'Also, you don't know what the word "deconstruct" means.'
If you are going to reply to someone like that you should first understand the words that you use. I used "deconstruct" properly. But it is somewhat rewarding to see a slashdot AC purport to know what the hell they are talking about when in reality it is just so much wind coming out of their ass. Nice try, but restrict your comments to someone who doesn't have the wherewithal to kick you ass.
Re:Beginning of the End of Star Wars
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
WRONG! Did you actually see Star Wars? Luke is the one who rebalanced the force, not Anakin. Yes, the series is about Anakin, but that doesn't mean who was the chosen one. As I've already said, the great sages were wrong and just because obi-wan thought Anakin was the chosen one doesn't make it so.
Re:Beginning of the End of Star Wars
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
"Your personal set of taboos don't play a part in these forums."
Then your defense of the parent poster is equally idiotic. He had his say, I confounded it. You are merely a peanut gallery poster. Sit down, elephant.
Re:Beginning of the End of Star Wars
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I find your lack of faith -- disturbing.
As for the midichlorians, perhaps there is more to it than your apparently limited insight allow for. First of all, it is well known in the SW universe that the force permeates every living thing (with one notable exception, but they aren't discovered until after ROTJ so we will ignore them here). If midichlorians act as the mediation for that interaction than the implication is that everyone has at least SOME midichlorian in them (whatever it is) but that some folks have more than others. Just as some people are naturally more gifted athletes or mathematicians or more suited to contemplative, spiritual paths so too are some beings more likely to be adept at bearing the Force. The importance of "introducing" midichlorians is that it allowed Lucas to tell us that Anakin was off the chart when it came to natural Force adeptness. So your argument is rather unsophisticated.
Furthermore, you have to account for the fact that just because a "sage" says something doesn't mean that it is the whole truth or even true at all. It is simply their belief or understanding. Note how both Yoda and Obi-Wan (whom we would assume should know better) are both bent on getting Luke to destroy Darth. Obi-Wan never fails in this persuit even though Padame's dying words to him were insistant that there was still good in Anakin. It takes young Luke (who is apparently the "real" chosen one and thus has great insight) to realize that one of the characteristics of the Force is that redemption is possible for all -- even Anakin. This is the real moral of Star Wars and it is somewhat hidden behind everything else that goes on so it is not surprising that you don't see it (again, neither did Yoda nor Obi-Wan). If you allow yourself to sucked in to the "realness" of the scenes that Lucas presents you miss things like that and it suggests that you are only doing a surface read. Yes its a big budget action movie but if you take a moment to NOT be wowed by what is happening, there is stuff there that acts at a deeper level.
Asides from all that -- who the fuck cares if you are unhappy about these films or the direction that Lucas is taking the franchise? Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that you get to trash it. A lot of people DO enjoy SW and will continue to do so long into the future. As your ability to deconstruct appears somewhat lacking (don't worry, not everyone has great reserves of that talent) it is likely that your judgements on the matter will leave much to be desired. You talk about Lucas' ego and yet it is you who are suffering from delusions. I think Lucas has earned the right to set the direction for SW. You: not so much.
MS announces a shell that will be way ahead of what everyone else is doing. Nevermind that its their first shell since command.com, what's more important is that they later say, "Oh yeah, it will take 3-5 years to deliver." You know what that means? If it EVER gets delivered it will be WAY behind whatever is available on other platforms by then.
Don't believe me? Prove it. You can't, the the problem with vapourware -- its all arm waving and lies. By allrights, that comment should have been +5 insightful.
Do you suppose it really matters what CPU is in there? Apple's change is mostly a change in the proverbial black-box. Users are shielded from the CPU by many, many layers. Basically, the only reason users care about CPU's is because big chip companies (and certain computer vendors) spend a lot of money convicing them they should. I'm not saying that they don't have differing relative advantadges, I'm just saying that those relative differences really don't add up to much for the majority of users. Certainly for the majority of Mac users.
As for developers, applications are usually writen in a moderately high-level language and platform architecture related issues are left for the compiler to deal with. So unless you plan on writing to the metal in assembly or you plan on using chip specific features (like Altivec) I wouldn't be concerned. At all.
