Maybe you were so wowed by the post-production that you didn't notice that the acting was horrendous. With more competent actors, this premise could have really shone.
Indeed. Also, it could have done with some better writing. The "druid" and "wear a cloak to school" bits were rough, but still funny. The rest was truly abyssmal. Two guys chewing the scenery reading awkwardly phrased lines off cue cards.
My friends and I actually watched this last night just before our (somewhat) monthly RPG. I thought it managed to be both too exaggerated and not weird enough at the same time. I think part of the problem was that the guy with the glasses obviously was just an acting nerd pretending to be an RPG nerd. The other guy had the proper mild, deadpan-earnest delivery one would expect from a real RPG nerd. The guy with glasses kept contorting his mouth into some buck-toothed nerd caricature and chewed the scenery like a veteran bad actor from theater club in high school. The homo-erotic "subtext" was so ham-fistedly exagerrated that it was robbed of all meaning. Basically, he acting and writing was so mediocre that I basically watched the whole thing thinking "I'm watching two guys pretend to be nerds, poorly". The one moment of inspired humor in the whole thing was the "dueling prayers" at the dinner table. That actually made me laugh.
Seriously, if they wanted to do an actually funny RPG nerd bit, they should've done more research. Take a video camera to OrcCon, or GenCon, or even find a local RPG store that has the traditional "tables in the back" and go watch those guys. I can think of half a dozen real life RPG nerd incidents that, if simply reenacted, would be three times as funny as some ham actor dork spasmodically lifting his shirt and rubbing his chest in a poorly simulated homoerotic frenzy.
The word you're looking for is vacuous, not vacious.
Given that the 'i' is next to the 'u' and "vacious" isn't a homonym or even a near-homonym of "vacuous", I think we can safely conclude that he knew how to spell the word and the error was merely typographical.
Provigil does seem to actually help stop you from crashing. There was a study (search PubMed if you're interested) where subjects stayed up for 64 hours straight. While those on some variation of amphetamine and those taking a placebo averaged 15 hours of recovery sleep, those on Provigil averaged 10.
Oh indeed, Provigil does soften the "crash" at the end. My point is that I don't think people actually know how to properly gauge what constitutes true recovery. After skipping two nights of sleep and then sleeping until they felt "rested", whether it was 10 or 15 hours is largely immaterial to my larger point. A have serious doubts that those subjects knew they were still tired because the normal baseline in the "modern world" seems to invariably be a state of mild-to-moderate sleep deprivation.
On a side note, I found that the additional "crash time" of amphetamine was more than made up for by a certain degree of "productive enthusiasm" that Provigil didn't provide. In the end though, I found that pharmaceutical solutions were inadequate for my hypersomnia. What I really needed was to have its underlying causes addressed.
I have a friend who worked for a defense sleep research lab, before Provigil was available via prescription....
There are two remarkable qualities to the drug. First, you can use it for days at a time, and it only loses effectiveness after about 120 waking hours. At that point you need to sleep - but you never crash; you just sleep a normal 8 hours, wake up refreshed, and swallow the next pill.
Oi. I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration. I found that Provigil (or Alertec) was better than Ritalin, but not nearly as effective as frequent, very small, carefully metered doses of methamphetamine. The problem is, Provigil really only staves off the groggies, the slackjaw, the blearies. When you do finally crash (and nothing can prevent the eventual crash-- nothing), you don't wake up refreshed after 8 hours so much as merely "mostly de-tired". Most people-- I'd say close to 95%-- don't know what it feels like to be truly well rested. Nobody gets enough sleep. 8 or 9 hours a night is ideal. We can do with less, but it's not enough. What people think of as "rested" is really just "adequately functional". Provigil manages to keep you at "functional" for quite a while, but it that's about it. Really, I think people need to take a week or two off and actually get enough rest before they describe the effects of sleep regulating meds like these.
Given that pair to choose between, I'd have to choose Jobs, because he's done less harm.
