Our support-desk people held a big "celebrating the 100,000th support call" or whatever number it was -- dunno, coulda been a million or 10,000, how do I know -- anyhow, upper management was none-to-pleased about the whole thing as it came across to the corporation as "celebrating 100,000 problems!..."
I've seen many people make these types of posts since I've been reading/. over the years, but this is my first time saying such a thing, so here it goes:
"Providence is on the side of the big battalions." --Sevigne
Whoever has the most troops, normally, wins regardless of quality (i.e., the Soviet Union in WW2; sure, there's exceptions, but that's the rule)
Whoever has the most money in American business, normally, wins regardless of the quality of product.
"Quantity has a quality of its own" -Lenin
"Congress is the best money can buy" -Will Rogers
The law means power, real power. Law, money, government, i.e., congress:
"LOMAX: Why the law? Cut the shit, Dad. Why lawyers? Why the law?"
"MILTON: Because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. It's the ultimate backstage pass, it's the new priesthood, baby." -The Devil's Advocate
Whoever has the most money to throw at lawyers to keep the opposition in court, to lobby senators (former lawyers) wins in the end. It's a numbers game which translates to a dollars game. Perry Mason, John Grisham is a fantasy. There aren't any cinderalla stories when it comes to law. Money rules it. Microsoft has an ocean of money to keep even large corporations in court, making them build bigger and bigger legal departments within the corporation sucking more and more money off of the widget development the company should be doing instead.
At the corporation I work at, our legal department has grown exponentially over the past few years. Lawsuits reign supreme and permeate IT and every other department. We manage IT now always wondering "what will legal think?" It wasn't this way just a few years ago in '98 or '99.
Make the competition sink money into legal matters, into the law, into lawyers, drain a corporations money by making it go to court -- drain the swamps and the Seminoles wither from within....
In the fifties and early sixties, science was being thrown forward by leaps and bounds. Some guy in his basement really could, and did, come up with world-shaking inventions.
Now a days, however, it seems kind of farfetched that a highschool kid could come up, over night, with an adhesive that 3M can't.
If I find Stan Lee's email address, then I'll be sure to let you have it so you can take up this issue with him....
Lee didn't get into how he have had it all worked out as far as Dafoe transforming into the Goblin if he didn't wear the mask, but I figured it would've been something like you describe -- a transformation into Goblin wherein makeup and CGI would help (and no need to be an entirely CGI creation like Gollum IMO).
Also, good point someone else raised and that is that, heck, Spiderman wore a mask in the movie!!! Funny, we accept that (and Lee does too I guess), because it is far more clear that he does so -- or, I really don't know why we accept it. I honestly never thought about it until today and this thread.
Btw, thanks for the sanity in your post. It rather rare....
Uh, no, he agreed that it was better for the movie that shooting webs was part of his genetic mutation.
In the interview I watched of Stan Lee commenting on the movie he clearly lamented that Peter Parker did not make the web solution and shooter mechanism (I tried finding a transcript of this on techtv, but alas cannot. I did find a transcript of his interview on "Big Thinkers" and he discusses the not-yet-released, first Spiderman movie, but the interview I saw was after the movie's release and I think Leo Laport did the interview -- could be wrong). Parker's scientific abilities (illustrated almost solely through the making of the web-shooters), stated Lee, were a key element of his character.
If you saw some other interview where Lee stated differently then I cannot answer for that....
You're clearly a comic fanboy who things every adaptation should be direct one-to-one.
I'm clearly a comicbook fan, and I'm also clearly someone who saw Lee stating the things I listed in an interview and felt that, like, since he created the stuff his opinion might matter a little.
...who things
'Things'? You talk like Inigo Montoya.... "I do not thing it means what you thing it means...."
Lee argued that he shouldn't've wore the mask in the movie (I think it was an interview on Techtv?). I'll admit I don't remember in the comics the Goblin ever donning a mask, but maybe he did and I just missed it. I read spiderman like the rest of us did growing up (I bought 3 copies of the issue where he attains the sentient-being outfit in the 80s -- I said that outloud didn't I?). Anywho, if Lee says Defoe shouldn'ta wore the mask then that's good enough for me....