Exactly. How can they at one hand dismiss the Sinclair and then in the next moment wave their arms over the battery issue? Their motor does sound interesting, but it is no big deal. Even a lumbering electric trolley car or electric monorail (which can weigh thousands of tonnes but is continually hooked to a high-voltage grid) can easily outperform virtually any gas-powered vehicle off the blocks. Its not the motor that is the issue -- it is the energy source. Battery power is the biggest obstacle facing electric vehicles.
SCO has experienced massive Denial of Service attacks, the company's customer base has been inundated, their funding sources have been strangled, their executive leadership has been threatened, and their ability to function has been almost completely eliminated. In what has been a massive and loosely coordinated effort, a multi-million dollar company backed by a strong legal team has been all but put out of business, and this couldn't have happened without some form of organization.
SCO's problems are due entirely to their own malfeasance. Don't FUD on me.
Sure, but why do we still need university presses in the era of personal electronic publication? The idea behind a university press is distribution -- but that need has been now filled by technological advances. Let the scholars publish their material using their normal desktop tools. To allow university presses to continue as revenue sources amounts to nothing more than an ill-gotten tax / rent.
Yes, traditional modes of distribution have changed and jobs (and owner revenue streams) are being displaced. Boo hoo.
I don't see why it's hyped so much on slashdot: then again, the 15 year old script kiddies seem pretty common here these days. If you're a kid, then yes, it probably does seem new and interesting. To us adults, it's old news.
Sounds like GEB is older than you are. I assure you, when it was young, it really was fresh. The supposition that the ideas in GEB are quaint should be checked by the fact that GEB helped popularize those very ideas in the first place. It is easy to forget that when it was published in 1979 the web was still more than 15 years away (heck, STTNG was 8 years away!). We are now 10 years into the web so that makes more than 5 times the period of your "doing logical and critical thinking for a good five years". So yes, its dated -- but can you deny that it is still a fun read?
The way I see it, the suggestion that GEB is a letdown only illustrates how successful it has been at spreading its ideas.
The way I can see it is: someone having something that they don't have a legal right to have. To be honest, it sounds like theft to me.
That is lacking. I can build something in my garage with my tools and my materials that infringes on a patent that I was honestly unaware of. Under the law, I don't have the legal right to have such a thing. Yet what did I "steal" from anyone? You might say that I stole the use of the patent, but as I mentioned, I didn't use the patent -- I unwittingly infringed on it. And infringement is what I am guilty of.
Theft has always meant relieving someone of their personal property such that they no longer can enjoy its use. It is still a valid concept wherever people agree to observe property dictums. It does not, however, adequately describe intellectual artefacts such as ideas. The real difference is in the fact that a "real" physical artefact's use is bounded by physical properties -- there is only one of it. But the use of an idea is not bounded by physical properties. Anyone's use of an idea does not in itself prevent someone else's use of that idea.
Recently (in the last 100-200 years) society has tended to impose artificial laws to bound legal usage of intellectual artefacts. That's another discussion, but the main emphasis is that using the term "theft" for anything that relates to these types of goods completely mischaracterizes the true nature of the situation.
"Or are you implying that the US somehow forces these things on poor unsuspecting nations?"
Pretty much but the attempt is usually to make it sound more innocuous than that. Further, while it affects countries like Costa Rica, it also affects much larger economies like Canada and Australia. But I'm not going to spell it out -- it is well discussed elsewhere. The US is a net exporter of demostic policies through various international organizations and bodies.
Yet, my outrage should be tempered: it is not the US, per se, but the multi-national corporations and the minions they own who do their bidding that deserve my scorn. Really, I'm just disheartened. Historically, *only* and I mean *only* the US could have stood up against represive forces like this. For a good portion of my life I really believed that America fought the good fight. Now, it feels like there is no one left to do it.
"Do you even have a job you f*cking free loader. Have you ever worked on something great then had it taken away and given out for free like what happens to software and movie companies. If not, then you STFU, and don't complain that they are taking away your free stuff that you know is illegal to get for free to begin with."
