There is a current thread of anti-intellectualism these days that has caused many people to reject anything meaningful. "It's just a movie, repeat after me!"
There is also the problem of trendy counterculturalism, and a lot of people just refuse to like any of the Matrix movies because of how popular they are among geeks AND non-geeks alike--yet they'll freely latch onto Star Wars, almost strictly geek territory these days.
If you must. You have no other arguments, so instead you must give me a run-down of our entire conversation for some unfamothable reason.
You claim that the only difference between the 95 style and the XP style is the look of the widgets. They even look the same now.
That's right. The difference in widgets is only in the look of them. They are in the same places and provide the exact same functionality.
I show the Control Panel as a counterexample.
Yes, you did.
You, correctly, claim that it can be made to look the same (though not by default) but you ignore my other points such as browser configuration, folder view options, etc. while claiming I have no other arguments.
Because "browser configuration," folder view options, and so forth are little-used features by the average Window user. I doubt 70% of Windows users have even bothered with them. They were such laughably minor points that I didn't feel they warranted a discussion. Apparently, they are all you have to offer, which makes your argument look weak.
Next.
You state that Mandrake (which I no longer use, by the way) has poor cut-and-paste in comparison to Windows.
Correct. It is true. Windows has an entire cut-and-paste subsystem. Linux apps are never a guarantee when it comes to copying and pasting. In Windows, I can copy pretty much any single thing that is highlightable and paste it anywhere else that would logically support the object.
I point out that Windows apps often do not even allow you to cut and paste, and that I never have problems with cut-and-paste in Linux.
You mentioned that you couldn't copy dialog text in Windows.
For some reason, you think this argument is silly... Why?
Because it is silly. Windows has an entire subsystem devoted to copy and paste, and you're going to claim Linux in some way has a more functional and complete cut-and-paste system, when it is common knowledge even among Linux users that such is far from the truth.
Why is this less silly than claiming that Windows cut-and-paste is better even though it simply doesn't work in many cases?
Because it does work in most cases. You and I both know this.
I can't even think of an incident in which it didn't work for me, but I can cite endless examples with Linux over the years, even under GNOME or KDE. You are just kidding yourself, or trolling.
I don't get it when people make fun of TV and its braindead shows like American Idol and 7th Heaven, yet they will freely defend Buffy The Vampire Slayer for having "great writing" and "long running story arcs." I've seen the show; it is hardly great.
I truly do not know what you mean here. Do you mean that, for example, the 'x' to close a window is in the same location in Windows 95 and Windows XP?
Yes, it is.
Or do you mean that the Control Panel looks the same (sans more colour) in Windows 95 and in Windows XP?
It doesn't by default. They designed it to be more user friendy, and you can change it to the classic view with the big link in the upper-left corner.
If that's your only argument--the organization of the Control Panel--I'm disappointed.
Your belief that cut-and-paste is actually better implemented in Linux simply because some Windows application didn't use the system's built-in cut-and-paste is silly. Copying text from one application to another in Linux is always an "adventure."
People have even more problems with Linux. It's just that most Linux users have it installed because figuring out their operating system is a hobby of theirs, so they see past the faults because they feel so successful when they solve its problems.
The only difference between the Windows 95 and Windows XP interface is the look of the widgets. They are all still the same, in the same place, and even look like they did before, only colorful.
Oh, and the Start Menu has stuff that used to be on the desktop.
Is that all you have to offer? In comparison, Mandrake Linux is a composite of conflicting windowing libraries, desktop environments, and poor cut-and-paste.
Windows 2000 and XP provide much, much more functionality then Linux + XFree86.
To get anything usable, you'd have to run KDE, a bunch of daemons, and much, much more, blowing your little 16MB of RAM out of the water. And they are provably more bloated than Windows.
from the revolutions trailer, i sort got that feeling back... in scenes where neo and agent smiths are in the middle of this long rainy road... and the part with trinity doing what looks like the same lobby fight sequence from the first movie... and you get to see some s&m guy with a mask on getting his ass kicked by trinity... that dark dark look is just so awesome
I agree.
I assume Reloaded was the movie in which the Wachowskis wanted to get out all their superhero ideas they had originally intended for Neo to have, as well as all the big action stuff. Once they got it out of their systems, we reached the much more satisfying second half of the movie. Especially that last 30 minutes. I really felt like I was watching the sequel I had been waiting for to the original Matrix.
The Revolutions trailer does appear nicely dark and creepy. Big things in store.
There are several theories going around, the most common being a failsafe matrix like Zion.
A friend of mine noticed that Agent Smith is like a replicating virus now, and when he enters Bane's "real world" mind, he is cutting his hands into bloody lines. When he is stopped from killing Neo, he shakes his hand. My friend theorized that somehow Neo got infected by that blood.
However inplausible, there is obviously a connection between Smith and Neo in this movie. Neo sensed him in the very beginning. Smith specifically mentions a connection. I believe that connection is the source of Neo's machine sense. Obviously, Revolutions will explain things.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a current thread of anti-intellectualism these days that has caused many people to reject anything meaningful. "It's just a movie, repeat after me!"
There is also the problem of trendy counterculturalism, and a lot of people just refuse to like any of the Matrix movies because of how popular they are among geeks AND non-geeks alike--yet they'll freely latch onto Star Wars, almost strictly geek territory these days.
Read Corporate Mofo's take and be corrected.
Next.
Few things are more annoying than someone who still says "Blockquoth the poster."
Please do not mod this up
Did people just outright ignore this request, or what?
You have places like Slashdot to thank for continuing to give the guy any credence.
You can troll so much better. There are so many places you could take this. Try again.
X is the standard GUI for Linux.
Next.
