people to only buy from you after they already bought something from you.
Ladies and Gentlmen I have a proposal that cuts out all of these 'satellites' and 'lunar bases'. That's right, no more do you have to wait 8 minutes for electromagnetic waves to arrive at your puny planet to bounce off your mirrors on the moon and then take another couple of seconds to get back down to Earth.
Nay, I say that you can have all of the energy you want for free. Enough energy to cook a billion turkeys, to weld the bodies of a billion automobiles, to heat a billion homes for a billion years. That's right ladies and gentlement let us build a colony upon the surface of the sun and then our supply of energy will never be in doubt (because you know, when it explodes in a couple of billion years we'll all still be dead).
Let's not forget that the technological/social middle ages was that time between the fall of Rome and the invention of the printing press/and or reneissance. This is what people are saying when they talk about why people need to understand history, because this guy sure doesn't (not talking about you Xao, about dave,you just rock on)
So, I'm reading this little article right, the man is here comparing the ability to read in general with teh ability to read and write code and laying a claim that in the future everyone must know how to read and write code because the current interfaces we have are illusions, or some other such nonsense, and that the ability to read an write code will be integral to ever profession.
I think regular literacy is just great, in an information based economy and world, you really can't get along without the ability to understand the assemblage of alphabetic characters or pictograms if that is your preference.
However, it is not necessary to know some really arcane computer programmingn code to be able to turn on a computer and use an internet browser. That's why we have computer programmers, to give us tools based on these machines that everyone can use, Windows is popular because you just turn it on and look at pictures and words in an easy to understand format (except on very poorly done websites).
We must adapt to computers, sure we do, we need to bring out culture into an age where informations is availible at the touch of a button. What captain Dylan fails to understand is that though it may seem, these machines are not gods that enslave us with their cold bluish glow, but they're tools. He starts out with a premise and is just ranting about that, he has no real arguments, no real evidence to back it up besides the fact that he wrote a book, wow, that makes someone an authoritative expert on everything.
Let's deconstruct shall we, here's my favorite line... This is yet another reason why Windows is such a dangerous commodity. It lulls us into the pernicious illusion that we can deal with computers without adapting to their logic. By presenting us with colourful screens and buttons for us to click on, Microsoft encourages us to believe that we can force computers to adapt entirely to our preferences for visual images, without having to adapt ourselves to their preference for text. Now, I get just as pissed when Windows crashes on me, or drops my internet protocols so I can't get on the network. But to say that Windows (specifically mind you, He doesn't talk about Mac OSes, you know the ones that windows holds an eerie resemblance to) creates an illusion that we can interact with computers on a level that the average person would appreciate straight out of the box is just unfounded, and I'll tell you why. Because it works, sure when everything was punch cards and cryptographic text you needed to have some specialized training to get computers to do what you wanted, but now that computing is something well into the mainstream people are picking it up much like any other bit of technology, like hammers (not the best analogy but whatever), I feel that Mr. Evans failed to grasp thtt the reason why computers are so indemnic now is that they do offer a clear and simple solution. In 50 years, perhaps much less, the ability to read and write code will be as essential for professionals of every stripe as the ability to read and write a human language is today. If your children's children can't speak the language of the machines, they will have to get a manual job - if there are any left. This part was pretty funny. For someone who wrote a book on evolutionary psychology he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of gradual specialization within a society. you see eventually as a society progresses, you get people whose job it is to think, and expressing that further you beginto develop proffesional groups as thought progresses. Eventually these professional groups become specialized themselves, like docotrs, sure way back in the day you went to your barber if you needed a good bleeding or if you wanted a limb off, but today there is a specialty for almost every concern. I look at it like food, not everyone is a farmer right? Yet, we all benefit from the product of a farmer's labor. Now agriculture has been around for let's say 10,000 years, most of us would be hard pressed if
Sure, the Matrix was rife for parody. I think that someone with a dry wit, lots of sarcasm and an appreciation for twisting and pruning bits here and there could make a sublime parody of the Matrix. You play the characters more to their cliches, you put in a few visual jokes, and you maginify the things that you thought were just stupid and particularly deserving of insult and carry it to a point where it doesn't become simply a blip, but a gag.