I can see your point. Though if I were to exxamine it based on personalities and how I'd relate to each, it'd go the other way. I'd say Gates seems more like a regular nerd. I'm partial to the real nerd over the arrogant "visionary" jerk with frankly very little technical expertise. Now if it was between Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates, well... no question, it'd definitely be Woz.
I really have difficulty in beleiving this. Even here in god-fearing catholic Ireland, everyone I know thinks that creationism is bunk
I have found the error in your analysis. "Everyone [you] know" is definitely not a random, representative sampling. Even if you think you know a wide cross section of people, you really don't. Surveying and statistics is a science specifically developed to transcend the natural errors inherent in "everyone I know" analysis.
They don't not believe in God, or vehemently advocate Darwinism, they just don't think about it.
Exactly. And when asked to think about it, they probably err on the side of caution and say "creationism", as no one ever says you'll go to hell for not believing in science. Their lives are more likely about pub crawling, or footy, or what have you, and asking them "religion vs science" is about as meaningful as asking a worm about "stodgy oxfords vs gucci loafers".
maybe that many people just aren't convinced that evolution is the most accurate theory to explain how we got here. This study just may show the skeptical nature of people across the Atlantic.
Well....maybe, but probably not. For over a century the question "Do you believe in evolution" has had a pretty specific, polarized meaning. I'd guess that, natural skepticism or not, few people are even aware that "science" even entertains alternate theories beyond Darwinian evolution. No, I'd say that people were answering the question by it's old traditional meaning: "Do you believe in god, or science?" This may change as the elder folk pass on and the churches' modern "compatible" stances on the issue take deeper root, but at present I think there are simply a lot of people still stuck with the "believe creation, or look forward to eternal hellfire" of yesteryear. Most people have no vested interest (or any interest at all, for that matter) in science. To this day a good portion of people consider themselves "religious" even though they don't attend church. If science plays no part in your life, and your religion is based on a dozen years attending church in your youth, it's fairly easy to decide to err on the side of caution and just go ahead and "believe" in creationism.
To see what's going on, read Al Franken's 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'. Something like 15 million people listen to him a week, and he can stand there and promote the most outragious views of the right, and they repeat them. He can lie, and they repeat it.
See, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who cites as an authority on that windbag liar Limbaugh, the one lefty who's an even bigger windbag liar, Al Franken.
I think if libs and conservs just acknowledged that the others weren't complete idiots, as most talk shows do, it would be better for all of us.
Problem is, they are both right. The occupants of the far ends of both wings are complete idiots. That's what makes the talk shows "entertainment". They pit opposing, inflexible extremists against each other and watch the sparks fly. Honest, rational thinkers would be boring. They'd concede about half their points to one another, and the remaining they'd conclude are purely opinion based on personal ideology that they'll never agree on, so they agree to disagree.
Thing is, E3 isn't really supposed to be a "family event", is it? I mean, didn't they move it from weekend to weekday scheduling like four years ago because they thought it was getting to be too much like a "leisure time" attraction? And haven't they always required that all attendees actually be verified company employees, i.e. NO KIDS? I think the organizers want to turn it into some dignified, somber stuffed shirt convention. Not likely. GIVE US OUR BOOF BABES!
It's not your property. You have a license to use it. It's the property of the copyright holder
Actually, the only part that actually is property is the hardware. Copyright law does not confer property rights over songs. The only property in copyright is the copyright itself. Songs, by their very nature, cannot be owned. What they have, what they posess, is the exclusive right to copy the song. Property must have a specific physical instance in order to satisfy the definition. Where do they keep the British Crown Jewels? Tower of London. Crown Jewels are obviously property. Where do they keep the song "Helter Skelter" by the Beatles? Well, there is no one pllace. It shows up a bunch of places, not least of which is in people's heads.
Despite the unfortunate popularization of the oxymoronic term "intellectual property", you cannot own a song. You can only hold its copyright.
Nobody said that Copyright law was patent law either.
No, but whoever chose the question that is the title of this thread:
"Will this eliminate Software Patents?"
well, they sure didn't seem to understand the difference.
Boy, what an idiot...