Don't call me a freeloader you twat. I not only work on great things at a great job where I am greatly appreciateed, thank-you very much. I additionaly donate my time to others so they can benefit from my efforts.
I never *ever* said that those who produce should not be rewarded for their efforts or that people should expect things to be free. Don't put words into my mouth, you shill. I said that there are already enough laws in place to protect the asshat corporations -- no one needs more.
Then have the reviewers sign an NDA. It works, there is already law in place. The fact is, they want public protection for private matters above and beyond what public protection would already afford. Besides, "reviews" is hardly a case for putting someone in the slammer for 3 years.
I see that I have been labeled a troll in this thread. Oh well, that's not so bad in this case because there is no room for moderates when it comes to this issue. There are bullies and there are those who stand up against the bullies.
More corporate sponsored laws. Fucking crap, you Americans should be ashamed for allowing this sort of thing to continue unabashed and then exporting it to the rest of the world.
If movie studios are so god damn worried about protecting "pre-release" works, then here's a fucking clue: don't distribute until it is "released". They want their cake and they want to eat it too. There are already laws in place to protect copyrighted works, this is just a notch up in the bullying. If America was still for the people, by the people, copyright would have long-ago been revoked.
This is kind of moronic. How does specifying the use of a font in a document make that document a derived work of that font, exactly? Another font based on the original font would be a derived work but that is all. Otherwise, it is like saying a page served by apache is a derived work of apache and that is just plain wrong.
"Free" Fonts seem the type of thing that can stand in the public domain and don't need licensing and copyright protection. A hammer is great tool, but just because you have one doesn't mean that everything is nail.
Who says this is a "Take that, Ubuntu!" ?? Just because the submitter suggested as much with his link to that retarded "controversy" the other day? Its all just meaningless flak. No doubt Munich chose the Debian distros they did (German) for the same reason that Suse was originally conisdered. No doubt SUse is not considered now just because it is now a foreign corporate entitity -- just like MS. Of course governments are going to want to support local ventures -- and why not? With Linux, they can. Everyone doesn't have to run distro "x" and it is possible to have many winners.
Man, why don't they just quote the Onion next time? Or why even bother doing that? Just make up articles altogether including then quotes and then simply attribute them to some other source.
Slashdot's new slogan: "News for the Naive. Stuff that's made up." (attributed to slashdot editors as reported on slashdot)
"If IP is a trade secret, than "stealing" means that what was once private is now public. The real theft, then, is a denial of value to the company regarding that IP. Just because it isn't something tangible like jewelry doesn't make it less of a crime."
But a trade secret is a tangible thing in a legal sense. "IP" is specious word with no real bearing or precise meaning. He refered to "IP" and then added "(work)" which really doesn't imply "trade secret" all by itself. In other words, his use of language was so sloppy as to be fud-like, unintelligent and offensive. Your statements, unfortunately, only compound that.
"but seriously, if you're donating them to kids how many wanna really be stuck w/ linux? No snood, aim, kazaa and whatever else they want from download.com or where ever e-kids hang out these days. I know theirs free alternates but do they? Will these kids wanna spend 4 years learning how to use it all properly and not get r00ted in the mean time?"
but seriously, that's a joke, right? 4 years of learning for kids is no problem. Why give a kid a computer if not to help them better themselves? But most of all, even if it took them 4 years (which is hardly necessary--a kid could run something like Ubuntu or similar pretty much from bootup) isn't that better than the 4 minutes it will take before they are backdoored on windows 98 (not even supported by MS anymore, if I recall)? Nevermind what will happen to them when they install the likes of the festering vile that is kazaa.
Somehow I don't think that a kid who is getting a computer donated to them is spoiled enough to think that they are getting "stuck" with second rate hash simply because the os bootup doesn't say apple or microsoft. When they get to do more than they ever dreamed, they won't care about such trivialities (and yes, linux has all the toys that kids love like file sharing and media players and messengers).
Slashdot Mirror
'Also, you don't know what the word "deconstruct" means.'
