Moderators have no clue? Oddly enough, moderators are posters... which means the posters have no clue (as evidenced by the post you were complaining about). And, therefore, YOU have no clue.. and neither do I.
It is kinda nice to see the quotes, since I can't get to the site right now (/. effect and all). Not worthy of being moderated up, and more suitable on a mirror, but...
Thanks for the pointer, I'll be sure to check it out. Lynx worked pretty well (once I got used to the controls, of course:) but I do admit the frame handling is annoying as all getout.
Ya know, I used Lynx quite a bit just recently... and I've lately been thinking very seriously about installing it again. Netscape, though it has the graphics and stuff, loads slooooooowly. Of course, that preference is probably related to the fact that my current Linux box is an old 486/75 laptop - just about anything I want loads reasonably fast on it, but Netscape takes roughly 15 minutes...
They had something on the news the other day about this. Big, long segment about the horrible possibility that you might not get your toys in time for christmas.
Funny thing was, they basically said the main problem is people waiting until the last minute to do their online shopping. Would people do their shopping through catalogs in this short time and expect things to arrive right away? Would they raid the toy store one week from christmas and expect the most-wanted toys to be on the shelves for them to purchase? No? Well, then why are they trying to do the same thing online?
Online shopping is basically the same as using mail-order catalogs or phoning a far-away company to get an item. You've got to make the same allowances, because that's just the way the world works... everything gets gridlocked a few weeks from christmas. If you give your purchases plenty of time to spare (proportional to how in-demand the item is and how large the company seems to be) and then get burned, you should complain... otherwise, 'tis your own fault for trying to take the easy way out.
"The Paper Computer is not just uncommon nor merely special, it is, in truth, unique. No other company has anything like it, and, due to extensive patents, no other company will have anything like it for a long, long time."
Ok, is it just me, or does this sound like exactly the sort of thing many slashdot articles have been biased against lately? Sounds to me as though this company isn't going to have it for a long, long time... and they want to prevent other people who do have the research money from having it too.
Now, that's just a gut reaction to the statement, and is probably worded a little harshly. More power to this fellow if he can get off the ground. I just wonder how it fits in with the past articles...
The problem, of course, is when T.F.M. is L.O.S.T., or was never available to start with. I had an incredibly difficult time just recently getting X to work on an old AT&T laptop I have... xf86config simply would not create a valid configuration file, no matter what values I put in.
The solution I used? I had a copy of muLinux, and knew it worked because I had used it on the laptop earlier... I edited the config (ignoring the big DO NOT EDIT BY HAND) to put in the values in muLinux's config, and with a little more fiddling I had a working 256-color config. Later I tempted fate by setting up the SVGA driver by hand to get more colors.
That sort of thing, however, is not something your average user would do... Even though I'm fairly good with computers, I was still nervous about messing around with those values (I've only been using Linux for a couple of months, and had no clue what some things meant in the X config file).
Odd that you would feel the need to avoid bad karma, since you seem to think your comments have value regardless of your karma.
AC's can be moderated down just as easily as logged-in members... the only difference, obviously, is that YOU are not being moderated down. But if your opinion had the value of "fighting the establishment", one would think you would be proud enough to stand behind your own words.
Also, if you truly think moderation and karma are stupid, what better way to protest it than to proudly throw out intelligent, briliant, anti-brainwashed-society posts and let them be moderated down, just so you could point at them and say, "Hey, all these wonderful, non-ass-kissing posts got moderated down, this proves how stupid slashdot is!!"
I respectfully submit that a truly unbiased opinion that is thoughtfully stated will (at a minimum) receive a total moderation that balances out. The only reason you should fear being moderated down is if you are saying something that is obviously aimed at starting a war... regardless of who it is aimed at starting a war with.
I also respectfully submit that anyone who would miss your posts if your account were moderated down would just as easily miss them if they are posted AC. And those who would actually read your posts will see them regardless, because they browse at -1 anyways.
I must say, with ALL of the AMAZING capitalization and BUZZWORDS in these posts, they seem AMAZINGLY like the spam mail that I immediately delete without reading.
I think it's funny how everyone seems to be able to predict what the "slashdot crowd" is going to say or do.
Just what is the "slashdot crowd"? Are they childish FUD-slingers who instantly attack anything that has the word "Microsoft" in it? Are they computer science experts who give advice to Jane's Intelligence Review? Are they uber-geeks who absolutely must have the latest and greatest kernel? Are they programmers who don't care about the underlying structure of the art they create?