My problem with what seems to be teh state of mass consumer parody was epitomized by the rather horrid Not Another Teen Movie, which I thought had an excellent genre to make fun of, but their aside gross out gags and overt ploys really sort of ruined the whole image of the thing. I mean, I always think that parody should follow the object that is being mocked and with a sense of irony just carry itself in a way that exposes the foibles of the film or even in a way that takes those same elements and blows them up. To be fair to teh movie I just mentined I felt that the airport scene with Molly Ringwald was fairly decent, that's more in line with what I'm tlaking about. But too often these sorts of things just rely on teh same kind of humor that permeates other forms of comey and doesn't really serve to mirror the chosen genre but to simply use teh film being parodied as a set piece for unintelligible drivel that's so hilarious in frat houses and teen age hangouts throughout the United States.
Seriously, these people are tying to sell a DVD to cash in on the popularity of the Matrix films, it doesn't really seem like they're trying to say that much. Oh yeah, and tot he AC who said that their film was laugh out loud funny, while I'm not going to shell out $20 to find out, since yours would not be the most glowing endorsement of teh film (first because we don't know who you are, and second you have a vested interest in teh product which you are touting).
My favorite thing is the warning about the dangers of irradiated beef. Because you know, FDA approved techniques to kill 'highly antibiotic resistant bacteria' will cause out children to become horrible mutants. I'm sorry, but you're using scare tactics to push an anti-corporate agenda, latching on to popular culture in order to create a polarized non-debate that simply makes more efficient methods into some sort of demonic hell beast. I mean sure, it's not nice to just put them in an enclosed space, but aside from the pigs, farm animals tend to be some of the dumbest creatures on the planet. Oh god, it can't turn around, oh god, it would just stand out in the field and chew on its own cud for a good long while out in the 'independent farm'.
The real reason that independent farming fell (and was very much pushed over by some of the agrarian gluts and drops that heralded the great depression) was that in an age of mass manufacturing and mass consumption, it was not a sustainable industry. Give me a good peer reviewed study that says how eating 'factory' meat is any worse (or that family farm meat is any better) and then I might consider it. But when you compare the prices, and the quality (I've had some of this free ranged chicken, it wasn't any better than your average chicken, and I've eaten a good deal of chicken), your indie farmer isn't such a great deal.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that this thread points out how seriously this administration takes the call to 'defend and uphold the constitution of the United States'. Likely the justification would be the same reasoning for censoring sites; violations of laws, uprisings. It's just a matter of scale.
I kind of think that this idea is laughable in the face of the strong arm of the American military. Granted a fair portion of them are abroad at the time, but it would be easy enough for the commander in chief to direct our own weapons against 'domestic insurgents'. It is only a few short steps from censoring websites to crushing a 'right to revolution'. While I'm sure that's what the framers had in mind, they also did not envision a permanent army to oppose that rebellion; especially one with big tanks. Of course a protracted Guerilla war throughout the states would be quite possible, the major problem would be the power vacuum and fragmentation of society resulting from the conflict (Left-wing vs. Right-wing groups, religious vs. secular groups).
All I got from this article was that the guy wasn't happy about the d20 system, he really didn't seem to be all that coherent, which he warns us of this ("this is no review of TOEE, although it could be"), it apparently could also be a rambling condemnation of WotC, or a big circle jerk about how great J.R.R. Tolkien was.
/. aside from the usual comments about the editors?
As people pointed out in the thread below, a computer is more than capable of performing the functions that the d20 system has laid out. I for one have never found it difficult to comprehend, as everything is simply a plus or minus on a random interger 1-20. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really isn't that tough (compared to say, creating some good content) to establish these scripts and commands?
I mean really, for now all we're going to get is a fairly modular design, but the rules are not the problem, shit games with tons of bugs are the problem. Who wrote this article, why are they qualified to make these statements, why is it on
I'm just wondering really, is it how they want to implement them. If I was developing things, I would want to be sure that I had the rights to it, that some jerk couldn't just go about willy-nilly with it. Aside from some abuses, what's so bad about intellectual property rights?