If you are going to reply to someone like that you should first understand the words that you use. I used "deconstruct" properly. But it is somewhat rewarding to see a slashdot AC purport to know what the hell they are talking about when in reality it is just so much wind coming out of their ass. Nice try, but restrict your comments to someone who doesn't have the wherewithal to kick you ass.
WRONG! Did you actually see Star Wars? Luke is the one who rebalanced the force, not Anakin. Yes, the series is about Anakin, but that doesn't mean who was the chosen one. As I've already said, the great sages were wrong and just because obi-wan thought Anakin was the chosen one doesn't make it so.
"Your personal set of taboos don't play a part in these forums."
Then your defense of the parent poster is equally idiotic. He had his say, I confounded it. You are merely a peanut gallery poster. Sit down, elephant.
I find your lack of faith -- disturbing.
As for the midichlorians, perhaps there is more to it than your apparently limited insight allow for. First of all, it is well known in the SW universe that the force permeates every living thing (with one notable exception, but they aren't discovered until after ROTJ so we will ignore them here). If midichlorians act as the mediation for that interaction than the implication is that everyone has at least SOME midichlorian in them (whatever it is) but that some folks have more than others. Just as some people are naturally more gifted athletes or mathematicians or more suited to contemplative, spiritual paths so too are some beings more likely to be adept at bearing the Force. The importance of "introducing" midichlorians is that it allowed Lucas to tell us that Anakin was off the chart when it came to natural Force adeptness. So your argument is rather unsophisticated.
Furthermore, you have to account for the fact that just because a "sage" says something doesn't mean that it is the whole truth or even true at all. It is simply their belief or understanding. Note how both Yoda and Obi-Wan (whom we would assume should know better) are both bent on getting Luke to destroy Darth. Obi-Wan never fails in this persuit even though Padame's dying words to him were insistant that there was still good in Anakin. It takes young Luke (who is apparently the "real" chosen one and thus has great insight) to realize that one of the characteristics of the Force is that redemption is possible for all -- even Anakin. This is the real moral of Star Wars and it is somewhat hidden behind everything else that goes on so it is not surprising that you don't see it (again, neither did Yoda nor Obi-Wan). If you allow yourself to sucked in to the "realness" of the scenes that Lucas presents you miss things like that and it suggests that you are only doing a surface read. Yes its a big budget action movie but if you take a moment to NOT be wowed by what is happening, there is stuff there that acts at a deeper level.
Asides from all that -- who the fuck cares if you are unhappy about these films or the direction that Lucas is taking the franchise? Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that you get to trash it. A lot of people DO enjoy SW and will continue to do so long into the future. As your ability to deconstruct appears somewhat lacking (don't worry, not everyone has great reserves of that talent) it is likely that your judgements on the matter will leave much to be desired. You talk about Lucas' ego and yet it is you who are suffering from delusions. I think Lucas has earned the right to set the direction for SW. You: not so much.
Boy are you smart.
MS announces a shell that will be way ahead of what everyone else is doing. Nevermind that its their first shell since command.com, what's more important is that they later say, "Oh yeah, it will take 3-5 years to deliver." You know what that means? If it EVER gets delivered it will be WAY behind whatever is available on other platforms by then.
Don't believe me? Prove it. You can't, the the problem with vapourware -- its all arm waving and lies. By allrights, that comment should have been +5 insightful.
Do you suppose it really matters what CPU is in there? Apple's change is mostly a change in the proverbial black-box. Users are shielded from the CPU by many, many layers. Basically, the only reason users care about CPU's is because big chip companies (and certain computer vendors) spend a lot of money convicing them they should. I'm not saying that they don't have differing relative advantadges, I'm just saying that those relative differences really don't add up to much for the majority of users. Certainly for the majority of Mac users.
As for developers, applications are usually writen in a moderately high-level language and platform architecture related issues are left for the compiler to deal with. So unless you plan on writing to the metal in assembly or you plan on using chip specific features (like Altivec) I wouldn't be concerned. At all.