I, for one, am quite interested in electronics... but I am primarily a programmer. I know enough to wire up a breadboard according to a circuit diagram, and to troubleshoot and modify the results. And I'm one of the few programmers at my college who can help out the electronics majors from time to time.
I consider myself part of the "slashdot crowd". I thought this was "news for nerds", not "news for perl programmers".:)
"Gartner's Barrow, said the Webletter report had reproduced Gartner's original research in its entirety and had not been funded by Microsoft."
Ok, so he's saying that everything in the report was written by Gartner. But:
"Gartner sold that research to Microsoft which it used for a "Webletter", which is sponsored by Microsoft but hosted on the Gartner site."
So in other words, Microsoft paid for the 'research', and the webletter's place on the internet. And:
"Editorial supplied by Microsoft is independent of GartnerGroup analysis and in no way should this information be construed as a GartnerGroup endorsement of Microsoft's products and services."
Which basically says the Gartner Group takes no responsibility for what is said in this "webletter".
I'll also point you toward several posts so far that have stated that the actual report had much less of a Microsoft slant on it.
Then, Microsoft referenced this Gartner report on the Linux Myths page, when apparently the only review of the report available to most readers of the page is through Microsoft's "webletter" (which, as has already been pointed out, is Microsoft's opinions and not the opinions of Gartner...and is therefore suspect).
Finally, there is the problem of the article's sudden disappearance.
No, this is not damning evidence. However, it is quite enough to be suspect. The original report, written by Gartner, may have plenty of good points to it... but I have not been allowed to read this report. And anything that Microsoft publishes against Linux should rightly be seen as suspect... just as anything by a Linux company against Microsoft whould be taken with a grain of salt. Frankly, I'd much rather the Gartner Group publish it's OWN opinions, instead of allowing Microsoft to publish them under Gartner's site.
And one last thing: "reproduced Gartner's original research in its entirety", unfortunately, does not state that the original report's bias and conclusions were maintained.. or that the report was exactly reproduced. At the very least, the situation allowed Microsoft to add their own spin to the webletter.. and we have no way of know what they did or did not add.
Religion is to blame. Elitist liberals are to blame.
People who stereotype large groups of people based on an extremely small sample are to blame.
Come on, define the 'we' who pollute the planet. Or the 'we' who exploit power. The 'we' who 'strip away freedoms'.
You just made an entire post that contains nothing but meaningless stereotypes, and then blamed the existance of those stereotypes on a pair of completely unrelated stereotypes. That sort of thinking is what inspired Hitler. It's also partly behind Singer's ideas, because part of this discussion hinges on stereotypes of 'handicapped' people who 'suffer' and cause other people to 'suffer'.
Stereotyping has always been a cause of conflict between humans, because it gives a reason to promote doing bad things to the people who fall under the stereotype.
Since you're obviously part of the 'we' who do the horrible things you spoke of, you are to blame just as much as any other group - why not get off your rear and do something about it rather than blame others?
Background... I run four operating systems in my apartment: Novell Netware 3.12, Win 98, Win NT, and RedHat Linux 6.0. The Linux box is the most recent; I set it up about a month ago and have been slowly teaching myself how to use it.
Why did I set up a Linux computer instead of a *BSD? Not because of any article telling me how much better Linux was than anything else. I chose Linux because I could find solid information on how to set it up and learn to use it. I chose Linux because there was a lot I could do with it, and because it was something I wanted to learn to use.
I'd heard about BSD... but, I didn't have the unbiased information about it that I had about Linux.
Now, I'm not a Linux zealot. I'm not a Linux Guru. Heck, I don't even consider myself a Linux user yet. And still, this article gave me the same, sick, "something's not quite right" feeling that emails about GoodTimes-style viruses give me.
What I've seen from BSD supporters lately hasn't done much but push me away from that OS. It may be that it's better (in some cases) than Linux. But I haven't seen writers yet that can talk about BSD's good side without sounding as though BSD is The One True OS. Surely there is someone out there that can talk about BSD without trashing Linux!
Perhaps I'm wierd, but I just can't agree with this article at all. I'm 21, a college student, constantly on the internet... but I hated this movie.
It's bad when you get into a movie with a free pass and still feel gypped.
I mean, I *loved* The Haunting. That movie sent more chills down my spine than any horror movie I've seen before. Blair Witch, in contrast, almost put me to sleep. The only reason I felt suspense at all was because of the hype - if so many people were saying it was scary and good, things HAD to get better, right?