That's kind of odd, ah, well my memory is failing me, I really don't have much to look forward to in the next sixty years.
Didn't they release the special editions, I don't know, the year after those versions were in theaters, becuase I swear to god I saw those in theaters? I mean, to join the bitching and moaning bandwagon, why? This stuff has been on DVD for years, just because it has a new box it's important?
I think that in most places it's been this way for a good long while, heck in th erinky dink town that I lived in the buttons haven't worked since the early 1990s (don't really know what they were like in the 80s). I've never really noticed that pushing that button causes anything to happen in regards to traffic.
That's just really gross. Really, if I was a porn site provider and some guy was redirecting to my site through kiddie bits, I wouldn't be very happy. Primarily because they're taking my money and just throwing it all over the place.
Beyond even the issue of being a scum bag with arguably scummy people, using sites popular with children with a method that drags in more kids than adults. I think this makes him the kingof the scumbags.
...Please remember folks, the death weilding cyborgs are only for your security, and for the protection of your liberties. We hope you enjoy your mandatory consuming experience... Take that as you like, I like to take it with humor, others enjoy alcohol, large quantaties of alcohol.
Come on everyone, let us thaank Canada for providiing the catalyst for television programming, practically everything is filmed up there on account of the fact that it looks just like the US (sans tons of smog) but cheaper. Canada, I salute you.
Now, everyone is throwing around names of private schools, but if we're looking from a practical standpoint, you're going to owe less when you come out, and really if specialization is the way that you want to go, you can go around, monkey as a poor tech and get your precious 'experience' and then push on toward Grad school or where you might want from there with a lot less debt load.
This of course a holdover from the g-men's days padding out papers with page requirements.
Yes, but people enjoy alcohol an awful lot, even more than they enjoy silver.
I say that the hubble needs to be placed in some kind of magical protective bubble, that way, when it crashes to earth, it will bounce back up and position itself correctly, that and Hubble and Bubble rhyme, it's hard to find good rhyming words for Hubble. None of this would be necessary if Mike Nelson hadn't broken it of course.
I'm going to assume that when he says files, he mean folders stuffed with papers. If we assume letter sized pieces of paper (8.5x11 inches 20lbs weight). Now, the weight of that size of paper is roughly 5 pounds per 500 sheet ream. So, if we divide 125 out of 5000, we get a 40 pound box of paper, or 8 reams of paper (4,000 sheets). So, the average file is in fact 33 and a third pages long.
So, out friend the office worker is pulling off about 2 and 2/3rd reams of paper a day, which is roughly 1333.33 sheets. This makes it about 166.66 sheets an hour, or 2.66 sheets of paper a minute.
Now, here's something interesting. A little bit back, if you recall, there was this big scandal with a large energy corporation called Enron. Now, it seemed that they were cooking their books like there was no tomorrow (which in fact there wasn't). A big part of the problem is that they were using their auditing company as their general financial friend too. What does this have to do with your problem?
Simply put, the idea of a third party review of anything is to get a clear and objective review of whatever is being audited, whether it is a company's financial dealings or it's network security. Now, was your company's third party review objective, no.
I don't know the details, but from your post I do know that the company doing the auditing had a financial interest in giving your network security team a bad grade.
On the bright side of it, the people you worked for seem to be missing the point of auditing (which probably means that they missed that day in Business school or that they are stupid). I mean, a 'financial institution', you would think that they would have learned the lesson of the past few years.
I don't care what you say, there is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to be exempt from anti-trust laws. The reality of the market? What on earth does that mean?
Clearly the music and movie industries are larg amalgams esigned to stigle anything that resembles competition, is that the reality that they're talking about? The only reason a company would want an exemption from anti-trust laws would be if they were or were planning on becoming a monopoly, or if they are or plan on just raping those laws in the name of extreme profit. Those laws are in place to protect not only consumers but the economic and creative interests of the United States of America.