I really hope they listened to Mr. Lee on this one. He's sorta the guy behind spidey, and he had some sound advice on how the first movie coulda been a bit better. His argument as to the necessity of Peter Parker "making" his web solution and shooter mechanism made for some good sense, and for him to point out that William Defoe was a superb actor and, thus, should have had his face shown while in "Goblin" mode is something the director should have figured out first.
With makeup and CGI like it is, Defoe could have easily had his own face used without a hitch, and being the actor he is it would have been far better than the stupid mask.
Of course, people need to keep in mind that these movies are only "based" on the actual comics and Lee, et al., are not fully consulted....
The point is Windows, and Windows networking, has assumed root access for far too long. 1000s, heck 10s of 1000s, of applications have been written expecting root.
A well-intentioned administrator may think it a good idea to do something such as change restrictanonymous to something other than default so that an anonymous user cannot see everything as has always been allowed before, but it hasn't worked very well if changed to "1" and if changed to "2" those 10s of 1000s of apps suddenly stop functioning properly across the network because they are used to free-reign (and simple actions such as a user being able to change their own password has been hampered). NT4, 2K and 2K3 still don't play very well together when tampering with it (setting it to what's "recommended" or "2"). If don't want very much heartache with your network backup software, terminal services or SQL then leave the bloody thing at "0" or wait for these companies to catch up and MS to iron it out (don't hold breath).
Locking down a local, windows machine has pitfalls as well, and no one who has attempted this has gotten away scott-free.... And I really hope I spelled "scott-free" right....
Use your tool on a woman who's not your wife, and if she find out, it's no longer a happy marriage, but she's hired a high-priced lawyer and you're headed for the ringer....
I keep forgetting the rules of dating, business and message boards: never discuss religion or politics. Well, heck, on dates never discuss anything. Let her do the all the talking, and if any of you fellas don't know that then that's why you don't get many repeats.... What am I saying, this crowd prolly never get a "peat."
To describe something as supernatural instantly carries very strong connotations of magic, miracle, or some paranormal force that is not just unknown science, but something other than it and beyond it
Ancient peoples called things they didn't understand, "magic." They did not say this of things they did understand. They were not lunatics calling the crops they raised, "magic." To do so would have made them nuts to their ancient brethren.
those scientists "scaling the rocky face" are doing the important work.
Of course they are doing important work. And so is the child psychologist and the policeman and every other profession not a scientist, but, of course, you didn't say a policeman isn't doing important work, yet, see, look how these things go.
We love to dis those who may be religious -- who think there's more to life than what appears to be or than what is contained in a science book, yet everyone here loves the xfiles....
There should be no aversion to the word "supernatural." It simply describes something we don't yet understand. We get hungry which implies there is something called "food" to satisfy it. We crave sex which means there are women to satisfy it. We call something "natural" because we understand it and have dissected it in a lab and comprehend its parts and pieces. We call something "supernatural" because we desire to make it "natural" -- to understand it too. If there is something known as "natural" then that itself implies there must be a "supernatural" -- or stuff we don't yet comprehend. Dare we admit that we still don't understand most of what's really going on in the universe?
Sometimes, quacks are just philosopher-types and theologian-types standing on top of the mountain of ignorance, telling the scientists who have scaled the rocky face to "understand" each part of it "see, we told you so...."
Slashdot Mirror
No. He doesn't know HTML ;-)
He uses a mac....
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - Al Gore
Al Gore did not creat the Internet. He did, however, sleep at a holiday inn express....
I wonder if it will work?
They never did stop truckers from using profanity over CB radios regardless of FCC regulations....
If a law is not enforceable, then it just don't matter....
how to you clean it up? Or pick it up? Say, after it's been used to put out a fire? Or does some 'special' cloth absorb it?
You use a wetvac, no, wait....
Have them drink a glass of it, then I'll believe it.
/duck
You drink it with a Linstraw....
Has anyone tried it with ramen noodles? I figure, no need to drain!...