Perhaps I would have enjoyed the movie more if I'd looked on their web site beforehand. A lot of the storyline wasn't in the movie... heck, the whole "Blair Witch" legend was only sketchily described. But I'd rather get the story all at one time, not in bits and pieces. And, after seeing the movie, no amount of extra information would have helped it. In my mind, the entire story was boring... there's no interest to find out more.
I recently went looking on the net for some way to control an Olympus D-200L camera without using the crappy TWAIN software they have (using the camera for college ID pictures, and the software is slooooow). Found a page at this place that has software (and source) for controlling a lot of different cameras under unix, dos, and windows (and I think it mentioned linux too). Much faster than using the manufacturer programs. Unfortunately I can't compile the windows source because my windows compiler doesn't understand the "interrupt" var type, looks like I'll still have to do some coding for the type of thing I need to do...
>Han wasn't a spear carrier. The stormtroopers >were. Jar Jar's people were (except for Jar Jar >and Boss Nash).
And since when do unknown people in stories argue with the rules? Since when does it even *matter* if the unknown people argue? If the author hasn't given the person a name, or anything for the reader to relate to, it would be idiotic to make that character a plot point!
>His point about demi-gods is valid. Practically >the whole movie is about them but the actual >events are determined by the regular people.
>In fact, without the demi-gods, the sequence of >events wouldn't have changed much.
Exactly my point. Was the movie really about the demigods, if the demigods didn't effect much? In fact, following the reasoning you just stated, I could say the movie was actually about the *common people* effecting the *demigod's* lives, rather than the other way around. Which is completely opposite to the "hero myth" brand of storytelling Mr. Brin was bashing!
>As to the queen's political power, that would >depend entirely upon the procedures that governed >that body. Perhaps ANYONE can call for a "vote >of no confidence". If so, why did it take HER to >call for it? Especially if he lost so easily?
Think of it as similiar to the president of the US being impeached. Many people may not like him, and a large number of his fellow politicians may want him out of the way so they have a chance at the position, but it would take a crisis to actually bring the matter to a vote. And even when impeachment hearings ARE called, it takes time to carry out the proceedings... which means you need an extremely emotional, ongoing crisis to ensure that tempers stay hot enough to carry it through. Hence, the emotional plea of the princess was exactly what was needed to puff the volatile situation into flames.
>And that still doesn't account for the fact that >the TWO JEDI KNIGHTS that were sent to conclude >the embargo were with her and they STILL weren't >enough to get any action.
I take it you're another one of those who didn't read the opening? The jedi knights were sent in secret. The head of the senate sent them without asking the senate, and that fact alone would have caused him serious problems if things went bad. If you paid attention, you would have noticed (I think even Palpatine pointed it out) that the politicians were more interested in the rules of politics and their own power than anything else... meaning, revealing the secretly sent jedi at that point in time would probably have called down a vote of no confidence anyways!
Well, I've carefully read both original articles, and this recent addendum. I'd have to say I'm left even more confused about Mr. Brin's standing than I was before.
First, he forgets the fact that, although the Queen's influence might be enough to call for a revote (not even influence - she's a part of the senate, and therefore capable of using the rules), that influence wouldn't be enough to call for an army. Legal maneuvering is completely different from power.
Then, he says Lucas believes that demigods are the solution to everything. But, he points out that all the "having sword fights and leaping and slashing and dying" of those demigods was for nothing, and the people who really provided the happy ending were the normal people. Which is it?
He goes into the theory that both Obi-wan and Yoda faked their deaths. I just can't give that very much credence.
"Spear carriers always obey orders in Star Wars...and they die." Huh? I think there's quite a few times when the "spear carriers" in SW actively went against their orders. Especially his favorite, Han.
After reading both articles (which sounded almost exactly alike, down to the Hitler comments) and the responses here, I'd have to say that someone is trying a little too hard to prove that his way is the right way. And he winds up never concluding either way; what is wrong with SW is that it follows the "hero myth" brand of storytelling, yet "hero myths" still have their place. We should outgrow hero myths, yet still have them. I think he should firmly decide which side of THAT fence he stands on before using the argument to pick apart someone else's work.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderators have no clue? Oddly enough, moderators are posters... which means the posters have no clue (as evidenced by the post you were complaining about). And, therefore, YOU have no clue.. and neither do I.