What a bunch of bums, really. I don't care if no one likes you. I don't care that your companies are losing money because people found out that they didn't have to pay $20 for a CD (they could pay like $10 with I-Tunes). Why should you be immune the the laws? I'm sorry Mr. Corporate Conspiracy Group, but the laws are there to apply to everyone equally, and no one should get exempted from them, this is what we call equality, if you don't like it, then you can stick it in some place and go move your companies out to Vantua with Sharman networks.
Let us convince out current president that spammers are an attack upon the American way of life, causing the crash of stock markets and forcing businesses to lose untold millions of dollars and that these deeds are tantamount to terrorism.
I mean, we all know that the government actually doesn't care about most of the population until an election year, if we convinced them that it was hurting the people that they do care about then maybe they might actually do something, though what I don't reall know. This was originally meant to be funny.
I can't recall properly as to whether or not this kind of logic was applied to printer cartidges yet. But the same kind of idea would apply there.
I really don't care much for these people. I mean, you bring their product into your home for whatever your reason is (usually because it's the most financially prudent) and then they try to force you to pay out the nose forever and ever simply because you bought their product. It's just tantamount to someone coming into your house and telling you what you can and can't buy, these sort of strong arm tactics that are the byproduct of an overtly litigious society just show the ways that the free market eats itself up. You have huge corporations claiming that their patents need to be protected or else their innovation will be stifled, when they just use those patent laws to go off and further stifle innovation.
Seriously folks, I don't know where the people that pass these laws and run these companies were educated, but they were ripped off, because they surely didn't learn what the hell a free market was. It isn't that hard people, it's a market where you have a bunch of goods and people can buy whatever they want, that's all it is. Not a market where you can force people to only buy from you after they already bought something from you.
Ladies and Gentlmen I have a proposal that cuts out all of these 'satellites' and 'lunar bases'. That's right, no more do you have to wait 8 minutes for electromagnetic waves to arrive at your puny planet to bounce off your mirrors on the moon and then take another couple of seconds to get back down to Earth.
Nay, I say that you can have all of the energy you want for free. Enough energy to cook a billion turkeys, to weld the bodies of a billion automobiles, to heat a billion homes for a billion years. That's right ladies and gentlement let us build a colony upon the surface of the sun and then our supply of energy will never be in doubt (because you know, when it explodes in a couple of billion years we'll all still be dead).
That's probably the truth now that I look at it in the morning.
Let's not forget that the technological/social middle ages was that time between the fall of Rome and the invention of the printing press/and or reneissance. This is what people are saying when they talk about why people need to understand history, because this guy sure doesn't (not talking about you Xao, about dave,you just rock on)
So, I'm reading this little article right, the man is here comparing the ability to read in general with teh ability to read and write code and laying a claim that in the future everyone must know how to read and write code because the current interfaces we have are illusions, or some other such nonsense, and that the ability to read an write code will be integral to ever profession.
I think regular literacy is just great, in an information based economy and world, you really can't get along without the ability to understand the assemblage of alphabetic characters or pictograms if that is your preference.
However, it is not necessary to know some really arcane computer programmingn code to be able to turn on a computer and use an internet browser. That's why we have computer programmers, to give us tools based on these machines that everyone can use, Windows is popular because you just turn it on and look at pictures and words in an easy to understand format (except on very poorly done websites).
We must adapt to computers, sure we do, we need to bring out culture into an age where informations is availible at the touch of a button. What captain Dylan fails to understand is that though it may seem, these machines are not gods that enslave us with their cold bluish glow, but they're tools. He starts out with a premise and is just ranting about that, he has no real arguments, no real evidence to back it up besides the fact that he wrote a book, wow, that makes someone an authoritative expert on everything.
Let's deconstruct shall we, here's my favorite line...
This is yet another reason why Windows is such a dangerous commodity. It lulls us into the pernicious illusion that we can deal with computers without adapting to their logic. By presenting us with colourful screens and buttons for us to click on, Microsoft encourages us to believe that we can force computers to adapt entirely to our preferences for visual images, without having to adapt ourselves to their preference for text.
