There has - it's just harder to find. Unless you're looking for good "rock" music. I think that peaked out in the early 1990s, and good new stuff in that genre is increasingly difficult to find. But many other styles have seen a lot of really fine music all along.
Dude, you don't even know what "epistemology" and "ontology" even mean.
Dude, I teach the stuff.
And even if you did you have no good reason to use those words,
Why? How? Of course I do. Do yourself a favour - read "What's Wrong with Post Modernism" - esp. the chapter where Norris rips Fish into little teensy bits. There's a fine paragraph in there that discusses much the same - how Fish disposes of all theory because it's all theory, and Norris demonstrates how, as I noted, it's a mistaken conflation of epistemology and ontology.
saboola parodied a comment about flying cars by looking at the transition from horses to automobiles with the same language.
Somehow, he was rated insightful, when he really isn't. Flying cars and driving cars may have epistemological equivalence (both = vehicle operation) but they are not ontologically equivalent. Example: hacking up a cooked turkey and brain surgery are both examples of (episteme) knife wielding, but they are not the same (ontologue) activities and have radically different social values and results.
Similar to the brain-dead postmodernists who insist that theory has no value, because "it's all theory".
All he did was act contrarian in a very adolescent manner - the kind of numbskull pigheaded idiot logic I expect from a dull second year university student - the kind I normally give a C- and a recommendation to do some follow up research to get the grade up.
you're still not getting it. ALL WE KNOW is the nomenclature which references something else we can't really know. The more you try to explain it to me, the more nomenclature and language you need to use, all the while not noticing that you're using language to explain what language can't. It's a basic fallacy in Platonism - the consistent assumption of correspondence between reality and the language we use to represent it, and the "reality" of the things in our heads as something that exists outside of our heads. Ther eis no Pythagorean theorem outside of its expression and description. There is no way to prove it, either. You can *think* its real, but you can think all kinds of nonsense. That a particular kind of thinking more closely coheres to reality doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. Correlation does not prove causality, and a given level of coherence doesn't prove actuality.
Kant pointed the way. The rest of it is neuroscience.
they took and still take whatever paths they take. We call them ellipses, but if someone comes up with a better description than ellipsis, then it will be described as such. Whatever planets do, is what they do. How we describe it changes over time.
I agree, but I disagree. So many people (Platonists) think these laws exist outside of human experience, and it's so obvious that they don't. WHAT they try to describe does, but there's a big difference. We can say a^2 + b^2 = c^2, but the very notion of a triangle is completely circumscribed by human experience, and the notion of abstract notation is also a human thing. To say such a relation exists a priori is where I believe rationalism runs off the rails into a kind of metaphysics of "belief" as opposed to empirical science, and where empirical science mistakes itself for reality.
We ARE creating the laws, but what we create them ABOUT is something we do not have control over. The universe and human evolution rolled those dice aeons ago. Yes, you COULD write a law that says gravity doesn't exist, IF the law you write permits the kind of observations we make regarding objects in space/time. In fact, this is an interesting example. The Einsteinian view is that gravity (in and of itself) doesn't exist. It is our perception of how objects behave in curved space time. In the other ring, you have physicists who are bound and determined to shoe-horn gravity into some grand design of particle physics, and are on a continuous (and IMHO, quixotic) quest for the Graviton.
So, you grab a brick, hold it out. Let go. It falls. The effect of it falling on release we can call "gravity", but whether gravity exists as a REAL force in the universe, or just some weird effect of space/time warpage is another issue. So, yes, you CAN write a law that says "gravity doesn't exist" as long as your law accounts for the behaviour exhibited in the test of your dropping the brick.
What is insightful about your brief post is the point that what we call "Scientific Laws" are merely descriptions of nature. The laws are Scientific, and are therefore, tentative. They will remain "true" only as long as they can be proven to be true. Once some genius comes along and disproves it, or, more likely, incorporates it into some larger understanding, it will cease to be "true". Science is not based on absolute permanent truth. Scientific truth is ALWAYS provisional. It is so, as it is a product of language - a tool of our species.
Well, I'm in Canada, but I know what you're saying. My point is: paying for landline only is cheaper than paying for both, and the quality of cell is so bad, a landline is required. Therefore: I am PAYING for the privilege of the tether, regardless of the (non)cost of incoming calls.