Exactly. How can they at one hand dismiss the Sinclair and then in the next moment wave their arms over the battery issue? Their motor does sound interesting, but it is no big deal. Even a lumbering electric trolley car or electric monorail (which can weigh thousands of tonnes but is continually hooked to a high-voltage grid) can easily outperform virtually any gas-powered vehicle off the blocks. Its not the motor that is the issue -- it is the energy source. Battery power is the biggest obstacle facing electric vehicles.
SCO's problems are due entirely to their own malfeasance. Don't FUD on me.
Who cares what Time thinks?
I might give a bit more of a hoot if this wasn't just a big advert with locked away content that "can be yours!" if you subscribe to their archive.
Hmmm. I think I'd be happier with the dollar.
Sure, but why do we still need university presses in the era of personal electronic publication? The idea behind a university press is distribution -- but that need has been now filled by technological advances. Let the scholars publish their material using their normal desktop tools. To allow university presses to continue as revenue sources amounts to nothing more than an ill-gotten tax / rent.
Yes, traditional modes of distribution have changed and jobs (and owner revenue streams) are being displaced. Boo hoo.
Sounds like GEB is older than you are. I assure you, when it was young, it really was fresh. The supposition that the ideas in GEB are quaint should be checked by the fact that GEB helped popularize those very ideas in the first place. It is easy to forget that when it was published in 1979 the web was still more than 15 years away (heck, STTNG was 8 years away!). We are now 10 years into the web so that makes more than 5 times the period of your "doing logical and critical thinking for a good five years". So yes, its dated -- but can you deny that it is still a fun read?
The way I see it, the suggestion that GEB is a letdown only illustrates how successful it has been at spreading its ideas.
The way I can see it is: someone having something that they don't have a legal right to have. To be honest, it sounds like theft to me.
That is lacking. I can build something in my garage with my tools and my materials that infringes on a patent that I was honestly unaware of. Under the law, I don't have the legal right to have such a thing. Yet what did I "steal" from anyone? You might say that I stole the use of the patent, but as I mentioned, I didn't use the patent -- I unwittingly infringed on it. And infringement is what I am guilty of.
Theft has always meant relieving someone of their personal property such that they no longer can enjoy its use. It is still a valid concept wherever people agree to observe property dictums. It does not, however, adequately describe intellectual artefacts such as ideas. The real difference is in the fact that a "real" physical artefact's use is bounded by physical properties -- there is only one of it. But the use of an idea is not bounded by physical properties. Anyone's use of an idea does not in itself prevent someone else's use of that idea.
Recently (in the last 100-200 years) society has tended to impose artificial laws to bound legal usage of intellectual artefacts. That's another discussion, but the main emphasis is that using the term "theft" for anything that relates to these types of goods completely mischaracterizes the true nature of the situation.
"Or are you implying that the US somehow forces these things on poor unsuspecting nations?"
Pretty much but the attempt is usually to make it sound more innocuous than that. Further, while it affects countries like Costa Rica, it also affects much larger economies like Canada and Australia. But I'm not going to spell it out -- it is well discussed elsewhere. The US is a net exporter of demostic policies through various international organizations and bodies.
Yet, my outrage should be tempered: it is not the US, per se, but the multi-national corporations and the minions they own who do their bidding that deserve my scorn. Really, I'm just disheartened. Historically, *only* and I mean *only* the US could have stood up against represive forces like this. For a good portion of my life I really believed that America fought the good fight. Now, it feels like there is no one left to do it.
"Do you even have a job you f*cking free loader. Have you ever worked on something great then had it taken away and given out for free like what happens to software and movie companies. If not, then you STFU, and don't complain that they are taking away your free stuff that you know is illegal to get for free to begin with."
Don't call me a freeloader you twat. I not only work on great things at a great job where I am greatly appreciateed, thank-you very much. I additionaly donate my time to others so they can benefit from my efforts.
I never *ever* said that those who produce should not be rewarded for their efforts or that people should expect things to be free. Don't put words into my mouth, you shill. I said that there are already enough laws in place to protect the asshat corporations -- no one needs more.
"Reviews need to be written too though."