Our support-desk people held a big "celebrating the 100,000th support call" or whatever number it was -- dunno, coulda been a million or 10,000, how do I know -- anyhow, upper management was none-to-pleased about the whole thing as it came across to the corporation as "celebrating 100,000 problems!..."
Haha! TN bar association? The first spammer was from TN?!? This puts a whole new spin on "deliverance...."
I've seen many people make these types of posts since I've been reading /. over the years, but this is my first time saying such a thing, so here it goes:
oh shit that's sad....
I'm bracing for the mod-impact....
"Providence is on the side of the big battalions." --Sevigne
Whoever has the most troops, normally, wins regardless of quality (i.e., the Soviet Union in WW2; sure, there's exceptions, but that's the rule)
Whoever has the most money in American business, normally, wins regardless of the quality of product.
"Quantity has a quality of its own" -Lenin
"Congress is the best money can buy" -Will Rogers
The law means power, real power. Law, money, government, i.e., congress:
"LOMAX: Why the law? Cut the shit, Dad. Why lawyers? Why the law?"
"MILTON: Because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. It's the ultimate backstage pass, it's the new priesthood, baby." -The Devil's Advocate
Whoever has the most money to throw at lawyers to keep the opposition in court, to lobby senators (former lawyers) wins in the end. It's a numbers game which translates to a dollars game. Perry Mason, John Grisham is a fantasy. There aren't any cinderalla stories when it comes to law. Money rules it. Microsoft has an ocean of money to keep even large corporations in court, making them build bigger and bigger legal departments within the corporation sucking more and more money off of the widget development the company should be doing instead.
At the corporation I work at, our legal department has grown exponentially over the past few years. Lawsuits reign supreme and permeate IT and every other department. We manage IT now always wondering "what will legal think?" It wasn't this way just a few years ago in '98 or '99.
Make the competition sink money into legal matters, into the law, into lawyers, drain a corporations money by making it go to court -- drain the swamps and the Seminoles wither from within....
Today:
"You consider a six-pack and a bug zapper to be quality entertainment."
Tomorrow:
"You consider a six-pack and making a crater in the moon quality entertainment."
Ye need to look back on the times.
In the fifties and early sixties, science was being thrown forward by leaps and bounds. Some guy in his basement really could, and did, come up with world-shaking inventions.
Now a days, however, it seems kind of farfetched that a highschool kid could come up, over night, with an adhesive that 3M can't.
If I find Stan Lee's email address, then I'll be sure to let you have it so you can take up this issue with him....
Lee didn't get into how he have had it all worked out as far as Dafoe transforming into the Goblin if he didn't wear the mask, but I figured it would've been something like you describe -- a transformation into Goblin wherein makeup and CGI would help (and no need to be an entirely CGI creation like Gollum IMO).
Also, good point someone else raised and that is that, heck, Spiderman wore a mask in the movie!!! Funny, we accept that (and Lee does too I guess), because it is far more clear that he does so -- or, I really don't know why we accept it. I honestly never thought about it until today and this thread.
Btw, thanks for the sanity in your post. It rather rare....
Uh, no, he agreed that it was better for the movie that shooting webs was part of his genetic mutation.
...who things
In the interview I watched of Stan Lee commenting on the movie he clearly lamented that Peter Parker did not make the web solution and shooter mechanism (I tried finding a transcript of this on techtv, but alas cannot. I did find a transcript of his interview on "Big Thinkers" and he discusses the not-yet-released, first Spiderman movie, but the interview I saw was after the movie's release and I think Leo Laport did the interview -- could be wrong). Parker's scientific abilities (illustrated almost solely through the making of the web-shooters), stated Lee, were a key element of his character.
If you saw some other interview where Lee stated differently then I cannot answer for that....
You're clearly a comic fanboy who things every adaptation should be direct one-to-one.
I'm clearly a comicbook fan, and I'm also clearly someone who saw Lee stating the things I listed in an interview and felt that, like, since he created the stuff his opinion might matter a little.
'Things'? You talk like Inigo Montoya.... "I do not thing it means what you thing it means...."
You're clearly a comic fanboy
You're clearly short and fat....
Omg! It's my ex-wife. How the f*ck did you find me here?...