But, that's only one vertical market. A lot of software is horizontal - it cuts across markets and silos. Example: MS Office. I use it at home, I use it at work, I use it when I travel. MS knows this. The people who compute while travelling are a niche, but home users and home office users are not - they are a huge group of customers. Also, there are large networked entities that are non-commercial, such as universities. So, if people are *trained* into using network apps, then they will continue to use network apps. It's kind of like the landline vs cellphone differences. Landlines are not mobile - that's the downside. On the other hand, cellphones are tethers. Many people are now ditching landlines for cellphones, and are being trained into accepting third rate service quality and being at constant beck and call.
Network apps hold similar promise and failure - sure - it makes life for the IT dept easier, but there are very real meta-issues involved that are of equal and grave significance.
Proof? Adobe is pushing web-centered versions of its apps in universities... Rotate a huge image over the web? slow, but not undoable. However, as the University LAN saturates during the day, connectivity slows and reduces productivity. Hence: again, web apps are a bad idea. Good for IT personnel who are tired of tossing disks around and dealing with individual messes all day. But of questionable value for anyone not aligned with the corporate power structure's demands or anyone with a sense of privacy.
I had both for a long time. But I found the expense of the cell exceeded its usefulness and downsides.
The McLuhan inversion of the cellphone is "the tether" and I intensely dislike being at everyone's beck and call, and PAYING for the "privilege", I ditched the cell.
If you want me - land line at either my home or office. If it's less urgent, then email me. If it requires instant attention and I'm on the clock, then IM me. If I'm not responding, instantly, then perhaps I'm TAKING A SHIT AND WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE.
A cell is no guarantee of access anyway - when I did have it, it was usually turned off.
Then there's the downside. My brother ditched landline for cell. We have a conversation. He walks to the otherside of his apartment and he gets dropped. Last night I call a friend who also ditched landline. The conversation w nt som t ng li e th s. Garbage. I was able to get enough to him to tell him to email me with his questions, oh, and ditch the fucking cellphone.
with my landline, I have infinite long distance all over north america. I have DSL and web hosting rolled into it, and with my "extra services" I think I pay around CDN$100 a month.
Well, if I were still living in the USA, I'd actually consider such, as I would likely need the paycheck.
However, I left the Empire in June. I only expect to return for family holidays and obligations.
The TRULY funny and interesting thing is: I'M NOT A QUALIFIED OR LICENSED P.I.
They're really desperate for people with even a modicum of software experience, and if you have, like I do, all of a few weeks of experience doing data forensics, you're like totally golden to these idiots.
It would be a killer thing to do - mole into the MAFIAA and then spin them into the abyss. But: I got a real job and more important things to do with my time.
It's not like RAM and HD space are heinously expensive. My drive works whether or not I'm hooked up to the Web, and it doesn't work faster or slower depending on my connection quality. So, where's the win for the consumer?
Well...
As far as I can tell: there is none.
It seems to me this is just the kind of prep work MS and Adobe need done in order to remove their software from your drive and thus remove *just a little more* of the independence and autonomy of your desktop. Frankly, I think people who are helping this a long are working against their own best interests. I would recommend a boycotting of such research.
for a while I was thinking of working as a private investigator. More than one PI agency is wildly looking for digital investigators to do copyright investigation.
I have a job, but I'm "on a certain list" so these kinds of job offers come across my desk.
It's not good, and it's not pretty. Someone with Serious Pockets is looking to screw a Lot Of People over copyright re: file trading.
It's all coming out of the "heartland USA". I moved out of the states a while ago. But "people know me" so I get rumblings/job offers before others do. If this investigation goes down as it seems, it will be ugly.
For whom? Well teh music industry of course. They're a bunch of fucking morons with a business model that bears no resemblance to what the market is requiring. So rather than grow a lobe for profit (vis the Ferengi) they would rather do the American Thing and sue everyone into the dirt. Morons.
et there IS a way to make money with music: it's called performing and value added items. When you go to work, say flipping burgers, you're paid for the act of working, the labor. The person who invented the burger doesn't charge fees for the act of making a burger. Music is no different. Making music, the act of writing it, is akin to learning how to make a burger.
Ummmm...
No, it's NOT like flipping burgers. Playing music requires serious skills. Now, playing BAD music requires very little skill, but if everyone is playing music for a living, no one's going to want to go out to hear someone who SUCKS. As a consequence, you will need chops, you will need skills, you will need talent. And sorry, but musical talent is not evenly distributed in the populace. Some are better than others.