Perhaps, but I'm not the one asking if a proposed modification to copyright law will invalidate a portion of patent law. Even if intended as jest, it's pretty stupid.
I did not. I claimed he imagined having to listen to uninformed Mac Users reciting it. And unless he makes a habit of surrounding himself with idiots that he disagrees with (admittedly, Slashdot is a good place for that), he did imagine it.
Oh, so it was just a speculative calling of "bullshit" on his claim that he heard it, rather than a denial that it ever happened. Kind of an irrelevant comment then, but whatever. Thing is, if he'd spent any time on comp.sys.mac.advocacy (to name one place) 2-3 years ago, you'd be incorrect. Really, just because you may not have heard any uninformed maccies doesn't mean they're imaginary. Check out google groups. They were rife.
"Rules of the Road" published in a bulletin by the Farmers Anti-Automobile Society included:
"All motorists must carry sugar to make friends with the horse. When a horse approaches, the motorist must drive into the nearest meadow or forest and cover his vehicle with a camouflaged blanket."
"If a car should cause a team of horsed to run away, the driver shall be fined $50 for first mile and $100 for each succeeding mile until the horses are stopped."
"Cars at night must send up red rockets every mile and wait 10 minutes for the road to clear. Speed shall never exceed 5 miles an hour. And the motorist must proceed with caution, blowing horn and shooting off Roman candles."
"Upon approaching a corner, the car must be stopped not less than a mile from the turn. To ascertain if the road is clear, the driver must sound his horn, rind a bell, fire a revolver, hallo, and send up three bombs at intervals of five minutes."
"Cars must be painted to merge with the scenery-green in the spring, golden in the summer, red in the autumn, and white in the winter."
"Speed limit on country roads this year will be secret and penalty for violation will be $10 for every mile the offender is caught going in access of it."
"When a horse approaches, the driver of the vehicle must take the automobile apart and conceal the parts in the grass or bushes alongside the road until the horse has passed.
Ridiculous, right? Not at the turn of the century, when the rules of the road condemned the motorist and pampered the horse! In the early days, the motorists were a beleaguered few, hemmed in by a variety of animosities and jealousies. Admirers of the horse, together with all industries that had grown up around horse-drawn transportation, and the diehards who wanted no change in the easy tempo of like, had little trouble persuading rural-dominated legislatures and city and town councils to adopt highly restrictive laws and regulations.
Cars were not permitted in city parks. They had to dump out all gasoline before going aboard a ferry. Still on some statute books are laws requiring a motorist to come to a halt, turn off the engine, and give whatever assistance was required to get a skittish horse to go by. Roads were pathetic. A motorist had to buy new tags and driver's licenses to cross a state line-in some instances, even a county line. Some states required registration fees in each county through which a vehicle passed. Missouri charged $30 to cross the state east-west and $50 north-south.
There were laws requiring a motorist to send a warning sentinel with a red flag one-eighth of a mile ahead of his vehicle. In Urbana, Ohio, vehicles were limited to a speed of four miles and hour when crossing another road, at the same time ringing a bell or gong. In Flint, Michigan, a law read: "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile on the streets of Flint, Michigan, while being subjected to the embrace of any other person."
(NOTE: above work not mine. I found it in a discussion forum, poorly attributed as being "from an article")
And if someone is unwilling to make the effort to be good at anything? Tough shit, go work at MacDonalds for the rest of your life then. Life is tough, deal with it.
Heck, back in "the olden days", it was a lot simpler. Basic education ended around fifth grade, and only those with the desire and the money continued on. Extending free public education has been a laudable goal, but I think it's been carried to such an extreme that it's now a caricature of itself. The fervent push for all children to graduate high school (and lately even the absurdity of "every child a college degree") has resulted in a watered-down system that has elevated pushing kids through over actually teaching them. I am reminded of an essay by Robert Heinlein, written in the ?50's? (I think it's in "Expanded Universe", but I can't find it now). His father, with only a 9th grade education at the turn of the century, had to (among other things) read and write greek and latin, and memorize the multiplication tables up to 20x20. In their zeal to extend education to those unwilling to be educated, they've rendered the education a pointless dog and pony show.