Lee argued that he shouldn't've wore the mask in the movie (I think it was an interview on Techtv?). I'll admit I don't remember in the comics the Goblin ever donning a mask, but maybe he did and I just missed it. I read spiderman like the rest of us did growing up (I bought 3 copies of the issue where he attains the sentient-being outfit in the 80s -- I said that outloud didn't I?). Anywho, if Lee says Defoe shouldn'ta wore the mask then that's good enough for me....
I really hope they listened to Mr. Lee on this one. He's sorta the guy behind spidey, and he had some sound advice on how the first movie coulda been a bit better. His argument as to the necessity of Peter Parker "making" his web solution and shooter mechanism made for some good sense, and for him to point out that William Defoe was a superb actor and, thus, should have had his face shown while in "Goblin" mode is something the director should have figured out first.
With makeup and CGI like it is, Defoe could have easily had his own face used without a hitch, and being the actor he is it would have been far better than the stupid mask.
Of course, people need to keep in mind that these movies are only "based" on the actual comics and Lee, et al., are not fully consulted....
The point is Windows, and Windows networking, has assumed root access for far too long. 1000s, heck 10s of 1000s, of applications have been written expecting root.
A well-intentioned administrator may think it a good idea to do something such as change restrictanonymous to something other than default so that an anonymous user cannot see everything as has always been allowed before, but it hasn't worked very well if changed to "1" and if changed to "2" those 10s of 1000s of apps suddenly stop functioning properly across the network because they are used to free-reign (and simple actions such as a user being able to change their own password has been hampered). NT4, 2K and 2K3 still don't play very well together when tampering with it (setting it to what's "recommended" or "2"). If don't want very much heartache with your network backup software, terminal services or SQL then leave the bloody thing at "0" or wait for these companies to catch up and MS to iron it out (don't hold breath).
Locking down a local, windows machine has pitfalls as well, and no one who has attempted this has gotten away scott-free.... And I really hope I spelled "scott-free" right....
Any tool can be used incorrectly.
Use your tool on a woman who's not your wife, and if she find out, it's no longer a happy marriage, but she's hired a high-priced lawyer and you're headed for the ringer....
I keep forgetting the rules of dating, business and message boards: never discuss religion or politics. Well, heck, on dates never discuss anything. Let her do the all the talking, and if any of you fellas don't know that then that's why you don't get many repeats.... What am I saying, this crowd prolly never get a "peat."
That's correct. The lobotomy has to come first.
Hah! Good one....
Had my mouth open....
As one professor told me, "God doesn't give someone a frontal lobotomy the moment they believe in him...."
To describe something as supernatural instantly carries very strong connotations of magic, miracle, or some paranormal force that is not just unknown science, but something other than it and beyond it
Ancient peoples called things they didn't understand, "magic." They did not say this of things they did understand. They were not lunatics calling the crops they raised, "magic." To do so would have made them nuts to their ancient brethren.
those scientists "scaling the rocky face" are doing the important work.
Of course they are doing important work. And so is the child psychologist and the policeman and every other profession not a scientist, but, of course, you didn't say a policeman isn't doing important work, yet, see, look how these things go.
We love to dis those who may be religious -- who think there's more to life than what appears to be or than what is contained in a science book, yet everyone here loves the xfiles....
"it's supernatural, end of story"
Anyone who would say that is an idiot.
Contrast that with religions which typically claim to have all the answers.
Anyone who would claim to have all the answers is, likewise, an idiot....
There should be no aversion to the word "supernatural." It simply describes something we don't yet understand. We get hungry which implies there is something called "food" to satisfy it. We crave sex which means there are women to satisfy it. We call something "natural" because we understand it and have dissected it in a lab and comprehend its parts and pieces. We call something "supernatural" because we desire to make it "natural" -- to understand it too. If there is something known as "natural" then that itself implies there must be a "supernatural" -- or stuff we don't yet comprehend. Dare we admit that we still don't understand most of what's really going on in the universe?
Sometimes, quacks are just philosopher-types and theologian-types standing on top of the mountain of ignorance, telling the scientists who have scaled the rocky face to "understand" each part of it "see, we told you so...."