So, your fundamental analogy doesn't hold water.
Composition IS a very hard skill to learn. Copyright of music was inherent to the 19th century music practice of composers - most of them made their livings writing minuets and songs to be played around the family piano on saturday evening. The music was PRINTED, and so, copyright became critical to the economic interests of not only the composer, but the music publishing companies that held as mighty a sway in the 19th century as the record companies held in the late 20th.
HOWEVER your other fundamental point about how to make a living in music is dead on accurate. That composition is stuck out in the cold will force changes in how we understand and appreciate music. However, I consider that, on the whole, a good thing. What will survive are those songs that survive into the folk canon - what gets sung around the campfire or the family piano. This will require a resurgence in sheet music, and will make perfect sense as we go down the other side of the energy curve in the next 30 years.
Musicians need to PLAY MUSIC and PLAY IT REALLY WELL. Sure - it was nice to have punk rock where any idiot could pick up a guitar and make music. But sorry - 1977 was 30 years ago. Those days are gone. Talent is needed, and good passionate songwriting combined with authentic and intense performances are the future. Pure and simple.
Now, there hasn't been a lot of effort to get them to run on magic pixie dust;which is what you seem to be wanting.
Yeah well, guess what? Petroleum production is basically flat and due to start declining rapidly. Ethanol has 1/2 the energy density (actually 47%) of gasoline, and gasoline has a fraction of jet fuel, so you're not going to run a scramjet on liquor. Oils have potential, but there's this problem with FEEDING PEOPLE that gets in the way. So, no, it's not a question of Pixie dust, it's more a question of having ANY AVIATION at all.
Sure sure sure - arrows are better than armour i nthe long run, but it's not a unidimensional continuum. There are asymmetries involved that make things like C130s with Laser cannons irrelevant.
Example? Spend billions propping up Saudi dictators, overthrow local gov't (Iran, etc), and generally being nasty to the locals. Set up a base in their holy land. What happens? A bunch of assholes spend $40 on plastic box cutters and the next thing you know 3000 people are dead, and the USA shits itself spending trillions on even more defence.
So sure - buy the fucking laser cannon. Mount it on sharks for all I care - it's not going to matter when (god ferbid) some gang of poorly armed dickwads blows up the water pipes for LA or takes out the holland tunnel or the LNG tanks in New Jersey. The WAR is not a BATTLE any more - it's a War for Resources (Klare) that is highly asymmetric and inherently unwinnable from a military stand point.
The only way the USA is going to "win" the war in the Middle East is to tell its fat assed bible thumping mouth breathing drooling retard citizenry that NO they can't drive the SUV, NO they can't live in some McMansion in the Exurbs, NO they can't continue living this completely unsustainable existence, and YES They MUST get up off the fucking couch and YES they MUST become responsible citizens of the planet and YES they MUST change their lifestyle immediately or face the consequences. They may not care about "The Environment" but what these jackasses don't understand is "The Environment" doesn't care about them either, and in the battle between obese TV addicted talentless clueless financial assistants who sit around watching TV and eating partially hydrogenated crap all day "living the American Dream", versus "The Environment" - I'll tell ya something: "The Environment" WINS EVERY FUCKING TIME. MORON.
Cheney said the American Way of life is not negotiable. Fine. Don't negotiate. DIE OFF. The Environment will breathe a sigh of relief and the rest of the human project will rip the USA out of the history books and toss into the scrap heap of history as just another failed Empire.
How long before people abandon AJAX and just use flash for everything? Much more reliable.
when flash stops sucking? Flash is NOT a solution. Flash is a proprietary disaster in slow motion. AJAX is not a happy thing, either, but between AJAX and Flash, I'd choose AJAX every time.
'On what timeline will AJAX skills become commoditized like HTML skills became?'"
Easy: when a WYSIWYG editor, a la Dreamweaver, can accomplish all basic AJAX functionality without having to mess with much, if any, code.
Yeah - sure - Dreamweaver is suboptimal, but for 95% of what you need in a site (and if your site is fairly simple, 100%) it does the job, just fine, and you don't need to mess with that messy HTML and javascripty goopety glop. you just treat it like InDesign or Quark, and design your page - no muss, no fuss, nothing too fancy.