I'm not sure if they're trying to say that our bodies don't naturally glue themselves back together or that we don't apply glue to cuts, but either way, they're wrong.
Not only that, but they are, in fact, proposing that the ship glue itself back together. The blurb is a poorly chosen edit of an already rather vague statement by a scientist whose first language is probably german.What the blurb fails to get across is the important point that we don't glue ourselves together manually.
Have you never read a press release before? Not only did you ignore what the parent was bitching about, but you're ignoring every other press release ever written. For instance, since we're talking about 64-bit dickwaving, here's AMD's version:
WTF are you talkiing about? Neither I, not anyone else in this thread, ever claimed Apple was alone in its 64bit dick-waving. I am responding to a specific comment of yours:
"What happened to leading the 64bit revolution crap we had to listen to uninformed Mac Users recite from the Apple Marketing book?"
You imagined it.
Notice the complete lack of reference to AMD and their 64bit posturing. You claimed he imagined the Apple posturing. I provided you with the text of the "Apple Marketing book" he refers to.
Why download the latest top 40 "hit" when you have last year's top 40 "hit" that sounds the same.
Hell, sometimes it is the same. Listen to a top 40 radio station for 30 minutes and I guarantee you'll hear something at least three years old... probably by Green Day.
WWDC 2003, San Francisco--June 23, 2003--Apple® today unleashed the world's fastest* personal computer--the Power Mac® G5--featuring the world's first 64-bit desktop processor and the industry's first 1 GHz front-side bus. Powered by the revolutionary PowerPC G5 processor designed by IBM and Apple, the Power Mac G5 is the first personal computer to utilize 64-bit processing technology for unprecedented memory expansion (up to 8GB) and advanced 64-bit computation, while running existing 32-bit applications natively. ...
Press Contacts:
Natalie Sequeira
Apple
(408) 974-6877
nat@apple.com
Looks like a carefully weasel worded press release that would indeed lead the uninformed to trumpet a "leading the 64bit revolution" line. Never mind that everything running on the CPU was compiled for 32bit and the 64bit claims applied only to address space and some of the narrow-purpose altivec stuff; that's still enough for the marketing department to truthfully combine "64bit" and "first" in the same sentence. That's all that mattered.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Also, it could have done with some better writing. The "druid" and "wear a cloak to school" bits were rough, but still funny. The rest was truly abyssmal. Two guys chewing the scenery reading awkwardly phrased lines off cue cards.
Seriously, if they wanted to do an actually funny RPG nerd bit, they should've done more research. Take a video camera to OrcCon, or GenCon, or even find a local RPG store that has the traditional "tables in the back" and go watch those guys. I can think of half a dozen real life RPG nerd incidents that, if simply reenacted, would be three times as funny as some ham actor dork spasmodically lifting his shirt and rubbing his chest in a poorly simulated homoerotic frenzy.
Given that the 'i' is next to the 'u' and "vacious" isn't a homonym or even a near-homonym of "vacuous", I think we can safely conclude that he knew how to spell the word and the error was merely typographical.
Oh indeed, Provigil does soften the "crash" at the end. My point is that I don't think people actually know how to properly gauge what constitutes true recovery. After skipping two nights of sleep and then sleeping until they felt "rested", whether it was 10 or 15 hours is largely immaterial to my larger point. A have serious doubts that those subjects knew they were still tired because the normal baseline in the "modern world" seems to invariably be a state of mild-to-moderate sleep deprivation.
On a side note, I found that the additional "crash time" of amphetamine was more than made up for by a certain degree of "productive enthusiasm" that Provigil didn't provide. In the end though, I found that pharmaceutical solutions were inadequate for my hypersomnia. What I really needed was to have its underlying causes addressed.