Now, I get just as pissed when Windows crashes on me, or drops my internet protocols so I can't get on the network. But to say that Windows (specifically mind you, He doesn't talk about Mac OSes, you know the ones that windows holds an eerie resemblance to) creates an illusion that we can interact with computers on a level that the average person would appreciate straight out of the box is just unfounded, and I'll tell you why. Because it works, sure when everything was punch cards and cryptographic text you needed to have some specialized training to get computers to do what you wanted, but now that computing is something well into the mainstream people are picking it up much like any other bit of technology, like hammers (not the best analogy but whatever), I feel that Mr. Evans failed to grasp thtt the reason why computers are so indemnic now is that they do offer a clear and simple solution.
In 50 years, perhaps much less, the ability to read and write code will be as essential for professionals of every stripe as the ability to read and write a human language is today. If your children's children can't speak the language of the machines, they will have to get a manual job - if there are any left.
This part was pretty funny. For someone who wrote a book on evolutionary psychology he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of gradual specialization within a society. you see eventually as a society progresses, you get people whose job it is to think, and expressing that further you beginto develop proffesional groups as thought progresses. Eventually these professional groups become specialized themselves, like docotrs, sure way back in the day you went to your barber if you needed a good bleeding or if you wanted a limb off, but today there is a specialty for almost every concern. I look at it like food, not everyone is a farmer right? Yet, we all benefit from the product of a farmer's labor. Now agriculture has been around for let's say 10,000 years, most of us would be hard pressed if
Sure, the Matrix was rife for parody. I think that someone with a dry wit, lots of sarcasm and an appreciation for twisting and pruning bits here and there could make a sublime parody of the Matrix. You play the characters more to their cliches, you put in a few visual jokes, and you maginify the things that you thought were just stupid and particularly deserving of insult and carry it to a point where it doesn't become simply a blip, but a gag.
My problem with what seems to be teh state of mass consumer parody was epitomized by the rather horrid Not Another Teen Movie, which I thought had an excellent genre to make fun of, but their aside gross out gags and overt ploys really sort of ruined the whole image of the thing. I mean, I always think that parody should follow the object that is being mocked and with a sense of irony just carry itself in a way that exposes the foibles of the film or even in a way that takes those same elements and blows them up. To be fair to teh movie I just mentined I felt that the airport scene with Molly Ringwald was fairly decent, that's more in line with what I'm tlaking about. But too often these sorts of things just rely on teh same kind of humor that permeates other forms of comey and doesn't really serve to mirror the chosen genre but to simply use teh film being parodied as a set piece for unintelligible drivel that's so hilarious in frat houses and teen age hangouts throughout the United States.
Seriously, these people are tying to sell a DVD to cash in on the popularity of the Matrix films, it doesn't really seem like they're trying to say that much. Oh yeah, and tot he AC who said that their film was laugh out loud funny, while I'm not going to shell out $20 to find out, since yours would not be the most glowing endorsement of teh film (first because we don't know who you are, and second you have a vested interest in teh product which you are touting).
Or maybe I'm just a snob.
My favorite thing is the warning about the dangers of irradiated beef. Because you know, FDA approved techniques to kill 'highly antibiotic resistant bacteria' will cause out children to become horrible mutants. I'm sorry, but you're using scare tactics to push an anti-corporate agenda, latching on to popular culture in order to create a polarized non-debate that simply makes more efficient methods into some sort of demonic hell beast. I mean sure, it's not nice to just put them in an enclosed space, but aside from the pigs, farm animals tend to be some of the dumbest creatures on the planet. Oh god, it can't turn around, oh god, it would just stand out in the field and chew on its own cud for a good long while out in the 'independent farm'.
The real reason that independent farming fell (and was very much pushed over by some of the agrarian gluts and drops that heralded the great depression) was that in an age of mass manufacturing and mass consumption, it was not a sustainable industry. Give me a good peer reviewed study that says how eating 'factory' meat is any worse (or that family farm meat is any better) and then I might consider it. But when you compare the prices, and the quality (I've had some of this free ranged chicken, it wasn't any better than your average chicken, and I've eaten a good deal of chicken), your indie farmer isn't such a great deal.
This is offtopic, wow.