It is kinda nice to see the quotes, since I can't get to the site right now (/. effect and all). Not worthy of being moderated up, and more suitable on a mirror, but...
Thanks for the pointer, I'll be sure to check it out. Lynx worked pretty well (once I got used to the controls, of course :) but I do admit the frame handling is annoying as all getout.
Ya know, I used Lynx quite a bit just recently... and I've lately been thinking very seriously about installing it again. Netscape, though it has the graphics and stuff, loads slooooooowly. Of course, that preference is probably related to the fact that my current Linux box is an old 486/75 laptop - just about anything I want loads reasonably fast on it, but Netscape takes roughly 15 minutes...
They had something on the news the other day about this. Big, long segment about the horrible possibility that you might not get your toys in time for christmas.
Funny thing was, they basically said the main problem is people waiting until the last minute to do their online shopping. Would people do their shopping through catalogs in this short time and expect things to arrive right away? Would they raid the toy store one week from christmas and expect the most-wanted toys to be on the shelves for them to purchase? No? Well, then why are they trying to do the same thing online?
Online shopping is basically the same as using mail-order catalogs or phoning a far-away company to get an item. You've got to make the same allowances, because that's just the way the world works... everything gets gridlocked a few weeks from christmas. If you give your purchases plenty of time to spare (proportional to how in-demand the item is and how large the company seems to be) and then get burned, you should complain... otherwise, 'tis your own fault for trying to take the easy way out.
"The Paper Computer is not just uncommon nor merely special, it is, in truth, unique. No other company has anything like it, and, due to extensive patents, no other company will have anything like it for a long, long time."
Ok, is it just me, or does this sound like exactly the sort of thing many slashdot articles have been biased against lately? Sounds to me as though this company isn't going to have it for a long, long time... and they want to prevent other people who do have the research money from having it too.
Now, that's just a gut reaction to the statement, and is probably worded a little harshly. More power to this fellow if he can get off the ground. I just wonder how it fits in with the past articles...
The problem, of course, is when T.F.M. is L.O.S.T., or was never available to start with. I had an incredibly difficult time just recently getting X to work on an old AT&T laptop I have... xf86config simply would not create a valid configuration file, no matter what values I put in.
The solution I used? I had a copy of muLinux, and knew it worked because I had used it on the laptop earlier... I edited the config (ignoring the big DO NOT EDIT BY HAND) to put in the values in muLinux's config, and with a little more fiddling I had a working 256-color config. Later I tempted fate by setting up the SVGA driver by hand to get more colors.
That sort of thing, however, is not something your average user would do... Even though I'm fairly good with computers, I was still nervous about messing around with those values (I've only been using Linux for a couple of months, and had no clue what some things meant in the X config file).
Unless I missed something...
Since the screen basically consists of three screens side-to-side, doesn't that give it a 3:1 ratio automatically?
Odd that you would feel the need to avoid bad karma, since you seem to think your comments have value regardless of your karma.
AC's can be moderated down just as easily as logged-in members... the only difference, obviously, is that YOU are not being moderated down. But if your opinion had the value of "fighting the establishment", one would think you would be proud enough to stand behind your own words.
Also, if you truly think moderation and karma are stupid, what better way to protest it than to proudly throw out intelligent, briliant, anti-brainwashed-society posts and let them be moderated down, just so you could point at them and say, "Hey, all these wonderful, non-ass-kissing posts got moderated down, this proves how stupid slashdot is!!"
I respectfully submit that a truly unbiased opinion that is thoughtfully stated will (at a minimum) receive a total moderation that balances out. The only reason you should fear being moderated down is if you are saying something that is obviously aimed at starting a war... regardless of who it is aimed at starting a war with.
I also respectfully submit that anyone who would miss your posts if your account were moderated down would just as easily miss them if they are posted AC. And those who would actually read your posts will see them regardless, because they browse at -1 anyways.
I must say, with ALL of the AMAZING capitalization and BUZZWORDS in these posts, they seem AMAZINGLY like the spam mail that I immediately delete without reading.
:)
Just an observation.
I think it's funny how everyone seems to be able to predict what the "slashdot crowd" is going to say or do.
:)
Just what is the "slashdot crowd"? Are they childish FUD-slingers who instantly attack anything that has the word "Microsoft" in it? Are they computer science experts who give advice to Jane's Intelligence Review? Are they uber-geeks who absolutely must have the latest and greatest kernel? Are they programmers who don't care about the underlying structure of the art they create?