Oi. I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration. I found that Provigil (or Alertec) was better than Ritalin, but not nearly as effective as frequent, very small, carefully metered doses of methamphetamine. The problem is, Provigil really only staves off the groggies, the slackjaw, the blearies. When you do finally crash (and nothing can prevent the eventual crash-- nothing), you don't wake up refreshed after 8 hours so much as merely "mostly de-tired". Most people-- I'd say close to 95%-- don't know what it feels like to be truly well rested. Nobody gets enough sleep. 8 or 9 hours a night is ideal. We can do with less, but it's not enough. What people think of as "rested" is really just "adequately functional". Provigil manages to keep you at "functional" for quite a while, but it that's about it. Really, I think people need to take a week or two off and actually get enough rest before they describe the effects of sleep regulating meds like these.
I can see your point. Though if I were to exxamine it based on personalities and how I'd relate to each, it'd go the other way. I'd say Gates seems more like a regular nerd. I'm partial to the real nerd over the arrogant "visionary" jerk with frankly very little technical expertise. Now if it was between Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates, well... no question, it'd definitely be Woz.
"Studies prove initial suspcions correct-- Massively Multiplayer Games (are) For Dummies"
I have found the error in your analysis. "Everyone [you] know" is definitely not a random, representative sampling. Even if you think you know a wide cross section of people, you really don't. Surveying and statistics is a science specifically developed to transcend the natural errors inherent in "everyone I know" analysis.
Exactly. And when asked to think about it, they probably err on the side of caution and say "creationism", as no one ever says you'll go to hell for not believing in science. Their lives are more likely about pub crawling, or footy, or what have you, and asking them "religion vs science" is about as meaningful as asking a worm about "stodgy oxfords vs gucci loafers".
Well....maybe, but probably not. For over a century the question "Do you believe in evolution" has had a pretty specific, polarized meaning. I'd guess that, natural skepticism or not, few people are even aware that "science" even entertains alternate theories beyond Darwinian evolution. No, I'd say that people were answering the question by it's old traditional meaning: "Do you believe in god, or science?" This may change as the elder folk pass on and the churches' modern "compatible" stances on the issue take deeper root, but at present I think there are simply a lot of people still stuck with the "believe creation, or look forward to eternal hellfire" of yesteryear. Most people have no vested interest (or any interest at all, for that matter) in science. To this day a good portion of people consider themselves "religious" even though they don't attend church. If science plays no part in your life, and your religion is based on a dozen years attending church in your youth, it's fairly easy to decide to err on the side of caution and just go ahead and "believe" in creationism.
See, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who cites as an authority on that windbag liar Limbaugh, the one lefty who's an even bigger windbag liar, Al Franken.
Problem is, they are both right. The occupants of the far ends of both wings are complete idiots. That's what makes the talk shows "entertainment". They pit opposing, inflexible extremists against each other and watch the sparks fly. Honest, rational thinkers would be boring. They'd concede about half their points to one another, and the remaining they'd conclude are purely opinion based on personal ideology that they'll never agree on, so they agree to disagree.
Thing is, E3 isn't really supposed to be a "family event", is it? I mean, didn't they move it from weekend to weekday scheduling like four years ago because they thought it was getting to be too much like a "leisure time" attraction? And haven't they always required that all attendees actually be verified company employees, i.e. NO KIDS? I think the organizers want to turn it into some dignified, somber stuffed shirt convention. Not likely. GIVE US OUR BOOF BABES!
Actually, the only part that actually is property is the hardware. Copyright law does not confer property rights over songs. The only property in copyright is the copyright itself. Songs, by their very nature, cannot be owned. What they have, what they posess, is the exclusive right to copy the song. Property must have a specific physical instance in order to satisfy the definition. Where do they keep the British Crown Jewels? Tower of London. Crown Jewels are obviously property. Where do they keep the song "Helter Skelter" by the Beatles? Well, there is no one pllace. It shows up a bunch of places, not least of which is in people's heads.
Despite the unfortunate popularization of the oxymoronic term "intellectual property", you cannot own a song. You can only hold its copyright.
No, but whoever chose the question that is the title of this thread:
"Will this eliminate Software Patents?"
well, they sure didn't seem to understand the difference.