When Dreamweaver (or some similar app yet-to-be-developed) can do Exactly That - let me do AJAX without touching code, then you know AJAX coding skills will commoditise and disappear. How many hear can read PostScript, raise your hands! Not too many. I figured as much... FreeHand, Fontographer, and Illustrator removed the need to know how to program a page description in PostScript. Dreamweaver ate HTML and trivial Javascript. AJAX is next... I'd say, give it 2 years. Tops. I'm sure the programmers at Adobe are hard at work mulling over how to do just that.
That I was rated a troll only indicates the stupidity of too many mods on/.
How was this not a troll?
By responding to the TAGS the article came with (to wit: IDIOCRACY)
OW MY BALLS was the TV show frequently featured in IDIOCRACY. the film's premise was that stupid people out-breed smart people, and this will lead to the human race breeding itself into retardation. The way I wrote the post was to directly mimic the characters in the movie.
To bring it into another context, I brought in Julian and Ricky from the TV show "Trailer Park Boys", a television show that illustrates much the same point as Idiocracy: that humans are losing their higher faculties, and contemporary culture rewards it.
If you read my post a bit more closely you will see references to other equally blatant examples of stupidity in popular culture and news (or, at least the drooling idiocy that passes for news these days).
That the post was modded TROLL only indicates the increasing stupidity of Slashdot mods, sadly and unironically mimicking the increasing stupidity of the stupid people the film and TV show I referenced are criticising. Nothing like living up to the lowest estimation.
Slashdot Mirror
RS
Bugger the Buggles. Woolley ROCKS.
RS
I could see this as part of an Apple "Toughbook". I'd buy one in a nanosecond.
Dude, I teach the stuff.
And even if you did you have no good reason to use those words,
Why? How? Of course I do. Do yourself a favour - read "What's Wrong with Post Modernism" - esp. the chapter where Norris rips Fish into little teensy bits. There's a fine paragraph in there that discusses much the same - how Fish disposes of all theory because it's all theory, and Norris demonstrates how, as I noted, it's a mistaken conflation of epistemology and ontology.
There's more to theory than the rule books.
RS
Somehow, he was rated insightful, when he really isn't. Flying cars and driving cars may have epistemological equivalence (both = vehicle operation) but they are not ontologically equivalent. Example: hacking up a cooked turkey and brain surgery are both examples of (episteme) knife wielding, but they are not the same (ontologue) activities and have radically different social values and results.
Similar to the brain-dead postmodernists who insist that theory has no value, because "it's all theory".
All he did was act contrarian in a very adolescent manner - the kind of numbskull pigheaded idiot logic I expect from a dull second year university student - the kind I normally give a C- and a recommendation to do some follow up research to get the grade up.
RS
How long will it take to kill Kindle?
HW
They've killed Kindle! DAMMIT! YOU BASTARDS!
Kant pointed the way. The rest of it is neuroscience.
RS
RS
We ARE creating the laws, but what we create them ABOUT is something we do not have control over. The universe and human evolution rolled those dice aeons ago. Yes, you COULD write a law that says gravity doesn't exist, IF the law you write permits the kind of observations we make regarding objects in space/time. In fact, this is an interesting example. The Einsteinian view is that gravity (in and of itself) doesn't exist. It is our perception of how objects behave in curved space time. In the other ring, you have physicists who are bound and determined to shoe-horn gravity into some grand design of particle physics, and are on a continuous (and IMHO, quixotic) quest for the Graviton.
So, you grab a brick, hold it out. Let go. It falls. The effect of it falling on release we can call "gravity", but whether gravity exists as a REAL force in the universe, or just some weird effect of space/time warpage is another issue. So, yes, you CAN write a law that says "gravity doesn't exist" as long as your law accounts for the behaviour exhibited in the test of your dropping the brick.
What is insightful about your brief post is the point that what we call "Scientific Laws" are merely descriptions of nature. The laws are Scientific, and are therefore, tentative. They will remain "true" only as long as they can be proven to be true. Once some genius comes along and disproves it, or, more likely, incorporates it into some larger understanding, it will cease to be "true". Science is not based on absolute permanent truth. Scientific truth is ALWAYS provisional. It is so, as it is a product of language - a tool of our species.
RS
EVERY SINGLE point you bring up is completely refuted here:
DIEOFF.ORG
RS
I wonder if MS or Yahoo are listening...