Then have the reviewers sign an NDA. It works, there is already law in place. The fact is, they want public protection for private matters above and beyond what public protection would already afford. Besides, "reviews" is hardly a case for putting someone in the slammer for 3 years.
I see that I have been labeled a troll in this thread. Oh well, that's not so bad in this case because there is no room for moderates when it comes to this issue. There are bullies and there are those who stand up against the bullies.
"Shouldn't they have a chance to get the money they deserve for their labors."
yes, its called release or STFU.
"By the way, "for the people by the people", that is or government, not our businesses."
Who the hell do you think recognized corporations as legal entities?
No, fuck you. What's with the no emulation stance?
More corporate sponsored laws. Fucking crap, you Americans should be ashamed for allowing this sort of thing to continue unabashed and then exporting it to the rest of the world.
If movie studios are so god damn worried about protecting "pre-release" works, then here's a fucking clue: don't distribute until it is "released". They want their cake and they want to eat it too. There are already laws in place to protect copyrighted works, this is just a notch up in the bullying. If America was still for the people, by the people, copyright would have long-ago been revoked.
Good luck with all that.
This is kind of moronic. How does specifying the use of a font in a document make that document a derived work of that font, exactly? Another font based on the original font would be a derived work but that is all. Otherwise, it is like saying a page served by apache is a derived work of apache and that is just plain wrong.
"Free" Fonts seem the type of thing that can stand in the public domain and don't need licensing and copyright protection. A hammer is great tool, but just because you have one doesn't mean that everything is nail.
Who says this is a "Take that, Ubuntu!" ?? Just because the submitter suggested as much with his link to that retarded "controversy" the other day? Its all just meaningless flak. No doubt Munich chose the Debian distros they did (German) for the same reason that Suse was originally conisdered. No doubt SUse is not considered now just because it is now a foreign corporate entitity -- just like MS. Of course governments are going to want to support local ventures -- and why not? With Linux, they can. Everyone doesn't have to run distro "x" and it is possible to have many winners.
Man, why don't they just quote the Onion next time? Or why even bother doing that? Just make up articles altogether including then quotes and then simply attribute them to some other source.
Slashdot's new slogan: "News for the Naive. Stuff that's made up." (attributed to slashdot editors as reported on slashdot)
"If IP is a trade secret, than "stealing" means that what was once private is now public. The real theft, then, is a denial of value to the company regarding that IP. Just because it isn't something tangible like jewelry doesn't make it less of a crime."
But a trade secret is a tangible thing in a legal sense. "IP" is specious word with no real bearing or precise meaning. He refered to "IP" and then added "(work)" which really doesn't imply "trade secret" all by itself. In other words, his use of language was so sloppy as to be fud-like, unintelligent and offensive. Your statements, unfortunately, only compound that.
1. you said "IP" suggesting that it is a tangible thing that can be stolen
2. you implied that there is no such thing as trustworthiness in employees
3. you implied that you don't mind having untrustworthy employees as long as they don't affect *you*
Why should we help you? Do your own homework.
"but seriously, if you're donating them to kids how many wanna really be stuck w/ linux? No snood, aim, kazaa and whatever else they want from download.com or where ever e-kids hang out these days. I know theirs free alternates but do they? Will these kids wanna spend 4 years learning how to use it all properly and not get r00ted in the mean time?"
but seriously, that's a joke, right? 4 years of learning for kids is no problem. Why give a kid a computer if not to help them better themselves? But most of all, even if it took them 4 years (which is hardly necessary--a kid could run something like Ubuntu or similar pretty much from bootup) isn't that better than the 4 minutes it will take before they are backdoored on windows 98 (not even supported by MS anymore, if I recall)? Nevermind what will happen to them when they install the likes of the festering vile that is kazaa.
Somehow I don't think that a kid who is getting a computer donated to them is spoiled enough to think that they are getting "stuck" with second rate hash simply because the os bootup doesn't say apple or microsoft. When they get to do more than they ever dreamed, they won't care about such trivialities (and yes, linux has all the toys that kids love like file sharing and media players and messengers).