I, for one, am quite interested in electronics... but I am primarily a programmer. I know enough to wire up a breadboard according to a circuit diagram, and to troubleshoot and modify the results. And I'm one of the few programmers at my college who can help out the electronics majors from time to time.
I consider myself part of the "slashdot crowd". I thought this was "news for nerds", not "news for perl programmers".
"Gartner's Barrow, said the Webletter report had reproduced Gartner's original research in its entirety and had not been funded by Microsoft."
Ok, so he's saying that everything in the report was written by Gartner. But:
"Gartner sold that research to Microsoft which it used for a "Webletter", which is sponsored by Microsoft but hosted on the Gartner site."
So in other words, Microsoft paid for the 'research', and the webletter's place on the internet. And:
"Editorial supplied by Microsoft is independent of GartnerGroup analysis and in no way should this information be construed as a GartnerGroup endorsement of Microsoft's products and services."
Which basically says the Gartner Group takes no responsibility for what is said in this "webletter".
I'll also point you toward several posts so far that have stated that the actual report had much less of a Microsoft slant on it.
Then, Microsoft referenced this Gartner report on the Linux Myths page, when apparently the only review of the report available to most readers of the page is through Microsoft's "webletter" (which, as has already been pointed out, is Microsoft's opinions and not the opinions of Gartner...and is therefore suspect).
Finally, there is the problem of the article's sudden disappearance.
No, this is not damning evidence. However, it is quite enough to be suspect. The original report, written by Gartner, may have plenty of good points to it... but I have not been allowed to read this report. And anything that Microsoft publishes against Linux should rightly be seen as suspect... just as anything by a Linux company against Microsoft whould be taken with a grain of salt. Frankly, I'd much rather the Gartner Group publish it's OWN opinions, instead of allowing Microsoft to publish them under Gartner's site.
And one last thing: "reproduced Gartner's original research in its entirety", unfortunately, does not state that the original report's bias and conclusions were maintained.. or that the report was exactly reproduced. At the very least, the situation allowed Microsoft to add their own spin to the webletter.. and we have no way of know what they did or did not add.
Religion is to blame. Elitist liberals are to blame.
People who stereotype large groups of people based on an extremely small sample are to blame.
Come on, define the 'we' who pollute the planet. Or the 'we' who exploit power. The 'we' who 'strip away freedoms'.
You just made an entire post that contains nothing but meaningless stereotypes, and then blamed the existance of those stereotypes on a pair of completely unrelated stereotypes. That sort of thinking is what inspired Hitler. It's also partly behind Singer's ideas, because part of this discussion hinges on stereotypes of 'handicapped' people who 'suffer' and cause other people to 'suffer'.
Stereotyping has always been a cause of conflict between humans, because it gives a reason to promote doing bad things to the people who fall under the stereotype.
Since you're obviously part of the 'we' who do the horrible things you spoke of, you are to blame just as much as any other group - why not get off your rear and do something about it rather than blame others?
Background... I run four operating systems in my apartment: Novell Netware 3.12, Win 98, Win NT, and RedHat Linux 6.0. The Linux box is the most recent; I set it up about a month ago and have been slowly teaching myself how to use it.
Why did I set up a Linux computer instead of a *BSD? Not because of any article telling me how much better Linux was than anything else. I chose Linux because I could find solid information on how to set it up and learn to use it. I chose Linux because there was a lot I could do with it, and because it was something I wanted to learn to use.
I'd heard about BSD... but, I didn't have the unbiased information about it that I had about Linux.
Now, I'm not a Linux zealot. I'm not a Linux Guru. Heck, I don't even consider myself a Linux user yet. And still, this article gave me the same, sick, "something's not quite right" feeling that emails about GoodTimes-style viruses give me.
What I've seen from BSD supporters lately hasn't done much but push me away from that OS. It may be that it's better (in some cases) than Linux. But I haven't seen writers yet that can talk about BSD's good side without sounding as though BSD is The One True OS. Surely there is someone out there that can talk about BSD without trashing Linux!
Perhaps I'm wierd, but I just can't agree with this article at all. I'm 21, a college student, constantly on the internet... but I hated this movie.
It's bad when you get into a movie with a free pass and still feel gypped.
I mean, I *loved* The Haunting. That movie sent more chills down my spine than any horror movie I've seen before. Blair Witch, in contrast, almost put me to sleep. The only reason I felt suspense at all was because of the hype - if so many people were saying it was scary and good, things HAD to get better, right?