RS
RS
Network apps hold similar promise and failure - sure - it makes life for the IT dept easier, but there are very real meta-issues involved that are of equal and grave significance.
Proof? Adobe is pushing web-centered versions of its apps in universities... Rotate a huge image over the web? slow, but not undoable. However, as the University LAN saturates during the day, connectivity slows and reduces productivity. Hence: again, web apps are a bad idea. Good for IT personnel who are tired of tossing disks around and dealing with individual messes all day. But of questionable value for anyone not aligned with the corporate power structure's demands or anyone with a sense of privacy.
RS
The McLuhan inversion of the cellphone is "the tether" and I intensely dislike being at everyone's beck and call, and PAYING for the "privilege", I ditched the cell.
If you want me - land line at either my home or office. If it's less urgent, then email me. If it requires instant attention and I'm on the clock, then IM me. If I'm not responding, instantly, then perhaps I'm TAKING A SHIT AND WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE.
A cell is no guarantee of access anyway - when I did have it, it was usually turned off.
Then there's the downside. My brother ditched landline for cell. We have a conversation. He walks to the otherside of his apartment and he gets dropped. Last night I call a friend who also ditched landline. The conversation w nt som t ng li e th s. Garbage. I was able to get enough to him to tell him to email me with his questions, oh, and ditch the fucking cellphone.
with my landline, I have infinite long distance all over north america. I have DSL and web hosting rolled into it, and with my "extra services" I think I pay around CDN$100 a month.
And I'm a lot happier being "less accessible".
RS
However, I left the Empire in June. I only expect to return for family holidays and obligations.
The TRULY funny and interesting thing is: I'M NOT A QUALIFIED OR LICENSED P.I.
They're really desperate for people with even a modicum of software experience, and if you have, like I do, all of a few weeks of experience doing data forensics, you're like totally golden to these idiots.
It would be a killer thing to do - mole into the MAFIAA and then spin them into the abyss. But: I got a real job and more important things to do with my time.
But the thought DID cross my mind.
cheers.
RS
Well...
As far as I can tell: there is none.
It seems to me this is just the kind of prep work MS and Adobe need done in order to remove their software from your drive and thus remove *just a little more* of the independence and autonomy of your desktop. Frankly, I think people who are helping this a long are working against their own best interests. I would recommend a boycotting of such research.
RS
I have a job, but I'm "on a certain list" so these kinds of job offers come across my desk.
It's not good, and it's not pretty. Someone with Serious Pockets is looking to screw a Lot Of People over copyright re: file trading.
It's all coming out of the "heartland USA". I moved out of the states a while ago. But "people know me" so I get rumblings/job offers before others do. If this investigation goes down as it seems, it will be ugly.
For whom? Well teh music industry of course. They're a bunch of fucking morons with a business model that bears no resemblance to what the market is requiring. So rather than grow a lobe for profit (vis the Ferengi) they would rather do the American Thing and sue everyone into the dirt. Morons.
So: word up: the morons are on the march...
RS
Ummmm...
No, it's NOT like flipping burgers. Playing music requires serious skills. Now, playing BAD music requires very little skill, but if everyone is playing music for a living, no one's going to want to go out to hear someone who SUCKS. As a consequence, you will need chops, you will need skills, you will need talent. And sorry, but musical talent is not evenly distributed in the populace. Some are better than others.
So, your fundamental analogy doesn't hold water.
Composition IS a very hard skill to learn. Copyright of music was inherent to the 19th century music practice of composers - most of them made their livings writing minuets and songs to be played around the family piano on saturday evening. The music was PRINTED, and so, copyright became critical to the economic interests of not only the composer, but the music publishing companies that held as mighty a sway in the 19th century as the record companies held in the late 20th.
HOWEVER your other fundamental point about how to make a living in music is dead on accurate. That composition is stuck out in the cold will force changes in how we understand and appreciate music. However, I consider that, on the whole, a good thing. What will survive are those songs that survive into the folk canon - what gets sung around the campfire or the family piano. This will require a resurgence in sheet music, and will make perfect sense as we go down the other side of the energy curve in the next 30 years.
Musicians need to PLAY MUSIC and PLAY IT REALLY WELL. Sure - it was nice to have punk rock where any idiot could pick up a guitar and make music. But sorry - 1977 was 30 years ago. Those days are gone. Talent is needed, and good passionate songwriting combined with authentic and intense performances are the future. Pure and simple.