Boy, what an idiot...
Perhaps, but I'm not the one asking if a proposed modification to copyright law will invalidate a portion of patent law. Even if intended as jest, it's pretty stupid.
No one claimed logic had anything to with this. Law is law. Copyright law != patent law.
Oh, so it was just a speculative calling of "bullshit" on his claim that he heard it, rather than a denial that it ever happened. Kind of an irrelevant comment then, but whatever. Thing is, if he'd spent any time on comp.sys.mac.advocacy (to name one place) 2-3 years ago, you'd be incorrect. Really, just because you may not have heard any uninformed maccies doesn't mean they're imaginary. Check out google groups. They were rife.
copyright law has nothing to do with patents.
Cars were not permitted in city parks. They had to dump out all gasoline before going aboard a ferry. Still on some statute books are laws requiring a motorist to come to a halt, turn off the engine, and give whatever assistance was required to get a skittish horse to go by. Roads were pathetic. A motorist had to buy new tags and driver's licenses to cross a state line-in some instances, even a county line. Some states required registration fees in each county through which a vehicle passed. Missouri charged $30 to cross the state east-west and $50 north-south.
There were laws requiring a motorist to send a warning sentinel with a red flag one-eighth of a mile ahead of his vehicle. In Urbana, Ohio, vehicles were limited to a speed of four miles and hour when crossing another road, at the same time ringing a bell or gong. In Flint, Michigan, a law read: "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile on the streets of Flint, Michigan, while being subjected to the embrace of any other person."
(NOTE: above work not mine. I found it in a discussion forum, poorly attributed as being "from an article")
As a wise man once said:
"If there over their opening it's door and its not even they're car, than I will loose more then my job!"
And if someone is unwilling to make the effort to be good at anything? Tough shit, go work at MacDonalds for the rest of your life then. Life is tough, deal with it.
Heck, back in "the olden days", it was a lot simpler. Basic education ended around fifth grade, and only those with the desire and the money continued on. Extending free public education has been a laudable goal, but I think it's been carried to such an extreme that it's now a caricature of itself. The fervent push for all children to graduate high school (and lately even the absurdity of "every child a college degree") has resulted in a watered-down system that has elevated pushing kids through over actually teaching them. I am reminded of an essay by Robert Heinlein, written in the ?50's? (I think it's in "Expanded Universe", but I can't find it now). His father, with only a 9th grade education at the turn of the century, had to (among other things) read and write greek and latin, and memorize the multiplication tables up to 20x20. In their zeal to extend education to those unwilling to be educated, they've rendered the education a pointless dog and pony show.
Not only that, but they are, in fact, proposing that the ship glue itself back together. The blurb is a poorly chosen edit of an already rather vague statement by a scientist whose first language is probably german.What the blurb fails to get across is the important point that we don't glue ourselves together manually.
WTF are you talkiing about? Neither I, not anyone else in this thread, ever claimed Apple was alone in its 64bit dick-waving. I am responding to a specific comment of yours:
"What happened to leading the 64bit revolution crap we had to listen to uninformed Mac Users recite from the Apple Marketing book?"
You imagined it.
Notice the complete lack of reference to AMD and their 64bit posturing. You claimed he imagined the Apple posturing. I provided you with the text of the "Apple Marketing book" he refers to.
And hard drive space.
Not to mention the decline in music quality.
Why download the latest top 40 "hit" when you have last year's top 40 "hit" that sounds the same.
Hell, sometimes it is the same. Listen to a top 40 radio station for 30 minutes and I guarantee you'll hear something at least three years old... probably by Green Day.
You imagined it.
Did he?
Looks like a carefully weasel worded press release that would indeed lead the uninformed to trumpet a "leading the 64bit revolution" line. Never mind that everything running on the CPU was compiled for 32bit and the 64bit claims applied only to address space and some of the narrow-purpose altivec stuff; that's still enough for the marketing department to truthfully combine "64bit" and "first" in the same sentence. That's all that mattered.