And 99% of insightful posts are really trolls.
Okay, so let me summarise.
If you must. You have no other arguments, so instead you must give me a run-down of our entire conversation for some unfamothable reason.
You claim that the only difference between the 95 style and the XP style is the look of the widgets. They even look the same now.
That's right. The difference in widgets is only in the look of them. They are in the same places and provide the exact same functionality.
I show the Control Panel as a counterexample.
Yes, you did.
You, correctly, claim that it can be made to look the same (though not by default) but you ignore my other points such as browser configuration, folder view options, etc. while claiming I have no other arguments.
Because "browser configuration," folder view options, and so forth are little-used features by the average Window user. I doubt 70% of Windows users have even bothered with them. They were such laughably minor points that I didn't feel they warranted a discussion. Apparently, they are all you have to offer, which makes your argument look weak.
Next.
You state that Mandrake (which I no longer use, by the way) has poor cut-and-paste in comparison to Windows.
Correct. It is true. Windows has an entire cut-and-paste subsystem. Linux apps are never a guarantee when it comes to copying and pasting. In Windows, I can copy pretty much any single thing that is highlightable and paste it anywhere else that would logically support the object.
I point out that Windows apps often do not even allow you to cut and paste, and that I never have problems with cut-and-paste in Linux.
You mentioned that you couldn't copy dialog text in Windows.
For some reason, you think this argument is silly... Why?
Because it is silly. Windows has an entire subsystem devoted to copy and paste, and you're going to claim Linux in some way has a more functional and complete cut-and-paste system, when it is common knowledge even among Linux users that such is far from the truth.
Why is this less silly than claiming that Windows cut-and-paste is better even though it simply doesn't work in many cases?
Because it does work in most cases. You and I both know this.
I can't even think of an incident in which it didn't work for me, but I can cite endless examples with Linux over the years, even under GNOME or KDE. You are just kidding yourself, or trolling.
Next.
Post a Simpsons quote (especially one used before); get modded up.
Easy as pie.
"Try watching a whole season of Buffy."
Why would I do that if a couple of episodes won't grab me?
It seems that people simply like the idea of there being a "mythos."
Buffy has not been one of the best shows on TV, not by a long shot. "Best TV ever made?" Have you ever seen Cheers, or Mash, or the Sopranos?
I don't get it when people make fun of TV and its braindead shows like American Idol and 7th Heaven, yet they will freely defend Buffy The Vampire Slayer for having "great writing" and "long running story arcs." I've seen the show; it is hardly great.
I truly do not know what you mean here. Do you mean that, for example, the 'x' to close a window is in the same location in Windows 95 and Windows XP?
Yes, it is.
Or do you mean that the Control Panel looks the same (sans more colour) in Windows 95 and in Windows XP?
It doesn't by default. They designed it to be more user friendy, and you can change it to the classic view with the big link in the upper-left corner.
If that's your only argument--the organization of the Control Panel--I'm disappointed.
Your belief that cut-and-paste is actually better implemented in Linux simply because some Windows application didn't use the system's built-in cut-and-paste is silly. Copying text from one application to another in Linux is always an "adventure."
People have even more problems with Linux. It's just that most Linux users have it installed because figuring out their operating system is a hobby of theirs, so they see past the faults because they feel so successful when they solve its problems.
99% of Windows users don't hate Windows.
Anything named "twm" is being intentionally obfuscated in order to feel "elite."
He only pisses off the Slashdot crowd. The majority of the world has no problem using Windows.
The only difference between the Windows 95 and Windows XP interface is the look of the widgets. They are all still the same, in the same place, and even look like they did before, only colorful.
Oh, and the Start Menu has stuff that used to be on the desktop.
Is that all you have to offer? In comparison, Mandrake Linux is a composite of conflicting windowing libraries, desktop environments, and poor cut-and-paste.
Windows 2000 and XP provide much, much more functionality then Linux + XFree86.
To get anything usable, you'd have to run KDE, a bunch of daemons, and much, much more, blowing your little 16MB of RAM out of the water. And they are provably more bloated than Windows.
Next.
She reminded me of the Woman in the Red Dress from the first movie. It would be amusing if it turned out to be the same actress.
The Architect says he is human (even mentions chemical receptors). The French guy says he is just a man. All signs point to his being human.
Neo wasn't there when they were fighting them.
In any case, it lessens the sense of danger.
from the revolutions trailer, i sort got that feeling back... in scenes where neo and agent smiths are in the middle of this long rainy road... and the part with trinity doing what looks like the same lobby fight sequence from the first movie... and you get to see some s&m guy with a mask on getting his ass kicked by trinity... that dark dark look is just so awesome
I agree.
I assume Reloaded was the movie in which the Wachowskis wanted to get out all their superhero ideas they had originally intended for Neo to have, as well as all the big action stuff. Once they got it out of their systems, we reached the much more satisfying second half of the movie. Especially that last 30 minutes. I really felt like I was watching the sequel I had been waiting for to the original Matrix.
The Revolutions trailer does appear nicely dark and creepy. Big things in store.
Apparently, the Wachowskis insisted on not cutting that scene short. I'm sure they have their reasons.
Lots of people "got it."
There are several theories going around, the most common being a failsafe matrix like Zion.
A friend of mine noticed that Agent Smith is like a replicating virus now, and when he enters Bane's "real world" mind, he is cutting his hands into bloody lines. When he is stopped from killing Neo, he shakes his hand. My friend theorized that somehow Neo got infected by that blood.
However inplausible, there is obviously a connection between Smith and Neo in this movie. Neo sensed him in the very beginning. Smith specifically mentions a connection. I believe that connection is the source of Neo's machine sense. Obviously, Revolutions will explain things.