RS
RS
Yeah well, guess what? Petroleum production is basically flat and due to start declining rapidly. Ethanol has 1/2 the energy density (actually 47%) of gasoline, and gasoline has a fraction of jet fuel, so you're not going to run a scramjet on liquor. Oils have potential, but there's this problem with FEEDING PEOPLE that gets in the way. So, no, it's not a question of Pixie dust, it's more a question of having ANY AVIATION at all.
RS
Example? Spend billions propping up Saudi dictators, overthrow local gov't (Iran, etc), and generally being nasty to the locals. Set up a base in their holy land. What happens? A bunch of assholes spend $40 on plastic box cutters and the next thing you know 3000 people are dead, and the USA shits itself spending trillions on even more defence.
So sure - buy the fucking laser cannon. Mount it on sharks for all I care - it's not going to matter when (god ferbid) some gang of poorly armed dickwads blows up the water pipes for LA or takes out the holland tunnel or the LNG tanks in New Jersey. The WAR is not a BATTLE any more - it's a War for Resources (Klare) that is highly asymmetric and inherently unwinnable from a military stand point.
The only way the USA is going to "win" the war in the Middle East is to tell its fat assed bible thumping mouth breathing drooling retard citizenry that NO they can't drive the SUV, NO they can't live in some McMansion in the Exurbs, NO they can't continue living this completely unsustainable existence, and YES They MUST get up off the fucking couch and YES they MUST become responsible citizens of the planet and YES they MUST change their lifestyle immediately or face the consequences. They may not care about "The Environment" but what these jackasses don't understand is "The Environment" doesn't care about them either, and in the battle between obese TV addicted talentless clueless financial assistants who sit around watching TV and eating partially hydrogenated crap all day "living the American Dream", versus "The Environment" - I'll tell ya something: "The Environment" WINS EVERY FUCKING TIME. MORON.
Cheney said the American Way of life is not negotiable. Fine. Don't negotiate. DIE OFF. The Environment will breathe a sigh of relief and the rest of the human project will rip the USA out of the history books and toss into the scrap heap of history as just another failed Empire.
RS
when flash stops sucking? Flash is NOT a solution. Flash is a proprietary disaster in slow motion. AJAX is not a happy thing, either, but between AJAX and Flash, I'd choose AJAX every time.
RS
RS
Easy: when a WYSIWYG editor, a la Dreamweaver, can accomplish all basic AJAX functionality without having to mess with much, if any, code.
Yeah - sure - Dreamweaver is suboptimal, but for 95% of what you need in a site (and if your site is fairly simple, 100%) it does the job, just fine, and you don't need to mess with that messy HTML and javascripty goopety glop. you just treat it like InDesign or Quark, and design your page - no muss, no fuss, nothing too fancy.
When Dreamweaver (or some similar app yet-to-be-developed) can do Exactly That - let me do AJAX without touching code, then you know AJAX coding skills will commoditise and disappear. How many hear can read PostScript, raise your hands! Not too many. I figured as much... FreeHand, Fontographer, and Illustrator removed the need to know how to program a page description in PostScript. Dreamweaver ate HTML and trivial Javascript. AJAX is next... I'd say, give it 2 years. Tops. I'm sure the programmers at Adobe are hard at work mulling over how to do just that.
RS
How was this not a troll?
By responding to the TAGS the article came with (to wit: IDIOCRACY)
OW MY BALLS was the TV show frequently featured in IDIOCRACY. the film's premise was that stupid people out-breed smart people, and this will lead to the human race breeding itself into retardation. The way I wrote the post was to directly mimic the characters in the movie.
To bring it into another context, I brought in Julian and Ricky from the TV show "Trailer Park Boys", a television show that illustrates much the same point as Idiocracy: that humans are losing their higher faculties, and contemporary culture rewards it.
If you read my post a bit more closely you will see references to other equally blatant examples of stupidity in popular culture and news (or, at least the drooling idiocy that passes for news these days).
That the post was modded TROLL only indicates the increasing stupidity of Slashdot mods, sadly and unironically mimicking the increasing stupidity of the stupid people the film and TV show I referenced are criticising. Nothing like living up to the lowest estimation.
Fucking Morons.
RS