Perhaps I would have enjoyed the movie more if I'd looked on their web site beforehand. A lot of the storyline wasn't in the movie... heck, the whole "Blair Witch" legend was only sketchily described. But I'd rather get the story all at one time, not in bits and pieces. And, after seeing the movie, no amount of extra information would have helped it. In my mind, the entire story was boring... there's no interest to find out more.
Humph.
It's 26x my first HD.. and I'm definately not all that old!
:)
(gotta love hacker "back in the old days" competitions.
I recently went looking on the net for some way to control an Olympus D-200L camera without using the crappy TWAIN software they have (using the camera for college ID pictures, and the software is slooooow). Found a page at this place that has software (and source) for controlling a lot of different cameras under unix, dos, and windows (and I think it mentioned linux too). Much faster than using the manufacturer programs. Unfortunately I can't compile the windows source because my windows compiler doesn't understand the "interrupt" var type, looks like I'll still have to do some coding for the type of thing I need to do...
>Han wasn't a spear carrier. The stormtroopers
>were. Jar Jar's people were (except for Jar Jar
>and Boss Nash).
And since when do unknown people in stories argue with the rules? Since when does it even *matter* if the unknown people argue? If the author hasn't given the person a name, or anything for the reader to relate to, it would be idiotic to make that character a plot point!
>His point about demi-gods is valid. Practically
>the whole movie is about them but the actual
>events are determined by the regular people.
>In fact, without the demi-gods, the sequence of
>events wouldn't have changed much.
Exactly my point. Was the movie really about the demigods, if the demigods didn't effect much? In fact, following the reasoning you just stated, I could say the movie was actually about the *common people* effecting the *demigod's* lives, rather than the other way around. Which is completely opposite to the "hero myth" brand of storytelling Mr. Brin was bashing!
>As to the queen's political power, that would
>depend entirely upon the procedures that governed
>that body. Perhaps ANYONE can call for a "vote
>of no confidence". If so, why did it take HER to
>call for it? Especially if he lost so easily?
Think of it as similiar to the president of the US being impeached. Many people may not like him, and a large number of his fellow politicians may want him out of the way so they have a chance at the position, but it would take a crisis to actually bring the matter to a vote. And even when impeachment hearings ARE called, it takes time to carry out the proceedings... which means you need an extremely emotional, ongoing crisis to ensure that tempers stay hot enough to carry it through. Hence, the emotional plea of the princess was exactly what was needed to puff the volatile situation into flames.
>And that still doesn't account for the fact that
>the TWO JEDI KNIGHTS that were sent to conclude
>the embargo were with her and they STILL weren't
>enough to get any action.
I take it you're another one of those who didn't read the opening? The jedi knights were sent in secret. The head of the senate sent them without asking the senate, and that fact alone would have caused him serious problems if things went bad. If you paid attention, you would have noticed (I think even Palpatine pointed it out) that the politicians were more interested in the rules of politics and their own power than anything else... meaning, revealing the secretly sent jedi at that point in time would probably have called down a vote of no confidence anyways!
Well, I've carefully read both original articles, and this recent addendum. I'd have to say I'm left even more confused about Mr. Brin's standing than I was before.
First, he forgets the fact that, although the Queen's influence might be enough to call for a revote (not even influence - she's a part of the senate, and therefore capable of using the rules), that influence wouldn't be enough to call for an army. Legal maneuvering is completely different from power.
Then, he says Lucas believes that demigods are the solution to everything. But, he points out that all the "having sword fights and leaping and slashing and dying" of those demigods was for nothing, and the people who really provided the happy ending were the normal people. Which is it?
He goes into the theory that both Obi-wan and Yoda faked their deaths. I just can't give that very much credence.
"Spear carriers always obey orders in Star Wars...and they die." Huh? I think there's quite a few times when the "spear carriers" in SW actively went against their orders. Especially his favorite, Han.
After reading both articles (which sounded almost exactly alike, down to the Hitler comments) and the responses here, I'd have to say that someone is trying a little too hard to prove that his way is the right way. And he winds up never concluding either way; what is wrong with SW is that it follows the "hero myth" brand of storytelling, yet "hero myths" still have their place. We should outgrow hero myths, yet still have them. I think he should firmly decide which side of THAT fence he stands on before using the argument to pick apart someone else's work.